UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Public policy and central business district housing Lindell, Susan D. 1982

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 L54.pdf [ 13.43MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095363.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095363-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095363-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095363-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095363-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095363-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095363-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095363-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095363.ris

Full Text

PUBLIC POLICY AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT HOUSING by SUSAN D. LINDELL B.A. M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Geography) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1982 © Susan D. L i n d e l l , 1982 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Geography  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada n F - f i ( 2/791 A b s t r a c t T h i s study e x p l o r e s the f o r m u l a t i o n , a p p l i c a t i o n and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of CBD plan n i n g p o l i c y i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia; and i t s e f f e c t s on the p h y s i c a l urban landscape. The "homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t " p r i n c i p l e i n c i t y p l a n n i n g , p r e d i c a t e d on the view that an e f f i c i e n t urban s t r u c t u r e i s one with zones d e l i n e a t e d on the b a s i s of i d e n t i f i a b l e s i n g l e use d i s t r i c t s , was adopted by the C i t y i n 1929. The quest to reserve Vancouver's downtown for commercial uses only dominated CBD p l a n n i n g p o l i c y u n t i l 1967. Through c e r t a i n years of a g g r e s s i v e development a c t i v i t y however, the h e t e r o g e n e i t y of the d i s t r i c t remained, though i t s uses tended to c l u s t e r i n i d e n t i f i a b l e s u b - d i s t r i c t s . A major o b s t a c l e to the homogeneous commercial development of the e n t i r e d i s t r i c t was the p e r s i s t e n c e of i t s r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t o r . T h i s was not due, however, to the v i t a l i t y or s t r e n g t h of that use i t s e l f ; but rather to the weakness of the market f o r commercial development i n the areas that housing occupied. Contemporary p o l i c y p e r s p e c t i v e s c h a l l e n g e the goal o f homogeneous commercial use i n the CBD. T h i s r e j e c t i o n of c o n v e n t i o n a l p l a n n i n g p r i n c i p l e s was born out of changing s o c i a l trends and p e r c e p t i o n s of growth embraced by the p u b l i c . The process of change,though, i s c a r r i e d out by both planners and members of the development community. I t i s they who must harness that d e s i r e f o r change and b r i n g i t about on the p h y s i c a l urban landscape. - i i -The planner's e x p r e s s i o n of change i s i n the form of p u b l i c p o l i c y which c o n t r o l s b u i l d i n g t r e n d s . In the case of downtown Vancouver, these c o n t r o l s encourage the development of housing i n mixed-use p r o j e c t s . The developer, on the other hand, expresses h i s d e s i r e f o r change through the c r e a t i o n and m o d i f i c a t i o n of the b u i l t environment. In the present study, the developer's a c t i o n s are understood through both an a n a l y s i s of housing development i n the downtown, and through a q u e s t i o n n a i r e aimed at determining views r e g a r d i n g i t s v i a b i l i t y . The i n t e r a c t i o n between p u b l i c p o l i c y and p r i v a t e development has c r e a t e d a number of s u b - d i s t r i c t s i n the downtown where h e t e r o g e n e i t y does e x i s t s . However, housing i n some areas p r o v i d e s a means of i n c r e a s i n g commercial space; and i n other areas i s developed as a l u c r a t i v e use i t s e l f with only marginal i n t e g r a t i o n of commercial space. The survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e of developers r e v e a l s that there are marketing, i n s t i t u t i o n a l and f i n a n c i a l problems which put i n t o q u e s t i o n the v i a b i l i t y of f u t u r e mixed-use r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s i n the c o r e . F i n a l l y , the p r i n c i p l e s which govern homogeneous-use growth remain a c t i v e i n the contemporary development market. While policymakers aim to i n c r e a s e the h e t e r o g e n e i t y of the e n t i r e Downtown D i s t r i c t , t h e i r p o l i c y i s used by developers and housing consumers to strengthen the market f o r p a r t i c u l a r uses i n s p e c i a l i z e d s u b - d i s t r i c t s . P u b l i c P o l i c y and C e n t r a l Business D i s t r i c t Housing S e c t i o n Page T i t l e Page i Ab s t r a c t i i Table of Contents i v L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of F i g u r e s v i i Acknowledgement v i i i Quote ix Chapter 1: I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 PART I: P o l i c y P e r s p e c t i v e s 7 I n t r o d u c t i o n 8 Chapter 2: Preparing f o r Vancouver's Future Growth 10 2.1: C i t y E f f i c i e n t Planning 10 2.2: Vancouver-style C i t y E f f i c i e n t 17 2.3: The CBD R e s i d e n t i a l Community 22 2.4: Summary and Conclusions 28 Chapter 3: Post-war CBD Planning, 1945-1960 30 3.1: Defence Against D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , Part 1 30 3.2: A Step I n s i d e the Core 33 3.3: Recommendations Turned By-Laws 39 3.4: Summary and Conclus i o n s 47 Chapter 4: Toward a Redeveloped Core, 1960-1968 49 4.1: Defence Against D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , Part 2 49 4.2: The C i t y Becomes Developer 53 4.3: R e s i d e n t i a l Space i n a Redeveloped Core? 59 4.4: Summary and Conclus i o n s 60 - i v -Chapter 5: O b j e c t i v e : A L i v a b l e Downtown, 1968-1975 62 5.1: The Changed P o l i t i c a l Arena 62 5.2: A Fresh Approach to Policymaking 69 5.3: A New D i r e c t i o n f o r Downtown Development 73 5.4: Summary and Con c l u s i o n s 79 PART I I : Contemporary P r a c t i c e 82 I n t r o d u c t i o n 83 Chapter 6: The Downtown R e s i d e n t i a l Sector 84 6.1: De n s i t y S u b - d i s t r i c t s i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t 84 6.2: Post-1975 Core Housing Development 87 6.3: Summary and Con c l u s i o n s 96 Chapter 7: Core Housing:Experiences and Ex p e c t a t i o n s 98 7.1: Vancouver's Urban B u i l d e r s 98 7.2: Q u e s t i o n n a i r e R e s u l t s 105 PART I I I : P o l i c y and P r a c t i c e 151 Chapter 8:- Contemporary and Future I m p l i c a t i o n s 152 B i b l i o g r a p h y 160 Appendix A 168 Appendix B 172 -v-L i s t of Tables Table Page I. A c t i v e Vancouver Core Housing Developers 100 I I . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Response Rate 100 I l l . Sub-Groups of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Respondents 108 IV. S e r v i c e s and Amenities f o r CBD Residences 138 V. A v a i l a b i l i t y of F i n a n c i n g 1 39 VI . Cost of F i n a n c i n g 140 VII . Land Assembly in CBD 141 VIII . P r o v i s i o n of P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s 142 IX. R e s i d e n t i a l S e c u r i t y 1 43 X. P h y s i c a l Separation of Uses 144 XI . D i f f e r i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Methods 1 45 XII . Compliance with B u i l d i n g Codes 146 XIII . C o m p a t i b i l i t y with C i v i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 147 XIV. Tenure Determination 1 48 XV. P r i c e Range 149 XVI . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Submarket 1 50 - v i -L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e Page 2.1 Zoning Map, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1929 19 2.2 Downtown Vancouver, R e s i d e n t i a l Communities, 1929 23 2.3 Downtown Vancouver, 1935 24 2.4 Downtown Business D i s t r i c t Land Uses, Vancouver, 1945 27 3.1 Downtown Vancouver, Proposed Zoning, 1955 35 3.2 Downtown Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-law, 1956 40 3.3 Downtown Vancouver, Zoning and Devleopment By-law, 1957 41 4.1 Downtown Vancouver, Redevelopment Concept, 1962 55 4.2 Downtown Vancouver, Proposed Rezoning, 1965 58 5.1 Downtown Vancouver, I n t e r i m Rezoning, 1973 76 5.2 Downtown Vancouver, I n t e r i m Rezoning, 1974 77 5.3 Downtown Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-law, 1975 78 6.1 Downtown Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-law, Downtown D i s t r i c t , D e n s i t y S u b d i s t r i c t s , 1975 86 6.2 Downtown Vancouver, Post-1975 R e s i d e n t i a l Development, (square f e e t ) , 1982 88 6.3 Downtown Vancouver, Post-1975 R e s i d e n t i a l Development, (as % of mixed-use space), 1982 92 - v i i -Acknowledgement With my s i n c e r e s t g r a t i t u d e , I would l i k e to thank the f o l l o w i n g people f o r h e l p i n g to make t h i s r e s e a r c h e f -f o r t a l e a r n i n g and e n r i c h i n g experience: Dr. Walter G. Hardwick, f o r h i s confidence and i n v a l u a b l e knowledge and advise about the geography of Vancouver; Dr. Jonathan H. Mark, f o r h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l advise and person-a l f r i e n d s h i p , and f o r h i s much a p p r e c i a t e d h e l p i n making the p r o d u c t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s a manageable endeavor; Raymon Torchinsky, f o r h e l p i n g me untangle the mess SPSS can weave; Gerry P r a t t , f o r showing me the way around the darkroom; Helsa Wong, f o r her dependable t y p i n g ; My f a m i l y i n New York, f o r g i v i n g me much needed love and support, and yet always wondering when I w i l l no longer be c l a s s i f i e d a student. And f i n a l l y , to John, whose encouragement, confidence and i n s p i r a t i o n not only motivated me to f i n i s h t h i s t h e s i s , but to seek love and knowledge always. - v i i i -"Planners tend to be m o r a l i s t s , which i s perhaps i n e v i t a b l e , s i n c e only those with a l a r g e measure of i r r a t i o n a l i d e a l i s m would attempt the improbable mission of p u t t i n g the messy human world i n or d e r . " Greenbie, 1974 - i x -Chapter 1: I n t r o d u c t i o n Throughout the h i s t o r y of North American c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t s (CBD) many socio-economic f o r c e s have shaped t h e i r p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e . Though land uses i n these d i s t r i c t s e x h i b i t a p a t t e r n r e v e a l i n g the importance of the market economy, p r i v a t e s e c t o r a c t i v i t i e s have not determined t h e i r g e o g r a p h i c a l form alone. Government i n t e r v e n t i o n , i n the form of p u b l i c p o l i c i e s e i t h e r f a c i l i t a t i n g or c o n t r o l l i n g development, has had a profound impact on t h e i r development as w e l l . T h i s study e x p l o r e s the f o r m u l a t i o n , a p p l i c a t i o n and e f f e c t s upon the p h y s i c a l urban landscape of CBD p l a n n i n g p o l i c y i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. Emphasis i s on an examination i n both the past, as w e l l as contemporary contexts of the "homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t " p r i n c i p l e i n c i t y p l a n n i n g . Vancouver was one of the foremost c i t i e s i n North America to experience r a p i d growth i n the years a f t e r -1-the promulgation of " c i t y e f f i c i e n t " p l a n n i n g . T h i s p l a n n i n g approach, p r e d i c a t e d upon the p r i n c i p l e that an e f f i c i e n t urban s t r u c t u r e was one with zones d e l i n e a t e d on the b a s i s of i d e n t i f i a b l e s i n g l e - u s e d i s t r i c t s , has thus had a profound impact on i t s s p a t i a l growth. T h i s t h e s i s s t u d i e s f i r s t l y , the quest to reserve Vancouver's downtown area f o r commercial a c t i v i t i e s only, s e c u r i n g i t a g a i n s t non-conforming r e s i d e n t i a l uses; and secondly, i n the contemporary context, p o l i c y p e r s p e c t i v e s which c h a l l a n g e that view, and a c t i v e l y encourage mixed land use development. P a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e i s made to the impacts t h i s p l a n n i n g approach has had upon the CBD r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t o r , a non-commercial use t r a d i t i o n a l l y unacceptable i n the c o r e . A n a l y s i s of contemporary CBD development i s d i r e c t e d toward an understanding of the f a c t o r s i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the development of mixed land uses i n t e g r a t i n g commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Evidence to support the arguements i n c l u d e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and examination of the r e l e v e n t p o l i c i e s through study of v a r i o u s p l a n n i n g documents and r e c o r d s ; 1 and a survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e a d m i n i s t e r e d by the r e s e a r c h e r . Overview In Part I, pre- and post-war p l a n n i n g p o l i c y as 1 See b i b l i o g r a p h y . -2-a p p l i e d i n Vancouver's CBD i s analyzed. The determination of c i v i c o f f i c i a l s to use p u b l i c p o l i c y to d i r e c t the course of downtown growth along a pre-determined course of homogeneous-use growth i s examined. The formation and a p p l i c a t i o n of plan n i n g p o l i c y i n the 1920's i s explored i n Chapter 2. P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n i s p a i d to the consequences of the pre-occupation amongst planners with the need to set l e g a l parameters to s p a t i a l l y organize the urban s t r u c t u r e . The problems policymakers experienced i n r e a l i z i n g the development goals set out by the zoning by-law of 1929 are d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 3. The response to these problems i n c l u d e d the development of s t r i c t e r r e g u l a t i o n s i n the 1950's designed to weed out the downtown of non-commercial uses. An assessment i s made as to why they d i d not induce the more p r e f e r a b l e commerical development e n v i s i o n e d . 2 The a g g r e s s i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n of the p u b l i c s e c t o r There may e x i s t an i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s type of r e s t r i c t i v e zoning and the a c t u a l development which occurs w i t h i n a zone. A zoning r e g u l a t i o n that preserves a p a r t i c u l a r area f o r a c e r t a i n type of developemt may act to a t t r a c t and r e t a i n that type of development by su p p l y i n g the necessary i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , as w e l l as other b e n e f i t s of s p a t i a l l y c l u s t e r e d agglomeration economies. In a d d i t i o n , the " c e r t a i n t y a t t r i b u t e " i d e n t i f i e d by Jud(l980) may a c t to re-assure an i n v e s t o r that a p a r t i c u l a r area w i l l remain i n a c e r t a i n use f o r a time. R e l a t i o n s h i p s between zoning and p a r t i c u l a r market v a r i a b l e s can be q u a n t i f i e d and measured. T h i s l e v e l of a n a l y s i s , however, remains o u t s i d e the scope of t h i s study. Any d i s c u s s i o n which a l l u d e s to t h i s type of c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p u r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e , f o r d i r e c t examination of the p r i n c i p a l v a r i a b l e s has not been c a r r i e d out. -3-i t s e l f i n t o CBD development i n the 1960's i s addressed i n Chapter 4. F r u s t r a t e d by r e s t r i c t i v e zoning's i n a b i l i t y to d i r e c t l y generate p r e f e r r e d uses, policymakers attempted d i r e c t i n t e r v e n t i o n to c r e a t e commercial development that the market would not. T h i s approach s t r e s s e d the importance of a strong commercial downtown, supporting again the p r i n c i p l e of homogeneous land use. The p o l i c y r e - d i r e c t i o n i n 1975 which r e j e c t e d the lo n g - s t a n d i n g p r i n c i p l e of CBD homogeneous-use development i s the focus of Chapter 5. Consequently, non-commercial uses, most notably r e s i d e n c e s , were granted l e g a l access to the core. Policymakers were now endorsing d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n p o l i c i e s f a v o u r i n g commercial growth i n r e g i o n a l town c e n t r e s . Part II of t h i s t h e s i s addresses the contemporary i n t e r e s t i n mixed-use development i n Vancouver's Downtown D i s t r i c t . Mixed-use developments which combine commercial with r e s i d e n t i a l use are examined as an example of the contemporary i n t e g r a t i o n of non-commercial uses i n t o a commercial d i s t r i c t . ' Housing development i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t s i n c e 1975 i s recorded and examined i n Chapter 6. A n a l y s i s of i t s s p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , as w e l l as i t s i n t e r n a l composition of uses w i t h i n d e s i g n a t e d s u b - d i s t r i c t s i s undertaken. The f i n d i n g s that are r e v e a l e d lend to an -4-understanding of the degree of acceptance of the homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t p r i n c i p l e i n contemporary downtown development. A n t i c i p a t e d and a c t u a l experiences developers have had with mixed-use developments are addressed i n Chapter 7 . T h i s a n a l y s i s d e l v e s i n t o some of the m o t i v a t i o n a l f o r c e s which c o n t r i b u t e d to the s p a t i a l p a t t e r n of core housing development examined i n Chapter 6 . What emerges from t h i s a n a l y s i s i s the f i n d i n g that while i n some re s p e c t s the p r i n c i p l e of homogeneous-use development i s r e j e c t e d i n contemporary p l a n n i n g p o l i c y , there are a number of important f a c t o r s i n the development process which st e e r a c t u a l development along those more c o n v e n t i o n a l l i n e s . The d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s chapter .draws a t t e n t i o n t o, and e l a b o r a t e s upon those f a c t o r s . Academic Intent There are two c o n t r i b u t i o n s which t h i s t h e s i s makes to the f i e l d of p u b l i c p o l i c y a n a l y s i s . F i r s t l y , i t i d e n t i f i e s the ways i n which p u b l i c i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o urban development i n f l u e n c e the g e o g r a p h i c a l form of a p a r t i c u l a r land use i n the urban system. In doing so, four types of p u b l i c i n t e r v e n t i o n are i d e n t i f i e d and s t u d i e d : u n r e s t r i c t i v e zoning, r e s t r i c t i v e zoning, p u b l i c urban renewal and i n c e n t i v e zoning. Secondly, t h i s t h e s i s draws a t t e n t i o n to the dramatic impact which the school of thought advocating -5-homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t development had upon c i t y p l a n n i n g , and subsequently the development of the c i t y . Indepth h i s t o r i c a l r e s e a r c h i n t o p u b l i s h e d works i n academic and p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s i s undoubltedly necessary f o r a more comprehensive understanding of the s o c i a l i n t e n t i o n s and impacts of t h i s p l a n n i n g i d e o l o g y . The present study doses, however, c o n t r i b u t e to an understanding of t h i s p l a n n i n g ideology i n p r a c t i c e . -6-PART I P o l i c y P e r s p e c t i v e s -7-I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s p a r t of the t h e s i s e x p l o r e s the displacement of r e s i d e n c e s i n Vancouver's d e v e l o p i n g CBD. Emphasis i s on CBD land use development p o l i c y p e r s p e c t i v e s between 1929 and 1975; and of t h e i r impact upon downtown housing. In Chapter 1, the d e c i s i o n to impose and maintain r e s t r i c t i o n s upon downtown r e s i d e n t i a l development between 1929 and 1956 i s examined. Fundamental to t h i s p l a n n i n g p e r s p e c t i v e was the r e j e c t i o n by policymakers of i n n e r - c i t y l i v i n g . The r e a c t i o n s to concerns r a i s e d i n the 1950's that the expected commercial growth of the General Business D i s t r i c t was not o c c u r r i n g are addressd i n Chapter 3. P o l i c y was advanced to stave o f f the growing f o r c e s of d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . R e s t r i c t i v e zoning was a p p l i e d i n 1957, no longer simply r e g u l a t i n g the type of housing i n the d i s t r i c t , but now p r o h i b i t i n g i t i n most areas. - 8 -The entry of the p u b l i c s e c t o r i n t o the urban re-development i n d u s t r y i n the 1960's i s ex p l o r e d i n Chapter 4. F r u s t r a t i o n over r e s t r i c t i v e zoning's i n a b i l i t y to commercialize the e n t i r e d i s t r i c t prompted the p u b l i c s e c t o r i n t o an a c t i v e p a r t n e r s h i p with p r i v a t e developers to do core renewal development. By the l a t e 1960" s downtown development became not only a business concern, but a p o l i t i c a l i s s u e as w e l l . The f o r c e s behind the r e - e v a l u a t i o n of urban growth p r i n c i p l e s i n the Vancouver r e g i o n ; as w e l l as the acceptance of an i n n e r - c i t y l i f e s t y l e are the focus of Chapter 5. In a d d i t i o n , i t was r e a l i z e d that much v i t a l core land that l a y dormant c o u l d be used f o r mixed-use development. The 1975 amendment to the zoning by-law l e g a l l y s a n c t i o n e d the development of a heterogeneous downtown p e n i n s u l a , encouraging r e s i d e n t i a l development. - 9 -Chapter 2: Preparing f o r Vancouver's Future Growth T h i s chapter e x p l o r e s the i n i t i a l formation of land use p o l i c y i n Vancouver. The assumed need f o r a homogeneous l i v i n g environment removed from an e q u a l l y homogeneous commercial c e n t r e r e s u l t e d i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of l e g a l r e s t r i c t i o n s upon development in each zone. The impacts of these r e s t r i c t i o n s upon the r e s i d e n t i a l component of the developing core are examined. 2.]_ C i t y - E f f i c i e n t Planning On February 1, 1926 the Vancouver C i t y C o u n c i l passed a town p l a n n i n g by-law e s t a b l i s h i n g the f i r s t Vancouver Town Pla n n i n g Commission. As Bottomley d e s c r i b e s : T h i s Commission was a u t h o r i z e d to a s s i s t the C i t y C o u n c i l i n an a d v i s o r y c a p a c i t y r e g a r d i n g the development and subsequent m o d i f i c a t i o n of a c i t y p lan and zoning ordinance paying regard to the promotion of p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and convenience and w e l f a r e , to the p r e v e n t i o n -10-of r e s i d e n t i a l over crowding, to the a p p r o p r i a t e land use of a d i s t r i c t and to the c o n s e r v a t i o n and enhancement of p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . 1 C o n s i s t e n t with the North American t r e n d i n the 1920's, one of the f i r s t tasks of the Commission was to c o n t r a c t out to a ' p r o f e s s i o n a l c i t y planner' the job of p r e p a r i n g a comprehensive c i t y p l a n . The e a r l y work of c i t y p l a n n i n g i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , Canada and Europe was c a r r i e d out, f o r the most p a r t , by p r o f e s s i o n a l s t r a i n e d i n the f i e l d s of c i v i l e n g i n e e r i n g , a r c h i t e c t u r e , law and s o c i a l work. In a d d i t i o n , ' v i s i o n a r i e s ' o u t s i d e of the p r a c t i c a l p r o f e s s i o n s formulated Utopian plans which were i m p r a c t i c a l and impossible to implement. Thus, there developed a number of e a r l y themes i n c i t y p l a n n i n g from which the Commission was to choose. These themes ranged from the r a d i c a l r e - o r g a n i z a t i o n of the s p a t i a l and socio-economic s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y , 2 to the simple p r o v i s i o n of the necessary i n f r a s t r u c t u r e to accomodate e f f i c i e n t urban economic e x p a n s i o n . 3 The Commission appointed American c i v i l 1 John Bottomley, "Ideology, Planning and the Landscape: The Business Community, Urban Reform and the Establishment of Town Planning i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1900 - 1940," Unpublished Ph.d d i s s e r t a t i o n (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Department of Geography U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979) 2 Henry George, Progress and Poverty, (London: K. Paul, Trench, 1889). Ebeneezer Howard, Garden C i t i e s For Tomorrow, (London: Faber and Faber L t d . , 1898, 1946). 3 E.P. Goodrich, George B. Ford, Harland Bartholomew, M o r r i s Knowles -1 1-e n g i n e e r - t u r n e d - c i t y planner Harland Bartholomew to prepare the c i t y ' s comprehensive p l a n . Bartholomew, a student and advocate of the ' c i t y - e f f i c i e n t ' method of p l a n n i n g , gained h i s e a r l y p r a c t i c a l experience from engineer E.P. Goodrich and a r c h i t e c t George B. Ford." The fundamental p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d i n the p r a c t i c e of c i t y p l a n n i n g , as advocated and a p p l i e d by Bartholomew, can be d i r e c t l y t r a c e d back to the views expressed by Ford i n the formative years of c i t y - e f f i c i e n t p l a n n i n g . These views have been d i s c u s s e d by Bottomley as f o l l o w s : He conceived of the C i t y as being composed of groups of b u i l d i n g s performing d i s t i n c t f u n c t i o n s . These f u n c t i o n s he c l a s s i f i e s as business, d w e l l i n g s , r e c r e a t i o n and education, and t r a n s i t and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The planners task was to arrange these groups i n t o a schematic p a t t e r n designed f o r maximium c i v i c e f f i c i e n c y . 5 The schematic p a t t e r n of maximum c i v i c e f f i c i e n c y was b e l i e v e d to be the s p a t i a l c r e a t i o n of homogeneous use d i s t r i c t s ; or as Haig suggested, "the kind of p a t t e r n which makes use of t e r r i t o r i a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . " 6 In economic terms, two i s s u e s prompted acceptance of t h i s p l a n n i n g p r i n c i p l e . F i r s t l y , as e x p l o r e d e x t e n s i v e l y by Haig i n 1926, 7 the s p a t i a l growth of the c i t y i n c r e a s e d a Mel S c o t t , American C i t y Planning Since 1890, (Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P ress, 1969)p.122. 5 Bottomley, og. c i t . , p.48. 6 Robert Murrary Haig, "Toward an Understanding of the M e t r o p o l i s : I I . The Assignment of A c t i v i t i e s to Areas i n Urban Regions," The Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Ecomonics (February 1926) p.433. 7 I b i d . , pps.402-434. -12-the importance of reducing the t r a n s p o r a t i o n f r i c t i o n between the o r i g i n and d e s t i n a t i o n of an economic good. Hence, the need to determine j u s t where p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s should be l o c a t e d to enable the development of an e f f i c i e n t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e became imminent. T h i s i n t e r n a l order was to be determined "through an a n a l y s i s of the business, and weighting of the f u n c t i o n s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r p o s i t i o n on a s c a l e of precedence. 8 T h i s a n a l y s i s , termed the "formula f o r the f u t u r e , " 9 was viewed as the " s c i e n t i f i c b a s i s f o r z o n i n g . " 1 0 Secondly, there was the potent concern f o r investment s e c u r i t y . Under a p o l i t i c a l system where the r i g h t to the ownership of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y stands as a symbol of l i b e r t y , the need to p r o t e c t those r i g h t s became as important as the need to c o n t r o l the use of land i t s e l f . E a r l y reformers and a c t i v i s t s 1 1 s t r e s s e d the importance of p r o t e c t i n g the home owner and l a n d l o r d from any negative e x t e r n a l i t i e s which c o u l d reduce the value of h i s s i t e . In a d d i t i o n , i t was emphasized that a s s u r i n g f o r the f u t u r e the type of development in an area gave e x i s t i n g r e a l e s t a t e investments g r e a t e r s e c u r i t y , and c r e a t e d a b a s i s f o r f u t u r e investment. T h i s c e r t a i n t l y would a l s o 8 I b i d . , p.419. 9 I b i d . 1 0 I b i d . 1 1 Eg. Robert Murrary Haig, P r o f e s s o r , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , New York; Lawson Purdy, C i v i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r , C i t y of New York; J.W. Cree, R e a l t o r , P h i l a d e l p h i a ; George S. E d i e , Banker, P h i l a d e l p h i a . (See b i b l i o g r a p h y ) -13-allow the home owner to r e - d i r e c t c a p i t a l from the home i n t o the commercial s e c t o r of the economy by using the value of the home as c o l l a t e r a l f o r investment l o a n s . 1 2 The n e c e s s i t y of an ordered urban s t r u c t u r e a l s o addressed concern f o r m a i n t a i n i n g s o c i a l order and r e s t r a i n i n g s o c i a l deviance. In 1925, Whipple d i s c u s s e d the need to p r o t e c t the "three b a s i c phases of l i f e . " 1 3 More s p e c i f i c a l l y , he d e c l a r e d that To a l a r g e extent the three b a s i c phases of l i f e are c o n t r o l l e d by the sun-the day i s f o r work, the night f o r s l e e p , and the morning and evening f o r r e c r e a t i o n ; but to an i n c r e a s i n g extent, l i f e i n c i t i e s ignores the c l o c k . F a c t o r i e s run c o n t i n u o u s l y , night work never ceases. Those who work at night must s l e e p by day. What was once a 'time' s e p a r a t i o n i s f a s t becoming a 'place' s e p a r a t i o n . To o b t a i n normal, h e a l t h f u l c o n d i t i o n s i n c i t i e s , home l i f e must be separated i n p l a c e from work l i f e , and i n order that permanancy be given to t h i s s e p a r a t i o n , a c e r t a i n amount of government c o n t r o l of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y i s e s s e n t i a l . T h i s i s the ba s i c p r i n c i p l e which u n d e r l i e s b u i l d i n g r e s t r i c t i o n by d i s t r i c t . 1 a In a d d i t i o n to Whipple's concern, the c r e a t i o n of l i v i n g and working environments c o n t a i n i n g people of l i k e s o c i a l p o s i t i o n and conscience was b e l i e v e d to strengthen George S. Edie "What the Banker Thinks of Zoning," Housing Problems i n America: A Symposium Proceeding of  the Nin t h N a t i o n a l Conference on Housing, P h i l a d e l p h i a , December 5-7,1923, p.232. George C. Whipple "Zoning and He a l t h " F a c t o r s i n the Zoning of C i t i e s , A Symposium Proceeding of the American  S o c i e t y of C i v i l Engineers Vol.48, No.2 TFebruaury 1922) p. 199. I b i d . -14-the c o n t r a c t u a l s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e p o r t e d by Durkheim. 1 5 T h i s s t r e n g t h e n i n g would, i n t u r n , discourage s o c i a l d e v i a t i o n from the accepted norm, and hence, h e l p to maintain s o c i a l s t a b i l t i y w i t h i n a given community u n i t . Bartholomew's acceptance of these p r i n c i p l e s were manifest i n the p u b l i c a t i o n of h i s 1922 paper "The P r i n c i p l e s of C i t y P l a n n i n g . " 1 6 In t h i s paper, Bartholomew d e s c r i b e d p r e c i s e l y those elements of the c i t y s t r u c t u r e which had to be i n sound c o n d i t i o n i f urban expansion was to proceed e f f i c i e n t l y . T h i s n o t i o n of c i v i c e f f i c i e n c y was based upon the premise that such elements as the s t r e e t system, t r a n s i t system, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system, p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n , zoning and c i v i c a r t c o u l d not develop i n d i v i d u a l l y to t h e i r maximum c a p a c i t y without a comprehensive c i t y plan to c o - o r d i n a t e the development process of the c i t y as a whole. The comprehensive c i t y p l a n was r e f e r r e d t o as a guide f o r developing each of these elements of the c i t y s t r u c t u r e i n c o n j u n c t i o n with one other, making p o s s i b l e "the c r e a t i o n of an a t t r a c t i v e and o r d e r l y working organism out of the 1 5 Emile Durkheim On M o r a l i t y and Soc i e t y (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1973) T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s only a s p e c u l a t i o n on the p a r t of the author. Indepth rese a r c h i n t o both the s o c i a l i n t e n t of zoning and Durkheim's w r i t i n g s on o r g a n i c and c o n t r a c t u a l s o l i d a r i t y i s necessary to v e r i f y i f , i n f a c t , t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d . 1 6 Harlan Bartholomew "The P r i n c i p l e s of C i t y P l a nning," The American C i t y Vol.XXIV, No.5 (May 1922) pps.457-461. -15-heterogeneous mass we c a l l the C i t y . " 1 7 The a c t u a l procedures i n v o l v e d i n t h i s p r a c t i c e of c i t y p l a n n i n g r e f l e c t e d , as w e l l , Bartholomew's strong concern f o r p r a c t i c a l i t y and standard technique. By g a t h e r i n g a vast a r r a y of data on each of the s i x elements, and a p p l y i n g predetermined s t a t i s t i c a l t echniques to t h i s data base, the planner a r r i v e d at f i g u r e s i n d i c a t i n g the necessary b u i l d i n g h e i g h t s , s t r e e t widths, l o t s i z e s and o v e r a l l square footage per use w i t h i n each d i s t r i c t . With s i m i l a r types of s t a t i s t i c a l procedures a p p l i e d to the data base c o l l e c t e d f o r each element of the c i t y s t r u c t u r e , the planner was c e r t a i n to a r r i v e at a comprehensive p o r t r a y a l of the development of the c i t y over time. The d e c i s i o n to h i r e Bartholomew and A s s o c i a t e s i n 1926 to prepare the b l u e p r i n t f o r Vancouver's f u t u r e growth r e f l e c t s the business o r i e n t e d p r i o r i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s of the Planning Commission and C i t y C o u n c i l . 1 8 A c l o s e r examination of t h i s p l a n n i n g p e r s p e c t i v e i n a c t i o n i n Vancouver f u r t h e r r e v e a l s the ideas and v i s i o n s h e l d by planners and c i v i c l e a d e r s about what was i n s t o r e f o r Vancouver in the f u t u r e . 1 7 I b i d . , p.457. 1 8 Bottomley d i s c u s s e s t h i s i n depth i n h i s 1979 d i s s e r t a t i o n , op_. c i t . -16-2.2 Vancouver-Style C i t y E f f i c i e n t The s t a n d a r d i z e d t e c h n i c a l procedure advocated and developed by c i t y e f f i c i e n t p l a n n e r s was s t r o n g l y emphasized i n the Vancouver Plan i t s e l f . The plan was s u b d i v i d e d i n t o s i x s e c t i o n s , each d e a l i n g e x c l u s i v e l y with one of the s i x p r i n c i p l e s of c i t y p l a n n i n g s t i p u l a t e d by Bartholomew i n h i s 1922 paper. The Major S t r e e t Report set out improvements to e x i s t i n g routes and widening of major thoroughfares. A d d i t i o n a l ' d i s t r i b u t o r s ' to accomodate f u t u r e growth of v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c were a l s o designed f o r when t r a f f i c c a p a c i t y reached c e r t a i n t a r g e t l e v e l s . The T r a n s i t Report c o n c e n t r a t e d on the upgrading and e x t e n s i o n of the s t r e e t c a r system, encouraging c o n v e r s i o n to motor and t r o l l e y buses. Separate from the f o r e g o i n g r e p o r t s , the T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Report addressed the i s s u e of p r o v i d i n g the adequate f a c i l i t i e s f o r s h i p p i n g and r a i l necessary f o r an expanding i n d u s t r i a l economy. P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n and C i v i c A r t were d i r e c t e d toward the development of open space and c i v i c p r i d e , as expressed i n the development of both the n a t u r a l and b u i l t environments. Zoning i n v o l v e d the a p p l i c a t i o n of land use p r i n c i p l e s which favoured the d e s i g n a t i o n of s i n g l e use d i s t r i c t s . The f i n a l s e c t i o n of the plan d i r e c t e d a t t e n t i o n toward the d i f f i c u l t , and sometimes impossible task of implementation. I t was w e l l understood i n t h i s new-born f i e l d of c i t y p l a n n i n g that a plan would not be l e g a l l y adopted i f i t c o u l d not be r e a l i s t i c a l l y implemented. I t was perhaps t h i s concern, coupled with - 1 7 -the standardized nature of the method i t s e l f , which permitted Bartholomew to achieve the high l e v e l of plan implementation that he d i d . 1 9 Despite this advantage however, only the zoning section of the Vancouver Plan was adopted by c i t y council in 1929. The type of land use regulation agreed as the vehicle for guiding the future development of the c i t y structure was that applied throughout North America in the 1920's. Structural regulation was applied to building height and area, while whole d i s t r i c t s were, for the most part, designated for uniform land use. Not unlike contemporary c i t y planning practice, the zoning scheme was set out v i s u a l l y on a citywide map delineating the d i s t r i c t s of the three p r i n c i p l e uses: r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial and i n d u s t r i a l , with minor variations upon each (fig.2.1). Included as well, and s t i l l a widespread practice, was a description of the out-right and conditional uses, and structural by-laws stipulated within each d i s t r i c t . The structure of the zoning scheme enabled uses declared as 'higher order' ( i . e . re s i d e n t i a l ) to be located in d i s t r i c t s designated for uses of 'lower order' ( i . e . commercial and i n d u s t r i a l ) . The reverse was generally not the case. However, in addition to this 1 9 John Nolen, "Twenty years of Planning Progress in the United States," in Planning Problems of Town, City and Region,Papers and Discussions of the Nineteenth National  Conference on City Planning (Philadelphia 1923) pps.1-45. -18-V A N C O U V E R B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A VANCOUVER. TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION 19 2T MARL AND B A R T H O L O M E W 6 A S S O C I A T E S TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS F I G U R E 2 . 1 h i e r a r c h i c a l zoning mechanism, i t was set out that c e r t a i n areas of p a r t i c u l a r homogenous use would be p r o t e c t e d from i n f i l t r a t i o n of other uses regarded as incompatible, be they higher or lower. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , - r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s were p r o t e c t e d o u t - r i g h t by the zoning scheme; while some lower order uses not a u t o m a t i c a l l y p r o t e c t e d were guarded by a d d i t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n from uses which might i n t e r u p t p r o d u c t i o n o p e r a t i o n s or s t o r e f r o n t c o n t i n u i t y . R e s i d e n t i a l use i n lower order d i s t r i c t s was d e c l a r e d imcompatible, and hence, i t was c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n the zoning plan that "dwellings c a r r i e d important r e s t r i c t i o n s w ith them i f e r e c t e d i n l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e a r e a s . " 2 0 In heavy i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n was a p p l i e d so that no d w e l l i n g s were per m i t t e d at a l l without the s p e c i a l consent of c i t y c o u n c i l . 2 1 I t can hence be concluded i n t h i s case that policymakers b e l i e v e d that i n d u s t r i a l areas c o u l d p o s s i b l y be i n f r i n g e d upon by n o n - i n d u s t r i a l uses; and t h e r e f o r e these areas needed to be l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d . I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, however, the General Business D i s t r i c t ( f i g . 2 . 1 ) was c l a s s i f i e d as ' u n r e s t r i c t e d ' where l i t t l e r e g u l a t i o n was to p r o t e c t , nor hinder i t s f u t u r e development. T h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e v e a l s the c e r t a i n t y 2 0 Harland Bartholomew and A s s o c i a t e s Plan f o r the C i t y of  Vancouver Prepared f o r the Vancouver Town Planning Commission (1929) p.234. 2 1 I b i d . -20-f e l t by both Bartholmew's p l a n n i n g s t a f f and Vancouver's business o r i e n t e d c i t y c o u n c i l and p l a n n i n g commission that t h i s downtown zone would n a t u r a l l y c ontinue to develop as the c i t y ' s c e n t r a l b usiness d i s t r i c t , d i s p l a c i n g non-commercial uses to zones s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n a t e d f o r t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d development. A l l that was needed was to s p a t i a l l y accomodate t h i s expected growth, and the market economy would maintain, and even strengthen the dominance of t h i s c e n t r e . C o n s i s t e n t with the c i t y e f f i c i e n t mode of p l a n n i n g , the parameters of t h i s d i s t r i c t were thus determined by the most t e c h n i c a l of p l a n n i n g procedures: ...There are 12.5 f e e t of general business frontage per 100 persons of c o n t r i b u t i n g p o p u l a t i o n . With t h i s f i g u r e as a b a s i s , there would be r e q u i r e d 125,000 fe e t of business frontage i n t h i s d i s t r i c t when the p o p u l a t i o n of the C i t y reaches 1,000,000...In the General Business D i s t r i c t there are 14 1/2 m i l e s of frontage on proposed major s t r e e t s , and 10 1/2 m i l e s of frontage on other s t r e e t s , making a t o t a l of 25 m i l e s of f r o n t a g e , or some 130,000 f e e t . 2 2 The p r o v i s i o n of t h i s frontage f o r commercial space in the core cannot be d i r e c t l y proved to have a t t r a c t e d commercial a c t i v i t i e s to t h i s a r e a . Given the h i s t o r i c a l development of t h i s area as the c e n t r a l p l a c e of the c i t y , however, i t can be a s s e r t e d that t h i s p o l i c y a c t ed to generate c e r t a i n t y that t h i s d i s t r i c t would remain the c e n t r e f o r the c i t y ' s h i g h e s t order commerical a c t i v i t e s , 22 Bartholomew (1929) op_. c i t . , p. 224. -21-r e i n f o r c i n g the c e n t r a l i z i n g f o r c e s of the economy and land market. Within t h i s newly-designated General Business D i s t r i c t r e s i d e n t i a l use posed the g r e a t e s t o b s t a c l e to the s p a t i a l economic growth e n v i s i o n e d . The d u r a b i l i t y of the b u i l t environment, and the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of p e r i p h e r a l l o c a t i o n s f o r i n d u s t r y i n South Vancouver and the F r a s e r V a l l e y were f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e d t o the endurance of the r e s i d e n t i a l component. Most important however, was that the zoning l e g i s l a t i o n a p p l i e d to t h i s c e n t r a l d i s t r i c t d i d not d i r e c t l y induce the development of commercial a c t i v i t i e s to r e a d i l y d i s p l a c e l e s s economic c e n t r a l land uses. An examination of the nature of t h i s r e s i d e n t i a l component, and the commercial development which slowly succeeded i t , p r o v i d e s a c l o s e r view of the the process of s t r u c t u r a l land use change i n the CBD. 2.3 The CBD R e s i d e n t i a l Community Included i n t h i s area designated f o r f u t u r e commercial growth were a number of s u b s t a n t i a l r e s i d e n t i a l communities ( f i g . 2.2). The s t r u c t u r e s , as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 2.3, c o n s i s t e d , f o r the most p a r t , of modest s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s on 25 foot l o t s . They were occupied, as Gibson and MacDonald c i t e , 2 3 by working c l a s s 2 3 Edward Gibson, "Impact of S o c i a l B e l i e f on Landscape Change: A Geographical Study of Vancouver," Unpublished Ph.d d i s s e r t a t i o n , (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, -22-FIGURE 2.2 I I FIGURE 2£.3 Downtown Vancouver, 1935 f a m i l i e s employed in the adjacent i n d u s t r i a l r a i l w a y d i s t r i c t . The 1929 zoning plan p l a c e d these r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s under the l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s General Business D i s t r i c t , making the development of a d d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s i n the d i s t r i c t s u b j e c t to 'important r e s t r i c t i o n s ' . I t t h e r e f o r e became r e l a t i v e l y uneconomical to take on the burden of these r e s t r i c t i o n s given that Bartholomew's zoning p l a n set a s i d e vast s t r e t c h e s of undeveloped land throughput the c i t y f o r r e s t r i c t e d s i n g l e - and m u l t i - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l development ( f i g . 2.1). In a d d i t i o n , the West End d i s t r i c t , l o c a t e d adjacent to the General Business D i s t r i c t , was a l s o d e c l a r e d , f o r the most p a r t , s t r i c t l y f o r r e s i d e n t i a l use. I t i s suggested t h e r e f o r e that i t was not only the zoning by-law i n e f f e c t w i t h i n the General Business D i s t r i c t which acted to d i s p e l r e s i d e n t i a l a d d i t i o n s to the core d u r i n g the years of u n r e s t r i c t i v e zoning. The generous p r o v i s i o n of undeveloped land f o r r e s t r i c t e d r e s i d e n t i a l zones throughout the c i t y a t t r a c t e d both the b u i l d e r and home owner to these outer d i s t r i c t s where s t r u c t u r e s c o u l d be b u i l t without the burden of 'important 1971) p.67 and Map 3. Norbert MacDonald, "A C r i t i c a l Growth Cyc l e For Vancouver," i n G i l b e r t A. S t e l t z e r and Alan F . J . A r t i b i s e (eds.) The  Canadian C i t y : Essays in Urban H i s t o r y , " ( I n s t i t u t e of Canadian S t u d i e s , C a r l t o n U n i v e r s i t y , Ottawa: M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart L i m i t e d , 1977) pps.150-151. -25-r e s t r i c t i o n s ' . While t h i s may e x p l a i n a d e c l i n e i n r e s i d e n t i a l a d d i t i o n s to the- core between 1929 and 1957, the s t r u c t u r e s which a l r e a d y e x i s t e d p r i o r to the 1929 zoning by-law d i d not disappear as q u i c k l y as perhaps c i t y p l anners would have l i k e d . F i g u r e 2.4 i l l u s t r a t e s the s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of land i n the General Business D i s t r i c t as l a t e as 1945 which was s t i l l i n r e s i d e n t i a l use. The slow down in development a c t i v i t y d u r i n g the Depression undoubtedly c o n t r i b u t e d to the endurance of the r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t o r , as w e l l as the s u b d i v i s i o n of e x i s t i n g s i n g l e - f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e s i n t o rooming and boarding houses. Most important however, was that the parameters set f o r the s p a t i a l expansion of the f u t u r e c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t were based upon the needs of a c i t y p o p u l a t i o n of 1,000,000. Given t h i s standard p l a n n i n g t e c h i n i q u e , the o v e r - e s t i m a t i o n of p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e s l e d , i n t h i s case, d i r e c t l y to the o v e r - e s t i m a t i o n of the necessary f u t u r e s i t e area f o r the CBD. Thus, l e s s demand f o r commercial space than a n t i c i p a t e d r e s u l t e d i n a slower r a t e of turnover of core land from r e s i d e n t i a l to commercial use, e s p e c i a l l y i n marginal areas of the zone. Hence, the i n i t i a l attempt to c r e a t e a homogeneous commercial d i s t r i c t i n Vancouver's core was not d i r e c t e d at inducing commercial growth, but r a t h e r at promoting r e s i d e n t i a l d e c l i n e . The i n t r o d u c t i o n of r e s t r i c t i o n s on c o n s t r u c t i o n and upkeep of r e s i d e n c e s i n the General -26-0 V A N C O U V E R BRIT ISH C O L U M B I A J N L E T DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT L A N D U S E S MB COMMERCIAL CE1 GARAGES-PARKING W INDUSTRIAL KM GARAGES - HO PARKING _ MOTELS . APARTMENTS 1=3 PARKING LOTS VANCOUVER TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION 1945 HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW t ASSOCIATES TOWN PLANNERS zrtsr-rs—s.—a—u Plait 3 FIGURE 2.4 Business D i s t r i c t , as w e l l as the p r o v i s i o n of homogeneous r e s i d e n t i a l zones throughout the c i t y , aimed at d i s p l a c i n g r e s i d e n t i a l land use to accomodate expected f u t u r e commercial growth. However, the endurance of that r e s i d e n t i a l component, prompted by a weak commercial market i n marginal areas of the zone, o b s t r u c t e d that course toward commerical homogeneity e n v i s i o n e d by c i t y p l a n n e r s . 2.4 Summary and Conclu s i o n s In summary, there are a number of pre-eminent c o n c l u s i o n s which emerge. F i r s t l y , the impetus f o r the conscious o r g a n i z a t i o n of Vancouver's urban s t r u c t u r e was to s p a t i a l l y accomodate expected economic expansion. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s f o r the r e s i d e n t i a l component of the newly-designated General Business D i s t r i c t was i t s demise. Secondly, the pre-occupation amongst planners and policymakers that the schematic p a t t e r n f o r economic expansion was i n the form of homogeneous d i s t r i c t s has been expl o r e d . I t was b e l i e v e d that the displacement of r e s i d e n t i a l use from t h i s d i s t r i c t would b r i n g g r e a t e r commercial homogeneity. T h i r d l y , the appointment of an American c i t y e f f i c i e n t planner to prepare Vancouver's comprehensive plan e x p l a i n s some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n r e a l i z i n g i t s g o a l s . The systematic and ' s c i e n t i f i c ' nature of the e f f i c i e n c y - p l a n n i n g employed from c i t y to -28-c i t y a c c r o s s North America took i n t o account few of the unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c u l a r urban c e n t r e s . Hence, the a p p l i c a t i o n of s t a n d a r d i z e d p l a n n i n g procedures to Vancouver's CBD r e s u l t e d i n an o v e r - e s t i m a t i o n of the necessary s p a t i a l a l l o t m e n t f o r f u t u r e commercial growth. Immediate post-war p l a n n i n g d i d not apply a more i m p e l l i n g inducement f o r core commercial growth. I t d i d however, i n c l u d e more s t r i n g e n t r e s t r i c t i o n s on non-commerical uses, e s p e c i a l l y r e s i d e n c e s . D i s c u s s i o n of t h i s more concerned approach to CBD commercial development p o l i c y r e v e a l s the nature of i n c r e a s i n g l y complex and r e s t r i c t i v e land use c o n t r o l s and t h e i r e f f e c t s . I t , i n a d d i t i o n , p r o v i d e s i n s i g h t i n t o the p r i o r i t i e s and p e r c e p t i o n s h e l d by c i v i c l e a d e r s and p r o f e s s i o n a l s charged with g u i d i n g post-war c i v i c development. -29-Chapter 3: Post-war CBD Planning T h i s chapter addresses the post-war response by policymakers to the slow pace of CBD land use s u c c e s s i o n . Though i t was recognized that u n r e s t r i c t e d development was an i n e f f i c i e n t means of c o m m e r c i a l i z i n g the c o r e , no steps were taken to d i r e c t l y promote through inducements commercial development. Instead, r e s t r i c t i o n s were p l a c e d upon the development of those uses which were b e l i e v e d to be s t i f l i n g CBD commercial expansion ( i . e . r e s i d e n t i a l , i n d u s t r i a l , warehousing). C i v i c p o l i c y d i s t i n c t l y expressed continued r e j e c t i o n of core l i v i n g by d i r e c t l y a p p l y i n g r e s t r i c t i v e r e g u l a t i o n , endorsing a c l e a r - c u t course towards homogeneous commerical development. 3.j_ The Defense Against Decentra 1 i z a t i o n : Part One Confidence i n CBD dominance, as expressed i n both p o l i c y statements and p u b l i s h e d documents, began to erode -30-by the l a t e 1940's. C i t y o f f i c i a l s became aware of the r e p e r c u s s i o n s f e l t i n the c e n t r a l core by m e t r o p o l i t a n d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n elsewhere i n the c o n t i n e n t . In an attempt to combat some of those f o r c e s which were r e - d i r e c t i n g a c t i v i t i e s to d i s p e r s e d l o c a l commercial c e n t r e s , i t was deemed necessary to r e d e f i n e and s u b s t a n t i a t e the importance of core dominance i n a growing m e t r o p o l i t a n area. Bartholemew and A s s o c i a t e s were again c o n t r a c t e d by the Vancouver Town Planning Commission in 1946 to prepare a more d e t a i l e d survey of present and f u t u r e General Business D i s t r i c t land uses, of the t r a n s i t network, the s t r e e t p l a n , access routes and harbour f a c i l i t i e s . Bartholomew's report l a i d great emphasis on the r o l e the CBD had i n c i v i c development through i t s tax c o n t r i b u t i o n s . The a b i l i t y of to CBD to generate vast tax revenues f o r the b e n e f i t of the c i t y as a whole was d i s c u s s e d as f o l l o w s : . . . i t has been demonstrated in recent years that the downtown business d i s t r i c t c o n t r i b u t e s i n taxes hundreds of thousands of d o l l a r s , even m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s , of municipal taxes one and above the c o s t of the s e r v i c e s f u r n i s h e d . T h i s e x t r a revenue helps to l i g h t e n the tax load upon home owners who pay most of the remaining p r o p e r t y t a x e s . 1 I d e n t i f y i n g d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n as "an expensive process i n which c o s t s may exceed t o t a l g a i n s , " 2 dramatized the 1 Harland Bartholomew and A s s o c i a t e s , The Downtown Business  D i s t r i c t Prepared f o r the Vancouver Town Planning Commission (February 1946) p.6. 2 I b i d . , p.8. -31-need f o r a str o n g commercial core which would make s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the i n c r e a s i n g l y important c i t y c o f f e r s . A downtown core occupied by a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of l e s s l u c r a t i v e non-commercial uses was i n f e r r e d to be one which would not c a r r y the burden of the "uneconomical process of d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . " 3 The u n d e r l y i n g message of the re p o r t was that i f the downtown remained occupied by non-commercial uses, home owners throughout the c i t y would have to accomodate i n e v i t a b l e sprawl through i n c r e a s e d p r o p e r t y taxes. The slow process of land use s u c c e s s i o n i n the core d u r i n g the 1930's, 40's, and 50's proceded without r e g u l a t i o n s d i c t a t i n g the p r e c i s e l o c a t i o n of each use. An u n c e r t a i n pace of s c a t t e r e d downtown growth was the r e s u l t . The blanket r e g u l a t i o n i n e f f e c t was not r i g i d enough to d i r e c t the development of strong s p e c i a l i z e d commercial d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n the c o r e . What was needed was a r e g u l a t i o n which would order and screen uses i n a way which would generate the revenues r e f e r r e d to i n the 1946 r e p o r t . Faced with i n c r e a s e d c ompetition from o u t s i d e c e n t r e s (e.g. F r a s e r Avenue, K e r r i s d a l e , North Vancouver) the key, w i t h i n the realm of p u b l i c p o l i c y , to r e t a i n i n g economic dominance of the CBD was the s e c u r i n g of r e l i a b l e and s t a b l e use d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n t h i s l a r g e r General 3 I b i d . - 3 2 -Business D i s t r i c t . These desi g n a t e d d i s t r i c t s were to be f o r the e x c l u s i v e development of s p e c i a l t y r e t a i l i n g , h i g h d e n s i t y o f f i c e and p u b l i c and c u l t u r a l c e n t r e s . Hence, planners began to step deeper i n s i d e the core to analyze the nature of p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n i t s own boundaries. The u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e was to r e v i s e the e x i s t i n g by-law to i n c l u d e more s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h i n the p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t s i d e n t i f i e d . 3.2 A step i n s i d e the core The f i r s t of a number of p l a n n i n g r e p o r t s p u b l i s h e d by the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board which d e a l t with a more acute p e r c e p t i o n of the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of the core was p u b l i s h e d i n 1956." I t ' s o b j e c t i v e was to a r r e s t d e t e r i o r a t i n g trends which some b e l i e v e d were brought on by m e t r o p o l i t a n i z a t i o n . In an attempt to a r r e s t these t r e n d s , the proposed f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n of CBD development was e x p l i c i t l y c h a r t e d out. T h i s c l e a r - c u t development path would c r e a t e c e r t a i n t y that t h i s d i s t r i c t was indeed the present and f u t u r e economic f o c a l p o i n t of the r e g i o n . I t was, i n some r e s p e c t s , a f o r c e f u l and emotional attempt to save the downtown. I t was emphasized that given the economic importance and v i t a l i t y of the c o r e , "on no account... should t h i s heart of the c i t y be allowed to d e t e r i o r a t e . " 5 4 Vancouver T e c h n i c a l Planning Board Downtown Vancouver  1955-1976 (August 1956) -33-Among the most v i t a l of CBD a c t i v i t i e s , r e t a i l i n g was d e c l i n i n g at the most r a p i d r a t e , with only a .01% in c r e a s e i n shopping t r a f f i c at a time when the m e t r o p o l i t a n p o p u l a t i o n had i n c r e a s e d 26%. 6 To a r r e s t t h i s t r e n d , i t was recommended t h a t a high d e n s i t y r e t a i l d i s t r i c t be o f f i c i a l l y d e s i g n a t e d w i t h i n the General Business D i s t r i c t to c r e a t e an i d e n t i f i a b l e shopping enclave to a t t r a c t both r e t a i l e r s and shoppers back to the core ( f i g . 3.1). The survey of the area and proposed method used t o determine the necessary s i t e area needed f o r t h i s d i s t r i c t were s t r o n g l y reminiscent of those used by Bartholomew i n 1929. The re p o r t concluded that f o r a 1976 m e t r o p o l i t a n p o p u l a t i o n of 900,000, seven square feet of r e t a i l f l o o r area per person was needed i n the co r e . Thus, a t o t a l of 6,300,000 square f e e t of f l o o r area was r e q u i r e d . 7 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that p l a n n e r s , f o r the f i r s t time, i n c l u d e d the e n t i r e m e t r o p o l i t a n p o p u l a t i o n i n f o r c a s t i n g . Previous growth t a r g e t s were based on munici p a l p o p u l a t i o n t o t a l s o n l y . I t was argued that the growth of the c i t y i n t o a m e t r o p o l i t a n area l e a d to the d e c l i n e of the co r e . The market area which the CBD needed to capture was now not simply the c i t y i t s e l f , but the expanding m e t r o p o l i t a n area as w e l l . 5 I b i d . , p.2. 6 I b i d . , p.4. 7 I b i d . p.6. -34-D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 5 5 PROPOSED ZONING High Density Office High Density Retail Amenity Commercial Medium Density Commercial Medium Density Commercial Warehousing Light Industrial Use Zones Source: Vancouver Town Planning Com-m i s s i o n , Proposed New  Zoning & Development  B y-law, March 1955 FIGURE 3.1 Given that assumed p o p u l a t i o n , the s i t e area a v a i l a b l e i n the recommended d i s t r i c t was then recorded, and the a d d i t i o n a l area f o r expansion was d e s i g n a t e d . Since t h i s s p e c i a l r e t a i l area c o u l d not accomodate the e n t i r e p o r t i o n of needed r e t a i l f l o o r space, i t was necessary to spread out of the d i s t r i c t i n t o areas of predominantly other uses, thereby d e s i g n a t i n g those areas 'expansion d i s t r i c t s ' f o r f u t u r e r e t a i l development. T h i s same procedure was performed f o r a l l the major uses deemed v i t a l to a commercialized c o r e . O f f i c e s , r e t a i l i n g , p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s and a c u l t u r a l c e n t r e were endorsed as proper CBD uses, while r e s i d e n t i a l , warehousing, and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s were to be d i s p l a c e d to accomodate the s p a t i a l growth of a c c e p t a b l e CBD uses. U n d e r l y i n g the proposed land use requirements f o r CBD a c t i v i t i e s was the assumption that o l d e r b u i l d i n g s had become u n d e s i r e a b l e , and hence uneconomical, and should t h e r e f o r e be r e p l a c e d . The f u t u r e a v a i l a b l e s i t e area i n each d i s t r i c t was c a l c u l a t e d to i n c l u d e the recovery of land upon which the f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e s r e s t e d : Example: High D e n s i t y R e t a i l D i s t r i c t (1) S i t e s with pre-1950 b u i l d i n g s with assessed value of improvements per square foot of s i t e below $3.00. (2) S i t e s with pre-1925 frame b u i l d i n g s with assessed value of improvements per square foot of s i t e below $3.00. 8 -36-The upper l i m i t p l a c e d on the assessed value of improvements v a r i e d from one use area to another: i n the High Dens i t y O f f i c e D i s t r i c t t h a t f i g u r e was set at $6.00 to quicken the pace of replacement; and f o r the Medium Den s i t y Commercial D i s t r i c t i t was set at $2.00. I t was through the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e that policymakers d e c l a r e d l a r g e s e c t i o n s of the downtown area prime redevelopment s i t e s . For each new use d i s t r i c t , the square footage, or number of u n i t s per use, to be d i s p l a c e d by the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n that was b e l i e v e d would f o l l o w the implementation of the new r e g u l a t i o n s was c l e a r l y s t a t e d . Again there r e s t e d the assumption that through p u b l i c p o l i c y alone p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n the core would i n v a r i a b l y become d e s i r a b l e f o r s p e c i a l i z e d redevelopment. The square footage of d i s p l a c e d o f f i c e s , s t o r e s , p u b l i c h a l l s , h o t e l s , dwellings! and rooming houses was determined by the a p p l i c a t i o n of the above l i m i t p l a c e d on the assessed value of s i t e improvements. Since such uses as o f f i c e s , s t o r e s , h o t e l s and p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s were to be r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the redeveloped downtown w i t h i n t h e i r own s p e c i a l i z e d d i s t r i c t s , t h e i r displacement was viewed as a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n , to be followed by expansion. The r e s i d e n t i a l component, s l a t e d f o r displacement as w e l l , was not i n c l u d e d i n the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a n s . In a l l , there were approximately 251 d w e l l i n g u n i t s , 370 8 I b i d . , Appendix, p.80 -37-housekeeping u n i t s , and 569 boarding house u n i t s which were i d e n t i f i e d as prime s i t e s f o r expansion of the accepted CBD u s e s . 9 Of a l l the sub-areas d i s c u s s e d there were only two i n which planners proposed continued small s c a l e r e s i d e n t i a l use, predominantly above s t o r e s . These d i s t r i c t s ( f i g . 3.1, d i s t r i c t s 1,2) were l o c a t e d adjacent to the West End uses, and were i d e n t i f i e d as t r a n s i t i o n areas between the commercial CBD and r e s i d e n t i a l West End d i s t r i c t . Although r e s i d e n c e s were not proposed to be p r o h i b i t e d o u t r i g h t i n these areas, i t was regarded that those i n v o l v e d i n f u t u r e commercial develpment would f i n d l i t t l e i n c e n t i v e to i n c l u d e t h i s use i n t h e i r developments: Although r e s i d e n t i a l uses would be p e r m i t t e d . . . i t i s not l i k e l y that they would be i n c l u d e d i n the development of s i t e s c o n s i d e r e d p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e , s i n c e d w e l l i n g s cannot be combined with h o t e l s , and are not r e a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n with o f f i c e s . 1 0 In most other areas r e s i d e n c e s were not proposed to be s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d , per se, though there was no s i t e area f o r them i n the comprehensive core redevelopment scheme. I t was recommended however, that r e s i d e n t i a l use be p r o h i b i t e d o u t r i g h t i n the C-4 Medium Densi t y Commerical D i s t r i c t ( f i g . 3.1, d i s t r i c t s 3-12) because of the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s : 9 I b i d . , Appendix. The a c t u a l t o t a l s are c o n s i d e r a b l y more, as they were only a l l u d e d to i n some cases i n the r e p o r t . 1 0 I b i d . , p.95. -38-The p o l i c y of e x c l u d i n g r e s i d e n c e s i s a sound one. Business d i s t r i c t s do not prov i d e a s u i t a b l e environment f o r r e s i d e n c e s , except i n s p e c i a l circumstances f o r s i n g l e people or c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s . The danger and noise of t r a f f i c i n these areas make them u n d e s i r a b l e f o r r e s i d e n t i a l use, and f a c i l i t i e s g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with r e s i d e n t i a l development such as sc h o o l s , p l a y grounds and community f a c i l i t i e s are land uses u n s u i t a b l e to business areas and g e n e r a l l y are not a v a i l a b l e . 1 1 The by-laws were c l e a r l y d r a f t e d upon the the pe r c e p t i o n s and l e g a l framework presented by the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board. Some of those recommendations put to c o u n c i l by the Board, however, were not c o n s i d e r e d to be strong enough to push commercial development a l o n g . Hence, an even more s t r i n g e n t approach to c o n t r o l l e d redevelopment was a c t u a l l y adopted. 3.3 Recommendations turned by-laws In c o n j u n c t i o n with a number of - s u r v e y s a n a l y z i n g redevelopment s i t e s throughout the c i t y , 1 2 c o u n c i l amended the e x i s t i n g zoning by-law f o r the c i t y on June 18, 1956 and December 3, 1957 ( f i g s . 3.2, 3.3). There were three s i g n i f i c a n t changes that were made which were to have a great impact on the f u t u r e development of the co r e : (1) the d i v i s i o n of the General Business D i s t r i c t i n t o two d i s t i n c t commercial zones; I b i d . , p.96. Housing Research Committee Vancouver Redevelopment  Study (December 1957) -39-D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 5 6 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT BY-LAW C M - I Source: C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning  and Development  By-law, 1956 . FIGURE 3.2 I H I D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 5 7 ZONING AND D E V E L O P M E N T B Y - L A W General Business-Commercial C M - I High Density -Commercial CM-2 Source: C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning  and Development By-law, 1957 FIGURE 3.3 (2) the d i r e c t p r o h i b i t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l use in these zones; (3) the c r e a t i o n of the Comprehensive Development Zone. F i r s t l y , though c o u n c i l d i d not e n t i r e l y endorse the exact recommendations made by the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board in 1955, i t d i d accept i n p r i n c i p l e the b a s i c p r o p o s a l of in c r e a s e d downtown r e g u l a t i o n and redevelopment. The f i r s t amendment to the General Business D i s t r i c t by-law i n 1956 renamed the d i s t r i c t CM-1 Commercial D i s t r i c t ( f i g . 3.2). Though t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d i f f e r e d l i t t l e from the pr e v i o u s one of 26 years, i t d i d r e - c l a s s i f y i n d u s t r i a l uses as c o n d i t i o n a l , r e q u i r i n g the approval of the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board. T h i s new by-law was accepted as an i n t e r i m measure u n t i l more ex t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s of core a c t i v i t i e s was performed. A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board p r o p o s a l s , c o u n c i l approved on December 3, 1957 the a p p l i c a t i o n of s t r i c t e r r e g u l a t i o n of downtown development, e l i m i n a t i n g the blanket coverage which had a p p l i e d f o r two and one h a l f decades. The general p r i n c i p l e of c o n c e n t r a t i n g p a r t i c u l a r commercial a c t i v i t i e s i n r e s t r i c t e d use d i s t r i c t s was accepted, and hence, a CM-2 Commercial D i s t r i c t (High Density) zone was c r e a t e d w i t h i n the a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g CM-1 Commercial D i s t r i c t (General) ( f i g . 3.3). T h i s i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n of a more intense monitoring system of downtown -42-development was to set a t r e n d i n Vancouver's core toward more complex r e s t r i c t i o n s g u i d i n g the growth of the CBD. The second major change i n c l u d e d i n t h i s 1957 amendment to the General Business D i s t r i c t by-law was that r e s i d e n t i a l use was l e g a l l y regarded as incompatible with commercial development throughout the e n t i r e downtown are a . Hence, c o u n c i l d e c l a r e d that r e s i d e n t i a l uses were even more incompatible than suggested i n the recommendations made by the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board. No r e s i d e n t i a l uses were per m i t t e d o u t r i g h t . In the l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e CM-1 d i s t r i c t the f o l l o w i n g r e s i d e n t i a l uses were d e c l a r e d ' c o n d i t i o n a l ' where consent by the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board was r e q u i r e d : a) A d w e l l i n g u n i t f o r a c a r e t a k e r or workman or other persons s i m i l a r l y employed, i f such d w e l l i n g u n i t i s c o n s i d e r e d to be e s s e n t i a l to the o p e r a t i o n of the business or undertaking; b) A b u i l d i n g which has been a l t e r e d or used f o r a d w e l l i n g u n i t , housekeeping u n i t , boarding or l o d g i n g house, p r i o r to June 18, 1956, with or without one or more of the r e q u i r e d C i t y p e r m i t s . 1 3 In the more r e s t r i c t e d CM-2 d i s t r i c t , which was what had become of the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board's proposed High D e n s i t y O f f i c e , R e t a i l and Amenity Commercial D i s t r i c t s combined, only a d w e l l i n g u n i t f o r a c a r e t a k e r 1 3 C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-law, 3575, amended December 3,1957, p.132. -43-was p e r m i t t e d , though i t too became c o n d i t i o n a l . There was no o u t r i g h t or c o n d i t i o n a l approval given to b u i l d i n g s used as a d w e l l i n g p r i o r to 1956. As d i s c u s s e d and i l l u s t r a t e d i n Chapter 2, i t was these s t r u c t u r e s which housed a c o n s i d e r a b l e p o r t i o n of the CBD's r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n ( f i g s . 2.2, 2.3). Hence, the t r a n s i t i o n toward more con s c i o u s c o n t r o l of the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of the CBD l e g a l l y set out the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and u n d e s i r a b i l i t y of r e s i d e n t i a l land use. The d w e l l i n g s l o c a t e d w i t h i n the CM-2 zone d i d not l e g a l l y conform to the new by-law, and s t r u c t u r a l a d d i t i o n s and upkeep were t h e r e f o r e p r o h i b i t e d . The t h i r d change i n the c i t y w i d e by-law i n c l u d e d i n the 1957 amendment d i d not d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the CBD u n t i l 18 years l a t e r . While undertaking a study of c i t y w i d e redevelopment, c i t y p lanners l e a r n e d that t h i s s i m p l i s t i c a d m i n i s t r a t i v e method of land use r e g u l a t i o n was perhaps s t i f l i n g the development of l a r g e - s c a l e independent p r o j e c t s . What fo l l o w e d was a p r o p o s a l f o r the c r e a t i o n of a "Comprehensive Development" zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based upon the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : In l i n e with modern tr e n d s , i t i s proposed to e s t a b l i s h a new zoning d i s t r i c t w i t h i n which comprehensive developments composed of e i t h e r r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l or other types of uses, or any combination t h e r e o f , c o u l d be p e r m i t t e d even though they do not conform with a l l the o r d i n a r y types of zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . Areas would be rezoned to a CD-1 D i s t r i c t - 4 4 -by the C i t y C o u n c i l subject to the development conforming w i t h i n a general p r o j e c t p l a n , the d e t a i l s of which would then have to be approved by the T e c h n i c a l P lanning Board at a time such a development was about to be undertaken. The Park Royal Shopping Centre i n West Vancouver would be an example of such a development. Such developments would o r d i n a r i l y be c o n f i n e d to f a i r l y l a r g e t r a c t s of land u s u a l l y under one o w n e r s h i p . 1 4 Though t h i s new zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the c o n v e n t i o n a l land use by-law, i t d i d step out of the norm i n two s i g n i f i c a n t ways. I t had allowed, f i r s t l y , f o r a mixture of uses which planners had t r a d i t i o n a l l y sought to e l i m i n a t e . Secondly, i t r e q u i r e d f o r the f i r s t time that planners use t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n on a p r o j e c t - b y - p r o j e c t b a s i s s i n c e accepted uses and r e g u l a t i o n s were not predetermined i n the by-law and needed to be decided upon independently. In i t s e a r l y a p p l i c a t i o n , t h i s zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was used f o r l a r g e s c a l e commercial developments (eg. Oakridge); c u l t u r a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l c e n t r e s (eg. P a c i f i c N a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n Grounds); and i n s t i t i t i o n a l s i t e (eg. schools and p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s ) . I t was agreed that t h i s approach to land use r e g u l a t i o n was necessary f o r the f u l l development of marginal or unconventional s i t e s which might remain underdeveloped or undeveloped i f h e l d w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s of the standard zoning by-law. 1 4 Vancouver Town Planning Commission, Proposed New Zoning  and Development By-law, (March 1955) p . v i i i . -45-T h i s o r i g i n a l f l e x i b l e zoning r e g u l a t i o n was l a t e r to branch out i n t o two other forms which were a p p l i e d to much l a r g e r s i t e s w i t h i n the c i t y . The unique nature of such s i t e s as F a l s e Creek and the Waterfront, two e s s e n t i a l l y undeveloped s i t e s at the time of the 1975 rez o n i n g s , prompted planners to opt f o r t h i s CD-1 zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to allow f o r g r e a t e r development f l e x i b i l i t y and d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e i r modern redevelopment. The CD-1 zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a p p l i e d to the West End and Downtown D i s t r i c t i n 1 9 7 5 1 5 was of a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t v a i n i n that these areas were b u i l t up at the time of the r e z o n i n g . I t was understood that the implementation of the O f f i c i a l Development Plans f o r these two d i s t r i c t s was to be more d i f f i c u l t than those undeveloped areas mentioned above. Much of the c h a r a c t e r and i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of uses and s t r u c t u r e s i n these two b u i l t - u p areas was e s t a b i s h e d through many years of a c t i v e economic a c t i v i t y and p u b l i c p o l i c y , and remained somewhat v i a b l e . In a d d i t i o n , u n l i k e those undeveloped areas where t h i s zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was a p p l i e d , land i n the West End and downtown was h e l d by many d i f f e r e n t owners, making land assembly f o r redevelopment a v i r t u a l l y insurmountable t a s k . 1 5 T h i s rezoning i s d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n Chapter 5. -46-3.4 Summary and Conc l u s i o n s By the mid-1 950's policymakers expressed d i s c o n t e n t with the c o n t r o l l i n g power of 'enabling r e g u l a t i o n ' . Consequently, more acute c o n t r o l of development w i t h i n the General Business D i s t r i c t was sought. Though the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board proposed a more r e g u l a t o r y approach to development c o n t r o l than had been in e f f e c t i n the core before, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that c i t y c o u n c i l wanted even more p r e s c r i p t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s . C o u n c i l ' s adoption of r e s t r i c t i v e by-laws f o r the core r e v e a l e d i t s concern that l i b e r a l 'enabling' p o l i c y c o u l d not be depended upon to oversee the process of land use s u c c e s s i o n e f f e c t i v e l y . The u n d e r l y i n g premise of the r e s t r u c t u r e d p o l i c y was that d i r e c t p r o h i b i t i o n of u n d e r s i r a b l e heterogeneous uses would accomodate, or complement, the growth of d e s i r e a b l e homogeneous uses w i t h i n that d i s t r i c t . T h i s premise, however, as d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter, was not respected f o r very long. I t was only four years a f t e r these s t r i c t e r r e g u l a t i o n s were implemented that the p u b l i c s e c t o r entered d i r e c t l y i n t o the CBD development arena. In c o n t r a s t to s t r i c t e r r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l s i n the CBD, c o u n c i l approved a more f l e x i b l e r e g u l a t o r y t o o l i n l e s s d i s t i n c t i v e areas i n the c i t y . T h i s r e v e a l s that the a p p l i c a t i o n of h i g h l y r e s t r i c t i v e r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l s on downtown development was not merely a r e f l e c t i o n of an -47-o v e r a l l t r e n d i n land use p o l i c y , but a d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s i o n to i n c r e a s e p u b l i c c o n t r o l of development a c t i v i t y i n the c o r e . - 4 8 -Chapter 4: Toward a Redeveloped Core: 1960's T h i s chapter examines the p u b l i c s e c t o r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the CBD redevelopment p r o c e s s . R e f l e c t i n g s i m i l a r development s t r a t e g i e s taken i n the 1960's throughout urban America, the c i t y c o u n c i l approached downtown development from a p o s i t i v e , r a t h e r than r e s t r i c t i v e , p e r s p e c t i v e . Renewal plans were drawn up, some of which i n c l u d e d r e s i d e n c e s ; but these were i n p e r i p h e r a l areas and d i d not suggest that policymakers abandoned t h e i r r e j e c t i o n of core l i v i n g , nor t h e i r a f f i n i t y f o r a strong commercial c o r e . Residences were c o n s i d e r e d as a means of g a i n i n g consumer support f o r the commercial s e c t o r of the renewal p l a n . 4.J_ Defense a g a i n s t d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n : Part Two A f t e r reviewing development trends i n the core between 1945 and 1960, c i t y c o u n c i l agreed that n e i t h e r 'enabling' -49-nor ' r e s t r i c t i v e ' approaches to downtown development p o l i c y were i n e f f e c t i v e . The need f o r p o s i t i v e a c t i o n the way to s t i m u l a t e redevelopment and the r e a l i z a t i o n of f u l l p o t e n t i a l of the CBD. The f i r s t o f f i c i a l a c t i o n came i n October 1961, when the Vancouver Downtown Redevelopment A d v i s o r y Board was e s t a b i s h e d by c i t y c o u n c i l . I t s r o l e was to d i s c u s s a l t e r n a t i v e approaches to downtown redevelopment. The o b j e c t i v e was to b r i n g s i t e improvement v a l u e s up to par with land values i n p a r t i c u l a r s u b - d i s t r i c t s i n the core which were not responding to development g u i d e l i n e s set out in the zoning by-law. A s e r i e s of r e p o r t s were p u b l i s h e d between 1961 and 1965 d i s c u s s i n g and d e s c r i b i n g the p r e c i s e form downtown redevelopment would take. Again i t i s d i f f i c u l t to overlook the sense of urgency r e l a y e d by policymakers with resp e c t to the c r i t i c a l need f o r an a c t i v e c e n t r a l i z e d c o r e : The C i t y Planning Department i s c u r r e n t l y engaged i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of a g e n e r a l i z e d plan f o r the Downtown Area. T h i s study i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the fundamental concept that the C i t y and i t s me t r o p o l i t a n area needs a c e n t r a l core or f o c a l p o i n t which should c o n t a i n i t s main business and f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t s department s t o r e s , i t s h o t e l s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , c u l t u r a l and entertainment f a c i l i t i e s . Some of the e x i s t i n g uses i n the Downtown area, such as warehousing and l i g h t i n d u s t r y may be b e t t e r accomodated elsewhere and some of the r e t a i l i n g and o f f i c e s may a l s o l e ave, but the main c e n t r e of m e t r o p o l i t a n a c t i v i t y and employment should and must remain i n a compact c e n t r a l -50-core of the C i t y i f we are to promote and r e t a i n an e f f i c i e n t urban  o r g a n i z a t i o n . . . T h e r e should be a c i v i c p r i d e i n d e v eloping and i n j e a l o u s l y m a i n t a i n i n g the very best appearance of our Downtown area. 1 Beyond t h i s e s o t e r i c n o t i o n of an " e f f i c i e n t urban o r g a n i z a t i o n " was the expressed concern that . . . i f we do not assume t h a t the Vancouver CBD i s e s s e n t i a l to the p r o s p e r i t y of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Area [then]...Broadway, Oakridge, New Westminster and other c e n t r e s w i l l expand at the expense of Downtown. 2 An a d d i t i o n a l r e p o r t prepared f o r the Vancouver Planning Commision i n 1963 by urban development c o n s u l t a n t L a r r y B. Smith had gone- so f a r as to recommend that o f f i c e c o n s t r u c t i o n o u t s i d e of the core be p r o h i b i t e d to encourage new development w i t h i n the c o r e . 3 More important to the redevelopment of the core however, was the need to a r r e s t the c o n t i n u e d d e c l i n e i n the r e t a i 1 , s e c t o r . A f t e r e x p e d i t i o n s to and examination of urban renewal programs i n San F r a n c i s c o and P o r t l a n d , i t was agreed that the approach needed to b r i n g about d e s i r e d development e n t a i l e d the a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the C i t y i t s e l f i n the development pr o c e s s . Before examining the r o l e of the C i t y i n the downtown redevelopment, there are two i s s u e s which need 1 Vancouver C i t y P lanning Department Redevelopment i n  Downtown Vancouver, Report No.2 (June 7, 1962) pps.17-18. 2 I b i d , p.29.. 3 L a r r y B. Smith and Company, An Economic A n a l y s i s f o r  CBD Redevelopment, Prepared f o r the Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Commission ( J u l y 17,1963) p.81. -51-to be d i s c u s s e d . F i r s t l y , given that t h i s r e j e c t i o n came only four years a f t e r the a p p l i c a t i o n of r e s t r i c t i v e r e g u l a t i o n t o the core, i t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e i f these r e g u l a t i o n s were given s u f f i c i e n t time to demonstrate t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The i m p e l l i n g f o r c e of the p u b l i c i n t e r v e n t i o n which began i n the mid-1960's masked the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s and i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e g u l a t i o n s . Secondly, the r e j e c t i o n of the c o n t r o l s was not based s o l e l y upon the development trends of the four years s i n c e t h e i r implementation. Included i n the a n a l y s i s were development trends of eleven years p r e v i o u s when only 'enabling' r e g u l a t i o n was i n e f f e c t . Hence, the f i n d i n g that the p o r t i o n of vacant net b u i l d a b l e land rose between 1945 and 1960 from 10% to 23%,? was a dramatic i n d i c a t o r of development trends, though i t d i d not r e v e a l the e x p l i c i t t r e n d s which had o c c u r r e d p u r l y under r e s t r i c t i v e c o n t r o l . Fundamental to t h i s r e j e c t i o n was the ab s o l u t e growth i n s u r f a c e parking l o t s , and the p e r s i s t e n c e of smaller s t r u c t u r e s on v a l u a b l e core land "which [ d i d ] not represent anything l i k e a f u l l r e a l i z a t i o n of the development p o t e n t i a l . " ? As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Chapters 2 and 3, many of these s m a l l e r s t r u c t u r e s i n c l u d e d those s i n g l e - f a m i l y and converted d w e l l i n g s which housed much of 4 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department Redevelopment i n  Downtown Vancouver, Report No.3 (September 7,1962) p.6. 5 I b i d . -52-the downtown r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n . Hence, i t was agreed t h a t the most e f f i c i e n t way to overcome these development o b s t a c l e s was to undertake redevelopment which would generate p o s i t i v e e x t e r n a l i t i e s throughout the c o r e . The upgrading of a c e n t r a l s i t e i n the core by the p u b l i c s e c t o r i t was hoped would have s p i l l - o v e r e f f e c t s inducing the p r i v a t e d e m o l i t i o n of e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s , and t h e i r redevelopment f o r more l u c r a t i v e uses and s t r u c t u r e s . 4.2 The C i t y Becomes Developer The f i r s t step toward the formation of an i n f o r m a l p a r t n e r s h i p between the C i t y and the development community was the c r e a t i o n of a $2 m i l l i o n Downtown Redevelopment Fund " f o r a c q u i r i n g , c l e a r i n g and s e r v i c i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y i n the Downtown Area f o r subsequent d i s p o s a l f o r comprehensive developments." 6 By c r e a t i n g t h i s fund, what the Cit,y was attempting to do was e l i m i n a t e the sometimes impossible task of land assembly i n the most b u i l t - u p d i s t r i c t of the c i t y . I t was emphasized that " f o r every $1.00 spent on redevelopment by governmental agencies i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , $5.00 are spent by p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s . " 7 The $2 m i l l i o n to be spent on t h i s stage of the land development process was t h e r e f o r e , understood to be a reasonable expenditure, given the investment and revenues 6 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department (June 7,1962) op. c i t . , p.18. 7 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department (September 7,1962) op. c i t . , p.24. -53-which would accrue from the p r i v a t e s e c t o r . A n a l y s i s throughout the core of both the value of land and s i t e improvements was undertaken i n search of the optimum redevelopment area where land of c o n s i d e r a b l e value was occupied by low valued improvements. Although policymakers recognized the problems which arose from d i f f e r i n g r a t e s of d e p r e c i a t i o n , i t was t h i s a n a l y t i c a l p r i n c i p l e which l e d them to the "melting pot of downtown." 8 T h i s area was i d e n t i f i e d as the s i x block area bounded by Seymour, West Ha s t i n g s , Hamilton and Dunsmuir S t r e e t s . I t was agreed t h a t . t h i s area would b e n e f i t the g r e a t e s t from the removal of o l d e r s t r u c t u r e s which were b e l i e v e d to be the d i r e c t cause of b l i g h t and d e p r e s s i o n . In order to i d e n t i f y the type of commercial a c t i v i t i e s t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s redevelopment scheme, an indepth a n a l y s i s of the s u i t a b i l i t y of the area was taken on i n 1963 by L a r r y B. Smith and Company. 9 Smith proposed that to strengthen the core what was needed was "a s t r o n g r e t a i l area to r e p l a c e the d i f f u s e d r e t a i l areas with t h e i r inherent weak l i n k s . " 1 0 The s p a t i a l design of the proposed r e t a i l d i s t r i c t i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 4.1. Four b a s i c problems with t h i s p o t e n t i a l design and s i t e were l a t e r u n c o v e r e d . 1 1 These problems, i t was 8 I b i d . , p.7. 9 L a r r y B. Smith and Company (1963) op. c i t . 1 0 Vancouver C i t y P lanning Department Redevelopment i n  Downtown Vancouver, Report No. 4 (March 6~, 1964) p.2. -54-D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 6 2 R e d e v e l o p m e n t C o n c e p t Dept. Store Mall Shops Off ice Bldgs. Civic Bldgs. Interact ion FIGURE 4.1 Source: Vancouver C i t y P lanning Department, Redevelopment i n  Downtown Vancouver, Report No.3, September 7,1962 noted, were f o r the most pa r t a t t r i b u t a b l e to the i n t e r n a l r e t a i l arrangements which were "not i n a form which would a t t r a c t a developer, [ f o r ] without a developer there [would be] no p r o j e c t . " 1 2 Consequently, e v a l u a t i o n of an a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e commenced. The p r o v i n c i a l government had expressed development i n t e r e s t f o r a courthouse annex i n the G r a n v i l l e - G e o r g i a S t r e e t area; and T. Eaton Company had a c q u i r e d l a n d i n the same d i s t r i c t upon which i t was hoped a new department s t o r e would be c o n s t r u c t e d . I t seemed, beyond any reasonable doubt, t h e r e f o r e , that i t would be most l o g i c a l f o r the C i t y to attempt to "co-or d i n a t e these developments i n t o a l a r g e - s c a l e p r o j e c t . " 1 3 Work d e s i g n i n g the form of t h i s redevelopment scheme began i n 1964. The major scheme was to encompass ex t e n s i v e s t r u c t u r a l re-alignments of b u i l d i n g and s t r e e t l e v e l s to - accomodate both above and below grade development. 1" The o b j e c t i v e was to i n t e g r a t e m u l t i - s t o r y o f f i c e and r e t a i l u n i t s i n t o an open space environment. The p r o v i n c i a l courthouse redevelopment and e x t e n s i o n , as w e l l as the long sought a f t e r C i v i c Square-Downtown Coliseum, were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the design plan to form a comprehensive downtown redevelopment p r o p o s a l . I t was 1 1 I b i d . 1 2 I b i d . , p.7. 1 3 I b i d . , p.3. 1 4 See a r c h i t e c t s r e n d e r i n g s , Vancouver C i t y Planning Department Redevelopment i n Downtown Vancouver, Report No.5 (January 1965) pps.11,15,16,22. -56-suggested, i n f a c t , that t h i s s i n g l e area w i t h i n the CM-2 zone be rezoned CD-I Comprehensive Development to allow the zoning f l e x i b i l i t y p e r m i t t e d under t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . As an i n t e r i m measure, however, a number of l e s s r a d i c a l rezonings were recommended ( f i g . 4.2), though never enacted. Despite the complex d e t a i l s and arrangements, the C i t y purchased p o r t i o n s of developable l a n d on the s i t e . S ince much of the land was i n p a r k i n g l o t use, purchase and redevelopment would not e n t a i l e x t e n s i v e displacement and d e m o l i t i o n . The land was e v e n t u a l l y r e - s o l d to Cemp and Company f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the P a c i f i c Centre. The proposed redevelopment scheme never d i d f u l l y m a t e r i a l i z e however. Although Eatons and the courthouse p r o j e c t d i d go ahead as planned, the C i v i c Squre-Coliseum s i t e was s o l d to the Canadian B r o a d c a s t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n f o r the development of i t s r e g i o n a l headquarters. The subsequent m a l l development below G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t r e v e a l e d the degree of c e r t a i n t y and comfort developers and planners f e l t with t h i s standard type of modernized r e t a i l development. Since i t was t h i s type of r e t a i l arrangement which had a t t r a c t e d shoppers and r e t a i l e r s to suburban c e n t r e s , the p r o v i s i o n of such s e r v i c e s i n the c o r e , coupled with the c e n t r a l i t y and d i v e r s i t y of t h i s d i s t r i c t , was hoped to draw back s t r a y e d r e t a i l e r s and consumers. Though pla n n e r s and developers stayed w i t h i n - 5 7 -D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 6 5 PROPOSED REZONING C M - I to CM-2 CM-2 to C M - I C M -CM-2 Source: Vancouver C i t y P l anning Department, Redevelopment i n Downtown Vancouver, Report No.5, January, 1965 FIGURE 4.2 c o n v e n t i o n a l l i m i t s when i t came to the a c t u a l redevelopment of t h i s area, they d i d step out of a f o r t y year t r a d i t i o n by i n t i a t i n g d i s c u s s i o n of the p o t e n t i a l f o r the development of a non-commercial use i n t h i s redeveloped downtown. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n was d i r e c t e d toward the p o s s i b l e development of high d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n the c o r e . The nature and extent of t h i s p r o p o s a l , examined i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l evidence to c o n t r i b u t e to an understanding of what the development o b j e c t i v e s of policymakers i n t h i s area i n the 1960's were. 4^3 R e s i d e n t i a l space i n a redeveloped core? Included i n the o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s of t h i s s i t e f o r redevelopment, Smith and Company was asked by the Vancouver Planning Commission t o c o n s i d e r the i m p l i c a t i o n s of a proposed by-law which would ...modify the e x i s t i n g p o l i c y of ex l u d i n g apartment c o n s t r u c t i o n i n the downtown area by p e r m i t t i n g apartment development su b j e c t to c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s i n v i r t u a l l y a l l of the downtown area except the hard c o r e . 1 5 T h i s amendment to the e x i s t i n g by-law was c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a p r o p o s a l t o lower the f u t u r e West End r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t y l e v e l . T h i s a l t e r a t i o n , i t was p r e d i c t e d , would reduce the p o t e n t i a l West End p o p u l a t i o n by 20,000 p e r s o n s . 1 6 Since the downtown r e t a i l s e c t o r 1 5 L a r r y B. Smith and Company ( 1963) op_. c i t . , p.68. -59-r e l i e s l a r g e l y on t h i s l o c a l market, i t was suggested that "other apartment developments c l o s e i n to the downtown area be e n c o u r a g e d " 1 7 to compensate f o r the market l o s s which would accrue from that d e n s i t y r e d u c t i o n . Hence, housing i n the core at t h i s time was c o n s i d e r e d to be an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the commercial redevelopment scheme. Given that the r e d u c t i o n i n West End d e n s i t i e s d i d not occur u n t i l September 1, 1967, c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i n c l u d i n g a r e s i d e n t i a l component i n the downtown was scraped. 4.4 Summary and C o n c l u s i o n By the e a r l y 1960's the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of r e s t r i c t i v e zoning i n the core was q u e s t i o n e d . Consequently, development p o l i c y was approached f o r the f i r s t time from a ' p o s i t i v e a c t i o n ' p e r s p e c t i v e . The p u b l i c s e c t o r , r e f l e c t i n g urban renewal schemes in the U.S., took on the process of lan d assembly i n t h i s b u i l t - u p area with hopes of making p r i v a t e core redevelopment more p r a c t i c a l . In a d d i t i o n , p r i v a t e redevelopment plans were expected to conform to design blue p r i n t s approved ahead of time by the p l a n n i n g s t a f f . The encouragement of a r e s i d e n t i a l component i n the redeveloped core was e x c e p t i o n a l given the long t r a d i t i o n which regarded i t to be incompatible with homogeneous 1 6 I b i d . 1 7 I b i d . , p.69. -60-commercial development. The problems t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with r e s i d e n t i a l use i n the core ( i . e . low d e n s i t y , l a n d e x t e n s i v e , . i n t e r u p t i o n of s t o r e f r o n t c o n t i n u i t y ) are not problems normally r e l a t e d to apartment development. Hence, the i n t e g r a t i o n of a r e s i d e n t i a l component i n t o t h i s redeveloped core was expected to be f u l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the design f o r a s t r o n g and v i t a l c e n t r a l i z e d commercial c o r e . The d e c i s i o n to abandon t h i s p r o p o s a l was not based upon the p o t e n t i a l problems of a r e s i d e n t i a l component i n the c o r e . That t h i s d e c i s i o n was bound up i n the accompanying c o n s i d e r a t i o n of d e n s i t y r e d u c t i o n i n the adjacent r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t r e v e a l s that i t was d i r e c t e d at f u e l i n g the commercial s e c t o r with c r i t i c a l l y needed purchasing power. D i v e r s i f y i n g the land use s t r u c t u r e of the core, and housing a segment of the p o p u l a t i o n were simply to be by-products of the u l t i m a t e -61-Chapter 5: A L i v a b l e Downtown By the l a t e 1960's, Vancouver's downtown development became no longer the e x c l u s i v e concern of c i t y c o u n ci1,business groups and merchant a s s o c i a t i o n s . C i t i z e n s groups, as cohesive and i d e n t i f i a b l e u n i t s , began to e x e r c i s e i n t e r e s t i n how and why d e c i s i o n s s t e e r i n g c i v i c growth were made. The s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s which i n t e r a c t to generate new demands on the e x i s t i n g policymaking framework had changed. Hence, the policymaking framework took on a new form. The d i r e c t i o n which t h i s framework l e d downtown development p o l i c y and goals d e v i a t e d from those of the pa s t . I t i n c l u d e d a d e c i s i o n to encourage the development of r e s i d e n c e s i n the downtown. 5.J_ A changed p o l i t i c a l arena The composition of Vancouver's labour f o r c e has been -62-over the years transformed from one with a major share of i t s workers employed i n commodity p r o d u c t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n , to one with a gr e a t e r share employed i n the s e r v i c e s e c t o r . T h i s change has come about as the emphasis i n the North American economy has been r e d i r e c t e d from m e r c a n t i l e a c t i v i t i e s and commodity p r o d u c t i o n , to the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s necessary to s u s t a i n a p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l economy. 1 The e d u c a t i o n a l requirements and u r b a n i t y of the p r o f e s s i o n a l i n v o l v e d i n the rese a r c h , development and management of t h i s s e r v i c e based economy has brought together i n the c e n t r a l c i t y a group of s o c i a l l y aware and p u b l i c l y s p i r i t e d urban d w e l l e r s . ? An a c t i v e l y p o l i t i c i z e d i n t e r e s t group emerged i n Vancouver by 1968 made up, f o r the most p a r t , of p r o f e s s i o n a l s and academics who had l i t t l e to do with the c i t y ' s business community. They represented a new and unconventional a d d i t i o n to t h i s p o l i t i c a l arena. The c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had always been dominated by l e a d e r s w i t h i n the business community. Ley comments on the v i s i o n of urban development h e l d by t h i s new group i n Vancouver: A new ideology of urban development was i n the making. Urban s t r a t e g y seemed to be passing from an emphasis on growth to a 1 E. Ginzberg, "The P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of the U.S. Labor Force," S c i e n t i f i c America 240 (March 1979) pps.48-53. 2 See D a n i e l B e l l , The Coming of the P o s t - I n d u s t r i a l  S o c i e t y , New York: Bas i c Books,19767 A l v i n W. Gouldner, The Future of I n t e l l e c t u a l s and the  Rise of the New C l a s s (New York: Seabury P r e s s , 1979) -63-concern f o r the q u a l i t y of l i f e ; the new l i b e r a t i o n was to be r e c o g n i z e d l e s s by i t s p r o d u c t i o n schedules than by i t s consumption s t y l e s . . . T h e c u l t u r a l hegemony of the l i b e r a l community was r e f l e c t e d not only i n the marketplace, but a l s o in' p u b l i c p o l i c y . 3 A concern f o r the q u a l i t y of l i f e , r a t h e r than the continued accumulation of m a t e r i a l goods, had i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n i n both the f e d e r a l and r e g i o n a l l e v e l s of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y as w e l l . Such concepts as ' l i m i t s to growth' 4 and 'spaceship e a r t h ' 5 i n s t i l l e d i n the minds of policymakers the need to c o n s c i o u s l y monitor the f u t u r e course of development i n order to guard a g a i n s t extreme s o c i a l and economic h a r d s h i p . The "Trudeauism" of the l a t e 1960's endorsed urban p o l i c i e s developed by L i t h w i c k which emphasized the f o l l o w i n g : Faced with an urban world, common sense and r e c o g n i t i o n of s o c i a l c o s t s and b e n e f i t s l e a d to the c o n c l u s i o n that the present remedial r o l e of government, working i n the i n t e r s t i c e s of economic i n i t i a t i v e , w i l l have to be r e p l a c e d by a c r e a t i v e concept which a n t i c i p a t e s and guides the f o r c e s of urban growth. 6 Hence, i t was recognized that p o l i c y which d i d not i n i t i a t e or induce e q u i t a b l e development among c i t i e s , 3 David Ley, " L i b e r a l Ideology and the P o s t - I n d u s t r i a l C i t y , " Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers Vol.70, No.2 (June 1980) p.239. " Donnella H. Meadows, et a l , L i m i t s To Growth (Washington, D.C.:A Potomac A s s o c i a t e s Book, New American L i b r a r y , 1974) 5 Barbara Ward, Spaceship E a r t h (New York:Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1966) 6 N.H. L i t h w i c k , Urban Canada: Problems and Prospects, Report prepared f o r The Honorable R.K. Andras, M i n i s t e r Responsible f o r Housing (OttawaGovernment of Canada, 1970) p.175. -64-and amongst the i n h a b i t a n t s w i t h i n c i t i e s , would prove to be as i n e f f e c t i v e as previous r e s t r i c t i v e r e g u l a t i o n . These concerns were p a r a l l e l e d at the r e g i o n a l l e v e l . The establishment i n 1967 of a m e t r o p o l i t a n planning a u t h o r i t y , the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (GVRD) gave a forum f o r i t s d i s c u s s i o n . Though the GVRD was designed to c o - o r d i n a t e such r e g i o n a l u t i l i t i e s as water and sewege, i t s mandate i n c l u d e d the management and r e g u l a t i o n of macro land use plans f o r the r e g i o n . D i s c u s s i o n s d e a l i n g with i s s u e s r e l a t e d to 'sharing the wealth,' promoting a gr e a t e r r e g i o n a l balance between the employment, commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t o r s , and the development of town c e n t r e s were formulated i n the GVRD L i v a b l e Region Plan. Fundamental to the plan was a p r i n c i p l e of balanced growth, and det e r m i n a t i o n to d e c e n t r a l i z e some of those a c t i v i t i e s and jobs "that would o r d i n a r i l y l o c a t e in,Vancouver."7 At the mun i c i p a l l e v e l , the founding of The E l e c t o r s A c t i o n Movement (TEAM), one of the two of reform p a r t i e s e s t a b l i s h e d and lea d by Vancouver p r o f e s s i o n a l s , academics, community workers, rate p a y e r s and lower income neighborhood groups, pr o v i d e d a focus f o r new p o l i c i e s . 8 These p a r t i e s were d e d i c a t e d to r e s t r u c t u r i n g the e x i s t i n g 7 Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , L i v a b l e Region Plan; 1975- 1985 (1975) 8 For a comprehensive d i s c u s s i o n of the emergence of Vancouver's reform p a r t i e s see Paul Tennant, "Vancouver C i v i c P o l i t i c s , 1929-1980," B.C. Studies,No.46 (Summer 1980) pps.3-27. -65-c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The 'Great Freeway Debate' over the proposed i m p o s i t i o n of a dual highway upon the most v i t a l s e c t i o n of the Chinatown community has been i d e n t i f i e d as the t u r n i n g p o i n t which a l e r t e d many Va n c o u v e r i t e s to the need f o r reform. As Tennant comments, " i t marked a sudden and s u b s t a n t i a l outpouring of demands f o r c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c i v i c p o l i c y making." 9 Beyond c i t i c i s m of the day-to-day management of c i v i c a f f a i r s , these urban reformers d i r e c t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n to the fundamental shortcomings of the land use r e g u l a t i o n system a d m i n i s t e r e d s i n c e Vancouver's i n c e p t i o n . In urban development p o l i c y , there was l i t t l e i n c o r p o r a t i o n of p u b l i c o p i n i o n or p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p olicymaking. There was c o n s i d e r a t i o n given to the views h e l d by merchant a s s o c i a t i o n s and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups such as the R e t a i l Merchants A s s o c i a t i o n , the B u i l d i n g Owners and Mangers A s s o c i a t i o n and the Community A r t s C o u n c i l , 1 0 but these views were .consistent with what Ley d e c r i b e s as the "commitment to growth, boosterism, and the c i t y e f f i c i e n t h e l d by former c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s . " 1 1 The s t r u c t u r e of t h i s 40 year c i v i c t r a d i t i o n has been d e s c r i b e d by two founders of the c i t y ' s reform movement as 9 I b i d . , p.14. 1 0 The Vancouver Downtown Redevelopment A d v i s o r y Board expanded i n 1962 to i n c l u d e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from these three groups. I t a l s o c o n s i d e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from the B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Company, The B r i t i s h Columbia Automobile A s s o c i a t i o n and The Vancouver T o u r i s t and Convention Bureau. 1 1 Ley (1980) op_. c i t . , p.239. -66-f o l l o w s : A f u l l c o r p o r a t e model of government was adopted d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . The s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , by n e c e s s i t y i n p a r t , adopted a dual r o l e of a d m i n i s t r a t o r and p o l i c y i n i t i a t o r and a d v i s o r . C i t y C o u n c i l i n t u r n acted as i f they were the owner, the d i r e c t o r s of a company, or t r u s t e e s of the p u b l i c wealth. The s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s drew t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n and v a l u e s about the urban scene from the bureaucracy, and when necessary, from ex p e r t s o u t s i d e the system, u s u a l l y experts from the e n g i n e e r i n g or f i n a n c i a l s e c t o r . Given the preoccupation of the p o p u l a t i o n at l a r g e with the m a t e r i a l upgrading of the c i t y and a common w i l l t h a t growth was "good" the system worked remarkably w e l l . The major o p p o s i t i o n came from those few at odds i d e o l o g i c a l l y with government p r i o r i t i e s . 1 2 Throughout the present study we have seen an a p p l i c a t i o n of the above model. Much of the p l a n n i n g documentation d e a l i n g with CBD development was prepared by c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i r e c t e d by G e r a l d Sutton Brown. 1 3 Information was drawn from w i t h i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , ' as w e l l as from experts o u t s i d e the system l i k e Bartholomew and Smith. Advisory groups were predominantly composed of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the business community, 1 4 and no avenue e x i s t e d at the time Walter G. Hardwick and David F. Hardwick, " C i v i c Government: Corporate, C o n s u l t a t i v e or P a r t i c i p a t o r y ? " i n David Ley (ed.) Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n and the  S p a t i a l Order of the C i t y , B.C. Geographical S e r i e s , No.19, (Vancouver: Tantalus Research L i m i t e d , 1973) p.91. Sutton Brown h e l d three important p o s i t i o n s i n Vancouver's c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n : Chairman of the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board, D i r e c t o r of C i t y P l a n n i n g , and C i t y Commissioner. His power was regarded as t h r e a t e n i n g enough to induce TEAM-Mayor A r t P h i l l i p s to ask f o r h i s r e s i g n a t i o n i n 1972. -67-f o r the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n t o the policymaking p r o c e s s . Out of the growing c o n f l i c t between changing a t t i t u d e s concerning urban growth and the i n f l e x i b l e b u r e a u r a t i c c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , an awareness of the need f o r a more p a r t i c i p a t o r y or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e arrangement of c i v i c o r g a n i z a t i o n emerged. Hence, the method of governing proposed by the reformers was i n sharp c o n t r a s t to that which dominated four decades of Vancouver's growth. The model endorsed, and p r e s e n t l y f u n c t i o n i n g , i s based upon the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r i n c i p l e wherby: Policymaking... r e s t [ s ] with a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c o u n c i l , prepared to draw advice from both the p r o f e s s i o n a l and the p u b l i c , and then transforms i t i n t o plans and p o l i c i e s . 1 5 Subsequently, as TEAM gained a m a j o r i t y on c i t y c o u n c i l and the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by 1972, the whole process of development plan n i n g was opened f o r p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n . L o c a l areas became recog n i z e d i d e n t i f i a b l e u n i t s throughout the c i t y ; and secondary branches of the p l a n n i n g department, as w e l l as independent community o r g a n i z a t i o n s from both business and r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t o r s , were founded. Tennant summarizes the work done d u r i n g 1973 and 1974 by TEAM to implement much of the p a r t i e s 1" The q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r the E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r of the Vancouver Downtown Redevelopment A d v i s o r y Board i n c l u d e d a degree i n business a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . (Vancouver Department of C i t y Planning (June 7,1962) op_. c i t . p.4) 1 5 Hardwick and Hardwick (1973) op_. c i t . , p. 93. -68-p l a t f o r m as f o l l o w s : The few l i n g e r i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s of resurgence of the freeway proposal were f i n a l l y choked o f f . Neighbourhood p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l o c a l area p l a n n i n g was prodded along. Transformation of the former i n d u s t r i a l area of F a l s e Creek i n t o a d i v e r s i f i e d r e s i d e n t i a l area was e f f e c t e d under d i r e c t development by the c i t y i t s e l f . The downtown G r a n v i l l e T r a n s i t M a l l was planned and completed e x p e d i o u s l y . A by-law was passed to phase l a r g e a d v e r t i s i n g b i l l b o a r d s out of e x i s t e n c e . The development of downtown was bought under much g r e a t e r c o u n c i l c o n t r o l through v a r i o u s zoning and p r e c e d u r a l changes. The former secrecy of the development process was a b o l i s h e d through new requirements f o r e a r l y p u b l i c n o t i c e and through c r e a t i o n of the Development Permit Board, a l l of whose d e c i s i o n s were made i n p u b l i c meeting. C i t y c o u n c i l i t s e l f began to hold evening meetings to f a c i l i t a t e the appearance and attendance of c i t i z e n s . An i n f o r m a t i o n booth and other i n n o v a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g the r e c o r d i n g of a l l c o u n c i l votes, to f a c i l i t a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n , were intr o d u c e d at c i t y h a l l . 1 6 T h i s r e - s t r u c t u r i n g of c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had major s i g n i f i c a n c e , as Tennant notes, f o r the f u t u r e development of the downtown ar e a . The type of development p o l i c y which emerged resembled none ever known. These i s s u e s are e x p l o r e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 5.2 A f r e s h approach to policymaking C o n s i s t e n t with e a r l i e r downtown redevelopment compaigns, the p l a n n i n g branch of the c i v i c 1 6 Tennant (1980) op. c i t . , pps.19-20. -69-a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p u b l i s h e d between 1968 and 1974 a s e r i e s of p o l i c y documents which addressed the present and f u t u r e s t a t e of CBD development. There were however, two major d i s t i n c t i o n s which set t h i s l a t e r s e r i e s of r e p o r t s apart from those which appeared i n the immediate post-war years up u n t i l 1965. F i r s t l y , there was no longer a sense of urgency expressed about the f u t u r e of the core. These r e p o r t s c o n t a i n e d a new element i n urban policymaking. Questions were asked about what the model of f u t u r e development i n the core should be, r a t h e r than statements d i r e c t e d toward a c h i e v i n g the o b j e c t i v e s of a pre-determined arrangement. Policymakers, thus, began to q u e s t i o n the model of urban o r g a n i z a t i o n which s t i p u l a t e d that the downtown c o u l d remain v i t a l only i f i t developed i n t o a homogeneous commercial d i s t r i c t . The f i r s t p o l i c y r e p o r t to address t h i s q u e s t i o n of f u t u r e growth was the 1968 Vancouver Planning Department p u b l i c a t i o n Downtown Vancouver, Part J_, The I ssues. The dilemma which would plague the course of f u t u r e downtown development was summarized i n the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : What r o l e should downtown p l a y i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n region? Should i t continue to be the m e t r o p o l i t a n c e n t r e , or w i l l other Lower Mainland c e n t r e s e v e n t u a l l y equal downtown i n some f u n c t i o n s , such as r e t a i l t r a d e ? 1 7 1 7 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department Downtown Vancouver, Part I, The Issues (August 1968) p.9. -70-For the f i r s t time, the c e n t r a l r o l e of the downtown was openly questioned. D e f i n i t i v e images and e x p e c t a t i o n s of t h i s d i s t r i c t as the nucleus which supports the m e t r o p o l i t a n organism began to fade. Old methods of r e g u l a t i n g i t s development now appeared o b s o l e t e . The second f e a t u r e of these p o l i c y r e p o r t s was t h a t they were c i r c u l a t e d to numerous community groups i n a d d i t i o n to the more customary business o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Some r e p o r t s where d i s t r i b u t e d through the mail to i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s , i n v i t i n g them to express t h e i r views about downtown i s s u e s . By 1973 the Planning Department had formulated a number of comprehensive p o l i c y matters from t h i s e a r l y p a r t i c i p a t i o n . These were drawn together i n the p u b l i c a t i o n Downtown Vancouver, Part j_, Proposed Goals. In t h i s document a number of i s s u e s were r a i s e d c oncerning housing and the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environment of the downtown; i s s u e s which, up to that time, had never r e c e i v e d o f f i c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the downtown policymaking p r o c e s s . T h i s document was, i n t u r n , c i r c u l a t e d to both a random sample of the p u b l i c at l a r g e , as w e l l as s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups. Responses, p l a c e d on p u b l i c r e c o r d i n December 1973, 1 8 were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o p o l i c y d i s c u s s i o n s through 1974 and Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Report on Submissions to Downtown Vancouver Proposed Goals (December 19731 -71-1975. In a d d i t i o n , the p l a n n i n g commission i n 1974 appointed two s p e c i a l i z e d committees to study the f u t u r e of downtown development. The Downtown Conference Study Team, whose d u t i e s were s i m i l a r to the T e c h n i c a l Planning Board, was made up of c i v i c employees and c o n s u l t a n t s . T h i s Study Team was given the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d i v i s i n g the t e c h n i c a l plans and apparatus through which f u t u r e downtown improvements would develop. Working i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the Study Team was the Downtown Conference Guidance Panel which comprised p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s , academics, planners and business persons. The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s panel was to c o o r d i n a t e p u b l i c and p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n on the proposed g o a l s . These two groups l a t e r submitted separate, though r e l a t e d , r e p o r t s to c i t y c o u n c i l as recommendations f o r the f u t u r e s c e n a r i o of downtown development. 1 9 In essence, the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , r e c o g n i z i n g the need f o r open d i s c u s s i o n of p o l i c y , was attempting to formulate new downtown p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e s i n c o r p o r a t i n g a more generous c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a wide range of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e views than e a r l i e r CBD pl a n n i n g attempts. Never before i n Vancouver had there been a v e h i c l e through which 1 9 Vancouver C i t y Planning Commision, (1) Downtown Study Team, Downtown Vancouver: Planning  concepts f o r f u t u r e development and process f o r c o n t r o l of development. Report f o r d i s c u s s i o n (September 1974) ~[2) Downtown Guidance Panel, Downtown Guidance Report to  C i t y C o u n c i l (December 1974) -72-i s s u e s c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d and exp l o r e d i n the p u b l i c c o n t e x t . New que s t i o n s were now being r a i s e d , and concerned c i t i z e n s were guided through a c c e s s i b l e channels to l e a r n about, respond to, and i n f l u e n c e the d i r e c t i o n of downtown p u b l i c p o l i c y . 5 . 2 A new d i r e c t i o n f o r downtown development The p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e which emerged out of t h i s process was the endorsement of planned r e g i o n a l d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . T h i s was i n accordance with the l i m i t e d growth p r i n c i p l e s endorsed by the r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g board; and i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t to that development o b j e c t i v e which oversaw CBD growth p o l i c y f o r four decades. There were a number of v a l i d reasons f o r t h i s p o l i c y turnaround. F i r s t l y , the s t r e s s being p l a c e d on the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environments by high d e n s i t y growth wes i n evidence, and looked upon with d i s d a i n . Secondly, the monetary expense of growth was now regarded as e x c e s s i v e . As e a r l y as 1968 q u e s t i o n s were r a i s e d whether the C i t y c o u l d a f f o r d to a g g r e s s i v e l y encourage high d e n s i t y development which would r e q u i r e an " i n c r e a s e i n c a p i t a l spending...and p l a c i n g a higher p r i o r i t y on downtown s p e n d i n g . " 2 0 In 1946 Bartholomew had endorsed the CBD as that d i s t r i c t which generated revenues beyond i t s e x penditures, and c o u l d hence support sprawling areas 2 0 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department (August 1968) op. c i t . , p.29. -73-growing toward the p e r i p h e r y . In c o n t r a s t , by 1968 questi o n e s were r a i s e d as to whether the CBD c o u l d support i t s own growth, l e t alone that i n outer areas of the c i t y . The model of downtown development which emerged was one based on the i n t e g r a t i o n of heterogeneous uses. The acceptance of r e g i o n a l d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n meant l i m i t e d commercial development i n the c o r e . Other r e g i o n a l town c e n t r e s were to a t t r a c t a share of those uses f o r t h e i r own development. Consequently, t h i s l o s s i n p o t e n t i a l commercial space had to be compensated f o r by r e - i n c o r p o r a t i n g other uses ( e x c l u d i n g i n d u s t r i a l ) which had been discouraged, and even p r o h i b i t e d i n the p a s t . Given the u n c e r t a i n t y on the part of policymakers that these uses would be at a l l i n c l i n e d to l o c a t e i n the core, that c o n v e n t i o n a l type of zoning r e g u l a t i o n which enabled, but d i d not induce, d e s i r e d development was regarded to be an i n s u f f i c i e n t t o o l to meet the new o b j e c t i v e s of core development. Addressing the Downtown Conference Guidance Panel in 1974 P h i l i p T a t t e r s f i e l d , a landscape a r c h i t e c t , commented on the i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c o n v e n t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n methods: I t i s q u i t e apparent that one area of unanimity which has a l r e a d y emerged i s the u t t e r r e j e c t i o n of zoning as p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d as an e f f e c t i v e method of development c o n t r o l i n t h i s C i t y . . . I suggest that a l l the symptoms of d e t e r i o r a t i o n inherent i n [the C i t y ] are due to our attempts to grapple with 20th century problems of urban development u s i n g -74-19th century concepts... Zoning as i t i s now admin i s t e r e d i s a d i r e c t outgrowth of a " f l a t e a r t h m e n t a l i t y " t y p i f i e d at present by two dimensional h o r i z o n t a l p l a n n i n g methods superimposed on four dimensional problems c a r r y i n g the a d d i t i o n a l elements of space as a volume, and t i m e . 2 1 Hence, upon the recommendation of the j o i n t Downtown Conference committees, c i t y c o u n c i l approved i n November 1975 the rezoning of the e n t i r e downtown area from the c o n v e n t i o n a l commercial d i s t r i c t s to the more f l e x i b l e Comprehensive Development c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 2 2 The d i s j o i n t e d independent commercial zones were merged together i n t o one broad "Downtown D i s t r i c t - DD". I t s fu t u r e development was now put under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of an O f f i c i a l Downtown D i s t r i c t Development Plan which i n c l u d e d p l a n n i n g p r i n c i p l e s and design g u i d e l i n e s s p e c i f i c to the d i s t r i c t i t s e l f ( f i g . 5.3). T h i s type of zoning i n an area as b u i l t - u p as the downtown core was argued to be the only way a zoning mechansim c o u l d be used to guide development. The o b j e c t i v e was to transform t h i s fragmented core i n t o a f u n c t i o n a l l y i n t e g r a t e d and s e l f - c o n t a i n e d area. The f l e x i b i l i t y of these r e g u l a t i o n s allowed policymakers to c r e a t e the necessary l e g a l t o o l f o r in d u c i n g d e s i r e d development, r a t h e r than simply p e r m i t t i n g i t . Fundamental to t h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the core was 2 1 Guidance Panel Minutes, A p r i l 30, 1974 2 2 The downtown had been rezoned i n both 1973 and 1974 as i n t e r i m measures to c o n t r o l development more c l o s e l y d u r i n g t h i s policymaking p e r i o d ( F i g s . 5.1 and 5.2). -75-D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 7 3 INTERIM REZONING CM- I CM-2 C- 5 Source: C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning and  Development By-law, 1973 FIGURE 5.1 D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 7 4 INTERIM R E Z O N I N G C o m m e r c i a l : C M - I m C M - I A C M - 2 [..... \ C M-2 A C - 5 mm H i s t o r i c a l : H A - I H A - 2 mu Source: C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning and  Development By-law, 1974 FIGURE 5.2 D o w n t o w n V a n c o u v e r 1 9 7 5 Z O N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T B Y - L A W D o w n t o w n D i s t r i c t - D D i 1 Source: C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning and  Development By-law, 1975 FIGURE 5.3 the r e - i n c o r p o r a t i o n of a r e s i d e n t i a l component as a 24 hour a c t i v i t y . Noting the importance and c o n t i n u i n g demand f o r commercial space i n the core, policymakers recognized that given the o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e of l i m i t e d commercial development, a developer t a k i n g on a commercial development i n the core would welcome the o p p o r t u n i t y to in c r e a s e the d e n s i t y , and thus the p r o f i t a b i l i t y , of that p r o j e c t . Hence, a channel through which policymakers c o u l d induce r e s i d e n t i a l development i n t o the core was i d e n t i f i e d . Density r e g u l a t i o n s p r o v i d i n g bonuses f o r o v e r a l l or commercial f l o o r area f o r the developer who i n c o r p o r a t e s r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n t o a core commercial development have, thus, become an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the r e v i s e d 1975 by-law. The development of new r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n the core i s d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to the development of commercial space. Much of the development of core housing which has occu r r e d s i n c e the 1975 rezoning has, i n f a c t , been i n c l u d e d i n mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s or developments. These development trends are c l o s e l y examined i n Part II of t h i s t h e s i s . Summary and Conclus i o n s By the l a t e 1960's, i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g urban growth and development became the concern of not only Vancouver business groups, but c i t i z e n a s s o c i a t i o n s as w e l l . P o l i c y g u i d i n g the d i r e c t i o n , and determining the s c a l e of downtown development was now formulated through a more -79-p a r t i c i p a t o r y form of decisionmaking. The fundamental d i f f e r e n c e i n downtown p o l i c y which emerged from t h i s new form of decisionmaking was the acceptance in p r i n c i p l e of a heterogeneous downtown. T h i s was i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t to the g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e of a homogeneous commercial core which d i r e c t e d 40 years of CBD growth p o l i c y . In 1975, i t was agreed that zoning was to remain as the method f o r CBD land use r e g u l a t i o n . The amended form, however, p r o v i d e s bonuses f o r mixed-use developments. T h i s p o l i c y l i n k s together, through p o s i t i v e inducements, the development of two c o n v e n t i o n a l l y incompatible uses i n the c o r e : commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l . Developers, i n theory, viewed t h i s zoning arrangement f a v o u r a b l y , given i t s inducements f o r development i n t h i s c o s t l y Downtown D i s t r i c t . There are a number of q u e s t i o n s which a r i s e from the above d i s c u s s i o n . F i r s t l y , i f t h i s r e s i d e n t i a l development i s l i n k e d to the expansion of the commercial s e c t o r , then how v a l i d i s t h i s acceptance of the r e g i o n a l d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n p r i n c i p l e ? I f , on the other hand, t h i s d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i s a c t u a l l y r e d i r e c t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of commercial f l o o r space to outer c e n t r e s i n the re g i o n , then i s i t t a k i n g away with i t the p o t e n t i a l f o r r e s i d e n t i a l development i n the core? In other words, i s t h i s combination of d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n p o l i c y and r e s i d e n t i a l development p o l i c y l i n k e d to commercial -80-development, i n e f f e c t , s e l f - d e f e a t i n g ? Though t h i s q u e s t i o n remains o u t s i d e the scope of the present a n a l y s i s , i t must be c o n s i d e r e d . Of more immediate concern, however, are q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d at the p r a c t i c a l development response to t h i s compound downtown zoning p o l i c y . Given the i n e x t r i c a b l e l i n k between the development of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l space, has t h i s inducement p o l i c y , i n p r a c t i c e , reduced the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the 'homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t ' approach to urban growth and development? One must q u e s t i o n the f e a s i b i l i t y , from both a marketing and a r c h i t e c t u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e , of the • development of unconventional mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s i n the core which i n c l u d e housing. An e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o recent development trends i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t i s necessary to provide i n s i g h t i n t o the above q u e s t i o n s . P a r t II ,of t h i s t h e s i s examines t h i s development, as w e l l as some of the primary i s s u e s r a i s e d by the development community i t s e l f about the problems and f u t u r e of housing i n the c o r e . -81-PART II Contemporary P r a c t i c e -82-I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s p a r t of the t h e s i s e x p l o r e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between land use p o l i c y and the development of r e s i d e n c e s i n Vancouver's contemporary Downtown D i s t r i c t . The nature and extent of t h i s development i s recorded and examined; f o l l o w e d by an assessment of the development community's response to the 1975 downtown rezo n i n g . In Chapter 6, the nature and extent of the r e s i d e n t i a l development i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t s i n c e the 1975 rezoning i s recorded. Developers i n s t r u m e n t a l i n b r i n g i n g about those land use changes are examined i n Chapter 7. A n a l y s i s of responses to a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e v e a l s the way urban b u i l d e r s d e a l with t h i s unconventional type of CBD development. F i n a l l y , i t i s examined i f , i n f a c t , t h i s p o l i c y has i n c r e a s e d the h e t e r o g e n i t y of the d i s t r i c t by ind u c i n g core housing development. -83-Chapter 6: The Downtown R e s i d e n t i a l Sector T h i s chapter focuses upon the nature and extent of the development of housing i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t s i n c e the 1975 rezoning. In order to comprehend the d i s t i n c t i v e arrangements and ways t h i s housing has been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the co r e , the e x p l i c i t r e g u l a t i o n s which d i r e c t development i n d i f f e r e n t sub-areas of the Downtown D i s t r i c t are examined. 6.j_ Density S u b - d i s t r i c t s i n the Downtown Though c i t y c o u n c i l i n 1975 abandoned the CBD plan which segregated the d i s t r i c t i n t o d i s t i n c t i v e commerical zones, they d i d not ignore the advantages t h i s l e v e l of r e g u l a t i o n had i n monitoring the range of development i n p a r t i c u l a r s u b - d i s t r i c t s of the zone. Hence, while e n a b l i n g r e g u l a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to ac c e p t a b l e uses ( i . e . o f f i c e , r e t a i l , r e s i d e n t i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l ) are -84-a p p l i c a b l e throughout the d i s t r i c t , the arrangements of those uses i n r e l a t i o n t o one another are r e g u l a t e d at a l e v e l s p e c i f i c to i d e n t i f i e d s u b - d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n the zone. Included i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law are a r e a - s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to r e t a i l c o n t i n u i t y , d e n s i t y , height of b u i l d i n g s and p a r k i n g and l o a d i n g . In a d d i t i o n , a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made i n the by-law between these r e g u l a t i o n s , and " i n t e r p r e t a t i v e requirements" 1 which permit v a r i a t i o n s on height l i m i t a t i o n s and the arrangement of s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l amenities and f a c i l i t i e s . The set of s u b - r e g u l a t i o n s which has the g r e a t e s t r e l e v a n c e to the present study c o n t r o l s the d e n s i t y of mixed-use developments which i n c l u d e housing. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 6.1, the Downtown D i s t r i c t i s d i v i d e d i n t o twelve s u b - d i s t r i c t s where development i s r e g u l a t e d by e i g h t d i f f e r e n t d e n s i t y p r o v i s i o n s f o r n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r space. These s u b - d i s t r i c t s can be grouped together on the b a s i s of three c r i t e r i a : 1) areas where the s u b s i t u t i o n of commercial f l o o r space by r e s i d e n t i a l space i s permissable up to three times the s i z e of the l o t (FSR 3.00), but where the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of a development cannot be i n c r e a s e d beyond that set out i n the by-law ( s u b - d i s t r i c t s A, B, C); 2) areas where an i n c r e a s e i n the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of a 1 C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-Law 3575, p.496. -85-Downtown Vancouver 1975 Z O N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T B Y - L A W D o w n t o w n D i s t r i c t D e n s i t y S u b d i s t r i c t s S o u r c e : C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r , Z o n i n g a n d  D e v e l o p m e n t B y - l a w , 1 9 7 5 FIGURE 6.1 development i s permissable only by the a d d i t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l space ( s u b - d i s t r i c t s D, E ) ; and 3) areas where an i n c r e a s e i n the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of a development i s permissable by the : a d d i t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l space which through a bonus mechanism permits an i n c r e a s e of equal magnitude of commercial space ( s u b - d i s t r i c t s F, G, H). The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n e x p l o r e s the extent and type of r e s i d e n t i a l development which has occurred i n each of these s u b - d i s t r i c t s . 6.2 Post-1975 Core Housing Development Given that the highest commercial land v a l u e s i n the C i t y are found i n s u b - d i s t r i c t s A, B and C, i t i s assumed that l i t t l e , i f any, commercial f l o o r space i n these areas would be s u b s t i t u t e d by r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r space. Conventional i n n e r - c i t y housing has t r a d i t i o n a l l y generated l e s s income f o r a landowner than commercial space. Hence, the i n c l u s i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l space i n b u i l d i n g s i n these areas would c o n s t i t u t e the s u b s t i t u t i o n of a more l u c r a t i v e use by a l e s s l u c r a t i v e one, r a t h e r than an i n c r e a s e i n the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of the development as a whole. As expected, there i s only one development which i n c l u d e s r e s i d e n t i a l space i n t h i s group of s u b - d i s t r i c t ( f i g . 6.2). T h i s i s an o f f i c e - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t converted from i n d u s t r i a l and storage use, c o n t a i n i n g 31 u n i t s , or 52,600 square f e e t of r e s i d e n t i a l space, with 23,900 commercial square f e e t . The unique nature of the -87-Downtown Vancouver 1982 Post-1975 Residential Development (sq.ft.) 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 CD 5 0 , 0 0 1 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 EHD 100,001-200,000 nn 200,001-500,000 ^ 500,001-750,000 H i Source: C i t y of Vancouver Development Permit A p p l i c a t i o n s FIGURE 6.2 s t r u c t u r e (heavy timber and masonry c o n s t r u c t i o n , u n s t r u c t u r e d space) and the s i t e (one of the o l d e s t s e t t l e d areas i n the c i t y ) h e l ps to e x p l a i n the developers d e c i s i o n to take on a development i n t h i s s u b - d i s t r i c t , r a t h e r than i n one which p r o v i d e s i n c r e a s e d o v e r a l l d e n s i t i e s f o r the i n c l u s i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l use. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s development i s s i t u a t e d i n a p e r i p h e r a l l o c a t i o n adjacent to the B.C. Place mixed-use development. T h i s uniqueness of l o c a t i o n and c h a r a c t e r permits the developer to set higher p r i c e s f o r these u n i t s than those t y p i c a l l y set f o r more c o n v e n t i o n a l i n n e r - c i t y housing types. In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r development s e l l i n g p r i c e s have been a d v e r t i s e d between $184,000.00 and $490,000.00.2 Hence, i n a development such as t h i s , which o f f e r s a unique and unconventional housing s e r v i c e , the s u b s t i t u t i o n of p o t e n t i a l commercial f l o o r space by r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r space cannot be regarded as a l e s s l u c r a t i v e arrangement. T h i s housing s e r v i c e has become w i t h i n i t s e l f a h i g h - p r i c e d commodity which cannot be r e a d i l y compared with c o n v e n t i o n a l i n n e r - c i t y housing. The second group of s u b - d i s t r i c t s are those where an i n c r e a s e i n the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of a development i s premissable only by the a d d i t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r space. I t i s expected that housing would be more r e a d i l y 2 Vancouver Calander Magazine ( A p r i l 1982) p.119; a l s o see Appendix B. -89-i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a development i n these a r e a s . The two s u b - d i s t r i c t s which make-up t h i s group c o n s t i t u t e two d i s t i n c t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t core e n v i r o n s . Area D, l o c a t e d adjacent to the s i t e of the f u t u r e l a r g e - s c a l e high d e n s i t y mixed-use development B.C. P l a c e , c o n s i s t s of 18.5 c i t y b l o c k s . I t c o n t a i n s predominantly t u r n - o f - t h e - c e n t u r y heavy i n d u s t r i a l - s t o r a g e s t r u c t u r e s , as w e l l as post-war l i g h t manufacturing and wholesale b u i l d i n g s and s u r f a c e car parks which d i s p l a c e d much of the working c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l community d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 2. Area E borders the West End h i g h d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t i a l zone. U n l i k e area D, t h i s s maller s u b - d i s t r i c t , composed of only four c i t y b l o c k s , c o n t a i n s predominantly low d e n s i t y r e t a i l e s t ablishments s t r a d d l i n g both s i d e s of the Robson S t r e e t c o r r i d o r . As i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 6.2, there has been c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l development i n both of these s u b - d i s t r i c t s . There are however, d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e l a t i v e extent and type of development found i n each. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , while area D i s 4.6 times l a r g e r than area E, the extent of r e s i d e n t i a l development i n t h i s area i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than that i n the l a t t e r . In a d d i t i o n , the type of housing in area D d i f f e r s c o n s i d e r a b l y from the more c o n v e n t i o n a l housing i n area E. T h i s r e f e r s to the nature of the s t r u c t u r e , as w e l l as the surrounding environment. These d i s t i n c t i o n s , i t i s assumed, are a f u n c t i o n of both the dominant c h a r a c t e r and permissable d e n s i t i e s i n each a r e a . - 9 0 -Area D has a permissable commercial d e n s i t y of three times the s i z e of the l o t (FSR 3.00) and a maximum r e s i d e n t i a l p r o v i s i o n of two times the s i z e of the l o t (FSR 2.00; or 3.00 i f the commercial component i s reduced to 2.00; f o r , the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y cannot exceed 5.00). The seven mixed-use developments i n t h i s s u b - d i s t r i c t , as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 6.2, i n c l u d e a t o t a l of 108 u n i t s , comprising 130,136 square f e e t of r e s i d e n t i a l space, i n c o n j u n c t i o n with 169,360 square f e e t of commercial f l o o r space. T h i s r e s i d e n t i a l component c o n s t i t u t e s 44% of the t o t a l contemporary mixed-use space i n t h i s s u b - d i s t r i c t ( f i g . 6.3). Hence, not only i s t h i s r e s i d e n t i a l space l o c a t e d i n a predominantly commercial environment, but i t i t s e l f i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o seven s t r u c t u r e s which each have a c o n s i d e r a b l e commercial component as w e l l . Area E has a permissable commercial d e n s i t y three times l e s s than that i n area D, and i f a development i s l o c a t e d on Robson S t r e e t t h i s commercial component must be r e t a i l u s e . 3 Though the r e s i d e n t i a l p r o v i s i o n i s equal to that i n area D (FSR 2.00), among developments which comply with the d e n s i t y p r o v i s i o n s , the r e s i d e n t i a l component c o n s t i t u t e s 81% of the t o t a l mixed-use f l o o r space. Hence, the housing i n t h i s s u b - d i s t r i c t , t o t a l i n g 378 u n i t s , or 294,887 square f e e t a s s o c i a t e d with 291,072 square f e e t of commercial space, i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a predominantly 3 C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-Law 3575, pps.497-498. -91-l Downtown Vancouver 1982 P o s t - 1 9 7 5 R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t ( a s % of m i x e d - u s e space)) 0 - 2 0 % 21 - 4 0 % 41 - 6 0 % 61 - 8 0 % 8 1 - 1 0 0 % • • Source: C i t y of Vancouver Development Permit Applications FIGURE 6.3 r e s i d e n t i a l environment. I t can be concluded t h e r e f o r e , that while i n both areas the p o l i c y which induces r e s i d e n t i a l development through an i n c r e a s e i n o v e r a l l d e n s i t i e s has been e f f e c t i v e , i t has met with more success i n area E. T h i s suggests two t h i n g s . F i r s t l y , developers are more comfortable d e v e l o p i n g r e s i d e n t i a l space i n , or adjacent t o , a more t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t i a l environment. Secondly, there e x i s t s u n c e r t a i n t y i n area D with respect to f u t u r e development given the unknown i m p l i c a t i o n s of the adjacent B.C. Place development. The t h i r d group encompasses f i v e s u b - d i s t r i c t s . Combined, these areas have experienced the g r e a t e s t housing development a c t i v i t y i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . I t i s w i t h i n these areas that a development can exceed the s t i p u l a t e d d e n s i t i e s f o r commercial use i f a r e s i d e n t i a l component i s i n c l u d e d . Given the high land and development c o s t s i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t as a whole, and the r e l a t i v e l y low commercial d e n s i t i e s set i n these p a r t i c u l a r core areas (F, 5.00; G, 4.00; H, 2.00), i t i s w i t h i n these f i v e areas where r e s i d e n t i a l inducements are most important to d e v e l o p e r s . 4 4 The f i v e areas i d e n t i f i e d are r e g u l a t e d by three d i s t i n c t d e n s i t y p r o v i s i o n s f o r areas F, G and H. Since areas F and G are s p l i t i n t o two s u b - d i s t r i c t s each, the set of s u b - d i s t r i c t s have been r e l a b e l l e d F, F1, G, G1 and H ( f i g . 6.1). -93-C o n s i d e r a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l development has taken p l a c e i n a l l of these areas. Area F has 123 u n i t s developed or o f f i c i a l l y approved i n four developments, c o n s t i t u t i n g 156,989 square f e e t of r e s i d e n t i a l space and 761,202 square f e e t of commercial space. T h i s r e s i d e n t i a l component i s 17% of the t o t a l developed mixed-use space i n t h i s s u b - d i s t r i c t . Given the small s i z e of s u b - d i s t r i c t F1 (one c i t y b l o c k ) , i t i s not unexpected that i t has only one development which i n c l u d e s r e s i d e n t i a l space. Eighteen r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s , c o n s t i t u t i n g 25,700 square f e e t are i n c l u d e d with 149,000 square f e e t of commercial space. The r e s i d e n t i a l component of the t o t a l developed mixed-use space i s 15%. S u b - d i s t r i c t G1 c o n t a i n s the g r e a t e s t number of mixed-use developments i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t which i n c l u d e housing, though i n t e r e s t i n g l y , not the g r e a t e s t number of u n i t s , nor square footage of r e s i d e n t i a l space. There are 429 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n c l u d e d i n 10 developments. These u n i t s t o t a l 447,214 square f e e t of developed r e s i d e n t i a l space, with 1,334,058 square f e e t of commercial f l o o r space. The r e s i d e n t i a l component i n t h i s s u b - d i s t r i c t amounts to 25% of the t o t a l mixed-use space developed. T h i s p r o p o r t i o n i s reduced to 20% i f two b u i l d i n g s are excluded: one p e r i p h e r a l development, and a mixed-use development which i n c o r p o r a t e d e n s i t i e s t r a n s f e r e d from s i t e s owned o u t s i d e the s u b - d i s t r i c t . -94-Hence, the r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n s of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l space i n s u b - d i s t r i c t s F, F1 and G1 are s i m i l a r . In a l l cases, the development of a r e s i d e n t i a l component i s dominated by the high l e v e l commercial environment i n which i t i s s i t u a t e d . In c o n t r a s t , s u b - d i s t r i c t s G and H, l o c a t e d on the pe r i p h e r y of. the Downtown D i s t r i c t , c o n t a i n developed or o f f i c i a l l y approved r e s i d e n t i a l space which c o n s t i t u t e s an average of 50% of the t o t a l mixed-use f l o o r space i n the combined a r e a s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , s u b - d i s t r i c t G c o n t a i n s f i v e developments which together have 126 u n i t s t o t a l l i n g 280,528 r e s i d e n t i a l square f e e t (39%) with 449,156 square f e e t of commercial space. S u b - d i s t r i c t H has three developments of t h i s type, with 755 u n i t s developed or approved, c o n s t i t u t i n g 560,805 square fe e t of r e s i d e n t i a l space with 355,056 square f e e t of commercial f l o o r space. Hence, t h i s r e s i d e n t i a l component c o n s t i t u t e s 61% of the t o t a l mixed-use space, the h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n throughout the Downtown D i s t r i c t . An i d e n t i f i a b l e s p a t i a l p a t t e r n of r e s i d e n t i a l development i s d i s c e r n e d i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . S u b s t a n t i a l r e s i d e n t i a l space i s l e a s t l i k e l y to be i n c l u d e d i n a mixed-use development when the s u b - d i s t r i c t borders d i r e c t l y upon s u b - d i s t r i c t A (F, F1 and G1). These areas c o n t a i n a minimal amount of r e s i d e n t i a l space to in c r e a s e the d e n s i t y of the more l u c r a t i v e commercial use. In p e r i p h e r a l s u b - d i s t r i c t s (G, H) l o c a t e d adjacent to -95-r e s i d e n t i a l zones, the i n c l u s i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r space i s more r e a d i l y i n c o r p o r a t e d as a l u c r a t i v e use i t s e l f , c o n s t i t u t i n g 50% or more of s i x of e i g h t mixed-use developments l o c a t e d t h e r e . 6.2 Summary and Con c l u s i o n s Two major c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn from the above a n a l y s i s . F i r s t l y , i t i s suggested that the development of core housing i s n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n of the h i g h e s t d e n s i t y s u b - d i s t r i c t i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . Secondly, i t i s p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n of the West End r e s i d e n t i a l zone. It has been observed that the areas which have experienced the l e a s t amount of core housing development are those which permit commercial development to the highest d e n s i t i e s . In these areas no i n c r e a s e i n d e n s i t i e s of any kind i s permissable, even with the i n c l u s i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l space. These areas are, f o r the most p a r t , the most c e n t r a l i z e d and commercially b u i l t - u p i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . In c o n t r a s t , those areas which have experienced the g r e a t e s t degree of core housing development i n c l u d e two d i s t i n c t sub-areas i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . The area which i n c l u d e s the g r e a t e s t number of developments that i n c l u d e housing are those which border upon the highest d e n s i t y commerical s u b - d i s t r i c t s . These areas however, -96-c o n t a i n the l e a s t p r o p o r t i o n a t e r e s i d e n t i a l component of a l l the s u b - d i s t r i c t s . Conversely, the areas which c o n t a i n the g r e a t e s t proport ionate r e s i d e n t i a l component, though not the g r e a t e s t number of developments that i n c o r p o r a t e a housing component, are those l o c a t e d on the p e r i p h e r y of the Downtown D i s t r i c t , adjacent to the high d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t i a l West End zone. These f i n d i n g s suggest f i r s t l y , that prime i n n e r - c o r e land i s s t i l l most r e a d i l y p e r c e i v e d and developed as high d e n s i t y commercial space. Any p r o v i s i o n s which enable o v e r a l l d e n s i t y i n c r e a s e s w i l l be i n c l u d e d not as an end i n i t s e l f , but as a means to the end of i n c r e a s i n g the commercial component. Secondly, that developers are most comfortable developing core housing as an end i n i t s e l f i n areas adjacent to an e s t a b l i s h e d and r e c o g n i z a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l community. These c o n c l u s i o n s support the no t i o n that the c o n v e n t i o n a l model of urban growth and development which promotes a homogeneous commercial core i s s t i l l accepted i n downtown development p r a c t i c e . However, i n order to grasp a g r e a t e r understanding of the f o r c e s behind the c r e a t i o n of t h i s CBD r e s i d e n t i a l component, qu e s t i o n s a d d r e s s i n g the developers p e r c e p t i o n s of, .and experiences with, core housing development need to be e x p l o r e d . T h i s i s the focus of the f o l l o w i n g chapter. -97-Chapter 7: Core Housing: Experiences and E x p e c t a t i o n s A n a l y s i s of developer's a n t i c i p a t e d and a c t u a l e x periences with core housing development c o n t r i b u t e s to an understanding of the f o r c e s behind the c r e a t i o n of a contemporary CBD r e s i d e n t i a l community. I t r e v e a l s the degree to which urban b u i l d e r s i n p r i n c i p l e , as w e l l as i n p r a c t i c e , accept the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l space i n t o commercial p r o j e c t s . More i m p o r t a n t l y , however, i t e x p l o r e s the degree of support expressed f o r the i n c r e a s e d h e t e r o g e n e i t y of t h i s zone which has c o n v e n t i o n a l l y been r e s e r v e d f o r homogeneous commercial development. 7.J_ Vancouver' s Urban B u i l d e r s A group of 151 m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver lan d developers has been i d e n t i f i e d i n the present a n a l y s i s . 1 T h i s l i s t - 9 8 -has been c o m p i l i e d from telephone l i s t i n g s , 2 attendance at conferences d e a l i n g with downtown development i s s u e s , 3 d i s c u s s i o n s with c i t y planners and developers," and l o c a l member l i s t i n g s of the Housing and Urban Development A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, 5 Within t h i s p o p u l a t i o n only a small p o r t i o n are a c t u a l l y working i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . Furthermore, w i t h i n that sub-group i t s e l f , only a s e l e c t number undertake the development of core mixed-use p r o j e c t s which i n c l u d e housing. The sub-group a c t i v e i n core housing development i s estimated at 45 (Table I ) . T h i s group c o n s t i t u t e s 30% of the t o t a l i d e n t i f i e d m e t r o p o l i t a n developer p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s has been determined by a n a l y s i s of the response r a t e to a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e c i r c u l a t e d i n October 1981 to the 151 developers (Tables 1, 11 ), and from data gathered from development permit a p p l i c a t i o n r e c o r d s . 6 Of the 74 1 T h i s group does not i n c l u d e absentee or f o r e i g n developers a c t i v e i n the r e g i o n , nor Vancouver r e a l e s t a t e brokerage f i r m s . 2 B r i t i s h Columbia Telephone, Vancouver Telephone D i r e c t o r i e s 3 "New L i f e From Old Neighborhoods: The Pl a n n i n g , Design and Re-use of B u i l d i n g s , S t r e e t s and S e r v i c e s at the Urban Core," March 9,1981, Centre f o r Human Settlements, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia; "Housing i n Mixed-Use Developments," Canadian Housing Design C o u n c i l , October 1,1981, Plaza 500 H o t e l , Vancouver, B.C. 4 Dr. Ann McAfee, housing planner, C i t y of Vancouver; Mr. E r i c Crickmore, c e n t r a l area planner, C i t y of Vancouver; Mr. Doug Purdy, s o c i a l planner, C i t y of Vancouver; Mr. Jon H a l l , The Imperial Group; Mr. Michael G e l l e r , Narod Developments, Mr. Greg Nelson, Q u a l i c o Developments; and Ms. C. L e s l e y W i l l i a m s , Cumberland Re a l s e a r c h D i v i s i o n . 5 Housing and Urban Development A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, Membership and S e r v i c e D i r e c t o r y , 1980. New Westminister, B r i t i s h Columbia. -99-Table I. A c t i v e Vancouver Core Housing Developers A c t i v e P o t e n t i a l Responded 16 (53%) 8 (53%) Did not respond 14 (47%) 7 (47%) T o t a l 30 15 TOTAL Core Housing Developer P o p u l a t i o n : 45 Table I I . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Response Rate TOTAL POPULATION 151 Returned 74 (49%) Unanswered 37 (50%) Answered 37 (50%) Gore Housing Developers 16 Future Core Housing Developers 8 Non-Core Housing Developers 13 -100-respondents, 37 (50%) answered the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The remaining 37 (50%) were e i t h e r unanswered, or i n c l u d e d an e x p l a n a t i o n that the respondent was e i t h e r not a c t i v e i n mixed-use development, or i n the core area of the c i t y . Of that group of 37 respondents who answered, 16 had developed mixed-use p r o j e c t s which i n c l u d e housing, while e i g h t were fo r m u l a t i n g plans f o r t h i s type of development. The remaining 13 had never, nor had any p l a n s , to undertake t h i s type of development. If there i s to be any i n f e r e n c e that the repondent's answers express the general a t t i t u d e s and experiences of t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n as a whole, i t must be determined i f t h i s sample c o n s t i t u t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t share of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of m e t r o p o l i t a n d e v e l o p e r s . Although only 24 (15.9%) of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d as a c t i v e or p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e core housing developers responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h i s group does i n f a c t represent a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of that sub-population of core housing developers as a whole. The approximate s i z e of t h i s group of developers was determined u s i n g the format i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table I. F i r s t l y , the share of r e s i d e n t i a l developers known to be a c t i v e i n the core who responded f u l l y to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was i d e n t i f i e d : 16 of 30 (53%); and the group of p o t e n t i a l core housing developers who responded 6 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Q u a r t e r l y Review Vol.8, No.5 (October 1981) and Vol.9, No.1 (January 1982); and Development Permit Board meeting minutes. -101-l i k e w i s e : e i g h t . Secondly, i n order to determine what the share i s of developers who have not engaged i n t h i s type of development, but have f u t u r e plans to do so, and d i d not respond to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ^ i t was necessary to assume that core housing developers behave s i m i l a r l y . By doing so, i t i s presumed that i f 53% of a c t i v e core housing developers responded, than 53% of p o t e n t i a l core housing developers d i d so as w e l l . Given t h i s sub-population of 45 developers, the sample of 24 respondents c o n s t i t u t e s 53% of the t o t a l estimated p o p u l a t i o n of core housing d e v e l o p e r s . Hence, t h i s sample does have c r e d i b i l i t y ; and the a t t i t u d e s and experiences they r e p o r t e d can be i n f e r r e d to be those of the group of core housing developers as a whole. There i s , in a d d i t i o n , that group of 13 respondents who cannot be r e f e r r e d to as core developers, nor core housing d e v e l o p e r s . Given t h e i r responses however, they have expressed an i n t e r e s t i n the development of r e s i d e n t i a l space i n the c o r e . Respondents were not o b l i g e d to i d e n t i f y themselves on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and fewer d i d so i n t h i s group than the former. T h e r e f o r e , i t i s i mpossible to determine to what group of non-core housing developers these respondents belong: core commerical developers, suburban housing or commercial deve l o p e r s , e t c . T h i s group of non-core housing developers however, can be more s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d . I t was determined above -102-that of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of Vancouver m e t r o p o l i t a n d e v e l o p e r s , 45 (30%) can be regarded as a c t i v e or p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e core housing d e v e l o p e r s . Hence, the remainder, 103 (70%), can be regarded as developers who are p r e s e n t l y and p o t e n t i a l l y i n a c t i v e i n core housing development. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , of that group of 103 d e v e l o p e r s , the 37 who r e t u r n e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e unaswered, together with the 53 who d i d not r e t u r n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e at a l l , are c l a s s i f i e d as u n i n t e r e s t e d , as w e l l as i n a c t i v e , i n the development of core housing. Those 13 who d i d r e t u r n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e f u l l y answered, but had never undertaken, nor had any i n t e n t i o n s to undertake, the development of core housing, are i d e n t i f i e d as those developers who are i n t e r e s t e d , though i n a c t i v e , i n t h i s type of development a c t i v i t y . Despite the f a c t that t h i s group i s only a small m i n o r i t y of the m e t r o p o l i t a n developer p o p u l a t i o n , i t does c o n s t i t u t e a body of developers i n the c i t y who have given t h i s type of development conscious c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and t h e i r responses are t h e r e f o r e meaningful. Before proceding with d i s c u s s i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s , the c r e d i b i l i t y of the group of respondents must be expressed i n terms of the development of t h i s type of housing they have done. The t o t a l number of u n i t s developed, or o f f i c i a l l y approved, by t h i s group i s 834, 7 7 T h i s does not i n c l u d e one s t r u c t u r e with 250 u n i t s which was developed not i n response to the inducement p o l i c y , -103-c o n s t i t u t i n g a t o t a l of 889,034 square f e e t of core r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r space. These u n i t s represent 41% of the t o t a l u n i t s b u i l t i n the core, and the area equals 44% of the r e s i d e n t i a l space developed in t h i s d i s t r i c t s i n c e 1975. Since most of the development v a r i a b l e s to be d i s c u s s e d address i s s u e s d e a l i n g with mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s and developments, i t i s necessary to r e p o r t the degree of a c t i v i t y i n t h i s type of core housing development which t h i s sample i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r . None of the 834 u n i t s are independent of a commerical component, with 170 i n three s i n g l e - u s e s t r u c t u r e s which are p a r t of a mixed-use development, and 664 i n c l u d e d i n 17 mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s . Of these 664 u n i t s , 64 are i n c l u d e d with o f f i c e use only; 32 are with o f f i c e use and another use, e i t h e r a p a r k i n g or a r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t y ; 294 are with o f f i c e and r e t a i l use; 24 are i n c l u d e d with o f f i c e , r e t a i l and another use; and 250 are with r e t a i l use o n l y . In a d d i t i o n , there are a number of v a r i a b l e s i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n which draw a t t e n t i o n to the d i f f e r e n t e xperiences of developers of u n i t s i n new s t r u c t u r e s , and developers of u n i t s i n converted s t r u c t u r e s . Of the t o t a l 834 u n i t s which t h i s sample has developed, 720 are i n c l u d e d i n 16 new s t r u c t u r e s , while 114 are c o n v e r s i o n s in four e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s . but as the proto-type f o r mixed-use development i n the core p r i o r to the 1975 r e z o n i n g . -104-There i s no comparative a n a l y s i s i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n based upon the use of the bonus system i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . 8 T h i s i s a r e s u l t of a l l the respondents employing the bonus p r o v i s i o n s a v a i l a b l e i n e i t h e r a l l or some of t h e i r developments; thus making such an a n a l y s i s not only unnecessary, but i m p o s s i b l e . There i s a l s o no s p a t i a l a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d e x p l o r i n g the responses of developers who have developed core housing i n d i f f e r e n t s u b - d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . T h i s i s a r e s u l t of a h i g h l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of developers a c t i v e i n the bonus s u b - d i s t r i c t s adjacent to the high d e n s i t y i n n e r - c o r e . T h i s should be kept i n mind when examining the responses t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 7.2 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e R e s u l t s The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of the mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix A) was to i d e n t i f y the p o p u l a t i o n of developers i n the Vancouver m e t r o p o l i t a n area who develop housing i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t . The second o b j e c t i v e was to i d e n t i f y the degree of ease or d i f f i c u l t y which developers have had, or a n t i c i p a t e , with respect to a wide range of core housing development i s s u e s ; and i n a d d i t i o n , to h e l p 8 The reader i s urged to make re f e r e n c e to the f o l l o w i n g study f o r an e x p l i c i t a n a l y s i s of the f u n c t i o n and e f f e c t s of the present bonus system o p e r a t i n g i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t : Robert M. M i l l e r , "Bonusing Downtown Housing: An E v a l u a t i o n of Goals and Means," Unpublished Master of A r t s t h e s i s (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, September 1982) -105-e x p l a i n some of d i f f e r e n c e s i n behavior between a number of d i s t i n c t i v e sub-groups of d e v e l o p e r s . The responses to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e express a c t u a l and a n t i c i p a t e d experiences not only with an unconventional type of s t r u c t u r a l development (mixed-use), but a l s o with the development of a land use i n the CBD which had been f o r decades one which policymakers sought to d i s p l a c e . The responses to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e v e a l both the degree of acceptance of t h i s type of s t r u c t u r a l and use development in the CBD, but p r o v i d e s i n s i g h t i n t o the way the p u b l i c s e c t o r has managed t h i s development as w e l l . The a n a l y s i s of the responses i s both d e s c r i p t i v e and comparative. F i r s t l y , 13 development v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d along with the reponse of the group as a whole, r e v e a l i n g the degree of d i f f i c u l t y r e p o r t e d on a s c a l e of zero to f o u r . 9 These v a r i a b l e s are i s s u e s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d by a developer when f o r m u l a t i n g plans f o r almost any type of urban r e a l e s t a t e p r o j e c t . L i v a b i 1 i ty S e r v i c e and amenities Financ ing A v a i l a b i l t y of f i n a n c i n g Cost of f i n a n c i n g 9 0: Not a p p l i c a b l e 1: No d i f f i c u l t y 2: Some d i f f i c u l t y , e a s i l y overcome 3: Some d i f f i c u l t y , overcome wi t h good d e a l of e f f o r t 4: Great d i f f i c u l t y -106-C o n s t r u c t i o n Land assembly P u b l i c u t i l i t i e s R e s i d e n t i a l s e c u r i t y P h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n of uses D i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n methods I n s t i t u t i o n a l B u i l d i n g codes C i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n Market ing Tenure d e t e r m i n a t i o n P r i c e d e t e r m i n a t i o n Sub-market i d e n t i f i c a t i o n T h i s d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s i s f o l l o w e d by a comparative a n a l y s i s of the responses of seven d i s t i n c t i v e sub-groups of respondents (Table I I I ) . To gain an understanding of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n behavior between s p e c i f i c d evelopers, a n a l y s i s w i l l c o ncentrate on the f i r s t , t h i r d and f o u r t h sub-groups. T h i s c o n c e n t r a t i o n a i d s i n i s o l a t i n g those f a c t o r s which p l a y the g r e a t e s t r o l e i n encouraging or d i s c o u r a g i n g developers from e n t e r i n g i n t o core housing development. S e r v i c e s and Amenities f o r a CBD R e s i d e n t i a l Community; The most important c o n d i t i o n f o r the development of core housing i s the b e l i e f that a predominantly commercial d i s t r i c t does, i n f a c t , c o n t a i n the necessary s e r v i c e s and -107-Table I I I . Sub-Groups of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Respondents 1) A c t i v e core housing d e v e l o p e r s (present and f u t u r e ) . 2) P r e s e n t l y i n a c t i v e core housing developers, but p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e . 3) A c t i v e i n past core housing development, but i n a c t i v e i n present and f u t u r e . 4) Non-core housing d e v e l o p e r s (past and f u t u r e ) . 5) Core housing developers of new s t r u c t u r e s . 6) Core housing developers of c o n v e r s i o n s . *7) Core housing devleopers of p a r t i c u l a r numbers of u n i t s . *Only fo r Land Assembly v a r i a b l e . - 1 0 8 -amenities f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l community. The t r a d i t i o n a l view d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 3 s t a t e d that the General Business D i s t r i c t d i d not p r o v i d e the necessary s e r v i c e s and amenities f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n , and was thus regarded as an u n s u i t a b l e l i v i n g environment. In a d d i t i o n , i t was agreed that r e s i d e n t i a l space "was not r e a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n with o f f i c e s . " 1 0 Large t r a c t s of semi-suburban land were s p e c i f i c a l l y d esignated f o r the development of homogeneous r e s i d e n t i a l communities where the necessary s e r v i c e s and amenities were to be abundant. T h i s p o l i c y p e r s p e c t i v e has receded i n recent years, t e s t i f i e d to by the unprecedented aim to i n c r e a s e the l i v a b i l i t y of p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n the downtown. T h i s p o l i c y goal has l i t t l e chance of being r e a l i z e d , however, i f i t i s not accepted by those who are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n i n t o the b u i l t form. A s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y of the group of respondents (32 or 86.5%, Table IVa) agree that t h i s d i s t r i c t has no s i g n i f i c a n t d e f i c i e n c y i n the necessary s e r v i c e s and amenities g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with the r e s i d e n t i a l community. T h i s high degree of consenses was unforeseen given the moral nature of the i s s u e . More i n t e r e s t i n g i s the f i n d i n g that the respondents who are not a c t i v e i n the development of core housing support more s t r o n g l y the l i v a b i l i t y of t h i s area than 1 0 Vancouver T e c h n i c a l Planning Board Downtown Vancouver, 1955-1975 (August 1956) p.95 -109-those a c t i v e i n c r e a t i n g the r e s i d e n t i a l community. A l l those developers who have never undertaken t h i s type of development and have no plans to do so i n the f u t u r e , agree that the p r o v i s i o n of the necessary s e r v i c e s and amenities poses l i t t l e or no problem i n the development of core housing. Of the respondents who have developed core housing but have chosen not to do so i n the f u t u r e (Table IVd), 22% express the view that the necessary s e r v i c e s and amenities f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l community do not e x i s t i n the c o r e . Though the percentage i s s m a l l , t h i s may have been one of a combination of f a c t o r s which encouraged these developers to-opt out of t h i s type of development a c t i v i t y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t can be concluded that core housing d e v e l o p e r s , as w e l l as those who are i n t e r e s t e d , though i n a c t i v e , support the view that t h i s d i s t r i c t does c o n t a i n adequate s e r v i c e s and a m e n i t i e s f o r a ^ r e s i d e n t i a l community. That t h i s view i s so widely accepted a l l o w s the i n f e r e n c e that t h i s i s s u e p l a y s a minor r o l e , i f any r o l e at a l l , i n d i s s u a d i n g developers from undertaking t h e i r i n t i a l core housing development. That i t i s not as widely accepted by some experienced core housing developers cannot be overlooked. I t cannot be assumed however, that t h i s acceptance can be u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y extended to the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s and amenities g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with the f a m i l y l i v i n g environment ( i . e . s c h o o l s , r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e s , outdoor - 1 1 0 -p l a y areas, e t c . ) . The t a r g e t e d market f o r t h i s type of i n n e r - c i t y housing i s c h i l d l e s s h o u s e h o l d s 1 1 which supposedly generate l e s s demand f o r community s e r v i c e s than f a m i l y households. There i s however, some i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t i a l development which does provide accomodation f o r f a m i l y l i v i n g . A d i s t i n c t i o n must be made at t h i s p o i n t between such l a r g e s c a l e i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t i a l developments, such as F a l s e Creek South and B.C P l a c e , and the type of s c a t t e r e d , u n r e l a t e d housing development induced by the present Downtown D i s t r i c t p o l i c y . E x t e n s i v e s e r v i c e s needed i n the former community are u s u a l l y i n c l u d e d i n the o v e r a l l development plan f o r the p r o j e c t ; while those s e r v i c e s needed i n a d u l t communities, such as the l a t t e r , are generaly l e s s e x t e n s i v e , and are i n c l u d e d on a p r o j e c t -b y - p r o j e c t b a s i s e x c l u s i v e to p a r t i c u l a r developments. 1 2 In f a c t , i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r a developer to i n c r e a s e the o v e r a l l d e n s i t y of a p r o j e c t i f a r e c r e a t i o n a l or s o c i a l amenity component i s i n c l u d e d i n a downtown development.c(i.e. t e n n i s c o u r t , h e a l t h c l u b , open c o u r t y a r d , e t c . ) . 1 3 The added concern and absolute 1 1 T h i s i s s u e w i l l be more c l o s e l y examined i n a l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n . 1 2 Developments such as 550 Beatty S t r e e t , which p r o v i d e s a t e n n i s court f o r i t s r e s i d e n t s on top of the parking garage, and 1285 West Pender S t r e e t , which i n c l u d e s a h e a l t h c e n t r e , are examples of t h i s type of e x c l u s i v e p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s . 1 3 C i t y of Vancouver,Zoning and Development By-Law 3575, p.505. -111-c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s of i n c l u d i n g these a d d i t i o n s to a development to enhance i t s market value, matched with design g u i d e l i n e s and b u i l d i n g codes which may not be r e a d i l y a d a p t i v e to these l e s s common CBD developments, may have been some of the combination of f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e d to a number of a c t i v e core housing developers o p t i n g out of core housing development. In s p i t e of t h i s group who do not accept as r e a d i l y the l i v a b i l i t y of the downtown, i t cannot be concluded that d e v elopers who are not a c t i v e i n core housing development do not undertake t h i s type of development because they b e l i e v e that t h i s area i s u n s u i t a b l e f o r r e s i d e n t i a l h a b i t a t i o n . On the c o n t r a r y , i t has been d i s c o v e r e d that there i s strong agreement that the s e r v i c e s and amenities needed i n a r e s i d e n t i a l community are, i n f a c t , e i t h e r present i n the downtown, or can be e a s i l y p r o v i d e d . i There i s , i n a d d i t i o n , another group of a c t o r s i n the development process who can reduce the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of both p o l i c y and developer acceptance of a l i v a b l e downtown. If the f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s remain unconvinced of the f e a s i b i l i t y of e i t h e r a downtown r e s i d e n t i a l community, or the type of s t r u c t u r e to be developed, c i v i c g o a ls remain f r u s t r a t e d . D i s c u s s i o n of two p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r s from a f i n a n c i n g p e r s p e c t i v e r e g a r d i n g mixed-use or converted s t r u c t u r e s f o l l o w s . -112-The A v a i l a b i l i t y of F i n a n c i n g : More important than the f i n a n c i e r ' s acceptance of the downtown as a s u i t a b l e l i v i n g environment, i s h i s acceptance of the f e a s i b i l i t y of the p a r t i c u l a r development f o r which f i n a n c i n g i s sought. Hence, the nature of the development i t s e l f , as w e l l as the s t a t u s of the f i r m proposing the development, are primary f a c t o r s which the a v a i l a b i l i t y of f i n a n c i n g r e s t upon. In a r e p o r t prepared i n 1975 examining the then-proposed downtown rezoning, i t was s t r e s s e d that a f t e r meeting with a group of Vancouver developers, a r c h i t e c t s and l e n d e r s , there was s k e p t i c i s m toward any development which "mixed uses i n the same s t r u c t u r e " 1 " because i t was b e l i e v e d that t h i s type of development would " r e s u l t i n a second c l a s s b u i l d i n g , [and] l e n d e r s [were] not prepared to commit f u n d s . " 1 5 T h i s f a c t o r i s c u r r e n t l y important i n the core given that v i r t u a l l y a l l the u n i t s developed or proposed s i n c e the 1975 rezoning are i n c l u d e d i n a mixed-use s t r u c t u r e or development, or even more u n c o n v e n t i o n a l l y , as c o n v e r s i o n s of e x i s t i n g n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s . As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table Va, there i s an even d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses to the a v a i l a b i l i t y of f i n a n c i n g v a r i a b l e . Hence, t h i s aggregate a n a l y s i s lends l i t t l e to 1 4 David Baxter, David Dale-Johnson and Michael Goldberg, Economic Study: Proposed Downtown Zoning R e g u l a t i o n , Prepared f o r the Vancouver C i t y Planning Commision (March 26,1975) p.26. 1 5 I b i d . -113-an understanding of the nature of t h i s f a c t o r . Viewing the responses of the s p e c i f i c groups of developers, those who have plans to undertake t h i s type of development i n the f u t u r e (Table Vb,c) r e p o r t that t h i s i s s u e i s more d i f f i c u l t to manage than those who have no such plans (Table Vd,e). The most apparent d i s p a r i t y which can be i d e n t i f i e d from the responses i s that between those whose developments are of new s t r u c t u r e s , i n most cases mixed-use, and those whose developments i n v o l v e the c o n v e r s i o n of e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s to contemporary r e s i d e n t i a l use. The vast m a j o r i t y of the former (88.6%, Table Vf) r e p o r t that t h i s i s s u e i s of l i t t l e concern, while a s i g n i f i c a n t share (60%, Table Vg) of the l a t t e r agree that i t poses c o m p l i c a t i o n s which are d i f f i c u l t to overcome. T h i s leads to the c o n c l u s i o n that mixed-use development has become more r e a d i l y accepted by the f i n a n c i a l community than a n t i c i p a t e d i n 1975. The acceptance of c o n v e r s i o n developments however, i s not as e v i d e n t . T h i s i s not unexpected given the u n f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c y c l e d s t r u c t u r e s i n a c i t y which, as d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 3, promoted for decades the d e m o l i t i o n of b u i l d i n g s i n the core based upon simply an age c r i t e r i a . The f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d to the c o s t s of f i n a n c i n g are d i s c u s s e d below. These f i n d i n g s must be c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the a v a i l a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e s i n c e to some the a v a i l a b i l t y of f i n a n c i n g i s c o n t i n g e n t upon i t s c o s t s . -114-The Cost of F i n a n c i n g : T h i s v a r i a b l e generated the g r e a t e s t degree of response c o n c e n t r a t i o n than any ot h e r . A t o t a l of 73% of the aggregate group (Table V i a ) agree t h a t t h i s f a c t o r poses a c o n s i d e r a b l e problem, with 64.9% r e p o r t i n g that i t i s among the g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered. Whether the c o s t s of f i n a n c i n g core p r o j e c t s of mixed-use d i f f e r from those of more c o n v e n t i o n a l s i n g l e - u s e developments i s unknown. What i s known however, i s that a systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between t h i s f a c t o r and the d e c i s i o n of whether or not to development core housing. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table VIb,c,d,e, t h i s range of d i f f i c u l t y i s maintained at the more s p e c i f i c l e v e l i n a l l but one case. The only group which does not f i n d t h i s i s s u e to be as d i f f i c u l t are those developers who have developed core housing, but have no plans to do so i n the f u t u r e (Table V Id). T h e i r answers may d i f f e r from c u r r e n t l y or p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e core housing developers because at the time when they f i n a n c e d t h e i r developements the c o s t s were perhaps not as high as the c u r r e n t r a t e . Hence, a strong negative r e l a t i o n s h i p i s i n f e r r e d between the development of core housing and the co s t of f i n a n c i n g . That i s , as f i n a n c i n g c o s t i n c r e a s e , d e c i s i o n s to develop core housing decrease. As a consequence, i t i s concluded that t h i s f a c t o r p l a y s a major d e c i s i v e r o l e i n the i n i t i a l d e c i s i o n to develop core housing; though i t does not u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y e x p l a i n why developers who have been a c t i v e core housing developers have decided to opt out -115-of t h i s type of development. T h i s f a c t o r posed c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y f o r these d e v e l o p e r s , but i n a r e l a t i v e sense, i t was l e s s d i f f i c u l t f o r them than the other developers i d e n t i f i e d . The next group of i s s u e s to be d i s c u s s e d deal with more t a n g i b l e f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to the p h y s i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s type of development. They r e v e a l some important experiences and e x p e c t a t i o n s developers have r e p o r t e d i n t h i s context which should not be overlooked. Land Assembly in the CBD: One of the g r e a t e s t d e t e r r a n t s to e x t e n s i v e downtown redevelopment i s b e l i e v e d to be the lack of l a r g e , singly-owned t r a c t s of developable l a n d . As d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 4, the C i t y i n the 1960's took on the task of land assembly i n an attempt to r e c t i f y t h i s problem. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table V i l a , the vast m a j o r i t y of respondents (70.2%) r e p o r t that t h i s i s s u e i s not a major d e t e r r a n t to downtown core housing development. However, between the group of developers who have developed core housing and plan to do so i n the f u t u r e (Table V l l b ) , and those who have developed core housing but do not have plans to do so the f u t u r e (Table V l l d ) , there i s a d i s p a r i t y , with 19% fewer i n the l a t t e r group agreeing that t h i s f a c t o r i s e a s i l y managed. What i s beginning to emerge i s a p i c t u r e of the combination of f a c t o r s which dissuaded a c t i v e core housing developers from c o n t i n u i n g t h i s -1 16-a c t i v i t y i n the f u t u r e . A d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s which c o n t r i b u t e to the c o n c l u s i o n that developers on the whole do not f i n d t h i s f a c t o r to pose s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f i c u l t y , are s p e c i f i c to the s i z e and type of development i t s e l f . Given the f i n d i n g s i l l u s t r a t e d i n T ables V I I f , g , h , i , j i t cannot be concluded that a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between the s i z e of a core housing development and the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n the land assembly p r o c e s s . Of the f i v e c a t a g o r i e s of developers c l a s s i f i e d on the b a s i s of the number of u n i t s developed, three r e p o r t that t h i s f a c t o r poses l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . 1 6 I n t e r e s t i n g l y , some developers who have developed the s m a l l e s t and l a r g e s t number of u n i t s report as w e l l that land assembly i s a problem which can be overcome. The other f i n d i n g r e l a t e d to the p h y s i c a l nature of the development i t s e l f i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Tables V l l k and m. It i s s u r p r i s i n g that while a strong m a j o r i t y of conver s i o n developers agree that t h i s i s e i t h e r no f a c t o r at a l l , or poses no d i f f i c u l t y (80.0%), 20.0% re p o r t that some d i f f i c u l t y i s encountered. T h i s i s unexpected given that i f one i s c o n v e r t i n g a s t r u c t u r e which a l r e a d y e x i s t s , the task of land assembly i s ov e r t e d . What t h i s f i n d i n g 1 6 Given that few developers have developed more than one, and i n some cases two, developments which i n c l u d e core housing u n i t s , i t i s safe to r e j e c t the no t i o n that c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based upon the t o t a l number of u n i t s developed i n d i c a t e s l i t t l e with respect to the number of u n i t s per development. -117-suggests i s that some con v e r s i o n s i n c l u d e the development of a d d i t i o n s t o , or i n c o n j u n c t i o n with, the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e . The p r o v i s i o n of a parking or r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t y , as d i s c u s s e d i n an e a r l i e r s e c t i o n , may e x p l a i n t h i s unexpected f i n d i n g . P r o v i s i o n of P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s : Given that the downtown area i s the most b u i l t - u p and c o n t a i n s amongst the o l d e s t and most worn plumbing, drainage, sewage and e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t i e s i n the c i t y , the p r o v i s i o n of new s e r v i c e s i n c u r r e n t developments c o u l d pose some d i f f i c u l t y i n the development p r o c e s s . The c o - o r d i n a t i o n of new with e x i s t i n g u t i l i t i e s , though a f a c t o r i n almost a l l developments, may pose an a d d i t i o n a l problem when the development i n c l u d e s a r e s i d e n t i a l component i n an area which has served the l e s s demanding u t i l i t y needs of a commerical d i s t r i c t . The aggregate developer response to t h i s i s s u e i n d i c a t e s that t h i s matter i s not one of c o n s i d e r a b l e concern i n Vancouver's core, with the vast m a j o r i t y (70.3%, Table V i l l a ) e i t h e r not concerning themselves with i t at a l l , or f i n d i n g no d i f f i c u l t y i n p r o v i d i n g the necessary u t i l i t i e s . T h i s i s perhaps p a r t i c u l a r l y the case i n Vancouver's downtown cor e , as w e l l as other p r o g r e s s i v e c e n t r e s where there has been an a c t i v e pace of development over the l a s t decade. Developers i n c i t i e s with more depressed c e n t r e s may f i n d t h i s to be a s i g n i f i c a n t problem f o r both commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l redevelopment. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Tables VIIIb,c,d,e the aggregate response that t h i s i s s u e i s q u i t e manageable i s maintained by the s p e c i f i c sub-groups of d e v e l o p e r s . More i n t e r e s t i n g are the f i n d i n g s i l l u s t r a t e d i n T ables V H I f and g, which r e v e a l that developers of new s t r u c t u r e s have g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y than conve r s i o n developers i n p r o v i d i n g the necessary p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s . T h i s d i s p a r i t y i s unexpected given that the converted s t r u c t u r e s c o n t a i n o l d u t i l i t i e s and hook-ups, and were, f o r the most p a r t , f o r m a l l y i n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l use. Though minor d i s p a r i t i e s do e x i s t , i t can be concluded that t h i s f a c t o r i n the development of core housing does not p l a y a d e c i s i v e r o l e i n the d i r e c t i o n of a developer's development d e c i s i o n . R e s i d e n t i a l S e c u r i t y : Related to s u i t a b l i t y of the core as a l i v i n g environment, and the p h y s i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n f a c t o r s of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n t h i s d i s t r i c t , i s the p r o v i s i o n of s e c u r i t y f o r these u n i t s , e s p e c i a l l y when i n c l u d e d as a component of a mixed-use development. The i n a b i l i t y to monitor the heavy c o n c e n t r a t i o n of unacquainted i n d i v i d u a l s i n the CBD, u n l i k e the i n f o r m a l community-watch systems sometimes found in neighborhoods where r e s i d e n t s are f a m i l i a r with those who both l i v e and work i n the area, might pose s e c u r i t y problems f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s l o c a t e d i n predominantly commercial d i s t r i c t s . 1 7 -119-The f i n d i n g s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table IXa however, r e v e a l that t h i s f a c t o r i s of l i t t l e concern to Vancouver d e v e l o p e r s . I t should be noted however, that while the group as a whole r e j e c t any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f i c u l t y , 45.9% d i d r e p o r t that some d i f f i c u l t y does i n f a c t e x i s t , though i t i s e a s i l y overcome. T h i s g e n e r a l breakdown e x i s t s as w e l l f o r the s p e c i f i c sub-groups of de v e l o p e r s . Given that t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i s one which i s e a s i l y overcome, i t i s assumed to be an a r c h i t e c t u r a l problem ( i . e . secure entrances, l o b b i e s and s t a i r w e l l s , and the p h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n of uses w i t h i n one s t r u c t u r e ) , r a t h e r than an i n s t i t u t i o n a l problem ( i . e . p o l i c e s e c u r i t y ) . I t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e whether the problems of core r e s i d e n t i a l s e c u r i t y which might n e c e s s i t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c t i f i c a t i o n are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the developer. Those f a c t o r s which can be d e a l t with by the developer are those which i n v o l v e the p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y of the b u i l d i n g , r a t h e r than the s e c u r i t y of the area i n which the b u i l d i n g i s l o c a t e d . In c o n c l u s i o n , the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered and a n t i c i p a t e d p r o v i d i n g s e c u r i t y f o r r e s i d e n c e s i n the core are i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Hence, t h i s v a r i a b l e p l a y s a minor I t has been c i t e d t h a t "combing commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t i e s i n the same neighborhood may breed c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y [wherby] c r i m i n a l s [are] more prone to v i c t i m i z e r e s i d e n t s of neighborhoods i f they were drawn to business establishments i n those ar e a s . " ("Study Sees More Crime i n Mixed Neighborhoods," The New York Times ( J u l y 11,1982) p.15. -120-r o l e , i f any r o l e at a l l , i n the d e c i s i o n to undertake or a v o i d housing development i n Vancouver's Downtown D i s t r i c t . T h i s f a c t o r however, may pose g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y i n a c i t y with a d e c l i n i n g c o r e . P h y s i c a l S e p a r a t i o n of Uses and D i f f e r i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n  Methods : An issue which generated c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n at a conference h e l d i n the C i t y on housing i n mixed use d e v e lopments 1 8 was the p h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n of the r e s i d e n t i a l and the commercial components i n a mixed-use development. T h i s i s s u e i s l i n k e d f i r s t l y to the need f o r r e s i d e n t i a l s e c u r i t y ; and secondly, to the d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n methods employed f o r these two uses. The c o - o r d i n a t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l cement or f l a t s l a b c o n s t r u c t i o n with c o n v e n t i o n a l commercial s t e e l frame c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a p o t e n t i a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l problem i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of housing i n a mixed- use development. So, while the p h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n of uses i n a mixed-use development which i n c l u d e s housing i s necessary f o r s e c u r i t y and marketing purposes, i t too i s compulsory from an a r c h i t e c t u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e i f c o n v e n t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n methods are employed. Addressing f i r s t the i s s u e of s e p a r a t i n g uses, the aggregate responses do not r e v e a l a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y (Table Xa). The s p e c i f i c sub-groups however, "Housing in Mixed-Use Developments," op. c i t . -121-r e v e a l unexpected f i n d i n g s . The developers who report g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y are those who have been a c t i v e , but have no plans to remain so i n the f u t u r e (Table Xd), and t h e i r o p p o s i t e s , developers who have not been a c t i v e , but have plans to be so i n the f u t u r e (Table X c ) . The other developers (Table Xb and c) report few a c t u a l or a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s r e l a t e d to t h i s a r c h i t e c t u r a l f a c t o r . T h i s v a r i a b l e i s more r e a d i l y understood i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the responses to the c o n s t r u c t i o n methods v a r i a b l e addressed. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Tables XIa-g, the responses to t h i s i s s u e are almost i d e n t i c a l to those given f o r the s e p a r a t i o n of uses. Hence, the l e s s c o s t l y c o n s t r u c t i o n method employed in r e s i d e n t i a l development has been, and i s a n t i c i p a t e d to be, s u c c e s s f u l l y c o - o r d i n a t e d i n mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s with the more c o s t l y s t e e l frame method employed f o r commercial use. T h i s c o - o r d i n a t i o n , however, has, and i s a n t i c i p a t e d to pose, f o r a small number of developers, c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y which i s not e a s i l y overcome. Nonetheless, while i t was put f o r t h i n 1975 that h i s f a c t o r may c r e a t e c o n s i d e r a b l e development problems f o r mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s which i n c l u d e housing, i t i s not r e v e a l e d that i t p l a y s a major r o l e i n the d e c i s i o n of whether or not to i n c l u d e r e s i d e n t i a l space i n a mixed-use p r o j e c t . R e l a t e d to these a r c h i t e c t u r a l concerns are two - 1 2 2 -i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s which p l a y an important r o l e i n the development of any s t r u c t u r e . These i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s p l a y a more important r o l e i n the development of unconventional mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s which i n c l u d e housing. I n s t i t u t i o n a l Issues: Though b u i l d i n g codes and design g u i d e l i n e s are r e g u l a t i o n s which the developer of any development must comply with, these c o n s t r a i n t s can be more acute f o r developments which i n c l u d e more than one d i s t i n c t use, e s p e c i a l l y r e s i d e n t i a l . The c o - o r d i n a t i o n of more ex t e n s i v e r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g , f i r e and urban l i v i n g d e s i gn r e g u l a t i o n s with those r e q u i r e d f o r commercial s t r u c t u r e s can generate c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y . In a d d i t i o n , the a n x i e t y f e l t toward c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t o r s charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e n f o r c i n g these r e g u l a t i o n s can pose s i g n i f i c a n t development problems. Given that some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered with one of these v a r i a b l e can be t r a n s f e r e d to the other, they cannot be d i s c u s s e d i n d e p e n t d e n t l y . For i n s t a n c e , i f a developer i s having d i f f i c u l t y complying with n a t i o n a l b u i l d i n g , f i r e and h e a l t h codes, and thus cannot ob t a i n a r e q u i r e d permit, the a n x i e t y f e l t toward the r e g u l a t i o n i t s e l f can be t r a n s f e r r e d to the c i v i c o f f i c i a l r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s enforcement. The reverse c o u l d a l s o be the case i f a troublesome p u b l i c servant c r e a t e s extraneous problems f o r a developer who i s not able to comply with a p a r t i c u l a r " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n requirements". -123-Viewing Table X l l a , i t i s apparent that 64.8% of the group as a whole agree that compliance with b u i l d i n g codes i s e a s i l y overcome. T h i s p r o p o r t i o n however, does not remain constant among the s p e c i f i c groups of d e v e l o p e r s . The most apparent d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s between those who have f u t u r e plans to develop core housing and those who do not (Table XIIb,c and d,e) r e g a r d l e s s of the nature t h e i r past experience. I t can be concluded t h e r e f o r e , that compliance with b u i l d i n g codes and design g u i d e l i n e s p l a y s a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the d e c i s i o n to formulate f u t u r e plans to develop core housing. In a d d i t i o n , developers who are p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e i n t h i s type of development (Table XIIc) do not f i n d there to be problems as s i g n i f i c a n t as r e p o r t e d by other d e v e l o p e r s . T h i s suggests that perhaps codes are i n the process of being amended, becoming e a s i e r to comply with. T h i s v a r i a b l e p l a y s an important r o l e i n attempting to determine why some developers do not enter i n t o t h i s type of development at a l l , and why other developers become i n a c t i v e a f t e r involvement. A d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s between a c t i v e core housing developers who have plans to remain a c t i v e i n the f u t u r e , and the developers i d e n t i f i e d above, with fewer a c t i v e developers encountering d i f f i c u l t y . Hence, i t can be concluded that t h i s f a c t o r p l a y s an important r o l e i n , f i r s t l y , determining which developers develop core housing, and secondly, which developers decide to continue t h i s development of core housing, and which -124-choose to adandon i t . An a d d i t i o n a l d i s p a r i t y e x i s t between developers of new s t r u c t u r e s (Table X l l f ) , and those who undertake the co n v e r s i o n of e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s (Table X l l g ) . A l a r g e r p o r p o r t i o n of conver s i o n developers (40%) c l a i m that c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t i e s are encountered with t h i s v a r i a b l e . T h i s d i s p a r i t y i s expected given the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n c o n v e r t i n g o l d e r commercial s t r u c t u r e s to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Compliance with b u i l d i n g codes cannot be c o n s i d e r e d without d i s c u s s i o n of a c t u a l and a n t i c i p a t e d experience with the c i v i c o f f i c i a l s . The responses to t h i s i s s u e are even more severe than those f o r codes and r e g u l a t i o n s . The m a j o r i t y of developers as a whole (59.5%, Table X l l l a ) r e p o r t that c o m p a t i b i l i t y with the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n poses c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y . As suggested e a r l i e r , ( i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine whether or not t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i s a f u n c t i o n of the o f f i c i a l s themselves, or the r e g u l a t i o n s they are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n f o r c i n g . There does e x i s t s however, a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n who b e l i e v e t h i s poses great d i f f i c u l t y than those responding t o b u i l d i n g codes and r e g u l a t i o n s . Among the group of developers who have developed core housing there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s p a r i t y between those who have chosen to remain a c t i v e (Table X H I b ) and those who have not (Table X U I d ) , with the l a t t e r r e p o r t i n g g r e a t e r -125-d i f f i c u l t y . Even more d e c i s i v e i s the response from those who are c u r r e n t l y and p o t e n t i a l l y i n a c t i v e i n core housing development. The p r o p o r t i o n of developers i n each sub-group who r e p o r t that t h i s i s s u e poses great d i f f i c u l t y procede as f o l l o w s : 28.6% f o r c u r r e n t l y and p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e ; 50% f o r c u r r e n t l y i n a c t i v e , but p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e ; 66.7% f o r c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e , but p o t e n t i a l l y i n a c t i v e ; and 77% f o r c u r r e n t l y and p o t e n t i a l l y i n a c t i v e core housing d e v e l o p e r s . The c o n s e c u t i v e order of these responses r e v e a l s t h a t there e x i s t s a systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s v a r i a b l e and the d e c i s i o n both to take on an i n i t i a l core housing development, and to continue to be a c t i v e i n development. A d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s between those who develop new s t r u c t u r e s (Table X l l l f ) and those who are a c t i v e i n c o n v e r s i o n s (Table X H I g ) . The c o n v e r t e r s c l a i m to have l e s s d i f f i c u l t y with c i v i c o f f i c i a l s than developers of new s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s i s i n t e r e s t i n g given that i n the case of compliance with codes and r e g u l a t i o n s the f i n d i n g s are o p p o s i t e . T h i s suggests that those a c t i v e i n c o n v e r s i o n developments have been s u c c e s s f u l i n s e p a r a t i n g t h e i r e xperiences with the codes from t h e i r experiences with the c i v i c o f f i c i a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r enforcement. T h i s i s not unexpected s i n c e i t i s r e a d i l y accepted that these c o n v e r s i o n s t r u c t u r e s are i n need of upgrading to c u r r e n t standards. -126-I t i s now necessary to turn to a n a l y s i s of the f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the marketing of these u n i t s . There are three f a c t o r s which r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h i s c o n t e x t : tenure d e t e r m i n a t i o n , p r i c e d e t e r m i n a t i o n and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a f e a s i b l e submarket f o r the consumption of these u n i t s . Tenure Determination: Whether a development i s l o c a t e d i n the core or not, there are a number of tenure f a c t o r s which the developer of housing i n a mixed-use s t r u c t u r e must c o n s i d e r . The most important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s whether or not the developer i s i n t e r e s t e d i n a long- or short-term investment. I f i t i s the former, management of r e n t a l accomodations i s c o n s i d e r e d ; i f i t i s the l a t t e r , the developer i s i n c l i n e d to s e l l the u n i t s . Given the i n s t a b i l i t y of the present enconomy, there i s l i t t l e m o t i v a t i o n f o r a developer to t i e up c a p i t a l i n a long-term investment. E s c a l a t i n g i n f l a t i o n and s h i f i n g -i n t e r e s t r a t e s prompt one to seek a r e t u r n on an investment before i t becomes subject to deminishing market i n f l u e n c e s . T h i s i s one f a c t o r which discourages investment i n t o the development of r e n t a l u n i t s . Another concern i s the c o n t r o l of r e n t s and tax s h e l t e r s by the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments. In the r e p o r t prepared i n 1975 i t was s t r e s s e d that while measures to c o n t r o l the rent l e v e l s i n the p r o v i n c e are only a p p l i c a b l e f i v e years a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n , and on u n i t s which rent at low to moderate l e v e l s , -127-. . . u n c e r t a i n t y with respect to c u r r e n t l a n d l o r d - t e n a n t l e g i s l a t i o n (rent l e g i s l a t i o n ) and p o s s i b l e f u t u r e l e g i s l a t i o n was argued to be a major impediment to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of any form of r e s i d e n t i a l r e n t a l a c comodation. 1 9 Though these c o n t r o l s are now being abandoned, that u n c e r t a i n t y i s assumed to p e r s i s t today given recent a c t i o n s taken toward nationwide tax s h e l t e r programmes. These p u b l i c p o l i c y concerns, i n a d d i t i o n to d i r e c t economic f a c t o r s , enter i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n of tenure type, and dessuade developers from t a k i n g on longe-range r e n t a l development. The a l t e r n a t e mode of tenure employed i s condominium or s t a t a - t i t l e ownership. The s a l e of u n i t s generates a q u i c k e r r e t u r n on investment than management of r e n t a l accomodations. I t , i n a d d i t i o n , avoids the u n c e r t a i n t y of p o s s i b l e f u t u r e l e g i s l a t i o n which might hinder the r a t e of r e t u r n on a long-term investment. T h i s does not pr e c l u d e c o n v e r s i o n from condominium to r e n t a l by the buyer a f t e r the s a l e . T h i s however, has no e f f e c t on the developer's rate of r e t u r n s i n c e he has a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d payment f o r the u n i t . There i s , nonetheless, a problem when t h i s type of tenure i s a p p l i e d to a mixed-use s t r u c t u r e or development. Again as d i s c u s s e d i n the 1975 r e p o r t , i t was b e l i e v e d that the c o - o r d i n a t i o n of n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l s t r a t a l o t s would generate a great d e a l 1 9 Baxter, Dale-Johnson and Goldberg (1975) op_. c i t . , p25. -128-of l e g a l inconvenience and d e b a t e . 2 0 In a d d i t i o n , the "co - e x i s t e n c e of two s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n s i n the same b u i l d i n g under an umbrella c o r p o r a t i o n " 2 1 was i n t e r p r e t e d to be o u t s i d e the the e n a b l i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n of the S t r a t a - T i t l e s A c t . Thus, these problems would reduce the amount of f l e x i b i l i t y a developer might have i n f a c i l i t a t i n g "the ongoing o p e r a t i o n of a mixed-use s t r a t a p l a n . " 2 2 Hence, when the p r a c t i c a l i t y of mixed-use developments was expl o r e d p r i o r t o the 1975 rezoning, n e i t h e r r e n t a l nor s t r a t a - t i t l e d u n i t s were seen to pro v i d e the necessary c e r t a i n t y , f r e e from economic and i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , to make the i n c l u s i o n of housing f e a s i b l e . The marked degree of consensus among almost a l l the developers r e v e a l s that there i s l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y encountered or a n t i c i p a t e d with t h i s f a c t o r . T h i s suggests that tenure d e t e r m i n a t i o n does not pose d i f f i c u l t i e s as complex as assumed i n the 1975 study. Of the group as a whole, 83.8%(Table XlVa) agree that t h i s i s s u e i s e i t h e r not a p p l i c a b l e , generates no d i f f i c u l t y at a l l , or poses problems which are e a s i l y overcome. The l a r g e group of those who re p o r t that t h i s i s s u e i s not a p p l i c a b l e (35.1%) suggests that there e x i s t s f o r these developers l i t t l e c h o i c e of tenure type, o p t i n g almost 2 0 I b i d . , p.15. 2 1 I b i d . 2 2 I b i d . -1 29-i n t u i t i v e l y f o r , i n most cases, s t r a t a - t i t l e . In a comparative c o n t e x t , almost no d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s between the sub-groups of de v e l o p e r s . If a f a c t o r i s sought to e x p l a i n why some developers are a c t i v e , and others i n a c t i v e , i n the development of core housing, there i s no i n d i c a t i o n that t h i s f a c t o r p l a y s a r o l e i n that d i s t i n c t i o n . In f a c t , those who have not developed core housing and have no f u t u r e plans to do so r e v e a l the g r e a t e s t degree of consensus (92.3%, Table XlVe) that t h i s i s s u e poses problems which are e a s i l y overcome. P r i c e Range: The m a r k e t a b i l i t y of a l l r e a l e s t a t e development i s contingent upon a f e a s i b l e economic rent or s a l e p r i c e . Given the high c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s and e s c a l a t e d land values i n the Downtown D i s t r i c t , i t i s expected that those c o s t s are passed on to the re n t e r or purchaser ,of a commericial or housing u n i t . P r i c e d e t e r m i n a t i o n problems can be c o n s i d e r a b l e f o r core housing given that r e s i d e n t i a l space, with i t s lower d e n s i t i e s , generates c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s p r o f i t f o r a landowner than commercial uses. T h i s f a c t o r , as d i s c u s s e d in e a r l i e r c h a pters, p l a y e d a d e c i s i v e r o l e i n changing the form of the past CBD land use s t r u c t u r e . A developer must then set the p r i c e f o r core housing u n i t s at a l e v e l which i s comparable with commercial r a t e s . T h i s p r i c e , however, must not only be f e a s i b l e from a p r o f i t p e r s p e c t i v e , but from a marketing -1 30-p e r s p e c t i v e as w e l l . Making such u n i t s marketable to as many consumers as p o s s i b l e i s a task expected to pose c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y when the p r i c e set must be set a u t o m a t i c a l l y higher than elsewhere i n the c i t y . The f i n d i n g s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table XV, r e v e a l some i n c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d s . The developers as a whole (Table XVa) r e f u t e the expected d i f f i c u l t i e s with 81% agreeing that i f any d i f f i c u l t y e x i s t s , i t i s e a s i l y overcome. T h i s task however, i s even more d i f f i c u l t than p e r c e i v e d by i n a c t i v e core d e v e l o p e r s . There i s overwelming agreement among in e x p e r i e n c e d core housing developers (100%, Table XVe) that any d i f f i c u l t i e s which might emerge when determining a f e a s i b l e p r i c e range can be e a s i l y overcome. In c o n t r a s t , there i s l e s s agreement among experienced core housing developers that there are problems stemming from t h i s f a c t o r which are managable. A d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s between the developers of new s t r u c t u r e s and the developers of converted s t r u c t u r e s , with 28.9% of the l a t t e r r e p o r t i n g g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y . T h i s can perhaps be a t t r i b u t e d to the lengthy c o n v e r s i o n p e r i o d and higher c o s t sometimes accrued when c o n v e r t i n g an e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e from one use to another. I t was, i n f a c t , estimated by a c o n v e r s i o n developer i n the C i t y t h a t the c o s t s of development had " i n c r e a s e d 40% as a r e s u l t of meeting the B u i l d i n g Code." 2 3 In a d d i t i o n , given the 2 3 Bruno Freschi,Human Settlement Issues, New L i f e From Old  Neighborhoods: The Plan n i n g , Design and Re-use of -131-unique and unconventional nature of the housing s e r v i c e s which these u n i t s p r o v i d e , the p r i c e s set f o r t h e i r rent or s a l e can be exceedingly h i g h . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Submarket: Included i n the marketing process i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a submarket of consumers f o r the consumption of core housing u n i t s . R e l a t e d to the s u i t a b i l i t y of the core as a l i v i n g environment, i t i s expressed by policymakers and developers a l i k e that t h i s housing i s not geared toward the f a m i l y o r i e n t e d market. T h i s e x c l u s i o n , however does not r e a d i l y determine the household type l i k e l y to opt f o r t h i s l i v i n g environment. There i s a wide range of household types o u t s i d e the realm of f a m i l y o r i e n t e d households which too are not expected to opt f o r the urban l i f e s t y l e p r o v i d e d by these u n i t s . Whether i t i s a matter of p r e f e r e n c e however,has l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e when, f o r the most p a r t , i t i s the c o s t of t h i s housing which excludes not only some who have no pr e f e r e n c e f o r i t , but some who do as w e l l . Comments i n the returned q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n c l u d e d such a s s e r t i o n s as "there are no r e s i d e n t buyers" f o r , s u c h housing, and that "there i s no str o n g p e r c e i v e d market, except f o r 'executive s u i t e s . ' " As e x p l a i n e d by a Vancouver a r c h i t e c t i n a recent newspaper i n t e r v i e w , such B u i l d i n g s , S t r e e t s and S e r v i c e s at the Urban Core, O c c a s i o n a l Papers, No.18, (Vancouvr, B r i t i s h Columbia: The Centre f o r Human Settlements, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1981 -132-apartments are "intended to be q u i t e l u x u r i o u s u n i t s f o r h i g h - c l a s s e x e c u t i v e s ; " 2 " with a lawyer and a c t i v e core housing developer adding that "the kind of tenants we have are companies and e x e c u t i v e s . . . I t won't be a t t r a c t i n g the t y p i c a l r e s i d e n t i a l m a r k e t . " 2 5 As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table XVIa, the developer community as a whole i s much l e s s i n agreement over the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered with t h i s task than more t a n g i b l e i s s u e s , such as a r c h i t e c t u r a l or i n s t i t u t i o n a l problems, though the m a j o r i t y (63.8%) r e f u t e any severe d i f f i c u l t y . The most important d i s p a r i t y r e v e a l e d i n d i c a t e s t hat a g r e a t e r share of formerly a c t i v e but p o t e n t i a l l y i n a c t i v e core housing developers (Table XVId) experienced g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s i s s u e than any other group. Important as w e l l , i s the f i n d i n g that a s i g n i f i c a n t m a j o r i t y of developers who are c u r r e n t l y and p o t e n t i a l l y u n i nvolved i n core housing development a n t i c i p a t e that t h i s i s s u e poses minor problems which are e a s i l y managed (76.9%, Table XVIe). Two c o n c l u s i o n s can be formulated from these f i n d i n g s . F i r s t l y , the a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y a submarket of housing consumers to make the development of core housing a p r o f i t a b l e endeavor p l a y s a r o l e i n a developers d e c i s i o n to continue or abandon core housing development. 2 " K r i s t i n Jackson, "A new face on downtown Vancouver," The Province , The Magazine (August 2,1981) p.2. 2 5 I b i d . -133-Secondly, t h i s f a c t o r has l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the i n i t i a l d e c i s i o n to be or not to be a c t i v e i n core housing development. Summary and Con c l u s i o n s There are a number of c o n c l u s i o n s which can be drawn about a c t u a l and a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the development of core housing. The f i r s t set of c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn from the aggregate response to the v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d . The second set addresses the f a c t o r s which e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n c e s i n the behaviour between the s p e c i f i c developer groups i d e n t i f i e d . F i n a n c i n g i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n mixed-use development. Although the a v a i l a b i l i t y of of f i n a n c i n g i s a problem, i t i s not as severe as the cost f a c t o r . Those f a c t o r s stemin-g from i n t e r a c t i o n with the p u b l i c s e c t o r at the m u n i c i p a l l e v e l are amongst the most troublesome encountered. T h i s has great consequence, f o r i t suggests that while c i t y policymakers are attempting to induce the development of core housing, the a c t u a l development process has been, and perhaps more imp o r t a n t l y , i s a n t i c i p a t e d to be complicated and prolonged by those who d r a f t and enforce the codes and g u i d e l i n e s . The l e a s t troublesome d e a l s with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a demand submarket f o r core housing. Though i t was assumed in 1975 that the a r c h i t e c t u r a l f a c t o r s would pose c o n s i d e r a b l e -134-d i f f i c u l t i e s , the f i n d i n g s suggest that i f such problems a r i s e , they are e a s i l y managed. Con c l u s i o n s drawn from the a n a l y s i s of s p e c i f i c d evelopers address those f a c t o r s which e x p l a i n the b e h a v i o u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between a c t i v e , and i n a c t i v e core housing d e v e l o p e r s . They a l s o e x p l a i n b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between c u r r e n t l y and f o r m a l l y a c t i v e core housing d e v e l o p e r s . The f a c t o r s i n s t r u m e n t a l i n f i r s t l y , the d e c i s i o n to take on, or a v o i d , an i n i t i a l core housing development; and secondly, the d e c i s i o n to c o n t i n u e , or opt out o f , t h i s type of development a f t e r an i n i t i a l development has been undertaken are focused upon . B e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between a c t i v e core housing developers and those not i n v o l v e d i n t h i s tyoe of development i n c l u d e only i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s . Both groups r e p o r t , f o r the most p a r t , s i m i l a r a c t u a l and a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t y with the other v a r i a b l e s addressed. In f a c t , the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s and a m e n i t i e s , the a v a i l a b i l i t y of f i n a n c i n g , and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a f e a s i b l e p r i c e range are three f a c t o r s f o r which the a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t y i s not as severe as the experienced d i f f i c u l t y . Compliance with b u i l d i n g codes and c o m p a t a b i l i t y with c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n are the f a c t o r s f o r which a strong d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s between these d e v e l o p e r s . In both cases, the a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t y i s more severe than the experienced d i f f i c u l t y . Given t h i s d i s c o r d a n c e , i t i s -135-concluded that i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s p l a y an important r o l e i n the d e c i s i o n of whether to take on, or av o i d , an i n i t i a l core housing development. The f a c t o r s e x p l a i n i n g why some core housing d e v e l o p e r s continue t h i s type of development, and ot h e r s abandon i t , are more i n c l u s i v e . Only the f a c t o r s a d d r e s s i n g the p h y s i c a l nature of the s t r u c t u r e , and tenure and p r i c e d e t e r m i n a t i o n e x h i b i t any concordance. Of those f o r which a di s c r e p a n c y e x i s t s , two f a c t o r s r e v e a l l e s s d i f f i c u l t y and four f a c t o r s r e v e a l g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y f o r the former d e v e l o p e r s . The two f a c t o r s which are not as d i f f i c u l t f o r the l a t t e r group to manage are, s u r p r i s i n g l y , f i n a n c i n g concerns. Hence, i t cannot be concluded that these are c a u s a l f a c t o r s which play a r o l l i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between those who continue, and those who abandon core housing development. The v a r i a b l e s which pose g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y f o r developers who have abandoned t h i s type of development i n c l u d e the s e r v i c e s and amenities necessary f o r a core r e s i d e n t i a l community, b u i l d i n g codes, l a n d assembly, submarket i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and c o m p a t i b i l i t y with the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . For the f i r s t f a c t o r there i s only a minor d e s p a r i t y of 7.5% and, i n a r e l a t i v e sense, i s not as s i g n i f i c a n t a d i f f e r e n c e as that f o r the remaining f a c t o r s . Both the b u i l d i n g codes and land assembly f a c t o r s generated comparable d i s p a r i t i e s of 17.9% and 19% r e s p e c t i v e l y , and i s concluded to p l a y a r o l e i n the -136-d i s t i n c t i o n between the two groups. More important however, are the d i s p a r i t i e s of 27% and 37.9% which e x i s t f o r the submarket and c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f a c t o r s . Hence, i t can be concluded that these two l a t t e r f a c t o r s p l a y the most d e c i s i v e r o l e i n determining which developers choose to continue core housing development, and those who do not. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of these f i n d i n g s as w e l l , are explored i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . -137-Table IV. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE 09/02/82) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R 0 S S T A 8 U L A T I 0 N IV SERVICES AND AMENITIES BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * * * * * * 4 GROUP COUNT I COL PCT TOTAL IDEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST I DE V FUT DE V FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT a I I b C I d e_ j 0 6 1 I 1 I 1 3 I NOT APPLICABLE 16.2 I I 14 3 I 12 . 5 I 11.1. 23.1 I 1 19 I ] 3 I 3 [ 5 1 8 I NO DIFFICULTY ] 51.4 I I 42 9 I 37 . 5 [ 55.6 ] 61.5 I 2 1 7 I \ 2 I 2 [ 1 1 2 I SOME DIFF,EASY 1 18 . 9 I I 28 6 I 25 0 11.1 I 15.4 I 3 I 2 I r 0 I 1 , ] 0 I SOME DIFF,HARD I 5.4 I I 0 0 I 12 5 11.1 I 0.0 I 4 I 3 I | 1 I 1 0 I GREAT DIFF I 8 . 1 I I 14 3 I 12 5 11.1 I O.O I COLUMN 37 7 8 9 1 3 TOTAL • 100.0 18 9 2 1 6 24 . 3 35 . 1 0 F 09/02/82 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NEW STRUCT f___ 1 11.1 4 44 .4 2 22 . 2 1 11.1 1 11.1 9 64.3 CON-VERSION I — g — . 1 1 I 20.0 I 1 3 I 60.0 I 1 1 I 20.0 I 1 0 I 0.0 I 1 O I 0.0 I 1 5 35 . 7 VO I Table V. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE = 09/02/82 ) 09/02/82 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R 0 S S T A B U L A T I 0 N O F * * * * * * * * V AVAILIBILITY OF FINANCE BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * * * GROUP COUNT I I COL PCT TOTAL IDEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST I NEW CON-I DE V FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT I STRUCT VERSION a ! I b c I d e 1 J f I g I 0 1 5 I I 1 I 1 2 1 I I 2 I 1 I NOT APPLICABLE ] 13. 5 I I 14 . 3 I 12 .5 I 22 . 2 7 . 7 I I 22 .2 I 20.0 I 1 ] 8 I 1 1 I 2 2 3 I I 2 I 1 I NO DIFFICULTY J 21 6 I I 14 . 3 I 25 .0 I 22 . 2 23 1 I I 22 .2 I 20.0 I 2 ] 8 I I 1 I 1 3 3 I \ 4 I 0 I SOME DIFF,EASY ] 21 . 6 I I 14 . 3 I 12 . 5 I 33. 3 23 . 1 I I 44 .4 I 0.0 I 3 9 I I 1 I 3 1 4 I { 0 I 1 I SOME DIFF,HARD ] 24 3 I I 14 . 3 I 37 . 5 I 11. 1 30 . 8 I I 0 .0 I 20.0 I 4 7 I 3 I 1 1 2 I 1 I 2 I GREAT DIFF ] 18 9 I I 42 . 9 I 12 . 5 [ 11. 1 15 . 4 I I 1 1 . 1 I 40.0 I COLUMN 37 7 8 9 13 9 5 TOTAL • 100 .0 18 . 9 2 1 . e 24 . 3 35 . 1 64 3 35.7 * * * * * * * * * PAGE 1 OF 1 T a b l e V I . QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE = 09/02/82) 09/02/82 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R 0 S S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F * * * * * * * VI COST OF FINANCE BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GROUP COUNT I I I COL PCT ITOTAL IDEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST INEW CON-I ' I DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT I STRUCT VERSION I a i I b I C I d I e I I f I g I j I- 1 0 I 6 I I 2 0 I 3 1 I I 4 I 1 I NOT APPLICABLE I 16.2 I I 28 .6 I 0 0 I 33 . 3 I 7 . 7 I I 44 .4 I 20 0 I 1 1 2 1 I 0 1 I 0 1 I NO DIFFICULTY I 5.4 I 1 0 .0 I 12 5 I 0 .0 I 7 . 7 I 2 I 2 I I 0 1 I 1 0 I I 0 I 1 I SOME DIFF.EASY I 5.4 I I 0 .0 I 12 5 I 1 1 . 1 [ 0 .0 I I 0 .0 I 20 0 I 3 I 3 1 1 0 I 2 0 I I 2 I 0 I SOME DIFF.HARD I 8.1 I I 14 .3 [ 0 0 I 22 . 2 [ 0 .0 I I 22 . 2 I O 0 I 4 I 24 I I 4 6 I 3 1 1 I I 3 I 3 I GREAT DIFF I 64.9 I I 57 . 1 [ 75 0 I 33 .3 : 84 .6 I I 33 . 3 I T 60 0 I COLUMN 37 7 8 9 13 9 5 TOTAL 1 O 0 0 18 9 2 1 6 24 . 3 35 . 1 64 .3 35 7 Table VII. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES '09/02/82 FILE (CREATION DATE = 09/02/82) » * * * * * * » • » * » « • * « * » C R O S S T A V B U L A T I O N O F * * * * » » * » » » • * » * * * * » VII LAND ASSEMBLY BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 1 OF 1 COUNT COL PCT NOT APPLICABLE NO DIFFICULTY Y SOME DIFF,EASY SOME DIFF.HARD GREAT DIFF COLUMN TOTAL GROUP TOTAL a 9 24 . 3 9 24 . 3 8 21.6 10 27.0 1 2.7 37 100.0 DEV PAST DEV FUT b NOT PAST DEV FUT DEV PAST NOT FUT NOT PAST NOT FUT 5 71.4 1 14.3 0 0.0 1 14.3 0 0.0 7 18.9 12.5 4 50.0 0 0.0 2 25 .0 1 12.5 2 22 . 2 1 11.1 8 21 .6 3 33 . 3 3 33 . 3 0 0.0 1 7 . 7 3 23 . 1 9 24 . 3 5 38 . 5 4 30.8 0 0.0 13 35 . 1 0-6 7-25 26-50 51-75 <100 UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS I , I I ..«,__. _I___b 1 a — i — 3 - -2 66. 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 3 21.4 1 33 . 3 1 50.0 I 1 I 100.0 I 2 I 40.0 •I 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 66 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 I 0.0 I 1-O 0.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 NEW STRUCT CON-VERSION 3 21.4 2 14 . 3 7 . 1 5 35.7 4 44 .4 1 11.1 2 22.2 2 22.2 9 64 .3 3 60.0 1 20.0 O 0.0 1 20.0 5 35.7 Table VIII. I - t I QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE-09/02/82 09/02/82) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R 0 S S T A B U L A T I 0 N O F * * * * * * * * V I I I PUBLIC UTILITIES BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * v * * * * * GROUP COUNT I I COL PCT I TOTAL IDEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST' INEW CON-I DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT I STRUCT VERSION a I b C I d e I I f I -I g I I 0 I ' 6 I 2 1 2 1 1 I I 3 I 0 I NOT APPLICABLE I 16.2 I I 28 .6 1 25 .0 I 1 1 . 1 7.7 I I 33 3 I 0 0 I I -I I 1 I 20 I 3 I 4 5 8 I I 4 I 3 I NO DIFFICULTY I 54.1 I I 42 .9 I 50 .0 I 55 .6 6 1.5 I I 44 4 I 60 0 I 2 I 6 •• I 1 I 1 , 3 I 0 - I I 2 I I SOME DIFF,EASY I 16.2 I I 14 . 3 I 12 . 5 I 1 1 1 23.1 I I 0. 0 I 40 0 I 3 I .4 I 1 I 1 1 I { 2 -I I 0 I I SOME DIFF,HARD I 10.8 I I 14 . 3 I 12 . 5 I 1 1 1 7.7 I I 22. 2 I 0 0 I-4 I 1 I 0 I 0 , 0 I 1 -1 I GREAT DIFF I 2.7 I I 0 .0 I 0 .0 1 1 1 0.0 I COLUMN 37 7 8 9 13 9 5 TOTAL . 10O.0 18 .9 2 1 .6 24 3 35 . 1 64 . 3 35 7 * * * * * * * * PAGE 1 OF 1 Table IX. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE 09/02/82 09/02/82) * * * * IX . . . . . . . . . . . C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N RESIDENTIAL SECURITY IN CORE BY GROUP 0 F .... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GROUP COUNT COL PCT I TOTAL I a 0 I 4 NOT APPLICABLE I 10.8 1 I 1 1 NO DIFFICULTY I 29.7 2 I 17 SOME DIFF,EASY I 45.9 3 I 3 SOME DIFF,HARD I 8.1 4 I 2 GREAT DIFF I 5.4 COLUMN 37 TOTAL ' 100.0 DEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT b I - I-C [ d e 0 I 2 0 2 0.0 I - I -25 0 [ 0 0 15.4 3 I 1 3 1 4 42.9 I -I -12 5 33 3 1 30.8 4 I 3 4 ] 6 57 . 1 I - I -37 5 44 4 I 46 . 2 0 I 2 0 I 1 0.0 I - I -25 . 0 0 0 I 7 . 7 0 I 0 1 2 I 0 0.0 I -I-0. 0 1 22 . 2 I 0.0 7 8 9 13 18.9 2 1 . 6 24 . 3 35 . 1 I INEW CON-I STRUCT VERSION I f I g I I i 1 I 3 1 2 1 I 33.3 I 40.0 I j j i I 6 1 2 1 I 66.7 I 40.0 I I 0 1 1 1 I O O I 20.0 I j 1 j 9 5 64.3 35.7 Table X. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES 09/02/82 FILE (CREATION DATE = 09/02/82) * * * * « * * * » * * » » » * » * * C R 0 S S T A 8 U L A T I 0 N O F * * * * * » * * » * » » * * * * « » X PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF USES BY GROUP * * » * * * * * » * * » * * * * « » » « » » * » * » » * * * * * * * * » * » » * * * « * * * * * • PAGE 1 OF 1 GROUP I -Cr I COUNT COL PCT TOTAL 0 NOT APPLICABLE r a... [ 3 I 8.1 1 NO DIFFICULTY ] 13 35. 1 2 ] SOME DIFF,EASY ] 14 37 .8 3 SOME DIF F,HARD ] 5 13.5 4 ] GREAT DIFF 1 2 5.4 COLUMN TOTAL • 37 100.0 DEV PAST NOT PAST DEV FUT DEV FUT DEV PAST NOT FUT NOT PAST NOT FUT b I - I - C ! — d - - _ _ 0 I 0 [ 0 3 0 0 I -I -0 0 r o .o 23. 1 2 I 3 2 ] 6 28 6 I - I -37 5 22.2 ] 46 . 2 5 I 1 ] 4 ] . 4 71 4 I - I -12 5 ] 44 . 4 ] 30. 8 0 I 3 1 2 I 0 0 0 I - I -37 5 1 22 . 2 I 0.0 0 I 1 I 1 I 0 0 0 I - I -12 5 I 11.1 I 0.0 7 8 9 13 18. 9 2 1 6 24 . 3 35 . 1 I INEW CON-I STRUCT VERSION I I I ! _ _ - f 1 g - - I 2 2 I 22 . 2 40 0 I -I 6 3 I 66 . 7 [ 60 0 I -I 1 0 I 1 1 1 ] 0 0 I -I 9 5 64 3 35. 7 Table XI. i I QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE y (CREATION DATE 09/02/82 09/02/82) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R 0 S S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F * * * * * * * * XI 01FFERENT CONSTRUCTION METHODS BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * .* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * _* * * * * * * * * GROUP COUNT I j COL PCT TOTAL IDEV PAST NOT 3AST DEV PAST NOT PAST INEW CON-I DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT I STRUCT VERSION a I 1 b I C ' d e 1 I f 1 g I 0 ] 6 I I 2 I 0 1 I 3 I ! 1 } 2 I NOT APPLICABLE ] 16.2 I I 28 6 I 0 O [ 11 1 I 23.1 I I 1 1 . 1 I 40 .0 I 1 ] 12 I I 2 I 5 2 I 3 I [ 3 1 I NO DIFFICULTY 1 32 .4 I I 28 6 I 62 5 22 . 2 I 23 . 1 I I 33 . 3 I 20 0 I 2 I 12 I I 3 I 1 ] 3 I 5 I | 4 2 I SOME DIFF,EASY I 32.4 I I 42 9 I 12 5 ] 33. 3 I 38 . 5 I I 44 .4 I 40 O I 3 I 6 I i 0 I 2 1 2 I 2 I I 1 | 0 I SOME DIFF,HARD I 16.2 I I 0 0 I 25 0 I 22 . 2 I 15.4 I I 1 1 . 1 I 0 O I 4 I 1 I I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 1 1 GREAT DIFF I 2 . 7 I I 0 . 0 I O 0 I 1 1 . 1 I 0 . 0 I COLUMN 37 7 8 9 13 9 5 TOTAL • 10O.0 18 . 9 2 1 6 24 . 3 35 . 1 64 3 35. 7 * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 1 O F 1 Table XII. Q U E S T I O N N A I R E R E S P O N S E S F I L E ( C R E A T I O N DATE 0 9 / 0 2 / 8 2 0 9 / 0 2 / 8 2 ) * * * * X I I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F C O M P L I A N C E WITH B U I L D I N G CODES BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 1 OF I t—1 COUNT COL P C T NOT A P P L I C A B L E NO D I F F I C U L T Y SOME D I F F , E A S Y SOME D I F F , H A R D G R E A T D I F F COLUMN T O T A L GROUP T O T A L 2 5 . 4 DEV PAST NOT PAST DEV P A S T NOT P A S T DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT 0 0.0 1 1 2 . 5 0 0 . 0 8 I I 1 2 2 3 I I 2 1 1 2 1 . 6 I I 14 3 2 5 O 2 2 2 ] 2 3 . 1 I I 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 14 I I 4 4 3 1 3 I I 5 ] 2 3 7 . 8 I I 5 7 1 5 0 0 J 3 3 3 1 2 3 . 1 I I 5 5 6 1 4 0 0 7 I I 1 0 1 1 1 5 I I 1 1 1 8 . 9 I I 14 3 0 0 J 1 1 1 ] 3 8 . 5 I I 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 6 I I 1 1 ] 3 ] 1 I I 1 1 1 6 . 2 I I 14 3 ] 12 5 ] 3 3 3 1 7 . 7 I I 1 1 1 ] 2 0 0 3 7 7 8 9 1 3 9 5 1 0 0 . 0 18 9 21 6 2 4 3 3 5 . 1 6 4 3 3 5 7 1 7 . 7 I INEW C O N -I S T R U C T V E R S I O N I f I g I j ! \ Table XIII. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE 09/02/82 09/02/82) * * * XI I I * * * * * , , * * , , C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N COMPATIBILITY WITH CIVIC ADMIN BY GROUP 0 F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COUNT COL PCT NOT APPLICABLE NO DIFFICULTY SOME DIFF,EASY SOME DIF F,HARD GREAT DIFF COLUMN TOTAL GROUP TOTAL DEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST I DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT a I I b C d I e 1 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 2.7 I I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 O I 7 . 7 7 I I 4 I 2 I 0 I 1 18.9 I I 57 . 1 I 25 0 I 0 0 I 7 . 7 7 I I 1 I 2 I 3 I 1 18.9 I I 14 . 3 I 25 0 I 33 3 I 7 . 7 13 I I 1 I 2 I 4 I 6 35. 1 I I 14 . 3 I 25 0 I 44 4 I 46 . 2 9 I I 1 I 2 I 2 I 4 24 . 3 I I 14 . 3 I 25 0 I 22 . 2 I 30 .8 37 1 7 8 9 13 100.0 18 . 9 2 1 . 6 24 . 3 35 1 I INEW CON-I STRUCT VERSION I f I g I I ! 1 2 22.2 2 22 . 2 4 44.4 1 11.1 9 64 . 3 2 I 40.0 I 2 I 40.0 I 1 0 I 0.0 I 1 1 I 20.0 I 1 5 35.7 Table XIV. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE = 09/02/82) 09/02/8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XIV TENURE DETERMINATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 F * * * * * * * * * * * GROUP COUNT COL PCT I TOTAL 1 a 0 I 13 NOT APPLICABLE I 35 . 1 1 I 12 NO DIFFICULTY I 32.4 2 I 6 SOME DIFF,EASY I 16.2 3 I 3 SOME DIFF.HARD I 8.1 4 I 3 GREAT DIFF I 8-1 COLUMN TOTAL 37 100.0 DEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT A I 2 28.6 2 28.6 1 14.3 2 28 . 6 0 0.0 7 18.9 3 37.5 2 25 .0 2 25 .0 12.5 0 0.0 8 2 1.6 4 44 . 4 3 33 . 3 0 0.0 O 0.0 2 22 . 2 9 24 . 3 4 30.8 5 38 .5 3 23 . 1 0 0.0 1 7 . 7 13 35 . 1 NEW STRUCT CON-VERSION f.._ - _ - g 4 J 2 • 44 .4 ] 40.0 3 t 2 33 . 3 40.0 1 ] 0 1 1 . 1 [ 0.0 1 ] 1 1 1 . 1 ] 20.0 9 5 64 3 35.7 Table XV. 4=r I QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE 09/02/82 09/02/82) * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * C R 0 S S T A B U L A T I 0 N XV PRICE DETERMINATION BY GROUP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GROUP COUNT I COL PCT [TOTAL IDEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST I DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT a 1 1 b 1 C 1 d e 1 0 6 \ I 2 I 1 2 I 1 I NOT APPLICABLE ] 16 . 2 I I 28 .6 I 12 5 22 2 I 7 . 7 I 1 ] 13 | I 3 I 2 2 I 6 I NO DIFFICULTY ] 35 . 1 I I 42 .9 I 25 0 22 2 I 46 . 2 I 2 1 1 1 X I 0 I 3 2 I 6 I SOME DIFF.EASY 1 29 . 7 I I 0 .0 I 37 5 22 . 2 I 46 . 2 I 3 I 5 \ I 2 I 2 ] 1 I 0 I SOME DIFF,HARD I 13 5 I I 28 .6 I 25 0 1 1 1 . 1 I 0 .0 I 4 I 2 I I 0 I 0 1 2 I 0 I GREAT DIFF I 5 4 I I 0 .0 I 0 0 1 22 . 2 I 0 .0 I COLUMN 37 7 8 9 13 TOTAL • 100 .0 18 .9 2 1 6 24 . 3 35 1 0 F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * . PAGE 1 OF 1 NEW CON-STRUCT VERSION f I g I j 3 1 1 1 33.3 I 20.0 I 1 1 3 1 2 1 33.3 I 40.0 I 1 j 2 1 O I 22.2 I 0.0 I 1 j 1 1 2 1 11.1 I 40.0 I ! x 9 64 . 3 5 35.7 Table XVI. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FILE (CREATION DATE 09/02/82 09/02/82) ......... * * » * » » * * C R 0 S S~T A B U L A T I 0 N O F * * * * * » * * XVI SUBMKT ID BY GROUP **»*«*.«« * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GROUP COUNT I j -COL PCT I TOTAL IDEV PAST NOT PAST DEV PAST NOT PAST INEW CON-I DEV FUT DEV FUT NOT FUT NOT FUT I STRUCT VERSION a J 1 b 1 C i d e I I f I g 0 I 7 I I 3 I 1 2 1 I \ 4 -I I 1 I NOT APPLICABLE I 18.9 I I 42 . 9 I 12 . 5 I 22 . 2 7 . 7 I I 44 4 I 20. 0 I 1 I 6 I I 1 I 0 2 3 I 2 -1 I 1 I NO DIFFICULTY I 16.2 I I 14 . 3 I 0 . 0 I 22 . 2 23 . 1 I I 22 2 I 20. 0 I 2 I 1 1 I I 1 I 4 0 6 I 0 -I I 1 I SOME DIFF,EASY I 29 . 7 I I 14 . 3 I 50 O I 0 0 46 . 2 I i b 0 I 20. 0 I 3 I 6 I I 1 I 0 3 2 I { 2 -I I 1 I SOME DIFF,HARD I 16.2 I I 14 3 I 0 . 0 I 33 3 15 . 4 I 1 22 2 I 20. 0 I 4 I 7 I I 1 I 3 2 1 I | 1 -I I 1 I GREAT DIFF I 18.9 I I 14 3 I 37 . 5 I 22 2 7 . 7 I I 1 1 1 I 20. 0 I COLUMN 37 7 8 9 13 1 9 -I 5 TOTAL • 100.0 18 9 2 1 6 24 3 35 . 1 64 3 35. 7 PART III -151-Chapter 8: Contemporary and Future I m p l i c a t i o n s The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study has been to explore the development of and c h a l l e n g e to the "homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t " p r i n c i p l e i n c i t y p l a n n i n g ; i n p a r t i c u l a r as i t has been manifest i n the development of CBD plan n i n g p o l i c y i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. The p o l i c y was a p p l i e d through zoning l e g i s l a t i o n , and l a t e r by c i v i c - s p o n s o r e d urban renewal. The i n i t i a l p o l i c y of endorsing only commercial uses i n the CBD had s e r i o u s negative impacts on i n n e r - c i t y neighborhoods. In c o n t r a s t , contemporary p o l i c y endorses housing development as the v e h i c l e through which the p r i n c i p l e of the homogeneous-use c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t i s to be m o d i f i e d . Perhaps no other d e c i s i o n has had g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the development of Vancouver's urban landscape that the -1 52-1926 appointment of Harland Bartholomew to prepare the c i t y ' s comprehensive p l a n . Downtown development p o l i c y from that time to the mid-1960's s t r e s s e d the need f o r s i n g l e - u s e zones to f a c i l i t a t e f u t u r e economic expansion. An o f f i c i a l zoning by-law gave i t l e g a l s a n c t i o n . T h i s approach to urban development c o n t r o l was implemented du r i n g the 1920's and 1930's i n c i t y a f t e r c i t y a c r o s s North America, i n f l u e n c e d by c o n s u l t a n t s l i k e Bartholomew. Bartholomew's s t a n d a r d i z e d p l a n n i n g t o o l s were used to determine the r e q u i r e d area f o r p a r t i c u l a r use-zones. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n the common demarcation of a General Business D i s t r i c t whose area and d e n s i t y was based upon f u t u r e p o p u l a t i o n e s t i m a t e s . The zone, d e s i g n a t e d i n 1929, comprised the eas t e r n h a l f of t h i s d i v e r s e downtown p e n i n s u l a , i n c o r p o r a t i n g not only the c i t y c ore, but surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l e n c l a v e s , and i n d u s t r i a l , storage and l o c a l market areas as w e l l . F u l l r e a l i z a t i o n of the e x c l u s i v e commercial use of the e n t i r e General Business D i s t r i c t was not met due to an i n i t i a l o v e r - e s t i m a t i o n of the f u t u r e c i t y p o p u l a t i o n , economic c o n d i t i o n s and the unexpected f o r c e s of m e t r o p o l i t a n d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . The commercial land market d i d not extend d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e over some of the marginal d i s t r i c t s ; f o r , demand d i d not warrant high investment. The zoning was r e s t r i c t i v e and d i d not pro v i d e f o r d i r e c t i n c e n t i v e s f o r commercial development. Hence, those e x i s t i n g enclaves of other uses d i d , i n f a c t endure. The -1 53-perserverance o f f the r e s i d e n t i a l use, i n p a r t i c u l a r , l a y not i n i t s own a t t r i b u t e s or s t r e n g t h s ; but r a t h e r i n the weakness of the market f o r the commercial development which was to d i s p l a c e i t . T h i s consequently s t i f l e d any chance f o r r e a l i z i n g the homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t p r i n c i p l e i n Bartholomew's General Business D i s t r i c t . T h i s inherent market weakness prompted post-war policymakers to apply p o s i t i v e , r a t h e r than r e s t r i c t i v e measures of development c o n t r o l . They advocated the implementation of a j o i n t p u b l i c - p r i v a t e core renewal p l a n . I t was hoped that the s p i l l - o v e r e f f e c t s of t h i s l a r g e - s c a l e commercial redevelopment would strengthen the o v e r a l l l a n d market i n the d i s t r i c t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , those p e r i p h e r a l , or marginal areas w i t h i n the zone which had not responded to r e s t r i c t i v e c o n t r o l s were expected to experience developement pre s s u r e s d i s s e m i n a t i n g from the renewal p r o j e c t . Though t h i s approach d i d not resemble past methods of encouraging commercial land use expansion i n the core, i t d i d advance the p r i n c i p l e of a homogeneous commercial CBD. Although r e s i d e n t i a l development was c o n s i d e r e d as a component of the renewal p l a n , i t was only adopted as a means of supp o r t i n g the commercial s e c t o r . When the support was no longer necessary, t h i s component was phased out. By the l a t e 1960's c i t i z e n awareness and p e r c e p t i o n s of growth and development had changed. Downtown -154-development p o l i c y was a l t e r e d to r e f l e c t new views which no longer advocated e x c l u s i v e l a r g e - s c a l e commercial development. As a consequence, r i g i d b u r e a u c r a t i c development c o n t r o l s were r e p l a c e d by f l e x i b l e d i s c r e t i o n a r y balanced-growth g u i d e l i n e s which i n c o r p o r a t e d f o r m a l l y unacceptable CBD land uses. Upon c l o s e r a n a l y s i s , the 1975 r e - e v a l u a t i o n of the i n t e r n a l s u b - d i s t r i c t s of the core was merely a r e c o g n i t i o n of the p e r i s t e n c e of those i n t e r n a l market areas i n i t i a l l y r e j e c t e d by Bartholomew. Had Bartholomew des i g n a t e d a s m a l l e r General Business D i s t r i c t , c o r r e s p o n d i n g more c l o s e l y to the e x i s t i n g market, then perhaps the homogeneous-use p r i n c i p l e would have been r e a l i z e d . A number of smaller d i s t r i c t s with other uses would have had to be des i g n a t e d as w e l l . The s p a t i a l p a t t e r n of l a n d uses i n the post-war core r e v e a l that i n f a c t , t h i s p r i n c i p l e of homogeneous-use development . was maintained even though p r i v a t e market f o r c e s were i n s u f f i c i e n t l y strong to f u l l y use the commercial zones. The i n t e r n a l d i v e r s i t y w i t h i n the l a r g e r designated General Business D i s t r i c t remained throughout years of a g g r e s s i v e i n n e r - c o r e development, though a d d i t i o n s t o that d i v e r s i t y were ma r g i n a l . Contemporary p o l i c y p e r s p e c t i v e s support the view of CBD heterogeneous uses. Planners and developers have j o i n t l y harnessed t h a t d e s i r e f o r d i v e r s i t y and a p p l i e d i t on the p h y s i c a l urban landscape. Planners have done so by -155-encouraging mixed-use developments which i n c l u d e housing. The developers' response has i n c r e a s e d the h e t e r o g e n e i t y i n the downtown p e n i n s u l a through the b u i l d i n g of core housing; though the d e s i g n a t i o n of d i s t i n c t zoning s u b - d i s t r i c t s has p r o l i f e r a t e d a t r e n d toward homogeneous development of p a r t i c u l a r uses i n each s u b - d i s t r i c t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , w i t h i n the c e n t r a l s u b - d i s t r i c t s , marginal h e t e r o g e n e i t y occurs t o i n c r e a s e commercial development. Conversely, i n the p e r i p h e r a l s u b - d i s t r i c t s , i n c r e a s e d h e t e r o g e n e i t y occurs with e x t e n s i v e r e s i d e n t i a l , r a t h e r than commercial development. Hence, a c t u a l development p a t t e r n s r e v e a l maintenance of the homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t p r i n c i p l e i n Vancouver's downtown development, but a p p l i e d to s u b - d i s t r i c t s r a t h e r than the whole General Business D i s t r i c t of 1929. Though most developers support i n p r i n c i p l e the l i v a b i l i t y of t h i s d i s t r i c t ; and most express p o s i t i v e views about such t a n g i b l e f a c t o r s as the a r c h i t e c t u r a l and c o n s t r u c t i o n stages of mixed-use housing development, there are problems which q u e s t i o n i t s v i a b i l i t y . D i f f i c u l t y encountered i n the f i n a n c i a l and marketing stages, and with development c o n t r o l s have negative impacts on developers who are a c t i v e i n core housing development. Though the present a n a l y s i s d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e the nature of development problems based on a l o c a t i o n v a r i a b l e , i t i s i n f e r r e d that s i n c e more e x t e n s i v e r e s i d e n t i a l development has o c c u r r e d i n the p e r i p h e r a l -156-s u b - d i s t r i s t s , the marketing problems and development c o n t r o l s f o r downtown housing are l e s s of a f a c t o r i n areas f u r t h e r from high d e n s i t y commercial s u b - d i s t r i c t s A and B. Hence, c i v i c o f f i c i a l s perhaps s t i l l support in p r a c t i c e the p r i n c i p l e of homogeneous growth by easing c o n t r o l g u i d e l i n e s i n p e r i p h e r a l l o c a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , the f i n d i n g s r e v e a l that the housing consumer i s more apt to seek housing i n or adjacent to an i d e n t i f i a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t . T h i s suggests that the p r i n c i p l e of the homogeneous-use d i s t r i c t i s perhaps a p e r c e p t u a l i s s u e , whereby consumer's p r e f e r to r e s i d e i n areas which they p e r c e i v e to have a r e s i d e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r . The present inducement p o l i c y has, however, been e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g the downtown housing supply; though i t has not prompted l a r g e s c a l e i n t e g r a t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l space i n t o the i n n e r - c o r e . So long as the development of core housing there i s i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d to commercial space, i t s p r o d u c t i o n w i l l remain supplementary. P e r i p h e r a l s u b - d i s t r i c t s are d e veloping g r e a t e r r e l a t i v e h e t e r o g e n e i t y . The tendency to i n c l u d e l a r g e - s c a l e r e s i d e n t i a l components the r e , however, r e f l e c t the beginning of a t r e n d toward i n c r e a s e d homogeneity of r e s i d e n t i a l uses i n some sub-areas. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s concluded that the development of r e s i d e n t i a l space in these areas i s contingent upon p r o x i m i t y or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with other e s t a b l i s h e d , or d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s . - 1 5 7 -F i n a l l y , the study questioned whether t h i s continued acceptence of homogeneous s p a t i a l development has p o s i t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the re-development of c i t i e s . I t i s c l e a r t h a t the i n i t i a l attempts to f a c i l i t a t e o r d e r l y growth of the urban landscape over-emphasized the need f o r l a r g e homogeneous commercial zones. F a i l u r e to f i l l these zones with the p r e f e r r e d use proved to be an i n c r e a s i n g l y f r u s t r a t i n g task. In the present context, r e j e c t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e by policmakers has a c t u a l l y l e a d to a r e - d e f i n i t i o n of the l o c a t i o n of those i n i t i a l zoning boundaries set i n 1929. Though they are re-drawn, the p r i n c i p l e which governs development w i t h i n them remains the same. Thus, the need to i d e n t i f y a d i s t r i c t by i t s dominant use . p e r s i s t s . The nature of the market economy and the p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s h e l d by urban d w e l l e r s see that t h i s remains so. Though the p r a c t i c e of homogeneous-use development i s sometimes thought to be o b s o l e t e , i n the case of Vancouver i t has u l t i m a t e l y generated i d e n t i f i a b l e c h a r a c t e r areas i n the i n n e r - c o r e which remained n o n - d i s t i n c t through years of a c t i v e downtown development. The compromise of m a i n t a i n i n g t h i s p r i n c i p l e i n contemporary urban development, and the nature of the development i t a l l o w s to occur remain f a v o u r a b l e . -158-B i b l i o g r a p h y - 159 -B i b l i o g r a p h y Adams, Thomas O u t l i n e of Town and C i t y Planning (New York: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1935) A l l p a s s , J . "Urban S t r u c t u r e and the Composition of C i t y C e ntres," E k i s t i c s , Vol.17 (1964), pps.86-95 American C i v i l A s s o c i a t i o n , "Needs f o r Zoning," i n Sc o t t E.W Bedford (ed.), Readings i n Urban S o c i o l o g y (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1927) A r t i b i s e , Alan F . J . and G i l b e r t A. S t e l t e r (eds.) The Usable  Urban Past: Planning and P o l i t c s i n the Modern Canadian C i t y (Ottawa: I n s t i t u t e of Canadian S t u d i e s , C a r l t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1979) Babcock, R i c h a r d F. The Zoning Game (Madison, Wisconsin: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin Press, 1966) and John S. Banta New Zoning Techniques  For I n n e r - C i t y Areas i n Conrad N. Bagne (ed.) Planning Ad v i s o r y S e r v i c e (Chicago: American S o c i e t y of Planning O f f i c i a l s , Report No.297, December 1973) Bartholomew, Harland "The P r i n c i p l e s of C i t y P l a n n i n g , " The American City,Vol.XXIV, No.5 (May 1922) pps.457-461. "Area Zoning," F a c t o r s i n the Zoning of C i t i e s : A Symposium, Proceedings of the American S o c i e t y  of C i v i l E ngineers, Vol.51, No.2 (February 1925) pps.172-177. "What i s Comprehensive Zoning?" Pro-ceedings of the Twentieth N a t i o n a l Conference on C i t y  Planning U92o) pps.47-/2. and A s s o c i a t e s , Plan f o r the C i t y of  Vancouver, Prepared f o r the. Vancouver Town Planning Com-mission (1929) Urban Land Uses Harvard C i t y Planning S e r i e s , No.4 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1932) B a s s e t t , Edward M. " L e g i s l a t i o n and F i n a n c i n g , " The N a t i o n a l Housing Problem: A Symposium, American S o c i e t y of C i v i l E n gineers, Papers and D i s c u s s i o n s , Vol.48, No.2 (February 1922) pps.237-240. -160-Zoning: The Laws, A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Court  D e c i s i o n s During The F i r s t Twenty Years (New York: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1936) Baxter, David, David Dale and Michael Goldberg Economic Study:  Proposed Downtown D i s t r i c t Zoning R e g u l a t i o n s Prepared f o r the Vancouver c i t y Planning Commission (March 26,1975) Bedford, S c o t t E.W. Readings i n Urban S o c i o l o g y (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1927) B e l l , D a n i e l The Coming of the P o s t - I n d u s t r i a l Society(New York: B a s i c Books, 19/b) B e l l , Jesse S. "What One R e a l t o r Thinks of Zoning," Housing Problems i n America, Proceedings of the N i n t h N a t i o n a l Con- ference on Housing, P h i l a d e l p h i a , December 5 -7 ,1923 , pps. 35-36 . Benevolo, Leonardo The O r i g i n s of Modern Town Planning (London: Routledge and K. Paul,1967) Bottomley, John "Ideology, Planning and the Landscape:The Business Community, Urban Reform and the Establishment of Town Planning i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1900-1940," Unpublished Ph.d d i s s e r t a t i o n (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,1979) Brooks, Mary E. Bonus P r o v i s i o n s i n C e n t r a l C i t y Areas, Planning A d v i s o r y S e r v i c e , Report No.257 (Chicago: American S o c i e t y of Planning O f f i c i a l s , 1970) Cree, J.W. "What the R e a l t o r Thinks of Zoning," Housing Pro-blems i n America, Proceedings of the N i n t h N a t i o n a l Con-ference on Housing, P h i l a d e l p h i a , December b - / , i y ^ 3 . Durkheim, Emile On M o r a l i t y and S o c i e t y (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Pre"ss~; T9TT) E d i e , George S. "What the Banker Thinks of Zoning," Housing Problems i n America, Proceedings of the Ninth N a t i o n a l Conference on Housing -; P h i l a d e l p h i a , December b - / , i y 2 3 . F i s h e r , Edwin A. "Zoning f o r Use," F a c t o r s i n the Zoning of C i t i e s : A Symposium, Proceedings of the American S o c i e t y of C i v i l Engineers, V o l . b i , No.2 (February i y 2 b ) p p s . i b b - 1 7 1 . Ford, George "What the A r c h i t e c t Thinks of Zoning," Housing Problems i n America, Proceedings of the Ninth N a t i o n a l Conference on Housing; P h i l a d e l p h i a , December b - / , i y 2 3 , p p s . 3 5 3 - 3 5 4 . - 1 6 1 -F r e s c h i , Bruno Human Settlement Issues, New L i f e from Old Neighborhoods; The Planning, Design and Re-use of B u i l d i n g s ,  S t r e e t s and S e r v i c e s at the Urban Core, O c c a s i o n a l Papers, No.18, (The Centre f o r Human Settlements, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1981) George, Henry Progress and Poverty (London: K. Pa u l , Trench, 1889) Gerecke, Kent "The H i s t o r y of Canadian C i t y P l a n n i n g , " C i t y  Magazine, Vol.2 (1976) pps.12-23. Gibson, Edward "Impact of S o c i a l B e l i e f on Landscape Change: A Geographical Study of Vancouver," Unpublished Ph.d d i s -s e r t a t o n (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Department of Geog-raphy, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971) Ginzberg, E. "The P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of the U.S Labor Force," S c i e n t i f i c America 240 (March 1979) pps.48-53. Gouldner, A l v i n W. The Future of I n t e l l e c t u a l s and the Rise of  the New C l a s s (New York: Seabury Press,1979) Greenbie, Barry B. Design f o r D i v e r s i t y : Planning f o r nat- u r a l man i n the neotechnic environment: an e t h o l o g i c a l approach (Amsterdam, New York: E l s e v i e r S c i e n t i f i c Pub. Co.,1 y/fe) Gunton, Thomas "The Ideas and P o l i c i e s of the Canadian Planning P r o f e s s i o n , 1909-1931," i n Alan F . J . A r t i b i s e and G i l b e r t A. S t e l t e r (eds.) The Usable Urban Past: Planning and P o l i t i c s i n the Modern Canadian C i t y (Ottawa: I n s t i t u t e of Canadian s t u d i e s , c a r e l t o n u n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979) "The E v o l u t i o n of Urban and Regional Planning in Canada, 1900-1950," Unpublished Ph.d d i s s e r t a t i o n ( V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h Columbia: School of Community and Re-g i o n a l Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1981) Haig, Robert Murphy "Toward an Understanding of the M e t r o p o l i s , I I : The Assignmant of A c t i v i t e s to Areas i n Urban Regions," Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Economics, Vol.XL (1926) pps.402-434. Hardwick, Walter G. and David F. Hardwick, " C i v i c Government: Corporate, C o n s u l t a t i v e or P a r t i c i p a t o r y ? " i n David Ley (ed.) Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n and the S p a t i a l Order of the C i t y , B.C. Geographical s e r i e s , N O . I 9 (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Tantalus Research L i m i t e d , 1973) Vancouver ( T o r o n t o : M a c M i l l a n - C o l l i e r L t d , 1974) -1 62-Howard, Ebeneezer Garden C i t i e s For Tomorrow (London: Faber and Faber L t d . , 1898, 1946) Hubbard, Theodora Kimball and Henry Vincent Hubbard Our C i t i e s  Today and Tomorrow: A Survey of P l a n n i n g i n the U.S. (Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1929) Jackson, K r i s t i n "A New Face on Downtown Vancouver," The  Pro v i n c e, Magazine S e c t i o n , Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, August 2,1981, p.1. Jud, G. Donald "The E f f e c t s of Zoning on S i n g l e - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l Property Values: C h a r l o t t e , North C a r o l i n a , " Land Economics, Vol.56, No.2 (May 1980) pps.142-154. Kent, T.J. The Urban C e n t r a l Plan (San F r a n c i s c o : Chandler Publishers -; 1964) Knowles, M o r r i s "What the C i t y Engineer Thinks of Zoning," Housing Problems i n America: A Symposium, The Ninth N a t i o n -a l Conference on Housing, P h i l a d e l p h i a , December 5-7, 1923, p.350. "The Purpose of Zoning Ordinances and Methods of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , " F a c t o r s i n the Zoning of C i t i e s : A Symposium, Proceedings of the American S o c i e t y of C i v i l E ngineers, Vol 51, No.2 (February 192b) pps.178-iy3. Ley, David (ed.) Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n and the S p a t i a l  Order of the C i t y , B.C. Geographical S e r i e s , No.19 (Van-couver, B r i t i s h Columbia: T a n t a l u s Research L i m i t e d , 1973) " L i b e r a l Ideology and the P o s t - I n d u s t r i a l C i t y , " Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, Vol.70, No.2 (June 1980) pps.238-258. and John Mercer " L o c a t i o n a l C o n f l i c t and the P o l i t i c s of Consumption," Economic Geography, Vol.56, ( A p r i l 1980) pps.89-109. Lindsay, Judy " B u i l d i n g Boomlet: O f f i c e Space, Luxury Housing Combined f o r Developer Bonus," Vancouver Sun, May 20, 1981, p.B1 . L i t h w i c k , N.H. Urban Canada: Problems and Prospects Report Prepared f o r the Honorable R.K. Andras, M i n i s t e r Respon-s i b l e f o r Housing (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1970) -163-Llewelyn-Davis Weeks Canada L i m i t e d A m o r t i z a t i o n of Non-Con-forming Uses: An Examination of the U.S. Experience i n the  "Compulsory Termination of Troublesome Uses (Toronto: Gov-ernment of Ontario,1979) MacDonald, Norbert "A C r i t i c a l Growth Cyc l e f o r Vancouver," i n G i l b e r t A. S t e l t e r and Alan F . J . A r t i b i s e (eds.) The  Canadian C i t y : Essays i n Urban H i s t o r y ( I n s t i t u t e f o r Canadian S t u d i e s , C a r l t o n U n i v e r s i t y , Ottawa: M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart L i m i t e d , 1977)pps.142-159. Marcus, N.E. And M. Groves The New Zoning: L e g a l , Adminis- t r a t i v e and Economic Concepts and Techniques (New York: praeger, iy/u) Meadows, Donnella, H., et a l , L i m i t s to Growth (Washington, D.C: A Potomas A s s o c i a t e s Book, New American L i b r a r y , 1974) Meshenberg, Michael J . The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of F l e x i b l e Zoning  Techniques, Planning A d v i s o r y S e r v i c e , Report No.318, (Chicago: American S o c i e t y of Planning O f f i c i a l s , 1976) M i l l e r , Robert M. "Bonusing Downtown Housing: An E v a l u a t i o n of Goals and Means," Unpublished Master of A r t s t h e s i s , (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979) Murphy, Raymond E. and J.E. Vance, J r . " D e l i m i t i n g the CBD," Economic Geography, Vol.30, No.3 ( J u l y 1954) pps.189-222. "A Comparative Study of Nine CBD's," Economic Geography, Vol.30, No.4 (October 1954) pps.301-336. New York Times "Study Sees More Crime In Mixed Neighborhoos," J u l y 11,1982, p.15. Nolen, John "Twenty Years of Planning Progrss i n the United S t a t e s , " i n Planning Problems of Town, C i t y and Region, Papers and D i s c u s s i o n s ot the Nineteenth N a t i o n a l Confer-ence on C i t y Planning, P h i l a d e l p h i a (1923) pps.1-45. Purdy,Lawson "The Zoning of C i t i e s , " Housing Problems i n America: A Symposium, Proceedings of the S i x t h N a t i o n a l Conference on Housing, Chicago (October 15-17,1917) pps. 214-228. "Need f o r Zoning i n Business D i s t r i c t s , " i n S c o t t E.W. Bedford (ed.) Readings i n Urban S o c i o l o g y (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1927) p.127. -1 64-Rahenkamp Sachs Wells and A s s o c i a t e s Innovative Zoning: A  L o c a l O f f i c i a l s Handbook, with David S t o l o f f of HUD, HUD C o n t r a c t No.H-2333R (Chicago Washington,D.C.: Ameri-can S o c i e t y of Planning O f f i c i a l s and The U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1977) Rannels, J . The Core of the C i t y : A P i l o t Study of the Chang- ing Land Uses in the CBD (New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1958) S c o t t , Mel American C i t y Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1969) Short, J . (ed.) The S o c i a l F a b r i c of the M e t r o p o l i s : C o n t r i b - u t i o n s of the Chicago School of Urban S o c i o l o g y (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1971) Smith, L a r r y "Space f o r the CBD's F u n c t i o n s , " J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners 6 Vol.XXVII (February 1y61) and Company An Economic A n a l y s i s f o r CBD Redev-elopment , Prepared f o r the Vancouver C i t y Planning Commi-s s i o n ( J u l y 17,1963) S t e l t e r , G i l b e r t A. and Alan F . J . A r t i b i s e (eds.) The Can-adian C i t y : Essays i n Urban H i s t o r y ( i n s t i t u t e f o r canaci-ian S t u d i e s , C a r l t o n U n i v e r s i t y , Ottawa: M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart L i m i t e d , 1977) Tennant, Paul "Vancouver C i v i c P o l i t i c s : 1929-1980," B.C.  S t u d i e s No.46 (Summer 1980) pps.3-27. T o l l , Seymour Zoned America (New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1969) Vancouver Calander Magazine ( A p r i l 1982) p.119. Ward, Barbara Spaceship E a r t h (New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1966) Wirth, L o u i s "Urbanism as a Way of L i f e , " American J o u r n a l  of S o c i o l o g y , 44 (1938) pps.1-24. -165-Government Documents C i t y of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law 3575 Housing Research Committee Vancouver Redevelopment Study (December 1957) Vancouver C i t y P l anning Department Redevelopment i n Downtown  Vancouver, Report No.2 (June 7,19~6~D Redevelopment i n Downtown  Vancouver, Report No.3 (September 7,1962) Redevelopment i n Downtown Vancouver, Report No.4 (March 6,1964) Redevelopment i n Downtown Vancouver, Report No.5 (January 19bb) Fi v e Year Plan 1966-1970 (August 21,1964) Downtown Vancouver, Part 1, The Issues (August 1968) Downtown Vancouver, Part 1, Proposed Goals ( A p r i l 1973) Report on Submissions to Downtown Vancouver, Proposed Goals (December 1973) Planning the C e n t r a l Area (May 1976) No.1 (January 1976) No.3 ( J u l y 1981) No.5 (October 1981) No.1 (January 1982) Vancouver T e c h n i c a l Planning Board Downtown Vancouver 1955-1976 (August 1956) Q u a r t e r l y Review Vol.3, Q u a r t e r l y Review Vol.8, Q u a r t e r l y Review Vol.8, Q u a r t e r l y Review Vol.9, town Area (May 26,1961) -166-Zoning Plan f o r the Down-Vancouver C i t y Planning Commission Downtown Vancouver; Plan- ning Concepts f o r Future Development and Process f o r Con- t r o l ot Development, Report f o r D i s c u s s i o n (September 1974) Downtown Guidance Panel Report (December 1974) How Can We Improve Our Zoning R e g u l a t i o n s ? (October 5,19T8~) Vancouver Town Planning Commission A Plan f o r the C i t y of Vancouver (1929) H. Bartholomew and A s s o c i a t e s The Downtown Business D i s t r i c t (February 1946) H. Bartholmew and A s s o c i a t e s Proposed New Zoning and Development By-law (March 1955) i -167-Appendices I -168-Appendix A . l QUESTIONNAIRE 1) Has your f i r m u n d e r t a k e n the development of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n Vancouver's downtown c o r e s i n c e 1975? yes no IF NO, PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION #2. IF YES, PLEASE CONTINUE. Development Past C u r r e n t A) T o t a l number of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s 1) Of T o t a l ( A ) , number of r e n t a l u n i t s i i ) Of T o t a l ( A ) , number of s t r a t a - t i t l e un 1 t s i11) Of T o t a l ( A ) , number of c o - o p e r a t i v e uni t s B) Of T o t a l ( A ) , number of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n a b u i l d i n g b u i l t a f t e r 1975 C) Of T o t a l ( A ) , number of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n a b u i l d i n g b u i l t b e f o r e 1976 (most l i k e l y to be c o n v e r s i o n s ) 1) Of T o t a l ( C ) , number of those r e s -i d e n t i a l u n i t s c o n v e r t e d from commercial use, m a n u f a c t u r i n g , e t c . D) Of T o t a l ( A ) , number of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n mixed-use s t r u c t u r e 1) P l e a s e check a l l those o t h e r uses i n s t r u c t u r e o f f i ce r e t a i 1 m a n u f a c t u r 1 n g / s t o r a g e 11) Have any mixed-use developments taken advantage of the C i t y ' s "bonus z o n i n g " which a l l o w s f o r h i g h e r d e n s i t i e s i n commercial s t r u c t u r e s which i n c l u d e r e s -i d e n t i a l u n i t s ? (CHECK) E) A d d r e s s ( e s ) and d a t e ( s ) of p a s t , c u r r e n t and/or proposed r e s i d e n t i a l development i n Vancouver's downtown c o r e : yes no -169-Appendix A.2 2) P l e a s e I n d i c a t e the degree of d i f f i c u l t y you have e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e development of r e s i d e n t i a l or mixed-use s t r u c t u r e s i n Vancouver's downtown c o r e . I f your f i r m has never v e n t u r e d i n t o t h i s type of development p l e a s e i n d i c a t e the p e r c e i v e d degree of d i f f i c u l t y w i t h those s t e p s i n the development p r o c e s s which may have a c t e d to d i s -c o u r a g e your involvement. NA- not a p p l i c a b l e 1- no d i f f i c u l t y 2- some d i f f i c u l t y , e a s i l y overcome 3- some d i f f i c u l t y , overcome w i t h good deal of e f f o r t 4- g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX NA 1 2 3 4 FOR EACH STATEMENT a) Land Assembly b) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of demand submarket c) A v a i l a b i l i t y of f i n a n c i n g d) C o s t of f i n a n c i n g e) D e t e r m i n a t i o n of t e n u r e type f ) D e t e r m i n a t i o n of economic p r i c e range g) Compliance w i t h b u i l d i n g codes, d e s i g n g u i d e l i n e s , e t c . h) C o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n ( p l a n n i n g dept., development p e r m i t board, e t c . ) i ) S e c u r i t y i n downtown l o c a t i o n , mixed-use s t r u c t u r e / d e v e l o p m e n t , e t c . j ) D i f f e r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n methods f o r r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial uses i n mixed-use s t r u c t u r e k) P h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n of uses i n mixed-use s t r u c t u r e 1 ) P r o v i s i o n of p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s m) Lack of s e r v i c e s and a m e n t i t i e s i n downtown f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n -170-Appendix A.3 3 ) Is your f i r m c u r r e n t l y c o n s i d e r i n g any p r o p o s a l s f o r f u t u r e r e s i d e n t i a l development i n the downtown c o r e which have y e t to be f o r m u l a t e d i n t o o f f i c i a l development p r o p o s a l s to the C i t y of Vancouver? yes no If yes; P l e a s e d i s c u s s b r i e f l y the g e n e r a l n a t u r e of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I u n d e r s t a n d the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e ask f o r o n l y a s i m p l e d e s c r i p t i o n . ) If you have any a d d i t i o n a l f e e l i n g s you wish to ex p r e s s c o n c e r n i n g the f u t u r e p r o p e c t s f o r r e s i d e n t i a l development i n the downtown c o r e , p l e a s e f e e l f r e e to do so below. 5) OPTIONAL Name of f i r m C o n t a c t p e r s o n B u s i n e s s t e l e p h o n e number_ THANK YOU!! -171-Area C B . l 550 Beatty Street Conversion of industrial structure Bottom floor - commercial (office) Other floors - residential Area D B.2 1107 Homer Street Conversion of industrial structure; bottom floor-commercial (r e t a i l ) ; second floor - commer-c i a l (office); other floors - residential. -172-Area E B.3 1290 Robson Street First floor- r e t a i l Second floor- office Other floors- residential Area G Albernl Place Mixed-use develop-ment; t a l l struc-ture- residential; Commercial sector to occupy adjacent parking l o t . -173-Area GI B.5 1177 Hornby Street Eight floors - commercial (office) Three floors - residential -174-Area H B.6 Anchor Point - Burrard and Pacific Streets Mixed-use development with major portion in residential use. Commercial sector under construction. Area H B.7 Burrard and Pacific Streets - looking west Right side - proposed mixed-use development with major portion i n residential use; L e f t side - neighboring residential uses In West End zone. 

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.831.1-0095363/manifest

Comment

Related Items