Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Urban land policy and the provision of housing in Canada, 1900-1985 Gordon, Michael Lynn Harvey 1985

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

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1985_A6_7 G67.pdf [ 6.79MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0096096.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096096-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096096-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096096-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096096-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096096-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096096-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

URBAN LAND  POLICY  AND THE P R O V I S I O N OF HOUSING I N CANADA,  1900-1985  By M I C H A E L L Y N N HARVEY GORDON B.E.S., The U n i v e r s i t y  of W a t e r l o o ,  1976  A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THRE R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR THE D E G R E E OF M A S T E R S OF  SCIENCE  in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE The  School  We  STUDIES  o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  accept to  this  thesis  the required  as  conforming  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A April ©Michael  1985  Lynn Harvey  Gordon,  1985  In  presenting  requirements  this for  an  of  British  it  freely available  agree for  that  I  by  understood  that  his  or  be  her or  shall  f u l f i l m e n t of at  the  Library  shall  and  study.  I  copying  granted  by  publication  of  Coirniunity and  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main M a l l Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  DE-6  C3/81)  JLftA  the  be  of  allowed  permission.  Department  University  of  Regional Planning Columbia  make  further this  head  representatives.  not  the  the  extensive  may  copying  f i n a n c i a l gain  that  reference  for  purposes  or  degree  agree  for  permission  scholarly  in partial  advanced  Columbia,  department  for  thesis  It  this  without  thesis  of  my  is  thesis my  written  ABSTRACT This the  thesis  supply  thesis  and cost  is  that  have  a housing  has  treated  and  has  The  land  pursued  How  have  this  quality  the  land  professional  and academic  pursued  a  by  literature, government policy  thesis  nature  enforcement  is  policy  of  like  to  policy  any  other  challenged,  i n terms  of  the  i t s impact  of urban  research  officials, land  on  discussion the  as  been  housing  technical housing  and  i t relates to  problems?  of these  on  questions:  considered  professional  plans,  housing  politicians  problem  have  and the debates  of p r i v a t e  land  to  of  municipal studies  philosophy  the  review  i n the federal  The  public  relation  this  continues  housing  much  component  policies  in  Canada  alone  the following  urban  implemented  why  of  in  housing.  of the land  government  defined  a n d what  of  factors  The h y p o t h e s i s  commodity  assumption  exploring  major  governnment  l e t  and p r i c e  Canadian  reformers housing  examined,  of  by  i s that  as a market  examination  is.  land.  a p r i n c i p a l reason  rarely  supply,  one o f t h e  of housing,  problem  ramifications the  investigates  The  public,  questions and  and  is  academic  reports  and  and urban  land  parliament. divided  into  landownership i s examined.  property  by g o v e r n m e n t  rights as  two  and the basic  Most  attention  First,  the  thrust  of  i s given  to  their  protection  and  i t i s t h e most  fundamental  land  ' ii  and  parts.  policy.  Also,  the  nature  intervention  of  government  since  is  reviewed.  land  1900 policy  discussion 1929, and  and  the  is  divided  1930-1939,  nature  of  land  There policies  regulation,  since  land  assembly  taxes.  These  policies  a  privately held There  owners the which  is a  broader make  feasible.  The  land  are  policy  period  land  is five  the  return  affordable conflict  overview  of  provided.  This  periods:  1900-  constraints examined  on  and  the  categories  of  land  subdivision  servicing  programmes,  unearned the  increment  treatment  of  land  private  land  commodity.  between  to  housing  zoning,  and  emphasized  the  discussed.  use  programmes  market  community  This  1970-1985.  1900:  have  is  and  and  historical  historical  in general,  conflict  to maximize  an  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and  public  as  development  housing  four  i n each  been,  public  of  into  f o r urban  have  adopted  Second,  provision  policy  urbanization  in urban  1940-1969,  opportunities  of  on  obtain  and is  the  desires  their land  land  problem.  _ iii  the  and  the  for housing  physically at  of  crux  adequate of  the  need at  of  prices housing  urban  land  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION CHAPTER  ONE  1 - The I n s t i t u t i o n o f P r i v a t e P r o p e r t y and Government Responses t o U r b a n i z a t i o n . . . 1.1 1.2 1.3  Land as p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y Urban l a n d and urban land p o l i c y Governments and the p r o d u c t i o n of h o u s i n g 1 .4 Summary  CHAPTER  TWO  - Urban 2.1  2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 CHAPTER  THREE  3.2 3.3 3.4 FOUR  Problems:  -  5 9  . . .  13 15  1900-1929  17  T h e e m e r g e n c e o f a Town P l a n n i n g and H o u s i n g Movement i n C a n a d a . . . Land S p e c u l a t i o n and the e a r l y Town P l a n n e r s P r o p o s a l s f o r government action on u r b a n l a n d p o l i c y T h e 1919 f e d e r a l h o u s i n g programme a n d t h e l a n d p r o b l e m . . . . The 1920's: C i t y P l a n n e r s and H o u s i n g H o u s i n g problems and the techncial f i x Conclusion  - What L a n d Problem? The D e p r e s s i o n Y e a r s : 3.1  CHAPTER  Land  5  18 25 27 32 35 37 41  1930-1939  . . . .  43  T h e 1935 S p e c i a l C o m m i t t e e o n and the Domionion Housing A c t T h e 1938 N a t i o n a l H o u s i n g A c t and the G r a u e r R e p o r t The S o c i a l D e m o c r a t s and t h e Urban Land Problem Conclusion  Housing . . . .  47 51 54 56  Post-war Government H o u s i n g Programmes Programmes t h e r e t u r n of the Land P r o b l e m : 1941-1969 4.1  The and  C u r t i s Sub-commitee Community P l a n n i n g :  iv  on H o u s i n g 1942-1944  58  .  .  64  4.2 P o s t - w a r p l a n n e r s a n d h o u s i n g p r o b l e m s 4.3 T h e S h o r t a g e o f S e r v i c e L a n d 4.4 T h e l a t e 1 9 5 0 ' s a n d t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s : The L a n d D e b a t e R e v i s i t e d 4.5 T h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t increases a i d t o low income f a m i l i e s 4.6 T h e 1 9 6 9 F e d e r a l T a s k F o r c e o n Housing and Urban Development 4.7 C o n c l u s i o n CHAPTER F I V E  - The 1970's L a n d Land Problem 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.-4 5.6 5.7  . 68 72 78 84 87  Boom a n d t h e 91  P o l i t i c i a n s and t h e Urban Land Problem 92 C r i t i c s of the urban land market . . . . 98 The L a n d M a r k e t D e f e n d e d 106 Government r e s p o n s e s t o t h e Urban land problem 111 The 1980's: t h e e n d o f Urban Land Problems? 116 Conclusion 121  CHAPTER S I X - C o n c l u s i o n  123  BIBLIOGRAPHY  129  APPENDIX A - H o u s i n g S t a r t s by Type a n d Canada, 1900-1983 APPENDIX B - D w e l l i n g U n i t s C o m p l e t e d , Canada, 1900-1983  v  Location, 138 141  LIST  Table  I  Table II  Table III  Table  Table  Table  IV  V  VI •  OF  TABLES  Population and land value in Canadian urban c e n t r e s ,  increases 1911-1915  2 1  Indexes of R e s i d e n t i a l land c o s t s , C o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s , F a m i l y Incomes and consumer p r i c e s , 1949-1969 . . ,  61  Land c o s t s a s a p r o p o r t i o n of t h e t o t a l c o s t o f s i n g l e f a m i l y homes f i n a n c e d u n d e r t h e N.H.A., 1 9 4 9 - 1 9 6 9  62  L o t s d e v e l o p e d u n d e r t h e N.H.A. f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l Land Assembly p r o j e c t s , 1950-1969  77  Indexes of Land c o s t s , Construction c o s t s a n d Consumer P r i c e s , 1970-1983  94  Comparison of average annual c o s t s , i n f l a t i o n and Housing  vi  changes i n Land s t a r t s . . . . 126  LIST  OF  FIGURES  Figure  1  Dwelling  Units  Completed,  Canada,  1900-1929  .  20  Figure  2  Dwelling  Units  Completed,  Canada,  1930-1939  .  47  Figure  3  Dwelling  Units  Completed,  Canada,  1940-1969  .  60  Figure  4  Dwelling  Units  Completed,  Canada,  1970-1983  .  95  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I who  has  thanks for  t o extend  unfailing  i s owed  my  t o UBC  t o Brahm  final  Barnes  conclusions  thesis.  Finally,  Canada  Mortgage  this  year  drafts  through  and their  Also,  my  helpful  like  t o extend  Corporation  scholarship  viii  good  work.  encouraged  me t o  i s extended  basis gratitude  out the of to  f o r supporting  programme.  My  direction  in sorting  philosophical my  Hulchanski  best  thanks  the  Housing  D.  d o my  and i n i t i a l l y  who was v e r y  I would  to  who o f f e r e d  studies.  and  to Dr. J .  me  Weisman  f o r masters  Dr. Trevor  gratitude  encouraged  t h e r e v i s i o n o f my  come to  want  this the me  1  INTRODUCTION  Obtaining be  a  adequate  problem  government housing subsidies, federal  we  that  in  world,  affordable  many in  continue  to  public have  argues  and  paper  were  on  problems. on  among  of  housing A  recent  housing,  the  to  Despite  provision  expenditure  housing  households  continues  households.  planning  consultation  Canadian  housing  Canadian  the  substantial  government  noting the  for  involvement and  and  best  while housed  that:  there are a number o f m a j o r p r o b l e m s t h a t need t o be addressed. More than 500,000 rental households cannot a f f o r d physically a d e q u a t e and uncrowded h o u s i n g , and nearly 200,000 homeowners have serious a f f o r d a b i 1 i t y p r o b l e m s . ( C a n a d a , 1985, p . 10) This problems  thesis by  and  cost  that  a  of  examining housing,  principal  housing  investigates  is  of  the  l a n d . The  reason  problem  why  of  factors  i n the  major  hypothesis  Canada  because  existence  of  this  continues  government  housing  thesis  is  have  a  policy  commodity  much  rarely  examined,  l e t alone  challenged,  the  ramifications  i t s impact  on  the  price  of  housing.  This  paper's  of  examination  of  the  other  has  a  i n terms  any  supply  land  assumption  like  to  housing  treated  this  as  one  the  and  supply  l a n d component  of  has of and  urban  2  housing  is  pursued  by  exploring  the  following  research  quest ions: 1)  How have Canadian government officials, politicians and r e f o r m e r s d e f i n e d t h e urban l a n d problem as i t r e l a t e s t o h o u s i n g ?  2)  What l a n d p o l i c i e s h a v e implemented in r e l a t i o n  This urban  thesis  land  overview  policy  of  analysts,  the  from  of the  discussion  have  issues  of  Institute  Canada,  the  reports wider is of  1964,  nature Also,  major  of major  Special  Housing  and  the  and  city  on  land  debates  and  1981-82  the  discussion  government  and  on  and  policy the  of  Housing,  examined  sutudies  P l a n n i n g , the  Development,  the  The  1972  were  the  drawn  Canadian  Journal,  Plan  technical  to  such  1938,  and  as  1944,  Task  Programmes  the  policy.  the  sub-committee 1969  Each  identify  problems  The  housing  Parliament. 1935,  of  Planning  consulted.  to  Town  Institute  i t relates  1919,  1944  urban  sources.  municipal  federal  housing  the  of  Community  also  as  in  were  housing  Community  Urban  books  were  an  and  Architectural the  plans  give  officials  analysts  the  of  for Living,  and  debates  1973  of  topic  To  views  Life,  Layout  of  the  variety urban  the  housing.  Engineer,  Royal  to  government  other  Magazine  housing  Committee  Housing  and  monographs,  the  topic  a  Canadian  of  debate by  from  Canada,  City  housing  reflected  1954,  on  on  public  the  of  Research  this  to  C o n s e r v a t i o n of  The  Journal  Habitat,  relates  on  drawn  the  Journal,  approach  politicians,  been  Planning  Review.  historical i t  professionals  Municipal  Canada,  a  as  planners,  researchers views  takes  been c o n s i d e r e d and to housing problems?  1935 report  Force without  on a  3  Policy the  report  Supply  reports  and P r i c e  consulted.  researcher proposed was  with  both  an  the  land  on government  of  government  and  housing  urban from  1900  policies  until  problems.  land  policy  depression chapter  four  as  policy thrust  and  policy  for the as  i t  of  historical  relates land  private  to  policyproperty  t h e framework  of p r i v a t e  market.  next  land  four  of urban  chapters  It  t o cope  land with  and a  with  planning  the  1940 t o where  four  housing.  the  government which  period's  the 1969  and  how  debate are  the scope  were  housing o f an o n the  during examined of  of  profession  t h e emergence  sector  from  urban  particular  and the p o l i c i e s  i n the housing  period  The  examines  discusses  The y e a r s  of  at the d e f i n i t i o n  urban  also  advocated  three  deals  two l o o k s  by t h e g r o w i n g  a  and  of land  of p u b l i c  protection  disappeared  years.  a n d what  within  were  role  and  policies  i n an e f f o r t  federal  circles  opportunities  the stage  land  Chapter  Chapter  the  the evolution  1929.  which  implemented  going  sets  the d i s c u s s i o n  problems  provided  traces  period.  land  government  discussed  i n the area  on  broadly  of the f o l l o w i n g  historical  was  Force  literature.  r i g h t s and the urban follows  sources  what  The  the basic  chapter  many  government  action  and  the  these of  on t h i s  chapter  This  chapters Each  based  administration  property  of  overview  by e x a m i n i n g  rights.  Review  first  discussion housing  a r e among  implemented.  identified The  of Land  i n s i d e and o u t s i d e  actually  constraints are  a n d t h e 1978 F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l T a s k  the the in  government  4  involvement  in  the  provision  of  housing  increased  significantly  to  most  a c t o r s i n the p r o d u c t i o n of h o u s i n g .  important  t h e p o i n t t h a t g o v e r n m e n t s were  recent  p e r i o d , 1970  where  the focus  housing an  prices.  t o 1985,  i s on During  i s s u e of great  t h e 1970's the  concern  general  public.  Lastly,  remarks  on  the  how  is  covered rapid  1970's urban to both  urban  chapter  six  in  The  chapter  most five  increase in land land  policy  a n a l y s t s and offers  urban  land  problem  housing  has been d e f i n e d and  what  are  further  government a c t i o n  urban  land  on  among t h e  the  as  and  became to the  concluding i t relates  prospects  problems.  to for  5  CHAPTER  THE  INSTITUTION  OF  URBAN  1.1  Land  as p r i v a t e  Any  study  treatment  of  attempted the  land  in  land  with  Canada  Provision  the  estate  commodities The  right  Canadian  a  begin  land  with  commodity  AND  the r e c o g n i t i o n when  the problems  of urban  is  as  treated  market  society.  PROPERTY  POLICY  of h o u s i n g .  a r e bought  t o own  LAND  must  as  commodity. real  PRIVATE  property  of land  to deal  ONE  in  and s o l d  has  development  and  i f i t were  same  in their  i s one o f t h e  It i s also  government  I t i s bought  the  an  a  and  way  typical sold  a s most  respective  basic  that  other  markets.  institutions  institution  on  of  which  i s rarely  private  property  quest ioned. In  Canada,  rights common this  through  the  property  law t r a d i t i o n .  tradition,  doctrine  is  of tenure directly  estates  establishes  merely  have  or  enforces  law which  The law o f r e a l based  states  either  can  government  on that  two  an e s t a t e  an  the  i s held  Second,  'interest'  British  according  doctrines.  First, by  the  i n d i v i d u a l cannot  o r an  on  property,  a l l land  indirectly. that  i s based  own  to the  t h e crown  doctrine land,  of but  in i t authorizing  6  him  to hold  actually  a s e t of r i g h t s  attached The to  i t f o r some p e r i o d  to  use land  rent)  land  important  i n the market. however,  exchanged  used,  must  capitalist  rules  and  of  to  which  exchanged  Thus,  has i n s t i t u t e d , make  land  a  and a l l o c a t e d  produced and produced.  maintains  which  a  i t i s t o be  Canada,  the  or  43)  f o r how  private on  land.  sell  privately  and r e g u l a t i o n s  allocated.  countries,  institutions  e.  commodities not  are  rights are the right  1 9 4 7 , p p . 8,  most is  which  endowment. I t i s an endowment o v e r  make  exchanged  utilized  (Megarry,  unlike  rights are  to a parcel  exchange(i.  i n the marketplace,  i s a natural  society  of these  to  Property  by t h e s t a t e  of a t i t l e  aspects  and the r i g h t  Land,  Land  sanctioned  the possession  two most  of time.  like and  most  enforces  commodity, basis  of  t o be market  dynamics. The that  treatment  market  feudalism,  advent  commodity  as a p r i v a t e l y held according  relatively  no  of land  such  as  a  recent  thing market  as  societies. can  (Macpherson,  be  traced  discussion  institution.  the  commodity  The treatment through  commodity  to the dynamics  t o be u n d e r  c a p i t a l i s m as the predominant  philosophical  There  a  was c o n s i d e r e d  was  of  western  i s  land  there  treatment  in  land  i s a l l o c a t e d and u t i l i z e d  the  and  of  common land  Under  ownership market. The  arose mode  of  with  the  of  production  as  of  land  a  market  an  examination  of the  of the r i g h t s of private  property.  1 9 7 8 , p p . 6-8)  are four  distintive  approaches  to the doctrine  of  7  private  property  rights  Rousseau,  Marx  earliest  advocates  state  the  He  was  argued  a  individual  man  than  a  property.  Third,  focused  one  on  the  and  use  of  that  payment  the  productive  particular insitution 162;  of  for  leads the  as  a  by  he  Despite  argued, an  the  exploitation of  land  capacity  of  society,  private  in  remains  property  1978,  land  society.  pp.  15,  i s an  29-30,  saw  59;  the  barrier  of  that  drain and  on in  fundamental  1951,  George,  both  argument  property a  to  payment Marx  unecessary  (Schlatter,  the  George  He  George's  use  that  to  unecessary  and  the  exploited  concern  any  social  Henry  significant  extracting  to  the  land.  an  as  lead  Fourth,  property,  Landowners,  Canadian  Macpherson,  another.  of  of  argued  production  private  land.  private of  of  of  and  an  that  others  with  property  of  amount  property  concerned  private  by  private  the  that  noted  deprive  of  amount  argued  He  the  property.  limited  oneself.  might  role  the  Rousseau  Locke, of  private  to  the  by  was  land  labour  property  He  class  development.  capitalists  on  of  of  was  primary  limit  only  means  form  ownership  economic  private  work  in  one  no  writings Locke  the  Second,  to  the  rights  identified  the  of  that  property  Marx  of  exploitation  for  of  in  First,  the be  own.  capitalism.  ownership  private  should  could  inherent  idea of  right  one  right  relations  George.  the  could  has  of  of  there  unlimited  basis  Henry  enforcement  that  property  property  and  outlined  pp.  151-  1880,  pp.  220-221 ) Canadian  governments  legitimate  land  as  a  form  of  8  private  property  fundamental  to  understandable cornerstone  in  the Charter  upheld the  property  the  British  anyone's  have  procedures decides  violated,  traditionally  government  private  may  taken  landowner's  doctrine  that  they  society.(MacNeil,  have  their  a  rights  which  the  unfairly have  The c o u r t s  Thus,  institution  have  upholding gives  the  mindful  by  been  clearly  h a s been  1983, p . 3 4 9 ; S t e v e n s o n ,  state  expropriation.  and has supported  as a fundamental  seize  establish  generally  statute  of  a l l Canadian  rights  authority.  of jurisprudence  through  law,  with  to the courts.  unless  are,  branch  when  dealt  view,  for  rights  common  through  property  guarantee  judiciary  owners  been  the  law a n d g o v e r n m e n t ,  statutes  property  a conservative  of property property  they  overriding  tradition  property  the  expropriation  a  explicitly  compensation,  appeal  rights  some  to  form  legislative  a private property feel  and  the  without  passed  landowners  Canadian  Although  is  i s , therefore,  Although  a n d by t h e  f o r compensating  government  a  and Freedoms,  general,  rights  i s not provided  according  to acquire  policy.  statute  property  provinces  land  property  o f common  law. could,  that  in  It  tradition  by l e g i s l a t i v e  government  When  rights  of Rights  common  economies.  property  o f government  private  in  private property,  capitalist  that  of  as  because  Angloof  the  the r i g h t s of of  Canadian  1983, p . 414)  9  1.2 U r b a n  land  With society, Urban  and urban  the urban  land,  land  public  and  land  land  Urban  private  houses  therefore,  urban  appropriate  the entire  A  second land  most  aspects and  The and  i s  a  offices,  Both the  though  other  of a  therefore, only  t h e i n v e s t m e n t made  privately  like  t o t h e owner  even  most  Urban  Yet,  can,  a  takes  land.  good.  owner  from  a  by t h e  commodities  created,  social  q u a l i t y of land good  because  of the f u n c t i o n i n g  and past,  yet i t  is  locate  to  here  the  is  treatment  the  "urban  yet the private  is  i t i s a necessity for  that  and the nature of land  allocation  as a commodity  of a s o c i e t y .  according It  production  values  private  land not  distinctive  markets.  collective land  from  urban  just  It  commodity.  i s allocated  land.  than  sewers,  produced  of the s i t e  arises  is  allocated  commodity present  i n roads,  This  of  "produced."  i s a private  value  type  appropriated.  that  used  be  of Canadian  i s more  to "produce"  land.  distinguishes  i t s value  privately  land  of  of the value  because  general,  must  investment  parcel  This  land  character  important  investment  particular  owner.  in  and schools  and p r i v a t e  portion  an  i s a collectively  in general,  public  h a s become  unlike  endowment.  land,  policy  increasingly urbanized  natural  factories,  land  However,  logic many  land  of  i t  i s  private  analysts,  both  problem":  the  appropriation  as a s o c i a l  good  of urban yet the  of land use. of urban  allocated according  land  t o market  a s a commodity dynamics  to  has given  be  used  rise  to  10  a  number  of  included, seeking for  first, to  interests  speculators  be  p.  used  to  land  t o one  uses  Third,  urban  investment 1974,  pp.  with  industrial  prosperity,  the need  development  process  more  apparent. Sutcliffe  intervention p.  While  which  i t i s in the  land  to  Catalano,  areas  can  often  of  non-  and r e s i d e n t i a l ) Non-conforming  of p r o p e r t y  periods  of  urban  values.  intense  values.  to obtain  require  shelter  and  problems.  undergone  those  t o use i t  the l o c a t i o n  industrial  have  the i n t e r e s t s of  i n urban  attempting  urban  5) S u t c l i f f e  growth  production  t h e most  industrialization  1981,  as  i n unstable  rapid  as  public  land  creates  those  seek  price.(Massey  of purposes  have  who  in  in the depreciation  Resulting  production  of  the  between  requiring is  they  land  This  leads  financing for  land.  (Harvey,  12-16)  urbanized  planning,  i t  because  in buildings  Thus,  became  land,  another  for  purposes. those  uses(such  areas  problems  those  and  variety  can r e s u l t  speculation. to  Second,  f o r a wide  adjacent  of  F o r example,  interests  with  productive  maximize  153)  conforming  land  cost  of  in land  producers  the  problems.  the c o n f l i c t  or other of  minimize  land  speculate  shelter  1978,  urban  public  and  the  we  operation  that  can dectect  i n the urban notes  generator  regulation  In h i s s t u d y observes  that  increasingly  displacing  significant  for  and w i t h  agricultural of wealth of  the  of the land  of the h i s t o r y "from a  clear  market urban stages  tendency  environment".  state  urban  of  the e a r l i e s t  and  for  (Sutcliffe,  intervention  i n urban  11  development of  took  main  forms,  the  as  roads,  sewers  urban  land  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e such  helping  produce  obligations  on  regulating problems process land  which  of  were  first  to  increased the  as  early  ,up  local  1832  to  of  land  bylaws.  of  These  development, minimum  advocated  pp.  use  were  during  the  It  was  development  emergence  to  be  of  imposed  public  building  problems  was  The  throughout  the  space  19th  and  of used  adjacent  were from in  setting  government  fire  density  materials  by  of the  and  introduced  centres,  health,  urban  example,  epidemic  scope  urban  bylaws  resulting  legislation cholera  on  standards  For  larger  open  also  land  bylaws  in  of  land  of  thereby  process.  settlements.  a  widened  buildings  1981,  Government undesireable  with  health.  use  property"  the  and  the  health  controlled  amounts  (Hulchanski,  of  comprehensive  the  to  thereby  imposition  affecting health  urban  cope  particularly  introduction  of  of  "the  private  rise  provision  water,  development  codes  many  public  boards  regulation century,  density  first  as  with  and  urban  obligations  Health  cope  public  5)  regulations  quality.  introduced  p.  of  the  gave  direct  and  urban  with  (Ibid,  landowners building  the  gradually  the  zoning  owners  associated  policies.  Ontario  the  aspects  Among  the  two  and  20th  with  the  building  residential and  to  prescribed residences.  2.1-2.14) had  to  patterns.  introduced. "urban  address In  response,  These  reform  another  nuisance  regulations  movement"  problem,  of  and  were  first  the  first  two  decades  during  of  that  property  boom  bylaws  municipal  patterns  of  orderly  land  (Bloomfield, response pattern  municipal  subdivision regulating  the  of the  serviced  created  sale  the  the  by  later  reacted  of  market.  t o cope  the the  urban  up  of  with  pp.  to urban  regulations  on  the  public  i n the  tools  for  land  market. chaotic and  1977,  the  pp.  land  403-409)  market  and  frogging'  subdivisions,  began  to  regulate  has  the  Land  commercial  could  urban  marketable  became  the  rampant  not  use  occuring  of put  until  i t  Each  decades  subdivision  land  be  commodities  first  introduced  effect  parcels.  market  the  for of  control  speculation  during  this  health  movements  and  period.  1-10)  urban  of  and  to e f f i c i e n t  extent,  During the  the  of  Zoning  industrialization.  land.  into  provinces  protecting  resulting  Weaver,  some  or  businessmen  of  private  and  subdivisions  the  part  role  number  'leap  to  methods  barriers  busts  subdivision  most  1978,  sum,  which,  divided  frogging'  In  a  258-261;  industial  land  century  (Weisman,  was  scattered,  and  parcel  'leap  and  creation  was  regulations  development  booms a n d  land  residential,  this  a  p r o v i n c i a l governments  to  on  of  development  of  and  one  o f many  externalities.  with  pp.  aim  seeking  to deal  1982, to  as  uses  urban  on  negative  emerged  urban  A major  was  from  governments  Unfettered  the  century.  period  values  nuisance  In  this  the  reform 19th  and  public  century  development development  and  problems of  co-ordination  land of  the  early by and  20th  imposing a urged  timing,  a  of  century host  of  greater  location  and  13  character  of  support  the  to  of  manage  such  of  in  for  to  these  of  this the  the  land  aspect, which  but  for  land  of  the  Governments,  has  in  have  utilization emphasized  of  land,  the  from  property  land  policies,  regulations  of  l e t alone the  has  tax  the not  to  in  burdens  of  full  land  as  the  to  pay  few  of  right  over  the  course  address  one  aspect  a l l o c a t i o n of seriously  was  the  Thus,  begun  in  speculators  challenged,  market.  were  and,  instability  increased  land  the  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . However,  exchange  and  the  land  uses  by  considered  the  a  commodity  typical  appropriation  and the  production  important their  had  uses  of  increasing  affordability,  housing,  use  the  other  of  collectively  is  for  values.  Governments  the  problem,  private  allows  One  for  land  new  with  attempted  development  handful  government  market,  the  produced  1.3  century,  in  of  a  questioned, land  i n f r i n g e d on  urban  public  cases,  subdivision  and  often  resulting  of  markets  uneeded  i n many  Advocates and  actions  exchange  urban  times  owners.  inefficient  advocates  freely  at  planning  mortgage  often  to  of  the  sector,  problems  unregulated  the  and the  use  public  community,  that  land  that  particular,  land  ways  land  concerned  The  ameliorate  urban  as  leading  business  and  development rights  development.  physical  to  develop  a l l o c a t i o n of regulation  of  of  urban  land  concern  during  adequacy policies  land. land  housing  These  use  this  and that land  through  housing. century  location  of  address  the  policies such  have  measures  1 4  as to  residential ensure  the  land  certain  development  property  values land  production  of  general  regulation  The  1919  anything  more  than  through  until great  1935,  depression.  force  in  protect of  non-  with  the the  improving  of  1935,  h a s become  of housing  land  market.  War  attempt  private  in  to I in  housing  1939, p .  38)  introduced  as  of the  well  housing,  i n the  (Rose,  war  t o do  In the post  and as a consequence,  the r e s i d e n t i a l  The  Programme  were  player  the  i n the post  federal,  and scope.  a major  beyond  i n the middle  involvement  i n nature  of  World  (Grauer,  programmes  the  t h e scope  of housing.  serious  year  at  infrastructure  after  additional  election  municipal  no  of housing  market  existed  loans.  housing  Since  expanded  a l l forms  that made  housing  federal  dramatically  of  land  veterans  s t i m u l a t e some  and  government  at  expanded  i n the supply  programme  federal  a  to  in  to restrict  Aimed  and the p r o v i s i o n  of housing  provincial  period  sought  market.  met  intrusion  i n the production  of h o u s i n g  federal  further  sought  i n t r o d u c e d t h e 1919 H o u s i n g  of the s c a r c i t y  period.  are  associated  never  involvement  the problem  introduced  conditions.  uses  address  No  have  i n the urban  government  starts  policies  involvement  public  also  the  i n 1919. T h i s  federal  view  Land  has been  standards  have  began  of land  include  They  involvement  level  government  and amenity  i n the private  residential  Zoning  restricting  housing  of l a n d  federal  to  by uses.  Government the  density  of housing.  residential  exchange  use z o n i n g .  an  as has  WW  II  provision important  1980, p p . 27-  15  41) The as  a  for  federal  component  of  housing  the  of  town  use  controls the  and  1944  its  government  improved  federal  sub-committee  it  invested  to  ensure  Second  the  World  rapidly  War,  land  part  housing  and  mortgage  residential  1 .4  and  supply  insurance estate  often  have  advocated  by and  beginning  in  land  the  speclation  and  the  government  1949  land. After  reformers  to  subdivision  Second,  focused  sought  called  planning.  affordabi1ity as  land  Reconstruction  residential  housing  such  on  i t  as  as  banks  rampant  and  such  community land  urban  attention  on  land  as  of key  problem.  Third,  mortgage  loans  ease  access  to  the  market.  S umma r y Land  market  policy  years  housing  of  of  to  r e g u l a t e d the  use  use  policy,  we  of  Canadians government  this  planning  thesis  housing  to  policy  commodity  in  of  policies to  have  much  operate  allowed  the  while  has  l a n d . However,  have  i s that  has  general,  freely  continue  continue  market  has,  land  land  hypothesis  held  i n Canada  exchange  increasingly 80  of  costs  programmes  real  and  with  First,  design  Committee  serviced  periods  officials  homeownership  neighbourhood  of  government  ways.  measures  i n government  increasing  i n the  planning  housing  supply  concerned  in three  Advisory on  funds  became  a  and  like  any  50  reason  problems  land other  as  a  after  years  problems.  principle  housing  treated  even  after  housing  i t  is  of The why  that  privately  commodity.  This  1 6  thesis  examines  policy-makers market that  were  the  cost  in of  implemented and  as  housing  in  are  housing  as  1970-1983.  urban  that  four  of it  and as  to  housing  the  and supply  following  policy  has  been  in  regards  adovcated  1900-1929,  a  problems  proposed  land  periods:  land  with  relating The  of land  were  reviewed.  nature  of  analysts  associated  problems  the  each  what  being  to  urban  the • treatment  policies  response  of  which  identifies  land  explores  provision  1940-1969  It  Also,  to  addressed  identified  implemented  chapters  extent  have  commodity.  problems.  and  the  four to and  1930-1939,  17  CHAPTER  URBAN  TWO  LAND  PROBLEMS  1900-1929  The  urban  concern and to  to  urban the  those  problem  who  servants,  world  problems  war.  interested  in  government.  viewed  part  as  urban  prominent Adams,  The rapid  Beer,  Charles first  the  the  Growth  rates was  and  the  this  a  particularly  those in  the  function  of  of  some  process,  was  approach  of  housing  were  The Thomas  Couchon,  A.  G.  Seymour.  urban  immigration  others,  conditions.  c e n t u r y were to  up  civil  of  problems  Noulan  Horace  and  regulation  sanitary  this  Rural of  to  Buckley,  years of  urbanization.  as  development  advocating  Hodgetts 15  in  engineers,  Most  of  housing  interested  planning  solution  Frank  of  on  leading  businessmen  also  issue  action  problems.  land  an  years  in particular,  class  planners  unprecedented growth.  of  working  Frank  Dalzell,  urban  the  number  were  P l a n n i n g , and a s p e c t s of  during  housing  of  as  government  growing  housing  problematic  appeared  surveyors,  in  institutionalization  the  A  architects,  interested  first  advocated  development  first  became  land  marked  migration  contributed  rapid  by  in  the  to  very and urban  country's  18  western  cities.  century 940%,  population Edmonton  Many  eastern  1911  Housing  first  world  housing  average  growth  cities  were  booming.  an  the  1909-1914.(See  urban  led  to  areas.  dramatically  during  Saskatoon  dealer  rampant  land  during  the  the  to  Toronto,  preceding annual  per  number  an  four  the  annual  years  from  year  during  and  housing  1) in  urban land  shows,  growth  speculation  land  1911-1915  explained  pre-war  the  225%.  1901  and  from  completions  boom  I  From  54%  this  Calgary  Winnipeg,  average  during  Figure  Table  by  tripled  widespread  As  and  of  was:  years  The  than  73,100  i n d i c a t e s , the  construction around  more  decade  quickly.  the  completions  average  306%  i t s population  also  almost  first cities  growing  war  20,450  I  also  during  was  the  western  construction  to  Table  in  Vancouver,  1900-1903 years  in  increased  starts  of  example,  864%,  Montreal  58%.  of  For  why  values  period. land  in  and  increased In  1926  a  speculation  was  period:  Very few p r o p e r t i e s w e r e p u r c h a s e d f o r c a s h i n S a s k a t o o n d u r i n g t h e boom d a y s . T h e chief c o n c e r n was to r a i s e enough money for an initial cash payment. Future payments, i t was assumed, would take care of t h e m s e l v e s . . . You could sell anything, a n y w h e r e , t o a n y b o d y , a t any p r i c e . ( C i t e d i n T h o m a s , 1981, p. 256) Housing  costs  wages.  A  living  with start  1914  found  increased the of  and  from  while  collapse the  generally  federal  that  44%  rents  of  first  Board 1900  average the world  of to  Inquiry 1913  rents  western war,  increased  the  had  wheat boom  faster  into  the  average risen  enconomy in  urban  cost  wages  62%.  than of had  However, and  the  growth  and  19  land  speculation During  average  came  t h e war  annual  half  the l e v e l  war.  Although  completions  by  rose  the  appendix  Table)  years  number built  reached  to a halt.(Weaver, and  of  to  rates  years  war  60,000  during  per  10-13)  period  decreased leading  1920's t h e a n n u a l  almost set  post  completions  i n the f i v e  the l a t e  the  1977, p p .  rate  year,  the pre-war  boom  to  up of they  the  almost to  the  housing never  years.(See  FIGURE 1  Dwelling Units Completed Canada,  1900-1929  A  J  Al  \  i \  a-*  1  /  10 1900 Source:  1905  1910  Appendix B o f  this  1915 report  1920  1925  21  Table Population  and Land  Centres,  Value  Percent  Populat ion 6  Largest cities  2nd group of cities 31,000 t o 7,000 3rd group of cities 5,000 t o 10,000  I  Increases change,  i n Canadian  1911  to  Land  Value  + 26%  + 38%  + 32%  + 21%  + 17%  + 60%  Urban  1915  Increases  Source: "Municipal Development in Canada" (1921) Town P l a n n i n g a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n o f L i f e , 7 ( 1 ) J a n . - M a r . , p p . 1-6.  22  2.1  The and  e m e r g e n c e o f a Town H o u s i n g Movement i n  By One  '1910  group  a  of  town  major  roadway  systems.  regulation  focused  public  buildings group  the  planning  Housing  planners  group.(For  see  this  Hulchanski,  Simpson,  1982,  Rutherford, Many 'suburban problems would and for and  the  discourage many the  Sir  districts  as  as  They  meant  the  development when  Olsler key  design  Nus,  of  civic  on  1977,  1977,  pp.  on  of land  suburban  concern  background  for  many  this  period,  pp.  162-184;  393-413;  answer believed  in housing to  many  that  and  Improved  identified  the  of  the  the  of  of  urban  class  conditions, homeownership  single  housing  design  the  housing  working  housing  tracts  discussing  housing  the  encouragement of  viewed  improved  c i t i z e n s h i p among  unrest.  example,  the  city  of  emphasis  explicit  Van  on  reconstruction  more  and  interested  the  better  social  Edmund  the  Canada.  368-383.)  planners  planners,  For  50;  Weaver,  period.  planned  more  in  development  placed  an  p.  1-12;  those  encourage  homes. 1913  pp.  solution' of  was  1981,  1.977, p p . of  and  emerged  exclusively  the  Another  and  had  almost  for  neighbourhoods. in  movement  calling  squares,  use  planning  planners  beautification,  Planning Canada  of  family  problem  in  residential  problem.  The h o u s i n g q u e s t i o n i n our c i t i e s i s , as we all know, a v e r y d i f f i c u l t m a t t e r . T h e cost of l a n d has r i s e n , the c o s t of building is high we have not the o r g a n i z a t i o n for p r o p e r l y d i r e c t i n g the l a y o u t of districts where workingmen's houses should be  23  built.(Commission 9) One  influence  action  on h o u s i n g  first  proposed  Peaceful  Path  on  of C o n s e r v a t i o n ,  the  early  c o n d i t i o n s was i n Ebenezer  to Real  for  Tommorrow).  Howard  all  reform  towards  leading  advocates  the Garden  Howard's  Reform  (later  viewed  1913,  improved  of  City  1899 b o o k  re-titled  land  reform  urban  p.  government concept  as  Tommorrow: A Garden  Cities  as the basis of  conditions.  The h o l d e r s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , at least those who a r e w i l l i n g t o s e l l - a n d many o f t h e m a r e e v e n now m o s t a n x i o u s t o do so will welcome the extension of an experiment[the development of Garden C i t i e s ] . . . T h e h o l d e r s of c i t y l a n d s w i l l , so far as their merely selfish interests prevail, greatly fear i t . In this way, landowners throughout t h e c o u n t r y w i l l be d i v i d e d i n t o two o p p o s i n g f a c t i o n s , and the path of land reform t h e f o u n d a t i o n on w h i c h a l l r e f o r m must be built will be made c o m p a r a t i v e l y e a s y ( H o w a r d , p . 1 4 8 ) Among the  Howard's  housing  situation,  community  ownership  agricultural  prices  Trustees.  The  increased  land  the  land.  rather 1899,  Among  of  particular,  land. held  would  through  rents to  Land  was would  in trust reap  c o n d i t i o n s and the  by  the  call  for  be p u r c h a s e d a  Board  at of  b e n e f i t s of the  the rents c o l l e c t e d  would be  urban  f o r use  of  be r e - i n v e s t e d i n t h e c o m m u n i t y privately  appropriated.(Howard,  122-123) the  Housing  Conference  in  and then  value  allowed  was G. T r a f f o r d Scotia  f o r improving  community  These  than pp.  proposals  Canadians Hewitt,  aware  President  Corporation.  on C i t y  Planning  of the Garden of the  Trafford  held  City  Province  told  i n Toronto  proposal of  Nova  the 6th National i n 1914 t h a t :  24  the o n l y s o l u t i o n to the housing problem is o f f e r e d by t h e G a r d e n C i t y a n d Town P l a n n i n g Movement... which has proved itself as a means of avoiding congestion and overcrowding. (Hewitt, 1914, p. 180)  Furthermore, development  he  criticized  the  current  p r a c t i c e of  suburban  where:  The s p e c u l a t i v e owner of p r o p e r t y h a s , with the aid of the provincial or l o c a l land s u r v e y o r , mapped out s t r e e t s and l o t s , so as t o make t h e m o s t f o r t h e owners, while no thought to the question of how t h e work s h o u l d be d o n e i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e h e a l t h and c o n v e n i e n c e of the community. ( I b i d , p. 188) However, it  was  played  the  Garden  never by  the  City  in Canada.  Garden  concept  City  inspiration  conditions  in  their  the  this  municipal  which  town  for  development early  a t t e n t i o n on  legislation  remained  implemented  provided  During  concept  the  would  plans,  impose  betterment  function  of  planning  in  those of  most  suburban  adoption  of  the  levies. this  concept  was  planners  areas. focused  town  planning  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to  prepare  subdivision regulations Thomas  Adams  i t  improved  residential  provincial  and role  that  advocating  Canadian  enable  a  important  Canada  period,  implement  in  The  only  explained  and the  way:  i t i s the e x e r c i s e of f o r e s i g h t i n the layout of land; i t i s p a r t of the p r o b l e m of combining healthy living conditions with sound e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t . ( A d a m s , 1915, p. 307) Town would  planning ensure  measures, that  according  land  to  speculation  the and  early 'leap  planners, frogging'  25  subdivisions society  2.2  and  Land  would impose  of  speculation  the  as  speculation  the  early  the  the  fringe.  the  key  costs  early  urban, l a n d the  problem  average  productive of  town  advocates  scattering  The  the  following  and  decreased  encourages  housing  inhibit  unnecessary  speculation  Most  urban  not  of  public  problem,  worker  by  was  authorities.  planning  residential  posed  of  planners defined  arguing  affordability of  capacities  of  that  land  housing  and  development  land  typically  land  on  the  speculation  for  described  the  in  terms:  This increase in land cost i s partly owing to the i n c r e a s e d c o s t of improvements, but i s c h i e f l y due t o an u n w a r r a n t e d i n c r e a s e i n the p r i c e of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s , as soon as t h e y a r e d i v i d e d i n t o l o t s . The b u l k of this increase goes into the pockets of real e s t a t e s p e c u l a t o r s and is a real danger to t h e f u t u r e of C a n a d a . T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s cause the p r o v i d i n g of h o u s e s f o r t h e o c c u p a n c y o f industrial workers at a reasonable r e n t a l , t o be d i f f i c u l t . ( S i m p s o n , 1915, p. 17)  Most  advocates  increased  land  unaffordable seeking housing period  of  land  reform  prices  so  to  housing  a in  conditions noted  large urban in  insisted that  group  areas. the  One  city  that  land  adequate of  working  observer, of  speculation  housing class  families  writing  Vancouver  during  that:  Q u i t e a few (working class families) are proceeding to acquire their own homes....Very few indeed of these live within easy w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e of t h e i r work,  was  about this  26  most o f them b e i n g d r i v e n by t h e h i g h price of land to seek lots more within their f i n a n c i a l scope i n comparatively outlying a r e a s . ( F r i p p , 1914, p. 1276) The  pre-WW  I  subdivision margins  of e x i s t i n g  concern  this  suburban  holding  of  speculation  of reducing  with  he o f t e n  culprit.  land.  making  up  frogging'  growth  was  advocates  of  housing  of  services  and the cost  of  cost  profit  Land  speculation  great  of  new  and  attempted  unacceptable  Thomas Adams w r o t e  distinguished  Writing  the built  'leap  the overall  land  acceptable  speculation'.  as  by t h e  1916, p . 73)  suburban  between  wrong  writings  Adams  land  and  was m a r k e d  f a r from  of haphazard  officials  and s e l l i n g  nothing  the  Known  housing.(Adams,  distinguish  'land  communities.  a s o n e way  Critics  boom  often  pattern  Reducing  viewed  estate land  to municipal  reform.  real  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  subdivision,  was  urban  on t h e s a l e between  gambling,  i n the  that  according  Conservation  ways there  of l a n d .  'land  to  was  In h i s  gambling'  and  t o Adams,  of L i f e  of  in  was  1916,  asked:  Is i t not t i m e t o make some i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e methods t h a t have p u r s u e d and the problems t h a t h a v e been c r e a t e d by t h e r e a l e s t a t e community a s d i s t i n c t from p r o p e r and legitimate real estate speculation? (Adams, 1916, p . 73) Land  gambling  purchase where  was,  i n Adam's  of suburban  he  would  municipality residential  and  land  a s an  subdivide then  development.  mind,  when  ' a l l or nothing'  the land,  attempt  a landholder  to  have  saw t h e  proposition  i t serviced  sell  I f the landowner  the failed  lots  by t h e for  t o make  a  27  profit it  on  the land  vacant  when  a  that  was  abandon  with  a  the land  sizeable  not immediately  land  speculation,  according  land  took  profits  the sale  holder  placing  purse.(Adams, W.  such  1916, p .  F. B u r d i t t ,  Commission,  in  Development suggested limited  Chairman  a paper  land  number  great  would  subdivider  reflected  the  other  t o Adams, of  his  on  of the S t . John  presented  to a  i n Winnipeg,  speculation  of landowners.  planning  burden  On  the  in  was  lands public  73)  conference that  a  from  leaving  investment  needed.  acceptable  without  a  he w o u l d  and the m u n i c i p a l i t y  infrastructure hand,  sales,  ensure  that  1917 U r b a n  agreed  with  1  Planning and  Rural  Adams  and  represented  the excesses of  He  that  argued  the  the general  Town  actions  of  land  use  the  land  i n t e r e s t of t h e community.  In t h e p l a n n i n g o f l a n d f o r urban use, the subdivider i s not the only party i n t e r e s t e d ; the prospective o c c u p i e r and t h e community s h o u l d a l s o be considered. The object of intelligent planning s h o u l d be t o h a r m o n i z e these three interests, which are not so divergent as might appear.(Burditt, 1917, pp. 71-72) According the  t o Adams,  day,  excessive  ownership, housing. land  2.3  was  most (1)  this  and other  prominent  speculation, urban  problem,  land  not  planners private  problem  speculation,  land  relating  which  of  to  government  had t o a d d r e s s .  Proposals  were:  land  the major  I t was  policy  The  Burditt  f o r government common some  action  recommendations  form  of  on u r b a n made  betterment  land  for tax  on  policy  land  policy  land:  (2)  28  subdivision government Adam called  and  land  involvement Shortt,  use  regulation;  i n the supply  an  economist  f o r a t a x on t h e u n e a r n e d  of  who  and  (3)  greater  housing. advocated  land  taxes,  increment:  What i s n e e d e d i s a t a x t h a t will tax the speculation. This would not be a c a s e o f j u m p i n g on a man simply because he was dealing in land. Not at a l l . It i s right that, during this period of exceptional prosperity f o r those dealing in land, the municipality should get a slice of the profits of that prosperty at that time. ( S h o r t t , 1 9 2 2 , p . 17) Such  proposals  introduced provincial advisor  in  taxing  the  1909 B r i t i s h a c t prepared  Commission  unearned  single  proposed  by  bettement  Planning  b y Adams  as  Although  were  levies  Act. A  town  Conservation  levies.  increment  the  Town  of  Writing  t a x , as proposed  the  discouraged  that  to  draft  planning  also  included  proposals  n o t uncommon  for  they  were  implemented. The  value  similar  f o r betterment  the  never  the  planning  to  provisions  were  early  communities  i n 1 9 1 9 , when  assessments high  town  land  from  many  despite  taxes  by H e n r y  planners. implementing  communities lower  George,  land  was  rarely  Thomas high  land  maintainted prices,  Adams taxes.  high  Adams  land  warned  might  be a means of destroying production and burdening producers instead of the speculators in a country where land i s p l e n t i f u l a n d o w n e d b y 50 o r m o r e per cent of the c i t i z e n s . ( A d a m s , 1 9 1 9 , p. 367) He  suggested  betterment  that  levy  was  the  time  when  to  collect  land  was  a land  tax or a  converted  from  29  agricultural  to  the  unearned  not  privately A  increment  second  regulations potential  for on  solution as  land  subdivision  Thomas  controls  i t was  these  f o r urban  suburban  in this  were  of  socially,  land  problems  were  reducing  the  regulations  and d e s i g n  o f new  frogging'  municipal  Adams  the taxation  development  increases,  f o r 'leap  the  advocated  1 9 1 7 , p . 114)  proposed  the the timing  reducing  subdivisions.  because  value  the p o t e n t i a l  thereby  1  u s e . Adams  created.(Adams,  such  contraints reducing  urban  subdivisions  subdivisions  cost  explained  imposed  the  of  and  servicing  rationale  for  way:  The attitude of mind which has p e r m i t t e d i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s and p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s t o i n d u l g e i n an o r g y o f l a n d speculation has not o n l y added enormously t o t h e l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e c i t i e s , but a l s o added t o the taxes on i n d u s t r y , a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f a wasteful system of constructing local i m p r o v e m e n t s . ( A d a m s , 1921, p p . 12-13) Through  the process  development, conditions  Adams  would  be  of of p u b l i c argued,  planning  housing  and  of a s p e c t s general  of  land urban  improved:  The proper control of land development i s needed to prevent t h e undue density of buildings i n p a r t s of o u r c i t i e s and undue s c a t t e r i n g of b u i l d i n g s i n other parts...All l a n d s h o u l d be planned with the definite  'The u n e a r n e d increment i s the increase in land values resulting from general economic growth and community development. T h i s increment i s d e f i n e d as unearned because the increase i n land value i s n o t g e n e r a t e d due t o any e f f o r t on t h e p a r t o f t h e l a n d o w n e r .  30  object of securing health, convenience amenity in connection with industry r e s i d e n c e . ( A d a m s , 1919, p. 472) Adams  was  on  public  the  suburban  trying  land  As  estate of  to  Town  speculation  as  well  as  well such  writing  controls,  noted  the  vigorously  be  1921  of by  on land  private  many  both  newly  developed  there  engineer  because  rights  for  negative  was  a  particularly  I n s t i t u t e of  that  potential  already  expected,  Montreal  in  opposed  the  proposals,  Planning  example,  with  the  land  community.  the  address  of  might  opposition  to  and  developing  fair  the  proposals  for  real  Ewing, town  regulations  for  planning interfere  ownership  i n d i v i d u a l s and  of  Vice-President  James  land  areas.  amount  from  then  impacts  urban  Canada  use  and and  they  are  firms.  Another objection l i k e l y to be raised is that we are starting to interfere with individual interests and the rights of private property. I f t h e r e i s one t h i n g m o r e than another t h a t h a s b r o u g h t us i n t o t h i s mess i t i s t h e assertion and exercise of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v l e g e o v e r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and t h e common g o o d . ( E w i n g , 1921, p. 8) For  planners  imposed would  on  ensure  that  the  fringe  A  third  order afford  the  use  obligations,  greater  Adams  they of  market  municipal  Ewing,  urban  solution  would  housing.  discourage  to  controls  government's was  had  interest achieved.  land  be  that in  the  These  speculation  areas. to  land  involvement an  obligations  subdivision  infrastructure  argued,  provide  and  through  of  government to  as  landowners  efficient  on  such  in  and the  alternative Proposals  housing supply  problems  was  housing  in  could  not  provision  of  of  for  those  for  the  who  31  working  class  Toronto urged of  manufacturers a  programme  housing  because, towards was  housing  and  that  put  early  as  would  downplayed  they  argued,  private  in other  as  were  land  parts  was  the  a  by  In  in North  committee  in  for  much  a  doing  workers  proposals  ownership  of  1907.  assist  any  there  forward  so,  of  they  the  purchase  rental  housing  stronger  orientation  America  than  there  world.  In England the people are of a more c o n s e r v a t i v e c h a r a c t e r and a r e q u i t e used t o the r e n t a l system. In Canada the average citizen is more ambitious and desires propertyship.(Roden, 1907, p. 653) It City  was  not  Commissioner  government proposal  was  agricultural  for  lower  land  to  needing  that work  with  objection  to  erecting  build  The  challenged  make  local use  of  as  on  sites  to  however, the  did  institution  homeownership  more  residential societies  of  lots. might  free if  land  include land  a those  families  were  p.  for  land  to  individuals 1914,  He be  proposed  l o t , "there  private  purchase  in obtaining  Adams  proposals not  advocated This  that  the  Yorath,  housing.  grant  argued  C.  authorities  109)  would  the  of  authorities p.  house free  cost  f o r themselves".(Adams,  range  speculation,  a  He  that  Saskatoon,  building  local  that  offering  homes  of  that  1914,  i t for housing. to  City  to  local  programme  required  later  for eventual  housing.(Yorath,  homestead  years  the  designed  suggested  suggested  encouraged  the  to  also  He  several  for  measures  affordable.  also  until  might  be  desirous  no of  29) curbing  measures ownership.  land that These  32  proposals land  only  rather  sought  than  modify  exchange  associated  2.4 T h e  1919 F e d e r a l  While use  government's period by  first  great  shortages. Royal  National labour  government The high made  a  The several  to  poor  and  Industrial  further discussed  to  marked housing  established a called  business  with  and  industrial  conditions  and  a  called  as a for  problem.  and of  was made  1919. The  severe  housing  the  federal  was  and l a t e r  cope  unrest  f o r t h e worker  Commission  months  War  indicated in i t sreport  of b u i l d i n g land  National  to  labour  Commission  of b u i l d i n g  the  of p o l i t i c i a n s ,  programme  on t h e h o u s i n g  reference  land  World  land  in  was n o t u n t i l  Relations  identified  factor  i t impossible  urban  levies,  unrest  on I n d u s t r i a l  bodies  Royal  price  specific  betterment  labour  had advocated  1919 t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t  action  home".(Royal  cost  of  and  Problem  involvement  the end of the F i r s t  discuss  contributing  and the Land  government  programme  ownership  property.  Programme  I n d u s t r i a l "Conference  Both  of  of  of Conservation  housing  During  to  unrest.  Housing  and  deal  Commission  rights  the rights  greater  following  a  with  of housing  o b l i g a t i o n s on t h e o w n e r s o f  the basic  t h e Commission  regulation,  provision  t o impose  building  that "the  material  have  to provide  himself  with  Relations,  1919 p .  13) No  land  beyond  speculation a reference  nor  a  was  to the high  sites. Industrial  later,  Conference,  identified  the high  which cost  was  convened  of urban  land  33  as  one  cause  mentioned the  in  one  resulted and  high  122)  Housing,  such  issues In  an  construction general  .1)  by  in part,  that  insufficient  little need  of  of  In  housing. the  $25  housing, p.  compared  to  wage.  passed to  by  assist  identification Housing  urban  land  has  1919,  minimum  cabinet  its  on  a  million  1919  attention  attention  for  "much  suffering  orderin  the  of  three  Programme,  the  problems:  2)  to put within reach of a l l workingmen, particularly returned soldiers, the opportunity o f a c q u i r i n g t h e i r own homes at actual cost of the building and land acquired at a f a i r value, thus eliminating the p r o f i t s of the speculator;  3)  to contribute to the general health and well-being of the community by encouraging suitable town planning and housing s c h e m e s . ( C a n a d a , 1919, p. 10)  brochure  i t may  properly the  unanimously  social  and  federal  appropriation  focused  and  was  to promote the e r e c t i o n of d w e l l i n g houses of modern c h a r a c t e r t o r e l i e v e c o n g e s t i o n of population i n c i t i e s and towns;  Thomas as  the  the  for  adopted  speculation  I n d u s t r i a l Conference,  s t r i k e s and  objectives  government  loss  received  1919  Land  stated,  speculation,  (National  December  in-council  resolutions  economic  however,  as  problem.  resolution  land  rents".  housing  the  The  unrest, from  the  of  conference.  industrial  The  of  of  explaining Adams,  be  stated  regarded  comes  within  municipalities".  description  of  the  as  programme,  that a  the  public  was  provision  duty,  is  a  jurisdiction  of  the  (Ibid,  i t s housing  "the  which  p.  10)  programme,  The  written  houses,  so  matter provinces  by far  which and  government's  therefore,  recognzied  34  that  in  some  public  instances  reponsibility,  development  and  s a t i s f a c t o r y and  price  for A  federal  linked  explained  housing  the  sector that  of past  housing  there  housing  was  could  pattern  of  developments such  a  be  thing  a  urban  had as  not  a  fair  land.  1919  Life,  provision  that  private  been  It  the  the that  problems  government urban  the had  land  publication, problem  programme resulted  was  from  with  housing  needed urban  Conservation  problems.  because,  land  of  in  part,  problems.  At present the workingman has too many ' i n t e r e s t s ' a g a i n s t him in wanting a s i t e at a reasonable cost for a home. The real estate operator wants h i s b i g p r o f i t out of the land; the c i t y c o u n c i l wants i t s h i g h assessment v a l u e s of l a n d i n o r d e r to keep down the tax rate...against such a c o m b i n a t i o n i t a p p e a r s d i f f i c u l t t o get land at a cheap rate for housing s u b s i d i e s . ( A d a m s , 1919, p. 1) However,  the  programme  Instead,  it  loaned  builders  to  merely  did  not  tackle  advanced  funds  for  of  built  municipalities  176  publicly  financed  Both the  as  a  housing  for  was  affordable  afford  the  the  in  on  officials failure  average for  required  1939, and  the  programme  loan.  Though  concern  about  industrial  unrest  and  provinces  to  be the  6,242 h o u s e s  had  been  sites  it  and  these  reformers  viewed  did  Most  not of  the  families  then had  the  with  35-38)  income  payment  issue.  By  person.  middle  policy  housing.  housing  down  mortgage  of  p.  because  working the  1923,  the  scattered  loans.(Grauer,  government  programme  only  programme  land  to  construction  termination in  the  the  the  qualify emerged  problems  of  provide housing able  to  for  the  from  a  housing  35  industrial these a  workers,  families.  little  funds  undertake urban  any  pp.  by  The  great  late  teens.  profession  However,  contined  land  problem.  industrial sought  aspects  fruit  of  in  place Much  were  the  While  housing  by  the  the  not of  Seymour, housing  private  land  lots.  was  indicated  by  the  not figure  levels  of  emerging  the  action  housing  a  physical  the  mixture  was  with with  planners  housing.  the  provision  from  building" planning  on  Also, of  through  recognized  resulted  actual  1,  planning  development  town  of  government  in  problems of  38;  problem  uses  costs  many  policy  did  stimulated  concerned land  of  p.339) argued,  effort  more  residential  controls.  quite  of  planners,  commercial  had  provision  p.  depresed  some m e m b e r s  for  of  As  the  were  have  Housing  1920's.  most  reach  programme's  residential  housing  advocate  The  1939,  i t  for  would  in the  supported  and  the  Planners  laissez-faire  Craig(l928,  demand  reduction  infrastructure  some  to For  and  the  subidivision  that  i n c r e a s e d from  problems.  they  (Grauer,  to  government  involvement  Planners  during  and  programme  the  City  housing  of  the  1923  governments,  starts  use  1919  increasing  most  by  extent  the  programme funding.  To  the  the  failed  i t s limited  1935.  concern  housing  to  until  1920's:  For  due  direct  9-10)  programme  i f i t had,  further  construction, market  housing  a l l utilized  housing  1939,  2.5  Even  impact  were  the  that  "the as  evil  J.  D.  measures  put  insignificant. the  planning  profession  during  this  36  decade  was  directed  housing,  but  planning  as  Planners  not  towards a  the  the  of the  solution of  p r o f e s s i o n as  bylaw.  However,  only  zoning  bylaws  the  were  plans.  of  plans  the  pp. The  role  city  prepared  of  the 1924,  pp.  the  was  envisioned  and  the  zoning  the  1920's,  Vancouver,  these  role  location,  During  as  during  housing  the  bylaws  accompanying  p r o v i s i o n of while  the  and  and  Neither  plan  and  plans  in the  housing.(Seymour, 1928,  major  planning  city  government.  problems.  master  government  sector,  regulate  urban  the  Ontario(1924)  private  to  two  of  of  municipal  planning  involvement  f u n c t i o n of  zoning  the  these  going  of  s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t r o l s and  centrepiece  Columbia(1928)  p r o v i s i o n of  plans  1920's  Kitchener,  government  city  for  by  on  preparation  instruments the  the  institutionalization  permanent,  advocated  establishment  towards  called  was  of  seen  the  siting  125-130;  British  for  p r o v i s i o n of as  public and  the  direct  housing.  In  the  of  role  sector  dimensions  City  of  the  was of  Vancouver,  233-235) Vancouver  in housing  general  i n the  plan,  following  for  example  explained  its  terms:  one o f t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e s of a plan is undoubtedly to provide suitable areas for the e r e c t i o n of houses for those who are engaged i n the i n d u s t r i a l or commercial life of the city.(City of V a n c o u v e r , 1928, p. 233 ) Moreover, to new  the  the  role  Vancouver  residential  nevertheless,  of  government  plan, areas.  recognize  the  in housing  p r o v i s i o n of  (Ibid, that  p.  housing  was,  according  infrastructure  233)  The  problems  for  plan  did,  existed,  but  37  that  they  were  beyond  the  scope  of  the  plan.  T h e h o u s i n g p r o b l e m , h o w e v e r , a s o u t l i n e d by some, c a n o n l y be s o l v e d when the city or state is in the p o s i t i o n to guarantee to every individual householder a wage sufficient f o r t h e payment of a r e a s o n a l b l e r e n t . W h i l e town planning can go far to create and maintain desireable housing conditions, i t is beyond its concern itself with this very important e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m . ( I b i d , p. 234) Town social urban it  changes  came  bylaws  to  2.6  One with  as  a  of  the  housing  government  to  "uncontrolled  59)  was  planning  master  of on  However,  when  measures,  some  plan  limited  technical  and  zoning  in their  ability  Dalzell  regularly. Engineer  for  the  on  Dalzell,  the  of  articles a  Civil  City of  of  Engineer, Vancouver,  Conservation  and 1919  Dalzell  for  more  called  and  paid  According  the  utter  particular to  absence  Dalzell, of  p r o b l e m " . ( D a l z e l l , 1927,  improvement  and  the  problems  the  primarily  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  speculation.  root  the  Commission  s p e c u l a t i o n and  the  concerned  whose  for  i n the  housing  fix  planners  programme.  land  Furthermore,  the  Adams  land  at  city  measure  obligations  regulation.  municipal  G.  City  Thomas  action  attention  planning  A.  researcher  federal  use  prominent  appeared  to  some  i m p o s i t i o n of  instruments,  and  few  was  assistant  advocate  problems.  Assistant  housing  land  the  policy  Problems  housing  been  that  housing  publications had  the  implementing  were,  Housing  to  as  through  conceded  address  appeared  such  landowners  planners  to  planners  of  housing  conditions  town p. "can  38  only  be  done  planned p.  29)  of  land  the  and  His  for housing  a  would, would  Dalzell  wrote,  "eliminate  as  that of  a  number  of  lower  1928,  urban  land  the h i g h p r i c e of l a n d making i t d i f f i c u l t i n d u s t r i a l worker to f i n a n c e h i s house. ( D a l z e l l , 1 9 2 6 , p . 24)  1)  placing advance  2)  widening and  3)  instituting p . 24)  example, a  problems  in  h i t and  streets  as  and  easier  financing  Dalzell  technical  1927  he  miss  of  Dalzell  and  others  managers  of  who  challenge  might  social  rather that  for  of  the market  larger  building  the  than  see  the  on  the p r i c e  jerry  the  urban  rather  fundamental  than  p.  people of  builder,  land  but  is  11,60)  professions as  to  questions.  f o r poor  h u m a n i s m " . ( D a l z e l l , 1927, viewed  1926,  solutions  social  "Housing  well  lots;  (Dalzell,  to  dependant  problems, the  the  overly streets  on  terms.  tended  argued  affair,  scientific  land  requiring  the p r o f i t e e r i n g prospects  problem  until  were:  large areas of of development;  engineer  problems  out of the market obtained;  price of land resulting from residential development, narrow building plots;  these  had  housing:  3)  an  38)  problems  the high intensive and s m a l l  to  cost  possible  p.  2)  solution  the  f a r as  landowners keeping land h i g h e s t p r i c e s c o u l d be  not  and  carefully  c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d " . ( D a l z e l l , 1926,  and  cost  is  1)  housing  is  development  in homebuilding".(Dalzell,  argued  the high  As  For  likewise  speculation  to  residential  Careful.planning  Dalzell led  when  as  professionals  institutions  of  society.  39  They  viewed  seeking rather  urban  solutions than  housing  involving  at times problems  inherent  i n the urban  article  the  of  Canada,  of  land  the  editor  Alfred  problems.  private  purely  technical  terms,  regulation  and b e t t e r  design,  change.  these advocates  o f government  did  reference  land  make  some  market.  F o r example,  of the J o u r n a l ,  Buckley, advocated  and t h e b u i l d i n g  housing  in  fundamental- s o c i a l  However, on  problems  He  of Garden  identified  appropriation  Town  to  problems  in  a  1925  Planning  Institute  t h e community  ownership  Cities  the urban  of land  action  values  as the s o l u t i o n land that  problem were  to as  publicly  created. The m o p p i n g up of community created land values by private persons i s the cause of the present impasse in providing decent living conditions f o r low s a l a r i e d office w o r k e r s a n d l o w p a i d wage earners.(Buckley, 1925, p . 5) In based undue of  a  town  similar  vein,  Noulan  Couchon,  p l a n n e r and e n g i n e e r , argued  emphasis  on t h e r i g h t s  a prominent  that  of property  there  and the  Ottawa was  an  interests  landowners. The f e t i s h o f ' f e e s i m p l e ' h a s been idolized on this continent as an instrument of l i b e r t y a n d a s an a d v e r t i s m e n t f o r e m i g r a n t s seeking relief from the 'doings' of i n d i v i d u a l ' l a n d l o r d i s m ' i n E u r o p e . They a r e b e i n g c o a x e d by t h e i r o n y o f fate to come and l i k e w i s e ' d o ' a n d 'be d o n e ' ultimately. ( C o u c h o n (1927) p . 38) .  Thus,  f o r Couchon  inherent than  problems  i t would  the that  solve.  very would  system  of  ultimately  landownership create  more  had  problems  40  One  of  involved  the  the  during  landowners  on a  leasehold of  in  Endowment  t h e 1920's,  conference  explained  experiments  University  Developed  1927  few  the  Town  the development  Grounds  many  basis.  public in  of the l o t s  A paper  policy  Vancouver.  were  presented  Planning  in this  land  sold to at  the  I n s t i t u t e of Canada  way:  The tyranny and injustice of land profiteering may need to be met by t h e acquisition of land in large areas at a g r i c u l t u r a l p r i c e s with l e a s e h o l d tenure so that the savings can go into better b u i l d i n g s a n d some f o r m o f r e a s o n a b l e c r e d i t so t h a t poor families may gradually pay w i t h o u t t h e c r u s h i n g c o s t o f l a n d . ( " N o t e s on the 7th Annual Convention of the Town Planning I n s t i t u t e o f C a n a d a " , 1927, p . 118) Nevertheless, the the  site  the majority  went  1927 c o n f e r e n c e ,  touch it  some touch  the  University The which  about  was  of  land  defined  men  the workshop  in  indicate  housing  solve that  design  of  providing ("Luncheon  1927, p p .  also  most  rather  the  The  told  cannot does  housing at  the  land  session of  the  discussion urban  where  land better  involvement  problem.  o f i t was than  o r no  terms  the land  had a  Transcripts  little  and  on  145-147)  Conference  technical  and  planning...Nor  speculation.  design  would  o f town  was  As B u c k l e y  not touch  of housing.  there  was d e v e l o p e d  buyers.  earners."  Planning  that  improved  'scientific'  of  wage  that  does  problem  the problems  the problems  controls,  topic  low  Town  indicate  problem  scheme  Endownment G r o u n d s " , 1927  home  problems  great  for  addressed  session  class  "This  of the major  accommodation  of  to middle  of housing  of  Transcripts  spent reform.  on  the  Buckely,  41  for  example,  involvement  limited of  town  his  suggestions  planners  in  the  for  reform  provision  of  to  the  housing.  The o r t h o d o x a r g u e d t h a t i t ( t h e p r o v i s i o n of housing) w o u l d be b e t t e r m a n a g e d by p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e , b u t i t was not managed at a l l until it was put into the hands of scientific town planners of incorruptible integrity and treatment as a scientific problem, just as sewer and water supply would be.("Notes on the 7th annual convention o f t h e Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e of C a n a d a , " 1927, p. 141) Most  planners,  housing  2.7  as  essentially  appear  to  technical  have  viewed  land  and  issues.  Conclusion Few  the  therefore,  advocates  treatment  the  of  of  land  unregulated  widespread  land  1920's  posed  carried  heavy  scattered Also,  however,  of  due  location  of  were market,  for  many  of  was  for  and  the  the  suburban  to  land  measures  often  the  reduced  and  the  period  and  the  Many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of  use  servicing  as  the  patterns  in  the  values.  land  land  the  subidivision.  property  private The  However,  areas  residential  and  The  ownership,  speculator,  villain  not  responsible  problems. problems  speculation which  urban  land  challenged  commodity.  cost  challenged.  land  period  pre-war  high  identified  urban  this  problems.  markets  rarely  response  development  to  of  non-conforming  land  these  of  of  cities  urban  land  called  and  of  the  In  number  debts  in  privately held  development  a  areas  primacy  as  policy  speculation  haphazard  built  land  of  unregulated  advocates  regulated  the  of  land use  of  urban policy land.  42  Government fitted  into  planners land  policies one  on  called land  for  argued  by  general  benefit  group  of  of  in  the  completely  market  for  of  as  prevailing rights to  housing  own  a  the  their  the  began  to the  urban  land  pre-war of  who  of  local  imposed uses.  governments  for  challenge  a  small  government  afford  these  adequate  measures  to  It  generated  Third,  not  and  smaller  be  were  dependance  Any  a  urban  called  could  None  zoning  speculation  to  values.  sought  on  the  the  treatment  of  markets  and  property  working  class  families  free of  most  the  relatively  pace  As  itself  of  problems  wars.  constrained  land  was  establish  housing  use  to  commodity  desire  period  the  provision  activity.  land.  ideology  taxes  town  approach  Second,  increases  from  homes. A l s o ,  only  consequently, in  those  early  land  areas.  planners  housing  land  investment,  market.  strong  own  that  been  increased  p r i v a t e l y held  liberal  profession  had  the  residential  and  during  public  private remove  value  generally  the  a g r i c u l t u r a l to  and  for  that  urban  from  and  First,  'scientific'  increment  land  individuals  provision  a  period  curtail  of  unearned  from  for  would  because  this  argued  fringe  growth  should  land  need  converted  that  during  categories.  Many  the  was  was  to  the  controls  especially  housing  three  planning.  subdivision  when  of  emphasized  use  number  proposed  a  in  not  result  remained  small the  urban  were  a  by  planning 1920's  growth, as  of  purely  great  these  the  and and  as  they  factors,  private  sector  43  CHAPTER WHAT LAND THE  Housing during  Land  problems  the  debate  was  quite  real  economy,  Expenditure,  was  no and  Buckley,  1965,  resulted  in  p.  1933.  in  1933  in  was  1929.  10.4% With  The  in high  difficult  of  28%  to  housing.(Thompson,  v a l u e of  67.1%  the  Housing 1929  in  Gross  National  In  Canada's  completions 1930's  low  residential  building  incomes  also  families p.  16)  dropped to  homes  declined of  21,900  construction  non-farm  trades  also major  owner-occupied  in  and  activity  housing  increased  1 9 3 3 . ( F i r e s t o n e , 1951,  many 1983,  nation's  1935.(Urquhart  to a  investment  i n the  unemployment, for  the  i n non-farm  of  Unemployment 1928  values.  in  the  The  economic  house  64,700  the  decades.  reflected  markedly.  Decreased  33%.  of  markets.  131)  of  nature  This  to  investment only  issue.  1930  average  in  housing  concern  earlier  from  by  high  an  of  38.7%  declined  a  that  annual  1931-1941,  public  c o n t e n t and  the  from  from  major  by  declining  an  a  decreased  cities,  65%  from  measured dropped  1930-1939  as  the  longer  activity  as  YEARS:  but  different  estate  Economic  PROBLEM?  resurfaced  depression  speculation  depressed  DEPRESSION  THREE  pp.  which  obtain  from  57,  78)  made  i t  adequate  44  These  conditions  government  action.  governments  who  the  poor  the  BNA  to  pass  from  housing of  Nova  Better  Housing  groups,  the  The  provincial  League,  p r o v i n c e of  Nova  undertook  a  survey  In  there In  on  Housing  the  slum  a  Trade  Toronto,  and  on  Slum  recommended housing.  The  unaminous clearance. established Regional  a  of  rental Civic  efforts  of  the  and a  other  Housing  Low  the  on  involvement  p a s s i n g some  1935,  slum  Montreal  Board  The  League  of  published which low  as  was  introduced  part  of  pp.  15)  beyond absent the  also  rental  passed of  Construction  in housing  housing  Committee  principles  1978,  legislation  to  city.  of  legislature  housing  Committee.(Hulchanski,  the  programme  provision  National  Health  study  a  the  in  to  Rental Housing  the  Act  of of  civic  established  Improvment  endorsing  sub-committee  in  the  relating  housing.  provincial  Ottawa,  government,  was  recommending  c l e a r a n c e and  federal  was  districts  activity  under  1930's  Department  certain  C l e a r a n c e and  and  adopted  in Toronto  Montreal  problem  Trade  to  government  Lieutenant.-Governor's  Ontario  government  were,  the  resolution In  the  for  relief  more  problem  slum  municipal  first  lobbying  Winnipeg  of  from  even  subsidized  the  the  Scotia  the  Conditions  and  Report  actual  was  housing  clearance of  housing  to  need  which  The  during  Boards  year  problems.  governments  legislation Due  came  the  for distributing  for housing.  Scotia.  on  response  responsbile  following  1934  attention  initial  act, responsible  Province  1932.  The  were  and  focused  a slum  Council  i t s Ottawa However,  studying until  Dominion  the the  Housing  45  Act.  FIGURE 2  Dwelling Units Completed Canada,  1930-39  IL  A L A A  A  \  \  \  \ —  1330  1334  1332 •  Source: Appendix B o f  o  Total this  1936  report  Urban  !338  47  3.1  The S p e c i a l Housing Act Prior  federal  Committee  to the adoption  Parliament  Committee  on  Housing.  and report  policy  house  of  throughout  House a  Canada... having  o f Commons,  many  sector.  interviews  labour  or  committee's  city  generally  separate  or  congestion of  land  and land  that  government  land  could  land  of  such  with  from  Canada  the private  groups  such  organizations.  as a  that  problem  example,  seldom  as The  indicated  For  were  a  (Canada,  across  t o be v i e w e d  first  the  r a i s e d as  of the Ottawa  Planning  witness  remained  the hearings  and  as a  of a l l witnesses,  component  problem  in  the  was d e f i n e d  be a m e l i o r a t e d  use  employment  o f a month and  from  problems  chairman  that  to the land  The urban  national  of housing.  as the  like  were " t o  a  cost  a period  problems.  throughout  testimony,  of  the  Special  the treasury."  speculation  then  was c a l l e d  the  political  came  a  to provide  and o f f i c i a l s  of housing  from  the committee  housing.  upon  Act,  reference  witnesses  period,  Couchon,  no r e f e r e n c e  to  conducted  f o r the provision  Commission,  Couchon's  were  this  market  Noulan  with  imposed  planners  discussion  during  problems  order  regard  progressive  housing,  land  of  1935  the inaugaration  called  including No  terms  1935, p . i i i ) O v e r  t h e committee  Housing  i n February  b u i l d i n g . . . in  and the burdeon  half  urban  Its upon  and the Dominion  of the Dominion  established  investigate  policy  on H o u s i n g  regulation.  with As  consultant. made  little  provision  of  as a problem of  the implementation Couchon  told  the  48  commi t t e e : The crux of the p r o b l e m of h o u s i n g and the c r u x of the problem in town planning is congestion; that is congestion of traffic which affects...the accessibility to homes. ( I b i d , p. 7) According  to  Couchon  suburbanization competition  the  and  in  the  s o l u t i o n to  lowering  sale  of  these  land  land  prices  residential  problems  through  was  greater  land.  Competition, under the p r e s e n t dispensation of p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r s h i p of p r o p e r t y i s the only way you can s e c u r e c h e a p l a n d f o r the purpose of h o u s i n g . ( I b i d , p. 7) The from  next  major  Montreal,  suburbanization housing  witness,  P.  continued and  cheap  E.  Nobbs,  with  land  as  a  the  being  town  same  the  best  planner theme  solution  of to  problems. W h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e y o u h a v e t o move a family on t o o u t e r l a n d . You c a n n o t o n l y t h e n g i v e them more l a n d , but more a m e n i t y that way; and it is cheaper to do it.(Special C o m m i t t e e on H o u s i n g , 1935, n o . 2, p . 48)  The  committee,  decreased  land  solution  was  of  the  however, values  in  followed.  Committee  was  concerned  the The  over  central city F.  Rinfret, a  the  potential  if  the  Liberal  for  suburban and  member  asked:  how a r e we g o i n g to compensate the house owners i n s i d e the c i t y , i n the c e n t r a l p a r t s of the city, which properties become v a l u e l e s s i f new q u a r t e r s f o r t h e w o r k i n g m a n a r e p r o v i d e d i n the s u b u r b s . T h a t has always been one o f t h e most v i v i d p r o b l e m s of the h o u s i n g p r o b l e m . ( I b i d , p. 50) Most  committee  intervention of  market.  members  in housing  and  were land  concerned  that  would  the  harm  government functioning  49  One  of  testimony the He  the  by  W.  Housing told  the  few  L.  Somerville,  Committee committee  available  at  commercial  purposes.  Somerville,  low  than,he no.  4,  an  had p.  New  for  City,  told  subsidies  for  approach  for  income no.  8,  income the  the  to  sell  that  to of  the  made  Chairman  was  according  to  the  land  Committee  a  on  housing for  such  at  of  destined  rent  land  in  Council.  existing  property,  expected  was  Construction  land  such  it.(Special  manager  that  by  of  on  of  be  Kahn,  with  Low  National  was  values  a r c h i t e c t and  a l t e r n a t i v e uses  compromise  1935,  an  land  housing gave  if the  greater  price  Housing,  1935,  95-96)  York  middle  to  much  Owners not  some  best  the  that  opportunity paid  Ernst in  for  of  rents  could  opportunities landowner  references  the  National  committe  real  estate  loans  and  that  Housing one  housing  look  He  interest rates  government  Experiment  should  interests.  households.(Special  p.  suggested  was  likely  the  aimed  at  policies  Committee  for  on  Housing,  243)  housing,  private  the  of  according  to  Kahn,  could  not  be  provided  sector.  T h e r e i s one point of compromise between real estate and low c o s t h o u s i n g , low cost h o u s i n g s h o u l d be left to those in some semi-official c a p a c i t y , or l i m i t e d dividend companies, because i t i s not a field for private enterprise. (Canada, House of Commons, 1935, p. 273) Despite and  slum  Finance,  the  committee's  clearance, warned  the  Dr.  interest W.  committee  C. not  in  low  Clark, to  rental  housing  Deputy-Minister  consider  of  programmes  50  that  would  reminded  make  overly  them  government  that  was  construction,  great the  demands  primary  providing  rather  than  on t h e p u b l i c concern  employment  solving  of  purse.  the federal  through  the problems  He  housing  of  housing.  It would be unwise to make any hasty c o m m i t t m e n t s t o t h e most d i f f i c u l t and the most complicated aspects of housing, f o r instance, the problems of slum clearance...We should concentrate essentially on the immediate emergency problem of using housing as a stimulant t o business recovery. (Canada, House of Commons, 1 9 3 5 , p . 3 5 4 ) The  final  parliament policy. problem  report  in April It  argued  and that  responsibility  1935 that  housing  that  the  made  no  housing was,  committe mention  was  in  forwarded of  urban  e s s e n t i a l l y an  most  cases,  to land  incomes  to  be  the  of the i n d i v i d u a l .  Housing is primarily the direct responsibility of the individual cooperating with the local a u t h o r i t y . . . The acuteness of the housing problem l e s s e n s to the d e g r e e t h a t t h e wage s c a l e s o f l o w wage earners i s improved. ( S p e c i a l Committee on H o u s i n g , 1 9 3 5 , F i n a l r e p o r t , p . 6) In  June  Portfolio Housing the  wages". The  The  Bill.  bill  of  giving  houses,  that  introduced  the b i l l  was  the  without Dominion  introduced " f o r  and a s s i s t a n c e  particularly  for  Debates,  had r e c o g n i z e d  provided  Minister  encouragement  o f Commons  suitable  Perley,  government,  explained  (House  obtain  George  He  o f new  government  always  Sir  i n t h e Bennet  purpose  building  1935  that  housing  for federal  those  with  1935 S e s s i o n ,  many  families  without  mortgages  public  covering  i n the  p.  could  low 3909) not  assistance. 20% o f  the  51  value to  of the land  loan  60%  and house.  of  i t s value  would  provide  cent.  There  were  no  been  advocated  in  many  a downpayment  across  the country.  federal  loans  by  local  House of  also  interest  appropriation Irvine,  C C F Member  attempted  and  t o focus  the  housing  the debate  household 20  clearance  prepared  Act provisions for projects  on  or  undertaken  the  size  of  Only  Wetaskiwin,  on b r o a d e r  In  the proposed  legislation. for  per  as had  governments.  loans  proposed  expected  studies  Housing  focused  of Parliament  was  remaining  f o r slum  provincial  housing  the  the  t o low r e n t a l  discussion  the  for  covering  of  sector  the prospective  provisions  applied  most  for  while  The D o m i n i o n  authorities  debates  The p r i v a t e  the rate the  William Alberta,  issues.  The manner i n which t h i s b i l l provides f o r a s s i s t a n c e where t h e c a p i t a l i s t system has fallen down i s on a n e n t i r e l y capitalistic b a s i s . . . c a p i t a l i s m has f a l l e n down i n the building of houses just as i t has f a l l e n down i n a l m o s t e v e r y other undertaking of human service.( H o u s e o f Commons D e b a t e s , 1935 S e s s i o n , p . 39.29J..... With  little  criticism  of the c e n t r a l  its  principal objective  of  housing  construction  3.2  The In  for Act.  construction  and  of  to underwrite increasing  this  bill,  the financing  employment  i n the  sector.  1938 N a t i o n a l  Housing  1938 t h e f e d e r a l  the Dominion In  remained  thrust  Housing  explaining  A c t and the Grauer  government  introduced  Act,  first  the  the  provisions  of  a  Report replacement  National the  bill  Housing to the  52  parliament,  the  Minister  of  Finance,  Charles  A.  Dunning,  said: the p u r p o s e b e h i n d t h e m e a s u r e i s more t h a t of h e l p i n g the man with small equity to obtain h i s o b j e c t i v e o f o w n i n g h i s own home than t h a t of m e r e l y r e d u c i n g interests rates t o t h o s e who have s u b s t a n t i a l equities. ( H o u s e o f Commons D e b a t e s , 1938 Session, p. 39701 The  e s s e n t i a l components  those  in  the  1935  of  mortgage  housing  to  limited  land  Denton  the  Massey,  assisting replied  that  on  In  the 1939,  Provincial the study  They  and  were  included  loans  the the  for  corporations  a  the  same  as  expanded  low  income  and  municipal  measure  on  Director Science appointed  housing. of and as  the was,  land  banking  part  the  of  resident  expert  Previous University after  President  of  to of  his and  only  and  the  made  broached  Greenwood loan the  for  was  by who  money  to  purpose  of  housing.  considering,  Dunning  but  government  there took  no  proposal.  Royal  programme  for  lots  worth  banking  Relations'  commission's  of  was for  banks  need  was  discussion  as  land  mention  government  land  who  little  M.P.  federal  establish  land  of  Conservative the  to  debates  topic  individuals  further  action  house  The  that  municipalities  no  lending dividend  1938  policy.  suggested  was  legislation  authorities.  During of  the  legislation.  coverage  housing  of  Commission  research, and  on  A.  E.  researcher,  this  Grauer,  prepared  appointment  Toronto  Department  tenure  at  Chairman  Dominion-  of  the the  he of  a was  Social  commission, B.  C.  Power  53  Corporation. to  urban  land  His  land  report  on  problems,  housing  of  which  made he  several  placed  references  most  emphasis  on  speculation. Inflated land values and assessment valuations based upon speculative prices resulted in the construction of unsatisfactory dwellings in suburban areas. A t t h e same t i m e , h i g h r e n t s i n t h e d o w n t o w n a r e a s meant the crowding of two or more families i n s i n g l e r e s i d e n c e s as a means of reducing e x p e n s e s . ( G r a u e r , 1939, p. 33)  Thus,  Grauer  prices, to  but  such  linked  linked he  to  to  In  his  report  would  be  the  land  he  government  assistance  great  than  placed  any  no  effective  to  mention  town  Ibid,  provide  identified much in  the  private was  one  provision  of  fundamental  made  of  the  also local  regulations  was,  cost  housing.  on  property  of  according  Provinces,  low  emphasis  for  Grauer  33)  housing  of  land  speculation  planning  for  as  land  high  failure  p.  that  only  housing.  the  development  proposals  l i m i t a t i o n s on  conclusion  with  not  of  p r o v i n c i a l matter.  general  he  results  emphasized  was  with  suburban  controls.(  problems,  rather  poor  expected  problem  the  activity  constitution, a  plan  urban  as  enforce  subdivision  the  speculation  traced  speculative  as  noted, to  also  problems  governments such  land  cause  low land  rights. urban  housing  and  Although  the  for  town  Grauer  housing  planning  income reform In  land  his  and  housing or  any  final  market.  54  2.7  The  S o c i a l Democrats  During democratic Regina  the  party  Two  in  1933,  Commonwealth the  Reconstruction. t o those  calling  democratic  planning'  would as  Reconstruction, Federat ion, as  as  1935, p .  1933, p p .  they  called  7)  called  for  xviii; Social  Co-  Social  essentially economy.  these  social  for  public  as banking  government  the p r i v a t e for  the  somewhat  the  to  such  the  political  were  of  of  for  socialists,  sectors  require  well  groups  fundamental  major  of  League  management  First,  they  release  national  the  Fabian  Second,  goals  a  of the E n g l i s h  transportation. which  as  of these  certain  the  interest in  organization  of  were  problem  increased  The p o l i t i c s  approaches  of  the  government  land  by  Federation  proposals.  ownership  LSR  was  proposals  for greater  policy  social  there  s o c i a l i s m as witnessed  and  akin  1930's  Manifesto  operative  and the urban  and  'social  sector  t o work f o r  prof it.(League  for Social  Co-operative planning  was  Commonwealth defined  by t h e  being:  1)  the application problems;  of  2)  not a fixed plan, c o n t i n u a l l y r e v i s e d and  3)  deliberate development;  4)  supervision by a Planning Commission that would undertake surveys, formulate a coordinated programme, and execute and admininster t h a t programme. (League f o r S o c i a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n , 1935, p p .  control  expert  knowldege  but one up-dated; over  that  to  is  economic  218-  219) The  first  national  CCF  convention  adopted  a  manifesto  55  calling  for  the  dismantling  that  policies  dealing  key  element  in  directly  with  their  addressed  capitalism.  private  land  programme.  in to  of  the  indirectly  referred  as  example,  the  manifesto  insecurity  and  hardship:  of  However,  many  argues  would  ownership  Manifesto  one  One  it  natural  that  would  land  and  expect  is  be  never  is  only  resources.  that  the  a  For  workers*  can be removed only in a planned and socialized economy in which our national resources and the principle means of production and distribution are owned, controlled and operated by the people. (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, 1933, p.19) The  League  Planning  For  speculator "owns 1935,  p.  high  cost  land, on  town  the  Despite of  city  most  of  land plan the  some  as  an  margin  of  and  the  not  attention  building  mention  that  in  "interim  some  LSR's  planning,  private In  beyond  Reconstruction,  focused  is defined  451)  expensive  Social  Canada,  who  land  for  of  land  resulting  results  from  attention  to  on  landownership  or  Social the  land  landowner"  who  development".(LSR, speculation,  the  'inconvenient  and  'private' urban  its  planning  issues the  is  of  focused  institution  of  property. 1938  providing institution  the  League  further of  the  published  evidence private  that  land  Democracy i t avoided  Needs  Socialism  confronting  market:  A n t i - s o c i a l i s t s t r y t o make i t appear that the value of s t o c k s , bonds and r e a l estate would at once f a l l to z e r o under socialism, that the government would confiscate everything without payment and that the small i n v e s t o r and p r o p e r t y owners would be  the  56  r u i n e d . The s m a l l r e a l e s t a t e owner n e e d n o t f e a r f o r investment, land needed for housing schemes or other public purposes will be purchased at fair appraisal value.(League for S o c i a l Reconstruction, 1938, p. 107) The  LSR  in  full  their  further  land  to  conclude  not  ownership  want  to  3.4  Conclusion  history  1930's of  on  the  in  housing  due  high  their  farmers  and  major  marks  the  homes  or  the  be  appeared  urban  saw  the  LSR  which  that  One  issue  of  they  in was  homeowners  the  issue  left  that,  confiscated.  CCF  political  It  will  critics, and  to  to  the  housing  something policy.  the  The  a  watershed  pattern  housing  was  first  two  federal  were  high  of  for  future  established  unable  levels  Governments  can public  did  not  in  the  housing  to  during  acts.  afford  unemployment  public  and  reduced  particularly  concerned  unemployment.  Unemployment  encouraged  acts.  The  private  a  number  fecderal  housing  be  of  measures  sector,  encouraged  which  government the  that  construction  employment  not  a  with the  included  hoped  and  Many  adequate  were  introduce  would  of  of  period  l e v e l s of  housing  aiding  a  this  incomes.  government the  LSR  provision by  families  the  to  of  homes.  nationalized  housing  1930's  family  owner  their  assure  the as  the  address.  The  the  to be  that  land  of  respond  i t s best  would  policy  that  possession  attempt  trying  noted  by of  would  be  concern  to  increased. Land  policy,-  however,  was  major  57  housing  policy-makers.  decreased, no  land  longer  criticism.  to  a  little  the  the  criticism of  regulation  was  because  pace  the  respects,  land  greater  housing.  land  from  not of  market the  use  urban was  government  land  uses.  C.C.F..  by  The  non-issue  involvement  in  policy  treatment  even  during  those  of very  Urged  the  land  use  the  slow.  the  the  little  received  was for  very  C.C.F.  governments  development a  service  land  The  However,  had  residential  their  commodity  regulation.  pursued  policy  of  to  received  limited  values  governments  suburban  ownership  C.C.F.  and  attempting  speculative  held  land  1-930's l a n d  disappeared  with  regulation  privately  introduction  urging  of  the  had  contend  Private  Even  proposals as  to  pattern  developments.  land  speculation  had  haphazard  During  1930's  In  most  individuals  provision  of  58  CHAPTER POST-WAR AND  GOVERNMENT  FOUR HOUSING  T H E RETURN OF  LAND  PROGRAMMES  PROBLEMS:  1940-1969  During the on  post  t h e war t h e f e d e r a l war p e r i o d .  Reconstruction  to  peacetime  began  to plan f o r  I t established the Advisory  i n 1941 and  government  t o make  the  included  plans  for  reconstruction  Government  plans  a central  government  i n the p r o v i s i o n of wartime  the  of  role  Committee transition  the  economy.  for  the  federal  and post  war  veterans  1940's  were o f  housing. Four  federal  particular Wartime  activities  importance: Housing  Reconstruction  Act  the  Housing  expected The economic slump  would  increase years times  the passage  establishment  Corporation  government  the  i n 1946.  1940  to  Of  central  that  of the depression  saw  on H o u s i n g  Central  the return  household were  on and  Housing  Mortgage and  concern of s o l d i e r s  was  how  and the  formation. a  t h e economy  to a long  through  Committee  o f t h e 1944 N a t i o n a l the  1969  housing  report  of  accommodate in family  of  Advisory  and i t s subcommittee's  Planning,  the  provision  Limited,  Community and  the  during  period  period turn  of  around  of economic  buoyant from t h e growth.  59  These y e a r s  were  inflation, upward The in  low  trend  i n the annual of urban  1940 t o more period,  rate  than  number o f a n n u a l  income  As  in  the  wage  consumer 184.3%,  price from  represented costs  family  high  rate  and an  from  49,000  Appendix).  declines  During  i n the annual  increase  housing of  low  contstruction.  increased  Increased  i n the  construction  employment  by  among  construction  translated  into  I I , residential the post  level  family  of  a t pace  and  reflected example,  increased  62%  and  1969 rose  to  1969,  land  of the cost  land  increased  i n 1969 a s a p r o p o r t i o n homes f i n a n c e d  under  from  of the t o t a l  t h e N.H.A..  increases while  costs  the  incomes f o r the  of land  of  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d raw l a n d III,  income  family  by 3 3 0 % . The c o s t  proportion  land  war p e r i o d  For  to  rising  prices  price  incomes a l s o  and  land  families).  bungalow  a larger  table  also  general  1949  housing  during  index  of urban  of  table  earner  a v e r a g e N.H.A.  17.8%  the  dramatically  than  two  noted  units  rates, rates  of housing  was a c o n t i n u o u s  amount  increases(increasing  the  there  levels  shown  increased  in  mortgage  i n I969(see  completions.  increased  increased  faster  housing  wage  workers.  The  prices.  low  f o r a few m i n o r  reflected  Canadian  increasing  number  155,000  except  of completions,  activity  by  unemployment,  completion  this  marked  housing increased.  also as As  8.1% i n 1949 t o cost  of  single  FIGURE 3  Dwelling Units Completed Canada,  1940-69  * /  Ir VV f \ /  1940  1945  1950  Source: Appendix B o f t h i s  A/ x  \  J  1955 report  1960  1965  /  61  Table Indexes  II  of r e s i d e n t i a l land c o s t s , c o s t s and consumer 1949-1969  residential prices,  construction  Year  Land Costs  Const. Costs per square foot  1 949 1 950 1 950 1 952 1 953 1 954 1 955 1 956 1 957 1 958 1959  26.8 34.0 42.0 48 . 1 48.0 68. 1 72.9 81 .2 92. 1 100.4 100.8 .  75.9 79.2 86. 1 88.3 89. 1 90.6 92.5 96. 3 98. 1 99.5 101.6  77.3 79.6 88.0 90. 1 89.3 89.9 90.0 91.3 94.3 96.8 97.9  66.8 73.2 78.8 82.7 85.2 87. 1 89.2 91 .3 93.0 95.4 97.0  56.4 N. A . 66.5 N. A . N.A. 77.9 82.2 N.A. 87.3 92. 5 93.4  100.4 100.0 99.5 1 00.7 106.0 109.5 118.4 1 22.9 128.9 137.8  99. 1 1 00.0 101.2 103.0 104.8 1 07.4 111.4 115.4 120.1 125.5  99.0 100.0 101.6 103.4 106.0 1 08.8 112.2 117.5 124.6 133.1  N.A. 100.0 N.A. 111.7 N.A. 125.4 N.A. 141.3 151.5 1 60.6  1 960 96.2 1961 ' 100.0 1 962 103.3 1 09.7 1 963 114.7 1 964 1 965 114.8 1 966 122.5 1 967 128.6 1 968 1 36.6 1 47.7 1 969 Note:  Consumer Price I ndex ( a l l goods)  I ndex of Family Incomes  1961 = 100.0 The for land and indexes b a s e d on those for single u n d e r t h e N.H. A.  Sources:  Consumer Pr i c e I ndex (shelter)  CMHC,  1970, p . 65; L e a c y ,  construct ion costs are family homes f inanced  1983, K8-18.  62  Table I I I Land  costs as a p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l cost of f a m i l y h o m e s f i n a n c e d u n d e r t h e N.H.A., 1949-1969  Year  The c o s t of land as a p e r c e n t a g e of t h e t o t a l cost of the average s i n g l e f a m i l y house financed u n d e r t h e N.H.A.  1949  8.1  1951  9.6  1954  13.6  1955  14.2  1956  14.7  1957  16.1  1958  17.3  1959  17.1  1960  16.5  1961  16.9  1962  17.3  1963  17.8  1964  17.8  1965  16.9  1966  16.6  1967  17.0  1968  17.7  1969  17.8  Source:  CMHC,  1978, p . 7 5 .  single  63  During widened land  t h e 1940 t o 1969 p e r i o d  in  assembly  scope  t o i n c l u d e urban  and s e r v i c i n g  municipal  planning.  production  of housing.  cent  of  Housing  housing  Act,  starts.(CMHC, The  of  1969  called  first  The  were  and  government's In  Force  on  three  the  role  concluded  support role  i n 1940  for  in  the  10.9 p e r  the National housing  a central The next  federal sets  second  in  banks  of  major  of  The s h o r t a g e  of serviced  the v i s i b i l i t y  1944  federal  study,  Development  programmes a n d  i n housing.  N.H.A. a m e n d m e n t s ,  t o loan  after  The  Urban  supporting  1954 w h i c h  housing  federal  f o r government  housing  role  i n the provision  again  role  and  amendments  of  major  development.  Housing  major  with  i n t r o d u c e d measures  set  emerged  increased  while  of federal  larger  the discussion  problem 1930's.  proposed  and p e r m i t t e d  third  financial  f i n a n c e d under  urban  of housing.  i n 1944 w h i c h  mortgages  and  and  report  f o r an even  planing  housing,  had i n c r e a s e d t o 40.6% of  the preformance  There  public  i t s direct  F o r example,  began  Task  questioned  measures  1 9 7 0 , p . 1)  the production  the  and the  were  housing  renewal,  increased  b y 1969 t h i s  housing  subcommittee in  It  starts  period  studies  federal  in  under  1964  policy  land  of t h e urban  the  ignored  N.H.A.. the  housing. urban  land  throughout  and r i s i n g land  insured  expanded  o f low income  being  community  introduced  funds  the  land  problem.  the  prices  64  4.1  The and  C u r t i s S u b - c o m m i t t e e on H o u s i n g Community P l a n n i n g : 1942-1944  The  subcommittee  established Committee  in  on  on  1942  Housing  by  the  and  and  Community  federal  Planning  government's  was  Advisory  Reconstruction:  to review existing legislation and administrative organizations relating to housing and community p l a n n i n g , both urban and rural, t h r o u g h o u t Canada and t o r e p o r t regarding such changes in l e g i s l a t i o n . ( C a n a d a , 1944, p. 4) It  included  architects, Fearing  the  return  years,  involvement  in  viewed  to  problems. as  the  of  much  the  measures  housing  provincial  and  university professors  depression  other  senior  the  hope  economy avoid The  phases  and  was  placed  return  Sub-committee of  the  municipal  economic  through  the  federal c i v i l  in greater  high  out  1948-50  Re-equipment  boom;  3)  1951  Economic  and  post-war  years  contraction;  2)  and  they  period:  and  government  what  war  Reconversion  the  policies  post  1947-47  of  unemployment  sketched  1)  officials.  conditions  Keynsian of  servants,  Peak;  4) 1 9 5 2 - 5 4 Rapid Economic D e c l i n e . ( C a n a d a , A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e , 1944, p. 150) Of  greatest  and  a  was  viewed  as  a  concern  possible  policy  as  housing an  was  unemployment  shortage.  anti-cyclical  instrument  to  avoid  in  the  Government  stabilization  housing tool  to  recessions.  T h e h o u s i n g p r o g r a m m e s h o u l d be s u b j e c t t o a flexible margine f o r the p u r p o s e of fitting it into a larger framework of post-war policy aiming at economic s t a b i l i z a t i o n and f u l l employment. ( I b i d , p. 150)  policy be  used  65  The  Sub-committee  planning given in  and  great  the  land  use  emphasis  improvement  also  focused  control  i n the  of  on  measures.  report  housing  the  as  one  need Town  of  for  town  planning  the  key  was  factors  conditions.  Town p l a n n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l l y the matter of using land in i t s most efficient and socially desirably way.(Canada, Advisory C o m m i t t e e , 1944, p . 9) The  report  recommended  governments  to encourage  planning  in  order  to  Unlike  much  of  the  there  was  no  criticism  the  real  estate  the  industry  recommending  responsibility  to  implementation  of  for  housing  literature  of  the The  market  of  assistance  prepare  community.  in  the  the  planning  confidence by  federal  land  that  and  the p r o v i s i o n  the p r i v a t e  the  development  mechanism  land  use  developments,.  from  Sub-committee  municipal  1920's,  industry  indicated  or i t s  the  development  of  housing  be  sector  It has been a s s u m e d by t h e c o m m i t t e e t h a t the great bulk of h o u s i n g , whether publicly, p r i v a t e l y or c o - o p e r a t i v e l y owned will be built by private contractors and corporations. ( I b i d , p . 9) The  1944  policies  and  not  follow  report.  the  of  which  throne  programmes,  The  maintenance economy  federal  speech however,  recommendations  government full would  "require  development,  planning".  (House  t h e new  of  the  indicated  employment  regional  announced  and  the  Debates,  housing  legislation  concern  of  housing 1944  did  Sub-committee's for  reconstruction  programmes  including  o f Commons  its  new  the  of  national and  Session,  the and  community p.  3)  66  Throughout problems  were  the of  great  members.  Such  housing  conditions  discussed. responsible 1944  topics  J.  1944  session  interest  as  housing  in  major  Illsely,  the  for housing,  N.H.A. a m e n d m e n t s  to  parliament  the  government  shortages, cities  Minister  told  of  the  slum  and  of  and  other  clearance,  evictions  Finance  house  housing  when  who  were  was  also  i n t r o d u c i n g the  that:  I f t h e r e i s one t h i n g upon w h i c h a l l p a r t i e s in t h i s h o u s e a g r e e i t i s on t h e importance of p l a c i n g a house building programme and the improvement of h o u s i n g c o n d i t i o n s w e l l up i n t h e f o r e f r o n t o f t h e g e n e r a l p r o g r a m m e of reconstruction. ( H o u s e o f Commons Debates, 1944 S e s s i o n , p . 5973~5 The no  measures  proposed  significant  government's was  the  the  revisions  past  private  joint  loans  loans  loans, for  inclusion into  made be  made  few  to  housing  and  the  sector  for  of  to  before,  low  only  conducting  Concern  was  expressed  that  be  government  of  small  producing  needed wanted  for to  the  operators the  large  returning  encourage  levels to  support by  through  guarantee change  technical  (Ibid,  of  industry  and  major  the  important  in housing  housing,  with  in  Most  sought  planning.  many  policy.  policies  municipal  too  changes  funding  and  of  passed  increase  housing  up  later  major  investment  The  provisions for  and  construction  rental  rehabilitation.  incapable  would  As  market  encouraging  Liberals  intention  programmes.  housing  the  approach  government's  existing  by  pp.  development  was  of the  research  5638-5639) industry  was  who,  they  feared,  would  amount  of  housing  that  veterans.  If anything,  consolidation  of  the  the land  67  development  industry.  One of the great weaknesses i n the house b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y i n Canada i s the absence of a substantial number o f c o m p a n i e s w i t h c o m p e t e n t management and with sufficiently large resources to acquire large blocks of l a n d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the l a r g e c i t i e s where l a n d v a l u e s a r e h i g h , and to develop such areas i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e way, providing a l l necessary community and incidental s e r v i c e s . ( I b i d , p . 597 7) Although and  at  managed  made  in  and  by  time  the  the  provision the  that  Wartime  House  of  housing  private  sector  the  production  policy urban  went land  to  housing  an  could  that  not  housing  great  lengths  would  Corp., the  option.  of  market  being  Housing  debates was  was  It  cope  remain  built  suggestion  direct  with  ensure  the  no  was  without to  successfully  was  government  recognized rapid  that  urbanization  assistance,  housing  that  and  domain  housing of  the  the  private  sector.  The the  CCF  federal  proposed low  and  that  not  CCF  should  available was  housing  funding  planning. bylaws  members  to  would  not  programme.  a c t i v e l y oppose They  levels allocated enough  emphasis  members be  required  communities.  concerned  housing  did  that lead  to  CCF  for  had  suggested before  did  rising  prices:  lot  plans  funds  critic  government  that  to or  zoning made  Knowles  involvement  In v i e w of t h e i n c r e a s e d demand f o r b u i l d i n g l o t s , as a r e s u l t of the government housing proposals, will the government give c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the p l a c i n g of a ceiling  too town  were  Stanley  of the  were  given  town  increased  tenor  N.H.A.  been  housing  housing  argue  the  that  the  in  68  p r i c e o n l o t s a v a i l a b l e f o r new h o u s e s . ( H o u s e o f Commons D e b a t e s , 1944 S e s s i o n ,  p.  34641 Much CCF  of t h e i r were  Housing that  agreement  the government  While  most  was  planners the  not  use  planning  concerns  bylaws  and  federal  suburban E.  of  pp.  capital  such  turned  as  the  report  were  enough  on  concerned  heed  to  the  5981-5985)  Problem concerned  available  their  producing surveys  they  the  for  attention master  that  infrastructure  itself  housing,  to  physical  plans,  would  with  zoning  oversee  the  for  new  necessary  neighbourhoods. G.  preparation  Faludi, o f many  a municipal city  the  master  1950's  including  housing  a s one o f t h e t h r e e  He  paying  government  planners  philosophically  Sub-committee  and the Housing  housing  construction  that  and t h a t  (Ibid,  i n c r e a s e d mortgage land  the  Planning  recommendations.  Post-war  making  indicated  with  and Community  report's  4.2  in  criticisms  planner plans  1944 T o r o n t o  responsible  during master  components  for  t h e 1940's plan,  of post  the and  identified  war  policy.  envisioned: The have that villa  Faludi place  opening up of land and resources that never been exploited before t h e war w i l l n e e d t h e b u i l d i n g o f new t o w n s a n d g e s . ( F a l u d i , 1 9 4 4 , p . 6, 10)  and other t h e needed  planners plans  guide  the  housing  developments.  were  concerned  and l a n d  construction The  of  use  with  controls  infrastructure  urban  land  problem  how  to put i n  which for was  would  suburban rarely  69  defined  during  officials  i n terms  ownership.  It  neighbourhood policies, and  the  1940's  of land was  planners  speculation  usually  design,  municipal  by  and  or  defined  the  lack  and  government  private in  of  property  terms  of  adequate  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and p u b l i c  land  poor  housing use  plans  controls. Some  planners  direction example,  of  of t h i s  period  a l l aspects  Peter  Oberlander  of  advocated  housing  more  government  developments.  For  called for:  a housing e r a o f more permanent l o n g range p o l i c y , an a c c u r a t e assessment of housing needs i n a l l of i t s p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l aspects must procede very large scale housing development.(Carver, Oberlander and A r m s t r o n g , 1949, p . 199) The  key t o i m p r o v e d  was  ah o v e r h a u l  housing  conditions,  of p u b l i c  policies  institutionalize  municipal  land  of  Humphrey  Carver,  government.  CMHC  staff  Toronto, fringe Toronto  member, warned  master  plan  other  conform In being  He  plan  to the Toronto  prepared,  undertaken. undertaken  was  h a d n o t "won  many  One  of  for  the  of  would  function  and l a t e r crisis  that  Master  i n use i n the Toronto  studies  a  the a l l e g i a n c e "  plans  that  a in  e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l of  commented  plan.(Carver,  planners,  'housing  no  the Etobicoke  t o the master  as  an a r c h i t e c t  on t h e  further  and that  master  addition  there  many  and f u n c t i o n s  use p l a n n i n g  writing  that  development.  municipalities only  when  for  the of  Plan  1944  suburban (then  region)  the  d i dnot  1947, p . 2 4 5 ) and l a n d housing  the  first  during  City  of S t . John's,  use  by  conditions  this Nfld.,  period on  laws were was  housing  70  and  town  planning.  It  conditions,  the  playgrounds.  Improved  report,  other  much  of  report  i t did  involvement  the  of  in  the  principles  Committee.  The  British  House  benefit  from  permission of  collect St.  assembling the  land  that  unique  a  for  to  to  in  adapt  increases to  of  to  be  values.  community government  land  the  on  Uthwatt by  state  the  the  followed  resulting  allow  rural  this  residential  and  but  Although  appointed  that  the  houses,  British  was  and  to  assembly  1942  which  levy  land  only  housing  the  from  betterment  not  land  authorities  parks  infrastructure.  argued  value  land  attempted land  in  housing  according  residential  government  land  of  of  city's  programme  of  Commons c a l l e d  increment  out  a  the  physical  committee  planning  the  John's  The  held  and  and  assembly  Uthwatt  privately,  recommended  with  propose  any  improvement  conditions,  recommended  of  of  system  facilities  the  the  improvement  dealt  city.  on  housing  the  community  the  problems,  fringe  roadway  required  also  focused  the should  from  the  conversion  urban  use.  It  imposed  that  The  assembly  land  principle  development  and  by then  would in  publicly leasing  homeowners.  Land should be purchased at fair 'agricultural value'. The method of expropriation is an adaptation of the Uthwatt proposals and may be the first i n s t a n c e of the...method of d e t e r m i n i n g fair agricultural value of land ready for b u i l d i n g d e v e l o p m e n t . ( B l a n d , 1946, p. 302) The  St.  John's  244  dwellings  the  housing  was  housing in  a  study  suburban  sold,  the  resulted residental  lots  were  in  the  construction  development.  leased  for  a  of  Although 99  year  71  period.  (Ibid,  After  p.  the  housing  surveys  before  the  Layout  for  war and  CMHC  Living,  requested  implement  committment  i d e n t i f i e d .the housing  302)  of  for  plans  1949,  urban  planning  housing  pp.  land  communities  and  federal  November  need  that  controls  assistance.  2-20)  policy  prepare  Humphrey  that  would  (See  Carver address  problems. With a tremendous c o n s t r u c t i o n task on our hands, we c a n n o t a f f o r d t o p r o v i d e streets, s e r v i c e s and schools for isolated houses scattered widely o v e r t h e raw l a n d o u t s i d e urban areas. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h i s sporadic way of b u i l d i n g c o n t i n u a l l y t h r e a t e n s t o d e v e l o p a s l o w i n c o m e home builders, ever seeking lower c o s t s , are attempted f u r t h e r a f i e l d by c h e a p l a n d . ( C a r v e r , 1947, p. 2)  The  search  resulting incomes outside were  for  in  suburban  were the  high  forced  developed  in  the  Although control of  of  primary  commented and  zoning  cheap  sprawl. by  according  Many  households'  economic  area  of  were  residential concern  to  1946  bylaws  was,  to of  circumstance  communities  Carver, modest  to  locate  because  land  the  layout  costs  cities.  planners  in a  land  the  and  urban  general  article  across  concerned  that  with  development, public.  this  F a l u d i and  in preparing  master  Canada:  the. n e e d s which a p p e a r e d t o the p u b l i c of most c o n s e q u e n c e as a r e s u l t of growth were p u b l i c improvements such as d i s p o s a l p l a n t s , schools, street modifications, parking, recreation areas and municipal buildings. L e s s i n t e r e s t was shown i n i m p r o v i n g blight, in setting aside land for growth and i n c o n t r o l l i n g f r i n g e development.(Adamson and F a l u d i , 1946, p. 2-3)  was  and not  Adamson plans  72  The  major  following for  problems  t h e Second  returning  planners  plan  World  their  through  also,  increased  4.3  The s h o r t a g e While  role  the supply  i n the late  development  more  22,000  suburban CMHC,  told  used  the  that  N.H.A.  federal  for  assemblies residential  would  developments.  new  would  amendments  production  of decent  neighbourhoods  serviced  land.  policy  focused  on t h e for  t o emerge.  I t was e s t i m a t e d  that  per  1952  year  David  was  required  Mansur,  Committee  President  on  of urban serviced  municipal  Banking  for of and  municipalities land  trunk  introduced  and  services  direct  amendments  for the public  I t was h o p e d the  CD.  t h e House  new  an o v e r a l l  land  encourage  told  provided  'housing  of s e r v i c e d  purposes.  Reconstruction,  the  war  a shortage  a s 1949 a l l o w i n g  housing  housing  that was  1952, p . 82)  government  as e a r l y  housing  available  existing  taxed.(Mansur,  The  which  1950 t h e m a j o r i t y  of t h e i r  of  addressing  residential  Parliamentary  by  up most  capacity  severely  lands  the  In  of  land  of land  development.  Commerce had  began  acres  i n the years  f a m i l i e s . The post  of urban,  1940's  planning,  suburban than  o f new  of serviced  of municipal  as  policies  f o r the development  and  and t h e i r  role  public  government  War was t h e p r o v i s i o n  servicemen  viewed  crisis'  confronting  development Howe,  o f Commons  more  that  private  neighbourhoods.  that  the  assembly of public of  federal  to  land  planned  M i n i s t e r of  he hoped  resources  the  into the  73  The b i l l i s meant t o put at a financial disadvantage, vis-a-vis the lending institutions, such speculative developers who habitually b u i l d on s c a t t e r e d l o t s and sell to bargain-hunters who then shortly demand extravagant and haphazard extensions of municipal streets and services. (See L a y o u t f o r L i v i n g , F a l l I s s u e , p . 6) Despite  the  government  and F i s h ,  supply  limits  on  such  of  and they  services.  responsible Commons  on p.  public  Most  was  little  assembly  until  320-321) land  was a l s o for  capital  however,  the  Winters,  the problem  by t h e  expenditure. builders  were  resources  p . 83) R o b e r t explained  constrained  residential  builders,  d i d n o t have  f o r housing,  there  land  by r e q u i r i n g  (Ibid,  in this  amendments  borrowing  reacted  services.  companies  the  of serviced  municipal  Municipalities finance  of  expenditure  1951.(Dennis The  passage  only to  to small  finance  the Minister to the  House  way:  The p o s t war r a t e o f h o u s i n g s t a r t s h a s f a r exceeded t h e rate of l o tdevelopment and t h e growth of municipal services... therefore, the amount of a v a i l a b l e s e r v i c e d land has rapidly diminished. In some centres substantial programmes of new r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t must w a i t on the provision of additional serviced land... Because of unwi11ingnesss or i n a b i l i t y t o borrow, the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s do n o t a l w a y s r e s p o n d a s soon as t h e need f o r additional serviced land arises.( H o u s e o f Commons D e b a t e s , 1954 S e s s i o n , p. 4451) The resulting senior  problems  of rapid  shortages  government  builders.  In  1954  post  of serviced response Robert  to  war u r b a n land  called  assist  Winters  expansion  and the  f o r some  sort of  municipalities  introduced  and  amendments t o  74  the  National  importance 1954  of  land  p.  through  fringe land terms. land  these  areas,  builders  Although  The  amendments  servicing  would service  the federal  the legislative other  Debates,  introduced  partnership  i n each  jointly  purchase  the land  and  of the  and  land  then  amendments  supply,  d i d not address increase  the  on t h e  sell  recognized  to housing  new  suburban  the federal  government  to help  o f Commons  prime  p a y f o r i t on e x t e n d e d  importance  than  the  of r e s i d e n t i a l  partnerships,  who w o u l d  was o f c e n t r a l  problem  (House  more  government  of urban to  "recognized  federal-provincial  Through  provincial  that  land".  4451)  t o encourage  provinces.  Act  serviced  session,  measures  of  Housing  the  payback  that  urban  the  focus  t h e urban  the supply of  land  serviced  land. Robert legislation rate".  by  o f Commons  as  shown  land  assembly  the  N.H.A. total  The preceding  providing  1954  1972,  IV, from  15,156  lots.  housing  at  Session,  assembly  initiated  of the housing  building  and f e d e r a l  Fish,  were  of the  house  land  i n Table  projects  number  lots.(CMHC,  few  and  the objective  Debates,  the provincial  1950's.(Dennis  example,  that  maintain  relatively  initiated  the  stated  was, " t o  (House  However,  the  Winters  a  high  p . 1313)  projects governments  pp.  320-  were during  329)  For  1950 t o 1 9 6 0 , o n l y under  This  units  section  40  49 of  r e p r e s e n t e d 1.5% o f requiring  serviced  1978, p . 58)  1954 d e b a t e debates  on t h e N.H.A.  on t h e f e d e r a l  amendments  housing  acts  differed because  from urban  75  land  problems  Clarence the  were  Gillis,  house  principal  of concern  C . C . F . M.  that  he  felt  t o many  P.  that  members.  f o r Cape land  F o r example,  Breton  speculation  South, was  told  one o f t h e  problems.  Another matter t h e government i s l a c k i n g in supervising, not only the federal government, but the p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l governments also, i s that of land speculation, which i s one of the main stumbling blocks today i n the p r o v i s i o n of homes. ( I b i d , p . 1430) Claude  Ellis,  values of  were  land  said,  C C F member  up s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i n c e  speculators.  " i s a very Paul  Toronto, blame  t h e house  for rising  to Hellyer, quality  Although  he c o n c e d e d  the Toronto  mention house  price The  for  defined lots. prices  land  during  increases.  as a  simply CMHC were  never  relating i n terms  President, escalating  i s , he  were  labour  houses, costs.,  substantially  two y e a r s ,  significant  not t o prices,  due t o l a r g e r  had r i s e n  from  he  made  no  contribution  to  ( I b i d , p . 1369)  federal-provincial  issues  land  housing  rising  costs  the past  speculation  i n t h e N.H.A.,  broader  that  Rising  and  actions  developer  land .prices  principally  land  p. 1430)  former  rising  that  the  on r e s i d e n t i a l  prices.  were  added  1945 d u e t o  and  construction  area  of land  that  housing  Centre,  act".(Ibid,  L i b e r a l M.P.  higher  in  Speculation  unpatriotic  Hellyer, told  according  f o r Regina  government  addressed  t o urban  David  any  land.  of the supply Mansur  considerably  assistance of  the  The l a n d  of  once  of  problem  serviced  was  provided the was  suburban  aware  that  land  the  land  was  76  serviced.  He  Commerce  told  the Parliamentary  Committee  on B a n k i n g a n d  that: When a m u n i c i p a l i t y m o v e s o u t t r u n k s e r v i c e s into a raw land area, t h e raw land i m m e d i a t e l y t a k e s on a new price 10 times its raw land price. Under the federal/provincial partnership scheme, the raw land i s purchased in very large blocks b e f o r e there i s any unearned increment in the land value to t h e l u c k y l a n d o w n e r on whose land the municipal services are. p l a c e d . ( M a n s u r , 1952, p . 84)  What  i s particularly  that  the  value'  concept  had crept policy  i n t e r e s t i n g about of  back  'the into  from  land  his  testimony  Manson  the  sale  residential  of  different capital profits,  case  argued, profits  this  the federal  to  do a n y t h i n g  that  For  to  be  in  of the b u i l d e r i n this  was  a profit  on t h e l a n d .  distinguished  never  absent  1'920's. L a t e r  .was m a k i n g  holder.  government  i n the land  being  Mansur  h e h a d made  of the land  about i t .  after  the p r o f i t s  lots.  statement i s  increment  the late  the builder  were  'unearned' issue,  since  defended  and improvements he  unearned  the discourse  discussions  because  Mansur's  Though passed  i t  from  a on  These the  recognized  any  policies  77  Table Lots  developed  Year  1950 1 951  u n d e r t h e N.H.A. F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l Assembly Projects, 1950-1969  Number o f lots developed 0 1 35  1 952  1 ,095  1 953  922  1954  1 ,880  1 955  440  1 956  839  1 957  991  1 958  1 ,003  1 959  2,044  1 960  262  1 961  470  1 962  569  1 963  382  1 964  21 1  1 965  633  1 966  2,119  1967  2,323  1 968  1,381  1969 Source:  IV  816 CMHC, 1971 ,  p . 50)  Land  78  4.4  The  late  1950's  and  the  1960's:  The  Land  Debate  Rev i s i t e d The during  discourse  the  late  introduction the land  tax  1860's,  1950's  of  planning  a  the  among  urban  and  of  that  the  and  of  land  a  objective  of  improving  commodity housing  the  Vancouver  statement  on  federal  housing  families  could  housing land. its of  to  They  the argued  that  s c a r c i t y value serviced  with  these  land.  the  of  the  which  were  Such  ideas  Henry  George  and  land  was  conflict  policy  in  as  a  in  the  and  the  and  rising  once  again  Some  town  market  Association  that  average  cost  linked money  high  cost  of  arose  from  the  their  quite  debate  private in  the  appeared  analysts.  Housing  borrowed  However,  problems  not  for  and  the  with  the  conditions.  Association  cost  by  urban  the  1957  Housing  1920's.  concern  other  of  The  had  housing  treatment  houses.  that  analysts  notable  a f f o r d a b i 1 i t y of  whether  afford  is  urban  sprawl  questioned  In  by  suburban  planners  as  the  of  issues  planners  1960's  proposed  costs  between  problems  ideas  since  to  were  the  number  public,  relationship prices  housing  literature  similar  land  on  noted  less  than  of  N.H.A.  the and  high the  land  high  suggestions  7.5%  for  modest.  Perhaps the best we c a n hope t o do i s t o c h e c k i n c r e a s e d l a n d c o s t s t o some e x t e n t by (a) careful siting and designing of residential s u b d i v i s i o n s and (b) m a k i n g low  a of  financed cost  of  cost  resulted  continuing  in  of  from  shortage dealing  79  c o s t money available to financially weak municipalities f o r the p r o v i s i o n of utility services"(Vancouver Housing Association, 1957, p. 41) In  1958,  Research  Council,  George's the  Mary  idea  value  of  of  land  forward  a  and  Rawson  costs  an  discouraging  land  improvements. lower  put  Rawson,  for  economist proposal  taxing  that  community  profits  the  such  the  similar  speculative  not  argued  with  a  National to  Henry  by  taxing  value  tax  would  of  the  result  in  improvements.  It i s a l r e a d y e v i d e n t that to s h i f t the tax load onto land would r e s u l t in lower land p r i c e s . And lower land prices mean lower costs f o r slum c l e a r a n c e , street widenings, p a r k a n d p l a y g r o u n d p r o j e c t s . When t h e hope for s p e c u l a t i v e p r o f i t s i s t a k e n out of this sort of hold-up, planning e f f o r t s , w i l l be l e s s o f t e n thwarted.(Rawson, 1958, p. 29) . Rawson's proper  proposal for  was  critical  landowners  to  of  the  privately  notion  . that  appropriate  i t  rising  was land  values. A to  the  Liberal 1956  senator,  National  Association,  was  appropriation  of  David  Croll,  Conference  also land  activities  of  slum  victimizing  low  income  quite  of  in the  critical  values.  He  landlords  the  was who,  key-note  Community  of  Planning  landowners' concerned  in  his  address  private  with  the  opinion,  were  families.  Slum p r o p e r t i e s a r e a c q u i r e d cheaply, with minimum upkeep a n d w i t h low a s s e s s m e n t and t a x e s . So t h e y c o n t i n u e t o flourish. Thus, economic vultures, t h e y p r e y and p r o f i t on low income groups while we ignore their plight.(Croll, 1956, p. 145) Croll  suggested  properties  would  that go  far  higher to  municipal  remedy  this  taxation  problem.  of  these  80  There the  was  high  cost  researcher argued on  increasing  with  that  the  similar  ways  of  Royal  limited  problems  It  land  of  to  necessary house of  urban  be  The  In realtor Estate Royal  a  1960 and  Boards  not  Howes, McQueen,  called  of  on  for Land  land  His on use  CMHC's of  the  the Use  the  that  and  p.  Habitat,  Canadian  in  and  to  social  any  be  adequately discussion sprawl  must  34-41) a  Saskatchewan  Association  establishment  the  would  suburban  1957,  of  administration.  policies  include  land  during  housing  land  on  provision  federal on  Prospects  action  established  study  observation  President  Commission  was  Laurent  did  Economic  and  government  report  issue  drain  focused  through  government  residential  beyond  avoided.(Dube,  St.  what  service  land  for  Canada's  background  examine  Canadians.  on  commission  a  a  44)  regulation  Liberal  be  servicing.  planners,  development  a  District,  would of  about  Crerar,  Regional  cost  other  period  Mister  suburbs  high  of  such  p.  use  The  the  to  the  those  1959,  commissioned  capital  to  i t proposals  to  days  to  this  sprawl.  density  Commission  infrastructure. last  due  during  Vancouver  low  controlling  controls.(Crerar,  also  Greater  finances  suggestions,  The  suburban  unchecked  municipal  better  of  concern  of  a  of  Real  federal  Canada:  the l a n d s p e c u l a t o r i s s i m i l a r l y guilty[and] is n o t a s u b d i v i d e r w o r t h y o f t h e name. F o r i t i s s t i l l t r u e t h a t a good s u b d i v i d e r , or developer creates value; the speculator creates nothing.(Koyle, D. H., 1960, p. 13) The  s  speculator  was  to  be  distinguished  from  other  actors  in  81  the  land  not  create  propose  development value.  policies  preservation During the  of the  criticism  the  land  land 1962  should  committee  Lemon  early  not  to  be  would  be  "an  of  homeowner".(  a  land  market  beyond  Hans the  indicated commodity. of  Canada  committee  Blumenfeld,  role  to  of  For  the  into  planning  in  p.  17)  the  role  of  that  example,  in  appointed  a  Inquiry the  the  broadened  of  the  Residential  included  Norman  of  concern  Canada  submission  The  Ibid,  did  could  integral part  planners  a  he  Commission  of  Insitute a  argued,  number  I n s t i t u t e of  as  examined  the  considered  Planning  planners who  Royal  Some p l a n n e r s  Canada.  i t was  the  urban  prepare  of  because,  that  60's  the  Architectural  Environment known  equities  of  Town  added  that  speculator.  the  Royal  He  process  such  Pearson  well  and  Canadian  Hugh urban  development. This as  a  TPIC  resource,  committee improved  argued  housing  that,  i f land  conditions  would  was  regarded  result.  Land, h a v i n g been r e g a r d e d as a commodity, has been s o l d and e x c h a n g e d and broken i n t o small parcels, passed from speculator to speculator with a disturbing disregard for t h e r e s i d e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . ( I b i d , p. 92) As  an  alternative  committee  proposed  to  treating  that  i t be  land  as  treated  as  a a  commodity,  the  resource.  If land i s r e g a r d e d as a r e s o u r c e , then i t m u s t be s e e n t h a t l a n d i s p u t t o i t s wisest use, and h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d s of economic and social well being and aesthetic s a t i s f a c t i o n . ( T P I C C o m m i t t e e , 1962, p. 92) The treatment  committee of  land  as  proposed a  commodity  as  an  public  alternative policies  to  which  the would  82  disallow Land, on  a  the  they  private proposed  freehold  appropriation  of  private  would  on  leasehold,  be  held  land  values.  rather  than  basis.  I f l a n d were h e l d i n l e a s e h o l d rather than fee simple, t h e r e m i g h t be a b e t t e r a t t i t u d e t o l o n g t e r m m o r t g a g e s and maintenance...The prevalent attitude that whole s e c t i o n s of o u r c i t i e s c a n be ' t r a d e d in' every decade or two m u s t g i v e way t o an a t t e m p t t o b u i l d f o r a l i f e t i m e ( I b i d , p. 97) The  committee  added  that  such  discussed  by  the  planning  overlooked  in  the  concern  discomfort.( Ted Toronto the  p.  Rashleigh, and  a  England,  placed  changes  on in  profession for  poor  planner  offered  private the  issues and  were were  housing  rarely  generally  and  social  97)  committee. "However,  value any  Ibid,  land  he  land  nature  of  an  who  had  argument  reminded  practiced  similar  planners  ownership property  posed  to  that  in  both  that  of  the  high  problems  for  rights.  In this country, the s o c i a l v a l u e of land o w n e r s h i p i s h i g h , w h i l e t e n a n c y and public ownership is held suspect. Private land o w n e r s h i p i s so s a c r o s a n c t in public opinion and law, t h a t i t can q u e s t i o n the p r o p r i e t r y of p l a n n i n g p r o p o s a l s and d e f e a t legitimate community objectives.(Rashleigh, 1962, p. 76) In  1965  University social though wrote  G.  W.  of  Montreal,  phenomena i t was that  the  necessarily Land  Bryant,  was  not  deeply  values  Professor  argued  or  that  necessarily  embedded  private  logical  a  in North  appropriation ethical  depend  so  of  of  Planning  private here  property to  American land  stay  on  values  siting  the as  and  was  a  even  society.  because: largely  at  He not  83  location, growth of 44) Because  land  curbing  the  through  a  and the  values  are  right  change  proposal  of  leasehold  form  of  in  the  arise out of the community.(Bryant,  publicly  way  1962  of  generated  landowners  the  to  land  TPIC  general 1963, p.  he  appropriate  was  held.  committee,  called these  Similar  Bryant  for values  to  called  the for  a  tenure.  I t c a n n o t be t o o s t r o n g l y a r g u e d that once land is taken back into the public d o m a i n . . . i t s h o u l d on no account be sold o u t r i g h t , b u t s h o u l d be l e a s e d t o d e v e l o p e r s on v e r y l o n g l e a s e s . ( I b i d , p . 121) Bryant needed the  emphasized to  improve  land  The 1960's  the  housing  elimination  private  that  of  debate  on  conditions  the  land  re-introduced  values,  the  unaffordabi1ity  land  the  policy  the  of  as  a  remained  limited  to  land  assistance land  called  major  the of  housing  land  increased  in  government  policy  affordabi1ity right  to  was  appropriate  to  the  land  changes  approaches  in  rising a  land  outlined  small policy  above.  tax  land  of  minority went  of  in and the  policy  measures  industry  that  early  values  questioning  control,  a  and  increment  land  However,  development  s e r v i c i n g . Only  1950's  unearned  and  commodity. use  late  an  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  of  traditional  and  owner's  concept  treatment  for  important  values.  land  public  most  and  through planners  beyond  the  84  4.5  The  federal  government  increases  aid  to  low  income  fami l i e s In  1964  government National  introduced  Housing  During  the  was  of  one A  M.  House the  for  land  that  Act  to  housing  costs  Lester  number  major  of  increase on  the  issues  River  were  N.H.A.  at  aid  Pearson's  Liberal  amendments  to  low  income  amendments  land  to  the  families.  speculation  raised.  Conservative  Peace  1964  a  Minister  debate  Progressive  P.  high  Prime  party  promoted  the  the  of  root  amendments  member single  the  G. tax  housing  failed  to  W.  Baldwin,  arguing  that  problem  address  and  this  key  problem. I do n o t t h i n k i t f t h e amendments] gets at the r o o t c a u s e . . . o n e s c h o o l of thought w i t h which I have some sympathy advocates the approach of H e n r y G e o r g e ! H o u s e o f Commons D e b a t e s , 1964 S e s s i o n , pp. 4066-4067) He  further  told  the  Minister  taxing  the  capital  resolve  the  problem.  to  proposed  that  by  gains  of  of  Baldwin  Finance,  land  Walter  speculation  argued  that  a  land  Gordon did  that  little  tax,  to  similar  George:  w o u l d do more t h a n a n y t h i n g e l s e t h a t I know to compel the owners of what are now described as slum areas to bring into production those p a r c e l s of l a n d i n order to pay t h e t a x e s . ( I b i d , p. 4067) Baldwin result  concluded in  continued  Federal Nicolson, housing  that  in  slums  minister explaining  problem,  continued  avoided  and  land  unsatisfactory  responsible the any  speculation  for  amendments mention  of  and  urban  sprawl.  housing, the  urban  nature land:  would  J.  R.  of  the  t h e i n t e n t o f g o v e r n e m n t i s t o do i t s part in improving the standards of housing and housing conditions for those in need and... Second, we know t h e r e i s no a u t o m a t i c private market process which regenerats urban areas as they d e c l i n e . T h e r e f o r e , the g o v e r n m e n t b e l i e v e s i f t h e r e i s t o be s u c h a r e g e n e r a t i v e p r o c e s s i t m u s t be d e v e l o p e d a s a matter of public policy. ( House of Commons D e b a t e s , 1964 S e s s i o n , p . 3 7 9 5 ) In  the case  land  of slum  market  could  c l e a r a n c e , t h e government not  do  the  task  felt  without  that  the  government  assi stance. We seek to f a c i l i t a t and t h e fluidity of renewal areas, the provisions will be housing i n designated Although  the  families  could  market  and  upgrading no  new  government not find  that  land  policies  Although parliament decade  that  passed  Residential example, prices  in  areas  were  minister,  government  no  Liberal  were  from In  that  'villain'  i n housing  problems  housing  the cost  cost  of land  and that  much  the  income private the  assistance,  to  1967  Jack a  was  that  of the  this  the  problem.  rapidly.  Davis, to  the  the cost up  as  in  For  1967 r e s i d e n t i a l l o t  paper  had gone  admitted  problem,  openly  1963  argued  of  a  increasing  presented  on h o u s i n g  that  low  not encourage  M.P.'s  was  t o speak  conference  said  in  without  began  55.1%.  housing would  some  Toronto,  many  suggested.  1964  prices  that  markets  speculation  increased  cabinet  adequate  land  land  in  private improvements property markets in N.H.A. insured loan extended to existing a r e a s . ( I b i d , p. 3795)  conceded  property  of d e c l i n i n g  e  a  Liberal  a  Vancouver  the  principal  o f l a n d . He  faster increase  than was  any  also other  due  to  86  speculation. I have never been one to blame the speculator f o r a l l the i l l s that face our urban society or t o d e n i g r a t e t h o s e , whose statement it is to obtain land, to go through the highly risky, skilled and p r o t r a c t e d s e r v i c i n g of l a n d . . . n e i t h e r have I regarded this arrangement as the best example of the workings of sound market s y s t e m . ( D a v i s , 1967, p. 8) Although Davis as  he  emphasized  land  He  assemblies by-pass  should  federal  rising  be  1968  Minister  land  government  programmes  Minister  linked  the  criticism  that sold  that  of  land  sought  from  directly  solutions  supported  lots  to  the  speculation,  the  such  urban  land  government homeowner  and  land thus  speculator.  the  Prime  some  proposed  the  At  they  that  assembly  market.  both  offered  f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l conference Lester  Pearson  Responsible  rising  housing  costs.  Pearson,  and  for  costs  J.  R.  explained  Housing,  Nicholson,  Housing, and  on  indicated  other  problems  the that to  that:  The high cost of serviced land is a t t r i b u t a b l e t o : -- t h e c o s t o f raw land; - the c o s t of p r o v i d i n g u n d e r g r o u n d and street services to a high level of quali ty; - t h e e f f e c t o f z o n i n g b y l a w s on residential land; - the e f f e c t of m u n i c i p a l c a s h i m p o s t s on residential land; - t h e d i f f i c u l t and o f t e n inefficient process for obtaining approvals for land d e v e l o p m e n t . ( P e a r s o n , 1968, p.2) According the  urban  costs.  to land  Pearson, market  factors  were  among  other the  than causes  the of  operation high  of land  87  Nicholson finger  at  noted  that  rising  land  domain  of  was  the  also  urban  land  rising costs  the  reluctant market  housing  and  that  to  point  an  or  land  speculators  costs  were  related  was  really  action  accusing when  he  principly within  to the  provinces.  Land costs profoundly a f f e c t t h e demand f o r h o u s i n g , but the a b i l i t y to i n f l u e n c e these costs is minimal. The opportunity and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for d e a l i n g with t h i s problem rests essentially with provincial g o v e r n m e n t s . ( N i c h o l s o n , 1968, p. 31) Ontario's the  Deputy-Minister  opinion  increases  of  the  Ontario  included  resulted  and  Fish,  1972,  pp.  The  most  important  to  between  expand  assembly  the  government attempts  the  that  to  4.6  the  was  supply  of  stated  that  land  cost  component  which  that  speculative  result  provinces  would  of  servied  these  and  the  provisions  Despite  measures  land.(Dennis  supply  The  Federal  federal  land of  Task  on  land  of  by  the  speculation  serviced  an  government  criticism  Force  was  government  undertaken  discourage the  discussions  for  some  were  increase  1969  Affairs  318-319)  existing  no  government  limited  programmes.  speculation,  Municipal  substantial  had  agreement  from  a  of  land federal  other  than  land.  Housing  and  Urban  Development The sixties effects on  urban  on-going  rapid  and  concern  of  the  i t s urban  development  pace  of  urbanization  of  the  federal  renewal  and  suburban  were  not  during  government  a l l positive  housing led  the that  late the  programmes  the  federal  88  government  to  Development  i n 1968. U n d e r  Paul the  Hellyer,  t h e Task  operation In  Task  some  Force  blessing,  establish  was  established in  government  The  problem  land  Force  and Urban minister  to  examine  got o f f t o a bad s t a r t .  "without  official  was  d i r e c t i v e from  programmes  was t h e i r  first  almost  to Hellyer,  CMHC  one o f i t s m i n i s t e r s  to investigate  and  provide  The  bureaucratic  reluctant,  p . 32) A c c o r d i n g  was d e t e r m i n e d  existing  the country  particular,  1977,  and H e l l y e r  on H o u s i n g  programmes.  the Task  not had a p o l i c y  years  toured  ways  a n d CMHC,  Force  the d i r e c t i o n of Housing  Force  o f N.H.A.  hostile".(Hellyer, had  a Task  many  new  in  of the  direction.  concern:  The cost and a v a i l a b i l i t y of s e r v i c e d land was t o p s on o u r l i s t . I t was the biggest f a c t o r i n the p r i c e of accommodation and t h e one most e a s i l y c o n t r o l l a b l e . ( I b i d , p . 33) The  Task  Force  wrote  speculation.  The f i r s t  bought  held  and  speculative Force, and  was m o r e  involved  purposes  private  land  blamed  on  subtle.  f o r the high  and p u b l i c cost  when  an of  according  of  cities  to  lands  of  land  individual  i n the centre  utilization  argued  two t y p e s  periphery  form,  lots.(Canada,  assembly  were  occurred  I t occurred  under  Force,  there  the  The second  the  Task  type  land  as parking  The  be  gain.  that  for  the  Task  of c i t i e s for  such  1969, p . 38) that  the present  process of  s e r v i c i n g programmes  of housing.  Important as efforts to curb land speculation may b e , t h e T a s k F o r c e believes the root cuase o f rising land costs goes much deeper. To put i t simply, i t believes that the present system f o r assembling and  should  89  servicing irrational practice.( The  committee  advance all  loans  suggested  the  their  for  portion  the federal so t h a t  of the land  is in  government  they  required  might  should service  f o r urban  growth  boundaries.  The  Federal  in  late  housing  that  to municipalities  or a major  within  land i n much o f u r b a n C a n a d a i n concept and inefficient I b i d , p . 39)  Task 1969.  policy  inceased  was  Force  presented  The  reaction  mixed.  In r e g a r d  public  land  i t srecommendations of those  to  i t s  assembly  concerned  to with  recommendations  Humphrey C a r v e r  wrote  that: The H e l l y e r Task Force has given a new c l a r i t y of purpose and a b r e a t h of f r e s h a i r and realism to t h i s aim.( Ottawa Journal, F e b r u a r y 4, 1 9 6 9 ) Michael for  Wheeler,  Social  a  social  Development,  think  the private  market  Post,  February  1969, p .  8,  worker  with  the  felt  that  i t was  can house 17) He  Canadian  "an i l l u s i o n  a l l decently".( added  Council to  Financ i a l  that:  t h e p r o p o s a l t o make u r b a n l a n d development a government r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y s o u n d a n d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y s h o u l d n o t be l o s t because of constitutional niceties.( Ibid, p . 17) However,  Albert  prospects  for  Rose  was much  federal  more  government  pessimistic  about  the  action  urban  land  the  problem.  T h i s p u r p o s e c a n s c a r c e l y be t a k e n s e r i o u s l y in the present context of f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l relations.( Globe and M a i l , February, 4, 1 969) The  federal  government  failed  t o take  immediate  action  90  on  the  most by  Task  Force's  notably  the  Task  the  Prime  Force  therefore  recommendations.  were  should  position  cabinet  r e j e c t i o n of  4.7  be  1977,  p.  his  underwent  urbanization resulting  from  from  development, municipal  policies assembly  felt  the  provincial  34)  by  actions  many,  suggested  jurisdiction  initiated  1969  by  Hellyer  following  the  resigned the  and,  federal from  decision  his  of  the  growth  and  recommendations.  limited for  to  a  some,  villain  a  to  the  The  private  for  broader market  minority.  a  No  of  avoided land.  In  markets  new  land  was  serviced  the  land in  only  the  policies  were  which the  generally land  and, as  supply  treatment  of  market  speculator  private  was  land  general,  commodity  values,  public  solutions  the  land  land  of  the  government  private  policy questions, and  urban  However,  and a  problems  problems  rapid  expand  as  land  shortage  created  to  as  of  and  housing.  treating  identification  publicly created  small  land  to  institutionalize  regulation  operation  actions  and  policy-makers of  housing  further  of  use  treat  way  concern  whose  housing.  land  this  the  to  economic  response  for  regulation  Government  with  demand moved  of  In  provision  as  continued  period  1969.  high  the  such  long  to  use  challenge  concern  a  governments  in  commodity. might  1940 the  land  involvement  of  April  that  was  Conclusion Canada  as  in  within  not  government.(Hellyer, cabinet  Minister,  It  of  a of  land  appropriation concern  initiated  to  a  during  91  this  period  periods  that  had  except  residential  for  land  rising  options  that  participate The  only  public  direct  households.  costs  that  preceding  some  government  did  recognize  contributing  However, right  were  government  property  activity group  remained  to  specific  seriously  targeted  and  no of  ever  housing  land  allocated  officials  were  for a narrowly  was  and  the  markets  Residential  of  the  programmes.  housing.  i n land  in  introduction  challenged  housing  commodity  of  introduced  politicians  land  unaffordabi1ity  been  the  assembly  Some a n a l y s t s , that  not  a  policy  owners  limited low  the  to  income  privately  d i s t r i b u t e d by  to  considered.  was of  the  held  market  92  CHAPTER THE  Urban issue  in  and  housing  of  the  land.  were  a  land  1970's.  prices  The urban  many  land  Table  V).  prices  highest  construction  were  been  and  escalating  explained  critics  the  a  by  of  commodity.  in  has  been  one  on  policy  market  and  criticism  of  development  to  of  p o l i c y . Canadians of  urbanization  those  1978.  of as  the  actively  shown On  table  first  major  1983  and  1984,  economists  in  Figure  declining prices as  of  being  the  and  other  I930's(see  housing  during  the  the  and  the  contrasts  in  witnessed  1950's  since  many  analysts  the  economists  land  attention  land  led  in  land  Growing  by  land  urban  urban  marked  in  profile  mechanism.  1970  land  the  urban  speculation  construction,  housing  The  with  high  increases  and  concerned  outpacing  have  rates  1976  politicians  periods  1980's  interest  relatively  focused  to  land  ever  PROBLEM  1974  market  and  levels  a  LAND  rapid  since  Housing  as  conventional  private  rapid  THE  Particularly  as  and  period  most  of  land  development  the  with  those  market  the  emerged  from  number of  BOOM AND  public,  Among  and  defended  the  the  large  industry  of  policy  treatment  the  LAND  land  general  urban  the  1970'S  5  one  1970's  1960'(see 9,  reached  hand,  the  declines 4),  land the  in  soaring prices. 1970's  related  to  a  93  combination demand the the  number  of  period  Second,  levels  83%  the  personal  i t  from  housing  programmes, relatively  there  year  disposable  income  inflation.  since  the  due  the non-taxation mortgage  to  increase in age  group,  enter  the  housing  increased  at  inflation  increasing  capital  was  gains  was  price  ownership  on h o u s i n g  rates.(Scheffman,  a  attracted  s u b s i d i z e d home  of c a p i t a l  the  old  Third,  1920's  t o 1976. F o u r t h ,  increased  a dramatic  first  after  market  low r e a l  was  households  had been  1971  dramatically  i n t h e 25 t o 34  most  p e r annum  than  that  First,  families when  o f 3.8%  higher  to  factors  f o r housing.  market. rate  of  1977, p p .  and 61-  62) Many housing a  conventional prices  temporary  were  only  treatment  problem. a  of  as only  a  as a  regarded  temporary  Others  symptom land  economists  argued  phenomena that  of a broader commodity.  rising  land  and  and t h u s ,  only  rising  structural  price  levels  problem,  the  94  T a b l e V. Indexes  of r e s i d e n t i a l land costs, r e s i d e n t i a l c o s t s and consumer p r i c e s , 1970-1983  Year Consumer  construction  Land  Const.  Consumer  Costs  Costs per square foot  Price I ndex ( a l l goods)  Price I ndex  1 970 1971 1 972 1 973 1 974 1 975 1 976 1 977 1 978 1 979  91.3 100.0 106.5 101.9 106.1 157.9 201.1 223.9 239.0 295.7  97.4 100.0 106.7 122.2 1 49. 5 1 67. 1 180.6 189.3 1 98.9 213.3  97.2 100.0 104.8 112.7 125.0 1 38.5 149.1 160.9 175.1 191.2  94.7 1 00.0 1 05.5 112.7 120.7 1 30.9 145.8 1 59.2 171.1 180.5  1 980 1981 1 982 1 983  319.7 355. 1 347.0 338.0  222.7 244.3 258.0 284.8  210.7 237.0 262.6 277 .7  1 92.5 213.2 239.2 255. 4  (shelter)  Note:  Sources:  Land and c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s a r e based on the average single family dwelling f i n a n c e d b y CMHC u n d e r t h e N.H.A. CMHC,  1 9 7 8 , p . 8 9 ; CMHC,  1979, p . 93.  FIGURE k  Dweiiing Units Compieted 280  1970  1972  Canada,  1970-84  1976  1978  1974  o  total Source: Appendix B o f  this  report  Urban  1980  1982  1984  96  5.1  Politicians During  housing major in  and t h e urban  the  issues cause  1970's  1973 R o n B a s f o r d ,  told  the  annual  many  explicitly  of housing  Housing  conference  land  problem  politicians  identified  high  involved  land  a f f o r d a b i 1 i t y problems.  Minister  of State  and Urban  for  Development  prices  with as the  F o r example,  Urban  Affairs,  Association  at  i t s  that:  The p r i c e o f u r b a n l a n d i n C a n a d a i s rising at an u n a c c e p t a b l y r a p i d r a t e . . . T h e question of the cost to the i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n of owning l a n d o r u s i n g l a n d t o house himself, and the question of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of ownership of land between individuals of differing income l e v e l s , and between those i n d i v i d u a l s and l a n d owning and development corporations, the question of t h e amounts of l a n d g o v e r n m e n t s h o l d a n d make a v a i l a b l e f o r the common u s e - - a l l these a f f e c t i n a very r e a l a n d d i r e c t way t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e and economic well being of Canadians.(Basford, 1973, p p . 9-10) Thus, was  even  the federal  raising  corporations groups  such  as the p r i v a t e  during  this  ownership  land  period  of land  among  by  different  in society.  spectrum of  housing M.P.  issues  minister  and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of  Elected  cost  housing  officials  from  in the federal  House  land  prices.  f o r Calgary  would  have  Conservative North  argued  both of  ends  Commons  t o be r e d u c e d Housing  Critic  of  the p o l i t i c a l  argued  that  i n order Eldon  the  to lower Wooliams,  that:  Two problems must be s o l v e d i n t h e a r e a o f h o u s i n g and urban a f f a i r s . The f i r s t problem i s money a n d t h e second i s the price of  97  serviced projects land.( Session, Sinclair  Stevens,  Simcoe,  a  land; to g e t enough money i n t o and reduce the p r i c e of serviced H o u s e o f Commons D e b a t e s , 1973 p. 2274) Progressive  constituency  Conservative  on t h e f r i n g e  member  for  of Toronto,  York-  t o l d the  House: Land prices, soaring as they are, are virtually p r o h i b i t i n g the average person i n C a n a d a f r o m t h e r i g h t w h i c h I f e e l he s h o u l d h a v e , t o own h i s own h o u s e . ( I b i d , p . 2 3 5 1 ) Edward that  Broadbent,  more  projects warned  leader  funding  was  t o reduce t h e House  o f t h e New  necessary  the cost that  Democratic  for  public  of s e r v i c e d  the present  Party, land  assembly  residential  programme  argued  lots.  proposed  He  by t h e  Li berals: w i l l not put a stop to spiralling land prices. I t does not promise t o provide the l e v e l of s u p p o r t needed t o ease the burden of price increases, l e t alone solve the h o u s i n g p r o b l e m . ( I b i d , p. 2280) Members urban land  of a l l f e d e r a l land  costs  great  resulting  many  solutions the  government  provision  and of  critical  housing.( of  the  solutions  public  assembly  that  defined that  However,  urban  differed  The  the  N.D.P.  market to  market.  f o r h o u s i n g and land and s e r v i c i n g  as  high  for on  and  a  the  allowing  dominate  problems  the  Liberals  However,  assistance  an  criticized  pp. 2280-2284) The land  was  the problem  they  institutions Ibid,  there  was u n a f f o r d a b l e  problem.  supporting  financial  emphasized land  i n housing  for this  for  agreed  A l l parties  Canadians.  proposed  developers  were  problem.  parties  they  such as  for provincial  98  and  municipal  market  forces.  critical  of  5.2  of  Critics  three  though  of of  urban  some  direction  opposed  to  industry.  some They  development number  most  critical broader  Third, part  influence  a  for  increasing  the  for  housing.  were  generally  land  i f  urban of  were  of  the the  a  and  urban  other of  offered  urban  land  or  operate  who  were  development and of  urban a  real  small estate  individuals, for a  more  problem,  functioning  on  assisted  environment  number  who  market  reformers  the  one  others,  authorities could  were  companies  in  and  manipulated f o r the b e n e f i t  of  less  role  the urban  urban  academics,  critique  by  market,  public  the  there  analysis  of  the  there  development  interests.  d i d see  funds  market  the a c t i v i t i e s  being  in general,  forces  impact that  viewed  as  of  of  were,  the L i b e r a l government  by  Second,  would  market  land  the  satisified  hoped  but  mortgage  land  groups. F i r s t ,  were  market,  and  urban  the  they  market  land  the  satisfactorily.  the  land  concerned with  housing, given  urban  serviced  which  Conservatives  influencing  Critics of  The  the  government supply  governments  of  thorough  as  the  part  of  a  capitalist  economy. The Affairs.  first  Although  market  argued  rather  than  policies  group  were  included those  with  that  land  as  commodity,  a  generally  the  should  federal this  be  Ministers  view  of  treated  recommendations  measures  which  would  of  the urban as  a  for not  Urban land  resource government  affect  the  99  private  commodity  markets  was  Nation's  of  in  the  reflected  Conference  conference price  form  were  delegates  resource,  rather  1976  particularly  than  a  view  Settlements.  during  argued  This  recommendations  Human  in Vancouver  increases  Habitat  on  land.  that  land  of  urban the  Canada  when rapid.  of  United  hosted  residential In  its final  should  be  land  the land  report  considered  a  commodity:  P r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r s h i p i s a l s o an instrument of a c c u m u l a t i o n and c o n c e n t r a t i o n of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; i f unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of development schemes... the provision of decent d w e l l i n g s and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved i s l a n d i s used i n the i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y as a w h o l e . ( U n i t e d N a t i o n s , 1976, p. 61 ) Thus,  the. i n s t i t u t i o n  being  in  conflict  of  with  private  the  property  achievement  was  of  identified  improved  as  housing  condit ions. The the  Canadian  Minister  problems  of  submission  State  which  to  for  Urban  resulted  from  the  conference,  Affairs, the  prepared  identified  treatment  of  by  three  land  as  a  commodity: 1)  the steep land;  2)  the  3)  the continuing urban use.  wasteful  (Canada, The  1976,  Canadian  settlement housing,  rise  in  patterns  p.  i t noted  price  of  of  urban  conversion  of  urban  land  residential  use;  agricultural  land  to  50)  report  issues  the  added  were that:  that  housing  the and  two land.  vital In  human  regard  to  1 00  the c h a l l e n g e i s to provide these units at prices that more people can a f f o r d and i n locations and styles that will satisfy demand without wasteful land use p a t t e r n s . ( I b i d , p . 97) The  report  called  of  higher  land  increment,  lower  density placed the  f o r land taxes  on p o l i c i e s  public  to  municipal  development.  and h o u s i n g  In  which  recoup  some  servicing i t s  would  policies of  in the the  standards  d i r e c t market  unearned  and  recommendations  form  higher  emphasis  forces  was  to  serve  interest:  p u b l i c p o l i c y w i l l be required to support p o s i t i v e market f o r c e s and t o i n t e r v e n e when market pressures threaten t o undermine the l o n g r a n g e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . ( I b i d , p . 98) The  federal  Liberal be  government,  treated  1976  Minister  as a  speech  Federation  Barney  resource  at  responsible  the  Danson,  rather  annual  of Mayors  and  for agreed  than  as a  Housing that  in  land  commodity.  the  should In  conference  of  the  Municipalities  in  Vancouver  a  Canadian he  sa i d : I believe t h a t we a r e m o v i n g significantly to t h e view t h a t i t [ l a n d ] i s a resource and s h o u l d be t r e a t e d a s s u c h w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t of our federal state and mixed e c o n o m y . ( D a n s o n , 1 9 7 6 , p . 4) However,  when  implement the  advocacy  fundamental CFMM  "the  Danson  approached  land  as resource"  of measures nature  conference it i s devise  that  that  the  argument,  clearly  of the p r i v a t e to reduce  essential that new a n d i m p r o v e d  topic  of  how  he w i t h d r e w  d i d not challenge  land  the cost  to  market.  He  told  of r e s i d e n t i a l  we take action to methods of p l a n n i n g ,  to the the  land:  101  zoning s t a n d a r d s , a p p r o v a l s a n d t a x a t i o n by e a c h o f us t h a t will result in more and lower c o s t s e r v i c e d land.( I b i d , p . 6) The  second  group  argued  that  development  industry  were  in conflict  homebuyers  because  the  industry  profits in  by  land  defined owned  the  urban  land  group  and  land  as  economic  and  the  fringe  of  land  problem  the  power  advancing relations  t h o s e between 1976,  villain  i n urban  p.  homeowners  land  prices  on  The  Lorimer,  the  existence  of  oligopoly of  view  the  and  companies  of  in land  and  rents •  wrote that  was  the  Another  widely  Peter  Spurr  market, and  concluded that  companies  Urban  i n most  the  1976,  land p.  22)  around  markets  a  the.  from  (1978)  problem  ownership.  as  tenants  particular,  land  Land  where  Development,  p r e p a r e d f o r CMHC. I t d e t a i l e d  development  development.(Spurr,  exploited  Developers  land  i n h i s book,  controlled  The  urban  urban  study o r i g i n a l l y  holdings  cities of  theme  book  in  this  dichotemized  identified  profits  James  to  exploited.(Roweis,  extracting  that  land  the  large  who  investors  are  by  the  a  and  of  hypothesis'  market  i t s  group  characterized  who  expounded  (1976)  large  housing problems  a  this  Scott  many  This  i n terms  and  and  supported  and  of  the  oligopolies  areas.  d e v e l o p e r was  articles  analyst  and  housing  numerous  cited  urban  of  maximize  creating  firms  exploiters  19)  development.  an  of  those to  'manipulated c i t y  i n the the  with  principally  Roweis  a  objectives  sought  land  markets.  Scott,  and  up  ownership  influence  into  pushing  the  major  Canadian  limited  for  future  For  example,  the  number  residential Spurr  noted  1 02  that  i n the Toronto  76.7%  of  concern  land  James  advancing example,  of  for  also  Post,  t h e most  the  played  problem  that  and that  could  that  combat  the planning  an i m p o r t a n t  development  Canadian  not r e l e c t i n g the diverse  Post  6, 1 9 7 6 )  t h e theme  Lorimer  also  President  the Financial  March,  This  was  Teron,  which  owned  fringe.  ownership  was a m a j o r  part,  i n Charlottetown,  that  land  told  advanced  a t t h e 1973 N a t i o n a l  argued  on t h e u r b a n  one measure  the i n t e r e s t s of  Conference  companies  a t CMHC. W i l l i a m  were  Finanicial  Lorimer  profession,  He  land  of ownership  assemblies  problem.(  were  development  the mid-1970's,  concentration  public the  developable  i n policy-makers  CMHC d u r i n g  this  6  f o rthe concentration  reflected of  the  region  role in  industry.  For  I n s t i t u t e of Planners  told  planners  i n t e r e s t s of urban  that  they  residents.  planners:  have endeavoured to acquire professional, intellectual and societal credibility through the establishment of a p r o f e s s i o n a l organization imbued with a philosophy of elitism, conservatism and selfp r e s e r v a t i o n . ( C i t e d i n C l a r k , 1 9 7 6 , p . 19) He  called  the  f o rbetter  interests  advancing A  third  group  homeowners  argued,  land  ownership  development  was p r i m a r i l y  of urban  they  third  of  a n d more and  the i n t e r e s t s of the land  prescriptive  This  policies  went  for group  land  beyond  and the  problems.  possible  benefit  pointed  tenants  advocating rather  development  descriptive,  a concern  the  planners  The urban  than  industry. rather land  than  problem,  f o rthe concentration manipulation  of the development  t o the s t r u c t u r a l dynamics  of  of  urban  industry. of  the  1 03  land  market: the p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e i s not the phenomena of c o m p e t i t i v e bidding for land, but the deep structure of urban p r o p e r t y relations in r e l a t i o n to which the c o m p e t i t i v e bidding for land is only the faintest and most superficial pulsation.(Roweis and Scott, 1976, p. 36) Roweis  and  Scott  development  and  the  capital  urban  accumulation  economies.  They  locate  and  identify  the  land class  the  process  problem  in  the  struggles  urban  land  of  context  in  problem  urban of  capitalist in  this  way:  Capitalist social and property relations c r e a t e two major contradictory tendancies around the i s s u e o f u r b a n l a n d . On t h e one hand, the l o g i c of commodity p r o d u c t i o n and the p r i v a t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n of p r o f i t c a l l for functionally efficient urban land use p a t t e r n s . On t h e other hand, the private ownership and c o n t r o l of u r b a n l a n d l e a d t o a t e n d e n c y away f r o m s u c h efficiency.(Roweis a n d S c o t t , 1981, p. 146) They  argued  laissez  that  faire  the in  state's urban  interventionism  of  1950's  welfare  into  the  the  19th  century  development  1930's  which  gave  blossomed  strategy way  of  to  the  during  the  state.  It was a s t r a t e g y p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e faith t h a t an a g r e s s i v e s t a t e effort to support and strengthen a network of propulsive economic a c t i v i t i e s c o u l d secure continued smooth economic growth. I t was associated w i t h an e x t r a o r d i n a r y e x p a n s i o n of u r b a n and regional development projects.(Roweis and S c o t t , 1976 p . 58) Barker  et not  al.  explained  government  intervention  housing  as  simply  the  result  of  the  capital  accumulation,  but  also  one  result  between  classes  in c a p i t a l i s t  as  societies.  need of  in  to  promote  the  struggle  1 04  The government function in housing i s t o r e l i e v e c a p i t a l i s m o f some of its acute social tensions.(Barker et a l , p. 94) This and  group  argues  capital  profits wage  housing These  the  land for  cannot  to  ministers, the  afford  amenable groups  of  Ron  of  action first  part,  be  Basford  market,  housing. but and  they  argued  left  intact.  assembly  and  taxation  excesses Basford,  of  1973,  the  urban  pp.  11-12)  Danson, land  p.  have  for  control would  measures,  will  urban should, housing  critical  of  measures,  reduce  market.(Danson,  Such  to  differed  market  though  use  when  94)  federal  measures  land  Ibid,  the  and  which  suggested  The  wages  attempts  policies  that  labour  especially  critics  have  group  Barney  of  Government  market  greater  worst  sector  adopting  land  between  level  affordable.(  that  and  the  housing  that  land  generated  over  felt  public  4-6;  the  more  p o l i c y . The most  to  problem  three  tensions  struggle  this  courses  the  the  the  translated  earners  make  in  through  are  respond  that  also most 1973,  the  1973,  pp„  according  to  Basford: would ensure urban land markets operate effectively in the public i n t e r e s t . . . to ensure that they are operating freely and efficiently.(Basford, 1973, p. 12) In  1976  land  Danson land  However, different land  appeared  was  the  be  land  than  assembly,  municipalities  to  treated  policies  those  he  pursued  improved for  agree as  with a  resource,  eventually in  land  those  the use  infrastructure.  arguing  not  a  commodity.  recommended  past:  some  regulation  that  were  no  government and  loans  to  1 05  The of  the  land  second  group  policies on  the  proposed urban  housing  would  p.  Lorimer,  392;  recommended  be  by  the  fringe  more  first  that  extensive group.  was  to  application  For  be  example,  developed  predominantly  p u b l i c l y owned.(Spurr,  1978,  As  p.  254)  Spur  for 1976,  explains:  i t w o u l d be b e n e f i c i a l , i f u r b a n g r o w t h m u s t continue, to confine s p a t i a l expansion to l a r g e p u b l i c l y owned s i t e s s e l e c t e d on the basis of environmental protection.(Spurr, 1976, p. 393) Former  Toronto  argued  that  prices  i s to  needed  for  land  the  avoid  large  as  private  to  manipulation  to  expropriate  Spurr  of  development  Spurr,  c o n t r o l l i n g suburban  development.(Sewell, Lorimer,  with  the  1977, and  urban  corporations  a l l  p.  54)  others  land such  land  These argued,  market as  land  by  the  Cadillac-  Genstar.  land  incapable  economic  in agreement  governments  neo-marxists  policies  Sewell,  approach  Sewell,  the  and  The  best  urban  integrated  Fairview  John  allow  policies,  would  are  Mayor  of  use  emphasize  the  planning.  They  challenging  the  structures  of  landownership.  capitalist According  to  l i m i t a t i o n s of argue  that  prevailing society Scott  such  such  measures  social  including and  land  and  that  Roweis,  of  land  policy: does not, and c a n n o t , t r a n s c e n d the social and property relations of capitalist society, but i s c o n s t r a i n e d w i t h i n and and is a reflection of those same relations.(Roweis a n d S c o t t , 1977, p. 50) They the  argue urban  that  land  land  use  regulation  market.  For  example,  has  they  been  supportive  concluded  that  of in  1 06  most  cases  have  these  regulations  been  significantly  are  raised  or at least  5.3  The Land In  of  response  conventional  market such  1978  to the c r i t i c i s m economists  as David  Baxter,  were  prominent  Serviced  land  market The  land  Land  was  can  focused  uses.  in this  government  land  of high The  use  Task  first  this  Many  that  of those  the  Fraser  Debate this  was  critics critics  that  and  i n the housing defending two g r o u p s .  a n d why  policies  that  (1977).  was  the best the urban  no m e c h a n i s m  this  Institute  publication  L.  the  the  the  sector.  the  urban  First, land  some  market  a l l o c a t i o n of  were  B.  Price  in defending  of commentators  housing  argued  holding  Revisited  how  land  argued  land that  primarily the  prices.  group  there  role  view  group  the  and  the Supply  this  a  Economists  I t i s notable  on  into  group  market  Martin  f o r the e f f i c i e n t  second and  L.  period  divided  and d i s t r i b u t i o n of land  argued  Force  on e x p l a i n i n g  land  prices  13)  institution.  group.  adopted  from be  A  p.  land  a c t i v e l y defending  A. D e r k o w s k i ,  mechanism  various  where  of the land  and e f f i c e i n t  also  literature  the best  cause  began  and the s p e c u l a t o r ' s  market  analysts  in cases  restrictions  Defended  Federal-Provincial  of  of  durable  legal  stabilized.( Ibid,  as a necessary  Smith  to  Market  and other  view  published  book, David  argued  which  Public Nowlan  mechanism land could their  Property: i n the  for  market.  the They  replace  i t .  findings  in  The  first  that:  of the land market are really of the existing d i s t r i b u t i o n of  Habitat article  107  wealth and have little i f any c o n c e p t of s o c i e t y ' s c o n t i n u i n g need f o r mechanisms by which l a n d u s e s and d e v e l o p m e n t t i m i n g will be d e t e r m i n e d . ( N o w l a n , 1977, p. 29) No.wlan  conceded  intervention most for  that  was  use  and  prices a  serviced  urban  this  study  was  following  federal  appointed  market  distribution  Immediately land  were  necessary.  s i t u a t i o n s the the  there  Task  and  were  he  the  efficient  of  most  The  .1970's boom  majority  F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l Task was  given  housing  land  Force  the  in  in  had  on  in  and  Canada price  contributers  market.  the  Land  the  urban  in  Serviced  that  mechanism  and  who  operation  of  supply  economists  the  Price  the  the  of  defended 1977,  of  in  governments  examine  conventional  concluded  land.  the  to  government  However,  provincial  Force  land.  s i t u a t i o n s where  the  of to  past  Established  the  Supply  and  mandate:  t o examine t h e s u p p l y and p r i c e of serviced land in order to replace the t a n g l e of c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s and p o l e m i c s with factual information and a n a l y s i s . ( T a s k F o r c e , 1978, p. 2) In prices  the  Task  during  Force's  the  1970's  increases  in  Task  concluded  Force  problems  household  which  mid-1970's.  be  accounted of  Their the  supply  The for  surge by  report  report  and  there to in  the  no  rise  land  rise  such  in  factors  formation.  major  urban  in  land  prices  prices,  they  argued,  high  demand  land  and  the  as The land  during could  limited  respond.  recommended  residential  rapid  household  was  unusually to  the  a t t r i b u t e d to  income  that  government  of  was  contributed  the  ability  final  lots  solutions and  which  housing.  would  increase  1 08  To p e r m a n e n t l y r e d u c e t h e p r i c e o f land in the face of strong demand, i t will be n e c e s s a r y f o r p l a n n e r s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o permanently i n c r e a s e the r a t e at which lots a r e p r o d u c e d . ( I b i d , p. 186) For  example,  soft  markets  called  of  role  land  of  argued  the  use  of  serviced  of  land  to  amount  process.  land  The criticism  by  i t to  Ibid,  in  urban  an  also  noted  were  overly  development  preformed  He  they  supported  Professor,  uncertainty that  by  communicating  increased  Larry  important  e x i s i t n g development.  most  be  Planning  and  during  187)  the  task  in  bidding  the up  alternative In  the  addition, supply  land  for  development  efficient  use  in  an  of and  economic  10-12)  Federal-Provincial  Task  Force  of  role  in  the  not  actively  risk  assembling  pp.  p.  land  addition,  would  also  speculators  its 1974,  to  In  of  speculators  Martin,  sense.(Martin,  dealers  puchase  low.  market  Waterloo  to  which  speculators  large  land  rationing  noted  land  possibilities  according  It  expansion.(  that  conversion price  land  a  were  policies  the  University  absorbing  land  urban  governments  prices  municipal  of  Martin  urged  land  Defenders  process.  by  when  for  restrictive  the  they  speculator's  the  also  questioned  urban  land  the  market.  that: provided there are enough s p e c u l a t o r s in a market to ensure that speculation is a competitive activity, i t is not clear why land speculation should carry such a negative connotation.(Federal-Provincial Task F o r c e , 1978, p. 54)  It  was  added  that  land  speculators  could  preform  a  109  stabilizing In two  influence  response  University  i n the land  to claims  of Western  of o l i g o p o l i e s Ontario  Scheffman,  sought  their  of the r e s i d e n t i a l  study  Toronto land  they  and  that  study  market  only  land  of land  planning, land  was  residential  banking  prevented  The blame  impact  and  municipal  and  servicing  the  Analysts  such  complained  land  t o government  much  the  of  of the urban  exist  policies  region  in  other  of  and  from  prices  public  as land  standards  government  Derkowski,  of  130)  market  of  In  they d i d  the Toronto  land  use p l a n n i n g  policies.  However,  critical  land  and  on t h e f r i n g e  was  servicing  standards  as Martin,  that  such  f o r high  cost  criticized  due  that  high  efficiently. the  argued  market  Markusen  not the case.  might  1977 p .  ownership,  n o t an o l i g o p o l y i n  considered  Another It  was  market.  concentration  defence  was  market  there  and Markusen,  policy.  this  land  cities.(Scheffman  in land  economists,  that  that  i n the Toronto  their  that  prove  concluded  ownership  concede  to  market.  public  preforming  was  placed  intervention. public  municipal Markusen land  F o r example,  price Larry  use  land  on They  banking  governments. and  Scheffman  increases Martin  that: it i s o u r c h r o n i c f a i l u r e t o make a s u p p l y of r e a s o n a b l y p r i c e d s e r v i c e d land i n the proper l o c a t i o n and a t the a p p r o p r i a t e time that c o n s t i t u t e s a b a s i s of the urban land price problem today. Because of i t s important role i n the supply of serviced l a n d f o r u r b a n u s e , g o v e r n m e n t must s h a r e i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r land shortages and h i g h p r i c e s . ( M a r t i n , 1977, p . 41)  were wrote  11 0  Genstar, was  also  one  of  Canada's  critical  of  public  largest  land  development  assemblies  companies  arguing  that:  there is a better way t o i n v e s t t h e same m i l l i o n d o l l a r s other than in public land assemblies... perhaps these public funds s h o u l d be i n v e s t e d in the trunk services that make serviced lots possible.(Genstar, 1978, p. 12) These for  critics  land  government  urban a  of  urban  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e to  minimum  that  in  policy  of  government  Derkowski,  in  rising  prices  land  subdivision municipal the  a  prices  enable  had  single  metropolitan  centres  from  components:  raw  major  reason  why  prepared  resulted  standards.  consultants  was land  proper  the  role  provision  development  to  and  costs  high  of and  the  1974  in  risen  He  concluded  overly  lot  detached  profits.  had  HUDAC, the  analyzed  family 1964  from  and  He  for  servicing, municipal  fees  land  the  regulation.  of  charges,  private  processes  land,  that  development  report  approval  servicing  assumed  long  levies  and  increase  in  lots' regard  levies,  in  ten  to  six  carrying  concluded  that  the  with  no  was:  the p r e s e n c e i n the p l a n n i n g c o n t r o l system of several parties with v a l i d r e a s o n s of their own for stopping, limiting and d e l a y i n g d e v e l o p m e n t , and t h e a b s e n c e of any countervailing force with a positive i n t e r e s t i n h o u s i n g . ( D e r k o w s k i , 1974, p. 3) He  argued  that  reference development in  the  supply  to of  private and  land  use  regulations  the  to  the  housing. market  demand  to  cost  that  Government where  keep  not  costs  were  adopted they  regulators,  encouraged to  a  by  minimum.  imposed unlike the  on  the  those  forces  of  111  A  second  policies levies.  problem  that He  set  identified  high  argued  by  servicing  Derkowski  standards  Derkowski  recommended  servicing  standards,  •seeking  consider to  By  the  maximize the  especially  Land  as  rampant.  out  be  during  5.4  the  With  1970's  governments land. banking to tax.  the  l e v i e s or  These and  approving  housing. ( Ibid,  supply and  of  the  as  pre-World  were  housing  1970's  still  land were  War  II  very the  "the  by  problem"  consumer  use  p.  early  7)  in  planners and  by  regulation,  in place  high  " s o l u t i o n " of  adopting  subdivisions,  the  had  most urged.  speculation  planners  conventional  turned  analysts  boom.  to  the  agreement  resulting initiated  in a  included residential  National  when  the  responses  general  were  lot.  and in for  i n t e r e s t s of  The  defined  Government  prices  lot  however,  still  municipal  standards divorced, nsibility 4)  municipalities,  subidivision regulations,  prices,  to  that  1960's  municipalities  and  municipal  that:  the manner i n w h i c h s e r v i c i n g l e v i e s are set...are totally most cases, from any respo t h e i r c a p i t a l c o s t . ( I b i d , p.  should  was  a  urban that  a  increased  problem  rising  number  variety  land  of  housing  measures funding  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , the  Housing  Act  and  residential  Ontario's  problems,  directed for 1973 land  land  at  public  urban land  amendments speculation  11 2  The  1973 N. H. A. A m e n d m e n t s  government Commons. land the  d i d not hold  Because  problem liberal  housing  contributing  programmes.  assistance  for  ownership  moved The  programme  land  and  banking  housing  was,  Canadians. housing  new  t h e House  increased  programme,  Canadians  land  to  proposed  banking  programme  prices. would  be c o m b i n e d  ensure  that  According objective market  making  a s an attempt  Conservative  for public  and a f f o r d i b l e  a basic  right  of a l l  responsible for  t o the urban $100 m i l l i o n  as a concerted  comprehensive of land would  effective t o lower  Housing  attack  the public  land  cost of  at a reasonable  immediate  the benefits  t o Basford, of  housing  that  with  home  that:  an  He e x p l a i n e d  a  residential  assistance  Adequate  eyes,  some a t t e n t i o n  Basford  increased  the Liberal Minister  provide  required  housing,  families, a  and increased  housing,  included  good housing at a reasonable social right of every citizen country.(Basford, 1973, p . 2257) Attempting  of  urban  agenda of  co-operative  infrastructure.  Ron B a s f o r d ,  was a n  a lengthy  amendments  and  Liberal  i n t h e House o f  there  to i n i t i a t e  i n the government's  told  that  f o r low income  rehabilitation  the  of seats  agreed  improvement  assistance  1973  to the unaffordabi1ity  non-profit  neighbourhood  In  a majority  a l l parties  government  -  land  critic,  land  cost land  interventions  Eldon  land  programme to  maximized.  purchased  prices.(  public  planning  were  a l l  problem.  on r i s i n g  use  purchases  for  urban  banking  land  be  i s a this  with  the  i n the land  Ibid,  Wooliams  p.  2258) attacked  11 3  the  Liberal's  problem  proposal  of r i s i n g  land  as not being  enough  to confront  the  prices.  The most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g i s t o g e t serviced land ready f o r d e v e l o p m e n t r a t h e r t h a n raw l a n d . The $100 m i 11 i o n [ a l l o c a t e d for land banking] w i l l not l a s t long considering the high cost of serviced land.( I b i d , p. 2274) Wooliams  argued  of  serviced  as  quickly  that  land as  not  and ensuring  was  that  increasing  land  the  was b r o u g h t  supply  i n t o use  possible.  Broadbent, though  the solution  agreeing  he a g r e e d  sufficient.  with  with  Wooliams,  t h e programme,  Broadbent  told  t h e House  the funding  that,  levels  were  said:  it will not put a stop to s p i r a l l i n g land p r i c e s . I t does not promise t o provide the level of support needed t o ease the burden of price increases,let alone solve the h o u s i n g p r o b l e m . ( I b i d , p. 2280)Another to  the land  housing did  N.D.P.  member  ownership  problems.  not confront  from  Toronto,  question  He a r g u e d this  as  that  question  John  being  Gilbert,  at  the  the proposed  pointed  basis  housing  of  policy  because:  f i r s t of a l l , t h e supply o f houses i n Canada has been dictated by t h e l a n d developers, the b u i l d e r s and t h e f i n a n c i a l institutions. This really i s the major criticism of h o u s i n g p o l i c y t o d a y . ( I b i d , p.2276) As  the  N.D.P.  programme  with  approach  to  confront  pointed a  $100  the  Despite  general  prices  were  a  million  urban  the problem  of  agreement major  out,  land land  an  expanded  allocation problem. supply  among t h e p a r t i e s  problem,  government  was  It  and  land a  did  land that land  assembly limited little  to  ownership. rising  land  policies did  114  not  extend  Ontario's  beyond Land  government cause  of high  i t  prices,  a  first  effort  betterment created  of  tax  share  of  a  i t was  federal  of  not allowed  in  and  "recover f o r  gains  from  1 9 7 5 , p . 6) T h i s  of the land  of i t s  of l a n d  and  government  1975  provincial  escalation  windfall  some  economic  Ontario  in  important  the f i r s t  speculation  provincial  originally  income  20 p e r c e n t .  the  an  government  White,  of O n t a r i o ,  to capture  by g e n e r a l  The. t a x was Because  t o John  agreement  was  T a x . I t was  "reduce  speculation".(Province  general  the Ontario  by d i s c o u r a g i n g major  i n the past.  speculation  Speculation  would  prices"  public  land  According  initiated  Tax. - With  that  Land  i n Canada.  housing the  land  a  treasurer,  measures  Speculation  circles  introduced kind  those  to  land  was t h e  collect  value  a  increases  growth. set a t the rate as a deduction  or c a p i t a l  The t a x e x c l u d e d  gain  o f 50 p e r  i n the  taxes,  i t was  cent.  calculation reduced  to  the f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t i e s :  1 ) a  principal  residence  a  developed  industrial  a  farm  or v a c a t i o n  property;  2) or commercial  property;  3) property  owned  f o r more  than  10  years;  4) a residential investment property owned by the tranferror f o r at l e a s t 10 y e a r s a n d c o n t a i n i n g a s t r u c t u r e w o r t h a t l e a s t 40 p e r c e n t of the total value. (Smith, Many that  1976, p .  economists  i t interfered  with  2)  were v e r y the free  critical operation  of the tax  arguing  of the urban  land  11 5  market.  L . B.  professor  Smith,  wrote  a  University  of  Toronto  economics  that:  the benefits from reducing destabilizing behaviour a r e temporary i n the sense that the destabilizing behaviour would likely have been curtailed eventually by normal market p r e s s u r e s . ( I b i d , p . 11) Scheffman the  and Markusen,  impact  of  undesireable assembly more  a n d make  Ontario  urban  of land  centres  interest  value that  effective  as  was  numerous months  with  an o r i g i n a l  Ontario tax  addressed as  little  the  long  government ever  an  attempt  t a x was  land  ever  long  term,  be  efficient  land  in  land  1977, p .  less  part,  to the  around  the  fringe  the  object  of  the  because in land  tax  of most  was  not  i t collected  less  value  during  than  ownership  128)  of c a l c u l a t i o n which  increases. allowed  for  first  six  the  $150,000  was c o l l e c t e d  o f $25 m i l l i o n  of  annual  36)  history  imposed  specifically  levy  estimate  1974, p .  that  less  However,  example,  i t s existence,  Despite  only  For  noted  f o r t h e most  on l a n d s  increment  due t o t h e method  of  to a  generally  betterment  revenue(Mackenzie,  and  were  deductions.  compared  limited,  Smith,  the  concentrations  gains  5% o f t h e u n e a r n e d  This  lead  speculators.  a  with  in  and Scheffman,  t a x was  f o r land  would,  i t could  1ikely.(Markusen  taxation  the  tax  because  process  The  than  the  i n agreement  of proposals  speculation  during  a  land  at the problem  to c o l l e c t  f o r land  taxes,  tax  stands  as  the  boom  period  that  was  of  land  the unearned  c o l l e c t e d and i n October  speculation  increment. 1978  the  Very tax  116  was  5.6  repealed.  The  1980's:  As  the  the  end  of  boom  speculation  came  to  Canada  the  land  policy  housing  policy.  major  issues.  rates  remained  1982,  The  1982  shown  at  interest  in  housing  end  in  table  rates  8,  of  21.3%  in  1981.  have  not  rate  urban from  November  of  most  of  risen  1983,  lower  in  the  1980's  compared  For  while  in  the  1970's  the  example,  completions declined land  and  not  been  1984,  p.  was  to  565;  the  aimed  at  CMHC,  federal supporting  began  1983, in  urban  would  established  The in  1960  housing  general  land  As been  1970's.  average  rate  rate  of had  construction  decline  issues in  and  which  has  Canada,  providing  reflected  by  programmes.  By  a l l i t s programmes  land  Although fulfilled,  is  land  terminated  municipal and  has  the  this  Since  11%.  1930's.(Statistics  residential  commitments  be  of  interest  government  infrastructure.  23)  81)  activity  to  1980's  the  municipal  initiated.  a  p.  public  the  rates  since  interest federal  by  The  prices  witnessed  reduced  1980  160,000.  housing  Reduced the  235,000,  p.  to  the  November  above  annual  of  Interest  completions  substantially  across  became  until  far  housing  land  discussions  housing.  1980  (CMHC,  and  centres  financing  analysts  from  the  construction  and  15%  rates  Problems?  most  disappeared  majority  above  Land  in  Interest  peaking  late  an  Urban  assemblies  existing no  new  infrastructure a  total  of  $2.2  and  project  ones  were  programme, billion  in  11 7  loans  and  grants  f o r sewer  municipalities, Neighbourhood for  inner  1978.  The  city  lived  including  for  were  sections  and  the  40  funding 1980's  others  the 42.  of  both  than  policy  Federal  Report  the  departments  Interdepartmental the  impact  economic that and best the  the work  of  It  provinces  was  with  and  and  the  on on  and  endeavour  that  to  and  early  dramatically.  During  profession  less  emphasis 1985, in  Land  Force  Use  land  use  of  land.  should  view  to ensure that  i t would  support  the  in  Land  land  was  from  focused  as  a  i t was  the  in  16 the on  between argued resource  put  to i t s  jurisdiction  would:  provinces  Use  committee  land  that  Canada:  conflicts  The  1980  CMHC),  Policy and  land  two  Use  on  on  and  Appendix)  representatives  Land  use  provinces  recognized  70's  agencies(including  government  the  Task  related under  late  and  in  programmes  land  indicated  Use  grants  available  planning  placed  Land  1975  urbanization  federal  use.  land  Committee  goals  with  the  Inter-departmental in  provision  fell  1973  municipalities  remaining  the  The  Contribution  municipal  decade.(Canada,  P o l i c y on  Established  federal  of  during  1500  terminated  Services  range  programmes  on  was  granting  housing  1978.  to  provided  after  only  government,  reports, of  However,  in  assembly  assembly  in the previous  Federal  Pol icy.  wide  land  these  interested  policy  a  which  Community 1979  systems  i n December  land  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . The  programmes  80's  1979  i n March  million  supply  Programme  residential  lapsed  water  terminated  Improvement  short  Programme $400.3  was  and  their  of  1 18  land use policies and a c t i v i t i e s whenever these are compatible with the interests of t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t . ( C a n a d a , 1980, p. 51) However, resource  despite  rather  criticize  the  than  the  as  committee's  a  l a n d market  emphasis  commodity as  the  its  allocator  on  land  report  did  of  land  as  a  not  uses.  The free e x e r c i s e o f a) p r i v a t e r i g h t s and obligations associated with land ownership; and b) the o p e r a t i o n of the market as the p r i m e a l l o c a t o r o f p r i v a t e l y owned l a n d must be p r e s e r v e d u n l e s s c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e d to be contrary to the public i n t e r e s t . ( Ibid, p. 54) Urban prospects the  and  regional  for planning  nature  established  in  use  1980  by  the  urban  continue  land  use  urban  land  the  land  In  regulations"  responses  to  Planning The present past  30  course years  congratulated  of of their  examing  the  a  similar  stance  on  land.  The  problem  in  to  ensure  that  were  appeared urban urban  of  amenable  i t suggested  on  Force,  Planners, the  and  need  for  planners or  the  to  efficient,  support  "delaying Force  Task of  terms  i t indicated  market".(Task  Force  Force  Institute  P r o f e s s i o n , 1982, Task  Task  Canadian  because  inhibiting  the  urban  addition,  market  in a  reflected  of  planning  development.  private  also  and  defined  planners  the  "review  preventing  Future  of  the  p.34) satisfied  with  development.  Looking  development,  profession  for  the  the  past back  the quality  development. The resulting suburbs with their neighbourhoods planned around s c h o o l s and p a r k s , t h e i r s h o p p i n g c e n t r e s and industrial p a r k s , have provided safe and convenient  and  at  the  planners of  urban  11 9  living conditions, at reasonable public c o s t , f o r many C a n a d i a n s . ( I b i d , p . 13) The  discussion  limited.  In  the  of land early  1980's  parliament  rampant  land  i n only  a  few m a r k e t s ,  most  notably  British  Columbia.  F o r example,  from  1979 t o 1981  prices  Canada,  increased  1983, p. 56) M a r g a r e t  Vancouver housing  i n Vancouver  East  told  was m a k i n g  Vancouver  adequate  in  Alberta  100%.(Canada,  i n 1982 t h a t  shelter  and  residential  M i t c h e l l , N.D.P.  parliament  also  speculation  occured  land  was  Statistics member  for  speculation  unaffordible  for  on  many  residents.  This boom or bust real e s t a t e market i n C a n a d a w h i c h h a s made many people homeless was encouraged by the l a c k of government spending, the lack of controls on s p e c u l a t i o n and the general encouragement of the myth that homeownership i s the best hedge a g a i n s t inflation.( H o u s e o f Commons D e b a t e s , 1982 S e s s i o n , p.6574~5 She  further  mortgages already  criticized and  Rose,  asked  housing"? rising portion  homebuyer  overheated  Another  He  land  the current  N.D.P. the  real  grants  estate  Member  from "what  replied that  i t was  of the cost  He  noted  as only  interest  deferral  contributing  t o an  market.  House,  prices.  federal  the Vancouver  that  i s high land  keeping  region, people  interest made  up a  Mark out of  rates  and  substantial  of h i s house.  It i s not t h e c o s t ' o f l a b o u r , or even t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s p r o f i t s . I t i s two t h i n g s only, land p r i c e s and interest rates. The land under t h e h o u s e I b o u g h t i n 1961 was 1 0 % o f i t s t o t a l c o s t . Today...the l a n d under i t i s now 5 0 % o f i t s c o s t . ( I b i d , p . 1 5 5 0 5 ) Both  M i t c h e l l and Rose  asked  the  federal  minister  of  120  housing,  Paul  speculation. on  profits  Although  made  principal address take  the  action  In  1985  on the  initiate  of  the  a  paper  that  a  was  did  Ibid,  tax  one's directly  declined  pp.  to  6201-6202) Conservative  Paper  direction  conceded  land  gains  not  Progressive  new  of  not  government  Consultation  on  problem  capital  proposals  elected  released  the  100%  suggest ions.(  newly  The  a  housing  their  discussions  Canada.  into  proposed  sale  their  government  in  look  p o l i c y . However,  any  policy  on  to  they  residence,  land  federal to  Cosgrove,  on  Housing  for  housing  that:  Canadians s t i l l have unmet housing needs. Sizeable number of p e o p l e remain u n a b l e t o a f f o r d decent shelter, whether rented or o w n e r o c c u p i e d . ( C a n a d a , 1985, p. 2) However, land  the  report  problems  were  concluded  not  that  responsible  high for  land  costs  housing  or  other  affordabi1ity  problems. The  consultation  residential centres  in  performing  land  was  Canada  paper more  and  noted  than  that  that  adequate the  the  in  urban  supply  almost land  of  a l l urban  market  was  satisfactorily.  Overall the urban land supply process i s functioning well across Canada, with the supply of short-term land s t r o n g i n most c e n t r e s . ( I b i d , A p p e n d i x , p. 9) The 1976  report had  risen  However, prices  went  had  decreased,  the  on at  to a  rate  report  increased  note  that  less  than  failed  to  rapidly  to  significantly  land  from  cost  the  note  Consumer  that  high these  increases  prior  levels prices.  Price  since Index.  to  1976  land  and  had  not  As  shown  by  121  table  10,  than  three  decline fallen  residential  in  times land  below  Land, pose  a  market only  in  is preforming  supply  of  at  serviced  1970's  policy  with  land  the  is  in  there  1980's,  set  the  during  federal  assumed  pace  the  has  some  have  not  1970's.  the  there  more  been  government  because  and  1983  they  that  satisfactorily moderate  does  urban  land  not land  prices  i s an  are  adequate  land.  Canada, land.  gained  federal  banking,  introducing  the  The  prepare  the  Serviced  Land.  Task  addressed  the  commodity  beyond  Even  though  during  supported  policy  was  Force  the the no  with  some  of  land  as  1970's, private longer  policy the  of  across  use  of  urban  so  market. in  intense,  together  Supply  land  became  prominent  and  and of  privately  policies  land  government  to  Price  of  Ontario's  p o l i c y measures a  the  tax  worked the  during  involvement  was  exception  land  regulation  land  on  the  no  the  1974-1976  study  tax,  treatment  of  governments  However,  incrment  increment  regulating  boom  its  provincial  unearned  federal  prominence  expanding  Ontario  governments  unearned  issue  the.  speculative and  i t s greatest  government  first  municipal  provincial  all  a  It  still  Although the  levels of  were  Conclusion Land  in  during  eyes  problem.  prices  levels.  record the  increasing  5.7  1971  prices  the  major  land  directly  held  market  use. a  highly  pursued By  the  public  by  politiczied governments 1980's and  land  academic  1 22  debates.  Governments  of  land  their  confidence policy  programmes  in  the  only  land  1 9 3 0 ' s , . when  land  activity  the  major  and  policy issues  parts  and  urban  i n t h e 1985 f e d e r a l  mentioned  land  i n most  appeared  land  and the urban f o r housing  of land land  that  ceased price  market  terminated be  expressing  to  on h o u s i n g similar be  increases were  policy-makers.  many  F o r example,  paper  I t appears  speculation  to  market.  consultation  briefly.  pace  of Canada  land i s  to the  prominent was  slower,  not considered  as  123  CHAPTER  SIX  CONCLUSION  In to  some  the  1900.  provision  as  according  of housing  a  generally  nature  of  remained have  land.  operation  many  commodity  which  of land  received  very  policy-makers speculation and  land  is  little  land  land  land  little  since  continues  t o be  and  beyond  the  boom  policy  as w e l l  use  the commodity argued  that  i s responsible  for  has not challenged  commodity. from  has wreaked as with  policy  of' l a n d  occasionally  recognition  years  allocated  a n d demand. L a n d  market  attention  relates  little  to challenge  i t has been  as a p r i v a t e  markets,  i t  very  priced  of supply  done  While  during  urban  as  l i m i t e d t o various' forms  problems,  treatment  policy  has changed  that  of the private  housing  land  of housing  t o the dynamics  regulation  the  government  In the p r o v i s i o n  treated  has  respects  This  urban  issue  has  analysts  that havoc  municipal  the  and  widespread with  housing  capital  works  budgets. There increases World  War  have in Two,  been  four  residential the late  periods land  1920's,  of  prices: 1949-1958  particularly the decade and  rapid  prior to  1974-1976.  The  1 24  decade  that  highest the and  preceded  annual  initial the  land  urban  and  mid  housing  development.  land  markets  late  of  Since  of  housing  World  War  price  the  war  early  1970's.  However,  summarizes and  urban  the  argued.  1900  residential  and  town  to  and  in  the  the  1930's,  in  problems  widespread prices  planning  land  and  land  policy  have  been  land  during  excesses  in  this  posed of  by  urban  speculation. little  land  disappeared  from  there  The  until  somewhat land  in  first 1958.  during  price  the  levels  another  residential  two began The  periods in  rate  1960's rose  years  of  land  and  the  again  period. land  the  sharply  (Table  prices,  of  VI  inflation  starts.) advocates  identified that  mini-boom  measures  marking  changes  housing  Since generally  1976  development. a  growing  policy  continued  slowed  to  was  Canada  advocating  land  increases.  increases  1974  urban  there  Canada,  western  individuals  the  policy.  price  from  in  in  intervention  land  Two  and  attained  of  a  marked  government  resulted  the  of  when  Also,  was  cities  responding  falling  during  land  following  1920's  urbanization  which  of  large group  war  ever  regulation  more  with  discussions  the  generally  speculation  of  small  Advocates  pace  However,  a  world  immigration  construction.  were  rapid  to  urged  rapid  first  development  planning  movement  the  of  of  the  period  rates  emergence  use  During  the  the other  three  of  government  urban  land  unregulated purposes  land  problems.  subdivision was  increasing  policies  have  First,  they  of  land the  for  public  1 25  cost  of  carried  servicing large  scattered  resulted  values.  Third,  the  Many  advocates  these  and  market  markets,  in  urban  f o r major  property. treatment private than  Even of  cost  as  one f o r many  government back  analysts  and  in the  the worst  use  of  the  low  income  abuses  land  was  of  the  households. in  housing  use of  urban  of land  critical  of  as  institution those  have of  calling  rather  a  private  speculation,  policy-makers  resource,  and  property  causes  involvement  proposed  often  patterns.  residential  1970's,  the  industrial  land  the  as a community rarely  land  the treatment  and  Second,  residential  While  these  argued,  to the unregulated  commodity.  changes  commodity,  of  general,  during  land  curb  lowered  l i m i t e d cases,  held  particular,  more  problems  i n more  privately  called  high  of  they  residential,  often  service  services.  areas,  often  of housing  to  and haphazard  of  identified  unaffordability  land  uses  Municipalities  attempts  public  urban  mixture  land  sometimes  land  with  i n non-conforming  commercial  areas.  to their  development  resulting  traced  due  subdivisions  unregulated  The  debts  residential  in  rarely private f o r the  than  as  a do  measures  that  would  of the p r i v a t e  land  market.  1 26  Table  VI  A Comparison of Average Annual Changes i n Land Costs, I n f l a t i o n and t o t a l Urban H o u s i n g S t a r t s , 1 9 4 9 -1 983 Per i o d  Average Average Annual Annual land cost i n f l a t i o n changes rates  Average Annual change i n housing starts  -a  %  + 26.5  + 1.6  + 2.9  1952-1953  -0.2  -0.9  + 26.6  1953-1958  + 21.8  + 1 .7  + 10.3  1958-1960  -4.0  + 1.2  -18.5  1960-1964  +4 . 9  + 1.2  + 18.6  1964-1965  + 0.1  + 2.5  + 1 .3  1965-1972  + 7.7  + 4.0  + 7.6  1972-1973  -4.3  + 7.5  + 2.2  1973-1974  +4 .  + 10.9  -19.9  1974-1976  + 46.5  + 9.6  + 14.8  1976-1981  + 9.4  + 11.3  -6.4  1981-1984  -2. 1  + 8.6  -2.9  ~i>  1949-1952  1  Note: Periods are identfied annual land cost changes Source:  CMHC, 1 9 8 3 , p . 1 ; t a b l e s of t h i s t h e s i s .  by s i m i l a r t r e n d s i n o v e r a number o f y e a r s , I I , I I I and V  i n the  text  1 27  There policies zoning land  have  relating  was  and  subdivision  of  provincial  rural  servicing  of  increase  the  of  land  the  housing  were  intact.  of  continued  as  to  be  mid-1970's.  increment  of  cost  taxes,  the  federal  and  Third,  of  that  have  to  to  reduce  a  increment Ontario  thereby  public  of  to  land  larger the  cost  taxes  have  tax  the  to  and would  problems  have  leaving  category  private  subdvision eliminate by  intense  encroached  controls  many  adoption land the  of  the land  of  such  speculation 1950's  policies, upon  the  market  reducing  during of  relating  emphasized  the  widespread  particularly  one  and  the  increases.  markets  Two,  underwrite  part  attempt  response  despite War  to  the  municipal  Fourth,  as  housing  land  problem  would  land.  unearned  zoning  Only  introduced  programmes  use  measures  Second,  of  while  Land  change.  servicing  use,  World a  of  stabilized  the  an  in  use  co-ordinate  value  adopted  land  regulate  introduced  land  land  to  Government  However,  since  use  serviced  as  First,  values,  development  Fifth,  private  speculation. measures  of  of  introduced  grant  urban  the  land  proposed  excesses  and  policies  and  of  property  land  and  categories  housing.  have  were  policies  regulation mechanism  land  land.  by  supply  of  protect  were  for  increment  Land  to  supply  adopted  unearned  the  loan  residential  been  supply  five  development.  programmes of  the  governments  infrastructure  package  general,  regulate  residential  assembly  in  controls  urbanization  to  to  introduced  markets  new  been,  the  and  unearned market  128  exchange  of  land  appropriate private least  land  market.  by  by  limiting values  This  the  when  category  is  institution  the  land  owner  the  right  exchange  land  in  to policy  focused never  the  commodity  cope  among  seek  lower  of  to  exchanged  policy  has  fully in  been  the  has  the  problem  of  the  desires  possible  market the  community  and  i s the  housing.  market.  of  of  the used  that  and  the  Government  housing  land.  treatment  at  and  of  have  prices  of  the  the  has  However, land  as  it a  On  as  a  for  government attempts  unaffordabi1ity  problems  is,  the  for  in  land  one  pursue  general,  owners  hand,  their  uses  land  which  the  other  land  for  housing  make  adequate urban  land  the  housing problem  in  are  the  not  hand, in  feasible. it  the  owners  provision  as  a  and  land  On  which  privately  government  private  community. must  land  demand  return  often  physically crux  of  There  of  highest  affordable  land  use  use  the  Canadians.  the  and  the  e s p e c i a l l y as  out  locations  to  provision  the  community.  of  property  treatment  increased  housing  between  interest  private  private  the  broader  broader  to  the  the  conflict  right  commodity.  income  land  of  the  of  private the  on  with  conflict needs  is  land  right  challenged  conclusion,  expenditure to  towards  regulation  directly  market  In held  directed  on  typical  land  of  the  guarantees  has  owner's  governments.  It  land  land  in the  good of This  relates  1 29  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Adams, Thomas, 1915, "The M e a n i n g a n d P r a c t i c a l Application o f Town P l a n n i n g , " C a n a d i a n M u n i c i p a l J o u r n a l , S e p t e m b e r , p . 307 . Adams, Thomas, 1916, Purposes," Conservation  "The Purchase of Land f o r B u i l d i n g of L i f e , 2 ( 4 ) J u l . - S e p t . , pp. 73-80)  Adams, Thomas, 1917, " C o s t o f L a n d for C o n s e r v a t i o n of L i f e , March, pp. 29-32. Adams, Thomas, 1917, R u r a l P l a n n i n g Commission of C o n s e r v a t i o n .  Building  Purposes"  and Development,  Ottawa:  Adams, Thomas, 1919, "The A s s e s s m e n t o f L a n d f o r T a x a t i o n i n relation to i t s use f o r purposes of production and r e s i d e n c e " C a n a d i a n M u n i c i p a l J o u r n a l , November, p. 367. Adams, Thomas, 1919, "The P l a n n i n g o f l a n d in relation municipal and s o c i a l p r o b l e m s , " The C a n a d i a n E n g i n e e r , November 20, p p . 4 7 0 - 4 7 5 .  to 37,  A d a m s , T h o m a s , 1 9 2 1 , "Town a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g i n r e l a t i o n to industrial growth i n Canada," J o u r n a l , Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e o f C a n a d a , 1 ( 4 / 5 ) , J u n e - A u g u s t , pp. 9-15. Barker, G., Superprofits, Basford, Housing Toronto,  J. Penney, W. Seccombe, 1973, H i g h r i s e a n d K i t c h e n e r : Dumont P r e s s Graphics.  Ron, 1973, " S p e e c h t o t h e A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e of the and Urban Development Association of Canada," January 29.  Adamson A., and E. G. Faludi, 1946, "Plans communities," J o u r n a l of the Royal A r c h i t e c t u r a l 2 3 ( 1 1 ) , p p . 2-8.  for 8 Institue,  B e e r , G. Frank, 1917, "Housing Experiment C o n s e r v a t i o n of L i f e , 3 ( 2 ) , pp. 25-28.  Toronto,"  in  Beer, G. Frank, 1918, "The Housing Question and C o n d i t i o n s , " i n Bureau of Municipal Research What 'Ward' g o i n g t o d o t o T o r o n t o , Toronto. Bland,  J.,  1946,  "St.  John's,  Nfld.,"  Journal,  'Ward' i s the  Royal  1 30  Architectural  Institute  of  Canada,  November,  pp.  302-306  B l o o m f i e l d , E . , 1982, " R e s h a p i n g t h e u r b a n landscape? Town p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s i n K i t c h e n e r / W a t e r l o o , 1 9 1 2 - 1 9 2 6 , " i n G. A. Stelter and A. F. J. Artibise, eds., Shaping the urban landscape, Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press. B r y a n t , C. W., 1963, " L a n d o w n e r s h i p P l a n Canada, 4 ( 1 ) , June, pp. 43-49.  and  City  Bryant, G.W.R., 1965, "Land Speculation: c o n t r o l , " P l a n Canada, 5 ( 3 ) , pp. 109-121. Buckley, Planning  A., 1925, Institute  Development,"  i t s effects  "The Garden City Idea," of Canada, 4 ( 3 ) , p p . 4 - 8 .  Bureau of M u n i c i p a l t o do w i t h T o r o n t o ,  Research, Toronto.  1918,  What  is  Journal,  'The  Ward'  and  Town  going  Canada, A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e on R e c o n s t r u c t i o n , 1944, Housing and Community P l a n n i n g , sub-committee report, number 4, Ottawa: K i n g ' s P r i n t e r . Canada, Ottawa.  CMHC,  1970,  Canadian  Housing  Statistics,  1970,  Canada, Ottawa.  CMHC,  1971,  Canadian  Housing  Statistics,  1971,  Canada, Ottawa.  CMHC,  1978,  Canadian  Housing  Statistics,  1978,  Canada, Ottawa.  CMHC,  1979,  Canadian  Housing  Statistics,  1979,  Canada, Ottawa.  CMHC,  1983,  Canadian  Housing  Statistics,  1983,  C a n a d a , G o v e r n m e n t o f , 1919, Housing Project Government, O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i 1 , Ottawa: K i n g ' s Canada, F o r c e on Canada.  Government H o u s i n g and  of, Urban  Canada, Government o f , B i l l McKnight, M i n i s t e r  of the F e d e r a l Printer.  1969, R e p o r t of the Development Ottawa:  f e d e r a l Task Information  1985, C o n s u l t a t i o n P a p e r o n responsible f o r Housing.  C a n a d a , H o u s e o f Commons, 1935, the S p e c i a l C o m m i t t e e on H o u s i n g  Housing,  M i n u t e s and P r o c e e d i n g s February-March 1935.  of  Canada, Ministry of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 6 , Human S e t t l e m e n t s i n Canada, prepared for the United Nations c o n f e r e n c e on Human S e t t l e m e n t s , J u n e .  131  Canada, Royal Commission on Industrial Report of t h e Commission Ottawa, July. Canada, S t a t i s t i c s C a t . Number 6 3 - 2 2 4 ,  Canada, Annual.  1984,  Market  Relations,  Research  1919,  Handbook  Canadian C o n f e r e n c e on H o u s i n g i n C a n a d a , 1 9 6 8 , " S o u r c e b o o k on H o u s i n g i n C a n a d a " O t t a w a : C a n a d i a n Council for Social Development, March. Ottawa. Carver, H., 1947, "Planning Layout f o r L i v i n g , 1 ( 2 ) ,March,  for a half p p . 1-2, 6.  C a r v e r , H., 1 9 4 7 , " T o r o n t o i n t h e Affairs, 10(4), pp. 245-249. Carver, Planning  H. et a l . , 1949, C h i c a g o :  A Committee Residential in Canada,"  Housing  million  homes,"  Crisis,"  Public  1949, "Planning in ASPO, p p . 1 9 1 - 2 0 1 .  Canada,"  ASPO  o f t h e Town Planning Institute of Canada on Environments, 1 9 6 2 , " T h e R o l e o f Town P l a n n i n g Plan Canada, 3 ( 2 ) ,  C i t y of Vancouver, 1930, A Plan f o r the City Vancouver: C i t y of Vancouver. Pp..91-102. Co-operative Commonwealth Manifesto, adopted at the f i r s t Saskatchewan, July. C o u c h o n , N., 1 9 2 2 , "Why is E n g i n e e r , 4 2 ( 1 8 ) , pp. 493.  Vancouver,  Federation, 1933, national convention,  Town  C o u c h o n , N., 1 9 2 7 , " T h e E c o n o m i c Journal, Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e pp. 37-40.  of  Planning,"  The  Regina Regina,  Canadian  Release of Canadian Lands," of Canada, 6(1), February,  Clark, R., 1 9 7 6 , " T h e C r i s i s i n C a n a d i a n C i t y Magazine, 1 ( 8 ) , J a n u a r y - F e b r u a r y , p p . 17-25.  Planing,"  C r a i g , J . D. , 1 9 2 8 , " T h e M o d e r n A t t i t u d e t o Town The C a n a d i a n E n g i n e e r , 5 5 ( 1 3 ) p p . 339-340.  City  Planning,"  Crear, A. D. , 1 9 5 9 , " L a n d f o r o u r F u t u r e - T h e H i g h C o s t o f S p r a w l , " Community P l a n n i n g Review, 9 ( 2 ) , June, pp. 44-47. C r o l l , D. A . , 1956, "The Canadian C i t i e s " Community pp. 144-146.  Objective of Redevelopment in P l a n n i n g Review, 6 ( 4 ) , December,  D a l z e l l , A . G. , 1 9 2 6 , " S h o u l d s h a c k t o w n s be Journal, Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n i n g , pp. 23-29.  encouraged?," 5(2), April,  1 32  Dalzell, A . G., 1927, Housing S e r v i c e C o u n c i l of Canada.  i n Canada,  Toronto:  Social  Danson, Barney, 1976, " S p e e c h t o t h e C a n a d i a n F e d e r a t i o n o f Mayors and M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , " Vancouver, J u n e 17. D e n n i s , M., S. F i s h , Toronto: Hakkert. Derkowski, A. Process, prepared T o r o n t o : HUDAC. Dube, Royal  1972,  Programmes  i n search  of a  policy  J., 1975, C o s t s i n the Land Development f o r t h e HUDAC e c o n o m i c r e s e a r c h c o m m i t t e e ,  Y. e t a l • , 1957, H o u s i n g a n d S o c i a l C o m m i s s i o n on E c o n o m i c P r o s p e c t s .  Capital,  Ottawa:  Ewing, James, 1921, "The M o n t r e a l S i t u a t i o n w i t h r e f e r e n c e to town planning," J o u r n a l , Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e o f C a n a d a , 1 ( 7 ) , D e c e m b e r , p p . 4-9. Faludi, Canada,"  E. G., Echoes,  1944, Summer,  "Planning and Housing p p . 6, 10.  " F e d e r a l and Provincial Housing Scheme," L i f e , 5 ( 1 ) , J a n u a r y 1 9 1 9 , p p . 1-14.  f o r Post-war  Conservation of  Federal-Provincial Task Force on the Supply and P r i c e of S e r v i c e d L a n d , 1978, A Report f o r the M i n i s t e r s r e s p o n s i b l e for Housing, David Greenspan, chairman. Firestone, 0. J . , 1951, R e s i d e n t i a l R e a l Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s . Genstar Homes, 1978, Observations D e v e l o p m e n t , E d m o n t o n : G e n s t a r Homes.  Estate  i n Canada,  on Housing., a n d  George, H e n r y , 1880, P r o g r e s s a n d P o v e r t y , S c h a l k e n b a c h F o u n d a t i o n , 1971.  New  York:  Land  Robert  G r a u e r , P. E . , 1 9 3 9 , H o u s i n g , a s t u d y p r e p a r e d f o r t h e R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n on D o m i n i o n - P r o v i n c i a l R e l a t i o n s , O t t a w a . Harvey, David, 1974, Class-Monopoly Rent, F i n a n c e C a p i t a l and t h e Urban R e v o l u t i o n , Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Papers on P l a n n i n g and Design. Harvey, Methuen.  D:,  1974,  Social  H a r v e y , D., 1 9 8 2 , T h e L i m i t s of C h i c a g o P r e s s .  Justice  and the c i t y ,  of C a p i t a l ,  Chicago:  London:  University  1 33  H e l l y e r , P., 1977, p o l i t i c a l memoir,"  "How City  they k i l l e d p u b l i c land M a g a z i n e 3 ( 2 ) , December,  banking: a pp. 31-38.  Hewitt, G. T r a f f o r d , 1914, "Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s as a f i e l d f o r the Garden City Movement," P r o c e e d i n g s of the 6 t h N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on C i t y P l a n n i n g , Toronto, May 2527, B o s t o n : T h e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . H o f f m a n , D o u g , 1981, "The R o l e o f P l a n C a n a d a , 2 1 ( 2 ) , pp. 59-61. Howard, E., 1899, F a b e r , 1946 edition.  Garden  the  Cities  Lands  Directorate,"  f o r Tommorrow,  London:  H u l c h a n s k i , J . D. 1978, C a n a d i a n Town P l a n n i n g a n d Housing, 1930-1940: A H i s t o r i c a l B i b l i o g r a p h y , Toronto: Centre for U r b a n and Community S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o . H u l c h a n s k i , J . D., 1981, "The o r i g i n s o f u r b a n l a n d p l a n n i n g in O n t a r i o , 1900-1946," Toronto: University of Toronto, D e p a r t m e n t o f U r b a n a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , Ph.D., t h e s i s . Jones, Housing Welfare  Andrew, 1978, T h e B e g i n n i n g s P o l i c y , 1918 - 1924, Ottawa: Studies, occasional paper.  Koyle", D. H., 1960, J u n e , pp. 12-17.  "Land  of Canadian Government Centre for Social  Speculation," Habitat,  Lane, W. T., 1951, "The Common Law Instrument," Community P l a n n i n g Review, 69. League for Social Socialism, Toronto: League Canada,  Reconstruction, Thomas N e l s o n and  J.,  1978,  The  Developers,  1938, Sons.  Democracy  Toronto:  MacNeil, Dalhousie  1983, "Property in the J o u r n a l , 7 ( 3 ) , O c t o b e r , pp.  Welfare 343-382.  Macpherson, C. B., 1978, P r o p e r t y : C r i t i c a l a n d T h e o r i e s , T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o P r e s s . B., 1952, "Housing Progress Community P l a n n i n g R e v i e w ,  for  Lorimer.  the University Endowment Grounds," P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e of Canada, 6(4),  M a n s u r , D. Building," 87.  Needs  Planning  "Luncheon at J o u r n a l , Town pp. 145-147. M., Law  May-  as a Planning 1 ( 2 ) , May, pp. 68-  f o r S o c i a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n , 1935, S o c i a l T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o P r e s s .  Lorimer,  3(3),  1927, August,  State,"  Mainstream  Waits on Community 2 ( 3 ) , August, pp. 82-  1 34  Markusen, J . R. And D. T. Scheffman, 1977, "Ownership Concentration i n the Urban Land Market: A n a l y t i c a l Findings and E m p i r i c a l E v i d e n c e , " L . B. S m i t h a n d M. Walker, eds., P u b l i c P r o p e r t y : The H a b i t a t D e b a t e R e v i s t e d , Vancouver: Fraser Institute. M a r t i n , L . R. G., 1977, "Land dealer and land developer b e h a v i o u r on t h e r u r a l - u r b a n f r i n g e o f T o r o n t o , " i n R u s s w u r m et a l . , eds. E s s a y s on C a n a d i a n U r b a n P r o c e s s a n d F o r m W a t e r l o o : Department of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, pp. 289-376. Martin, L. R. G., 1974, " P r o b l e m s a n d P o l i c i e s associated with high land costs on the urban fringe," in Canadian Council on Urban and R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h The Management of Land f o r Urban Development research report number 74, Ottawa, pp. 10-12. Marx, Penguin  Karl, Books.  Marx, K a r l , Publi shers.  1867,  1890,  M a s s e y , D., a n d Edward A r n o l d  Capital,  M.  Megarry, R. E., London: S t e v e n s and "Municipal Conservation  Capi t a l ,  Volume  Volume  Catalano,  1978,  1947, A Manual Sons L t d .  one,  Harmondsworth:  three,  Moscow:  Capital  and  of  Law  Development in Canada," of L i f e , 5 ( 1 ) , J a n u a r y , 1921,  of  Land,  Real  Property,  the 7th Annual Convention of the o f C a n a d a , " V a n c o u v e r , May 2 6 - 2 8 ,  Town 1927.  and  Report of Labour, Planning September  N o w l a n , D a v i d , 1 9 7 7 , " T h e L a n d M a r k e t : How i t works" Smith and M. Walker, eds. P u b l i c P r o p e r t y : The Debate r e v i s i t e d , Vancouver: F r a s e r Institute. Pickett, Canada," Sc i e n c e ,  London:  Town P l a n n i n g pp. 1-4.  National Industrial Conference, 1919, Official P r o c e e d i n g s and D i s c u s s i o n s , Ottawa: Department of " N o t e s on Institute 15 - 2 0 .  Progress  L. B. Habitat  J., 63,  1963, "Residential Capital Formation in Canadian J o u r n a l of Economics and P o l i t i c a l pp. 40-58.  P l a n t , F r a n k H., 1929, " T h e P r e s e n t in Canada," M u n i c i p a l Review of  Status  of  Zoning  Bylaws  " P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 6 t h N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on C i t y P l a n n i n g , " T o r o n t o , May 2 5 - 2 7 , 1 9 1 4 . C a n a d a , September,  p.  135  365. Rashleigh, 1960-1961"  E . T., 1962, " O b s e r v a t i o n s on P l a n Canada, 3 ( 2 ) , pp. 60-77.  R a w s o n , M., 1 9 5 8 , "A N o t e on H o u s i n g , T a x a t i o n , " Community P l a n n i n g Review, Roden, Canada,  T., 1907, March, pp.  "The Housing 253-255.  Rose, Albert, 1980, Toronto: Butterworth. Rousseau, Inequality,  Canadian  Jean-Jacque, 1775, New Y o r k : W a s h i n g t o n  R o w e i s , S. T., S c o t t , Toronto: Paper on Toronto.  Canadian  Cities,  P l a n n i n g and M u n i c i p a l 8 ( 1 ) , pp. 28-30.  of  Housing  Workmen,"  Policies,  Industrial  1935-1980,  D i s c o u r s e on t h e O r i g i n s o f S q u a r e P r e s s , 1964 e d i t i o n .  A. J . , 1976, The Urban Planning and Design,  Land Question, U n i v e r s i t y of  R o w e i s , S. S c o t t , A . , 1 9 8 1 , " T h e U r b a n Land Question," in Michael Dear and Alan S c o t t , eds., U r b a n i z a t i o n and urban p l a n n i n g i n c a p i t a l i s t economies London: Methuen, pp. 12 3— 1 58. Rutherford, P., 1978, "Tommorow's Metropolis: R e f o r m M o v e m e n t i n C a n a d a , " G. A. Stelter and Artibise, eds., The C a n a d i a n C i t y , Ottawa: U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y P r e s s , pp. 368-392.  The Urban A. F. J. Carleton  Schlatter, R., 1951, P r i v a t e P r o p e r t y : The H i s t o r y I d e a , New B r u n s w i c k , N . J . : R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  o f an  Schwartz, J . G., 1977, "There i s nothing simple about a commodity," J. Schwartz, ed., The S u b t l e Anatomy o f C a p i t a l i s m , Santa M o n i c a : Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g , pp. 474-500. Scott, London:  A. Pion  Sewell, 19-56.  J . , 1976, "The S u b u r b s , "  Seymour, Ontario,"  J . , 1980, The Urban Publishing.  Land  City  Nexus  and the S t a t e ,  Magazine,  2(6),  pp.  H., 1924, "Planning Kitchener and Waterloo, The C a n a d i a n E n g i n e e r November, pp. 125-130.  Seymour, H o r a c e , 1939, "The E c o n o m i c s o f P l a n n i n g , " The C a n a d i a n E n g i n e e r December S h o r t t , Adam, J o u r n a l , Town 18.  Housing and 5, p p . 9 - 1 0 .  Town  1 9 2 2 , "One m e t h o d o f f i n a n c i n g t o w n p l a n n i n g , " P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e of Canada, 1(10), p p . 17-  1 36  Smith,  L . B.,  1976, "The O n t a r i o L a n d  Speculation  T a x : an  S i m p s o n , L o u i s e , 1915, " H o u s i n g o f t h e Industrial Worker," Conservation of L i f e , 2 ( 1 ) , O c t o b e r , p p . 17-20. A n a l y s i s o f a l a n d increment t a x , " Land Economics, 5 2 ( 1 ) , p p . 1-12. S m i t h , L . B., M. W a l k e r , H a b i t a t Debate Continued, Spurr, P., Lor imer.  1976,  e d s . , 1977, P u b l i c P r o p e r t y : The Vancouver: the Fraser Insititute.  Land  and Urban  Development,  S t e v e n s o n , C. P., 1 9 8 3 , "A New Perspective Rights a f t e r t h e C h a r t e r , " O s g o o d e H a l l Law September, pp. 390-421. S u t c l i f f e , Anthony, Basil Blackwell.  1981, T o w a r d s  Toronto:  on Environment Journal, 21(3),  the Planned  City,  London:  Task Force on t h e F u t u r e o f t h e P l a n n i n g P r o f e s s i o n , 1982, " P r o s p e c t s f o r P l a n n i n g , " P l a n Canada, S p e c i a l I s s u e , June. T h o m a s , L . H., 1 9 8 1 , "Saskatoon 1883-1920: The Formative Years," Artibise, A. F. J . e d . , Town a n d C i t y Regina: C a n a d i a n P l a i n s S t u d i e s , pp. 237-358. Thompson, C , 1983, "The G r e a t of Social Housing," research Department of Geography.  D e p r e s s i o n and the b e g i n n i n g paper, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto^  United Nations, 1976, R e p o r t o f H a b i t a t : UN Human S e t t l e m e n t s , New Y o r k : U n i t e d N a t i o n s .  Conference  on  U r q u h a r t , M., a n d K. B u c k l e y , 1 9 6 5 , H i s t o r i c a l Canada, T o r o n t o : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  Statistics  of  Vancouver Housing Association, 1957, "National Housing Policy a memorandum," Community P l a n n i n g Review, 7 ( 3 ) , S e p t e m b e r , pp. 141-144. Weaver, J . , 1977, S h a p i n g t h e C a n a d i a n C i t y : E s s a y s P o l i t i c s and P o l i c y , 1890-1920, K i n g s t o n : I n s t i t u t e Government, Queen's U n i v e r s i t y .  on of  Yorath, C , 1 9 1 4 , " H o u s i n g a n d Town E n g i n e e r , 2 7 ( 1 ) , pp. 109-112.  Canadian  P l a n n i n g " The  Urban Local  137  APPENDIX Appendix A - Housing S t a r t s by Type and L o c a t i o n , 1900-1983 Appendix B - Dwellings U n i t s 1900-1983  Completed,  Canada,  Canada,  Appendix A Housing Starts by Type and Location, Canada, 1900-1983  Location TOTAL Starts 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1921 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939  16,400 19,400 25,100 33,000 40,900 52,200 51,700 51,300 42,900 61,000 79,800 71,500 76,300 63,700 44,000 21,300 22,800 23,500 23,600 30,600 31,100 35,000 40,700 39,500 37,600 45,500 52,400 54,700 60,400 57,500 48,700 39,400 24,900 22,800 28,300 33,900 41,000 45,100 43,900 48,900  NHA Assisted Starts  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 72 729 1,797 3,643 5,947  Non-Farm 10,100 11,800 13,200 17,100 21,300 27,700 33,700 32,000 25,900 37,400 48,900 57,700 68,600 57,100 37,700 15,600 14,800 13,000 12,300 22,800 23,200  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  Other 6,300 7,600 11,900 15,900 19,600 24,500 18,000 19,300 17,000 23,600 30,900 13,800 7,700 6,600 6,300 5,700 8,000 10,500 11,300 7,800 7,900  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  Housing S t a r t s by Type and L o c a t i o n , Canada, 1900-1983  Location TOTAL Starts  NHA Assisted Starts  1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947  52,600 51,200 40,000 36,100 41,500 55,200 64,400 74,300  5,738 4,466 1,120 1,731 1,466 4,737 11,520 10,190  1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979  90,194 90,509 92,531 68,579 83,246 102,409 113,527 138,276 127,311 122,340 164,632 141,345 108,858 125,577 130,095 148,624 165,658 166,565 134,474 164,123 196,878 210,415 190,528 233,653 249,914 268,529 222,123 231,456 273,203 245,724 227,667 197,049  26,233 29,250 43,321 21,439 34,400 39,888 50,373 65,377 43,725 47,468 81,950 62,333 33,723 59,870 48,003 50,267 55,349 54,842 51,029 63,208 72,242 82,061  — — — — — — — — — -—  Non-Farm  Other  — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — —  57,671 58,370 68,599 47,374 63,443 80,313 89,755 97,386 87,309 84,875 121,695 105,991 76,687 92,741 102,008 118,512 133,562 135,218 108,329 131,858 162,267 169,739 150,999 180,948 206,954 211,543 169,437 181,846 209,762 200,201 178,678 151,717  32,523 32,139 23,932 21,205 19,803 22,096 23,772 40,890 40,002 37,465 42,937 35,354 32,171 32,836 28,087 30,112 32,096 31,347 26,145 32,265 34,611 40,676 39,529 52,705 42,960 56,986 52,686 49,610 63,441 45,523 48,989 45,332  Housing Starts by Type and L o c a t i o n , Canada, 1900-1983  Location TOTAL Starts 1980 1981 1982 1983  SOURCE:  158,601 177,973 125,860 162,645  NHA Assisted Starts  Non-Farm 125,013 142,441 104,792 134,207  Other 33,588 35,532 21,068 28,438  Total and NHA Assisted S t a r t s 1900-1920 F.H.Leacy, H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s o f Canada, Series S205. 1921-1983 CMHC, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , various years. Non-Farm S t a r t s 1900-1920 F.H.Leacy, Series S204 ("non-farm"). 1921-1947 Not A v a i l a b l e 1948-1961 CMHC, CHS, various years (centres o f 5,000 pop. and over). 1962-1983 CMHC, CHS, various years (centres of 10,000-pop. and over).  Appendix B Dwelling Units Completed Canada, 1900-1984  Completions Total  1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939  17,700 18,000 25,500 20,600 31,000 37,800 48,300 43,100 39,900 45,900 58,100 70,200 85,200 82,600 69,400 41,300 40,200 50,800 41,100 37,600 52,400 32,300 40,300 41,500 35,400 42,000 52,400 52,500 59,000 61,100 50,200 45,700 26,900 21,000 26,500 31,800 38,000 46,900 41,400 48,800  Urban  Total Annual Increase (Decrease)  Other  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  19,400 24,800 26,000 22,100 27,100 34,700 35,000 40,300 42,700 32,800 27,700 15,300 10,800 12,700 14,900 17,500 21,100 17,700 21,500  12,900 15,500 15,500 13,300 14,900 17,700 17,500 18,700 18,400 17,400 18,000 11,600 10,200 13,800 16,900 20,500 25,800 23,700 27,300  300 7,500 (4,900) 10,400 6,800 10,500 (5,200) (3,200) 6,000 12,200 12,100 15,000 (2,600) (13,200) (28,100) (1,100) 10,600 (9,700) (3,500) 14,800 (20,100) 8,000 1,200 (6,100) 6,600 10,400 100 6,500 2,100 (10,900) (4,500) (18,800) (5,900) 5,500 5,300 6,200 8,900 (5,500) 7,400  Urban As % of Total  — — —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 60% 62% 63% 62% 65% 66% 67% 68% 70% 65% 61% 57% 51% 48% 47% 46% 45% 43% 44%  \U2  Dwelling Units Completed Canada, 1900-1984  Completions Total  Urban  1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  49,000 53,200 42,800 32,700 36,500 42,500  22,500 26,300 21,700 16,900 19,600 24,800  1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979  b0,50U 72,200 76,097 88,233 89,015 81,310 73,087 96,839 101,965 127,929 135,700 117,283 146,686 145,671 123,757 115,608 126,682 128,191 150,963 153,037 162,192 149,242 170,993 195,826 175,827 201,232 232,227 246,581 257,243 216,964 236,249 251,789 246,533 226,489  37,900 44,600 48,006 60,262 62,847 61,167 54,346 73,375 80,593 93,942 95,152 80,995 107,839 108,059 90,513 83,148 93,041 100,447 101,529 123,902 125,475 120,163 136,337 159,089 138,576 155,892 192,984 197,513 202,989 170,325 180,765 206,217 198,777 173,604  Other 26,500 26,900 21,100 15,800 16,900 17,700 22,600 27,600 28,091 27,971 26,168 20,143 18,741 23,464 21,372 33,987 40,548 36,288 38,847 37,612 33,244 32,460 33,641 27,744 49,43429,135 36,717 29,079 34,656 36,737 37,251 45,340 39,243 49,068 54,254 46,639 55,484 45,572 47,756 47,885  Total Annual Increase (Decrease) 20U 4,200 (10,400) (10,100) 3,800 6,000 18,000 11,700 3,897 12,136 782 (7,705) (8,223) 23,752 5,126 25,964 7,771 (18,417) 29,403 (1,015) (21,914) (8,149) 11,074 1,509 22,772 2,074 9,155 (12,950) 21,751 24,833 (19,999) 25,405 30,995 14,354 10,662 (40,279) 19,285 15,540 (5,256) (20,044)  Urban As % of Total 46% 49% 51% 52% 54% 58% 63% 62% 63% 68% 71% 75% 74% 76% 79% 73% 70% 69% 74% 74% 73% 72% .73% 78% 67% 81% 77% 81% 80% 81% 79% 77% 83% 80% 79% 79% 77% 82% 81% 79%  1^3  Dwelling Units Completed Canada, 1900-1984  Completions Total 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984  SOURCE:  176,168 174,996 133,942 163,008 153,012  1900-1920 1921-1984  Urban 140,996 137,955 112,251 135,848 127,303  Other 35,172 37,041 21,691 27,160 25,709  Total Annual Increase (Decrease)  Urban As % of Total  (50,321) (1,172) (41,054) 29,066 (9,9%)  P i c k e t t (1963) p. 51. CMHC, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , various years.  80% 79% 84% 83% 83%  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items