Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Gentrification’s impact on neighbourhood public service usage Buchan, Robert Bruce 1985

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 B82.pdf [ 6.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096439.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096439-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096439-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096439-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096439-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096439-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096439-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096439-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096439.ris

Full Text

GENTRIFI CATION'S IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURHOOD PUBLIC SERVICE USAGE BY ROBERT BRUCE BUCHAN B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of B r i t i s h Columbia November, 1985 © Robert Bruce Buchan, 1985. In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October 4th, 1985 i i Abstract Over the l a s t decade g e n t r i f i c a t i o n has demanded a great deal of attention from urban scholars. In spite of t h i s attention, the l i t e r a t u r e i s characterized more by speculation than answers especially with regards to g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ' s consequences and planning implications. In response to t h i s deficiency, this thesis sets out to determine the effects of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n on inner c i t y neighbourhood public service demand. Because i t i s not clear how g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s public service demand, urban policy makers are unable to plan for changes in demand. Knowing what w i l l be demanded could f a c i l i t a t e e f f i c i e n t delivery of new services and e f f i c i e n t closure of costly underused services. Moreover, knowing what w i l l be demanded may help decision makers arr i v e at better informed decisions. A case study area, Vancouver's Grandview Woodland, was chosen because i t was able to provide a sample of g e n t r i f i e r s and of t r a d i t i o n a l inner c i t y residents. Forty one g e n t r i f i e r and forty one t r a d i t i o n a l resident households were interviewed using a questionnaire designed to gather information about each group's demographics, s a t i s f a c t i o n with street and t r a f f i c conditions, and their use of, s a t i s f a c t i o n with, and attitudes toward neighbourhood public services. The a t t i t u d i n a l data indicate that g e n t r i f i e r s value neighbourhood amenities such as parks, good street and t r a f f i c conditions, and other public services s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents do. This i s expressed in their p o s i t i v e and negative perceptions of the neighbourhood's i i i c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . There i s also evidence that the g e n t r i f i e r s are motivated to secure the public services they desire, for they feel that the services which they use are very important to their households. The behavioural data indicate that the g e n t r i f i e r s present greater demands for parks, family centres, public health c l i n i c s , tennis and racquetball courts, and community centres. They only decrease demand for ethnic centres, and they maintain demand for other neighbourhood public services. i v Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of Figures ix Acknowledgement x Chapter 1: Introduction 1 .1 Introduction 1 1.2 Epistemology 5 1.3 Organization of the Chapters 8 Chapter 2: A Review of the Literature 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : What i s i t ? 11 2.3 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : Its Significance 21 2.4 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : Explanations and Causes 24 2.5 Impacts of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 29 Chapter 3: The Study Area: Grandview Woodlands, Vancouver 3.1 Introduction 34 3.2 History 38 3.3 Current Trends and Future Directions 40 Chapter 4: Research Design and Methods 4.1 Introduction 50 4.2 The Variables 50 4.3 The Survey Method 54 4.4 The Measurement Instrument 55 4.5 The Sampling Technique 57 Chapter 5: Survey Analysis 5.1 Introduction 63 5.2 Demographic Characteristics 63 5.3 Attitudes Towards the Neighbourhood 76 5.4 Behavioural Variables: Leisure A c t i v i t i e s and Service Usage 99 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Implications 121 References 132 Appendix A 138 L i s t of Tables Table 3.1 Summary Table of Selected Variables for Grandview Woodland and the City of Vancouver, 1961 to 1981 42 Table 3.2 Ethnic Groups in Grandview Woodland and Other Areas, 1961 to 1971 43 Table 3.3 Ethnic P r o f i l e by Mother Tongue for Grandview Woodland and i t s Sub-Areas, and the City of Vancouver, 1 981 44 Table 3.4 Socio-Economic Indicators of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n . ..45 Table 5.1 Occupational Status 64 Table 5.2 Education Level by Population. 66 Table 5.3 Household Income by Population 67 Table 5.4 Males' Age by Population 68 Table 5.5 Females' Age by Population 69 Table 5.6 Childrens' Ages 72 Table 5.7 Average Time Lived in the Neighbourhood and the Dwelling 72 Table 5.8 When Males' Immigrated 74 Table 5.9 When Females' Immigrated 75 Table 5.10 Males' B i r t h Place 77 Table 5.11 Females' B i r t h Place 78 Table 5.12 Males' Perceived Ethnic Background 79 Table 5.13 Females' Perceived Ethnic Background 79 Table 5.14 Last Place of Residence 81 Table 5.15 Positive Neighbourhood Attributes 82 v i i Table 5.16 Classes of Positive Neighbourhood Attributes 84 Table 5.17 Owned Last Place of Residence 86 Table 5.18 Negative Neighbourhood Attributes 88 Table 5.19 Males' Sa t i s f a c t i o n With the Neighbourhood 90 Table 5.20 Females' Satisfaction With the Neighbourhood 90 Table 5.21 Plan To Stay in the Neighbourhood For Next Five Years 91 Table 5.22 Plan To Stay in the Neighbourhood For Next Ten Tears 91 Table 5.23 Other Areas That the Respondents Have Considered Moving To. 93 Table 5.24 Most Used Reasons When Considering Other Neighbourhoods For Residence 94 Table 5.25 S a t i s f a c t i o n With Street Conditions 95 Table 5.26 Necessary Street Improvements 96 Table 5.27 Perceived Importance of T r a f f i c Volume Change 98 Table 5.28 Leisure A c t i v i t i e s 100 Table 5.29 Males' Age Distribution for Age Controlled Sample 102 Table 5.30 Females' Age Di s t r i b u t i o n for Age Controlled Sample 1 02 Table 5.31 Leisure A c t i v i t i e s for Age Controlled Sample 1 04 Table 5.32 Areal Scope of Leisure A c t i v i t i e s . 105 v i i i Table 5.33 Areas in Which Friends Are Most Often V i s i t e d 107 Table 5.34 Neighbourhood Public Service Usage 108 Table 5.35 Service Used Occasionally But Less Than Once a Month 113 Table 5.36 Satisfaction With Services Used 114 Table 5.37 Most Important Service 116 Table 5.38 Needed New Services 117 Table 5.39 Type of School Children Attend 119 i x L i s t of Figures Figure 1.1 The Deductive-Nomological Schema 7 Figure 2.1 Chart Summarizing the Location and Origin of Terms Used Within the Inner-City R e v i t a l i z a t i o n Literature 14 Figure 3.1 The Boundaries of Grandview Woodland Within Vancouver City, and i t s Census Subdivisions. Sub-Areas 51 and 54 Include the Single and Two Family Dwelling Zone 35 Figure 3.2 Grandview Woodland Sub-Areas 36 Figure 3.3 Location of Public Services in Grandview Woodland Used By the Respondents 48 Figure 4.1 Relationships Between the Variables: The Research Hypothesis 52 X Acknowledgement This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of a great number of people. In p a r t i c u l a r , thanks are owed to my parents for providing me with moral support and a desire to accomplish; to my committee, Dr. Hightower, Dr. Ley, and Dr. Lindsey, for their wise guidance and keen insights; to the people who participated in the case study, for without their openess and trust, the study would not have been possible; to CM.H.C. for i t s f i n a n c i a l support; and, to special friends and fellow students, for their moral support and advise was invaluable. 1 Chapter 1 1 . 1 Introduction The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to determine how g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s the demand for neighbourhood-based public services. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s the migration of middle and upper-middle class households into lower status inner-city neighbourhoods. This phenomenon has become to p i c a l among urban scholars since the late 1960's and 1970's (Hamnett, 1984). It was f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d in London by Ruth Glass in 1963. She reported in a rather ungainly manner that one by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle-class-upper and lower-shabby modest mews and cottages... have been taken over when their leases expired, and have become elegant, expensive residences. Larger Victorian nouses, downgraded in an e a r l i e r or recent period... have been upgraded once again... Once this process of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n starts in a d i s t r i c t i t goes on rapidly u n t i l a l l or most of the o r i g i n a l working class occupiers are displaced and the whole so c i a l character of the d i s t r i c t is changed. (Glass, I963:xviii) When the 'gentry' invade "working-class neighbourhoods or multi-occupied twilight areas" (Hamnett, 1984:284), they displace many of the o r i g i n a l occupants. It i s the consequence of displacement which a major portion of the l i t e r a t u r e on g e n t r i f i c a t i o n has examined. The other major area of investigation has been concerned with understanding the causes of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Though i t i s s t i l l a r e l a t i v e l y small scale phenomenon, scholars have been p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in i t s cause because i t represents a departure from past patterns -- the outward migration of households to suburban neighbourhoods and the downward f i l t e r i n g of housing stock.' Although gentrif i c a t i o n i s 2 not a back-to-the-city movement (Gale, 1983), i t i s a slowing down of the suburban movement. It commonly "involves migration within the inner c i t y i t s e l f as small, youthful households... have moved from rented accommodation to single family owner occupation in the inner c i t y , rather than seeking a suburban home" (Hamnett, 1984:285) Although the causes of, and displacement effects from, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n have been extensively studied, l i t t l e has been done on how i t aff e c t s public service demand. Because the "gentry create a neighbourhood ambience and a style that r e f l e c t s upper-middle class tastes and values" (Clay, 1979), the c i t y may face changing demands for neighbourhood based public services such as parks, community centres, ethnic centres, and public health c l i n i c s . It i s not clear, however, pre c i s e l y what these demands w i l l be. This study, then, determines i f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n maintains or increases the u t i l i z a t i o n of existing services and i f i t actually creates a demand for dif f e r e n t services. It i s hypothesized that the gentry have public service demands which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of the t r a d i t i o n a l inner-city working class residents'. The impact on public services has been i d e n t i f i e d as a problem by a few scholars. P h i l i p Clay, for example, stresses that "urban management aspects of [g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ] must be explored" (1979:85). Shirley Laska and Daphne Spain are also concerned with the potential problems facing c i t i e s experiencing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . They c i t e Conrad Weiler, an early analyst of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , who suggests that the middle-class returnees w i l l l i k e l y demand costly neighbourhood improvements (1980:117). 3 Because urban policy makers are not clear how g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s public service demand, they are unable to plan for changes in demand. This could result in some services operating s i g n i f i c a n t l y below capacity and other highly demanded ones operating at over capacity, or not being offered at a l l . Knowing exactly what is demanded w i l l permit e f f i c i e n t delivery of new services and e f f i c i e n t closure of costly underused services. This thesis has two s p e c i f i c research objectives: 1) to determine i f there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the g e n t r i f i e r ' s and the t r a d i t i o n a l resident's l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 2) to determine i f there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the need and use of neighbourhood based public services between the two populations. This study is based on the premise that planning for the most prevalent l i f e s t y l e s in an area i s a legitimate a c t i v i t y . The l i f e s t y l e approach i s an e x p l i c i t rejection of planning which i s based p r i n c i p a l l y on population size which, according to Richmond, i s the "most commonly u t i l i z e d analytic approach in recreation planning"(1979:453). However, Richmond goes on to say that a "great deal of exists to suggest that recreation p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates vary according to income l e v e l , occupation, race, sex, and stage in l i f e c y c l e . An analysis of demand for areas and f a c i l i t i e s which assumes a uniform population ignores the diverse needs which can be a t t r i b u t e d to these factors" (Richmond, 1979:453-4). The concern about d i f f e r e n t l i f e s t y l e s i s held by urban 4 oriented researchers; for example, in a 1965 study of people's preferences in the urban environment, Michelson attempted to demonstrate the prominence of value orientations and extent of s o c i a l interaction for planning physical aspects of the c i t y (p.360). Further, the use of the ' a c t i v i t y pattern' research instrument by urban scholars, (Chapin and Hightower, 1965), (Anderson, 1971), (Chapin,1974), demonstrates their concern for the l i f e s t y l e or s o c i a l behavioural approach. Urban a c t i v i t y systems i s an umbrella kind of term for the patterned ways in which individuals, households... pursue their day-in and day-out a f f a i r s in a metropolitian community (Chapin, 1974, p.23). A c t i v i t y pattern studies map the differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s between individuals, households, etc. and thus id e n t i f y the sp a t i a l manifestations of their l i f e s t y l e s . If "planning and policy in the public sector give systematic attention to the functioning of human a c t i v i t y systems and to a c t i v i t i e s preferred by people, then appropriate regulatory measures and public investments can be introduced as reinforcement... to ensure that opportunities in both the public and private sectors match up with preferences" (Chapin, 1974:214). Chapin posits that the concern for planning for the d i f f e r i n g needs and s o c i a l behaviour of discrete urban groups has, in part, developed from the post-World War II soc i a l movement in which groups of people asserted their identity and became increasingly vocal. It "has become increasingly clear that investment decisions can no longer ignore the fact that the general public i s made up of a number of publics and the public interest, a number of in t e r e s t s " (I974:ix). In a study which bears many s i m i l a r i t i e s to the one 5 proposed here, Laska and Spain (1980) explored the p o s s i b i l i t y of predicting the in-migrating gentry's demands for new, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with exis t i n g , public services. They found that the 'gentry' do not pose major new demands, but rather they add support to the demands of the t r a d i t i o n a l lower income residents. The research reported here d i f f e r s from Laska and Spain's study in three important ways: 1) Whereas they compared the gentry's demands with a c i t y wide and a nation wide sample, t h i s study compares the gentry's demands and present usage of services with those of the o r i g i n a l lower-income residents of the area; 2) Whereas they only examined the use of a few neighbourhood based services, t h i s study examines 18 types; and, 3) Whereas they examined an American c i t y , New Orleans, which was experiencing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , t h i s study examines a Canadian c i t y , Vancouver. There may be very s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the c i t i e s which may aff e c t the results. Because of t h i s , then, their results w i l l be valuable for t h i s study as i t w i l l enable some degree of comparison. 1.2 Epistemology Although t h i s thesis does attempt to be rigorous and a n a l y t i c a l , i . e . , ' s c i e n t i f i c ' , in terms of setting up an hypothesis and following a f i e l d survey procedure, i t aligns i t s e l f with a humanistic epistemology. The crux of the humanistic approach i s in i t s emphasis upon human understanding through interpretation, as opposed to pure explanation through observation and analysis. The potency of t h i s r e f l e x i v e approach l i e s in the fact that not only does i t consider the values and images of the individuals and groups under study, but also those of the researcher. (Jackson, 1984: 63) 6 The humanist approach "has developed largely in response to the perceived f a i l u r e of the previously dominant p o s i t i v i s t approach to providing viable modes of understanding" (Jackson, 1984:58). Formulated largely by Hume and Comte, positivism was i t s e l f a reaction against debates and philosophies whose subject matter was not observable or v e r i f i a b l e . Both Hume and Comte "wanted science to transcend f u t i l e debates about metaphysical concepts such as the soul, and eternal essences" (Harris, 1979: 11). A major objective of the Lo g i c a l P o s i t i v i s t s was to est a b l i s h empirical knowledge on secure l o g i c a l and observable foundations... This empirical orientation was given formal expression on the p r i n c i p l e of v e r i f i a b i l i t y . . . On t h i s p r i n c i p l e a l l statements which purported to say something about the real world had to be open to v e r i f i c a t i o n (in p r i n c i p l e ) . . . Any empirical statement not open to v e r i f i c a t i o n ... was labeled meaningless. (Guelke, 1978: 77) The generation of laws in l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i s m requires hypotheses to be empirically v e r i f i e d through rigorous and objective testing, and thi s i s done in terms of the deductive-nomological model. One "either has deductive-nomological explanation or one does not have an explanation at a l l " (Guelke, 1978: 57). The essential features of explanation in the P o s i t i v i s t , or the Logical P o s i t i v i s t , 1 way of knowing i s summarized in Hempel's deductive-nomological schema (see Figure 1.1). 1 L o g i c a l Positivism can be considered to be a r e v i t a l i z e d or expanded positivism. The Vienna C i r c l e defined i t as being "empiricist and p o s i t i v i s t : there i s knowledge only from experience, which rests on what i s immediately given. This sets the l i m i t for the content of legitimate science. Second, the s c i e n t i f i c world-conception is marked by application of a certain method, namely l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s " (Neurath et a l . , 1929). 7 Figure 1.1 The Deductive-Nomological Schema (LI, L2 t • • • r La) (C1, C2 Ck) EXPLANANS SENTENCES E EXPLANANDUM SENTENCE (Schema from Hempel, 1966) This schema "consists of general laws, L1, L2,... and of other statements, C1, C2,... which make assertions about pa r t i c u l a r facts (Hempel, 1966:51). The laws and assertions are used in a deductive argument and the conclusion i s the explanandum sentence. Because only observable facts are taken into account in a p o s i t i v i s t epistemology, phenomena which are not observable, such as values, ideas, or any e s s e n t i a l l y metaphysical e n t i t i e s are considered non-existent or at best epiphenomenal. This, perforce, requires s o c i a l sciences to reduce much of their subject matter to measurable behavioural or physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A reductionist view in psychology, for example, holds that " a l l psychological phenomena are b a s i c a l l y b i o l o g i c a l or physio-chemical in character; or more precisely, that the s p e c i f i c terms and laws of psychology can be reduced to those of biology, chemistry, and physics" (Hempel, 1966:106). The result of the p o s i t i v i s t approach in the s o c i a l sciences has been a paucity of laws, for by disregarding unobservable phenomena, i t has disregarded many causal forces in s o c i o c u l t u r a l systems 8 (eg., b e l i e f s , values, ideas), and, consequently, hypotheses and candidate laws are not able to explain or predict sociocultural relationships; thus they cannot be accepted as laws. In contrast to positivism, then, the humanist epistemology recognizes values, ideas, b e l i e f s and other l i k e phenomena to be both i d e n t i f i a b l e and important variables for understanding human action. Under the humanistic umbrella a number of hermeneutic approaches have been advocated based on a veritable smorgasbord of linked philosophies of meaning [eg., phenomenology, idealism, and existentialism] ... a l l of which hone in on the previously neglected relationship between the individual and his or her perceived world. The sole reliance on the objective world as the target and data source for p o s i t i v i s t research i s given over for an approach which recognizes the c r u c i a l interplay of the subjective world of facts and a f f a i r s . . . Positivism, i t i s argued, can never hope to successfully analyse the li f e w o r l d because i t separates the observer from the very thing he i s studying, and therefore inevitably f a i l s to explain human experience. (Jackson, 1984: 58) Although the humanistic approach(es) promise much, i t has been argued that "there i s much preaching and l i t t l e practice" (Johnston, 1979:138). To some extent, then, t h i s thesis addresses Johnston's charge, for i t i s a p r a c t i c a l application of the humanistic thesis. It is hypothesized that the g e n t r i f i e r s and the t r a d i t i o n a l inner c i t y residents w i l l have di f f e r e n t attitudes and values and that these in turn help determine what each population's a c t i v i t y patterns and public service demands are. 9 1.3 Organization of the Chapters The introduction to t h i s thesis i d e n t i f i e s the research purpose, hypothesis, and rationale. Some attention i s also given to specifying the research's Humanistic epistemological orientation. By taking that orientation, t h i s study avoids the handicapping r i g i d i t y of a p o s i t i v i s t approach, and i s thus able to examine the role of c r i t i c a l variables such as values and att itudes. Chapter 2 reviews the l i t e r a t u r e on g e n t r i f i c a t i o n in order to establish a context within which t h i s study's empirical work may be interpreted. The review i s presented in the four major themes evident in the l i t e r a t u r e . The f i r s t section looks at the d i f f e r e n t attempts to define g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , and i t presents an operational d e f i n i t i o n . The second section reviews discussions of the significance of the phenomenon in terms of how i t compares to past trends in urban processes, i t s longevity, and i t s geographical extent. The t h i r d section examines the theories used to explain g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , and the l a s t one discusses some of the known, anticipated, and potential impacts of the phenomenon. Chapter 3 examines the case study's geographical context. The reasons for selecting Grandview Woodland are given, and the past and current development trends of the neighbourhood are discussed. This i d e n t i f i e s any l o c a t i o n a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s which may af f e c t the comparability of t h i s study to others. Chapter 4 looks at the study's research design and methods. This begins with a discussion of the variables, and t h i s i s included in t h i s chapter because the type of variables and their 10 relationships are pertinant to the questionnaire design. This chapter also breaks down the general research hypothesis into two sub-hypotheses (sub-questions). The second section discusses the survey method, and the t h i r d explains the logic of the questionnaire design. Lastly, a chronology of the sampling procedure i s presented. The f i f t h Chapter analyses the survey results in three parts: the populations' demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; their attitudes towards, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbourhood; and, t h e i r a c t i v i t y patterns including l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s and use of neighbourhood public services. The concluding chapter determines the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the research questions, explores planning implications, and suggests future research. 11 CHAPTER 2 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : A Review of the Literature 2.1 Introduction This chapter reviews the burgeoning l i t e r a t u r e on gentrif i c a t i o n in order to take stock both of. what i s currently known about the phenomenon and of the range of central debates and ideas which concern understanding and explaining i t . This w i l l e stablish a context which may be used to help interpret the new data presented in the following chapter, and i t w i l l also help determine how the findings of t h i s research add to the body of knowledge on g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and inner-city r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . There are four major sections in t h i s review, each of which describes one subject area within the relevant l i t e r a t u r e . The f i r s t section looks at the d i f f e r e n t attempts to define the phenomenon, and i t examines the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of g e n t r i f i e r s . This section ends with an operational d e f i n i t i o n of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . The second section reviews discussions of the significance of the phenomenon, in terms of how i t compares to past trends in urban dynamics, i t s longevity, and i t s geographical extent. The t h i r d section examines the theories used to explain g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . The l a s t section discusses some of the known, anticipated, and potential impacts of the phenomenon. 2.2 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : What i s i t ? The humanist researcher, "must by d e f i n i t i o n , be sensitive to the uniqueness in conjunction with the commonalities of each of the settings and circumstances within which various forms of s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y takes place."(Jackson 1984:64). 1 2 This c o r o l l a r y of the humanistic approach forewarns the researcher of the inevitable problems involved in defining and generalizing a phenomenon—that i s , the problem of sorting out those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are unique to a p a r t i c u l a r setting from those which are more general. Equal caution must be exercised when one applies those generalizations to a di f f e r e n t setting as i t may also have l o c a t i o n a l l y unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which affect the expression of the phenomenon. Jackson, for example, warns that " a great deal of caution should be exercised when transplanting the empirical findings and explanations of a body of l i t e r a t u r e [on i n n e r - c i t i e s ] d i r e c t l y from one national context to another" and from one region to another" (1984: 22). This i s because there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence in the l i t e r a t u r e that there are d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l processes which produce d i f f e r e n t types of inner-city neighbourhoods and central c i t i e s (Goldberg and Mercer, 1979; Higbee, 1976). Given these warnings, then, i t is easy to understand Lang's assertion that the " g e n t r i f i c a t i o n phenomenon i s so complex that even the experts often disagree about basic definitions"(1982:8). Perhaps t h i s i s because in addition to dealing with a complex phenomenon, the experts may be treating some l o c a t i o n a l l y unique aspect associated with the phenomenon as a general feature. Lang has found, however, that there i s indeed some consensus on what g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s . " A l l authorities on the subject appear to agree that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n occurs when better-off c i t i z e n s move into a neighbourhood and often displace the o r i g i n a l lower income residents. It i s also generally agreed that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a private sector 1 3 phenomenon"(1982:6). This i s indeed supported in the l i t e r a t u r e (Clay, 1979; Hamnett and Williams, 1980; Zeitz, 1979; Black, 1980; Hudson, 1980). Perhaps one of the best summaries of the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n process i s given by Cybriwsky and Western. The ' t y p i c a l ' model of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n envisages as a starting point an old, declining neighbourhood near the c i t y ' s core inhabited by a low-income population, of perhaps diverse ethnic and r a c i a l backgrounds, mostly in rented units. A t r i c k l e of 'pioneers' enters, whose socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are often taken to be those of highly educated, upwardly mobile, young professional whites, allegedly attracted by the neighbourhood's s o c i a l heterogeneity, convenient location, a promise of a (to them) novel way of c i t y l i f e . More pragmatically, they are also attracted by low rents and/or market values. (1982:345) - ~ What i s missing from both Lang's and Cybriwsky and Western's descriptions, however, i s the renovation or upgrading which generally occurs with g e n t r i f i c a t i o n (Clay, 1979; Zeitz, 1979; Hamnett and Williams, 1980; Jackson, 1984). The nature and extent of renovation, however, varies and depends on "the varying conditions of the housing stock and the wealth and tastes of the owner-investors" (Clay, 1979:22). One key debate concerns what to c a l l the process. The lack of consensus i s poignantly i l l u s t r a t e d by the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of terms used to describe i t . Jackson (1984) uncovered twenty terms in the l i t e r a t u r e used to describe what i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same process (see figure 2.1). Eileen Zeitz (1979), for example, argues that the most appropriate term i s 'private urban renewal', because the key difference between the phenomenon and other types of inner-city renewal attempts i s that the money spent i s p r i v a t e l y controlled. Chart Figure 2.1 Summarizing the Location and Origin of Terms Used  the Inner-City Revitalization Literature W i t h i n Inner City Revi ta l izat ion Revi ta l izat ion Commercial Redevelopment" .(Beauregard and Hoi comb, 1981) Residential Revi ta l izat ion "Central City Revival" ( U p t o n , 1977) "Neighbourhood Change" (Cybriwsky, 1978) "Neighbourhood Renewal" (Clay, 1979) "Private Urban Renewal" (Ze i tz , 1979) "Neighbourhood Reinvestment" (Weiler, 1980) "Inner City Resurgence" (Ley, 1982) Central Business Dis Redevelopment/Revltal trTct I lizat1on| Neighbourhood Commercial ~ ~1 i taj izatlon] Redevelopment/Revi 1 Incumbent Upgrading £lay, 15797 Source: Adapted From Jackson, 1984. Gentr l f ica t lon (Glass. 1963T (a) 'Pr ivate Housing' 'Pr ivate Market Housing Reno-vat ion' (Black, 1980) 'Pr ivate Market Inner City Rehabi l i ta t ion ' (Berry, 1980) (b) 'Movement' ' M i d d l e C l a s s Resettlement' (Gale, 1979) 'Back- to- the-Cl ty (Laska and Spain, 1980) 'Urban Reinvasion' (London, 1980) (c) ' L o c a l ' 'CneTseafication'(Capetown) 'Brownstoning'(New York) 'Trend1f1cat1on'(Melbourne) 'Whltepainting'(Toronto) 15 Bruce London (1980) suggests that the term 1 g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ' generates spurious connotations and therefore should be replaced. One of the lessons of the sociology of knowledge is that words shape and create r e a l i t y . The terms we choose to label or describe events must, therefore, convey appropriate connotations or images of the phenomenon under consideration in order to avoid serious misunderstandings. It i s my contention that the term ' g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ' y i e l d s erroneous perceptions of current changes in inner-city neighbourhoods. (London, 1980:77). London argues that the term ' g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ' , though h i s t o r i c a l l y appropriate for describing B r i t i s h s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , i s not applicable to the phenomenon in America, for there never has been an aristocracy there. Therefore, the a l l u s i o n "of a returning aristocracy conveyed by the term g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s c l e a r l y inappropriate" (1980:79). In place of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , London suggests that the term 'urban reinvasion' would be more appropriate. Several counter-arguments can be leveled at London. F i r s t , though labeling may aff e c t some s o c i a l phenomena, I do not think that using the term ' g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ' i s going to create an aristocracy in North America. Second, the term was never used to describe a return of the aristocracy or even the landed gentry to the inner-city neighbourhood; rather, i t "was f i r s t coined by Glass (1963) to describe the middle class resettlement a c t i v i t y taking place within some parts of working class London during the 1960's. Since then, i t has become general international currency, being adopted to a i l manner of cases" (Jackson, 1984:13). "The l i t e r a l d e f i n i t i o n of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n refers only to how one area i s becoming oriented to, and sometimes dominated 16 by, newcomers of greater wealth than the old residents" (Lang, 1982:7). Third, and this point applies equally well to Zeitz's term 'private urban renewal', London's new term 'urban reinvasion' does not denote anything about the character of the parties doing the invading nor about the uniqueness of the phenomenon. Another term with a wide currency which i s sometimes, and w i l l be in t h i s thesis, interchangeable with g e n t r i f i c a t i o n is 'revitalization'(Jackson, 1984). Even this term i s problematic, for i t may also generate some negative connotations: i t may "be interpreted to infer that the c i t y was 'without' l i f e previously" (Jackson, 1984:14). Though physically blighted, these inner-city neighbourhoods often have a strong sense of community and moral order (Cybriwsky, 1980). Another problem with using the label ' r e v i t a l i z a t i o n ' i s that not a l l r e v i t a l i z a t i o n i s g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Clay determined that, There are two fundamentally d i f f e r e n t types of r e v i t a l i z a t i o n a c t i v i t y : g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and upgrading. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n is derived from a B r i t i s h term used to denote the resettlement of professional and upper middle class home owners in c i t y neighbourhoods.... the 'gentry' create a neighbourhood ambience and style that r e f l e c t upper middle class tastes and values; their tastes and values supplant those of the lower income population that dominated the area before r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . The second type of r e v i t a l i z a t i o n , incumbent upgrading, is a very d i f f e r e n t phenomenon. The major feature of th i s process i s that physical improvement by incumbent, residents takes place at a substantial rate with no s i g n i f i c a n t change in the socioeconomic status or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the population. (1979:6,7) Given the weakness of London's argument and the problems associated with competing terms, I choose to use the label 1 7 ' g e n t r i f i c a t i o n 1 to describe the phenomenon. Given i t s popular acceptance, i t does, aft e r a l l , have important communicative advantages (Jackson, 1984). What i s a g e n t r i f i e r l i k e ? Cicin-Sain says that the National media (si c ) has painted a composite p r o f i l e of housing renovators as being primarily young (predominately in the 25 to 44 age category), as mainly engaged in professional occupations, predominately a f f l u e n t , largely c h i l d l e s s , and mostly f a l l i n g into the working couple category or into single and divorced . statuses. The media (sic) has also tended to cast these 'young professionals' as part of a ' back-to-the-city movement' which rejects the monotony, dullness, and energy waste of suburbia in favour of the central place attractiveness and energy e f f i c i e n c y which characterize central c i t i e s . (1980:54). With the exception of the back-to-the-city element (Cicin-Sain, 1980; Laska and Spain, 1980; Hamnett and Williams, 1980), the stereotype painted by the media i s generally supported by the l i t e r a t u r e (Laska and Spain, 1980; Black, 1980; Cybriwsky; 1982). Referring to the g e n t r i f i e r s as 'young professionals' or 'yuppies', however, may indeed create false impressions about their c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; for example, a Vancouver City newspaper printed the following d e f i n i t o n of a yuppie. The K i t s [ K i t s i l a n o ] yuppie: A cold-blooded mammal with thin skin, Nikes and Vuarnets sunglasses indigenous to the area bounded by Burrard, Fourth, Cornwall and Alma [a gentrifying Vancouver neighbourhood]. Rarely ventures beyond beach areas, except during massive winter weekend migrations to Whistler. Can often be seen with a tennis racquet under the arm - or at the wheel of a turbo charged coupe of European manufacture. Night-time habitat: Ki t s beach tennis courts and Mama Gold's [a bar], but i s known to venture as far east as G r a n v i l l e island. Staple d i e t : chocolate chip cookies, designer beer, sushi and fresh pasta. 18 The male of the species has fondness for rugby shorts complemented by skinny leather t i e s . The female i s often seen in Spandex jogging ti g h t s , neon socks...and a headband. Known vices: Aggressiveness, acquisitiveness and self-centredness. Virtues: Known only to the r e t a i l trade. (The Province 1985, February 17). Though this was obviously exaggerated and s a t i r i c a l , i t portrays a shallow, inaccurate, and negative image of the young urban professional. The data presented in the following chapter w i l l demonstrate t h i s . Further evidence which demonstrates the problem of media generalizations i s presented by Laska and Spain who, in their study of twelve ge n t r i f y i n g neighbourhoods in New Orleans, found that the g e n t r i f i e r s are not mainly young singles and c h i l d l e s s couples, but that 62.5% have one or more children. This, however, may be due to the large Catholic component of the New Orleans population (Laska and Spain, 1980). The l i t e r a t u r e i s divided on the family status of g e n t r i f i e r s . Cybriwsky (1980), Black (1980), and Gale (1983) for example, say that the population i s largely young singles and couples with few i f any children, whereas Laska and Spain (1980), and Hamnett and Williams (1980) have found that a majority of the young couples do have one or more young children. There i s , however, a consensus that the g e n t r i f i e r s are primarily highly educated, professional and economically secure urbanites (Cybriwsky, 1982; Black, 1980; Laska and Spain, 1980; Gale, 1983). In addition to the majority of professional occupations, a substantial number of g e n t r i f i e r s are in the arts 19 (Hamnett and Williams; 1980, Pattison, 1983; Cybriwsky, 1982). Several writers have indicated that the socio-economic character of the g e n t r i f i e r population changes as the neighbourhood becomes more g e n t r i f i e d (Levy, 1980; Cybriwsky, 1980;), and that d i s t i n c t stages in the process can be i d e n t i f i e d (Pattison, 1983; Levy, 1980). The f i r s t stage is t y p i f i e d by r i s k oblivious 'pioneers' (Hudson, 1980; Jackson, 1984; Cybriwsky and Western, 1982). Pattison (1983) states that the pioneers are usually a r t i s t s and gays who are primarily professionals and are attracted to the area because of the low prices, the heterogeneity, and because i t is not yet chic. This i s supported by other writers (Cybriwsky and Western, 1982; Jackson, 1984). Cybriwsky and Western suggest that the pioneers are "allegedly attracted by the neighbourhood's s o c i a l heterogeneity, convenient location, and a promise of a (to them) novel way of c i t y life"(1982:345). The second stage g e n t r i f i e r s are also primarily professional and are more attracted by the "easy-to-take price tag" of the housing (Pattison, 1983:81). The t h i r d stage g e n t r i f i e r s are younger professionals and managers who attach "considerable importance to the aesthetic q u a l i t i e s of a neighbourhood (Pattison, 1983:85). There may be public sector improvements during t h i s stage which are designed to complement the growing private investment and foster confidence in the new neighbourhood di r e c t i o n (Pattison,1983). The fourth and l a s t stage i s s t i l l characterized by young professional and. almost exclusively white c o l l a r buyers who now pay top dollar for renovated units in an area which has almost completely been renovated (Levy 1980:309, Pattison, 1983:86). 20 Some evidence suggests that the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l character of the g e n t r i f i e r s d i f f e r s from that of the t r a d i t i o n a l inner-city residents. Clay says that the gentry are not mainly neighbourhood-based people, and in the past they have not had much commitment to their area beyond concern for their investment, a fact having several implications for their patterns of association and participation...They are not, for example, concerned about recreational opportunities in the neighbourhood because they tend to find their recreation elsewhere. (1979:20). Cybriwsky and Levy (1980) have noted that the g e n t r i f i e r s tend not to become s o c i a l l y involved with the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. Instead, they only want to have the d i f f e r e n t types of ethnic groups within perceptual distance (Allen, 1980). In contrast to the g e n t r i f i e r s ' neighbourhood recreational and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n patterns, the t r a d i t i o n a l residents are very neighbourhood based and share v i t a l s o c i a l interactions among themselves. Laska and Spain found that the g e n t r i f i e r s ' involvement in neighbourhood p o l i t i c a l processes and i n s t i t u t i o n s was proportionally much greater than that of the t r a d i t i o n a l inner c i t y residents. They found that t h e i r evidence " suggests that renovators may take a more proactive than reactive posture towards changes in their neighbourhoods"(1980:121). Therefore, the g e n t r i f i e r s may be more e f f e c t i v e in promoting neighbourhood improvements and thus creating a greater drain on c i t y finances. It i s now possible to present the operational d e f i n i t i o n of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n used for th i s research. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n is a private market process by which older often rundown inner-city 21 neighbourhoods incur socio-economic and physical upgrading. The process often begins with inmigrating singles, young couples, and young families who have professional, teaching and arts occupations, but at i t s maturation people with primarily professional, managerial and white c o l l a r jobs are the new a r r i v a l s . It i s important to note that the process i s complex and may vary according to peculiar l o c a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , economic and environmental circumstances. The amount of renovation, for example, is dependent upon the g e n t r i f i e r ' s tastes and wealth, and upon the physical condition and ar c h i t e c t u r a l design of the structure. A house in p a r t i c u l a r l y good condition may require l i t t l e upgrading. In t h i s case, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n refers primarily to the inmigration of a household with a higher socio-economic status. 2.3 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : Its Significance. Several aspects of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n make i t s i g n i f i c a n t to both urban scholars and to urban policy makers and planners. F i r s t l y , after decades of urban deterioration and generally unsuccessful and expensive governmental attempts at halting or reversing the decline, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n represents a reversal of the decline (Lang, 1982; Cybriwsky,' 1982; Clay, 1979; Black, 1980). U n t i l quite recently i t was fashionable to debate whether c i t i e s were worth saving. Housing experts seemed to be on an endless quest to cure b l i g h t , and the focus was on e f f o r t s to arrest decline and to restore the tax base for struggling urban areas. Although problems of blight s t i l l p e r s i s t in many neighbourhoods, a countermovement i s also building. Suddenly urban neighbourhoods are being rediscovered, urban chic i s becoming in , and the c u l t u r a l excitement and v i t a l i t y of c i t i e s i s receiving increasing attention. (Goetze and Colton, 1980: 185) 22 This new development contradicts most of the c l a s s i c a l economic based r e s i d e n t i a l - l o c a t i o n models which have assumed that i t is economically r a t i o n a l behaviour for younger middle-income households to move outward from the central business d i s t r i c t to progressively more affluent neighbourhoods as they pass through a conventional l i f e cycle...In doing so, they make a choice to trade off greater commuting distance (that i s , time and expense) for more l i v i n g space, as well as a better package of public services. (Gale, 1983:46) Secondly, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n appears to be "i n stark contrast to the urban-to-suburban migration patterns that have predominated in metropolitan areas at least since the 1950's" (Gale, 1983:35). Placing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n within a broader h i s t o r i c a l context, Ley has suggested that i t may be signaling a return to the t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t i a l patterns of p r e - i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s . Present s o c i a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l trends are 'redefining' the morphology inherited from the i n d u s t r i a l c i t y . . . I f present trends accelerate the s o c i a l geography of the nineteenth century i n d u s t r i a l c i t y may even appear to urban scholars of the future as a temporary interlude to a more h i s t o r i c a l l y persistent pattern of higher status segregation adjacent to the downtown core. (Ley, 1981:145). Other writers, however, have warned that there i s no data yet which indicates a reversed suburban-to-urban migration. Sternlieb and Hughes (1980), for example, have agreed that, based on 1960, 1970 and 1977 American census data, there has been no s i g n i f i c a n t abatement in the urban-to-suburban r e s i d e n t i a l migration. In concurrence with t h i s argument, Laska and Spain (1980), Spragge (1983), Cicin-Sain (1980), and Hamnett and Williams (1980) have found that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s primarily 23 a stay-in-the-city movement. Eighty percent of the g e n t r i f i e r s in New Orleans, for example, came from within the inner c i t y . It is possible, however, that t h i s figure may be a r t i f i c i a l l y high i f returning suburanites f i r s t rent in the inner c i t y before buying in and gentrifying. Also, as the phenomenon becomes more popular and the generally negative attitudes towards the c i t y are overcome, many more suburbanites may indeed return to the inner-city. That two thirds of the g e n t r i f i e r s in New Orleans were s a t i s f i e d with their neighbourhoods as a place to l i v e (Laska and Spain, 1980), may be i n d i c a t i v e of changing attitudes towards the c i t y . If this is indeed happening, then, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may develop a substantial longevity. Thirdly, and associated with the f i r s t two aspects, the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n of run down inner c i t y neighbourhoods represents a reversal of the t r a d i t i o n a l downward f i l t e r i n g process (Clay, 1979; Hamnett and Williams, 1980). The resulting general r e v i t a l i z a t i o n has for the f i r s t time in a number of generations, "engendered optimism among many observers of the urban scene" (Cybriwsky and Western, 1982). This has caused some to herald the 1980's as a decade of urban renaissance in the United States (Allman, 1978). The last s i g n i f i c a n t aspect of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s i t s extent. Hamnett (1984) suggests that the amount of l i t e r a t u r e on the subject is by i t s e l f a good indication of i t s extent in North America. There are also several surveys which indicate that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s widespread in American and Canadian c i t i e s (Clay, 1979; Black, 1980; Ley, 1984). Black, for example, found that 73% of those c i t i e s with populations of 500,000 and over, 63% of those from 250,000 to 500,000, 50% of those from 24 100,000 to 250,000, and 32% of those from 50,000 to 100,000 were experiencing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Though these figures are impressive, Cybriwsky and Western suggest that what " i s perhaps of greater importance than the precise lineaments of these trends at a national scale, however, is the fact that in many c i t i e s there has been massive impact upon p a r t i c u l a r neighbourhoods" (1982:34). 2.4 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : Explanations and Causes Several causes of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n have been proposed in the l i t e r a t u r e . Although this section i s not concerned with speculating about which of these are the most responsible, i t is my opinion that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n is probably caused by a large number of interacting variables instead of just one or two. To some extent, then, most of the proposed causes i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s section, may have some influence on the phenomenon. While i t i s acknowledged that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s largely a private market phenomenon, some scholars have noted that the process can be inspired and accelerated by government involvement (Clay, 1979; Cicin-Sain, 1980; Berry, 1980). Cybriwsky and Western (1982) have even suggested that i t i s a product of past and present inner-city r e v i t a l i z a t i o n p o l i c i e s . They quote the opening words of Philadelphia's Center City plan: The well being of Center City Philadelphia i s basic to the well being of the entire Delaware Valley region. Center City must always remain the p r i n c i p a l place for doing business...For purchase of those special things which give richness to our l i v e s and for those great c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s ' which set the tone for our contemporary c i v i l i z a t i o n . In addition, Center City serves as a spring board from which waves of r e v i t a l i z a t i o n spread outward as suburban families are attr a c t e d to urban l i v i n g . 25 (in Cybriwsky and Western, 1983:358). The r e s u l t i n g s p a t i a l l y focussed private investment, they argue, brought about g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , There has also been consideration for supporting neighbourhood r e v i t a l i z a t i o n at the l e v e l of federal goverment: for example, under President Carter the National Commission on Neighbourhoods was given a mandate to investigate the causes of neighbourhood decline and recommending p o l i c i e s which would support r e v i t a l i z a t i o n (Berry, 1980:165). Clay (1979) has suggested that the l o c a l goverment may have a substantial role or no role at a l l . He i d e n t i f i e s three major types of l o c a l governmental involvement in stimulating g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . F i r s t , i t can make major resource allo c a t i o n s for improving neighbourhood aesthetics and amenities, such as parks, sidewalks, street l i g h t s and street improvements. Second, i t may attempt to market and promote the inner c i t y neighbourhoods in order to attr a c t the middle c l a s s . Thirdly, i t may provide f i n a n c i a l support in the form of low interest loans or by s e l l i n g c i t y buildings at reduced rates (Clay, 1979:28). One pair of related factors which are frequently mentioned as p a r t i a l explanations are the escalating fuel cost of commuting and the l o c a t i o n a l , time, and fuel savings advantages of inner-city residences (Ley, 1984; Black, 1980; G o l d f i e l d , 1980). "If two people are working, i t i s far more convenient to l i v e in the c i t y than to commute. The saving can be measured in terms of both time and cost " (Zeitz, 1979). Another pair of explanations of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n actually concern the same phenomenon, but see i t from two d i f f e r e n t 26 perspectives. F i r s t l y , the r e l a t i v e l y more expensive suburban housing has forced new home buyers to consider the less expensive inner-city housing (Black, 1980; G o l d f i e l d , 1980; Hamnett and Williams, 1980). This i s understood more as the result of individual decision making. The second perspective, however, views the purchase of inner-city housing not as a function of individual decision making, but as "a requisite response to the needs of advanced capitalism" (Allen, 1980:414). This e s s e n t i a l l y Marxist interpretation has been c l e a r l y formulated by Smith (1979). He says that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n is the product not of people, but of c a p i t a l that has returned to the inner-city neighbourhood, because i t i s now more pr o f i t a b l e to purchase inner c i t y than suburban housing. The demographic bulge of the baby boom generation is another factor which i s frequently c i t e d as a possible cause of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n (Goetze and Colton, 1980; Hamnett, 1984). The entry of large numbers of f i r s t - t i m e home buyers from the post war baby boom generation into a housing market which i s characterized by a shortage of affordable housing, has "induced many to consider lower-cost inner c i t y housing a l t e r n a t i v e s " (Cicin-Sain, 1980). On the basis of the demographic bulge argument, Hamnett predicts that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n w i l l decline "from 1985 onwards when the size of the 20-30 year age cohorts w i l l decline as a result of the decline in the birthrate from the mid-1960's onwards" (1984:314). Goetze and Colton, however, hold that the baby boom population may cause the next twenty years to "become the period of reinvestment, displacement, and speculation" (1980:186). It i s not c e r t a i n , therefore, just how 27 long the demographic bulge may be an important factor; however, i t should be noted that because i t i s only one of a number of possible causes, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may indeed continue for at least the next twenty years. The l a s t set of factors may be seen as components of a type of explanation which has been referred to by Ley (1980) as the "Post-Industrial thesis". By focussing on values, attitudes, ideas and choices as active factors in human behaviour, "this thesis seeks to set inner c i t y r e v i t a l i z a t i o n , among other trends, within the context of the wider North American society (Jackson, 1984). The two main factors involved in g e n t r i f i c a t i o n under the p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l thesis, then, are the economic or employment base and the quality of l i f e . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n has been most associated with the professional occupation group (Laska and Spain, 1980; Clay, 1979). Many of the new young adults have entered professional, technical, and managerial occupations. Between 1960 and 1970 the number of people in these categories in the U.S. increased by 7 m i l l i o n and th e i r proportion among a l l categories of employment shi f t e d from 19% to 25% ... As a result of these trends, demand has been stimulated for middle- and upper-income housing proximate to downtown workplaces. (Cybriwsky, 1982: 25) Furthermore, in a recent survey of inner-city r e v i t a l i z a t i o n across Canada, Ley determined that i t " i s more l i k e l y to occur in the larger service based c i t i e s " (1984: 5 4 ) — the c i t i e s with the largest proportions of professionals. Ley s t a t i s t i c a l l y measured the relationship between the four major explanatory accounts of r e v i t a l i z a t i o n : 1) the housing market argument, 2) the demographic bulge, 3) the q u a l i t y of l i f e , and, 4) economic 28 factors. The r e s u l t s indicated that both the housing market and the demographic arguments provide only weak associations with r e v i t a l i z a t i o n ( g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ) . It was the economic base which offered the primary effect upon rates of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , and quality of l i f e offered a secondary, yet independent ef f e c t (Ley, 1984: 61). Ley offers two l i n e s of reasoning which might explain the connection between an office-based economy and urban amenity: f i r s t , service-orientated c i t i e s are unlikely to have an extensive heavy i n d u s t r i a l sector which would l i m i t urban amenity... Service c i t i e s , as a resul t of the r e l a t i v e l y less p o l l u t i n g character of t h e i r economies, are l i k e l y to have more a t t r a c t i v e urban environments. Furthermore, the continued enhancement of those environments commonly becomes a p o l i t i c a l imperative, both of p o l i t i c i a n s and of a r t i c u l a t e residents of inner c i t y neighbourhoods who are employed in the downtown o f f i c e s and white c o l l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s . . . [and, second], service centers may well favour settings of environmental amenity. (1984: 57, 59) Much of the l i t e r a t u r e supports t h i s argument; for example, a number of writers (Goldfield, 1980; Lang, 1982; Cybriwsky, 1982), have indicated the importance of urban amenity, h i s t o r i c a l character, and good ambience to the g e n t r i f i e r s . Others have suggested that there i s a growing aversion to the homogeneity and redundancy of suburban l i f e s t y l e s and, therefore, more, espe c i a l l y younger, households are seeking a more v i t a l and stimulating urban existence (Clay, 1979; Zeitz, 1979; Cybriwsky, 1982). In a paper which i s somewhat consonant with the—post— i n d u s t r i a l t h e s i s , Allen (1980) suggests that while g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s largely motivated by economic, strategic [locational advantages], real estate dynamics, and other 29 p r a c t i c a l considerations, sociocultural and, in p a r t i c u l a r , new i d e o l o g i c a l factors and preferences are generating and r e f l e c t i n g an emerging consumer taste for dense inner-city l i v i n g . He suggests that "while preferences and ideology do not 'cause' intrametropolitan migrations, they nonetheless mediate and a c t u a l l y t r i p consumer decisions when economic advantage i s marginal" (1980: 414). The source of the new preferences and ideology dates back to the 1960s when some young people who are now in their home-buying phase of l i f e , were inculcated and remained concerned with the urban s o c i a l problems they were exposed to in college and the mass media. The commitment to a gamey c i t y neighborhood amounts to a personal affirmation of be l i e f in the future of c i t i e s , as well as y i e l d i n g the g r a t i f i c a t i o n s of involvement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a s o c i a l movement. (Allen, 1980:413) At the beginning of t h i s section i t was suggested that the best explanation of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may well be a composite of the range of individual causes expounded in the l i t e r a t u r e . While t h i s review has tended to portray the l i t e r a t u r e as composed of arguments for the merits of singular explanations, i t must be noted that such is not the case. The reason for t h i s portrayal has been solely the ease of exposition. A number of authors have, in fact, attempted, at d i f f e r e n t degrees of rigour, to present explanations which incorporate a number of the discussed factors (see, for example, Clay, 1979; A l l a n , 1980; G o l d f i e l d , 1980; Ley, 1984). 2.5 Impacts of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n In a hypothetical accounting of the impacts of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , Cicin-Sain (1980) determined 29 costs and 31 benefits, which would be unevenly d i s t r i b u t e d among d i f f e r e n t 30 actors including the nation, the c i t y , the neighbourhood, and various individuals. He also argues that what is one party's cost, may be another's benefit, and that the labeling of an impact as either a cost or a benefit depends on one's perspective and values. In a similar vein, Cybriwsky has pointed out that the concern over the displacement of inner c i t y residents by g e n t r i f i e r s has brought "into focus a fundamental c o n f l i c t between commonly-held goals for the renewal of depressed c i t i e s on the one hand and so c i a l justice ideals on the other" (1982: 29). Displacement i s c e r t a i n l y the most popular topic in the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e . It has also been i d e n t i f i e d as the most serious impact (Clay, 1979; Zeitz, 1979; Cybriwsky and Western, 1982). While the extent of the problem i s hard to measure and thus can only be inferred (Goldfield, 1980), much i s known about i t ; for example, certain demographic groups such as female-headed, large, e l d e r l y , and lower income ethnic or r a c i a l groups are " l i k e l y to be disproportionately affected by the loss of s o c i a l and community t i e s through forced relocation" (C i c i n -Sain, 1980: 65). Also, the renter population i s the most l i k e l y to be displaced (Goldfield, 1980; Hamnett and Williams, 1980; DeGiovanni, 1984 ) . It i s also possible, however, that increasing property values in gentrifying areas, as a result of upgrading (DeGiovanni, 1984; Laska and Spain, 1980), may force households with marginal means to s e l l and move out of the areas. Furthermore, not only would the displaced renters experience a loss of s o c i a l and community t i e s , but so, too, would many of the friends they leave behind. 31 It should also be noted that displacement is not new, nor is i t an exclusive function of private urban renewal. The large scale public urban renewal and highway projects of the 1960's were the causes of even more extensive displacement (Zeitz, 1979; Lang, 1982). Displacement, perhaps, i s best seen as a symptom or as "i n d i c a t i v e of the weak position of the poor in the housing market" ( Hamnett, 1984:285). Without s u f f i c i e n t f i n a n c i a l resources, they are unable to defend their place in their neighbourhood from the more f i n a n c i a l l y powerful g e n t r i f i e r s . The "market, which has f a i l e d the disadvantaged in the i n d u s t r i a l c i t y through under investment, i s penalizing the same group in the p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l c i t y through over-investment" (Ley, 1981:144) . One impact of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n which i s beginning to be recognized in the l i t e r a t u r e i s the clash of culture, values, and l i f e s t y l e s between new and long-term residents (Cybriwsky, 1980, 1982; Lang, 1982). Cybriwsky (1982), found in his study of Queen V i l l a g e , Philadelphia, that the tensions created by the c u l t u r a l differences have been expressed "in arguments about restoring old houses to their o r i g i n a l appearances". Clay discovered that the change in basic neighbourhood dynamics and attitudes which accompany g e n t r i f i c a t i o n has rendered neighbourhood change possible even "in areas where large, well-financed, and well-orchestrated intervention have been unable to stimulate change in the past" (1979:6). This, however, i s not surprising when one considers that i t i s actually a new and di f f e r e n t area in so far as there i s a new population l i v i n g there who undoubtedly have d i f f e r e n t aspirations for i t and for 32 whom i t has d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s . T h i s p o i n t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r a p l a n n e r t o r e a l i z e - - i t i s n o t so much t h e q u a l i t y o f h i s p l a n s f o r a n e i g h b o u r h o o d t h a t m a t t e r s , b u t i t i s how w e l l h i s p l a n s a r e c o n s o n a n t w i t h t h e v a l u e s a n d a t t i t u d e s o f a n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s r e s i d e n t s . A n o t h e r i m p a c t o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t i m p r o v e m e n t , o f t h e p h y s i c a l q u a l i t y o f p r o p e r t i e s ( D e G i o v a n n i , 1 9 8 4 ) . T h i s i m p a c t may a l s o be a l t e r n a t i v e l y v i e w e d a s e i t h e r a c o s t o r b e n e f i t : f r o m t h e c i t y ' s a n d t h e g e n t r i f i e r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s i t i s d e f i n i t e l y a welcome b e n e f i t , t o t h e c i t y i t may c r e a t e p r o p e r t y t a x r e v e n u e s a nd more a t t r a c t i v e n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , a n d t o t h e g e n t r i f i e r s i t c r e a t e s more a t t r a c t i v e a n d h i g h e r s t a t u s p l a c e s t o l i v e i n . To t h e l o n g e r -t e r m r e s i d e n t s , h o w e v e r , i t may s i g n i f y h i g h e r t a x e s a n d t h e end o f t h e i r s e n s e o f c o m m u n i t y . One p o t e n t i a l e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f g r e a t e r employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s w h i c h may be c r e a t e d f r o m r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s ( C i s i n - S a i n , 1980; L a s k a a nd S p a i n , 1 9 8 0 ) . The e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t o f i n c r e a s e d t a x r e v e n u e s h a s a l r e a d y been m e n t i o n e d . W e i l e r s p e c u l a t e s t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e i n t a x r e v e n u e w i l l more t h a n l i k e l y be " s w a l l o w e d up by t h e c o s t l y i m p r o v e m e n t s demanded by t h e m i d d l e c l a s s r e t u r n e e s " ( a s q u o t e d i n L a s k a a n d S p a i n , 1 9 8 0 : 1 1 7 ) . O t h e r w r i t e r s have a l s o p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e g e n t r i f i e r s w i l l c r e a t e a h i g h e r demand f o r m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s t h a n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s ( G a n s , 1977; C l a y , 1979; C i c i n - S a i n , 1 9 8 0 ) . The o n l y e m p i r i c a l work on t h e g e n t r i f i e r s ' p u b l i c s e r v i c e demand i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e g e n t r i f i e r s w i l l l i k e l y n o t h a v e demands f o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e s 33 which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the general population (Laska and Spain, 1980). They did find , though, that the g e n t r i f i e r s are a more a r t i c u l a t e and pro-active group than the t r a d i t i o n a l inner-city residents, and would, therefore, l i k e l y be able to secure new municipal services for their neighbourhood. Although their study was discussed in chapter one of this thesis, i t i s appropriate to mention again that t h i s research is s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from theirs in that: 1) i t looks at a broader range of neighbourhood based services, and, 2) i t compares service demand between the g e n t r i f i e r s and the t r a d i t i o n a l inner c i t y residents, not the general urban population. This study, therefore, w i l l be able to detect differences in public service demand. 34 Chapter3: The Study Area  Grandview Woodlands, Vancouver 3.1 Introduction This chapter examines the past and current population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and development trends of Vancouver's Grandview Woodland neighbourhood in order to i d e n t i f y the context within which g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s occurring, and to i d e n t i f y the locatio n a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s which may a f f e c t the comparability of this study to other case studies. Located in north eastern Vancouver, Grandview Woodland i s bounded by Burrard Inlet, Clark Drive, Broadway, and Nanaimo Street (see figure 3.1). These are the o f f i c i a l boundaries used by the Vancouver City Planning Department. The area i s bound on three sides by major a r t e r i a l s and by waterfront on the fourth. These serve to foster a discrete neighbourhood i d e n t i t y . The secondary a r t e r i a l which runs north to south through the neighbourhood's centre i s Commercial Drive. 'The Drive', as i t is a ffectionately c a l l e d (City Planning Department, 1983), i s the area's center for shopping, services, s o c i a l i z i n g , and recreation. It " i s one of Vancouver's oldest shopping areas and is known throughout the City for i t s cosmopolitan nature. While predominantly I t a l i a n , businesses represent many other n a t i o n a l i t i e s as well" (City Planning Department, 1983). The Drive's t r a f f i c and parking congestion foster i t s role as more of a shopping street than a through street. Figure 3.2 shows each of the sub-areas within Grandview Woodlands. Three of these are apartment block areas, one i s l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l , and the l a s t , Grandview V i c t o r i a , i s primarily 35 Figure 3.1 The Boundaries of Grandview Woodland within Vancouver City, and  i t s Census Subdivisions. Sub-areas 51 and 54 include the single and two family dwelling zone. (Source: Adapted from Grandview Woodland: An Information  Handbook Vancouver City Planning Department, 1975.) 36 Figure 3.2 Grandview Woodland Sub-Areas AREA 2 I |Q i 11 FK'TOJ IENERI '~~ ' H i lOosEac c Z 3 I i d SEE! AREA 5 ILJLJLJLZ33LZ • aaa §3 ad s • • • • a c • LZHZZDar • a z z 1-3 = Apartment Areas. 4 = Light I n d u s t r i a l . 5 = Single Family and Duplexes (The Sample Area). 37 composed of one and two family dwellings. Because g e n t r i f i c a t i o n concerns the upgrading of single detached dwellings or duplexes, t h i s research w i l l only examine residents from the Grandview V i c t o r i a sub-area. The c r i t e r i a used for choosing the study area were: 1) the area had to be able to provide a sample of both g e n t r i f i e r s and of t r a d i t i o n a l residents; 2) the area's g e n t r i f i c a t i o n should not have been extensive so that the t r a d i t i o n a l residents' attitudes and behaviours would not be influenced by large numbers of g e n t r i f i e r s ; 3) the area should have a broad selection of public services for the residents to use. The f i r s t areas considered for the study were Vancouver's Fairview Slopes and K i t s i l a n o . Fairview was not selected because i t s r e v i t a l i z a t i o n was almost complete and, thus, i t would not aff o r d a sample of t r a d i t i o n a l residents. K i t s i l a n o was not selected because i t s r e v i t a l i z a t i o n was also quite extensive, and, more importantly, i t is a large area with a variety of ambiences and would, therefore, be problematic for selecting a discrete study area within i t . Grandview Woodland was the next area considered, and i t s a t i s f i e d a l l the selection c r i t e r i a . F i r s t , Bradley Jackson, a Master of Arts candidate in the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Geography Department who was completing a case study of the area in the spring of 1984, suggested that Grandview Woodland was in the i n i t i a l stages of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and would, therefore, afford a sample of g e n t r i f i e r s and t r a d i t i o n a l residents. Second, Rhonda Howard, a 38 Vancouver City Planner who had worked in the area, c i t e d anecdotal evidence that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was occurring in the neighbourhood; for example, there are new r e t a i l stores such as a health food store (Sweet Cherubum) and a book store (Octopus Books) which cater to the g e n t r i f i e r population. Third, a newspaper a r t i c l e in The Sun featured a story on the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n of some of Grandview Woodland's houses (August, 20, 1984). Fourth, because the area i s bounded by primary a r t e r i a l s on three sides and by waterfront on the fourth, i t is a discrete neighbourhood unit. Lastly, although perhaps the services in Grandview Woodland are not in a s u f f i c i e n t supply, there i s a reasonably wide range of them. A few other neighbourhoods were also considered, but their g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was evidently too limited for t h i s study. 3.2 History The land was f i r s t alienated from the Crown in the 1860's and by the 1890's land developers and speculators acquired and subdivided the d i s t r i c t l o t s into c i t y blocks, streets, and building lots> thereby establishing the present cartesian street network (Jackson, 1984). One popular story about the naming of Grandview Woodland says that in the summer of 1904 Professor Edward Odium, one of the area's pioneers and most active c i t i z e n s , was standing with some friends on a r i s e looking towards False Creek. One of them exclaimed about the 'grand view' and Odium replied, 'yes, Grandview would be an excellent name for the area'. (City Planning Department, 1975) Grandview Woodland was f i r s t opened up for development in 1981 when the Vancouver-New Westminister e l e c t r i c interurban railway began hourly runs from C a r r a l l and Hastings along Park 3 9 Drive (now Commercial Drive). The f i r s t major growth boom occurred between 1905 and 1912. Scattered "houses in the bush began to cohere by 1906-7, and the organized l i f e of the community began in 1907-8 when most of i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s began in modest and temporary quarters" (City Planning Department, 1975). Building large comfortable homes on small l o t s , the f i r s t s e t t l e r s were primarily B r i t i s h immigrants who were tradesmen, shopkeepers, shipping, and construction workers. After 1912, however, development slowed in Grandview Woodland because the construction of the Burrard Street Bridge and the establishment of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia sh i f t e d growth to the western suburbs of K i t s i l a n o , Shaugnessy, and Point Grey (City Planning Department, 1975). Although by the early 1920's there were more vacant than occupied l o t s in Grandview Woodland, by the 1930's most of the buildings had been constructed. Much of the growth in the 1920's was due to immigrant groups who moved into the area and often r e b u i l t older homes for larger family groups (City Planning Department, 1979). The area's history affords a c l a s s i c example of the e c o l o g i c a l model of invasion and succession. Prior to World War I Grandview residents were primarily of B r i t i s h Origin; after the war the I t a l i a n , Chinese, and East European populations became s i g n i f i c a n t . A second wave of I t a l i a n s came to Grandview after World War II, renovating old homes with stucco and masonry and noticably changing the face of Commercial Drive with their shops, restaurants, and l i v e l y conversations. The Chinese population increased in the 50's and 60's when Strathcona became overcrowded. At the same time many of the more prosperous It a l i a n s and East Europeans moved out to Burnaby, making room for the East Indian immigrants who began moving into Grandview in the late 60's attracted by the 40 lower housing prices... The large numbers of senior c i t i z e n s , single parent families, and welfare recipients are also a result of the r e l a t i v e l y low housing costs- although that i s changing as the area i s 'discovered' and becomes fashionable. (City Planning Department, 1979) Interestingly, the l a s t sentence in t h i s passage intimates that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s occurring and places i t within the invasion-succession model. Unless the people of Grandview Woodland are faced with a c r i s i s , they generally do not act as a community. When the residents and their area are threatened, they s t i l l band together and they have one of the oldest e f f e c t i v e area c o u n c i l s — "as when in 1969-70 several l o c a l groups, including students, stopped the extention of the freeway down Venables Street to the Georgia Viaduct" (City Planning Department, 1975:8). The residents have, though, been pro-active at times. One s i g n i f i c a n t case in point is the development of Britannia Centre. It is the product of the i n i t i a t i v e of the Grandview Woodland and the Strathcona neighbourhood which borders Grandview Woodland. The two neighbourhoods "originated the idea, pushed i t to p o l i t i c a l acceptance, and participated f u l l y in planning and design. Furthermore, residents compose the majority of the board of management, which now operates the centre" (Cooley, 1979:330). Generally, however, the t r a d i t i o n a l residents are more reactive than pro-active. 3.3 Current Trends and Future Directions The census data used in this analysis i s compiled from the census tracts i d e n t i f i e d in figure 3.1— tracts 50, 51 , 54, 55, and 56. The tracts used for the Grandview V i c t o r i a sub-area, 51' 41 and 54, extend beyond the area's o f f i c i a l neighbourhood boundaries; therefore, they constitute an approximation of the study area. Unfortunately, a 'cleaner' data source i s not av a i l a b l e . Table 3.1 indicates that Grandview Woodland's average household siz e , percentage of singles, and percentage of families were very similar to those of Vancouver in 1981. The area, however, i s overrepresented by single parent households. Table 3.2 shows that Grandview Woodland has a variety of ethnic groups. Compared to Vancouver City and the Vancouver metropolitan area, Grandview Woodland i s underrepresented by people with B r i t i s h origins and overrepresented by people with I t a l i a n and A s i a t i c o r i g i n s . The other category may be composed of Portuguese, Spanish., and East European components (City Planning Department, 1979:3). Because S t a t i s t i c s Canada replaced the ethnic background category with 'Mother tongue' (see table 3.3), i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to state with the same kind of authority what the trends in the l a s t decade have been. On the basis of 'Mother Tongue'... we can see that Grandview-Woodland s t i l l has a less than average proportion of people of Anglo-Saxon o r i g i n . It i s also probable that the number of I t a l i a n s has f a l l e n in t h i s period, whilst the Chinese group has continued to expand. (Jackson, 1984:127) Tables 3.2 and 3.3 suggest that Grandview Woodland has been and continues to be a multi-ethnic area. In an examination of Grandview Woodland socio-economic data, Jackson (1984) found that the upgrading movement was only s l i g h t ; however, the socio-economic data displayed in table 3.4 for the Grandview V i c t o r i a sub-area of Grandview Woodland 42 T a b l e 3.1 Summary T a b l e of S e l e c t e d Demographic V a r i a b l e s f o r Grandview- Woodland and the C i t y of Vancouver, 1961 t o 1981 Grandview-Woodland Vancouver City 1961 1971 1981 1961 1971 1981 1 . Population 35,665 41,725 41,061 384,522 426,270 414,281 2. Household Size (Average) 3.1 2.9 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.3 3. Marital Status ( % Singles) 25 30 38 28 34 39 4. Household Composition ( % c lass i f i ed as being ' family ' ) 83 73 56 81 66 56 5. Family Structure* ( % 'family' house-holds c lass i f i ed as 11 one parent') 18.9 14.2 * New Category introduced in 1976 (Source S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Census 1961 t o 1981: adapted from J a c k s o n 1984) 43 Table 3.2 Ethnic Groups in Grandview-Woodland and Other Areas, 1961 to 1971 ETHNIC ORIGIN Grandview-1961 Woodlanc % 1971 Vancouver City cr a/ lo JO 1961 1971 Vancouver Metropolitan Area % % 1961 1971 Br i t i sh 45.8 36.8 59.9 53.1 62.1 58.5 French 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.9 4 .0 German 5.1 4.5 6.9 7.6 6.5 8.3 I ta l ians 14.6 15.0 3.4 4 .5 2.3 2.8 Netherlands 2.3 1 .4 2.4 1.8 3.0 2.9 Scandinavian 5.3 3.3 4 .9 3.6 5.7 4.8 Russian 1.6 0.4 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.8 Ukrainian 3.4 3.3 4 .9 3.6 5.7 4.8 Pol ish 2.2 1 .3 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4 As ia t i c 7.7 17.7 5.2 10.2 3.3 5.4 Other and Non-stated 9.7 12.6 8.7 10.8 8.1 8.3 (Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Census 1981: adapted from Jackson 1984) 44 Table 3.3 Ethnic P r o f i l e by Mother Tongue for Grandview-Woodland  and i t s sub-areas, and the City of Vancouver, 1981 CENSUS TRACT Mother Tongue % 50 % 51 54 % 55 Of a 56 % T o t a l % Van-couver* BRITISH 60.6 48.4 48.7 58.5 57.9 55.6 66.2 FRENCH 2.5 0.7 1.1 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.8 GERMAN 2.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 — ITALIAN 2.5 13.4 17.1 6.8 4.9 8.2 --CHINESE 12.1 23.7 20.1 16.5 18.2 17.4 --PUNJABI " 1 .4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 — OTHER & NON-STATED 18.8 11.9 11 .3 14.3 14.7 14.7 — TOTAL POPULATION 11,595 6,420 7,670 8,265 7,125 41,075 414,285 (* No data a v a i l a b l e f o r o t h e r groups) (Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Census 1981: adapted from Jackson 1984) TABLE 3.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF GENTRIFICATION GRANDVIEW WOODLANDS VANCOUVER CITY 1971 1981 % CHANGE 1971 1981 % CHANGE AVERAGE j HOUSEHOLD INCOME 7.581 20.317 % PROFESSIONAL | OCCUPATION i 6.9 H£ 168 % UNIVERSITY EDUCATION 97,1 JL3_ 113.1 24.856 167 17.4 26.5 52.2 11*1 22,4 63.5 SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA 1971 AND 1981 46 suggests that in the sub-area, at least, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t . Although the average household income in Grandview V i c t o r i a increased at a rate comparable with that of the City, the percentage of residents with professional occupations and some university education increased at a rate almost double that of the City and the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . This strongly suggests that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s occurring in the Grandview V i c t o r i a sub-area. A Vancouver City Planning Department Policy Plan for the Grandview-Victoria sub-area presents ten o f f i c i a l planning goals: 1) Maintain the s o c i a l character, including the family emphasis, income mix, and ethnic d i v e r s i t y . 2) Maintain the physical character. 3) Maintain and upgrade the existing housing stock. 4) Maintain affordable housing 5) Allow for a gradual renewal of housing at, approximately the same density as ex i s t i n g , through measures that respect the existing s o c i a l and physical character. 6) Reduce the e f f e c t s of through t r a f f i c in r e s i d e n t i a l streets: to improve pedestrian safety and l i v i n g environment. 7) Encourage l o c a l commercial uses which are conveniently located for area residents and phys i c a l l y in scale with th e i r adjacent 47 neighbourhood. 8) Bring neighbourhood park space up to City standards of acres per person. 9) Improve parks, playgrounds, schools, and s o c i a l services for a l l ages. 10) Provide opportunities for l o c a l resident involvement in planning and development matters, and in programming community developments. (City Planning Department, 1979) These goals express the current desired di r e c t i o n of development for Grandview V i c t o r i a . Given that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s occurring in the neighbourhood, i t may prove to be very d i f f i c u l t to achieve goals 1, 2, 4, and 5. The s o c i a l mix w i l l undoubtedly change as people with professional occupations, university education, and high incomes move i n . This s o c i a l change w i l l l i k e l y create physical changes as dwellings are upgraded and d i f f e r e n t commercial outlets open to s a t i s f y new tastes, and these changes w i l l not l i k e l y be consonant with the existing s o c i a l or physical character. The g e n t r i f i e r s , however, may also a s s i s t in achieving other goals l i k e upgrading the existing housing stock, improving t r a f f i c conditions, and securing better park and recreational f a c i l i t i e s . Figure 3.3 i d e n t i f i e s the location of p u b l i c l y funded community services and parks within Grandview Woodland. Even after the opening of the Britannia Community Centre, the Grandview Woodland Area Policy Plan described Grandview V i c t o r i a as having public services in need of improvement, and as having one of the lowest ratios of park space per person in the c i t y Figure 3.3  Location of Public Services in  Grandview Woodland used by the Respondents P= Parks S= Schools BRIT=Britannia Conununity Centre Complex -Library -Skating Rink -Racquet/Squash Courts -Park -Swimming Pool -School -Area Council Of f i c e -Information Services -Nursary School -Gymnasium TEMP=Templeton Complex -Pool -Park -Running Track -School E=East Side Family Place r=REACH Conununity Health Centre FBANKUHl i NASTI 3(H! HZJ 31 IGECRG1A 1  < I I 1 I I J E i&ttEMPb Il_jOI_jl1 O ! ]iB o^ p^ e i a • • • • g ]B£BRtT.3aaaciaaLl ppiiiiaizzDaLria a i i d s y J 1KITJI natiEi (!••••• • a fr^ —i aa a ri • • ^ — O O D f P l i i ^ c - ' i i i i . m i i | i»n a | poooj poo~j p g ^ | • • • aaoa | BOO ISTH 1 ^t^53l II II 49 (City Planning Department, 1979:3). The need for service improvement and for the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the area's housing q u a l i f i e d the neighbourhood for the Neighbourhood Improvement Program (N.I.P.). This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the area, then, would provide the g e n t r i f i e r s with good reason for demanding service improvements i f indeed they desire them. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the services which the respondents use are heavily concentrated in the centre of the neighbourhood and most of these are located within the Britannia Community Centre. Given t h i s concentration, then, the area must have been greatly impoverished of public services before Britannia was b u i l t . 50 Chapter 4: Research Design and Methods 4. 1 Introduction This chapter examines the research design and methods used in t h i s thesis. The f i r s t section i d e n t i f i e s the research variables and i t i s included in t h i s chapter because i t i s pertinent to the design of the f i e l d instrument. The second section explains why the survey method was appropriate, and the t h i r d section explains the logic of the questionnaire design. Lastly, a chronology of the selection and execution of the sampling process i s given. This i s best discussed in a chronological format because the sampling was problematic and changes in technique had to be introduced as new information was acquired. Although a randomly selected sample~would have been prefered for the g e n t r i f i e r and t r a d i t i o n a l resident sample, a combination of a random and a snowball sample had to be employed for the g e n t r i f i e r sample. 4.2 The Variables The study uses the g e n t r i f i e r and the t r a d i t i o n a l resident population types as the two sample groups. Associated variables are various measures of l i f e s t y l e , such as u t i l i z a t i o n of, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with, existing services; attitudes towards ex i s t i n g services; favourite types of l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s ; s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbourhood; and, the areal extent of l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s . This thesis borrows Warren G i l l ' s (1981) d e f i n i t i o n of l i f e s t y l e . . He defines l i f e s t y l e as a synoptic concept "in that i t acts as an independent measure which summarizes other s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , each of which i s of varying importance in the determination of l i f e s t y l e in a given s i t u a t i o n " 51 (1981:3). G i l l asserts that l i f e s t y l e i s not a product of- any single s o c i a l indicator, but rather i t summarizes the quantity and quality of involvement of the range of variables which affe c t a person's l i f e . In a comprehensive survey of l i f e s t y l e l i t e r a t u r e , G i l l found fiv e components of l i f e s t y l e to be the chief determinants of mainstream urban l i f e s t y l e : symbolic, demographic, l o c a t i o n a l , behavioural, and cognitive components. The symbolic category i s of no consequence to t h i s research, however, because the research i s concerned with what l i f e s t y l e demands each population places on neighbourhood resources. Because symbols are used by residents to communicate and interpret their environment, they are not d i r e c t l y related to l i f e s t y l e demands for such resources. The symbols, then, are more r e f l e c t i v e of l i f e s t y l e rather than instrumental in creating i t . G i l l found that "within 'demographic' analyses of l i f e s t y l e , research has revolved around the themes of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and stage in the l i f e cycle" (1981:18). This study, then, examines the various measures of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , such as occupation, education, and income, and of l i f e cycle in the demographic section. The locational or environmental components "have long been i d e n t i f i e d as possible forces in the creation of styles of l i f e " ( G i l l , 1981:19). This component would contain such sub-variables as climate and b u i l t structures, e.g., public services. Such variables must be considered in any study which, even i n d i r e c t l y , i s concerned with human a c t i v i t i e s in a b u i l t environment, for at the "choice stage, not only must there be a 52 p r o p e n s i t y t o a c t , but t h i s must be accompanied by an a c c e p t a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c t " (Chapin, 1974:34). In o t h e r words, i f t h e r e a r e no f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e , many a c t i v i t i e s can not be con d u c t e d . P u b l i c s e r v i c e s a r e d e f i n e d f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h as l o c a l s e r v i c e s which a r e , have been, or c o u l d be funded e i t h e r p a r t i a l l y or w h o l l y by government. G i l l a l s o found much evi d e n c e i n the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t l i f e s t y l e s a r e r e l a t e d t o c o g n i t i o n s , e.g., v a l u e s and d i s p o s i t i o n s . L a s t l y , l i f e s t y l e s "have been c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d as b e h a v i o r " (1981:19). Perhaps i t i s f a i r t o r e g a r d the b e h a v i o u r component as the p h y s i c a l e x p r e s s i o n of c o g n i t i o n s . W h i l e a c c e p t i n g G i l l ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the l i f e s t y l e concept has a s y n o p t i c and independent q u a l i t y , t h i s t h e s i s a t t e m p t s t o demonstrate t h a t t h e r e a r e c a u s a l l i n k a g e s between the p r i n c i p l e components of l i f e s t y l e . F i g u r e 4.1 maps the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f o u r p r i n c i p l e components used i n t h i s study (demographic, c o g n i t i v e , b e h a v i o u r a l and l o c a t i o n a l ) . F i g u r e 4.1  R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the V a r i a b l e s :  The Research H y p o t h e s i s DEMOGRAPHIC —-COGNITIVE >BEHAVIOURAL^ ^ LOCATIONAL Tenure F a c i l i t y Demand L e i s u r e A c t i v i t i e s E x i s t i n g S e r v i c e s L i f e s t a g e V a l u e s F a c i l i t y Usage New S e r v i c e s O c c u p a t i o n Income E d u c a t i o n P l a n n e r s <; > P o l i t i c i a n s 53 I t a l s o i d e n t i f i e s the p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r which, however, w i l l not be examined. I t i s i n c l u d e d j u s t to acknowledge i t s r o l e . The demographic v a r i a b l e a f f e c t s the c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e , which i n turn shapes the b e h a v i o u r a l / l i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e . The b e h a v i o u r a l and l o c a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t and are a f f e c t e d by each o t h e r . Planners and p o l i t i c i a n s , the p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r , are i n f l u e n c e d by the p o p u l a t i o n ' s demands to maintain or c l o s e e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s and p r o v i d e newly demanded s e r v i c e s . C l e a r l y t h i s i s a s i m p l i f i e d model, f o r there i s probably much more complexity and i n t e r a c t i o n between the v a r i a b l e s ; however, i t does i l l u s t r a t e what I c o n s i d e r to be the b a s i c dynamics between the v a r i a b l e s . In a d d i t i o n , the model breaks down the g e n e r a l r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s 1 which was presented i n chapter one i n t o two sub-hypotheses: 1) that the demographic d i f f e r e n c e s between the g e n t r i f i e r s and the t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s w i l l l i k e l y be c o r r e l a t e d with d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as a t t i t u d e s towards and , a s p i r a t i o n s f o r the neighbourhood; 2) t h a t the c o g n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i l l l i k e l y r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s f o r b e h a v i o u r a l v a r i a b l e s , such as s e r v i c e usage and l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s . 1 I t i s important to note that the use of the term h y p o t h e s i s i s not intended to be understood in the s t r i c t s c i e n t i f i c meaning of s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s ; r a t h e r , i t i s meant here only to suggest a general a s s o c i a t i o n between c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s . 54 4.3 The Survey Method To determine how g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s the demand for public services, 41 households of the g e n t r i f i e r s were interviewed to determine their use of and demand for public services. A sample of 41 of the non-professional occupation households was also interviewed to permit comparison of demands, and thus i d e n t i f y any substantial differences. The survey method was chosen for t h i s study because i t was considered to be the most time and resource e f f i c i e n t means of acquiring the necessary data. Although f i e l d research (for example, participant observation) could conceivably be used to gather the necessary data, i t would be far too c o s t l y and time consuming. It would require observing each household's use of neighbourhood services u n t i l enough data were gathered to draw generalizations. Clearly t h i s i s an i n e f f i c i e n t way to gather the data. Survey research, in contrast to f i e l d research, i s quite amenable to a task requiring the c o l l e c t i o n of o r i g i n a l data from a population too large to observe d i r e c t l y . Within survey research, data can be gathered in two ways— by self-administered questionnaire or by an interviewer who may or may not use a formal questionnaire. This study uses the interview approach for the following reasons (not rank ordered): 1) There i s no way to determine i f a s e l f -administered questionnaire was completed by the person intended by the researcher (Dixon and Leach, 1976, p.8) 2) Interviews generally have a higher response 55 rate than self-administered questionnaires (Babbie, 1979, p.345). 3) The respondents may be more l i k e l y to answer a l l the questions i f the interviewer i s present. 4) The interviewer i s able to provide detailed instructions for questions requiring them (Dixon and Leach, 1976, p.7). 5) There i s no need, and thus no cost, to retrieve questionnaires when they are administered by the interviewer. 6) The interviewer may be able to c l a r i f y an uncertainty that a few respondents might have about one of the questions. 4.4 the Measurement Instrument A questionnaire was designed to gather information concerning the demographic, cognitive, and behavioural variables (see appendix 1). The l o c a t i o n a l variable data (existing services), however, was taken from a public service agency l i s t compiled by the Grandview Woodland Area Council, and obtained from Vancouver City's Britannia Centre Information O f f i c e . Because th i s research i s concerned with the use of types of services and not of s p e c i f i c individual services, a l i s t of generic services was derived from the Area Council's agency l i s t . The questionnaire included groups of questions about the population's demographics, l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s , s a t i s f a c t i o n with street and t r a f f i c conditions, and their use of, s a t i s f a c t i o n with, and attitudes toward neighbourhood public services. The demographic questions were placed at the beginning for 56 two reasons: f i r s t , to determine quickly i f the respondents were properly c l a s s i f i e d in the sample frame, and, second, because these questions are r e l a t i v e l y easy to answer. It was assumed that these questions would build up the respondents' confidence and thus make them more relaxed for the more d i f f i c u l t questions following. Although placing the demographic questions at the beginning might be considered a problem because some respondents may be a l i t t l e uneasy with income, age or education questions, i t was decided that because this uneasiness could probably be overcome by the s i n c e r i t y of the interviewer, and because there were positive aspects to placing them f i r s t , i t would be better to do so. This t a c t i c turned out to be quite successful, for most of the respondents were comfortable with the format. For the major section on public service u t i l i z a t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n , a l i s t of generic categories of public services was presented to the respondents. The respondents were asked to id e n t i f y which service was used by any member of their family in a t y p i c a l month during the summer and the winter; to indicate their l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the services they used ; to i d e n t i f y areas of public services which needed improvement; and to indicate the three most important services to their household. This section was the most conceptually demanding on the respondents, so extra care was taken to ensure each question was f u l l y understood. The questionnaire contained 37 questions and took about 25 minutes to administer (see Appendix A). Several questions were refined and f i v e were added in six p i l o t t e s ts. Since the participants in the p i l o t tests remained interested in the 57 questions throughout the interview, i t appeared that the questionnaire was not too long. It became apparent after the f i r s t three interviews in the formal survey that an additional question was needed in the neighbourhood section. This.question asked i f there was anything about the neighbourhood which the respondent has come to l i k e since having moved to the d i s t r i c t . Also, the following extra question was asked of a l l the professional sample: 'Have you done, or do you have any plans for, any renovations to your home?' The answer to t h i s question helped determine whether the respondent could be c l a s s i f i e d as a g e n t r i f i e r . 4.5 The Sampling Technique Samples of 41 households were compiled for both the g e n t r i f i e r s and the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. Acquiring the sample of the g e n t r i f i e r s proved to be problematic. I n i t i a l l y i t was hoped that a sample could be taken by randomly selecting names from the p r o v i n c i a l voters' l i s t . Because th i s l i s t includes the voter's occupation, i t was assumed that the voters' l i s t for the case study area could be used to select the g e n t r i f i e r and the t r a d i t i o n a l resident samples. After considering, however, that each voter's occupation was not a s u f f i c i e n t condition for determining whether or not someone i s a ge n t r i f i e r , a n alternative sampling method was explored. By using occupation as the discriminating v a r i a b l e , i t was possible that people who had not done any renovations, who had l i v e d in the area for a considerable amount of time, or who were not homeowners, would be included in the g e n t r i f i e r sample. In other words, the sample would have been of professionals and not necessarily of 58 g e n t r i f i e r s . Instead of a random selection of names from the voters' l i s t , , then, a snowball/networking sampling technique was considered. Seymour Sudman (1976) suggests that the snowball sampling technique is useful for locating members of a rare population. Given the paucity of vis u a l evidence of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n in the study area, and the small number of professional occupation households (159) actually i d e n t i f i e d in the voters' l i s t , the g e n t r i f i e r s are indeed a rare population in the study area. In t h i s technique, "once some members of a rare population have been located, either through screening or by some special l i s t , others are located through snowball sampling" (Sudman, 1976: 211). This i s done by having the i n i t i a l respondents i d e n t i f y people that they know would q u a l i f y as one of the rare'population. The referred respondents are then requested to i d e n t i f y others for the sample, and t h i s process continues u n t i l a s u f f i c i e n t number of respondents are acquired. The danger of the snowball sample, however, is that only a subgroup, i . e . , a non-representative sample of the population, is i d e n t i f i e d . To check against this possible bias, a combination of the snowball technique and a random sample from the voters l i s t was considered. If the results of both samples were si m i l a r , the composite sample could be acceptable as a representative sample of the area's g e n t r i f i e r s . However, i f the results were d i f f e r e n t , the research would have found i t s e l f in a quagmire— that i s , i t would have been d i f f i c u l t to choose which sample to accept and enlarge. To avoid that potential conundrum, and to get the research started, i t was decided that 59 the voters l i s t would be used to derive a sample. This decision was made on the basis of a demographic analysis of the study area which provided evidence that the voters' l i s t should indeed provide a sample of g e n t r i f i e r s . Figure 3.2 indicates that the number of professionals in the study area between 1971 and 1981 had increased at a rate almost twice that of the c i t y and the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . This indicates a migration of professionals into the area, indicative of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Before l e t t e r s which requested p a r t i c i p a t i o n were sent out to the professional occupation households (see appendix 2), the telephone book was used to get the phone number for each household. Surprisingly, of the 159 households i d e n t i f i e d as possible g e n t r i f i e r s , only 71 had current telephone numbers l i s t e d — an uncomfortably small number for gathering a sample of 40 households. In spite of the small number, 71 l e t t e r s were mailed to the possible g e n t r i f i e r households. Each l e t t e r requested both spouses to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study. Each l e t t e r was also followed up by a telephone c a l l during which the respondents were informed about the research, told that they were under no obligation to p a r t i c i p a t e , and requested to p a r t i c i p a t e . Of the 71 l e t t e r s , 38 respndents agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e , twenty refused, and thirteen had disconnected telephones. Further, of those who agreed, only nineteen q u a l i f i e d to p a r t i c i p a t e , for seven did not have professional occupations and 12 were renters. About half way through the phoning and interviewing i t became abundantly clear that the sample would have to be increased. The snowballing technique was resurrected for t h i s 60 purpose. Instead of using a di f f e r e n t l i s t of g e n t r i f i e r s to develop the sample, the l i s t derived from the pr o v i n c i a l voters' l i s t was used. This had two a t t r a c t i v e aspects. F i r s t l y , the composite sample would have many independent points of entry i . e . , up to 19 of the o r i g i n a l respondents could refer other possible g e n t r i f i e r s . Secondly, there would not be any difference between the snowball and the i n i t i a l sample results, for the snowball sample was in fact constructed on the f i r s t sample. A t o t a l of 27 g e n t r i f i e r s were referred to in the snowball technique. And of these 20 were used, four declined the interview, and three could not be contacted. The f i n a l number of usable interviews acquired for the g e n t r i f i e r population produced by the two stage sample was 39. Two additional interviews were taken from residents who had been i n i t i a l l y c l a s s i f i e d as t r a d i t i o n a l residents, for i t became apparent during the interviews that they q u a l i f i e d as g e n t r i f i e r s . This produced a f i n a l t o t a l of 41 interviews in the g e n t r i f i e r sample. One reassuring point to be noted i s that during the snowball sampling procedure, better than half of the professionals were referred to by more than one household. In fact, towards the end of the interviewing in the g e n t r i f i e r sample, few new names could be e l i c i t e d . This suggests that a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the universe of g e n t r i f i e r s in the study area had been sampled; therefore, the sample may be confidently accepted as representative of the population. Acquiring the sample of t r a d i t i o n a l residents was not nearly as troublesome. The same voters' l i s t was used to select 61 174 households by taking every 20th name from a t o t a l of 3727 names. Whenever the 20th count landed on a name with a professional occupation, the next name i d e n t i f i e d with a non-professional occupation was selected. Of the 174 households, telephone numbers could only be found for 104. Thus, 104 l e t t e r s were mailed to the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. Because five interviews with t r a d i t i o n a l residents had been obtained from the g e n t r i f i e r sample, only 35 more were required to achieve the target sample size of 40. As i t turned out, 36 more interviews with t r a d i t i o n a l residents were conducted producing a sample of 41. The t o t a l acceptance rate for the 104 l e t t e r s , then, was 38 percent. This reasonably robust acceptance rate, however, was threatened at the start of the survey process, for the f i r s t ten phone c a l l s yielded only one acceptance. In the event that the acceptance rate would continue to be too low, subsequent pote n t i a l respondents were then asked i f they would prefer to have the interview over the phone at a time convenient for them. This t a c t i c managed to secure many interviews which at f i r s t the respondents did not seem w i l l i n g to provide. This finding suggests that t r a d i t i o n a l residents do not object to interviews per se; rather, they only object to having strangers in their homes. Further, the t r a d i t i o n a l residents did not seem to be espe c i a l l y interested in the questions. Perhaps they granted the interviews either because of a sense of c i v i c duty or because they were too p o l i t e to refuse. In stark contrast, the g e n t r i f i e r s were very interested in the type of information 62 being requested, and in what the results would be. Indeed, ten of them requested to have a summary of the findings sent to them, and one asked to look at the i n i t i a l r e s u l t s . Because of the large ethnic component to the t r a d i t i o n a l resident population, i t was anticipated that there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t number of potential respondents who would not be able to speak English well enough for the interview. This was indeed a problem in seven of the interviews; however, in these cases the respondents' children served as interpreters thereby avoiding a potential bias in the sample. The interviewing process took three weeks to complete. The greater part of t h i s time was taken up in the interviews with the g e n t r i f i e r s , because they were almost a l l done in the g e n t r i f i e r s ' homes. Thus much time was wasted in t r a n s i t and, moreover, from the time periods between the interviews for which none could be scheduled. The interviews for the t r a d i t i o n a l residents only required six days. Obviously, telephone interviewing i s a much more e f f i c i e n t survey technique. 63 CHAPTER 5  Survey Analysis 5.1 Introduction The analysis of the survey data w i l l be presented in three sections: the populations' demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; their attitudes towards, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with, the area; their a c t i v i t y patterns, including l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s , and use of neighbourhood public services. Each of these sections tests one of the sub-hypotheses outlined in Chapter 4. 5.2 Demographic Characteristics This section determines the s p e c i f i c differences between the g e n t r i f i e r s ' and the t r a d i t i o n a l residents' demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in Grandview Woodland. Forty of the 41~ g e n t r i f i e r s owned their dwelling, and the only renter was included because he l i v e d in a newly renovated dwelling and i s planning to purchase i t . Surprisingly, 39 (95.1%) of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents also owned their homes. This i s higher than the 1981 census figures (73% ownership) for the study area. The differences between the g e n t r i f i e r s ' and the t r a d i t i o n a l residents' occupational statuses was s i g n i f i c a n t (see table 5.1). A large majority of the male and female g e n t r i f i e r s have occupations in professional occupations. Interestingly, only a small percentage of them have arts occupations. This suggests that t h i s sample may be more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the l a t t e r stage g e n t r i f i e r s (Pattison, 1983). In stark contrast to^the g e n t r i f i e r s , the t r a d i t i o n a l male residents almost exclusively have non-professional occupations, and those t r a d i t i o n a l female residents who are not housewives (45%) also have non-Table 5.1  Occupational Status Occupation G e n t r i f i e r Trad. Resident Male Female Male Female Professional 34 24 1 0 Arts 3 4 0 0 Business 1 0 0 0 Non-Professional 0 6 34 18 Retired 1 0 1 0 Student 0 2 0 0 Homemaker 0 3 0 22 significances .000 Professional includes: Natural Sciences, Engineering, Managerial, Administration, Medicine, Social Sciences, and Teaching. 65 professional occupations. As expected, the educational status differences between the populations are also s i g n i f i c a n t (see table 5.2). Both the male and female g e n t r i f i e r s are highly educated, and the large majority of them have completed at least one university degree. In contrast, a substantial proportion (43%) of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents have not completed high school. This implies that the g e n t r i f i e r s are a much more a r t i c u l a t e population and l i k e l y have the resources to lobby for, and secure, neighbourhood improvements. As expected, the g e n t r i f i e r s generally have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher household income than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents (see table 5.3). The Grandview-Woodlands g e n t r i f i e r s ' household income, occupation, or education lev e l s strongly concur with the stereotype evident in the l i t e r a t u r e : that they are primarily highly educated, professional, and economically secure urbanites (Laska and Spain, 1980; Black, 1980; Cybriwsky, 1982; Gale, 1983). In contrast to much of the l i t e r a t u r e (Black, 1980; Gale, 1983) not many of the g e n t r i f i e r s are sing l e s . Indeed, the percentage of singles (14.6%) and non-singles (85.4%) i s id e n t i c a l for both populations. In comparison, the 1981 census reports that 25% of the area's population are singles. This difference, however, may be because no apartment residents were included in the sample. Also, the difference (10%) between the census and t h i s survey i s small and may be within the sampling error. Tables 5.4 and 5.5 support the l i t e r a t u r e ' s Table 5.2  Education Level by Population Level G e n t r i f i e r T r a d i t i o n a l Resident Male Female Male Female Some Elementary 0 0 6 6 Completed Elementary 0 0 2 2 Some High School 0 2 7 10 Completed High Sc. 1 1 10 15 Post Sec.Technical 0 3 5 3 College/Some Univ. 3 7 4 2 Completed University 33 26 2 2 n=37 n=39 n=36 n=40 Significance Level=0.000 Table 5.3  Household Income by Population Type 67 INCOME COUNT ROW % GENTRIFIER TRADITIONAL RES. COLUMN TOTAL <$15,000 $15,000- $30,000- $45,000- $60,000+ ROW $30,000 $45,000 I $60,000 I I I TOTAL 1 6 I 17 I 9 I 8 I 41 2.4 14.6 I 41.5 | 22.0 I 19-5 | 51 .9 7 1G I 1 1 I 4 I I 38 18.4 42. 1 I 28.9 | 10.5 I I 48. 1 8 22 28 13 8 79 10. 1 27.8 35.4 16.5 10. 1 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 20.16940 4 0.0005 3.848 4 OF 10 ( 40.0%) Table 5.4  Male's Age by Population Type COUNT ROW % 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-55 56-65 GENTRIFIER TRADITIONAL RES. COLUMN TOTAL 1 2.7 1 2.8 2 2.7 18 48.6 12 32.4 4 10.8 2 5.4 3 8.3 7 19.4 2 5.6 8 22 .2 21 28.8 19 26.0 6 8.2 10 13.7 11 30.6 1 1 15. 1 66+ 4 11.1 4 5.5 ROW TOTAL 37 50.7 36 49.3 73 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 31.28891 6 0.0000 0.986 7 OF 14 ( 50.0%) Table 5.5 Female's Age by Population Type COUNT ROW % 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-55 56-65 66+ ROW TOTAL GENTRIFIER TRADITIONAL RES. COLUMN TOTAL 1 2.6 7 17.9 3 7.5 1 1.3 10 12.7 16 41.0 9 23. 1 3 7.7 3 7.7 3 7.5 6 15.0 7 17.5 19 24. 1 15 19.0 10 12.7 9 8 22.5 | 20.0 + 12 8 15.2 10.1 39 49.4 4 40 10.0 | 50.6 + 4 79 5.1 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F . SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 28.68667 0.0002 0.494 8 OF 16 ( 50.0%) 70 characterization of g e n t r i f i e r s as primarily young householders (Pattison, 1983; Gale, 1983), as 84% of the male and 85% of the female g e n t r i f i e r s f a l l in the 21 to 40 year age brackets. In comparison, 31% of the male and 30% of the female t r a d i t i o n a l residents f a l l in the 21 to 40 year age brackets. The s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t age p r o f i l e s between the populations present a problem for testing the research sub-hypotheses. In addition to occupation being associated with differences in values, ideas, l e i s u r e patterns, and ultimately, public service usage, the respondents' age ( l i f e cycle) may also be a causal agent or, indeed, a primary causal agent. This problem, however, is addressed by measuring leisure a c t i v i t i e s and public service usage against the populations while c o n t r o l l i n g for age. This determines i f age is associated with liesure a c t i v i t i e s and use of services. The g e n t r i f i e r s ' family status in Grandview Woodlands concurs with Laska and Spain's (1980) and Hamnett and Williams' (1980) findings that a majority of the g e n t r i f i e r s have one or more young children. Sixty-one percent of Vancouver's Grandview-Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s have one or more children compared to 62.5% of the g e n t r i f i e r s in New Orleans (Laska and Spain, 1980). A s i g n i f i c a n t l y larger percentage (87.8%) of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents in Grandview-Woodlands, however, have children ( s i g n i f i c a n t at the .015 l e v e l ) . There i s not, though, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the populations in the number of households which s t i l l have children at home. F i f t y - s i x percent of the g e n t r i f i e r s have children at home compared to 75.6% of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. 71 Table 5.6 suggests why there i s a discrepancy between the number of t r a d i t i o n a l resident households which have children, 87.8%, and the number which are s t i l l at home, 75.6%. The largest number of these households (24) have children in the 20 years and older category. It i s l i k e l y , therefore, that these children have moved out of their parents' home. In contrast to the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, most of the g e n t r i f i e r households with children have them in the zero to two and the three to fiv e year old categories. These new babies are part of the long expected, but much delayed, 'echo baby boom.' By 'echo,' demographers refer to children being born to parents who themselves were born during the l a s t baby boom, which peaked in the mid-to-late f i f t i e s . Because many of these people put off having children u n t i l later in l i f e , population projections made in the early s i x t i e s underestimated c h i l d b i r t h s throughout the seventies. What has happened now i s that the b i o l o g i c a l clock has caught up and we have the resulting increase in b i r t h s . (B. C. Central Credit Union, 1982) This phenomenon of delaying having children may, in large part, explain why e a r l i e r analysts of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n portrayed the g e n t r i f i e r as mostly c h i l d l e s s singles and couples. The young professionals were probably more concerned with developing a secure professional career before having a family. It i s interesting to note that there is no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the average household size between populations--3.1 people per g e n t r i f i e r household and 3.7 people per t r a d i t i o n a l resident household. I suspect, however, that these figures may change dramatically, for the g e n t r i f i e r households are currently expanding in size because they are having children, and the t r a d i t i o n a l resident households are Table 5.6  Children's Ages Age G e n t r i f i e r T r a d i t i o n a l Resident 0-2 17 3 3 - 5 , 9 3 6-12 5 8 13-19 2 17 20+ 3 24 Table 5.7  Average Time Lived in  the Neighbourhood and the Dwelling Place G e n t r i f i e r Trad. Resident Significance Neighbourhood 6 Yrs. 23 Yrs. .000 Dwelling 5 Yrs. 18 Yrs. .000 n=82 73 contracting because their children are leaving home. It i s important to note, however, that the difference in average household size i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , but t h i s may be due to the survey's small sample size; however, i t would be s i g n i f i c a n t for a larger sample. Interestingly, these household sizes are much larger than the figure derived from the 1981 census for Grandview V i c t o r i a (3.1 persons). The larger average household size i s probably a function of not having any apartment residents in the sample. There i s a s t r i k i n g and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the 99% prob a b i l i t y l e v e l between each sample's average length of residency in both their dwellings and in the neighbourhood. Table 5.7 indicates that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n in Grandview-Woodlands i s indeed a recent phenomenon. It also suggests that the area has had a very stable r e s i d e n t i a l population p r i o r to g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . This also indicates that when K i t s i l a n o and Fairview slopes were gentrifying in the mid-1970 's (Ley, 1981), Grandview Woodland was s t i l l untouched by g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Only when K i t s i l a n o and Fairview were substantially r e v i t a l i z e d did Grandview Woodland become a viable neighbourhood to gen t r i f y . There are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more immigrants to Canada among the t r a d i t i o n a l residents (72.2% for males and 62.5% for females) than among the g e n t r i f i e r s (35.1% for males and 35.9% for females). Tables 5.8 and 5.9 display when the immigrants came to Canada. Where the majority of the male and female g e n t r i f i e r immigrants arri v e d since 1970, the t r a d i t i o n a l resident immigrants have been a r r i v i n g at a f a i r l y constant rate since Table 5.8 When Males Immigrated COUNT ROW % 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 BEFORE 1945 GENTRIFIER 3 23. 1 2 TRADITIONAL RES. | 7.7 + COLUMN 5 TOTAL 12.8 5 38.5 3 23. 1 2 15.4 ROW TOTAL 13 33.3 4 15.4 2 7.7 9 23. 1 5 12.8 3 3 11.5 | 11.5 + 3 5 7.7 12.8 9 2 1 1 26 34.6 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 66.7 + + + 9 2 1 39 23.1 5.1 2.6 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 12.800OO 0.0771 0.333 14 OF 16 ( 87.5%) Table 5.9 When Females Immigrated COUNT ROW % 80-85 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 GENTRIFIER TRADITIONAL RES. 3 20.0 COLUMN TOTAL 3 7.5 4 26.7 1 4.0 5 12.5 1 2 2 - 2 6 7 13 3 13 3 13 3 5 1 4 I 2 5 20 O 16 O B 0 20 O 6 6 4 7 15 0 15 0 10 0 17 5 1 6.7 4 16.0 5 12.5 BEFORE 1945 ROW TOTAL 15 37.5 3 I 1 I 25 12.0 I 4.0 | 62.5 :—+— + 3 1 40 7.5 2.5 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E .F .< 5 13.56698 0.0938 0.375 18 OF 18 (100.0%) 76 1945. Tables 5.10 and 5.11 indicate that the majority of the g e n t r i f i e r immigrants came from either B r i t a i n or the United States, whereas the t r a d i t i o n a l resident immigrants came from a much wider range of countries throughout Europe and Asia. This i s to be expected, however, considering that Grandview-Woodlands i s known for i t s multi-ethnic character. It i s important to note that the g e n t r i f i e r s who immigrated from A f r i c a were whites. In fact, the entire g e n t r i f i e r sample was composed of whites. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n does not as yet appear to include ethnic groups. The 1981 census indicates that about 49% of the area's residents compared to 66% of Vancouver's population have B r i t i s h as their mother tongue (see table 3.3 for ethnic p r o f i l e as represented by mother tongue). Also consistent with i t s popular image, t h e " location from which a large number of immigrants came was Southern Europe, notably I t a l y . Tables 5.12 and 5.13 indicate whether the respondents perceive themselves as belonging to a pa r t i c u l a r ethnic group. It i s apparent that the t r a d i t i o n a l residents are much more cognizant of their ethnic heritage. Interestingly, 41.7% of the male and 36.4% of the female g e n t r i f i e r s who i d e n t i f i e d with an ethnic heritage said that t h e i r s was B r i t i s h . It i s clear from the evidence in the f i r s t section that the Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s ' demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are t y p i c a l of the g e n t r i f i e r s described in the l i t e r a t u r e . The only major difference i s that the majority of Grandview Woodland — g e n t r i f i e r s have children. 5.3 Attitudes Towards the Neighbourhood This section determines whether the data support the f i r s t T a b l e 5.10 M a l e s ' B i r t h P l a c e COUNT ROW % GENTRIFIER BRITAIN AFRICA WEST EUROPE SOUTH EUROPE NORTH EUROPE EAST EUROPE ASIA/ ASIAN PACIFIC ISL. U.S.A 3 23. 1 2 15.4 2 15.4 TRADITIONAL RES. | 7.7 + COLUMN 5 TOTAL 12.8 1 3.8 11 42.3 1 3.8 4 15.4 5 19.2 2 5. 1 3 7.7 1 1 28.2 1 2.6 4 10.3 5 12.8 2 7.7 2 5. 1 ROW TOTAL 6 13 46.2 I 33.3 + 26 66.7 + 6 39 15.4 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 30.59999 0.0002 0.333 17 OF 18 ( 94.4%) Table 5.11 Females' B i r t h Place COUNT ROW % BRITAIN AFRICA WEST EUROPE SOUTH EUROPE NORTH EUROPE EAST EUROPE ASIA/ ASIAN PACIFIC U.S.A ISL. GENTRIFIER TRADITIONAL RES. COLUMN TOTAL 4 28.6 3 12.0 7 17.9 1 7. 1 1 7. 1 1 7. 1 1 4.0 9 36.0 1 4.0 3 12.0 4 16.0 1 2.6 1 2.6 9 23. 1 2 5. 1 4 10.3 4 10.3 1 7. 1 4 16.0 5 12.8 ROW TOTAL 6 14 42.9 I 35.9 + 25 64. 1 + 6 39 15.4 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 22.64149 8 0.0039 0.359 17 OF 18 ( 94.4%) 00 Table 5.12  Male's Perceived Ethnic Background 79 COUNT ROW % YES GENTRIFIER 12 32.4 26 TRADITIONAL RES. | 72.2 + COLUMN 38 TOTAL 52.1 NO 25 67 .6 10 27.8 35 47 .9 ROW TOTAL 37 50.7 36 49.3 73 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 10.03555 11.57495 0.0015 0.0007 17.260 NONE ( BEFORE YATES CORRECTION ) Table 5.13  Female's Perceived Ethnic Background COUNT ROW % YES NO ROW TOTAL GENTRIFIER COLUMN 12 27 39 30.8 | 69.2 I 49.4 27 T"~13"t 40 67.5 1 32.5 1 50.6 39 40 79 49.4 50.6 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 9.23946 10.65829 1 1 0.0024 0.0011 19.253 NONE ( BEFORE YATES CORRECTION ) 80 sub-hypothesis that there are differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s between the g e n t r i f i e r s ' and the t r a d i t i o n a l residents' attitudes towards and s a t i s f a c t i o n with Grandview-Woodlands. Table 5.14 indicates that the majority (66%) of the g e n t r i f i e r s ' l a s t residences were within the c i t y . This lends support to the argument that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a stay-in-the-city and not a back-to-the-city movement (Laska and Spain, 1980; Cicin-Sain, 1980; Spragge, 1983). Only 12.2% of the g e n t r i f i e r s came from a rura l or suburban location. The high percentage 'df previous inner-city residences among the g e n t r i f i e r s suggests that they w i l l be accustomed to urban l i v i n g , and because they have chosen to relocate within the c i t y , they l i k e l y value such a l i f e s t y l e . It i s interesting to note that 49% of the g e n t r i f i e r s came from the Westside and K i t s i l a n o . The Westside has been one of the c i t y ' s higher socio-economic neighbourhoods, and, during the 1970's, K i t s i l a n o underwent g e n t r i f i c a t i o n (Ley, 1981). Table 5.15 displays the responses to two questions: 'Why did you choose th i s neighbourhood to l i v e in?', and, 'What do you p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e about t h i s neighbourhood?' Since the respondents tended to treat these questions as synonymous, the responses w i l l also be treated more generally as perceived posi t i v e neighbourhood a t t r i b u t e s . As the demographic section demonstrated remarkable differences in group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , so, too, does th i s table indicate some substantial differences in each group's attitudes towards and interpretation of the neighbourhood. The greater importance of f a c i l i t i e s and parks to the g e n t r i f i e r s compared to the t r a d i t i o n a l residents suggests that they may be more l i k e l y to generate a greater demand for Table 5.14 Last Place of Residence count row % other country r u r a l other suburbs e.end k i t s . c i t y w.side w.end n.shore g e n t r i f i e r 4 9.8 2 18 t r a d i t i o n a l resident | 43.9 + column 22 t o t a l 2s.8 1 2.4 4 9.8 3 7 . 3 4 9.8 10 24.4 10 24.4 3 7 . 3 3 7.3 o 0.0 1 2.4 13 31.7 0 0.0 3 7.3 3 7.3 4 4.9 4 4.9 4 4.9 17 20.7 10 12.2 13 15.9 6 7.3 row t o t a l 2 41 4.9 I 50.0 + o I 41 0.0 I 50.0 + 2 82 2.4 100.0 percents and t o t a l s based on responses 82 v a l i d cases 0 missing cases Co Table 5.15  Positive Neighbourhood Attributes ATTRIBUTE GENTRIFIERS TRAD. RESIDENTS Cultural/ethnic mix 30 3 A f f o r d a b i l i t y 28 17 Central to work/city 24 22 Local shops 19 15 Neighbourhood services 19 6 Friends here 13 9 Family area 10 4 Good neighbouring 9 17 Architecture 8 1 Socio-economic mix 6 1 P o l i t i c a l character 6 0 Neighbourhood feeling 6 0 Parks 6 2 Schools close by 5 15 Working class area 5 0 Small town feeling 5 0 Stable area 5 1 Relatives here 2 7 Familiar area 1 16 Safe f e e l i n g 1 6 Grew up here 0 9 Quiet area 0 14 Good t r a n s i t 0 6 Total Responses 208 171 n=82 83 such neighbourhood a t t r i b u t e s . Conversely, the t r a d i t i o n a l residents seem to be more interested in s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , such as good neighbouring and having r e l a t i v e s in the area than do the g e n t r i f i e r s . In a 1974 survey of Vancouver's K i t s i l a n o residents, Ley (1981) also i d e n t i f i e d a strong demand for a highly l i v a b l e environment including proximity to parkland, recreational a c t i v i t i e s , and quiet r e s i d e n t i a l streets. Table 5.16 organizes the responses into classes of responses. The results support the contention made in Chapter 2 that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s l i k e l y not the product of any one factor, but i s caused by a number of factors. This concurs with American studies which have "determined that middle-class households in the inner-city are "optimizing on a bundle of housing att r i b u t e s that includes c u l t u r a l , aesthetic, and l i f e s t y l e factors and not simply the a c c e s i b i l i t y " (Ley, 1981:133). The figures in table 5.16 could, in fact, be used to support many of the causes discussed in the l i t e r a t u r e ; for example, the loc a t i o n a l category could be used to support the importance of the energy and time costs involved in commuting (Zeitz, 1979). It could also be used to support Ley's economic base argument (1984), i . e . , because Vancouver has an office-based economy, i t i s more l i k e l y that i t w i l l have a number of professionals who may gentrify inner-city neighbourhoods in order to be close to the c i t y and their work. The second most useful variable which Ley i d e n t i f i e d for—predicting g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was an area's 'quality of l i f e . ' This i s strongly supported by table 5.16. The importance of heterogeneity i d e n t i f i e d by several writers (Cybriwsky, 1980; Allen, 1980; Cybriwsky and Western, 1982) i s Table 5.16 Classes of Positive Neighbourhood Attributes CLASS ATTRIBUTE GENTRI . TRAD.RES. A) Location -Central to Work/City -Schools Close B) A f f o r d a b i l i t y -Affordable Houses C) Quality of L i f e -Services -Commercial Dr. Shops -Architecture -Parks -Good Transit D) F a m i l i a r i t y and Close Social Relations -Relatives Here -Friends Here -Familiar Area -Grew Up Here -Good Neighbouring E) Heterogeneity -Cultural/Ethnic Mix -Socio-Economic Mix F) Neighbourhood Character -Small Town Feeling -Neighbourhood Feeling -Family Area -Working Class Area -Stable Area -Quiet Area -Safe Feeling 24 22 5 15 29 37 28 17 19 6 19 15 8 1 6 2 0 6 52 30 2 7 13 9 1 16 0 9 9 17 25 58 30 3 6 1 36 4 5 0 6 0 1 16 5 0 5 1 0 14 1 6 23 37 n=82 Gentri = G e n t r i f i e r s Trad.Res. = Tra d i t i o n a l Residents 85 also supported by these r e s u l t s . It also appears that Allen's contention (1980) that the g e n t r i f i e r s only want to have a soci a l mix within perceptual proximity i s v a l i d , for they are far less concerned with s o c i a l relations than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. The large number of g e n t r i f i e r s mentioning that housing a f f o r d a b i l i t y was a positi v e attribute of the neighbourhood lends weight to the housing market argument, which holds that the r e l a t i v e l y more expensive suburban housing has forced new home buyers to consider the less expensive inner-city housing (Black, 180; Gol d f i e l d , 1980; Hamnett and Williams, 1980). Table 5.17 suggests that the majority of the g e n t r i f i e r s are f i r s t time home buyers. Over 80% of the g e n t r i f i e r s did not own a home before their present one. Interestingly, the same number of t r a d i t i o n a l residents also did not own a home before their present one. It i s possible, however, that before renting a place in the c i t y the g e n t r i f i e r s did l i v e in the suburbs. By renting a place f i r s t , they could see i f indeed they l i k e d inner-city l i v i n g . This p o s s i b i l i t y should be tested in future research. The variety of responses in table 5.16 makes i t d i f f i c u l t to c l a s s i f y the Grandview-Woodlands g e n t r i f i e r s in terms of Pattison's four stage model of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n (1983): the importance of so c i a l mix and a convenient location suggests that they may be f i r s t stage g e n t r i f i e r s , the importance of the housing a f f o r d a b i l i t y indicates that half of them may belong to the second wave, and the importance of the ar c h i t e c t u r a l quality of many of the neighbourhood's dwellings suggests that almost 86 Table 5.17 Owned Last Place of Residence COUNT ROW % YES NO ROW TOTAL I I + + 8 I 33 I 41 GENTRIFIER | 19.5 | 80.5 | 50.0 + + + I 8 I 33 I 41 TRADITIONAL R E S . | 19.5 | 80.5 | 50.0 + + + COLUMN 16 66 82 TOTAL 19.5 80.5 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D . F . SIGNIFICANCE MIN E . F . CELLS WITH E . F . < 5 0.0 0.0 1 1 1.0000 1.oooo 8 .OOO NONE ( BEFORE YATES CORRECTION ) 87 20% (8) of the g e n t r i f i e r s may belong to the t h i r d stage. These results indicate that either the Grandview-Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s are currently composed of representatives from the f i r s t three stages of the process, or that Pattison's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s not generalizable to t h i s case study. Table 5.18 displays the perceived negative attributes of the neighbourhood. The top five of 39 types of responses are displayed, and th i s represents 43 of a t o t a l of 83 responses from the g e n t r i f i e r s and 14 of 38 responses from the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. The 34 other types of responses are not l i s t e d because they have frequencies of only one or two responses and, therefore, are not of much a n a l y t i c a l value. There are a few points to be made about these data. F i r s t , i t i s apparent that there are far fewer perceived negative neighbourhood att r i b u t e s than p o s i t i v e ones. Second, the g e n t r i f i e r s are more c r i t i c a l of the neighbourhood than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. The g e n t r i f i e r s gave 83 negative and 208 positive responses, and the t r a d i t i o n a l residents gave 38 negative and 171 positive responses. Lastly, the g e n t r i f i e r s seem to be more demanding of amenities in the neighbourhood. This suggests that they w i l l place new demands on c i t y revenue. These results also indicate a strong p a r a l l e l between the Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s and the K i t s i l a n o g e n t r i f i e r s . Both groups value parks, beaches, and quiet streets. The contemporary Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s seem to be transplanting these pro-amenity values to the neighbourhood. In view of t h i s , then, i t i s understandable that Vancouver's K i t s i l a n o , Fairview Slopes, and West End neighbourhoods r e v i t a l i z e d before Grandview Woodland. 88 Table 5.18  Negative Neighbourhood Characteristics CHARACTERISTIC GENTRIFIERS TRAD. RESIDENTS Inadequate parks/beaches 13 0 T r a f f i c 13 5 Crime 7 1 Dilapidated houses 5 6 Vancouver specials* 5 2 Other** 40 24 Total Responses 83 38 n=82 * 'Vancouver special' i s the term given to inexpensive and standardized box construction housing. ** The 'other' category i s composed of 34 types of responses and they are not l i s t e d because of low frequencies. 89 These other neighbourhoods have considerably more park space and usable waterfront for parks and beaches. Only once the areas with better amenity packages have been saturated with redevelopment w i l l areas with fewer amenities, l i k e Grandview, become g e n t r i f i e d . Though the g e n t r i f i e r s seem to be more c r i t i c a l of the area's inadequate parks and t r a f f i c problems, both the males and the females are very s a t i s f i e d with the area (see table 5.19 and 5.20). In fact, the g e n t r i f i e r s are marginally, though not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y , more s a t i s f i e d . Perhaps th i s apparent contradiction between their c r i t i c i s m s and their s a t i s f a c t i o n can be explained i f the g e n t r i f i e r s ' s a t i s f a c t i o n pertains in part to the area's p o t e n t i a l . This, then, would mean that they have 'higher' aspirations for the l . i v a b i l i t y of the area. Tables 5.21 and 5.22 also suggest that the g e n t r i f i e r s are s a t i s f i e d with the neighbourhood. Almost 83% of them say that they w i l l stay in the neighbourhood for the next f i v e years and 50% say they w i l l stay for the next ten years. Only 20% say that they w i l l move and 30% are undecided. The large proportion of g e n t r i f i e r s that indicate they w i l l stay suggests that they are generally quite happy with the area. Although there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two populations in their moving plans for the next f i v e years, s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents plan to move during the next ten years. An important point to be made from these data is that the process w i l l l i k e l y have some longevity and, therefore, there w i l l be g e n t r i f i e r s who w i l l remain to shape the neighbourhood's Table 5.19 Male's Sat i s f a c t i o n With the Neighbourhood C O U N T ROW % S A T I S - N O T S A T - ROW F I E D I S F I E D T O T A L 1 | 2 | + + I 3 5 2 . 3 7 G E N T R I F I E R | 9 4 . 6 5 4 I 5 0 . 7 + - -+ I 3 2 4 I 3 6 T R A D I T I O N A L R E S . | 8 8 . 9 1 1 1 I 4 9 . 3 +-C O L U M N 6 7 6 7 3 T O T A L 9 1 . 8 8 2 1 0 0 . 0 C H I - S Q U A R E D . F . S I G N I F I C A N C E M I N E . F . C E L L S W I T H E . F . < 5 O 2 1 2 7 1 1 0 . 6 4 4 7 2 . 9 5 9 2 O F 4 ( 5 0 . 0 % ) 0 ^ 7 8 7 4 4 1 0 . 3 7 4 9 ( B E F O R E Y A T E S C O R R E C T I O N ) Table 5.20 Female's Sat i s f a c t i o n With the Neighbourhood C O U N T ROW % S A T I S -F I E D G E N T R I F I E R 3 7 9 4 . 9 3 4 T R A D I T I O N A L R E S . | 8 5 . 0 + C O L U M N 7 1 T O T A L 8 9 . 9 N O T S A T - ROW I S F I E D T O T A L 2 3 9 5 . 1 | 4 9 . 4 + 6 I 4 0 1 5 . 0 | 5 0 . 6 + 8 7 9 1 0 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 C H I - S Q U A R E D . F . S I G N I F I C A N C E M I N E . F . C E L L S W I T H E . F . < 5 1 . 1 6 8 8 7 1 0 . 2 7 9 6 3 . 9 4 9 2 O F 4 ( 5 0 . 0 % ) 2 . 1 1 4 4 4 1 0 . 1 4 5 9 ( B E F O R E Y A T E S C O R R E C T I O N ) 91 Table 5.21 Plan to Stay in Neighbourhood For Next Five Years C O U N T ROW % Y E S N O M A Y B E ROW T O T A L I I I + + + G E N T R I F I E R T R A D I T I O N A L R E S . | + C O L U M N 3 4 2 5 4 1 8 2 . 9 I 4 9 I 1 2 2 | 5 0 . 0 3 7 1 1 I 3 I 4 1 9 0 . 2 I 2 4 | 7 3 | 5 0 . 0 7 1 3 8 8 2 8 6 . 6 3 7 9 8 1 0 0 . 0 C H I - S O U A R E D . F . S I G N I F I C A N C E M I N E . F . C E L L S W I T H E . F . < 5 0 . 9 6 0 0 9 2 0 . 6 1 8 8 1 . 5 0 0 4 O F 6 ( 6 6 . 7 % ) Table 5.22 Plan to Stay in Neighbourhood For Next Ten Years C O U N T ROW % Y E S N O M A Y B E G E N T R I F I E R 2 0 5 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 2 9 T R A D I T I O N A L R E S . | 7 0 . 7 + C O L U M N 4 9 T O T A L 6 0 . 5 2 4 . 9 1 2 3 0 . 0 1 0 2 4 . 4 1 0 2 2 1 2 . 3 2 7 . 2 ROW T O T A L 4 0 4 9 . 4 4 1 5 0 . 6 8 1 1 0 0 . 0 C H I - S Q U A R E D . F . S I G N I F I C A N C E M I N E . F . C E L L S W I T H E . F . < 5 5 . 4 2 3 3 6 0 . 0 6 6 4 4 . 9 3 8 1 O F 6 ( 1 6 . 7 % ) 92 character. From the evidence examined so far, the g e n t r i f i e r s do indeed have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t additudes towards the neighbourhood than those of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. When asked i f they had considered moving to another area when they moved to Grandview-Woodlands, 65.9% of the g e n t r i f i e r s replied that they had, whereas a s i g n i f i c a n t l y smaller percentage (39%) of t r a d i t i o n a l residents said that they had considered other places (this was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .02% l e v e l ) . Table 5.23 displays the areas that were considered as alternative residences. Almost 73% of the g e n t r i f i e r s considered other Vancouver c i t y neighbourhoods, and only 16.6% considered a suburban locat i o n . This contrasts markedly with the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, for 56.3% of those who considered moving elsewhere considered a suburban location. Table 5.24 l i s t s the eight most mentioned reasons why the other areas were considered. As with the reasons given for moving to Grandview-Woodlands, there are major differences between the g e n t r i f i e r s and the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. Also, fiv e of the eight reasons are similar to the ones given for moving to Grandview-Woodlands. This i s not surprising when one considers that a majority of those g e n t r i f i e r s who considered moving to a di f f e r e n t place had considered another Vancouver c i t y location. This table also indicates the importance of parks and f a c i l i t i e s to g e n t r i f i e r s . Table 5.25 indicates that s i g n i f i c a n t l y more g e n t r i f i e r s than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents are not s a t i s f i e d with the street conditions. Table 5.26 displays the range and frequency of street improvements which the respondents feel are necessary. These results c l e a r l y indicate an area where the g e n t r i f i e r s 93 Table 5.23 Other Areas that the Respondents Have Considered Moving To COUNT ROW % W.SIDE E.SIDE SUBURBS BURNABY N.SHORE KITSILANO GENTRIFIER TRAOITIONAL RESIDENT COLUMN TOTAL 10 7 1 4 33.3 23 3 I 3 3 13.3 5 1 I 3 6 31 .3 6 3 I 18 8 37.5 15 8 4 10 32.6 17 4 8 7 21.7 ROW TOTAL 2 6 30 6 7 20 0 I 65.2 1 0 I 1 6 6 3 0 0 | 34.8 3 6 46 6 5 13 0 100.0 PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONSES 41' VALID CASES 41 MISSING CASES Table 5.24  Most Used Reasons When Considering Other Neighbourhoods For Residence Reason G e n t r i f i e r T r a d i t i o n a l Resident Aesthetics 7 1 Services/parks 6 2 Similar People 5 2 Affordable 5 2 Central Location 5 2 Familiar Area 5 1 Interesting area/ City L i f e 4 0 Better House/Lot 0 6 Other 1_0 U Total Responses 47 26 Aesthetics= Local architecture and views. Table 5.25 Satis f a c t i o n With Street Conditions COUNT ROW % SATI S- NOT SAT ROW FIED ISFIED I I TOTAL 23 I 1 8 I 41 GENTRIFIER 56 . 1 I 43.9 I 50.0 38 I 3 I 41 TRADITIONAL RES. 92 .7 I 7.3 I 50.0 COLUMN 61 21 82 TOTAL 74 .4 25.6 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 12.54645 14.40281 1 1 0.0004 0.0001 10.500 NONE ( BEFORE YATES CORRECTION ) TABLE 5.26 NECESSARY STREET IMPROVEMENTS TREE MORE STREET REMOVE PHONE ROW WIRES TOTAL TRADITIONAL RESIDENTS N=3 GENTRIFIERS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 4 2 7 2 3 23 97 w i l l be more d e m a n d i n g f o r i m p r o v e m e n t s t h a n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s . The r a n g e a nd f r e q u e n c y o f s t r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e g e n t r i f i e r s demand s t r e e t s w h i c h a r e i n good p h y s i c a l a n d g o o d a e s t h e t i c c o n d i t i o n . A n o t h e r a r e a where a t t i t u d e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t b e t w e e n t h e p o p u l a t i o n s c o n c e r n s t r a f f i c v o l u m e s . The p e r c e p t i o n t h a t t r a f f i c v o l u m e s a r e e i t h e r t o o h e a v y o r much t o o h e a v y i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e g e n t r i f i e r s . T h e r e i s even a d i f f e r e n c e , t h o u g h n o t a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t o n e , b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p s i n how i m p o r t a n t t h e y f e e l c h a n g e s i n t r a f f i c v o l u m e s a r e . T a b l e 5.27 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e o f g e n t r i f i e r s b e l i e v e t h a t c h a n g e s a r e v e r y i m p o r t a n t c o m p a r e d t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s . T r a f f i c v o l u m e s , t h e n , a r e a n o t h e r a r e a where g e n t r i f i e r s may i n c r e a s e demands on c i t y r e s o u r c e s i n o r d e r t o c r e a t e a more a m e n a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t . The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t s t h e s u b - h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e a r e some m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e g e n t r i f i e r s ' a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s a n d a s p i r a t i o n s f o r G r a n d v i e w - W o o d l a n d s . T h e r e i s c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e g e n t r i f i e r s v a l u e s o c i a l a n d e t h n i c d i v e r s i t y , t h e u r b a n l i f e s t y l e , n e i g h b o u r h o o d l i v a b i l i t y , n e i g h b o u r h o o d s e r v i c e s a n d p a r k s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h a n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s d o. F u r t h e r , t h o u g h t h e g e n t r i f i e r s a r e q u i t e s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e a r e a , t h e y may have d e s i r e s t o i n c r e a s e t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e a f f o r d e d by i t . T h r e e a r e a s i n w h i c h t h e g e n t r i f i e r s may demand i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e t h e amount o f p a r k s p a c e , t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e s t r e e t s , a n d t h e t r a f f i c v o l u m e s . I t i s c l e a r , t h e n , t h a t t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t i t u d i n a l a n d v a l u e 98 Table 5.27 Perceived Importance of T r a f f i c Volume Change COUNT ROW % VERY IMPORT. SO-SO ROW IMPORT. TOTAL I I I + + + GENTRIFIER + COLUMN 16 2 1 I 1 9 84 .2 10 5 3 | 73 . 1 4 2 I 1 I 7 5 7 . 1 28 6 I 14 3 | 2 6 . 9 20 4 2 26 7 6 . 9 15 4 7 7 100.0 CHI-SQUARE D . F . SIGNIFICANCE MIN E . F . CELLS WITH E . F . < 5 2 .11128 2 0 .3480 0 .538 4 OF 6 ( 66.7%) 99 differences between the populations; therefore, the f i r s t sub-hypothesis may also be accepted. Furthermore, there is evidence in the l i t e r a t u r e that the g e n t r i f i e r s generally have a high valuation of neighbourhood amenities (Ley, 1981; Clay, 1979; Lang, 1982; Cybriwsky, 1982). The g e n t r i f i e r s could be seen as having an 'amenity ethic' which includes not only positive valuations towards good parks and recreational f a c i l i t i e s but also aesthetic street conditions and reasonable t r a f f i c volumes. 5.4 Behaviour Variables; Leisure A c t i v i t i e s and Service Usage This section tests the second sub-hypothesis that each population has s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t behavioral patterns in terms of l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s and neighbourhood based public service usage. The top 12 leisure a c t i v i t i e s are l i s t e d in table 5.28, and they represent 76% of the responses within a l l of the mentioned a c t i v i t i e s . The remaining 24% of responses were dist r i b u t e d among 15 other categories and, thus, had very low frequencies. The interview question which s o l i c i t e d these data was open ended so the respondents could mention any form of l e i s u r e a c t i v i t y which they engaged i n . One s t r i k i n g feature of the results i s that there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference in ten of the twelve categories. A second and equally remarkable feature i s that the g e n t r i f i e r s are more active in seven of the ten categories. The only a c t i v i t y categories in which the t r a d i t i o n a l residents s i g n i f i c a n t l y outnumber the g e n t r i f i e r s are domestic c r a f t s , watching t e l e v i s i o n , and home hobbies. These a c t i v i t i e s are notably private and homebased, and, thus, suggest that the t r a d i t i o n a l residents pose less demand for public services. Given the g e n t r i f i e r s ' high TABLE 5.28 LEISURE ACTIVITIES SOCIALIZE OUTDOOR INDOOR PLAYS HOME FAMILY DOMESTIC % ENTERTAIN SPORTS FITNESS SPORTS WALKS MOVIES HOBBIES ACTIVITY CRAFTS MUSIC T.V. READ RESPONSI G 2M 26 43 10 26 42 5 21 7 24 6 52 A 6.4 6.9 11.4 2.7 6.9 11.1 1.3 5.6 1.9 6.4 1.6 13.8 76 B 31.6 34.2 56.6 13 34.2 55.3 6.7 27.6 9.2 31.6 7.9 38.4 T.R. 15 5 20 12 20 5 19 11 17 3 47 22 A 6 2 8 4.8 8 2 7.6 4.4 6.8 1.2 18.8 8.8 78.4 B 19.7 6.7 26.3 15.8 26.3 6.7 25 14.5 22.4 4 61.8 28.9 SIG. .001 .001 .001 X X .001 .005 .1 .1 .001 .001 .001 LEVEL G = GENTRIFIER N = 82 T.R. = TRADITIONAL RESIDENT N = 82 A = % OF RESPONSES B = % OF RESPONDENTS IN CATEGORY 101 p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates in the other categories, i t i s not surprising that the majority do not watch t e l e v i s i o n as a lei s u r e a c t i v i t y . Another implication of these data, i . e . , that the g e n t r i f i e r s ' have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate in the outdoor sports and f i t n e s s categories, i s that they may generate higher demands than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents for neighbourhood based recreation f a c i l i t i e s and grounds. Lastly, the t r a d i t i o n a l residents seem to be more home oriented in their l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s . Indeed, the a c t i v i t y categories in which they outnumbered the g e n t r i f i e r s are home-based. This suggests that the t r a d i t i o n a l residents are more se l f s u f f i c i e n t and, therefore, present less demand for neighbourhood public services than do the g e n t r i f i e r s . As mentioned in the demographic section, there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t age difference between the g e n t r i f i e r s and the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. This means, then, that any a t t i t u d i n a l or behavioural data may be more a function of age than other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c components of g e n t r i f i e r s , such as education, occupation, and income; therefore, to accept the research sub-hypothesis, i t is necessary to look at the populations' leisure patterns and use of neighbourhood based public services while c o n t r o l l i n g for age. This was done by creating a new data set in which the respondents' ages matched. Tables 5.29 and 5.30 display the males' and females' ages. Although the sample size of the age controlled data set i s quite small, i t i s deemed to be acceptable for i t s purposes—that i s , i t is being used for exploratory purposes and to detect any potential major ef f e c t s created by age. 102 Table 5.29  Males' Age Distr i b u t i o n for Age Controlled Sample C O U N T ROW % 2 6 - 3 0 3 1 - 3 5 3 6 - 4 0 4 1 - 4 5 4 6 - 5 5 G E N T R I F I E R 1 6 . 3 1 T R A D I T I O N A L R E S . | 6 . 3 + C O L U M N 2 T O T A L 6 . 3 4 2 5 . 0 3 1 8 . 8 7 2 1 . 9 6 3 7 . 5 3 1 8 . 8 7 4 3 . 8 2 1 2 . 5 1 3 4 0 . 6 5 1 5 . 6 2 1 2 . 5 2 1 2 . 5 4 1 2 . 5 5 6 - 6 5 ROW T O T A L 8 | + 1 6 5 0 . 0 1 1 6 6 . 3 I 5 0 . 0 + 1 3 2 3 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 C H I - S O U A R E D . F . 1 . 4 1 9 7 8 5 S I G N I F I C A N C E 0 . 9 2 2 1 M I N E . F . C E L L S W I T H E . F . < 5 0 . 5 0 0 1 0 O F 1 2 ( 8 3 . 3 % ) Table 5.30  Females' Age Di s t r i b u t i o n for Age Controlled Sample C O U N T ROW % 2 6 - 3 0 3 1 - 3 5 3 6 - 4 0 4 1 - 4 5 4 6 - 5 5 I I I I G E N T R I F I E R T R A D I T I O N A L R E S . C O L U M N ROW T O T A L 4 2 6 I 3 3 1 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 . 3 | 1 6 7 I 1 6 7 | 5 1 . 4 3 3 6 I 3 I 2 I 1 7 1 7 6 1 7 6 3 5 . 3 | 1 7 6 I 1 1 8 | 4 8 . 6 7 5 1 2 6 5 3 5 2 0 O 1 4 3 3 4 . 3 1 7 1 1 4 3 1 0 0 . 0 C H I - S O U A R E D . F . O . 5 1 4 7 1 4 S I G N I F I C A N C E 0 . 9 7 2 1 M I N E . F . 2 . 4 2 9 C E L L S W I T H E . F . < 5 8 O F 1 0 ( 8 0 . 0 % ) 103 Table 5.31 displays the leisure a c t i v i t y patterns for the age-controlled sample. For the most part, these results are very similar to those of the larger sample. The major difference i s that there are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences in seven instead of. ten a c t i v i t y categories. This, however, i s not t o t a l l y unexpected, since the sample size was reduced by more than ha l f . It i s more d i f f i c u l t to determine s i g n i f i c a n t differences with small sample sizes. Also, two of the three categories which are not s i g n i f i c a n t in the age controlled data were s i g n i f i c a n t only at the 90% le v e l in the larger sample. One important point is that the direction'of frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s remained the same in the categories which remained s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in the age controlled data. Therefore, at least in terms of leis u r e a c t i v i t y patterns, the age difference between the populations i s not an important factor. Put s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t l y , g e n t r i f i e r s have l i f e s t y l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of t r a d i t i o n a l inner-city residents. There are also some major differences between the populations' areal scope of leis u r e a c t i v i t i e s . Table 5.32 indicates the location of each a c t i v i t y mentioned by each respondent. Because each respondent was permitted to ide n t i f y more than one a c t i v i t y , some of the frequencies exceed the sample size (41). These data concur with the e a r l i e r assertion that the t r a d i t i o n a l residents engage in most of their leisure a c t i v i t i e s at home. The further they move from their home, the fewer lei s u r e a c t i v i t i e s they engage i n . These figures, however, do not necessarily measure the time spent in each location and TABLE 5.31 LEISURE ACTIVITIES FOR AGE CONTROLLED SAMPLE SOCIALIZE OUTDOOR INDOOR PLAYS HOME FAMILY DOMESTIC % ENTERTAIN SPORTS FITNESS SPORTS WALKS MOVIES HOBBIES ACTIVITY CRAFTS MUSIC T.V. READ RESPOND G 13 16 18 5 10 19 2 8 2 14 6 26 A 7.5 9.2 10.4 2.9 5.8. 11 1.2 4.6 1.2 8.1 3.5 15 84.4 B 38.2 47 52.9 14.7 29 55.9 5.9 23.5 5.9 41.2 177 76.5 T.R. 4 3 12 8 9 4 3 9 4 3 24 9 A 3.4 2.6 10.3 6.8 7.7 3.4 2.6 7.7 3.4 2.6 20.5 7.7 78.7 B 12.1 9.1 36.4 24.2 27.3 12.1 9.1 27.3 12.1 9.1 72.7 9.1 SIG. .05 .05 .05 X X .001 X X X .01 .001 .001 LEVEL G = GENTRIFIER N = 34 T.R. = TRADITIONAL RESIDENT N = 33 A = % OF RESPONSES B = $ OF RESPONDENTS IN CATEGORY Table 5.32  Areal Scope of Leisure A c t i v i t i e s Area G e n t r i f i e r s Male Female Tra d i t i o n a l Residents Male Female Home 57 55 56 70 Neighbourhood 47 58 23 23 Other Homes .7 City 57 48 15 12 Regional 20 18 n=41 n=41 1 06 a c t i v i t y . In stark contrast to the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, the g e n t r i f i e r s engage in large and comparable numbers of a c t i v i t i e s in their homes, their neighbourhood, and the c i t y area. Also, they p a r t i c i p a t e in a greater number of a c t i v i t i e s . It i s somewhat surprising that the g e n t r i f i e r s engage in more neighbourhood based a c t i v i t i e s than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. This suggests that they may well generate r e l a t i v e l y more demand for neighbourhood based services. The entertaining and v i s i t i n g patterns also vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the populations ( s i g n i f i c a n t at the .002 l e v e l ) . Where 100% of the g e n t r i f i e r s said that they entertain and v i s i t friends, only 75.6% of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents reported to v i s i t and entertain friends. The g e n t r i f i e r s more often v i s i t friends in Vancouver's West Side and the North Shore—two of the region's higher socio-economic status areas. In contrast, the t r a d i t i o n a l residents more often v i s i t friends in Burnaby and other suburban areas in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (see table 5.33). Interestingly, Grandview-Woodlands ('this area') was mentioned most often as the area which the g e n t r i f i e r s most often v i s i t e d friends i n . This, though, i s not so surprising when one considers that 32% of the g e n t r i f i e r s mentioned having friends in the neighbourhood as a positi v e a t t r i b u t e (see table 5.19). Table 5.34 displays the mean number of times an average household in each population uses each type of neighbourhood based public service in a t y p i c a l month. The interview question required the respondent to report the average number of times each member of the household used each service in a t y p i c a l Table 5.33  Areas in Which Friends Are Most Often V i s i t e d COUNT THIS E . END W. END W. SIDE BURNABY N. SHORE RICHMOND OTHER ROW % AREA G . V . R . D . ROW TOTAL I I I I I I I I + + + + + + + + 53 I 23 I 6 I 45 I 3 I 14 I 0 I 5 J 149 GENTRIFIER | 35 .6 | 15.4 | 4 . 0 | 30.2 | 2 . 0 | 9 .4 | 0 . 0 | 3 .4 j 56 .2 + + + + + + _ + + + I 42 I 1 4 I 5 I 1 0 I 1 8 I 5 I 4 I 18 I 116 TRADITIONAL RESIDENT | 36 .2 | 12.1 | 4 . 3 | 8 .6 | 15.5 | 4 . 3 | 3 .4 | 15.5 j 43 .8 + + + + + + + + + COLUMN 95 37 11 55 21 19 4 23 265 TOTAL 35 .8 14.0 4 .2 20.8 7 .9 7 .2 1.5 8 .7 100.0 PERCENTS AND TOTALS BASED ON RESPONSES 72 VALID CASES 10 MISSING CASES o ^1 TABLE 5.34  NEIGHBOURHOOD PUBLIC SERVICE USAGE 108 SERVICE XMONTHLY USAGE SIGNIFICANCE DEMAND FAMILY CENTRE G. T.R. A.C.G. A.C.T.R. 3.90 0 2.61 0 .005 . 103 UP PARKS G. T.R. A.C.G. A.C.T.R. 23.43 14.77 20.28 13.55 .005 .356 UP TENNIS G. 2.46 .10 UP COURTS T.R. 1.00 A.C.G. 2.78 .403 A.C.T.R. 1.50 RACQUET G. .59 .04 UP COURTS T.R. .05 A.C.G. .39 -34 A.C.T.R. .06 COMMUNITY G. 2.32 .109 UP CENTRE T.R. 0.90 A.C.G. 2.17 .822 A.C.T.R. 1.78 PUBLIC HEALTH G. .37 .008 UP CLINIC T.R. .02 A.C.G. .33 .192 A.C.T.R. .06 ETHNIC G. .22 .13 DOWN CENTRE T.R. .80 A.C.G. .0 .078 A.C.T.R. 1.28 LIBRARY G. 3.02 .509 SAME T.R. 3.76 A.C.G. 3.39 .289 A.C.T.R. 5.50 TABLE 5.34 (CONT.) SWIMMING G. 6.51 .35 SAME POOL T.R. 5.07 A.C.G. 6.1 .74 A.C.T.R. 7.0 SKATING RINK G. T.R. A.C.G. A.C.T.R. .98 .68 .83 .83 .478 1.0 SAME GYMNASIUM G. T.R. A.C.G. A.C.T.R. 2.29 1.17 2.56 .83 ,241 .279 SAME CULTURAL CENTRE G. T.R. A.C.G. A.C.T.R. .12 .0 .11 .0 ,164 ,324 SAME N = 82 G = GENTRIFIER T.R. = TRADITIONAL RESIDENT A.C.G. - AGE CONTROLLED GENTRIFIER SAMPLE A.C.T.R. - AGE CONTROLLED TRADITIONAL RESIDENT SAMPLE 110 month during both the summer and the winter. This provided a household usage rate for each service. The summer and winter monthly averages were then added together and divided by two in order to produce a monthly average. The mean monthly average was then calculated for each population and a T-Test was used to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the means. The same tests were also run using the age controlled data set in order to determine the eff e c t of age on public service usage. It needs to be pointed out, however, that because the age controlled sample i s so small—16 men and 18 women in each sample—it i s much more d i f f i c u l t to detect s i g n i f i c a n t differences. Twelve of the seventeen neighbourhood services used in the questionnaire are l i s t e d in table 5.34. Four are not included because they were not used on a monthly basis by any of the respondents. These were the daycare f a c i l i t i e s , the teen drop-in centre, the consumer help o f f i c e , and the immigrant resources of f i c e . The f i r s t - p o i n t to be made from table 5.34 i s that there are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t use rates of public services by the populations in seven of the twelve l i s t e d public service types (the family centre, parks, tennis courts, racquet courts, community centre, public health c l i n i c , and ethnic centre). At f i r s t glance, age appears to be a factor in five of the seven services with s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t use rates. Only in two services i s age c l e a r l y not a factor. However, i f one considers the ef f e c t created by the small sample size and then re-examines the r e s u l t s , age may not be such an important factor. 111 S p e c i f i c a l l y , i f one compares the difference in means in those services where c o n t r o l l i n g for age has turned a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the populations use rates into an i n s i g n i f i c a n t difference, one could reasonably hypothesize that the s h i f t from significance to insignificance may be more a function of the small sample size than age. In a l l of the cases which became i n s i g n i f i c a n t when age was controlled for, the difference between each population's mean usage rate was similar to the uncontrolled sample. Furthermore, the age controlled sample's l e i s u r e a c t i v i t y patterns do indeed indicate s t a t i s t i c a l l y that age i s not a primary factor responsible for differences between the l i f e s t y l e p r o f i l e s of the groups. In terms of s t r i c t s t a t i s t i c a l inference, though, i t i s not possible to say that age i s not an important factor in public service demand. However, given the small sample siz e , the pattern of the means, the differences in attitudes towards neighbourhood public services, and the differences in leisure a c t i v i t y patterns, the data have considerable prima facie p l a u s i b i l i t y that age i s not a primary factor responsible for the differences between the public service demands of the groups. Future research should involve larger sample sizes so that s t a t i s t i c a l significance i s easier to determine. Another point i s that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the populations' use of fi v e of the twelve public services (the l i b r a r y , swimming pool, skating rink, gymnasium, c u l t u r a l centre). This means that the use rates of these services may be maintained as g e n t r i f i c a t i o n continues. There w i l l be, however, an increasing demand for six 112 services ( the family centre, parks, tennis courts, racquet courts, community centre, and the public health c l i n i c ) and a decreasing demand for only the ethnic centre. Perhaps one of the most costly new demands presented by the g e n t r i f i e r s i s the high demand for park space. The higher demands for racquet sport f a c i l i t i e s , a family centre, and public health c l i n i c may also cost the c i t y a considerable amount. Several respondents said that they did not use a service as much as once a month, but they did use i t when needed. Table 5.35 displays these results and they concur with the data in table 5.34. The g e n t r i f i e r s use the services much more than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents and would, therefore, present a greater demand for them. At present there i s a remarkable degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the populations' o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n with the services they use (see table 5.36). This may be because the g e n t r i f i e r s compose such a small proportion of the neighbourhood's population that their r e l a t i v e l y higher demands and use of public services has not yet placed a burden on the services; however, as the g e n t r i f i e r population increases, the services w i l l inevitably become overburdened and s a t i s f a c t i o n with them w i l l l i k e l y decrease. There are, though, s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups in how important they consider the neighbourhood public services which they use. Sixty-one percent of the g e n t r i f i e r s compared to only 18.4% of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents consider the public services which they use to be very important to their households. Conversely, 44.7% of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents Table 5.35  Service Used Occasionally But Less Than Once a Month Health Community Family % Responses C l i n i c Centre Centre  G e n t r i f i e r 11 5 4 83% Trad. Res. 6 1 0 70% TABLE 5.36 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES USED COUNT ROW % EXCEL. GOOD SATISF. POOR. V.POOR GENTRIFIERS \ 43 83 | 51 10 2 i 1 22.8 43.9 | 27.0 5.3 1.0 TRADITIONAL 27 69 35 5 0 RESIDENTS i 19.9 50.7 j 25.7 3.7 0.0 325 Percentages and t o t a l s based on responses. 78 v a l i d cases. 4 mi s s i n g cases. 1 15 compared to 9.7% of the g e n t r i f i e r s consider the public services to be just nice to have or not important. Clearly the g e n t r i f i e r s are motivated to demand the services they want and use, and their attitudes are much more demanding than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents'. Table 5.37 tabulates the r e s u l t s of a question which asked the respondents which three services were most important to their household. This provides an indication of which services w i l l be the most demanded by the g e n t r i f i e r s . The table l i s t s the top eight of the f i f t e e n types of services mentioned and these eight constitute 87 to 89.6% of the responses. If t h i s table is viewed in conjunction with table 5.34, one w i l l see that the g e n t r i f i e r s demand s i g n i f i c a n t l y more of parks and family centre services. Also, though the g e n t r i f i e r s ' higher demand for community centre and health c l i n i c f a c i l i t i e s may not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in s t a t i s t i c a l terms, i t may pose a p r a c t i c a l difference; for example, 50% more g e n t r i f i e r s than t r a d i t i o n a l residents f e e l that the public health c l i n i c i s a most important service. The respondents were also asked what new neighbourhood services they f e l t were needed. Table 5.38 l i s t s the g e n t r i f i e r s ' top three of 14 answers and these composed 69% of the t o t a l responses within a l l the categories. About 20% of the g e n t r i f i e r s f e l t that the Burrard Inlet waterfront, situated on the neighbourhood's northern boundary, should be made accessible to the public as a park. Four g e n t r i f i e r s said that the family place centre i s a needed new centre. During the time in which the interviews were conducted, the family place centre was T a b l e 5.37 F a c i l i t y Most Important F a c i l i t y G e n t r i f i e r s T r a d . R e s i d e n t S i q . L e v e l P a r k s 29 19 .05 P o o l s 24 24 X L i b r a r y 20 23 X Community C e n t r e 1 1 7 X H e a l t h C l i n i c 8 4 X F a m i l y C e n t r e 6 0 . 1 T e n n i s C o u r t s 5 3 X Gymnasium — 3 5 X % Responses 87% 89.6% Table 5.38  Needed New Services Better Beach Family % Responses Parks Park Place . G e n t r i f i e r 8 Trad.Res. 0 8 1 4 0 69% 20% 118 supposed to have lost i t s funding. About 25% of the g e n t r i f i e r s communicated th e i r displeasure with that eventuality, and, in contrast, none of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents mentioned i t . As the g e n t r i f i e r population increases, there w i l l l i k e l y be more demand for such a f a c i l i t y . It i s also quite revealing that very few services were considered to be necessary by the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. Their demand i s c l e a r l y less than the g e n t r i f i e r s . The g e n t r i f i e r s ' views on the importance of neighbourhood public services and on the need for new services strongly support the contention that they have an amenity e t h i c . Furthermore, the variety of services which the g e n t r i f i e r s use and demand support Allen's (1980) contention that g e n t r i f i e r s are dedicated to a v i t a l stimulating inner-city l i f e s t y l e . The l a s t aspect of l o c a l public service provision to be examined i s the educational f a c i l i t i e s for the respondents' children. Those respondents with children were asked which schools their children attend, and t h e i r answers are grouped under the headings in table 5.39. The majority of children from both populations attend l o c a l public schools. Therefore,, the g e n t r i f i e r s w i l l l i k e l y help maintain the demand for l o c a l public schools. The data examined in t h i s section strongly support the central hypothesis that there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the populations' liesure a c t i v i t i e s and public service usage. Also, although i t is not possible, in terms of s t r i c t s t a t i s t i c a l inference, to accept the sub-hypothesis that differences between each group's use of public services i s strongly associated with the g e n t r i f i e r s ' demographic 119 Table 5.39  Type of School C h i l d r e n Attend COUNT ROW % LOCAL NON-LOC. PRIVATE ROW PUBLIC PUBLIC TOTAL I I I + + + 10 I 1 I I 11 GENTRIFIER | 90.9 | 9.1 | | 36.7 + + + + I 18 I I 1 I 19 TRADITIONAL RES. | 94.7 | | 5.3 | 63.3 + + + + COLUMN 28 1 1 30 TOTAL 93.3 3.3 3.3 100.0 CHI-SOUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE MIN E.F. CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 2.31716 2 0.3139 0.367 4 OF 6 ( 66.7%) 120 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s other than just age, there i s strong evidence that public service usage i s indeed correlated with those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The g e n t r i f i e r s are generally much more active and engage in similar numbers of l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s in their home, their neighbourhood, and throughout the c i t y . In contrast, the t r a d i t i o n a l residents are much more home oriented during their l e i s u r e time. Surprisingly, they make less use of the neighbourhood for leisure than do the g e n t r i f i e r s . This tendency for the g e n t r i f i e r s to be more active extends to the i r use of neighbourhood public services. The g e n t r i f i e r s maintain ex i s t i n g usage rates in five service types (the l i b r a r y , swimming pool, skating rink, gymnasium, and c u l t u r a l centre), they s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase the rates in seven services (parks, tennis courts, racquet courts, family centre, public health c l i n i c , community centre, and public schools), and the decrease the rate in only the ethnic centre. 121 Conclusion and Implications Although g e n t r i f i c a t i o n has been a t o p i c a l subject during the past decade, the l i t e r a t u r e concerning i t s processes and consequences in not well developed. In response to this deficiency, t h i s thesis set out to explore one central empirical question: do g e n t r i f i e r s have neighbourhood based public service demands which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of t r a d i t i o n a l inner c i t y residents? The only empirical work u n t i l now which has addressed t h i s question was Laska and Spain's 1980 study of twelve gentrifying inner c i t y neighbourhoods in New Orleans. They found that the g e n t r i f i e r s do not pose major new demands, but rather add support to the demand of c i t y residents. Laska and Spain's research design, however, did not permit them to compare demands between g e n t r i f i e r s and t r a d i t i o n a l inner c i t y residents. Instead of comparing the g e n t r i f i e r s ' demands with those of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, they compared them to a c i t y wide and a nation wide sample of urbanites. Hence, they could not determine differences in inner c i t y public service demand. This study has succeeded, then, where Laska and Spain's f a i l e d , in developing a replicable methodology for determining the effect of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n on inner c i t y neighbourhood based public service demand. Moreover, i t has found that Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s have public service demands which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the area's t r a d i t i o n a l residents. In addition to answering the central empirical question, two sub-questions about the relationships between the variables involved in public service demand were also answered. Also, the 1 22 demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Grandview Woodlsnd g e n t r i f i e r s are very similar to those of the g e n t r i f i e r s described in the l i t e r a t u r e . Education and professional statuses and their household income levels are s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those of the t r a d i t i o n a l inner c i t y residents. The g e n t r i f i e r s are a younger population and s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer of them perceive that they belong to an ethnic group. Although s i g n i f i c a n t l y more of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents have children (88%), a large percentage of the g e n t r i f i e r s (63%) also have children. Because the g e n t r i f i e r s are a younger population, and because most of them are just beginning to sta r t families, i t i s l i k e l y that the number of g e n t r i f i e r s with families w i l l grow. This finding i s contrary to the stereotype evident in the l i t e r a t u r e , that g e n t r i f i e r s are mostly c h i l d l e s s couples or singles. However, i t i s l i k e l y that g e n t r i f i e r s were mostly c h i l d l e s s when the stereotype was constructed, for the young professional urbanites seem to have been postponing having fam i l i e s . This research occurred when the 'b i o l o g i c a l clock' caught up with the g e n t r i f i e r s , that i s to say, i f the g e n t r i f i e r s wanted to have children, they would have to have them before they became to old to have them safely. It would be interesting in future research to see i f the g e n t r i f i e r s are more l i k e l y to move in to inner c i t y neighbourhoods before they start a family. Perhaps they f e l t that they would not s t a r t one u n t i l they were certain that the neighbourhood was acceptable to raise children i n . Another stereotype which does not apply to Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s is that there are many singles in t h i s 1 23 population. The proportion of singles, only 15%, i s i d e n t i c a l to that of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. The f i r s t sub-question — d o the two populations have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t cognitive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? - - i s answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y . There are major differences in p o s i t i v e and negative perceptions of the neighbourhood. The greater importance of the area's amenity package (parks and recreational f a c i l i t i e s ) to the g e n t r i f i e r s i s a recurrent theme throughout the research r e s u l t s . Other research (Ley, 1981; Clay, 1979; Gans, 1977) has also c i t e d the desire for a high amenity environment as being c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of g e n t r i f i e r s . Included within their desire for neighbourhood amenity i s the greater importance of good street and t r a f f i c conditions. Although the g e n t r i f i e r s are more c r i t i c a l of the neighbourhood than are the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, they are just as s a t i s f i e d . This implies that they w i l l l i k e l y remain in the neighbourhood and become a force for improving the area's amenities. Further evidence that the d i f f e r e n t attitudes of g e n t r i f i e r s towards the•neighbourhood are a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l i f e s t y l e t r a i t i s that they used similar types of elements, such as parks, shops, and services, to evaluate other neighbourhoods for residence. The connection between the two groups' demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the f i r s t sub-question i s more than simply a c o r r e l a t i o n . F i r s t , the culture of consumption which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the middle and upper middle-class i n post i n d u s t r i a l society may have been responsible for the young professionals' growing aversion to the homogeneity and perceived s t e r i l i t y of suburban l i f e s t y l e s , and, therefore, may have led them to seek a more v i t a l , amenity-oriented urban l i f e s t y l e . Second, Allen (1.980) has suggested that the g e n t r i f i e r s ' preferences and attitudes towards the v i t a l inner-city neighbourhood were inculcated in young people during the 1960's in college and by the mass media. The result of the new values and preferences i s a new set of attitudes towards and desires for the inner-city neighbourhood. The second sub-question-- are there s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t patterns of le i s u r e behaviour and neighbourhood public service usage between the g e n t r i f i e r s and the t r a d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s ? — is also answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y . There are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two populations in ten of their twelve most common lei s u r e a c t i v i t i e s , and the g e n t r i f i e r s were more active in seven of the ten a c t i v i t i e s . Furthermore, the g e n t r i f i e r s were more active in recreational and fitness a c t i v i t i e s , whereas the t r a d i t i o n a l residents engaged in more passive home-based a c t i v i t i e s such as watching T.V., domestic c r a f t s , and home hobbies. The g e n t r i f i e r s ' pattern of recreational and fit n e s s a c t i v i t i e s establishes a di r e c t connection to their attitudes toward the area's amenities; therefore, i t i s f a i r to conclude that there i s a l i n e of causation between the g e n t r i f i e r s ' demographic, cognitive, and behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s i c s . The use of and demand for neighbourhood public services also r e f l e c t s the g e n t r i f i e r s ' preferences for amenities and recreational services. They have a greater demand than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents not only for amenities such as parks, 125 beaches, tennis courts, racquet courts, and good street and t r a f f i c conditions, but also for services l i k e family centres, community centres and public health c l i n i c s . These results contrast sharply with Laska and Spain's (1980), which indicated that the g e n t r i f i e r s do not pose new demands for municipal services; however, as suggested e a r l i e r , their conclusion i s l i k e l y erroneous and due to a fault in their sampling design. In addition to an increased demand for the above services, the g e n t r i f i e r s maintained existing demand for the l i b r a r y , swimming pool, skating rink, gymnasium, public schools, and c u l t u r a l centre. The only service for which the g e n t r i f i e r s had less demand was the ethnic centre. Not surprising as few of them perceived themselves as belonging to an ethnic group. It should be noted that the ethnic centre may serve as a community centre for the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, but t h i s , however, is unknowable because of the methodology employed in thi s study. This could be an interesting problem to address in future research. It seems l i k e l y that the g e n t r i f i e r s w i l l be more ef f e c t i v e than would the t r a d i t i o n a l residents in r e a l i z i n g their greater demands. Laska and Spain (1980), for example, found the g e n t r i f i e r s to be a much more proactive group, and the data in this study indicate that the services are very important to the g e n t r i f i e r s — much more so than to the t r a d i t i o n a l residents. Sixty one percent of the g e n t r i f i e r s compared to only 18% of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents consider the public services which they use to be very important to their households. In addition to thei r additudinal motivation, they are also much more a r t i c u l a t e and therefore able to lobby for their demands more e f f e c t i v e l y ; 1 26 for example, the Grandview Woodland Area T r a f f i c Committee's member composition according to one of i t s members, Sandra O'Rielly, i s 70% g e n t r i f i e r . Considering that the 1981 Canadian Census reported that only 13.6% of Grandview V i c t o r i a ' s residents have professional occupations and only 13% have some university education, the g e n t r i f i e r s are grossly overrepresented on the committee. This provides some indication of the g e n t r i f i e r s ' proactive nature and desire to improve neighbourhood l i v e a b i l i t y . The committee has so far succeeded in having the t r a f f i c committee of the c i t y council pass a preliminary t r a f f i c plan d r a f t . The plan must now be subjected to further public input before i t can be accepted as a f i n a l d r a f t . The a b i l i t y to generalize from t h i s single case study i s strengthened considerably by supporting data evident in the l i t e r a t u r e ; for example, Ley (1981) found a similar concern and demand for environmental amenity in his study of Vancouver's K i t s i l a n o neighbourhood. Clay (1979) and Weiler (as quoted in Laska and Spain, 1980) have also suggested that the g e n t r i f i e r s may demand c o s t l y public service improvements, such as parks, community centres, and public health c l i n i c s . Furthermore, a number of writers ( G o l d f i e l d , 1980; Lang, 1982; Cybriwsky, 1982), have indicated the importance of urban amenity, h i s t o r i c a l character, and good ambience to the g e n t r i f i e r s . Therefore, there seems to be a good chance that the pattern of demand in Grandview Woodland by g e n t r i f i e r s may be similar to that of g e n t r i f i e r s in other neighbourhoods and in American and other Canadian c i t i e s . However, generalization i s speculative 127 u n t i l further case studies are conducted. In addition to answering the research questions, several other tangential findings are indicated. F i r s t , the position that g e n r i f i c a t i o n i s a stay-in-the-city movement i s supported by t h i s research. Sixty six percent of the g e n t r i f i e r s ' l a s t residences were within Vancouver c i t y , and only 12% came from a rural or suburban location. It i s also interesting that several of the g e n t r i f i e r s came from K i t s i l a n o , a previously g e n t r i f i e d neighbourhood in Vancouver. Second, Pattison's (1983) four stage model of the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n process does not apply well to Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s , for their attitudes towards the area are ch a r a c t e r i s t i c of three out of four of his stages. This may be because Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s are not t y p i c a l or that the g e n t r i f i e r s from Bay V i l l a g e which Pattison used to construct his model are not ty p i c a l of other g e n t r i f i e r s . Because Pattison only used one case study to construct his model, i t i s l i k e l y that there w i l l be variations in other areas such as Grandview. Clearly several other case studies are needed to develop a r e l i a b l e model of the process. Third, i t appears that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s driven by a combination of several factors. Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s , for example, c i t e d things such as housing cost, neighbourhood location, amenities, and neighbourhood ambience as reasons why they choose the neighbourhood to l i v e i n . This stands in stark contrast with much the l i t e r a t u r e which focusses on only one or two factors as being causes of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Fourth, speculation that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may be a temporary 128 and, thus, r e l a t i v e l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t urban process i s not supported by th i s research. Because anticipated r e s i d e n t i a l mobility i s low, g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may be a stable and not a temporary phenomenon. Lastly, the humanistic research orientation has proven to be e f f e c t i v e and valuable. Values and attitudes have been shown to be not epiphenomenal, but ef f e c t u a l factors which influence the g e n t r i f i e r s ' behaviour. The importance of the g e n t r i f i e r s ' values i s attested by the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n of higher amenity inner-city neighbourhoods in Vancouver before Grandview Woodland. Furthermore, the c e n t r a l i t y of the g e n t r i f i e r s ' 'amenity ethic' i s expressed in the i r desire to convert the waterfront along Burrard Inlet into a beach and park, and to improve the area's t r a f f i c problem. Several s i g n i f i c a n t planning implications arise from these r e s u l t s . F i r s t , planners should be aware that there i s a good chance that g e n t r i f i e r s w i l l generate new and increased demands for neighbourhood based public services in inner-city neighbourhoods, and they w i l l l i k e l y maintain the demand for other non-ethnic oriented services. Such knowledge may help planners be better prepared for the changes in demand when they occur. Second, in order to minimize the f i n a n c i a l cost of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n to the c i t y , planners may consider attempting means of d i r e c t i n g g e n t r i f i c a t i o n towards areas which already have a good service and amenity infrastructure. Third, planners should be aware that g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may occur in neighbourhoods, such as Grandview Woodland, which do not i n i t i a l l y have abundant amenities, but rather have the potential for amenities to be 1 29 developed or increased. This suggests that planners may be able to encourage g e n t r i f i c a t i o n to occur in certain areas by increasing their amenities. Fourth, urban policy makers should be aware of the f i n a n c i a l pressure which may result from a successful pro-g e n t r i f i c a t i o n p o l i c y . The demand for amenities posed by g e n t r i f i e r s could be expensive to s a t i s f y . Also, because g e n t r i f i e r s appear to be-now entering into the family stage of the l i f e c y c l e , there may be more emphasis on family services. If the area does not continue to gentrify, however, i t may continue i t s trend of deterioration which in the long run may cost the c i t y even more than meeting demands placed by g e n t r i f i e r s . Lastly, i f g e n t r i f i e r s in neighbourhoods of marginal amenity are successful in upgrading their amenities and public services, they w i l l have created an environment which may att r a c t even more g e n t r i f i e r s . This c e r t a i n l y has the negative potential for causing even more r e s i d e n t i a l displacement of the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, but i t also has the positive potential of providing t r a d i t i o n a l resident homeowners with the opportunity of s e l l i n g their homes and moving to the suburbs to secure the l i f e s t y l e they desire. Also, because the g e n t r i f i e r s tend to be younger than the t r a d i t i o n a l residents, a more balanced age d i s t r i b u t i o n may r e s u l t . These planning implications should be regarded as i l l u s t r a t i v e rather than exhaustive. Given further examination, other implications would l i k e l y be i d e n t i f i e d . Further, i t i s clear that each planning implication involves both costs and benefits. Perhaps the most d i f f i c u l t question i s 'who s h a l l receive the benefits and who s h a l l incur the costs? 1 3 0 As a result of answering some preliminary questions about the potential impact of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n on public service demand, th i s research has indicated some important areas for future research. F i r s t , although there is some evidence that the pattern of public service demand among Grandview Woodland g e n t r i f i e r s i s representative of g e n t r i f i e r s in general, more case studies are needed to esta b l i s h the pattern. This research has successfully developed an e f f e c t i v e questionnaire and survey design for determining public service demand and usage which could be used and improved upon in further case studies. Such studies should include neighbourhoods at d i f f e r e n t degrees of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n in order to see i f there are demand differences between early and la t e r stage g e n t r i f i e r s . Second, i t would be interes t i n g and revealing to see how e f f e c t i v e g e n t r i f i e r s are in r e a l i z i n g their demands. Such a study would help determine how important values and attitudes are in shaping inner-city neighbourhoods. Third, more research i s needed on ident i f y i n g d i s c e r n i b l e stages in the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n process, and, i f such stages ex i s t , on i d e n t i f y i n g at what stage the new public service demands become strong enough to cause the delivery of new services or the expansion of old ones. Forth, i t would be interes t i n g to explore more f u l l y the reasons which may l i e behind the g e n t r i f i e r s ' demands and behaviour. What, for example, were the formative s o c i a l i z a t i o n , or period effects which affected the outcome of the g e n t r i f i e r s ' l i f e s t y l e p r o f i l e s . F i n a l l y , in order to assess how important age, among other demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i s in influencing public service usage, future studies should involve larger sample sizes 131 so that s t a t i s t i c a l s i gnificance i s easier to determine. 1 32 References Allen J. 1980, "The Ideology of Dense Neighborhood Development", in Urban A f f a i r s Quarterly, V.15 pp. 409-428 Sage Publications; Beverly H i l l s . Allman T. 1978, "The Urban C r i s i s Leaves Town and Moves to the Suburbs", Harper's, 257; 1543, pp. 41-56. Anderson J. 1971, "Space-Time Budgets and A c t i v i t y Studies in Urban Geography", in Environment and Planning, 3:4, pp.353-368 Pion Ltd. Beauregard R. And Holcomb H. 1981, R e v i t a l i z i n g C i t i e s , State College, Pa.: Association of American Geographers Resource Publications in Geography. Berry J. 1980, "The National Commision on Neighborhoods: The P o l i t i c s of R e v i t a l i z a t i o n " , pp. 165-187 in Rosenthal D. (ed) Urban R e v i t a l i z a t i o n , V.18 Sage Publications; Beverly H i l l s . Black J . 1980, "Private-Market Housing Renovation in Central C i t i e s : An Urban Land Inst i t u t e Survey" pp.3-12, in S. Laska and D. Spain (eds) Back to the City, Pergamon Press; New York. B r i t i s h Columbia Central Credit Union 1982, "Economic Anal y s i s ' of B r i t i s h Columbia", December, 28th. Cicin-Sain B. 1980, "The Costs and Benefits of Neighbourhood R e v i t a l i z a t i o n " , pp.49-75 in Rosenthal D. (ed) Urban R e v i t a l i z a t i o n , V.18 Sage Publications; Beverly H i l l s . Chapin S. J r . 1974, Human A c t i v i t y Patterns in the C i t y : Things People do in Time and Space, John Wiley and Sons Inc.; New York. 133 Chapin S. And Hightower H. 1965, Household A c t i v i t y Systems, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, I n s t i t u t e for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel H i l l . Clay P. 1979, Neighborhood Renewal, Lexington Books; Lexington, Massachusetts. Cooley N.J. 1979, "The Britannia Community Services Centre: A Lesson in Participatory Planning and Design", in Perks W. And Robinson I. (eds) Urban and Regional Planning in a  Federal State, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.; Pennsylvania. Cybriwsky R. 1982, "Rev i t a l i z a t i o n Trends in Downtown-Area Neighborhoods", pp.21-36 in S. Brunn and J . Wheeler (eds) The American Metropolitan System, John Whiley & Sons; New York. Cybriwsky R.And Levy P. 1980, "The Hidden Dimensions of Culture and Class: Philadelphia", in Laska S. And Spain D. (eds) Back to the City, Pergamon Press; New York. Cybriwsky R. And Western J . 1982, "R e v i t a l i z i n g Downtowns: by whom and for whom?", in Herbert D. And Johnston R. (eds) Geography and the Urban Environment, John Wiley and Sons; New York. DeGiovanni F. 1984, "An Examination of Selected Consequences of Rev i t a l i z a t i o n in Six U.S. C i t i e s " in Urban Studies, pp. 245-259 Longman; Harlow. Gale D. 1983, "Middle-Class Resettlement in Older Urban Neighborhoods: The Evidence and Implications", pp.35-53 in 134 P. Clay and R. H o l l i s t e r (eds) Neighborhood Policy and Planning, Lexington Books; Lexington, Massachusetts. Gans H. 1977, "Why Exurbanites Won't Reurbanize Themselves", New York Times, Febuary 12th. G i l l W. 1981, Mainstream Urban L i f e s t y l e s ; Indices and Determinants, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Glass R. 1963, "Introduction to London: Aspects of Change", Centre for Urban Studies, London. Goetze R. And Colton K. 1980, "The Dynamics of Neighbourhoods", pp. 184-194 in Journal of American Planner's Association, V.46. Goldberg M. And Mercer J. 1979, "Canadian and U.S. C i t i e s : Basic Differences, Possible Explanations and Their Meaning for Public Policy", Unpublished Paper, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration. G o l d f i e l d D. 1980, "Private Neighborhood Redevelopment and Displacement: The. Case of Washington, D.C", in Urban  A f f a i r s Quarterly, (15) Sage Publications; Beverly H i l l s . Guelke L. 1978, "Geography and Logical Positivism", in Herbert D. And Johnston R. (eds) Geography and the Urban  Environment, V.1 John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; New York. Hamnett C. 1984, "Gentr i f i c a t i o n and Residential Location Theory: A Review and Assessment", pp. 283-317 in Herbert D. And Johnston R. (eds) Geography and the Urban Environment, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; New York. Hamnett C. And Williams P. 1980, "Social Change in London: A 1 35 Study of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n " , pp. 469-487 in Urban A f f a i r s Quarterly, (15) Sage Publications; Beverly H i l l s . Harris M. 1979, Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture, Random House; New York. Hemple C. 1966, Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice Hall Inc.; New Jersey. Higbee E. 1976, "Centre C i t i e s in Canada and the United States", pp.145-160 in Watson J. And O'Riordan (eds) The American Environment: Perceptions and P o l i c i e s , Heinemann; London. Hudson J . 1980, "Revitalization of Inner-City Neighbourhoods: An Ecological Approach", pp.397-408 in Urban A f f a i r s  Quarterly, V.15 N.4, Sage Publications; Beverly H i l l s . Jackson B. 1984, Social Worlds in Transition: Neighbourhood  Change in Grandview-Woodland, Vancouver Master of Arts Thesis; The University of B r i t i s h ColumbJohnston R.J. 1979, Geography and Geographers, Arnold; London. Lang M. 1982, G e n t r i f i c a t i o n Amid Urban Decline, Ballinger Publishing Company; Cambridge, Massachusetts. Laska S. and Spain D. 1980, "Anticipating Renovator's Demands: New Orleans" pp.116-137, in S. Laska and D. Spain (eds) Back to the City pergamon Press; New York. Levy P. 1980, "Neighbourhoods in a Race with Time: Local Strategies for Countering Displacement", pp. 302-317 in Laska S. And Spain D. (eds) Back to the City, "Pergamon Press; New York. Ley D. 1980, "Liberal Ideology and the Post-Industrial C i t y " , pp. 238-258 in Annals, Association of American Geographers, 1 36 V.70. Ley D. 1981, "Inner-City R e v i t a l i z a t i o n in Canada: A Vancouver Case Study", pp. 124-148 in Canadian Geographer, V.25. Ley D. 1984, Inner-City R e v i t a l i z a t i o n in Canada Since 1971: Patterns, Analysis, Policy, Report to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Lipton S. 1977, "Evidence of Central City Revival", pp. 136-147 in Journal of the American Institute of Planners, V.42 London B. 1980, "G e n t r i f i c a t i o n as Urban Reinvasion: Some Preliminary D e f i n i t i o n a l and Theoretical Considerations", pp. 77-92 in Laska S. And Spain D. (eds) Back to the City, Pergamon Press; New York. Michelson W. 1965, " An Empirical Analysis of Urban Environmental Preferences", pp. 355-360 in Journal of American Planning Association, Neurath 0., Hahn H., and Carnap R. 1929, "The S c i e n t i f i c Conception of the World: The Vienna C i r c l e " , pp. 299-318 in Neurath M. And Cohen R. (eds) Empiricism and Sociology, Pattison T. 1983, "The Stages of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : The Case of Bay V i l l a g e " , in Clay P. And H o l l i s t e r R. (eds) Neighbourhood Policy and Planning, Lexington Books; Lexington, Massachusetts. Richmond A. 1979, "Planning Residential Environments: The Social Performance Standard" pp. 448-457 in Journal of American Planning Association, Rose D. 1984, "Rethinking G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : beyond the uneven development of marxist urban theory", pp. 47-74 on Society and Space, Pion; Great B r i t a i n . 1 37 Smith N. 1979, "Toward a Theory of G e n t r i f i c a t i o n " , pp. 538-548 in Journal of American Planning Association, V.45. Spragge G. 1983, "Exploring a Planning Methodology: p o l i c i e s for whitepainted neighbourhoods", pp.36-50 in Plan Canada, V.23. Sternlieb G. And Hughs J. 1980, "Back to the Central Ci t y : Myths and R e a l i t i e s " , pp. 36-50 in T r a f f i c Quarterly, V.33. Sudman S. 1976, Applied Sampling, Academic Press; New York. The Province , 1985, February 17th Vancouver, B r i t h i s h Columbia. The Sun , 1984, August 20th, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department 1975, Grandview Woodland; and information handbook. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, 1979 Grandview Woodland Area P o l i c y Plan Part 1: Grandview V i c t o r i a Vancouver C i t y Planning Department 1983, Grandview Woodland Area P o l i c y Plan Part 2: Commercial Drive. Weiler C. 1980, "The Neighborhood's Role in Optimizing Reinvestment: Philadelphia", pp.220-235 in Laska S. And Spain D. (eds) Back to the City, Pergamon Press; New York. Zeitz E. 1979, Private Urban Renewal, Lexington Books; Toronto. 138 Appendix A Quest ionna i re on Pub l i c Se rv i ce Usage To begin w i th I would l i k e to ask you some quest ions about the cha rac te r -i s t i c s o f your household. (1) Do you rent or own t h i s dwe l l i ng? Own [ ] 1 Rent [ ] 2 (2) What i s your occupat ion? C i r c l e : male o r female (3) Do you have a spouse o r a pa r tne r l i v i n g w i th you? Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 I f y e s , what i s h i s / h e r occupat ion? C i r c l e : male o r female (4) How long have you l i v e d i n t h i s neighbourhood? How long have you l i v e d i n t h i s dwe l l i ng? (5) How many c h i l d r e n do you have? (6) How many o f your c h i l d r e n l i v e here w i th you? (7) How o l d i s each o f your c h i l d r en ? 0-2 [ ] 1 3-5 [•] 2 5-12 [ ] 3 13-19 [ ] 4 20+ C ] 5 (8) How many persons, i n c l u d i n g y o u r s e l f , u sua l l y l i v e i n t h i s house-hold? P lease count a l l persons who normal ly l i v e he re , whether they are r e l a t i v e s o r no t . 1 3 9 (9) What age bracket do you and your pa r tne r f i t i n ? Male Female 20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-55 56-65 66+ ] 1 ] 2 ] 3 ] 4 ] 5 ] 6 ] 7 ] 8 ] 9 (10) What was the h ighes t l e v e l o f s choo l i ng (each o f ) you reached? Some elementary school Completed elementary school Some h igh school Completed h igh school Techn ica l t r a i n i n g beyond h igh school Co l l ege o r some u n i v e r s i t y Graduated from u n i v e r s i t y Other ( s pe c i f y ) Male Female ] 1 ] 2 ] 8 (11) Could you t e l l me which category comes c l o s e s t to the t o t a l i n -come o f a l l the members o f t h i s household f o r the l a s t year? P lease i n c l ude a l l sources o f income. [ ] 1 [ 3 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 (12) Does your l i f e s t y l e r e f l e c t your e t hn i c o r c u l t u r a l o r i g i n s ? Male: Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 Female: Yes [-.].. 1 No [ ] 2 Less than 15,000 15,000 - 30,000 30,000 - 45,000 45,000 - 60,000 More than 60,000 140 (13) Apart from being Canadian, do you cons ide r y o u r s e l f to belong t o a p a r t i c u l a r e t hn i c or c u l t u r a l group? Male: Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 Female: Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 I f y e s , what group i s i t ? Male Fema1e (14) Were both o f you born i n Canada? Male: Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 Female: Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 I f no t , when d id you move to Canada? Male Female In what country were you born? Male . Female Now I would l i k e to ask you a few quest ions about t h i s neighbourhood. (.15) Why d i d you choose t h i s neighbourhood to l i v e i n? (16) D id t h i s p lace prov ide what you were l ook ing f o r i n a neighbour-hood? Male: Yes [ J 1 No [ ] 2 Female: Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 141 (17) What do you p a r t i c u l a r l y not l i k e about t h i s neighbourhood? (18) Were there o ther areas you cons idered moving to? Yes [ ] No [ ] I f s o , which were they? (19) Why d id you cons ide r moving there? (20) Where d i d you l i v e before you moved i n t o t h i s area? (21) Are you expec t ing t o remain here f o r some t ime , say For the next f i v e y ea r s : Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 Maybe [ ] 3 For the next ten y e a r s : Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 Maybe [ ] 3 (22) Did you own a house before you moved here? Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 142 Now I would l i k e to ask you some quest ions about your d a i l y and weekly a c t i v i t i e s . (23) What are your f a v o u r i t e types o f l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t y ? (Ask f o r l o c a t i o n o f a c t i v i t y i f not obv ious . ) A c t i v i t y Locat ion Male 1 2 3 4 5 6 Female 1 2 3 4 5 6 (24) Do you e n t e r t a i n f r i e n d s i n your home and v i s i t them i n t h e i r s ? Yes No [ ] [ ] ( i f yes) The next ques t i on i s about the f r i e nd s which you most commonly v i s i t and s o c i a l i z e w i t h . P lease t e l l me which areas they l i v e i n . Area Male Female Th is d i s t r i c t 1 Elsewhere i n East-End Vancouver 2 West-End Vancouver 3 West-Side Vancouver 4 Burnaby 5 North Shore 6 New Westminster 7 Richmond 8 Elsewhere i n Greater Vancouver 9 143 In which two o f these areas would you say you spend the most t ime v i s i t i n g f r i e nd s ? Male Female 1 [ ] [ ] 2 [ ] [ ] Do you f e e l s a t i s f i e d w i th the c ond i t i on o f your s t r e e t ? ( I t s maintenance, appearance, e t c . ) . Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 I f no, what p a r t i c u l a r l y needs improvement? How do you f ee l about t r a f f i c volumes on your s t r e e t ? Are they: Much too heavy [ ] 1 Too heavy [ ] 2 S a t i s f a c t o r y [ ] 3 Qu i te l i g h t [ ] 4 I f too heavy, how important to you i s i t t ha t changes i n t r a f f i c f lows occur on your s t r e e t ? Very important [ ] 1 Important [ ] 2 So-so [ ] 3 Not important [ ] 4 144 (28) Now I am going t o read a l i s t o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e s which are i n o r near t h i s neighbourhood. When I read one tha t a member o f your f am i l y uses , t e l l me approx imate ly how many times the s e r v i c e would be used i n a t y p i c a l month dur ing the summer. A l s o , p lease t e l l me which members o f your f am i l y use i t . (When done f o r the summer, repeat ques t ion f o r the w i n t e r season but exc lude the l a s t three s e r v i c e s . ) S a t i s f a c t i o n Se rv i ce Loca t i on Summer Winter E G S P VP L i b r a r y E thn i c Centre Family Centre Day Care F a c i l i t i e s Teen Drop- in Centre Swimming Pool Parks Ska t ing Rink Gymnasium Tennis Courts Raquet/Squash Courts Community Centre Church F a c i l i t i e s P ub l i c Hea l th C l i n i c Consumer Help O f f i c e Immigrant Resources O f f i c e (29) Are the re any p u b l i c s e r v i c e s which you use tha t I have not mentioned? I f s o , p lease t e l l me what they are and how many times you use them i n a t y p i c a l month. (30) Where are the f a c i l i t i e s which you use located? (31) Th is ques t i on i s concerned w i th your s a t i s f a c t i o n w i th those pub l i c s e r v i c e s which you use. P lease r a t e each s e r v i c e as e i t h e r ex-c e l l e n t , good, s a t i s f a c t o r y , poor, o r very poor. 145 (32) Are the p u b l i c s e r v i c e s which you use i n your neighbourhood: Very important to you [ ] 1 Important t o you [ ] 2 J u s t n i ce to have [ ] 3 Not important t o you [ ] 4 (33) Which are the three most important s e r v i c e s to your household? (1) (2) (3) (34) Are the re any important p u b l i c s e r v i c e s which you f e e l are not l o ca ted i n t h i s d i s t r i c t ? I f s o , what are they? (35). Which schoo ls do your c h i l d r e n at tend? (36) Do your c h i l d r e n a t tend s pe c i a l e t hn i c o r language schoo ls? Yes [ ] 1 No [ ] 2 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096439/manifest

Comment

Related Items