UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Mixed-use development along suburban Vancouver streets McIntyre, James Lewis 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 M33_6.pdf [ 9.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096461.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096461-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096461-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096461-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096461-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096461-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096461-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096461-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096461.ris

Full Text

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG SUBURBAN VANCOUVER STREETS By JAMES LEWIS McINTYRE B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U I J F I I J L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1985 © James Lewis Mclntyre, 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 School of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date September 21, 1985 DE-6 ( 3 / 8 1 ) i i A bstract The purpose of t h i s thesis i s twofold. F i r s t , to examine mixed-use development outside of the downtown core as a means to increase the housing stock of Vancouver by determining why t h i s form of development i s occuring and to assess the h a b i t a b i l i t y of the housing provided i n these p r o j e c t s . Secondly, the survey methodology u t i l i z e d i n the study was designed to obtain information i n an exploratory manner, to both a s s i s t i n the future design and management o f mixed-use projects, and to provide the basis f o r speculating on the p o t e n t i a l r o l e f o r mixed-use projects i n commercial d i s t r i c t s outside of the Central Business D i s t r i c t . Chapter One o u t l i n e s the scope of the study. Four objectives are established f o r the t h e s i s : to determine why mixed-use projects are being developed; to derive a p r o f i l e of mixed-use b u i l d i n g residents; to evaluate the l e v e l of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by these residents; and, to discuss the implications f o r commercial d i s t r i c t s i f mixed-use development was to be encouraged. Two hypotheses are presented to explain why t h i s form of development i s occuring: f i r s t , there i s l i k e l y an excess of commercially zoned land r e l a t i v e to market demand f o r space above the ground f l o o r ; and second, a mixed-use b u i l d i n g p o s s i b l y o f f e r s investment d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n by combining two d i f f e r e n t uses i n a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g . As w e l l , the study sought to test hypotheses regarding mixed-use r e s i d e n t i a l rent l e v e l s , b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y and the type of residents a t t r a c t e d to t h i s form of housing. The second chapter traces the p r a c t i c e of land use separation from i t s i n i t i a l emphasis on segregating non-compatible a c t i v i t i e s through to the recent reassessment o f s t r i c t l y separating uses with the widening acceptance of permitting and encouraging mixed-use. Based on a review o f land development i i i trends and planning p o l i c i e s implemented i n Vancouver, the study f i n d s that while the inducement of a floorspace bonus o f f e r e d i n c e r t a i n areas of the downtown core has met with l i m i t e d success, mixed-use development has occured f o r some time i n many of the commercial d i s t r i c t s outside o f the CBD. The survey-questionnaire methodology u t i l i z e d i n the study i s described i n Chapter Three. Of the 144 mixed-use projects b u i l t i n the study area between January 1, 1974 and June 1, 1983, 50 were randomly selected f o r the two-stage sampling procedure. Questionnaires were f i r s t d i s t r i b u t e d to the developer/owners o f the sample group. With the permission o f those owner respondents p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the survey, a second questionnaire was then d e l i v e r e d to the r e s i d e n t i a l occupants. Both questionnaires were pre-tested through a p i l o t survey. The survey-questionnaire methodology was found to be d i f f i c u l t and time-consuming, but the only means a v a i l a b l e to obtain the data necessary to address the research objectives o f the study. The r e s u l t s o f the two survey-questionnaires are presented i n Chapter Four. The study hypotheses are re-examined i n l i g h t of the research fin d i n g s discussed i n Chapter Fi v e . The r e s u l t s of the developer/owner survey are found to v a l i d a t e the two hypotheses suggested to explain the occurence of mixed-use development outside o f the dcwntown. Developer/owner respondents reported few problems i n e i t h e r developing or managing a mixed-use b u i l d i n g and stressed the importance of c a r e f u l design, q u a l i t y construction, and good management pra c t i c e s i n ensuring the success of these p r o j e c t s . The resident survey ind i c a t e d that combining r e s i d e n t i a l with commercial uses appears to provide a s a t i s f a c t o r y housing environment. Mthough the residents surveyed i n d e n t i f i e d several problems with l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g (noise, inadequate s e c u r i t y , lack of parking), the o v e r a l l l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n reported was high and corresponds c l o s e l y with the findings of other medium density housing evaluation studies. The resident i v survey group was found to be s i m i l a r demographically to an apartment comparison sub-population, though the sample group contained proportionately fewer residents i n the e l d e r l y age cohorts. The study found l i t t l e support f o r the assumption that mixed-use b u i l d i n g rents would be discounted due to l o c a t i o n and combination of uses. The hypothesis that combined uses would enhance b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y due to mutual s u r v e i l l a n c e was likewise rejected. In the concluding chapter the implications o f the research findings are discussed. Conclusions drawing upon the r e s u l t s o f the two survey-questionnaires are presented to a s s i s t i n future mixed-use p r o j e c t design and development. I t i s suggested that mixed-use, i n a d d i t i o n to being a v i a b l e form o f development as demonstrated through the developer/owner survey, may o f f e r several p u b l i c b e n e f i t s : the more inte n s i v e use of scarce urban land; a broadened choice of housing; and, increased market support and added d i v e r s i t y i n e x i s t i n g commercial d i s t r i c t s . The need to c r i t i c a l l y examine these various arguments i n favour o f mixed-use i s emphasized. L a s t l y , the r o l e o f the p u b l i c sector v i s - a - v i s mixed-use development i s discussed and the need f o r further research i s i d e n t i f i e d . Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t of Figures i x Acknowledgements x I. Introduction 1 A. Objectives 6 B. Approach and Organization of Study 7 I I . Mixed-Land Use: Changing Perspectives 9 A. O r i g i n and Development of Land Use Controls 10 B. The Rationale For Separating Land Uses 14 C. Mixing Residential and Commercial Uses i n the Downtown Core: The Example of Vancouver 16 D. Mixed-Use Development i n Outlying Commercial D i s t r i c t s . . . 2 2 E. Summary 27 I I I . Methods 29 A. Information Required f o r the Study 30 B. Esta b l i s h i n g the Data Base 32 C. Drawing the Sample 35 D. The Survey-Questionnaire 36 i ) Developer/Owner Questionnaire 37 i i ) Resident Questionnaire 39 E. Surveying the Sample Group 40 F. Summary: Lessons of a Survey-Questionnaire Methodology... 42 IV. Presentation of Study Results 44 A. Proportion of Development A c t i v i t y Accounted f o r by Mixed-Use 44 B. Developer/Owner Survey 47 1) Reasons f o r Developing or Acquiring a Mixed-Use Building 47 2) Ease of Renting/Leasing/Selling Space 52 3) Greater Security f o r Mixed-Use Building Occupants?.55 4) Comparison of Re s i d e n t i a l Rent Levels 59 5) Problems i n Mixing Commercial and Residential Uses.62 6) "Suitable" and "Unsuitable" Commercial Uses 65 7) Factors Contributing to the Success of a Mixed-Use B u i l d i n g 67 8) D i f f i c u l t i e s or Problems i n Developing/Acquiring a Mixed-Use Project 70 9) Lessons f o r Mixed-Use Development 70 10) Residential Floorspace M u l t i p l i e r 74 C. Resident Survey 77 1) Resident P r o f i l e 77 2) The Dwelling Unit 78 3) Housing Background 84 4) Selecting the Dwelling Unit 93 5) Resident S a t i s f a c t i o n 100 6) L i v i n g i n a Mixed-Use Bu i l d i n g 103 7) Noise HO v i V. Discussion of Research Findings 118 A. Proportion of Development A c t i v i t y Accounted for by Mixed-Use 118 B. Factors Prompting Mixed-Use Development 120 C. Greater Security i n a Mixed-Use Building? 125 D. Mixed-Use Building Management 126 E. Who Are the Residents of Mixed-Use Buildings? 129 F. Why Live i n a Mixed-Use Building? 133 G. Mixed-Use: A S a t i s f a c t o r y Housing Environment? 134 H. What Are the Benefits and Drawbacks of L i v i n g i n a Mixed-Use Dwelling? 137 VI. Conclusions and Implications 139 A. Conclusions 139 B. Lessons f o r the Private Sector 141 C. Implications of Mixed-Use Development 143 D. Role of the Public Sector v i s - a - v i s Mixed-Use 149 E. Further Research 150 Bibliography 152 Appendix I Description of Suburban Commercial D i s t r i c t s 158 Appendix II Mixed-Use Project Photographs 159 Appendix I II Mixed-Use Project Survey/Questionnaires 165 v i i L i s t of Tables Page 1. Table rv- •1: Mixed-Use Projects (MX) as a Proportion of Redevelopment A c t i v i t y i n Vancouver Commercial D i s t r i c t s . 46 2. Table IV--2: Reasons f o r Developing/Acquiring a Mixed-Use Project Instead of a Single-Use Project. 49-! 3. Table IV--3: Ease of Renting/Leasing/Selling Space i n a Mixed-Use Building. 53-! 4. Table IV-•4: Security For Occupants of Mixed-Use Buildings Compared to Single-Use Structures. 57-! 5. Table IV-•5: Rent Level Comparison: Mixed-Use vs. Apartment Buildings. 61 6. Table IV-•6: Problems i n Mixing Commercial and Residential Uses. 63-( 7. Table IV--7: Suitable and Unsuitable Commercial Uses f o r a Mixed-Use Buil d i n g . 66 8. Table IV--8: Factors Contributing to the Success of a Mixed-Use Building. 68-1 9. Table IV-•9 D i f f i c u l t i e s or Problems i n Developing/Acquiring a Mixed-Use Project. 71 10. Table IV--10: Changes I d e n t i f i e d by Respondents I f They Were to Develop/Acquire Another Mixed-Use Building. 72-' 11. Table IV--11: Residential Floorspace M u l t i p l i e r i n the C - l and C-2 Zoning Codes. 75 12. Table IV--12: Age-Sex Pyramid of Mixed-Use Survey Respondents. 79 13. Table IV--13: Age-Sex Pyramid - C i t y of Vancouver (1981). 80 14. Table IV--13a: Age-Sex Pyramid - Apartment Sub-Population (City of Vancouver, 1981). 81 15. Table IV--14: Household Size Among Mixed-Use Respondents. 82 16. Table IV--15: Dwelling Unit Size Among Survey Respondents. 83 17. Table IV--16: Length of Residence Among Survey Respondents. 85 18. Table IV--17: Present Dwelling Tenure Among Survey 86 Respondents. v i i i Page 19. Table IV--18: Previous Dwelling Tenure Among Survey Respondents. 87 20. Table IV--19: Previous Housing Types Among Survey Respondents . 89 21. Table IV--20: Previous Housing Type vs. Age of Respondent. 90 22. Table IV--21: Distance of Previous Dwelling vs. Previous Dwelling Type. 91 23. Table IV--22: Distance of Previous Dwelling vs. Age of Respondent. 92 24. Table IV--23: Other Housing Options Examined by Survey Respondents. 94 25. Table IV--24: Number of Other Housing Options Examined by Survey Respondents. 95 26. Table IV--25: Reasons I d e n t i f i e d by Survey Respondents f o r Moving Into a Mixed-Use Buil d i n g . 96-97 27. Table IV--26: Choosing the Dwelling Unit: Respondents' Rating of the Factors Influencing t h i s Decision. 99 28. Table IV--27: Residential S a t i s f a c t i o n Index. 102 29. Table IV--28: Pos i t i v e and Negative Factors Influencing Resident S a t i s f a c t i o n . 104-105 30. Table IV--29: Problems Encountered i n L i v i n g i n a Mixed-Use Building. 107 31. Table IV--30: Benefits or At t r a c t i o n s of L i v i n g i n a Mixed-Use Buil d i n g . 108-109 32. Table IV--31: Level of Noise Heard i n the Surveyed Dwelling Units. 111 33. . Table IV--32: Sources of Noise Heard i n the Dwelling Units Surveyed. 113 34. Table IV--33: Location/Orientation of Dwelling Unit i n Building vs. T r a f f i c Noise. 114 35. Table IV--34: Duration of T r a f f i c Noise As Reported by Survey Respondents. 115 36. Table IV--35: Noise Level vs. Resident S a t i s f a c t i o n . 117 i x L i s t of Figures Page 1. Figure 1: Study Area Map/Mixed-Use Project Location. 3 2. Figure 2: Commercial Zoning Map, C i t y of Vancouver. 4 X Acknowledgement I am g r a t e f u l f o r the guidance of my advisors Brahm Wiesman, Michael Seelig and Dick Seaton. A s p e c i a l thanks i s owed to Dick Seaton f o r h i s valuable advice and patient assistance i n seeing t h i s project through to i t s completion. I am e s p e c i a l l y thankful f o r Gloria' s patience and typing of the f i n a l manuscript. 1 I. INTRODUCTION Expanding the housing stock of the C i t y of Vancouver poses a challenge to both the private and public sectors. Under current zoning regulations there i s l i m i t e d p o t e n t i a l f o r adding to the supply of housing, while proposals to up-zone property to accommodate higher r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t i e s are often met with strenuous opposition from l o c a l residents. One possible, but p a r t i a l , s o l u t i o n f o r increasing the housing stock of Vancouver, without d i s r u p t i n g e x i s t i n g neighborhoods, i s offe r e d through mixed-use development. Mixed-use buildings that combine both commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l uses i n a si n g l e structure are hardly a new development form. 1 Numerous examples of t h i s type of development, dating back to the 1940's, 50's, and 60's can be observed throughout the c i t y and presently account f o r approximately 2500 dwelling u n i t s outside of the downtown core. In recent years an increasing number and v a r i e t y of these projects have been b u i l t , suggesting the need f o r a c l o s e r examination of t h i s development trend, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the pe n a l i z i n g r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r contained i n the C - l and C-2 zoning codes. (Refer to Appendix I f o r a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the commercial zoning d i s t r i c t s i n the study area.) This d e f i n i t i o n conforms with the C i t y of Vancouver's and indeed with the development sector's view of mixed-use development, and w i l l be used f o r the purpose of t h i s study. I t , however, f a l l s short of the Urban Land I n s t i t u t e ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of mixed-use as a " r e l a t i v e l y large scale r e a l estate project characterized by three or more s i g n i f i c a n t revenue-producing uses, s i g n i f i c a n t functional and physical i n t e g r a t i o n of project components, and developed i n conformation with a coherent plan" (ULI, Technical B u l l e t i n 71, Mixed-Use  Development, New Ways of Land Use, 1976, p. 6). 2 Since 1974, over one-hundred and f i f t y (150) mixed-use buil d i n g s of varying s i z e have been developed outside of the downtown, co n t r i b u t i n g nearly one thousand dwelling units to the Vancouver housing stock. The number of dwelling u n i t s i s perhaps not as s i g n i f i c a n t as t h e i r l o c a t i o n . These projects are t y p i c a l l y s i t e d along the commercial s t r i p s that adjoin predominantly single-family neighborhoods. Integrating housing with com-mercial uses along these a r t e r i a l s permits an unobtrusive d e n s i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n l o c a l areas that would otherwise l i k e l y oppose rezonings necessary to allow medium density housing. An increased o v e r a l l density i s thus attained without s e r i o u s l y d i s r u p t i n g e x i s t i n g neighborhoods. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the housing that i s being provided over commercial space i n these locations broadens the range of housing that i s a v a i l a b l e to those residents who desire to remain i n that neighborhood, but who may not be able to a f f o r d or require a single-family dwelling. The presence of these mixed-use projects along many of the commercial a r t e r i a l s i n the c i t y i s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r another reason. (Refer to F i g . 1) A l l of the commercial zoning d i s t r i c t s outside of the downtown core permit r e s i d e n t i a l uses, but r e s t r i c t the amount of r e s i d e n t i a l frontage at grade to include only entrance ways. More importantly, i n the C - l and C-2 d i s t r i c t s , which together account f o r nearly seventy percent of the t o t a l commercially zoned land i n Vancouver, excluding the downtown and the Comprehensive Development D i s t r i c t s , r e s i d e n t i a l space i s penalized i n c a l c u l a t i n g the allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of a mixed-use project: each square foot of r e s i d e n t i a l space i s counted as two-and-a-half feet i n the FSR c a l c u l a t i o n . (The o r i g i n a l intent of the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r was to l i m i t the amount of housing permitted i n commercial d i s t r i c t s and to ensure a compatible F I G . 2 C O M M E R C I A L Z O N I N G M A P C I T Y O F V A N C O U V E R C-1 C-2 C - 2 B C - 2 C C -2C1 C - 3 A FM SCALE 1:75.000 4th AVE 10th AVE cr < CD z 3 Q B R O A D W A Y | co 3 CD ac < 4 1st AVE S O U R C E : ZONING DISTRICT P L A N CITY OF V A N C O U V E R PLANNING DEPT . APRIL 1980 co L U > z < cc a CO < O I 4 CO I S < a o cr L U 5 Z-O O HASTINGS CO cr LU CO < - r -CO < cr O r -a > 5 scale of development with surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods. 2) Yet, despite these l i m i t a t i o n s nearly f o r t y percent of the redevelopment a c t i v i t y occurring i n these commercial d i s t r i c t s ( C - l , C-2, C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1 and C-3A), incl u d i n g the FM-1 (Fairview Slopes) and MC-1 (Cedar Cottage), f o r the period 1977 to 1982 was i n the form of mixed-use projects. This contrasts sharply with the C i t y of Vancouver's recent experience of encouraging r e s i d e n t i a l space i n downtown o f f i c e projects. Responding to density bonuses aimed at stimulating the construction of dwelling u n i t s within the Central Business D i s t r i c t (CBD), developers were encouraged to include a housing component i n downtown o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s . The market response f o r these dwelling u n i t s proved weak, and consequently the amount of r e s i d e n t i a l space i n projects constructed i n 1983 declined by almost one-third over the previous year, while r e s i d e n t i a l space included i n proposed developments has decreased by nearly 80 percent (City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1983, p. 19). C e r t a i n l y mixed-use projects i n the CBD are not comparable with those found i n the out l y i n g commercial d i s t r i c t s : they d i f f e r g r e a t l y i n scale; the housing component i s targeted f o r a very d i f f e r e n t c l i e n t group; and they are the r e s u l t of a zoning bonus. However, i t seems apparent that there i s a demand f o r t h i s mixed-use form of housing outside of the downtown and that the development industry has perceived and responded to these market forces, without the inducement of a zoning bonus. I f the benefits of including housing downtown are equally v a l i d i n the commercial d i s t r i c t s outside of the core, t h i s may o f f e r the opportunity f o r e x i s t i n g private market forces and public planning objectives to work i n unison. 2Information provided by Rick Scobie, Zoning Planner, C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department. 6 A. OBJECTIVES A number of public benefits may be achieved by encouraging mixed-use development: i t o f f e r s a more intensive use of scarce urban land; i t u t i l i z e s e x i s t i n g public i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ; i t may encourage greater t r a n s i t r i d e r s h i p and lessen dependence on the private car f o r mobility; and, i t adds to the v i t a l i t y of commercial d i s t r i c t s by generating a human presence i n the evenings and weekends. The s p e c i f i c purpose of t h i s study however, i s to examine mixed-use as a means to broaden and increase the supply of housing i n the C i t y of Vancouver outside of the downtown. To provide the basis f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a sample group of developers, owners, and residents of these projects were contacted. The questions posed to these informants were guided by the following objectives established f o r the t h e s i s : ° to determine why these mixed-use projects are being developed; ° to derive a p r o f i l e of mixed-use residents, i d e n t i f y i n g who they are and why they were a t t r a c t e d to t h i s form of housing; ° to evaluate the l e v e l of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by mixed-use residents; ° and, to discuss the implications f o r commercial d i s t r i c t s i f i t i s shown that p e r s i s t i n g market forces are prompting t h i s form of development, and that the dwelling u n i t s i n mixed-use buil d i n g s provide a s a t i s f a c t o r y form of housing. The survey methodology employed i n the study w i l l permit the following hypotheses concerning mixed-use development to be tested. Two possible explanations why t h i s form of development i s occurring can be suggested: f i r s t , there i s l i k e l y an excess of commercially zoned land r e l a t i v e to market demand f o r space above the ground f l o o r ; and second, a mixed-use b u i l d i n g possibly 7 o f f e r s investment d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n by combining two d i f f e r e n t uses i n a s i n g l e structure. Another hypothesis to be tested concerns p o t e n t i a l mixed-use b u i l d i n g residents. As a form of housing, mixed-use projects perhaps o f f e r an a l t e r n a t i v e to an apartment dwelling f o r those residents of single-family communities that e i t h e r do not desire or cannot a f f o r d a single-family dwelling, yet wish to remain i n that area: the young adult-empty n e s t - l o c a l area hypothesis. Addi-t i o n a l l y , i t also i s ant i c i p a t e d that the rent l e v e l s f o r dwellings i n mixed-use projects well be lower than that f o r comparable apartment units, due to these buildings' l o c a t i o n i n commercial d i s t r i c t s and combination of uses. L a s t l y , the study w i l l evaluate the argument that a mixed-use b u i l d i n g b e n e f i t s from greater security through mutual s u r v e i l l a n c e due to 24-hour occupance of the bu i l d i n g . B. APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION OF STUDY The concept of encouraging the mixing of r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial uses i s a f a i r l y recent departure from conventional c i t y planning p r a c t i c e s . Although Jane Jacobs stresses the importance of mixing uses and a c t i v i t i e s i n close proximity i n her landmark book, The Death and L i f e of Great American C i t i e s , i t was not u n t i l the 1970's that t h i s argument gained acceptance among the planning community. Perhaps f o r t h i s reason, there i s not a well-developed body of l i t e r a t u r e on the topic of mixed-use to draw upon. The books and a r t i c l e s that are ava i l a b l e present e i t h e r a d e s c r i p t i v e review of ex i s t i n g , generally large-scale, mixed-use projects, or discuss t h i s innovation i n land use c o n t r o l without rigorously examining i t s underlying r a t i o n a l e or wider implications. Conspicuously absent also, are any surveys of residents evaluating the l i v a b i l i t y of mixed-use housing. The study therefore has u t i l i z e d a v a r i e t y of information sources including: 8 ° planning l i t e r a t u r e on the o r i g i n and development of land use controls concerned with the separation of uses; ° housing s a t i s f a c t i o n and user evaluation studies; ° municipal planning documents on mixed-use and commercial d i s t r i c t s ; ° and, primary data c o l l e c t e d through the mixed-use developer/owner and resident surveys. This study begins with a b r i e f examination of the o r i g i n , evolution, and purpose of land use c o n t r o l s . Chapter II traces the p r a c t i c e of land use separation from i t s i n i t i a l emphasis on segregating non-compatible a c t i v i t i e s through to the recent reassessment of s t r i c t l y separating uses with the widening acceptance of permitting and encouraging mixed-use. Chapter III o u t l i n e s the methods used to acquire the data necessary to evaluate mixed-use development i n Vancouver outside of the downtown core. The methods section describes how an inventory of mixed-use projects i n the study area was compiled, and how the sample was drawn and surveyed. The r e s u l t s of the developer/owner and resident surveys are presented i n Chapter IV. In Chapter V the hypotheses posed e a r l i e r are re-examined i n the l i g h t of the study r e s u l t s . The concluding chapter examines the wider planning implications f o r mixed-use i f i t i s shown to provide a desirable housing environment. 9 I I . MIXED-LAND USE: CHANGING PERSPECTIVES Ei t h e r land crowding or a high degree of mixed land use alone i s a good index of a poor environment. Where they occur i n com-bination as i n the poorer parts of the sur-vey d i s t r i c t s , they are a c e r t a i n sign of an u n f i t neighborhood. American Public Health Association (1945, p. 30) Conventional planning theory has long stressed the concept of desig-nating land areas, through zoning, f o r separate and d i s t i n c t uses. Single-family homes, apartments, o f f i c e s , shopping d i s t r i c t s , and industry have been segregated, at l e a s t i n i d e a l i z e d community land use plans. Rarely has zoning permitted a l l the f a c i l i t i e s used i n d a i l y l i f e to locate i n close proximity. This has increased the r e l i a n c e on the p r i v a t e car f o r mobility, and a d d i t i o n a l l y has often resulted i n single-use areas that have been c r i t i c i z e d as l i f e l e s s , inconvenient, and unappealling (U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 1981, p. 41). At one time there was perhaps strong j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r separating non-compatible uses. Municipal planning law and community planning theory sought to segregate a c t i v i t i e s that were considered incompatible with residences f o r reasons of nuisance, such as noise, odors, smoke, and f o r aesthetics. More broadly, the separation of land uses was argued f o r reasons of f u n c t i o n a l e f f i -ciency, improvement of health and safety, reduction of p o l l u t i o n , or to s i m p l i f y planning (Lynch, 1981, p. 53). In t h i s chapter, the o r i g i n and purpose of 10 segregational land use controls are b r i e f l y examined. The p r a c t i c e of separating land uses i s traced from i t s development i n 19th century i n d u s t r i a l Europe through to i t s more recent reappraisal, which has led to planning p o l i c i e s that permit and often a c t i v e l y encourage mixed-use. The C i t y of Vancouver i s used as an example f o r t h i s b r i e f examination of mixed-use as i t occurs at present, both i n the downtown and i n the o u t l y i n g commercial d i s t r i c t s . A. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND USE CONTROLS The C i t y of New York i s generally credited with enacting the f i r s t comprehensive zoning controls i n North America (1916), though land use controls i n various forms existed p r i o r to t h i s date. The e a r l i e s t p r a c t i c e of separating land uses can be traced to Germany, where " d i s t r i c t i n g according to use was devised as a remedy f o r confusion i n c i t i e s " (Nolen, 1922, p. 76). E a r l y i n the 1800's, protected d i s t r i c t s were established i n the c i t i e s of the south German states. Within these d i s t r i c t s , manufacturing a c t i v i t i e s that were dangerous, offensive, or unhealthy were prohibited. This system spread and became incorporated i n the Prussian and l a t e r i n the Imperial German l e g a l codes, and was gradually broadened to include r e s i d e n t i a l , i n d u s t r i a l , and mixed zones (Nolen, 1922, p. 77; Hugo-Brunt, 1972, p. 231). By the 1870's an expanded d i s t r i c t i n g or zoning system was being advocated by Baumeister, a German planning t h e o r e t i c i a n . The c i t i e s of Frankfurt-am-Main (1891) and Altona (1894) were the f i r s t to adopt t h i s comprehensive zoning system, and were soon followed by other German and Scandinavian c i t i e s (Nolen, 1916, p. 81). P a r a l l e l i n g these f i r s t t e n t a t i v e steps i n land use c o n t r o l were the e f f o r t s of North American housing reformers (Scott, 1969, pp. 74-75). The housing reform movement represents one of the roots of modern North American c i t y planning and was among the f i r s t seeking to regulate the use of private 11 property. Housing reformers and municipal f i r e and health departments sought to make crowded tenements safer and more l i v a b l e by l i m i t i n g the number of s t o r i e s , decreasing l o t coverage, and by banning laundries, bakeries, and cleaning establishments from basements due to the f i r e hazard they posed. The other root of c i t y planning i n North America, the "C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement," also shared t h i s concern f o r the d e t e r i o r a t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n a d d i t i o n to i t s broader aesthetic goals of c i v i c improvement. Often the only protection that r e s i d e n t i a l areas had against the i n f i l t r a t i o n of commercial and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s was through private deed r e s t r i c t i o n s . Property covenents, however, proved l e g a l l y weak and even those that were enforced often had a termination date. The C i t y B e a u t i f u l Movement could o f f e r l i t t l e to combat these problems, other than the "vague hopes that t r e e - l i n e d boulevards and parks would e s t a b l i s h a neighborhood 'tone 1 that everyone would respect" (Scott, 1969, p. 75). Recognizing that regulatory c o n t r o l s were more e f f e c t i v e than wishful thinking, the e a r l i e s t municipal attempts to segregate incompatible uses were done through r e s t r i c t i o n s on the operation of slaughter houses, tanneries, glue f a c t o r i e s , and other offensive nuisance a c t i v i t i e s i n b u i l t - u p areas. Writing i n 1916, Nelson Lewis noted that : " f o r many years the conduct of c e r t a i n noxious trades or occupations has been quite generally prohibited within c i t y l i m i t s or has been r e s t r i c t e d to c e r t a i n d i s t r i c t s where they would not a f f e c t values or discourage other use of neighboring property" (Lewis, 1916, 9. 282). One example of these e a r l y land use c o n t r o l s was an ordinance p r o h i b i t i n g laundries and public baths i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas, enacted by the C i t y of Modesto i n 1885. This zoning ordinance, often c i t e d as one of the f i r s t i n the U.S., was soon copied by other c i t i e s and towns i n C a l i f o r n i a (Scott, 1969, p. 75). 12 These controls, however, were applied i n a piecemeal fashion u n t i l 1909, when Los Angeles adopted an ordinance d i v i d i n g the c i t y i n t o i n d u s t r i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s . The separation of land uses was not absolute though, as some commercial a c t i v i t i e s were permitted i n r e s i d e n t i a l zones. Other municipal j u r i s d i c t i o n s soon followed with s i m i l a r land use regulations. Seattle f o r example, enacted a b u i l d i n g code i n 1913 which imposed r e s t r i c t i o n s on the use of property within the c i t y . Responding to pressures from property owners and r e a l estate i n t e r e s t s , a number of American states passed enabling l e g i s l a t i o n at t h i s time, authorizing municipal governments to e s t a b l i s h r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s within which no other uses than s i n g l e - and two-family dwellings were permitted (Lewis, 1916, p. 283). In Canada, the province of Ontario passed s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1921, empowering m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with a population exceeding 100,000 to enact bylaws r e s t r i c t i n g c e r t a i n uses to designated areas. Acting under the provisions of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n , Toronto designated land use zones over a wide area of the c i t y . In B r i t i s h Columbia also, l o c a l governments were authorized to regulate the use of land. P r i o r to W.W. I, l o c a l councils could regulate the l o c a t i o n , construction, and use of a v a r i e t y of commercial and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s (Joint Committee on Housing Design, 1964, p. 6). Building upon such e a r l y land use controls, the C i t y of New York developed the precursor to the modern zoning code. Attempting to cope with overcrowding, t r a f f i c congestion, and the competing pressures of d i f f e r e n t land uses, New York C i t y enacted the f i r s t comprehensive zoning system i n North America (1916). The o r i g i n a l New York.zoning code, as with many of the c i t y ' s l a t e r zoning innovations, served as a model for other urban centres throughout the U.S. and Canada. The New York zoning code was i n i t i a l l y 13 drafted, not as part of a comprehensive c i t y plan, but to c o n t r o l the height of buildings and to prevent the i n f i l t r a t i o n of manufacturing a c t i v i t i e s i n t o higher-class r e s i d e n t i a l and r e t a i l d i s t r i c t s (Scott, 1969, p. 153). The enactment of zoning controls i n 1916 was the r e s u l t of an e a r l i e r i n q u i r y i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between skyscrapers and the health and safety of the community. The commission examining t h i s issue had recommended that not only b u i l d i n g height should be regulated, but that f l o o r area and use should also be c o n t r o l l e d (Bassett, 1936, p. 20). A second commission, the Building D i s t r i c t s and R e s t r i c t i o n s Commission under the chairmanship of Edward Bassett, was appointed to study the issue of land use control, and to propose zoning regulations and d i s t r i c t s . A s e r i e s of public hearings were held, through which the Commission gained the support of a wide spectrum of groups: r e a l estate companies, t i t l e and t r u s t companies, banks, and community and c i v i c associations (Scott, 1969, p. 153). Indeed, i n t e r e s t was so great f o r land use controls among some groups that F i f t h Avenue merchants and businessmen, f o r example, placed full-page advertisements i n the d a i l y papers i n support of zoning regulations. Again, the p r i n c i p l e force behind the implementation of these land use regulations was the d e s i r e to maintain the character and hence property values of established r e s i d e n t i a l and r e t a i l d i s t r i c t s , by preventing non-compatible uses from l o c a t i n g there. The zoning r e s o l u t i o n that was adopted by the C i t y of New York provided f o r three broad zoning d i s t r i c t s i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l system: r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, and u n r e s t r i c t e d . The separation of land use was not complete however, but cumulative, as no other use was permitted i n the r e s i d e n t i a l zone, residences and c e r t a i n unobjectionable manufacturing a c t i v i t i e s were allowed i n the commercial d i s t r i c t s , while a l l uses could locate i n the 14 unrestricted zone (Scott, 1969, p. 156). 3 I n i t i a l l y , the exclusion of business a c t i v i t i e s from r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s was strongly contested. Several court decisions held that the exclusion of stores from r e s i d e n t i a l areas was f o r aesthetic reasons, and that the health and safety of the community was not affected. To counter t h i s c r i t i c i s m , i t was l a t e r argued that commercial enterprises i n r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s posed a f i r e hazard and caused increased t r a f f i c , l i t t e r , and dust. Aware of such opposition to land use controls, Edward Bassett had been concerned with the l e g a l i t y and con-s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the proposed zoning by-law when i t was drafted. The New York zoning code was j u s t i f i e d as a regulation i n the public i n t e r e s t under the p o l i c e power of the state; i t was not regarded as a taking of property r i g h t s requiring the power of eminent domain and payment of compensation. And indeed, the zoning r e s o l u t i o n that was adopted by the c i t y withstood every court t e s t (Scott, 1969, p. 153). Similar land use regulations were soon adopted throughout the country: within a year of New York enacting t h e i r zoning controls, "zoning was e i t h e r underway or being agitated [for] i n twenty-one c i t i e s " (Scott, 1969, p. 169). B. THE RATIONALE FOR SEPARATING LAND USES Land-use zoning, with minor additions and modifications, has been practised l a r g e l y i n t h i s form to the present. The separation of uses, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas, has become well established and supported. 3 T h i s h i e r a r c h i c a l zoning structure has continued to the present, and perhaps reveals the bias i n favour of r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s inherent i n most zoning codes. 15 The enactment of land use controls was motivated by concerns to maintain property values, and to eliminate and prevent nuisances and eyesores. And, i t was f o r these very reasons that land use regulations gained acceptance throughout North America i n the e a r l y decades of t h i s century. While early proponents of the emerging c i t y planning movement, such as Nelson Lewis and John Nolen, were attempting to broaden the knowledge of the purposes and p r i n c i p l e s of c i t y planning, popular i n t e r e s t began to focus on one aspect of planning: zoning to protect single-family r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s from the encroachment of commercial and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Although zoning controls were t y p i c a l l y enacted i n the public i n t e r e s t under the c a t c h - a l l power of promoting the "health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and general welfare of the people i n the community," the prime motivating reason was i n v a r i a b l y to prevent the "indiscriminate invasion of i n d u s t r i e s and stores into r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods" (Lohman, 1931, p. 251). That property owners would accept r e s t r i c t i o n s on the use of land i s notable, at l e a s t i n the North American context during t h i s time, and i t indicates the popular appeal and p o l i t i c a l support underlying these f i r s t land use controls. One of the e a r l y goals of c i t y planning was to "guarantee the preservation of the character of a d i s t r i c t when once established by protecting i t against inva-sion by industries, uses, and occupations inconsistent with that character" (Lewis, 1916, p. 260); f o r t h i s reason i t enjoyed a degree of public support. Without some form of systematic regulation of land use i t was argued that "the whole c i t y becomes a patchwork of mixed uses, disorder, and chaos" (Lohman, 1931, p. 249). In commercial d i s t r i c t s , however, the orthodoxy of separating a c t i v i t i e s has remained le s s s t r i c t . For t h i s reason, the mixing of commercial and 16 r e s i d e n t i a l uses i n these d i s t r i c t s has occurred f o r some time, though perhaps overlooked by the planning community. Although c r i t i c a l of zoning regulations that permit r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s above commercial space, Bassett noted that t h i s form of zoning i s often favoured by property owner that hope to rent the ground f l o o r f o r commercial purposes, and "yet preserve a c e r t a i n amount of exclusiveness f o r the apartments above" (Bassett, 1936, p. 86). In recent years, planners have likewise come to regard the mixing of uses i n commercial areas l e s s c r i t i c a l l y . To gain an understanding of why t h i s s h i f t i n perspective has occurred, the C i t y of Vancouver's planning p o l i c y of encouraging r e s i d e n t i a l use i n the downtown core i s examined next. C. MIXING RESIDENTIAL AND CCMMERC:LAL USES IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE: THE EXAMPLE OF VANCOUVER In 1975, the C i t y of Vancouver implemented a density bonus system to encourage the i n c l u s i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s within proposed o f f i c e develop-ments i n c e r t a i n downtown d i s t r i c t s . The floorspace bonus was intended to induce developers to include a r e s i d e n t i a l component i n commercial projects ( i n both mixed-use buildings and on adjoining s i t e s ) , as part of a broader c i t y p o l i c y of seeking to increase the amount of housing i n the downtown. This bonus system, and the housing p o l i c y i t hoped to implement, represented a s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t from previous planning at t i t u d e s towards what constituted a "desirable" downtown, the r o l e i t was to serve, and the future d i r e c t i o n i t should take. P r i o r to the e a r l y 1970's, c i t y zoning p o l i c y i n e f f e c t since 1928 had encouraged apartment development i n the West End, an apart-ment d i s t r i c t adjacent to the downtown, while i n the remainder of the down-town no new r e s i d e n t i a l development was permitted (City of Vancouver, Plan-ning Department, 1973, p. 18). Consequently, the housing stock to be found 17 i n the core area was t y p i c a l l y older and deteriorated. A c i t y planning report published i n 1966 revealed the e f f e c t s of t h i s long-term p o l i c y , estimating that only 8000 of the 49, 750 people l i v i n g on the downtown peninsula resided i n the core area between Burrard and Main Street (City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1968, p. 25). Further, there i s no mention i n t h i s report that housing should be permitted or encouraged i n the down-town outside of the West End. I t was with the publication of the Downtown  Vancouver Developments Concepts report i n 1970 that we f i r s t f i n d i n d i c a t i o n that "housing should be a v a i l a b l e i n a v a r i e t y of downtown environments including commercial d i s t r i c t s and the waterfront" (City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1970, p. 21). Elaborating on t h i s objective a 1973 document Downtown Vancouver, Part 1, Proposed Goals, c a l l e d f o r expanding "housing opportunities on the downtown peninsula" (City of Vancouver Planning Depart-ment, 1973, p. 4). This objective was l a t e r incorporated i n the 1975 Down- town D i s t r i c t O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law (Mo. 4912), which stated that among the intents of the by-law were: ° "to improve the general environment of the Downtown d i s t r i c t as an a t t r a c t i v e place i n which to l i v e , shop, and v i s i t ; " ° and, "to encourage more people to l i v e within the downtown." What were the reasons that led the C i t y of Vancouver, along with other North American urban centres, to re-examine t h e i r goals and p o l i c i e s f o r the downtown and to adopt the objective of expanding housing i n the core area? Through the 1950's and 1960's, most large North American c i t i e s experienced and encouraged rapid growth i n commercial o f f i c e development i n the downtown. In Vancouver f o r example, private o f f i c e space i n the downtown increased from 1.5 m i l l i o n square feet i n 1950 to over 10.5 m i l l i o n square < 18 fee t i n 1980.(Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1982, p. 104). This boom i n commercial o f f i c e space had several consequences f o r downtown centres throughout North America. Steady increases i n o f f i c e employment placed growing demands on the transportation systems serving the core, and exacerbated the problems of t r a f f i c congestion and parking. Over the same period, the number of residents i n the downtown area declined with the corresponding growth of suburban communities on the periphery. The r e s i d e n t i a l population that re-mained i n the core became increasingly composed of minority and lower income groups, who e i t h e r could not af f o r d , desire, or f i n d s u i t a b l e accommodation i n the suburbs. A d e c l i n i n g population base, and a work force that abandoned the core a f t e r the 9-5 work-day, were sa i d to contribute to a downtown that became "dead" and unsafe i n the evenings and on weekends. The intra-urban s h i f t i n population was also marked by the development of large shopping malls i n the suburbs, and the r e s u l t i n g decline i n market share f o r downtown mer-chants and r e t a i l e r s . Many North American downtowns at t h i s time were a l s o the scene of large-scale slum clearance, urban renewal, and freeway expansion projects. Inner c i t y neighborhoods threatened with freeway construction began to react with strong opposition, such as that which arose i n the Strathcona area of Vancouver, while i n the l a t e 60's urban renewal programs came under increasing c r i t i c i s m over t h e i r costs, impact on low-income neighborhoods, and displacement of e x i s t i n g residents (Yeates and Garner, 1976, p. 415) . The i n t e r p l a y of these forces brought about a gradual reassessment among planners and the general public of what the image and function of the downtown should be. No longer was a "strong" downtown seen s o l e l y i n terms of con-tinued o f f i c e development, but also as a place of a c t i v i t y , d i v e r s i t y , and amenity. The p o l i c y of now permitting and promoting housing i n the urban core grew out of t h i s changed perspective. 19 In a statement of goals f o r the downtown, prepared i n 1973, the C i t y of Vancouver expressed a desire to "improve the human environment downtown by encouraging a mix of a c t i v i t i e s , to produce v a r i e t y and d i v e r s i t y over a 24-hour day, to reduce problems of access to work caused by d a i l y commu-tin g , and to enhance the effectiveness of mutually supporting a c t i v i t i e s and services" (City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1973, p. 4). As r e f l e c t e d i n t h i s statement, the p o l i c y of encouraging housing i n the core area sought to achieve a number of goals. Integrating housing i n commercial d i s t r i c t s was argued to lessen commuter t r a f f i c , by allowing more workers to l i v e within walking distance of t h e i r jobs i n the CBD. Additional residents i n the core area would not only provide a convenient labour pool f o r down-town businesses, but would a l s o generate increased consumer demand f o r goods and services, and therefore provide a broader basis of market support f o r e x i s t i n g merchants beyond d a i l y working hours. An increased r e s i d e n t i a l component i n the core also was believed to contribute to the v i t a l i t y and d i v e r s i t y of the downtown, making i t a "people-oriented place which stays a l i v e i n the evenings and weekends." With a greater human presence, the downtown would become safer, and thereby drawing other users to the area. Encouraging r e s i d e n t i a l development i n the downtown would also broaden the choice of housing f o r those that may wish to l i v e close to employment, entertainment, and services offered i n the c i t y centre. Perhaps not as applicable i n Vancouver, but c e r t a i n l y of concern i n other North American c i t i e s was the objective of reversing the migration of residents from the centre and the d e t e r i o r a t i o n of inner c i t y neighborhoods (and subsequent decline i n tax base). Drawing new residents to the downtown, i t was hoped, would help regenerate d e c l i n i n g neighborhoods and stimulate a d d i t i o n a l private sector investment. 20 Although a l l of these objectives address important planning problems, the degree to which the presence of more housing i n the downtown can measurably accomplish these goals i s d i f f i c u l t to assess. For one thing, i s there a threshold amount of housing necessary f o r these goals to be realized? In a study examining the C i t y of Vancouver's bonus system, i t was suggested that the p o l i c y of encouraging housing i n the downtown as a means of achieving the v a r i e t y of goals discussed above, has been based on a combination of l i m i t e d t e c h n i c a l arguments, good intentions, and i n t u i t i o n ( M i l l e r , 1983, p. 48). A p o l i c y conceived on t h i s foundation does not e a s i l y lend i t s e l f to empirical i n v e s t i g a t i o n or t e s t i n g . F i n a l l y , the response of developers to the housing p o l i c y and the floorspace bonus has been les s than enthusiastic. From i t s implementation i n 1975 t i l l 1980, the bonus system drew very l i t t l e market i n t e r e s t : only f i v e mixed-use projects were developed i n the bonused areas of the downtown ( M i l l e r , 1983, p. 14). Market conditions changed i n 1980-81, r e f l e c t i n g increased demand f o r downtown o f f i c e space, r i s i n g housing pric e s , and the success of nearby False Creek i n a t t r a c t i n g residents to an inner c i t y l o c a t i o n ; these f a c t o r s and the impact of income tax shelters resulted i n a f l u r r y of development applications. However, i n a survey of developers involved with downtown mixed-use projects, several s p e c i f i c problems with the bonus system and some short-comings of the downtown housing p o l i c y were i d e n t i f i e d ( M i l l e r , 1983, p. 18). Despite the advantages of access to work, shops, restaurants, and c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , the image and environment of the core area makes i t d i f f i c u l t to market dwelling u n i t s there. Second, the a d d i t i o n a l commercial f l o o r -space to be gained by including r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n a project does not 21 represent a "true" bonus at a l l , as t h i s extra space has already been c a p i t a l i z e d into the p r i c e of the property when i t was purchased. (The bonused floorspace benefited only the o r i g i n a l landowner or those developers that held the property p r i o r to 1975.) Higher land values, brought about by the bonus, boosted development costs, which i n turn lead to high sales prices/rents f o r the dwelling units included i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . The most s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g of the survey, however, was that private market housing w i l l only be provided i f an e f f e c t i v e demand e x i s t s . Floor-space bonuses and zoning controls cannot create demand, but simply regulate and shape the development that i s b u i l t i n response to a perceived market need. The market demand f o r housing u n i t s i n o f f i c e buildings i n the core, however, has not proven strong, as evidenced by a s i g n i f i c a n t d ecline i n r e s i d e n t i a l space i n proposed downtown projects. In 1983, the amount of r e s i d e n t i a l space i n projects under construction decreased by almost one-t h i r d , while r e s i d e n t i a l space included i n proposed mixed-use projects has declined by almost 80 percent (City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1983, p. 19). While part of t h i s decline can be a t t r i b u t e d to the general drop i n proposed o f f i c e development, the weak market response to r e s i d e n t i a l units 4 i n downtown mixed-use buildings i s c e r t a i n l y an important f a c t o r . In contrast, the mixing of r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial uses has occurred f o r some time, i f l a r g e l y unnoticed, throughout Vancouver's commercial d i s t r i c t s outside of the downtown. As a basis to investigate why t h i s trend A In conversation with several leasing agents f o r downtown mixed-use buildings, i t was indicated that: the absorption rate f o r r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s has been slow; the concept of mixing r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial a c t i v i t i e s i n the core area i s yet to be proven; and, that developers are now ignoring the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace bonus. 22 has occurred, i t i s necessary to f i r s t b r i e f l y examine the c i t y ' s suburban commercial structure and mixed-use development within that context. D. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN OUTLYING COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS The commercial structure of Vancouver, as with most North American c i t i e s , i s h i e r a r c h i c a l , c o n s i s t i n g of a CBD and a v a r i e t y of smaller-scale commercial centres and business areas. P r i o r to the 1930 amalgamation of Point Grey, South Vancouver, and the o l d C i t y of Vancouver, the downtown served as the one major commercial centre of the C i t y and f o r most of the region. With gradual improvement of roadways and the development of a streetcar system, commercial a c t i v i t i e s began to locate i n a ribbon pattern along many of the major a r t e r i a l s of the c i t y (City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1971, p. 3). A f t e r the amalgamation i n 1930, a consolidated zoning by-law (No. 2074) was enacted. I t i s now recognized that during t h i s period there was an over-zoning of land f o r commercial uses along most t r a n s i t l i n e s and major str e e t s ( C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department, 1971, p. 8). This tended to re i n f o r c e the already e x i s t i n g , dispersed l i n e a r pattern of development, and helped to e s t a b l i s h the present d i s t r i b u t i o n of commercial uses throughout the c i t y . The s t r i p pattern of commercial development arose f o r several reasons. As the r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s surrounding these major a r t e r i a l s grew, vacant land along these s t r e e t s provided s i t e s f o r new businesses to serve t h i s growing population. The stores and shops located along these a r t e r i a l s consisted p r i m a r i l y of small r e t a i l and service outlets, s e l l i n g convenience goods and services. They catered to a l o c a l market and were dependent upon walk-in trade. A ribbon pattern of development allowed stores to locate within walking distance of most neighborhoods, while o f f e r i n g v i s i b l e locations and a c c e s s i b i l i t y to customers t r a v e l l i n g by streetcar. Locating com-mercial a c t i v i t i e s along busy a r t e r i a l s was also considered to act as a buff e r to s h i e l d t r a f f i c noise from adjoining r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods (Cit y of Vancouver Planning Department, 1971, p. 7.5). During the post-war period, however, many of the C i t y ' s commercial d i s t r i c t s underwent a t r a n s i t i o n from r e t a i l to general business or service use. This s h i f t occurred i n response to changes i n income, transportation, and merchandising. Following the Second World War, disposable income rose s t e a d i l y and automobile ownership became more common. Catering to a more a f f l u e n t and mobile consumer market, r e t a i l a c t i v i t y became concentrated i n fewer but larger o u t l e t s ( C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department, 1971, p. 34). Smaller businesses had d i f f i c u l t y competing with the large merchan-d i s i n g stores and chains, due to the wider v a r i e t y of goods and the benefits of greater volume purchasing enjoyed by the larger r e t a i l e r s . E x i s t i n g shops i n established commercial s t r i p s were also often unable to expand, due to f i x e d l o t l i n e s , l i m i t e d s i t e depth, and the lack of o f f - s t r e e t parking. Increased mo bility allowed consumers to t r a v e l further f o r shopping needs, further eroding l o c a l trade areas. R e t a i l a c t i v i t y therefore became concen-trated i n eit h e r regional centres, such as the downtown, or i n d i s t r i c t centres, such as Kerrisd a l e or Fraser Street (City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1977, p. 7.6). A number of l o c a l r e t a i l centres of course remained, such as those at the i n t e r s e c t i o n of major streets, or along successful r e t a i l blocks that had not been overshadowed by larger d i s t r i c t centres. For many of the commercial areas located along major a r t e r i a l s , r e t a i l a c t i v i t y became le s s v i a b l e and was replaced i n part by general business uses. Commercial areas with general business uses are t y p i c a l l y auto-oriented, and are composed of a mixture of r e t a i l , service, o f f i c e , general commercial and semi-24 i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s . What r o l e then, does mixed-use play i n Vancouver's o u t l y i n g commercial d i s t r i c t s ? F i r s t , i t should be noted that there are approximately 2500 dwelling units contained i n mixed-use buildings i n Vancouver, excluding the downtown core. These buildings vary g r e a t l y i n age; nearly 900 dwel-l i n g units i n 144 buildings were constructed over the time period of t h i s study (January 1, 1974 to May 31, 1983). Not only has mixed-use development occurred over a number of years, i t i s a l s o to be found i n a l l the commercial zoning d i s t r i c t s of the c i t y . I t i s only i n the C-3A, Central Broadway o f f i c e d i s t r i c t , that mixed-use i s underrepresented. Further, mixed-use buildings range i n s i z e from the more numerous two-storey, two-dwelling units situated above one or two shops on a 30-33 foot l o t to the larger three-storey structures containing 20 to 50 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s . The majority of dwelling units i n mixed-use buildings are r e n t a l , at l e a s t among those constructed since 1974. In recent years, as with most r e n t a l apartment development i n Vancouver, an increasing number of mixed-use dwellings have been b u i l t as s t r a t a t i t l e ( i . e . condominium) units, p a r t i c l a r l y on the west side of the c i t y . An extensive v a r i e t y of commercial a c t i v i t i e s are found i n these buildings, including restaurants, corner stores, personal services, o f f i c e s , and a multitude of r e t a i l o u t l e t s . A l l of the suburban commercial zoning d i s t r i c t s i n Vancouver permit r e s i d e n t i a l use above the ground f l o o r , but regulate i t s form i n the following ways: r e s i d e n t i a l use i s not permitted at grade f o r a depth of 35 feet ex-cept f o r entrances; an increased rear yard setback of 10 feet to 25 feet i s required f o r buildings containing dwelling u n i t s ; and, there are horizontal 5 l i g h t angle requirements from windows i n residences above the ground f l o o r . 25 In addition, the C - l and C-2 zoning d i s t r i c t s have a r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r which reduces the t o t a l FSR allowable as more i s added (each square foot of r e s i d e n t i a l counts as 2.5 i n the FSR c a l c u l a t i o n ) . The r e s i d e n t i a l m u l t i p l i e r has been i n the zoning code since 1956, when the current Zoning By-law (No. 3575) was enacted.^ The intent of the mu l t i -p l i e r clause i s two-fold. The primary reason f o r t h i s clause i s to l i m i t the developable p o t e n t i a l f o r projects i n C - l and C-2 d i s t r i c t s to a scale compatible with adjoining r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods. For example, the C-2 zone permits a maximum FSR of 3.0. I f the minimum amount of commercial floorspace i s b u i l t ( i . e . the front 35 fee t at grade), t h i s would occupy a nominal .3 FSR, leaving 2.7 that could be used f o r housing. Di v i d i n g t h i s r e s i d u a l 2.7 FSR by the 2.5 m u l t i p l i e r would r e s u l t i n an actual r e s i d e n t i a l FSR of 1.08, which when added to the nominal commercial floorspace would then equal a 1.1 o v e r a l l FSR f o r the b u i l d i n g . This f i g u r e of 1.1 i s considered an appropriate scale compatible with surrounding.residential, and often s i n g l e -family d i s t r i c t s . This argument can be c r i t i c i z e d on two points. F i r s t , i f an e n t i r e l y commercial structure i s developed i n the C-2 zone, i t can be b u i l t to the 3.00 While the c i t y places these r e s t r i c t i o n s on these buildings, i t s a t t i t u d e towards mixed-use i s even-handed. For example, the f i r s t two dwelling units i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g are exempted from the parking requirement. In the preceding Zoning By-law (No. 2306) there i s no mention of the m u l t i -p l i e r . Unfortunately, there i s v i r t u a l l y no documentation of the p o l i c y decisions or background reports that lead up to the present by-law. 26 FSR maxiinum, which i s f a r greater than the surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l use i n any event. (The f a c t that there are very few large-scale, s t r i c t l y commercial buildings developed i n the C - l and C-2 zones i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n i t s e l f . This w i l l be discussed further i n Chapter V.) And secondly, due to the height r e s t r i c t i o n found i n the C-2 zoning code that applies equally to a l l uses, most large-scale mixed-use projects are b u i l t to t h i s 40 foot/ three storey l i m i t . The diminished floorspace i n these b u i l d i n g (due to the 2.5 m u l t i p l i e r ) , i s met by simply stepping-back the upper f l o o r s away from the commercial s t r e e t f r o n t towards the r e s i d e n t i a l uses behind. When viewed from the rear lane, these mixed-use buildings appear as "bulky" as any three-storey commercial structure. The second reason f o r the r e s i d e n t i a l m u l t i p l i e r i s to diminish the attractiveness of b u i l d i n g housing on commercially zoned land. Limitations on the amount of housing that can be b u i l t helps to maintain the C i t y ' s commercial land base f o r commercial uses. That developers, who presumably are motivated by the desir e to maximize t h e i r return on a property, have chosen to include a housing component i n commercial structures despite these r e s t r i c t i o n s , leads to the question of why these mixed-use projects are being b u i l t . Two possible explanations f o r t h i s trend can be suggested at t h i s point. One l i k e l y explanation f o r the development of mixed-use buildings i s that there i s a surplus of commercially zoned land i n the c i t y , combined with an i n s u f f i c i e n t demand f o r commercial space above the ground f l o o r i n many locati o n s . (In the past, the C i t y has recognized the extent of t h i s excess zoning; i t has downzoned some commercial d i s t r i c t s along st r e e t s such as Main, Fraser, V i c t o r i a , and Kingsway to two-family dwellings.) For developers 27 responding to market forces, the demand f o r housing i s l i k e l y perceived to be stronger than that f o r commercial uses i n many areas of the c i t y . Where there i s a strong demand f o r o f f i c e space above grade, such as that found i n the Central Broadway D i s t r i c t (C-3A), mixed-use i s a much l e s s a t t r a c t i v e development option. The second possible reason why developers choose to combine r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial uses i n one structure i s that i t perhaps o f f e r s a more d i v e r s i f i e d property investment. A mixed-use b u i l d i n g i s " d i v e r s i f i e d " i n the sense that i t caters to two separate markets. I t i s u n l i k e l y that the income flows from each component would f l u c t u a t e together, and therefore the project may o f f e r a l e s s r i s k y investment. Testing these hypotheses required contacting the developers and owners of these buildings, to determine t h e i r motivations f o r e i t h e r developing or acquiring a mixed-use project. E. SUMMARY Zoning controls r e q u i r i n g the separation of uses were put i n t o e f f e c t p r i m a r i l y to protect r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s from the i n f i l t r a t i o n of incompatible, nuisance a c t i v i t i e s . Motivated by the concerns of preserving the character of established r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods and maintaining property values, a v a r i e t y of i n t e r e s t groups embraced the concept of land use controls. Less obvious perhaps, the e a r l i e s t zoning controls r e f l e c t e d the separation of work place and residence that occurred i n the i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s of Europe i n the 19th century (Lynch, 1981, p. 24). As the urban economy expanded and became more complex, increasingly s p e c i a l i z e d commercial and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s emerged, each with d i f f e r i n g l o c a t i o n a l preferences. The urban landscape gradually became divided by these underlying economic forces. Commercial a c t i v i t i e s tended to locate at the centre, enjoying the 28 advantage of ease of access to the surrounding c i t y ; manufacturing and transport favored locations where land was inexpensive and transportation f a c i l i t i e s were possible; and r e s i d e n t i a l uses spread elsewhere, a t t r a c t e d to areas o f f e r i n g amenities and access to transportation. Zoning, while i n i t i a l l y enacted to protect r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s , e s s e n t i a l l y served as a system to regulate these basic economic forces. More recently, the s t r i c t separation of uses has been questioned, at l e a s t within commercial d i s t r i c t s . Public p o l i c i e s designed to encourage the l o c a t i o n of housing among downtown commercial a c t i v i t i e s have been implemented to achieve a number of planning goals. The market response to these p o l i c i e s , as evidenced i n Vancouver, has been weak. Yet, i n commercial d i s t r i c t s outside of the core, mixed commercial/residential projects are being b u i l t without a bonus incentive. The questions to be addressed next are, why i s t h i s development trend occurring, and second, how s u i t a b l e i s the housing i n mixed-use bui l d i n g s . Providing answers to these questions, among others, was the purpose of the survey-questionnaire described i n the following chapter. 29 I I I . METHODS Public opinion p o l l s t e r s are people who count the grains of sand i n your birdcage and then t r y to t e l l you how much sand there i s on the beach. Fred A l l e n (American Comedian, 1894-1956) Two questions are c e n t r a l to t h i s study. F i r s t , why have mixed-use projects been i n i t i a t e d by developers i n a v a r i e t y of locations i n commercial d i s t r i c t s i n Vancouver outside of the Central Business D i s t r i c t , despite i n many cases, the pena l i z i n g e f f e c t of the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r ? And second, i n the opinion of the residents i n these mixed-use projects, do the dwelling units i n these b u i l d i n g provide a s a t i s f a c t o r y form of housing? To obtain the information necessary to adequately answer these questions, required contacting a sample group that i s f a m i l i a r with mixed-use develop-ment: the developer/owners and residents of these projects. A survey-questionnaire methodology was adopted due to the lack of information a v a i l a b l e on the to p i c with which to address these questions. This chapter d e t a i l s the procedure used i n acquiring the data f o r the study. The approach followed here conforms c l o s e l y with the f i r s t stage of the survey-analysis-plan t r i o l o g y widely practised i n planning. F i r s t , the objectives of the study were set-out, i n the form of questions to be investigated. Next, an inventory of mixed-use projects within the study area 30 was compiled. From the inventory, a sample group of buildings was drawn to be surveyed by self-completed questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d to both developer/owners of buildings i n the sample and to residents i n those bu i l d i n g s . The responses to the survey provide the basis f o r analyzing why t h i s development trend i s occurring and to evaluate the h a b i t a b i l i t y of dwelling units i n mixed-use bui l d i n g s . A. INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE STUDY In addition to the two primary issues to be addressed i n the study, a number of r e l a t e d questions were also posed. These secondary questions served as a guide i n d r a f t i n g the developer/owner and resident questionnaires. In connection with the f i r s t issue, why are mixed-use projects being developed, the following questions were ra i s e d : ° How d i f f i c u l t or easy i s i t to r e n t / l e a s e / s e l l commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l space i n a mixed-use bu i l d i n g , compared with a single-use structure? Does the f a c t that the b u i l d i n g com-bines two separate uses a f f e c t f i n d i n g occupants? ° Have the owners or managers of these projects encountered any d i f f i c u l t i e s i n mixing commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l uses? ° Which commercial a c t i v i t i e s have been found to be "s u i t a b l e " and "unsuitable"? ° Do mixed-use project owners f e e l that there i s greater s e c u r i t y due to.a 24-hour presence i n the building? ° Are there unique problems i n developing or owning/managing a b u i l d i n g that combines d i f f e r e n t uses? ° What factors have been found to be important f o r a mixed-use b u i l d i n g to be successful? 31 ° And, what might the developer/owner do d i f f e r e n t l y , or not do, i f they were to develop or acquire another mixed-use building? The intent of these questions was to gain a d d i t i o n a l information about t h i s form of development, and to allow a more informed discussion about the reasons that i t i s occurring. Also, the developers and developer-owners were asked f o r t h e i r comments regarding the C - l and C-2 r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r . With regards to the issue of h a b i t a b i l i t y of the dwelling u n i t s i n mixed-use buildings, there are a l s o several r e l a t e d issues that were examined: ° From what type and tenure of housing are mixed-use residents drawn? ° Why do these residents choose to l i v e i n a mixed-use building? ° Does mixed-use housing provide an a l t e r n a t i v e f o r those that e i t h e r cannot a f f o r d or require a single-family dwelling, yet wish to remain i n a s p e c i f i c l o c a l area? ° What other factors were important i n i n f l u e n c i n g t h e i r d e c i s i o n to reside i n a mixed-use building? ° What forms of housing i s mixed-use development an a l t e r n a t i v e to? ° Are there problems and/or b e n e f i t s unique to l i v i n g i n a mixed-use building? ° Is t r a f f i c noise bothersome to residents of mixed-use buildings? ° How s a t i s f i e d are residents with l i v i n g i n a b u i l d i n g that com-bines d i f f e r e n t uses? ° F i n a l l y , do these responses vary r e l i a b l y by age of respondent, household s i z e , the l o c a t i o n of the project, i t s size, or tenure? 32 These questions were designed not only to provide the basis f o r a c r i t i c a l evaluation of the q u a l i t y of mixed-use housing, where " q u a l i t y " i s r e l a t e d to residents' s a t i s f a c t i o n , but also to develop a mixed-use resident p r o f i l e . By learning who these residents are, i n terms of age and household s i z e , why they chose to l i v e i n these buildings, and to what form of housing mixed-use occupancies are an a l t e r n a t i v e , i t w i l l be possible to speculate on how mixed-use development may serve to increase and broaden the housing stock of Vancouver. B. ESTABLISHING THE DATA BASE The i n i t i a l focus of the study was to examine recently completed mixed-use buildings outside of the downtown core i n the C i t y of Vancouver. The downtown was excluded as i t was f e l t that mixed-use projects i n that area would be of a d i f f e r e n t scale, subject to d i f f e r e n t zoning regulations, and that the r e s i d e n t i a l component would be targeted f o r a d i f f e r e n t c l i e n t group. (For the purpose of t h i s study, the downtown i s defined as the area that encompasses the downtown peninsula, False Creek north of 6th Avenue s t a r t i n g at Burrard Street and extending to Main Street, the p r i m a r i l y i n d u s t r i a l zone east of Main Street l y i n g to the north of Broadway, and extending eastward to, but not i n c l u d i n g Commercial Drive. (Refer to F i g . 1 i n Chapter I.) The study area therefore includes a l l the C i t y of Vancouver, excluding the downtown as defined. Having established the geographic boundaries of the study area, next i t was necessary to compile an inventory of mixed-use buildings f a l l i n g within i t . A preliminary l i s t of projects was f i r s t derived from the Vancouver C i t y Planning Department's Current Development F i l e . The development f i l e i s a record of conversions, additions, demolitions, and 33 new construction on an i n d i v i d u a l property basis f o r the period June 1, 1974 to May 31, 1981. Building Permits, f o r properties that have received f i n a l inspection and approval, form the data base of the Development F i l e . The f i l e contains information i n a coded format covering zoning, new and o l d use, a land use code, number of old and new r e s i d e n t i a l units, l o t dimensions, address, and estimated permit value, among other data. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to the mixed-use study was the the land use coding of each entry i n the Development F i l e . By noting new construction that combined commercial with r e s i d e n t i a l uses located outside of the downtown core, a tentative l i s t of mixed-use projects was compiled. The Development F i l e unfortunately does not monitor development a c t i v i t y a f t e r May 31, 1981. To uncover projects completed a f t e r t h i s date, i t was necessary to d i r e c t l y examine Building Permit records f o r the second h a l f of 1981 and f o r 1982. These more recent completions were added to the preliminary l i s t , f o r a t o t a l of 119 en t r i e s . The next step i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the data base involved v e r i f y i n g the l i s t of mixed-use projects through f i e l d checks. As the scope of the study i s to examine mixed-use buildings located along major commercial a r t e r i a l s outside of the Vancouver CBD, the procedure f o r f i e l d checking simply required d r i v i n g along these s t r e e t s . Determining which commercial a r t e r i a l s to inspect was guided by two considerations: f i r s t , by the addresses of e x i s t i n g mixed-use projects compiled i n the preliminary l i s t ; and second, by de f i n i n g more p r e c i s e l y what i s meant by the term "major commercial a r t e r i a l . " An operational d e f i n i t i o n was deduced by overlaying the zoning map f o r Vancouver with the Tran s i t Guide printed by the Metro T r a n s i t Operating Company. The zoning map reveals the d i s t r i b u t i o n of commercial d i s t r i c t s , while the T r a n s i t Guide 34 displays a l l the bus routes within the c i t y , which presumably are routed along major s t r e e t s . Therefore, a "major commercial a r t e r i a l " i s defined as a street on which there i s some commercially zoned land along i t s length that, i n addition i s served by regular public t r a n s i t . I t was along the f u l l length of these streets, outside of the downtown core, that f i e l d checks were conducted. The purpose of the f i e l d surveys was threefold: f i r s t , to v e r i f y the i n i t i a l l i s t of mixed-use buildings; second, to reveal the existence of any more recent projects ( i . e . completed since 1982) that may e i t h e r be awaiting a f i n a l b u i l d i n g inspection or a l t e r n a t i v e l y , may have been completed, i n s -pected and occupied, but not yet compiled i n the Building Permits recording system; and t h i r d , to gain v i s u a l information about these developments. By examining these buildings i n the f i e l d , i t was possible to gain an appreciation of the range i n design, scale, and combination of uses found i n e x i s t i n g mixed-use buildings. (Refer to project photographs i n Appendix II.) With regard to the second concern l i s t e d above, i t was found that 16 mixed-use projects had been completed i n 1983 (as of June 1), while an ad-d i t i o n a l 7 developments were i n various stages of construction. The buildings completed i n 1983 (before June 1) were then added to the o r i g i n a l l i s t , as was a project b u i l t i n 1974 p r i o r to June 1 of that year. F i n a l l y , through f i e l d checking the i n i t i a l l i s t of 119 projects, 5 omissions were uncovered and 2 addresses were corrected. The f i n a l t o t a l of mixed-use buildings completed between January 1, 1974 and June 1, 1983 i n the study area equalled 144. 35 C. DRAWING THE SAMPLE From t h i s t o t a l population of mixed-use projects, i t was then necessary to extract a sample group that would l a t e r be surveyed. A sampling f r a c t i o n of approximately one-third was considered appropriate f o r the purpose of t h i s study, allowing an approximate 5 per cent standard er r o r of estimate (Satin and Shasty, 1983, pp. 14, 55). Of the 144 projects i n t o t a l , 50 were selected through a s t r a t i f i e d random sample, as follows: ° F i r s t , the t o t a l population was divided into two sub-groups on the basis of the number of dwelling units contained within each b u i l d i n g . The t o t a l data set i s composed of 74 two-dwelling u n i t projects and 70 buildings containing a range of housing u n i t s from 3 to more than 50 per project. This dichotomy was made to ensure a proportionate representation between the two s i z e classes. ° A code number was assigned to each case i n the two sub-groups. Projects containing two dwelling units were numbered 200 to 273; buildings with more than two dwelling units were numbered 100 to 169. ° Next, by consulting a random numbers table, 25 numbers were randomly selected f o r each sub-group (A r i k i n and Colton, 1950, pp. 158-161). These random numbers were then matched with the code numbers assigned to each case, to derive a sample of 25 cases per sub-group. ° In addition to the sample group drawn f o r the survey, a pre-test group was also selected. The purpose of t h i s group was to t e s t the developer/owner and resident questionnaires to ensure that 36 the questions were not ambiguous nor open to m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . A pre-test group of s i x projects was drawn, following the same procedure outlined above. ° The addresses f o r owners and developers of the sampled projects were obtained from the property tax records of the B.C. Assessment Authority. The sampling procedure employed here i s not without i t s f a u l t s . F i r s t , i t should be recognized that the unit of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s the mixed-use b u i l d i n g . This has important consequences f o r the t e s t i n g of the study hypotheses i n l a t e r chapters. Only those hypotheses dealing with the projects themselves can be evaluated with any confidence. The sample population i s not made up of a l l mixed-use project residents i n the study area, but rather only those residents i n the buildings f o r which the owner p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the survey and permitted the resident questionnaire to be d i s t r i b u t e d . Because of t h i s two-staged sampling procedure, the questions pertaining to mixed-use residents can only be answered with l e s s c e r t a i n t y . While the information derived from the resident survey may prove useful i n i d e n t i f y i n g mixed-use residents, why they chose to l i v e i n these projects, and reveal t h e i r l e v e l of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , t h i s underlying weakness should be noted. D. THE SURVEY-QUESTIONNAIRE A questionnaire i s not simply a l i s t of questions, but a research instrument f o r the c o l l e c t i o n and measurement of desired data (Oppenheim, 1966, p. 21). The two surveys u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study sought to obtain a wide range of information, including opinions and attitudes, r e c o l l e c t i o n of past experiences, expressions of s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , and f a c t u a l data. Each of the questionnaires was subjected to a number of 37 r e v i s i o n s and was pre-tested. (Refer to Appendix III f o r copies of each.) i ) Developer/Owner Questionnaire The developer/owner questionnaire was o r i g i n a l l y drafted as two separate surveys, which were l a t e r combined f o r reasons of economy and s i m p l i c i t y . In framing the developer/owner questionnaire, there were very few references to consult with the exception of one study on r e s i d e n t i a l developer behaviour (Goldberg and Ulinder, 1975). Thus t h i s questionnaire was drafted mainly on the basis of the research objectives of the study. The primary emphasis of the questionnaire was to determine some of the reasons why developers and owners chose a mixed-use project over a single-use development. The experi-ences of t h i s group with mixed-use was a l s o investigated: d i d they encounter d i f f i c u l t i e s i n developing or acquiring the project?; what i s required f o r a mixed-use b u i l d i n g to be successful?; which commercial uses have been found to be suitable and unsuitable?; are there problems inherent i n developing/ owning/managing a mixed-use project?; and, how easy i s i t to r e n t / l e a s e / s e l l commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l space i n these buildings? The thrust of t h i s group of questions was to provide background information about the develop-ment and operation of a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . The opinions of t h i s group with regards to mixed use was also surveyed: do owners f e e l that there i s greater housing security due to the presence of two uses with d i f f e r i n g hours of occupance?; would they develop or acquire another mixed-use building, and i f so, what would they do d i f f e r e n t l y ? ; and, how do developers view the residen-t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r i n the C - l and C-2 zoning codes? One f a c t u a l question was asked concerning rent l e v e l s of dwelling u n i t s . No information was requested regarding costs and revenues as t h i s was f e l t to f a l l outside the focus of the study. Sensitive questions of t h i s nature, though perhaps 38 i n t e r e s t i n g i n providing cost/revenue breakdowns between the r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial components, were also omitted i n the i n t e r e s t of keeping the survey short and easy to answer, and thereby hopefully ensuring a higher response rate. This questionnaire was then d e l i v e r e d to the s i x project owners i n the p i l o t group. Included with each questionnaire was a cover l e t t e r explaining the purpose and importance of the survey and a l e t t e r of introduction on University of B r i t i s h Columbia letterhead. In each case a follow-up phone c a l l was necessary to e i t h e r prompt a response, or to arrange a meeting to discuss and receive t h e i r answers to the questionnaire. Of the s i x owners, only one respondent refused outright, although one questionnaire was returned too l a t e to be included i n the pre-test a n a l y s i s . (The owner was overseas f o r a lengthy period.) The purpose of the p i l o t sample was to t e s t that the r e p l i e s were providing the information required f o r the study. (Conversely, the preliminary study tested whether the respondents also were s u f f i c i e n t l y informed on the issues being questioned.) Several minor changes were made to the p i l o t survey i n drawing-up the f u l l sample developer/owner question-naire. To elaborate on the issue of c o m p a t i b i l i t y between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l uses, one question was added asking owners to i d e n t i f y which commercial a c t i v i t i e s they had found to be " s u i t a b l e " and "unsuitable" f o r a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Another change involved rewording a question about the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r , and placing i n at the end of the sur-vey as an optional question f o r those respondents f a m i l i a r with the pertinent clause i n the C - l and C-2 zoning codes. 39 i i ) Resident Questionnaire Numerous studies have been written on the evaluation of housing q u a l i t y and the measurement of resident s a t i s f a c t i o n . In preparing the resident questionnaire, over t h i r t y sources on these topics were examined. Among these, f i v e of the studies included questionnaires used i n previous housing surveys, which served as models i n d r a f t i n g the mixed-use resident questionnaire (Erikson, 1965; Larsen and Nielsen, 1970; Becker, 1974; Beck, Rowan, and Teasdale, 1975; Vischer, 1980). The resident questionnaire contains sixteen questions. The f i r s t group of questions concerned f a c t u a l data including: present and previous housing tenure; u n i t s i z e and o r i e n t a t i o n ; household s i z e , age, and sex; length of residence; and, previous type and lo c a t i o n housing. Several questions were asked regarding reasons f o r moving in t o a mixed-use bu i l d i n g , what other forms of housing the resident considered at the time of moving, and factors that may have been important i n shaping t h i s consideration. Residents were also asked to rate t h e i r l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the dwel-l i n g unit, and to i d e n t i f y any drawbacks or benefits that may a r i s e from l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Another group of questions addressed the issue of noise, i t s l e v e l , source(s), and duration. For a l l the questions with p r e l i s t e d a l t e r n a t i v e answers, the order of the possible responses was varied among the questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , to help eliminate order bias i n the r e p l i e s . A p i l o t questionnaire, along with a cover l e t t e r and l e t t e r of i n -troduction, was d i s t r i b u t e d among the residents i n those b u i l d i n g s i n which the owner had previously p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the developer/owner pre-test survey. 40 Of the f i v e project owners that had responded to the e a r l i e r survey, only three were av a i l a b l e to grant permission to d e l i v e r the resident question-naires. A t o t a l of 31 resident questionnaires were sent out, of which 19 were eventually returned a f t e r a follow-up notice was d i s t r i b u t e d . The responses to the pre-test survey indicated that several changes to the questionnaire were required. Two questions were dropped from the form, and three were added. The omissions were made to eliminate an overlapping question (reasons f o r moving from previous dwelling), and another that confused respondents (how safe do mixed-use residents f e e l l i v i n g i n a commercial d i s t r i c t . ) Two questions were added to determine the s i z e of the respondent's dwelling unit and i t s l o c a t i o n within the project, while the t h i r d examined what other forms of housing were perceived as an a l t e r n a t i v e to a dwelling u n i t i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . The p i l o t survey was also b e n e f i c i a l i n pointing out the need f o r minor changes i n question phrasing, spacing, and order. E. SURVEYING THE SAMPLE GROUP The revised developer/owner questionnaire was del i v e r e d to the 50 respondents i n the sample group. In addition, the same questionnaire was sent to seven developers of mixed-use projects then under construction. To help achieve a high rate of response, a l l project owners with a l o c a l address were delivered the questionnaire i n person. Forty of the f i f t y owners received the survey i n t h i s manner, while the remainder were sent by mail. By d i s t r i b u t i n g the questionnaire personally, i t was often possible to speak d i r e c t l y with the respondent, explaining the purpose and requirements of the survey. In several cases, the respondent was prepared to answer o r a l l y 41 the questionnaire at that time. I n i t i a l l y , a two-thirds return rate was established as a minimum target l e v e l f o r a s e l f - a p p l i e d questionnaire. Reluctant respondents were phoned repeatedly u n t i l e i t h e r an interview was arranged where they could answer the questionnaire o r a l l y , or a f l a t r e f u s a l was received. Achieving the target return rate proved d i f f i c u l t . As a group, property developer/owners are t y p i c a l l y busy businesspeople; often they are understandably suspicious of surveys. Attempting to overcome t h i s reluctance, a second l e t t e r of introduction from Vancouver Alderman B i l l Yee, along with a money inducement f o r each completed questionnaire was d i s t r i b u t e d . Eventually a t o t a l of 34 of the 50 questionnaires were returned; i n addition 4 of the 7 developers also responded to the survey. Of the 16 non-replies, ten property owners refused outright and three were unavailable (usually "out of the country"); i n one case the property was sold during the survey period; and, two declined fo r personal reasons. Once the completed owner questionnaires were returned, each respondent was contacted to thank them f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and to request t h e i r permission to survey the residents of t h e i r b u i l d i n g . (Respondents i n the project developer group were.not contacted again, as the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n t h e i r buildings were e i t h e r uncompleted or only very recently occupied.) In each case, a sample resident questionnaire was sent to them f o r t h e i r perusal. (For the seven s t r a t a t i t l e projects i n t h i s group, e i t h e r the o r i g i n a l developer or the owner of the commercial space was contacted; as well, included with each resident questionnaire was a note explaining that i t was not possible to personally contact each r e s i d e n t i a l s t r a t a t i t l e owner to request t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the resident survey.) Four of the t h i r t y -42 four owner respondents declined to allow the resident questionnaire to be d i s t r i b u t e d , most commonly f o r the reason that they d i d not want the privacy of t h e i r tenants invaded. Also, one b u i l d i n g was dropped from the resident survey, as the owner had recently converted the dwelling u n i t s to commercial space. The resident questionnaires were therefore delivered to the remaining 29 buildings, which included 184 dwelling u n i t s . P r i o r to d i s t r i b u t i n g the questionnaire, an advance notice was sent to each occupant. A follow-up reminder was delivered l a t e r to prompt a d d i t i o n a l responses. Of the 184 r e s i d e n t i a l questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , 77 were eventually completed and returned. (Two other resident questionnaires were returned, but the u n i t and project address had been removed, and these therefore were omitted from the analysis.) F. SUMMARY: LESSONS OF A SURVEY-QUESTIONNAIRE METHOLX)LOGY To obtain the data necessary f o r the study, a survey-questionnaire was employed, as described i n t h i s chapter. The information sought was s t r a i g h t -forward, but unavailable from any other source. Applying a survey methodology, however, was found to be time-consuming, tedious and expensive. (Each questionnaire cost $.65 f o r photocopying, envelopes, and return postage, without including the cost of preparation and d i s t r i b u t i o n . ) To achieve a v a l i d survey and maintain the representativeness of the sample, p e r s i s t e n t call-backs of respondents i n the developer/owner group were required. Many of these respondents were e i t h e r suspicious of the nature and purpose of the survey, or too busy to reply. A s p e c i a l problem was encountered i n that some respondents lacked s u f f i c i e n t E n g l i s h reading and w r i t i n g comprehension, and therefore declined to p a r t i c i p a t e . (To overcome some of these problems causing a low response rate, i t i s suggested that an appointment-interview rather than a s e l f - a p p l i e d questionnaire format may prove more successful.) 43 Further, among the completed owner and resident surveys that were received, the amount of information provided varied g r e a t l y . While most returned questionnaires were answered f u l l y some responses were sketchy, incomplete, and without comments. Besides v a r i a t i o n i n the " q u a l i t y " of the r e p l i e s , respondents occasionally interpreted questions d i f f e r e n t l y . Although the pre-test procedure attempted to correct f o r t h i s , some questions, due to t h e i r nature, were construed d i f f e r e n t l y by d i f f e r e n t people. In summary, using a survey-questionnaire methodology was not without i t s problems, although the data generated was i n t e g r a l f o r addressing the research objectives of the study. 44 IV. PRESENTATION OF STUDY RESULTS Raised e a r l i e r i n Chapter I was the question of what proportion of development a c t i v i t y along commercial s t r e e t s i n the study area i s accounted f o r by mixed-use projects. This w i l l be discussed i n the f i r s t section of the chapter. The second section focuses on the underlying reasons why t h i s development trend i s occurring, based on the responses of the developer/ owner survey. In the f i n a l section of the chapter, emphasis s h i f t s to the issue of the h a b i t a b i l i t y of these structures, with the presentation of the r e s u l t s of the resident survey. A. PROPORTION OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ACCOUNTED FOR BY MIXED-USE The urban landscape i s not s t a t i c , but gradually changing i n response to changes i n technology, demographics, land values, and other economic and s o c i a l forces. This process of change i s evident along many of the commercial streets of Vancouver. Older buildings at the end of t h e i r economic l i f e , i n addition to those destroyed by f i r e , are replaced by new structures b u i l t a t a scale and with a layout appropriate f o r current market conditions. (Of course, many older, well-constructed b u i l d i n g s with heritage or aesthetic value are often rennovated to extend t h e i r economic l i f e . ) To determine the proportion of t h i s redevelopment a c t i v i t y that takes the form of mixed-use required c o l l e c t i n g data on a l l b u i l d i n g construction i n the commercial zoning d i s t r i c t s of the study area. (The zoning d i s t r i c t s considered here include: C - l , C-2, C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, C-3A, MC-1 and FM-1.) By examining b u i l d i n g permits f o r a f i v e year period (June 1, 1977 to June 1, 45 1982) a record of a l l development completions were compiled. The address, date of completion, s i z e ( i n storeys), breakdown of uses, and estimate of t o t a l b u i l d i n g costs were noted f o r each project. These were then t o t a l l e d f o r each zoning d i s t r i c t and compared with s i m i l a r data c o l l e c t e d f o r mixed-use projects, (see Table IV-1.) In absolute numbers, an appreciable amount of the construction that occurred i n the study area over the f i v e year period was mixed-use. Nearly 40 per cent of redevelopment a c t i v i t y during t h i s period i s composed of mixed-use buildings (86 out of a t o t a l of 229). Yet, i n terms of project value, mixed-use accounted f o r considerably l e s s , contributing only 21 per cent of the t o t a l . Thus, on average mixed-use projects are b u i l t at approximately h a l f the cost of a l l other commercial developments. Two reasons may be suggested f o r t h i s relationship;, based on the examination of b u i l d i n g permit records over the f i v e year comparison period. F i r s t , mixed-use projects tend to be smaller and therefore l e s s c o s t l y . Secondly, some of the s t r i c t l y commercial projects b u i l t over the f i v e year period cost i n excess of $500,000 each, p a r t i c u l a r l y the l a r g e r scale commercial developments i n the C-3A d i s t r i c t . Building completions and costs, however, vary considerably between each zoning d i s t r i c t . In four of the commercial zones (C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, and MC-1) over h a l f the projects completed and h a l f the value of new construction was mixed-use. (Refer to Figure 2.) These four d i s t r i c t s , however, account f o r only about a tenth of Vancouver's commercial land base and redevelopment a c t i v i t y over the f i v e year comparison period. Therefore, they are not representative of citywide commercial land development trends. Nonetheless, they provide evidence that due to the l o c a t i o n and character of these zoning d i s t r i c t s , TABLE IV-1 MIXED-USE PROJECTS (MX) AS A PROPORTION OF REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN VANCOUVER COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Zone No. of MX Projects Average MX Project Value No. of Commercial Projects Average Comm. Project Value To t a l No. of Projects T o t a l P r o j e c t Value %MX Of To t a l No. Projects %MX Of Tota l Project Value -C-1 7 $127,174 20 $251,254 27 $6,189,312 26% 14% C-2 54 224,258 70 376,669 124 38,476,782 44 31 C-2B 6 315,316 3 83,333 9 2,772,534 67 91 C-2C 2 644,985 2 237,500 4 1 ,764,970 50 73 C2-C1 6 108,666 1 - 7 972,000 86 67 C-3A 6 262,833 23 1 ,284,705 29 31,125,216 21 5 MC-1 3 165,000 1 - 4 675,774 75 73 FM-1 2 575,000 23 614,312 25 15,279,190 8 8 To t a l 86 240,542 143 535,448 229 97,255,778 38 21 47 mixed-use i s an a t t r a c t i v e property investment. toother zone recording a r e l a t i v e l y high proportion of mixed-use buildings during the sample period i s the C-2 d i s t r i c t . Over 40 per cent of a l l new development and nearly 32 per cent of the t o t a l project value over the study period was i n the form of mixed-use. These figures are higher than expected i n l i g h t of the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace penalty, the considerable amount and v a r i e t y of C-2 zoned land throughout the c i t y , and the maximum commercial FSR (3.0) that may be r e a l i z e d i n t h i s d i s t r i c t . In contrast, mixed-use development i s much less s i g n i f i c a n t i n the C - l , C-3A, and FM-1 d i s t r i c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n project value terms. Less than 25 per cent of the recent construction a c t i v i t y i n the C - l and C-3A zones and only 8 per cent i n the FM-1 d i s t r i c t i s mixed-use. To gain a better understanding of the factors underlying these s t a t i s t i c s , discussion w i l l now turn to the r e s u l t s of the developer/owner survey. B. DFA/ETjQPER/OWNER SURVEY 1) Reasons f o r Developing or Acquiring a Mixed-Use Building The 38 developer/owners that completed the questionnaire, among the 57 di s t r i b u t e d , l i s t e d a t o t a l of 62 answers f o r the f i r s t question, which asked f o r t h e i r reasons f o r developing or acquiring a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . These 62 responses are grouped f o r convenience of presentation and ana l y s i s i n t o 7 categories. The range i n frequency of responses f o r each category i s not great: 12 f o r the largest group and 7 f o r the l e a s t numerous, i f the s i n g l e r e p l i e s of the miscellaneous category are combined together. No attempt was made to weight the importance of d i f f e r i n g responses, other than by frequency, as the questionnaire d i d not ask the respondent to rank each answer. I t i s apparent that mixed-use buildings are developed or acquired f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons (Refer to Table IV-2). The most commonly c i t e d reason, applicable to any form of development, was the building's p o t e n t i a l as a property investment, plus the opportunity f o r eventual re s a l e . Of the respondents answering i n t h i s manner, there was a roughly even s p l i t between smaller (2 dwelling unit) and larger (+2 dwelling unit) projects, and between projects on the west side of town (west of Main Street) and to the east of Main. The response with the second highest t o t a l was that mixed-use projects provide a better return and o f f e r a d i v e r s i f i e d investment by combining two uses. This response — anticipated i n t h i s study as one possible reason why these buildings are being developed or acquired — was more prevalent among developer/owners of larger buildings and among those located on the east side of the c i t y . Almost as frequently reported was the response that the owner required space i n the b u i l d i n g f o r h i s own business or residence. Indeed, eleven of the developer/owner respondents use some or a l l of the commercial space f o r t h e i r business, and four others both work and reside on the premises. This trend i s more common on the east side and i s r e s t r i c t e d to developer/owners of smaller buildings. As property owners seeking to maximize t h e i r return on t h e i r investment, a number of respondents focused on the market demand for space i n answering TABLE I V - 2 REASONS FOR DEVELOPING/ACQUIRING A MIXED-USE PROJECT INSTEAD OF A SINGLE-USE PROJECT Reasons F r e q u e n c y P r o p e r t y I n v e s t m e n t S t r a i g h t p r o p e r t y i n v e s t m e n t 10 F o r r e s a l e o f c o m m e r c i a l o r r e s i d e n t i a l s p a c e 2 I n v e s t m e n t D i v e r s i t y / B e t t e r R e t u r n G r e a t e r r e v e n u e e a r n i n g f r o m m i x e d - u s e 5 A c h i e v e i n v e s t m e n t d i v e r s i t y / s t e a d y income by c o m b i n i n g two u s e s 4 L e s s c h a n c e o f v a c a n c y / e a s i e r t o a t t r a c t t e n a n t s 2 Own Use o f P r o p e r t y Can l i v e / w o r k on p r e m i s e s 6 R e q u i r e d t h e o f f i c e s p a c e 4 Z o n i n g / P l a n n i n g C o m b i n i n g r e s i d e n t i a l w i t h c o m m e r c i a l e l i m i n a t e d p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t 3 L o c a l a r e a p l a n n i n g s u g g e s t e d m i x e d - u s e / z o n i n g d i d n o t p e r m i t s t r i c t l y r e s i d e n t i a l / t h e o n l y s i t e i n t h e a r e a t h a t p e r m i t t e d m u l t i - f a m i l y h o u s i n g 3 •Commercial c a n be b u i l t t o p r o p e r t y l i n e , r e s i d e n t i a l r e q u i r e s s e t b a c k 2 M a r k e t Demand f o r Spa c e I n s u f f i c i e n t demand f o r c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e above g r a d e a t t h i s l o c a t i o n / f e l t t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l w o u l d be e a s i e r t o r e n t 5 TABLE IV-2 ( c o n t i n u e d ) Reasons Fre_quency B u i l d t o t h e f u l l d e v e l o p m e n t p o t e n t i a l o f t h e p r o p e r t y 2 L o c a t i o n F r o n t a g e a t g r a d e b e t t e r s u i t e d f o r c o m m e r c i a l u s e / p e o p l e p r e f e r n o t t o l i v e on t h e g r o u n d f l o o r 3 S u r r o u n d i n g b u i l d i n g s and a r e a a r e m i x e d - u s e i n n a t u r e 2 Good l o c a t i o n f o r combined u s e b u i l d i n g 2 M i s c e l l a n e o u s B u i l d i n g was r e a s o n a b l y p r i c e d R e s i d e n t i a l component r e q u i r e d by CMHC l o a n B u i l t as a MURB, o n l y p e r m i t s 25% c o m m e r c i a l C o m m e r c i a l component s u b s i d i z e s r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s ( c o - o p p r o j e c t ) C o m m e r c i a l c a r r i e s h i g h e r o v e r h e a d S e c u r i t y o f b u i l d i n g due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f r e s i d e n t s i n t h e e v e n i n g D e v e l o p e r t o r e t a i n c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e T o t a l ( o u t o f 34 owners, o w n e r / d e v e l o p e r s , and 4 d e v e l o p e r s r e s p o n d i n g ) 62 51 why they chose a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Two of the respondents r e p l i e d that, through mixed-use, the f u l l development p o t e n t i a l of the s i t e could be u t i l i z e d . How t h i s i s possible i s perhaps suggested by the f i v e respondents who i d e n t i f i e d a weak demand f o r commercial space above the ground f l o o r as a reason for combining two uses i n a s i n g l e structure. (This a l s o was i n i t i a l l y hypothesized to be a factor i n explaining mixed-use development.) Other respondents noted that s t r e e t frontage space i s better suited f o r commercial use, as they f e e l that residents would prefer not to l i v e on the ground f l o o r . Replies of t h i s type were made by developers/owners of both large and small projects throughout the study area. The next category, i n terms of frequency of response, i s somewhat broader and encompasses a v a r i e t y of reasons loosely grouped together under "zoning/planning" f a c t o r s . In one way, current zoning regulations, notwith-standing the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r i n the C - l and C-2 zones, would appear to encourage mixed-use. For example, three of the respondents c i t e d the relaxation of not having to provide parking f o r the f i r s t two dwelling units as a f a c t o r i n proceeding with t h i s form of development. Further, several of the respondents reported that the l o c a l area planning o f f i c e suggested a mixed-use b u i l d i n g over a single-use structure. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , mixed-use may be the only means possible f o r constructing housing i n a commercial d i s t r i c t , as noted by two of the respondents; again t h i s response suggests that the market f o r housing may be stronger than that fo r commercial space. A le s s commonly mentioned f a c t o r was l o c a t i o n . Two of the respondents r e p l i e d that many of the neighbouring b u i l d i n g s and that the surrounding area were mixed-use i n character. Two other respondents suggested that t h e i r 52 l o c a t i o n was well suited f o r a b u i l d i n g combining commercial with r e s i d e n t i a l uses. A l l other responses that were mentioned no more than once were placed i n a "miscellaneous" category. The v a r i e t y of these answers i s i n t e r e s t i n g , ranging from an " a t t r a c t i v e purchase p r i c e " to the "generation of a subsidy fo r the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s from the lease of commercial space." 2) Ease of Renting/Leasing/Selling Space The second question of the developer/owner survey seeks to provide back-ground information concerning the operation and management of a mixed-use bu i l d i n g . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t attempts to determine whether owners of mixed-use projects have encountered d i f f i c u l t y i n f i n d i n g commercial or r e s i d e n t i a l tenants. (The question asks the respondent to rate the l e v e l of marketability of both commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l space, compared to a single-use b u i l d i n g . Of course, many of the respondents may not own nor have managed other revenue properties to draw a v a l i d comparison, and i n that regard t h e i r response i s based s o l e l y on t h e i r experience with the subject property.) Overall, the sample group indicated that they have encountered l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n f i n d i n g commercial or r e s i d e n t i a l occupants: 24 of the 38 respondents reported that i t was average-easy to rent out commercial space, while 28 r e p l i e d i n the same way concerning r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s . (Refer to Table IV-3). This pattern was f a i r l y consistent f o r both large and small buildings throughout the study area. I t was only a few owners of smaller, west side buildings that reported any d i f f i c u l t y i n a t t r a c t i n g tenants, due p r i m a r i l y to high t r a f f i c noise. TABLE IV-3 EASE OF RENTING/LEASING/SELLING SPACE IN A MIXED-USE BUILDING Pr o j e c t Location/Size F r e q u e n c y D i f f i c u l t A v e r a g e E a s y T w o - D w e l l i n g U n i t P r o j e c t s E a s t S i d e C o m m e r c i a l R e s i d e n t i a l West S i d e C o m m e r c i a l R e s i d e n t i a l P l u s T w o - D w e l l i n g U n i t P r o j e c t s E a s t S i d e C o m m e r c i a l R e s i d e n t i a l West S i d e C o m m e r c i a l R e s i d e n t i a l 1 3 3 2 1 4 6 3 3 7 2 2 6 4 2 6 T o t a l C o m m e r c i a l / R e s i d e n t i a l 5/4 11/9 13/19 TABLE IV-3 ( c o n t i n u e d ) F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g L e a s e / S a l e o f Spa c e F r e q u e n c y Own Use Owner o c c u p i e s c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e 7 Owner r e s i d e s t h e r e 4 R e n t i n g / L e a s i n g S p a c e E a s y t o r e n t r e s i d e n t i a l , y e t d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d c o m m e r c i a l t e n a n t s / m a r g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l l o c a t i o n 5 D e s i r a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n 3 R e n t i n g / l e a s i n g s p a c e more a f u n c t i o n o f l o c a l m a r k e t t h a n b e i n g m i x e d - u s e 2 F e e l s t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f r e s i d e n t s w i t h young c h i l d r e n n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t s l e a s i n g c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e 1 M i x e d - U s e R e s i d e n t s L e v e l o f t r a f f i c n o i s e and n o i s e f r o m c o m m e r c i a l component i m p o r t a n t i n r e n t i n g d w e l l i n g u n i t s 3 R e s i d e n t s t e n d t o be s h o r t t e r m 2 R e s i d e n t i a l s p a c e s e n s i t i v e t o r e n t l e v e l s 1 F e e l s p e o p l e d o n ' t l i k e t o l i v e i n c o m m e r c i a l a r e a s 1 Maintenance/Management Good management, a t t r a c t i v e r e n t s , and good m a i n t e n a n c e a r e i m p o r t a n t 3 T o t a l 32 55 Respondents were also asked to i d e n t i f y factors a f f e c t i n g the lease/ sale of space i n t h e i r b u i l d i n g s . A number of respondents occupied e i t h e r the commercial or r e s i d e n t i a l space f o r t h e i r own purposes, as noted previously. Second to t h i s group, the most frequent comment pointed out that, while i t was easy to rent the dwelling units, i t was d i f f i c u l t to a t t r a c t commercial tenants, and that the b u i l d i n g was not situated i n an i d e a l commercial lo c a t i o n . This may suggest that some of the subject projects occupy marginal commercial locations, lending support to an argument made i n Chapter II that there i s possibly an over-abundance of commercially zoned land i n the c i t y r e l a t i v e to market demand. The f a c t that the bui l d i n g s surveyed were mixed-use does not appear to have affected the leasing/renting of commercial space; two respondents noted that commercial r e n t a l i s more a function of l o c a l market conditions, and only one noted that the presence of residents with c h i l d r e n i n the b u i l d i n g was found to discourage a t t r a c t i n g commercial tenants. Among respondents that experienced d i f f i c u l t y i n renting r e s i d e n t i a l units, there was a concern about the l e v e l of noise o r i g i n a t i n g from the commercial use below and from t r a f f i c . Also, several respondents mentioned that r e s i d e n t i a l tenants tend to be short-term, and that the r e n t a l of these units i s pr i c e s e n s i t i v e . A t h i r d group of respondents stressed the importance of good management, maintenance, and competitive rent l e v e l s i n f i n d i n g occupants f o r t h e i r buildings. 3) Greater Security f o r Mixed-Use Bu i l d i n g Occupants? Question #3 of the developer/owner survey attempts to t e s t one of the 56 arguments often put forward i n support of mixed-use development. I t has been argued that the combination or juxtaposition of r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial uses, each generating a c t i v i t y at d i f f e r e n t times of the day, can provide surveillance of public and semi-public space that i s thought to deter crime (Jacobs, 1961, p. 144; C i t y of Toronto, 1978, p. 43). Oscar Newman, however, views t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p as an "unsupported hypothesis" and stresses that the "decision to locate commercial or i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s within a project — . must be c r i t i c a l l y evaluated i n terms of the nature of the business, the intended users, t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with area residents, t h e i r periods of a c t i v i t y , and so on" (Newman, 1972, p. 112). Unfortunately, the r e s u l t s of the developer/owner survey do not present any conclusive evidence to support or refute t h i s argument. Sixteen of the respondents f e l t that mixed-use buildings o f f e r greater s e c u r i t y f o r commercial occupants, while 12 disagreed. In contrast, 16 respondents f e l t that r e s i d e n t i a l occupants were less secure, while 15 thought there was greater r e s i d e n t i a l s e c u r i t y i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . This pattern of response was f a i r l y uniform among a l l respondents. (See Table IV-4.) Respondents were asked to comment on t h i s issue. The most frequent comment was that they f e l t that the l o c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g was a more important s e c u r i t y factor than i t s mixed-use character. Three of the owners reported that t h e i r premises had been burglarized ( t h i s occurred i n both east and west side, large and small projects), while three other respondents indicated that they had i n s t a l l e d burglar alarm systems i n t h e i r b u i l d i n g s . One owner f e l t that the combined commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l pedestrian t r a f f i c increased the l i k e l i h o o d of damage and vandalism, toother suggested that due to the s t r a t a t i t l e ownership of the project, residents T A B L E I V - 4 S E C U R I T Y F O R O C C U P A N T S O F M I X E D - U S E B U I L D I N G S C O M P A R E D T O S I N G L E - U S E S T R U C T U R E S P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n / S i z e F r e q u e n c y Y e s N o T w o - D w e l l i n g U n i t P r o j e c t s E a s t S i d e C o m m e r c i a l 5 2 R e s i d e n t i a l 4 3 W e s t S i d e C o m m e r c i a l 3 2 R e s i d e n t i a l 4 3 P l u s T w o - D w e l l i n g U n i t P r o j e c t s E a s t S i d e C o m m e r c i a l 3 5 R e s i d e n t i a l 2 6 W e s t S i d e C o m m e r c i a l 5 4 R e s i d e n t i a l 5 4 T o t a l C o m m e r c i a l / R e s i d e n t i a l 1 6 / 1 5 1 2 / 1 6 T A B L E I V - 4 ( c o n t i n u e d ) R e s p o n d e n t s ' Comments R e g a r d i n g F r e q u e n c y O c c u p a n t S e c u r i t y L o c a t i o n a more i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r t h a n b u i l d i n g ' s m i x e d - u s e c h a r a c t e r 4 H a v e b e e n b u r g l a r i z e d 3 H a v e i n s t a l l e d b u r g l a r a l a r m s y s t e m 3 O c c u p i e s c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e , t h e r e f o r e w a t c h e s p r e m i s e s d u r i n g t h e d a y 3 F e e l s t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f r e s i d e n t s a d d s t o s e c u r i t y d u r i n g n o n - b u s i n e s s h o u r s 2 S t r e s s e s t h a t g o o d d e s i g n i s i m p o r t a n t 1 C o m m e r c i a l s p a c e more p r o n e t o b r e a k - i n s 1 C o m b i n e d c o m m e r c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l p e d e s t r i a n t r a f f i c i n c r e a s e s l i k e l i h o o d o f damage 1 Due t o s t r a t a t i t l e t e n u r e , r e s i d e n t s more c o n c e r n e d w i t h b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y 1 T o t a l 19 59 were more concerned with b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y . A t h i r d respondent reversed Jane Jacob's (1961) hypothesis, saying that i n a mixed-use area there i s t r a f f i c at a l l times of the day, whereas i n a s t r i c t l y commercial d i s t r i c t , people about a f t e r business hours are more conspicuous and therefore presumably le s s i n c l i n e d to commit a crime. 4) Comparison of Residential Rent Levels One of the i n i t i a l hypotheses of the study was that rent l e v e l s f o r dwelling units i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g would be le s s than f o r apartments i n comparable, single-use buildings. I t was assumed that mixed-use r e s i d e n t i a l rents would be s l i g h t l y discounted due to the building's combination of uses and location along a busy commercial a r t e r i a l . A recent C i t y of Toronto planning study of the Yonge-Lawrence commercial area lends support to t h i s assertion, f i n d i n g that rent l e v e l s f o r dwellings located above stores were generally lower than f o r corresponding u n i t s i n high- r i s e apartment buildings (City of Toronto, 1978, p. 36). Question #4 of the developer/owner survey asked respondents to indicate the r e n t a l l e v e l s f o r the various dwelling u n i t s i n t h e i r b u i l d i n g s . (To 7 encourage responses, t h i s question l i s t e d rent "ranges," beginning with " l e s s than $400" and increasing i n $50 increments. In tabulating the r e s u l t s , a mid-point f o r each range was used. For example, f o r the range $401 - 450, a Of the sample group of 34 owners, 6 d i d not answer t h i s question f o r various reasons. For three of the projects the residences were owned as s t r a t a t i t l e u nits, i n one case the owner occupied a l l the r e s i d e n t i a l space, i n another the dwelling units had been converted to commercial use, and another respondent chose not to answer the question. 60 mid-point of $425 was assumed.) To provide the basis f o r comparison, apartment r e n t a l s t a t i s t i c s were obtained from the R e s i d e n t i a l Tenancy Branch, Ministry of Consumer and Corporate A f f a i r s . This data l i s t e d mean rent l e v e l s f o r various sized apartments, broken down by areas of Vancouver, based on rent increase notices submitted to the O f f i c e of the Rentalsman and Rent Review Commission between J u l y 31, 1981 to J u l y 31, 1984. In comparing the survey r e n t a l data with that of the R e s i d e n t i a l Tenancy Branch, there i s l i t t l e support f o r the assumption that rents i n mixed-use projects are less than for apartments i n single-use b u i l d i n g s . (Refer to Table IV-5.) Indeed, i n three cases mixed-use dwelling rents f a r exceeded those f o r comparable apartment u n i t s . Rent l e v e l s f o r two-bedroom un i t s on the west side were nearly i d e n t i c a l between the two data sources. I t was only among east side two-bedroom dwellings that mixed-use buildings recorded s l i g h t l y lower rent l e v e l s : $445 vs. $490. Limited sample s i z e may be one f a c t o r i n explaining the unexpected p o s i t i v e difference i n rent l e v e l s between mixed-use vs. apartment b u i l d i n g s . The study r e s u l t s are based on the rents reported f o r 204 units i n 28 projects. The Rent Review Commission data i n contrast, draws upon information f o r nearly 19,000 apartment u n i t s i n an unknown but presumably large population of buildings. The l i m i t e d mixed-use sample s i z e may have caused the r e s u l t s to be skewed by the presence of only a few high-rent "outriders." Secondly, the l e v e l of mixed-use rents may be higher because the two data sets are not exactly comparable. The mixed-use sample i s l i m i t e d to projects developed over the l a s t ten years, while the Rent Review data encompasses a l l apartment buildings, regardless of age. Newer buil d i n g s generally command higher rents, and therefore may o f f s e t any r e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s between mixed- and single-use 61 TABLE TV-5 RENT LEVEL CXDMPARISON: MIXED-USE VS. APARTMENT BUILDINGS B u i l d i n g Type Studio 1 Bdrm. 2 Bdrm. 3 Bdrm. Mixed-Use East Side 458 410 445 West Side - 495 610 Apartment* East Side 320 385 490 524 West Side 340 435 614 804 •"Source: Notice of Rent Increases f o r the period J u l y 31, 1981 to J u l y 31, 1984 submitted to the Rent Review Commission, Re s i d e n t i a l Tenancy Branch, B.C. M i n i s t r y of Consumer and Corporate A f f a i r s . These fi g u r e s are weighted averages based on median rent l e v e l s f o r various sub-areas of the c i t y , that have been aggregated to permit comparison with the mixed-use study data breakdown between east and west sides of Vancouver. 62 structures. A t h i r d f a c t o r perhaps contributing to t h i s d i s p a r i t y was the use of a "mid-point" f o r each r e n t a l range. In hindsight, i t would have been more useful to ask the respondent to indicate the exact r e n t a l amount, even at the r i s k of r e c e i v i n g fewer r e p l i e s to t h i s question. Although these three factors may help account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n rent l e v e l s , the survey r e s u l t s do not j u s t i f y the i n i t i a l hypothesis that mixed-use dwelling rents are lower than those f o r apartment u n i t s . 5) Problems i n Mixing Commercial and Residential Uses Question #5 was exploratory i n nature, asking respondents to r e l a t e problems that may have ar i s e n i n the course of managing/owning a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Of the 34 project owners answering t h i s question, over two-thirds indicated that they had not encountered any s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i e s . The nine respondents that d i d report problems were owners of both small and large buildings spread evenly throughout the study area. (Refer to Table IV-6.) The broad range of problems reported suggests some of the unique d i f f i c u l t i e s i n mixing two d i f f e r e n t uses i n a single structure. For example, several respondents i d e n t i f i e d how the r e s i d e n t i a l component negatively a f f e c t s the commercial space below: two owners mentioned that noise from residents i s heard i n the commercial portion of the b u i l d i n g ; two others noted that the presence of r e s i d e n t i a l tenants l i m i t e d the type of commercial occupants and made i t d i f f i c u l t to a t t r a c t them; while another respondent suggested that the dwelling u n i t s above diminish the v i s i b i l i t y of the commercial use. Another complaint was that the r e s i d e n t i a l tenants require more attention than commercial occupants. TABLE IV-6 PROBLEMS IN MIXING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES Problems Frequency No problems r e p o r t e d 25 Tenant Problems R e s i d e n t i a l tenants r e q u i r e more a t t e n t i o n (eg. r e p a i r s , r e n t c o l l e c t i o n ) 2 Noise from r e s i d e n t s heard i n commercial area 2 Unique problems: a t t r a c t i n g commercial tenants when r e s i d e n t s appears i n common area i n housecoats 1 R e s t r i c t s the v a r i e t y of commercial tenants t h a t can be a t t r a c t e d 1 R e s i d e n t i a l component decreases the v i s i b i l i t y of the commercial p o r t i o n 1 I n t e r - t e n a n t problems 1 B u i l d i n g Problems Park i n g p r o b l e m s / c o n f l i c t s 2 D i f f i c u l t to c l e a r l y d i v i d e commercial from r e s i d e n t i a l area 1 D i f f i c u l t to f a i r l y a l l o c a t e c o s t s between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l p o r t i o n s 1 More prone to vandalism 1 T A B L E I V - 6 ( c o n t i n u e d ) P r o b l e m s F r e q u e n c y M i s c e l l a n e o u s L o w e r r e t u r n p e r s q u a r e f o o t f o r r e s i d e n t i a l 1 L i v i n g a n d w o r k i n g i n t h e s a m e b u i l d i n g i s c o n v e n i e n t b u t d r e a r y 1 N o A n s w e r 1 T o t a l 40 65 Other problems that were i d e n t i f i e d focused on the b u i l d i n g i t s e l f . Two respondents stated that l i m i t e d parking i n and around the project lead to inter-tenant c o n f l i c t s . In one b u i l d i n g , the design d i d not c l e a r l y d i v i d e the commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l portions, which made i t d i f f i c u l t to f a i r l y a l l o c a t e costs between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l tenants. Combining d i f f e r e n t uses, one respondent suggested, increased the l i k e l i h o o d of vandalism. In terms of revenue, one owner reported that the return per square foot f o r r e s i d e n t i a l space was l e s s than f o r commercial. One unique problem c i t e d by an owner who both l i v e d and worked on the premises was that, while i t was convenient, he f e l t he "never got away" from the b u i l d i n g . Although a number of problems associated with mixed-use were i d e n t i f i e d , the majority of respondents stated that they had encountered no important d i f f i c u l t i e s i n owning such a b u i l d i n g . 6) "Suitable" and "Unsuitable" Commercial Uses The purpose of the s i x t h question was to learn which commercial a c t i v i t i e s had proven su i t a b l e and unsuitable f o r a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . The r e s u l t s of t h i s question are straightforward and may be i n s t r u c t i v e f o r future mixed-use projects. (See Table IV-7.) Among the "suitable" commercial a c t i v i t i e s , o f f i c e and r e t a i l use were most frequently mentioned. These are businesses that t y p i c a l l y operate during the day, and do not pose noise or odor problems. In d i r e c t contrast, commercial a c t i v i t i e s that operate at night, that are high t r a f f i c generators, that create noise or odors, or that pose a f i r e hazard were i d e n t i f i e d as "unsuitable" by the bulk of the respondents. S p e c i f i c businesses included i n t h i s category were restaurants, pubs, and convenience stores. Although TABLE IV-7 SUITABLE AND UNSUITABLE COMMERCIAL USES FOR A MIXED-USE BUILDING C o m m e r c i a l Uses F r e q u e n c y S u i t a b l e R e t a i l 6 O f f i c e 5 R e p a i r / s e r v i c e 2 U n s u i t a b l e C o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t o p e r a t e a t n i g h t , c a u s e n o i s e , o d o r s , o r p o s e a f i r e h a z a r d 17 P r o f e s s i o n a l o f f i c e 2 S e c u r i t y c o n s c i o u s c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t e s 1 C o m m e r c i a l o c c u p a n t s t h a t r e q u i r e good v i s i b i l i t y 1 A p p l i a n c e and f u r n i t u r e o u t l e t s 1 No Answer* 16 T o t a l 51 * ( E l e v e n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s e i t h e r l i v e o r work on t h e p r e m i s e s . ) 67 only mentioned by one respondent, commercial tenants who require good v i s i b i l i t y or who are s e c u r i t y conscious (such as banks, jewellers, or drug stores) s i m i l a r l y may not be s u i t a b l e f o r a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . 7) Factors Contributing to the Success of a Mixed-Use Building Question #7 was also designed to gather information f o r future mixed-use applications, based on the experiences of current project owners. The question asks respondents to l i s t the f a ctors that have contributed to the success of t h e i r b u i l d i n g . (Refer to Table IV-8.) Good design/construction/maintenance was the most frequently noted factor, mentioned by 14 of the respondents. In addition, three of the owners l i s t e d "adequate parking" as an important b u i l d i n g a t t r i b u t e . The next s i g n i f i c a n t category included "good tenants", low rate of vacancy, and "reasonable rent l e v e l s " as important f a c t o r s . Location i n terms of a c c e s s i b i l i t y , convenience, and v i s i b i l i t y were also stressed, along with an " a t t r a c t i v e l o c a l area". Eleven of the owners noted that a compatible mix and a good separation of uses was important, and that the commercial a c t i v i t i e s to be included i n such a b u i l d i n g should not create noise at night. Interestingly, only one respondent suggested that the commercial use should be one that could cater to the b u i l d i n g residents. Other f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d by s i n g l e respondents included: a v a i l a b i l i t y of financing; a mix of dwelling u n i t types; and the observation that the r e s i d e n t i a l portion should be divided i n t o s t r a t a units and sold, while the commercial component should be retained. TABLE I V -8 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE SUCCESS OF A MIXED-USE BUILDING F a c t o r F r e q u e n c y D e s i g n / C o n s t r u c t i o n / M a i n t e n a n c e W e l l m a i n t a i n e d , c o n s t r u c t e d , a t t r a c t i v e b u i l d i n g 14 A d e q u a t e p a r k i n g 3 T e n a n t s / R e n t s / V a c a n c y R a t e T e n a n t s t h a t a r e r e a s o n a b l e , c o - o p e r a t i v e d e p e n d a b l e 11 Low c o m m e r c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l v a c a n c y r a t e s 2 R e a s o n a b l e r e n t 1 L o c a t i o n V i s i b l e , a c c e s s i b l e , c o n v e n i e n t l o c a t i o n 9 A t t r a c t i v e l o c a l a r e a - 3 C o m p a t i b l e M i x / S e p a r a t i o n o f Uses C o m p a t i b l e mix o f a c t i v i t i e s 4 Good s e p a r a t i o n o f u s e s 3 C o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t do n o t c a u s e n o i s e a t n i g h t 3 C o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t c a n be u s e d by b u i l d i n g r e s i d e n t s 1 TABLE IV-8 ( c o n t i n u e d ) 6 9 F a c t o r F r e q u e n c y M i s c e l l a n e o u s F i n a n c i n g 1 Mix o f r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i z e s 1 S t r a t a t i t l e and s e l l r e s i d e n t i a l w h i l e r e t a i n i n g c o m m e r c i a l 1 No answer 5 T o t a l 62 70 8) D i f f i c u l t i e s or Problems i n Developing/Acquiring a Mixed-Use Project This question sought to i d e n t i f y problems unique to mixed-use b u i l d i n g that may have arose while the project was developed or acquired. The majority of developer/owners surveyed r e p l i e d that e i t h e r they encountered no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f i c u l t i e s or that the project was no d i f f e r e n t from any other property investment. Of those reporting problems, four respondents mentioned facing minor d i f f i c u l t i e s i n obtaining development approval or i n meeting zoning requirements. Two other respondents indicated a minor but i n t e r e s t i n g problem, noting that the lendors they dealt with were reluctant to advance a loan f o r a mixed-use project. (See Table IV-9.) 9) Lessons f o r Future Mixed-Use Development Question #9 asks respondents to i n d i c a t e what they would change or do d i f f e r e n t l y (or not do) i f they were to develop/acquire another mixed-use b u i l d i n g . The information derived from t h i s question may a s s i s t i n the future design and development of these types of projects. (See Table IV-10.) The most frequent response, suggested by 6 owners, i d e n t i f i e d the need f o r minor changes i n design, better q u a l i t y construction, and better f i n i s h i n g . As owner/managers involved with the operation and management of t h e i r buildings, these are understandable concerns. Other suggested changes included increased parking area, more storage space for residents, and more c a r e f u l attention to the layout of the commercial space so that i t was better suited f o r prospective tenants interested i n that l o c a t i o n . The next most common response was the r e p l y that there would be "no changes" i f they were to develop or acquire a s i m i l a r project. In contrast, TABLE IV-9 D I F F I C U L T I E S OR PROBLEMS IN DEVELOPING/ACQUIRING A MIXED-USE PROJECT Comment F r e q u e n c y No p r o b l e m s , s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d / n o d i f f e r e n t f r o m any o t h e r p r o p e r t y i n v e s t m e n t 24 Some d i f f i c u l t y i n o b t a i n i n g d e v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t / m i n o r p r o b l e m s w i t h z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s / d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n m i n o r c h a n g e s o n c e f i r s t a p p r o v a l r e c e i v e d 4 M o r t g a g e company v e r y c o n s e r v a t i v e , f o r e s a w many p r o b l e m s i n m i x i n g uses/some d i f f i c u l t y i n a r r a n g i n g f i n a n c i n g 2 Some problems due to lack of experience 1 No Answer 3 T o t a l 34 TABLE IV- 1 0 CHANGES IDENTIFIED BY RESPONDENTS IF THEY WERE TO DEVELOP/ACQUIRE ANOTHER MIXED-USE BUILDING Comment Frequency Design/Construction Minor changes/ b e t t e r q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n / f i n i s h more a t t r a c t i v e l y 6 I n s t a l l e l e v a t o r 1 Examine c l o s e l y how commercial "downgrades" r e s i d e n t i a l , may r e q u i r e o f f - s e t t i n g higher l e v e l of amenity 1 More secure parking and storage f o r re s i d e n t s 1 More c a r e f u l design and layout of commercial space that would b e t t e r c a t e r to l o c a l market 1 Separation/Mix of Uses Greater separation of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l 2 Increase r a t i o of r e s i d e n t i a l to commercial 2 Would not in c l u d e bachelor u n i t s ( d i f f i c u l t to rent) 1 Miscellaneous Would not l i v e on premises again 1 Pre-lease commercial space 1 Locat  i n s i m i l a r , high amenity area 1 No changes r e q u i r e d 8 TABLE IV-10 (continued) Comment Freguency Would not d e v e l o p / a c q u i r e another mixed-use b u i l d i n g / d e v e l o p e i t h e r s t r i c t l y commercial or r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t No Answer T o t a l 39 74 an almost equal number of respondents stated that they would not become involved with another mixed-use b u i l d i n g , or would develop a s t r i c t l y commercial or r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g . One respondent explained h i s negative re p l y by arguing that, because the b u i l d i n g was mixed-use, t h i s l i m i t e d the type of commercial occupants, while f o r the r e s i d e n t i a l portion, costs were high compared with revenue. Other le s s frequent observations included: the suggestion that a c l e a r separation between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l components i s necessary; that the r a t i o of r e s i d e n t i a l to commercial floorspace be increased; and that bachelor units be excluded because of t h e i r d i f f i c u l t y to rent. 10) Residential Floorspace M u l t i p l i e r One of the i n i t i a l research aims of the study was to examine the issue of the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r r e s t r i c t i o n i n the C - l and C-2 zoning codes. Given the f a c t that the m u l t i p l i e r clause i n e f f e c t penalizes r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g , the survey attempted to determine what impact, i f any, t h i s had on the developer/owners of these projects. The l a s t two questions of the survey sought to address t h i s t o p i c . (These two questions were targeted at the 7 developers and the 20 developer/ owners who had owned the property since i t was developed.) Question #10 b r i e f l y describes the m u l t i p l i e r and asks the respondent i f they were aware of i t at the time the project was developed. Fourteen of the respondents indicated that they were aware of the m u l t i p l i e r clause, while 12 answered that they were not. As expected, nearly a t h i r d of the respondents chose not to answer the question, most l i k e l y f o r the reason that they had acquired the b u i l d i n g a f t e r i t was completed. (See Table IV-11.) TABLE IV-11 RESIDENTIAL FLOORSPACE MULTIPLIER IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING CODES R e s p o n d e n t s Aware o f t h e M u l t i p l i e r F r e q u e n c y Yes NO No Answer 14 1 2 12 Comments F r e q u e n c y F e l t t h e r e was l i t t l e demand f o r c o m m e r c i a l u s e above g r a d e / b e l i v e d t h a t t h e r e was a s t r o n g demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l i n t h e a r e a F e l t t h a t m i x e d - u s e was t h e most p r o f i t a b l e u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y / w a n t e d t o d e v e l o p t o t h e f u l l p o t e n t i a l o f t h e p r o p e r t y D i d n ' t m a x i m i z e f u l l F S R / d i d n o t i n t e n d f o r t h e b u i l d i n g t o be any l a r g e r F e l t m i x e d - u s e was a c o n v e n i e n c e L o c a t e d i n an a r e a w h i c h needed t o m a i n t a i n g r o u n d f l o o r c o m m e r c i a l P e n a l t y b a l a n c e d by b e n e f i t s d e r i v e d f r o m MURB s t a t u s F i n a n c i n g a v a i l a b l e F l o o r s p a c e m u l t i p l i e r n o t v i e w e d as a " p e n a l t y " b e c a u s e p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f t h e s i t e was n o t a f f e c t e d by r e d u c e d s q u a r e f o o t a g e 2 1 T o t a l 15 76 As a follow-up, question #11 asks the respondent why they chose to develop a mixed-use b u i l d i n g , despite the penalizing e f f e c t of the m u l t i -p l i e r . A wide v a r i e t y of responses were received, though the two most frequent r e p l i e s again confirmed one of the i n i t i a l hypotheses of the study. Four of the respondents indicated that they had perceived a l i m i t e d market f o r commercial space above the ground f l o o r and believed that there was a stronger demand f o r r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s . Although expressed i n d i f f e r e n t terms, f i v e other respondents conveyed a s i m i l a r message, suggesting that mixed-use offered the most p r o f i t a b l e use of the s i t e , and allowed the f u l l development p o t e n t i a l of the property to be u t i l i z e d . These comments indica t e that due to market conditions, there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t demand f o r commercial floorspace to take advantage of the maximum possible 3.0 FSR allowed i n the C-2 zone i n many locations throughout the study area. There i s , however, a market f o r r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s above the ground f l o o r , and a vi a b l e project can be developed despite the existence of the floorspace m u l t i p l i e r . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , not one respondent mentioned that the m u l t i p l i e r prevented the f u l l development p o t e n t i a l of the s i t e to be r e a l i z e d . Other responses were more varied and included the following: two owners r e p l i e d that they d i d not intend the project to be any larger; that a mixed-use project Was a convenience i n that location; that the e f f e c t of the floorspace penalty was balance by the benefits derived from the building's MURB status; or simply, that financing was a v a i l a b l e . The impact of the floorspace m u l t i p l i e r upon mixed-use developer/ owners i n the C-l and C-2 zones surveyed i n t h i s study would therefore appear to be n e g l i g i b l e . Market conditions which have prevailed throughout the study area (with the exception of the C-3A/Central Broadway and the 77 FM-l/Fairview Slopes D i s t r i c t s ) over the time frame of t h i s research, have been characterized by a l i m i t e d demand f o r commercial space above grade, combined with a demand for r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s s u f f i c i e n t to overcome any l i m i t a t i o n the floorspace m u l t i p l i e r may create. Recognizing that ongoing market forces have j u s t i f i e d t h i s form of development, i t i s possible to now ask what type of r e s i d e n t i a l environment do these projects o f f e r ? This, and r e l a t e d questions, w i l l be addressed i n the following section. C. RESIDENT SURVEY The data derived from the resident questionnaire have been grouped in t o seven topics, each corresponding to one of the research objectives of the survey. Presented f i r s t i s a b r i e f p r o f i l e of the residents p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the survey, in c l u d i n g sex, age d i s t r i b u t i o n , and household s i z e . Discus-sion then s h i f t s to the dwelling unit, presenting a breakdown of u n i t s i z e , length of residence, and type of tenure. The t h i r d section examines the housing background of the survey p a r t i c i p a n t s , while the fourth section focuses on why the respondent chose a dwelling i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g and what other forms of housing they may gave considered at that time. The l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the dwelling u n i t , as reported by the respondent, i s discussed i n the f i f t h section. Section s i x provides a p a r t i a l glimpse of what i t i s l i k e to l i v e i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g ; and the f i n a l section deals s p e c i f i c a l l y with the issue of noise i n mixed-use dwellings. 1) Resident P r o f i l e A t o t a l of 139 people (72 male/67 female) l i v e i n the 77 dwelling units 78 responding to the resident survey. The o v e r a l l average age of t h i s group i s 32 years with l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n between sexes. Among both male and female residents, the average age of 36 years f o r those l i v i n g on the west side of the c i t y i s almost ten years older than the average of 27 years fo r east side residents. (Refer to Table IV-12.) As revealed i n the age/ sex pyramid i n Table IV-12, a l l age cohorts are represented, though the large majority of the residents f a l l i n t o the 20-35 year o l d group. In comparison, there i s a s i m i l a r though l e s s pronounced "bulge" i n the population pyramid f o r the C i t y of Vancouver. (See Table IV-13.) The two population p r o f i l e s d i f f e r a lso i n that the C i t y ' s population i s more evenly d i s t r i b u t e d among a l l age cohorts; and, the two oldest age groups (55 and over) are under-represented i n the mixed-use survey population. Over three-quarters of the dwelling units surveyed are composed of sin g l e or two-person households. (See Table IV-14.) Again, there i s a minor v a r i a t i o n between west and east side respondents: the average household s i z e i s 1.7 f o r those l i v i n g on the west side, and 2.0 on the east side. In terms of age and household s i z e , the residents i n the sample group can be characterized as young adults through e a r l y middle-age, l i v i n g p r i m a r i l y i n smaller households. 2) The Dwelling Unit As the data on average household s i z e would suggest, almost a l l the respondents l i v e i n e i t h e r one- or two-bedroom dwelling u n i t s . Very few of the residents p a r t i c i p a t i n g occupy e i t h e r larger units or studio s u i t e s . On the west side, there i s a somewhat higher proportion of single-bedroom units, while east side dwellings are d i s t r i b u t e d more evenly i n terms of TABLE rv-12 AGE-SEX PYRAMID OF MIXED-USE SURVEY RESPONDENTS +65 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 r -40 — i — 30 i— 20 10 — i — 10 20 0-4 30 MALE (Frequency). FEMALE TABLE IV-13 AGE-SEX PYRAMID - CITY OF VANCOUVER (1981) +65 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 . 30 i 20 10 i 10 Male 20 Per Cent Female 0-4 1 30 Source: Table 1, Selected Population, Dwelling, Household and Census Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , pp. 1 .1-1 .25, 95-937, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 19.81. TABLE IV-13a AGE-SEX PYRAMID - APARTMENT SUB-POPULATION (CITY OF VANCOUVER 1981) +65 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 30 20 10 — i — 10 — i — 20 30 MALE Per Cent FEMALE Source: Table 1, Se lected Popula t ion , Dwel l ing, Household and Census Fami ly C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , pp . 1. 1.25, 95-937, f o r E . A . ' s 005, 022, 039, 040, 048, 060-066, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1981. TABLE IV-14 HOUSEHOLD SIZE AMONG MIXED-USE RESPONDENTS Proje c t Location Household Size One Two Three Four West Side 15 28 3 East Side 9 13 6 2 T o t a l 24 41 9 2 . TABLE IV-15 DWELLING-UNIT SIZE AMONG SURVEY RESPONDENTS P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n Number o f Bedrooms S t u d i o One Two T h r e e West S i d e - 28. 16 2 E a s t S i d e 1 15 12 3 T o t a l 1 43 28 . 5 84 u n i t s i z e . Mixed-use residents tend to have re c e n t l y moved in t o t h e i r dwelling, as a l i t t l e over h a l f the respondents indicated that they have resided there f o r one year or l e s s . (See Table IV-16.) I t should, however, be noted that approximately h a l f the buildings surveyed had been completed i n the l a s t f i v e years. Over time, the number of residents remaining i n t h e i r dwelling f a l l s o f f , although 13 of the 75 respondents reported that they had l i v e d i n t h e i r u n i t f o r f i v e years or more. The most prevalent form of housing tenure among mixed-use residents i s r e n t a l . (Refer to Table IV-17.) Only 8 of the 77 residents responding indicated that they owned t h e i r dwelling units, and most of these l i v e d on the west side (6). Among those respondents that own t h e i r present unit, almost a l l had owned t h e i r previous dwelling. There was, however, movement i n the other d i r e c t i o n , as an exactly equal number of respondents (8) reported that while they owned t h e i r previous residence, they were renting t h e i r present dwelling. O v e r a l l however, the vast majority of respondents indicated that they were r e n t a l tenants i n both t h e i r present and previous dwellings. (See Table IV-18.) 3) Housing Background Question #6 of the resident survey asks respondents to indi c a t e what t h e i r previous housing type was. A l i t t l e l e s s than h a l f the study pa r t i c i p a n t s (31) reported that they had l i v e d i n a low-rise apartment before moving to t h e i r present 'dwelling, and approximately a t h i r d had moved from a single-family home (25). The remaining residents were almost evenly d i s t r i b u t e d among the other housing types (duplex, townhouse, hi g h - r i s e 85 TABLE IV-16 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE AMONG SURVEY RESPONDENTS P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n L e n g t h o f R e s i d e n c e ( y e a r s ) ( 1 1 2 3 4 >5 West S i d e 7 21 3 5 4 6 E a s t S i d e 8 6 6 2 - 7 T o t a l 15 27 9 7 4 13 TABLE IV-17 PRESENT DWELLING TENURE AMONG SURVEY RESPONDENTS P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n P r e s e n t D w e l l i n g T e n u r e Own R e n t West S i d e 6 40 E a s t S i d e 2 29 T o t a l 8 69 TABLE IV-18 PREVIOUS DWELLING TENURE AMONG SURVEY RESPONDENTS Project Location/ Previous Dwelling Tenure Present Tenure Own Rent Other West Side Own Rent 4 4 2 33 East Side Own Rent 2 4 19 Total 14 54 8 88 apartment, and "other"), although a larger proportion of west-side respondents had previously resided i n a high-rise apartment, while pro-portionately more east-side residents had moved from a duplex. (Refer to Table IV-19.) The questionnaire also asked respondents to indi c a t e the l o c a t i o n of t h e i r previous dwelling. Each response was coded as one of f i v e possible distance "ranges": (1) "close" (within a 5 block radius); (2) "near" (within a 10 block radius); (3) within Vancouver; (4) from within the Lower Mainland excluding Vancouver; and, (5) from outside of the Lower Mainland. The purpose of the question was to i d e n t i f y those respondents who had previously resided e i t h e r "close" or "near" the subject b u i l d i n g , and upon examining the reasons they offered f o r moving into that b u i l d i n g , determine whether there was support f o r the young adult-empty n e s t - l o c a l area hypothesis. The most common distance moved, accounted f o r by almost h a l f the respondents was from within Vancouver. (See Table IV-21.) This pattern applied to a l l the housing types, with the exception of duplex and townhouse dwellers, which had each had a l i m i t e d number of cases. A quarter of the surveyed households had moved from a dwelling i n e i t h e r the "close" or "near" ranges (19). Another quarter had relocated from within the Lower Mainland excluding Vancouver (16); while a tenth of the respondents had moved from outside of the province. Interestingly, almost a l l the respondents i n buildings located on both the west and east sides of the c i t y , had previously l i v e d i n dwellings i n those areas. There was very l i t t l e cross-over between moving from dwellings on one side of the c i t y to the other. T A B L E I V - 1 9 P R E V I O U S H O U S I N G T Y P E S A M O N G S U R V E Y R E S P O N D E N T S P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n S i n g l e - D u p l e x T o w n - L o w - R i s e H i g h - R i s e O t h e r F a m i l y H o u s e A p a r t m e n t A p a r t m e n t W e s t S i d e 1 4 2 2 1 9 6 3 E a s t S i d e 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 T o t a l 2 5 5 3 3 1 7 5 T A B L E I V - 2 0 P R E V I O U S H O U S I N G T Y P E V S . A G E O F R E S P O N D E N T P r e v i o u s H o u s i n g A g e o f R e s p o n d e n t ( y e a r s ) T y p e 1 0 - 2 0 2 1 - 3 0 3 1 - 4 0 4 1 - 5 0 5 1 - 6 0 + 6 0 S i n g l e - F a m i l y D u p l e x T o w n h o u s e L o w - R i s e A p t . H i g h - R i s e A p t , O t h e r 1 0 4 1 1 6 4 3 4 1 1 6 3 T o t a l 3 8 1 1 1 5 TABLE IV-21 DISTANCE OF PREVIOUS DWELLING VS. PREVIOUS DWELLING TYPE Distance S i n g l e - Duplex Town- Low-Rise High-Rise Other (in ranges)* Family House Apartment Apartment 1 3 2 - 5 2 2 2 2 1 - 1 - 1 3 13 1 1 15 4 -4 5 1 2 7 1 5 2 - - 3 - 2 T o t a l 25 5 3 31 •Distance Ranges: 1 "Close" i e . w i t h i n f i v e block r a d i u s 2 "Near" i e . w i t h i n ten block r a d i u s 3 "Within Vancouver" 4 "Within the Lower Mainland e x c l u d i n g Vancouver" 5 "Outside of the Lower Mainland" TABLE IV-22 DISTANCE OF PREVIOUS DWELLING VS. AGE OF RESPONDENT D i s t a n c e Age o f R e s p o n d e n t ( y e a r s ) ( i n r a n g e s ) 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 +60 1 - 7 1 4 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 - 1 3 - 22 4 5 2 1 4 1 5 3 5 1 1 5 - 3 1 - 1 2 T o t a l 1 38 11 15 5 6 93 4) Selecting the Dwelling Unit The resident survey posed three questions concerning the process of choosing to l i v e i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . F i r s t , respondents were asked to i d e n t i f y what other forms of housing they considered before s e l e c t i n g t h e i r present dwelling u n i t . Next, they were asked to indicate what t h e i r reasons f o r moving in t o that p a r t i c u l a r mixed-use b u i l d i n g were. And t h i r d , respondents were requested to rate the importance of a v a r i e t y of factors that may have influenced t h i s d e c i s i o n . The r e s u l t s of the f i r s t question would suggest that low-rise and high-rise apartments are the two most frequent a l t e r n a t i v e forms of housing considered by the survey p a r t i c i p a n t s . (See Table IV-23.) This pattern does, however, d i f f e r between west-and east-side respondents, though low-r i s e apartments remain the most commonly mentioned a l t e r n a t i v e i n "both cases: west-side residents i d e n t i f i e d a townhouse dwelling as t h e i r second most popular choice, followed by a h i g h - r i s e apartment u n i t . East-side respondents i n contrast, more frequently considered single-family homes, high-rise apartments, and duplexes. In considering other housing options, nearly three-quarters of the respondents mentioned only one or two other dwelling types. (See Table IV-24.) A wide v a r i e t y of responses were received to the question of why the survey participants chose to l i v e i n the b u i l d i n g . (Refer to Table IV-25.) The project's l o c a t i o n i n a "desirable area" was the most frequent r e p l y (28 out of 168 comments), though much more important among west-side r e s i -dents. Next i n order of frequency were comments concerning the u n i t i t s e l f ("good s i z e and layout, f u l l appliances, good view") and the b u i l d i n g TABLE PV-23 OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS EXAMINED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS Project Location. Single- Duplex Town- Low-Rise High-Rise Other Family House Apartment Apartment West Side 8 5 17 20 15 4 East Side 10 7 4 14 8 3 Total 18 12 21 34 23 7 TABLE TV-24 NUMBER OF OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS EXAMINED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS Project Location One Two Three Four F i v e West Side 25 26 9 8 East Side 16 16 9 To t a l 41 42 18 8 CO 96 TABLE IV-25 REASONS IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS FOR MOVING INTO A MIXED-USE BUILDING Reasons Frequency T o t a l West Side East Side Good l o c a t i o n / d e s i r a b l e area 28 Size of uni t / l a y o u t / appliances 23 Attractive/modern/clean/ b u i l d i n g 21 Close to work 14 Convenient to stores/services 10 Reasonable rent 10 Good view 9 On bus route 7 Personal reasons 6 Small p r o j e c t 6 Liked s u i t e / i n d i v i d u a l i t y of s u i t e 5 Near fa m i l y / f r i e n d s 4 Close to school/UBC 4 Privacy 3 No residents above or below 3 In hurry to move 3 Safe l o c a t i o n / s e c u r i t y 2 24 14 18 4 6 2 8 4 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 10 4 8 1 3 5 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 TABLE IV-25 (continued) 97 Reasons Frequency T o t a l West Side East Side Allowed pets 2 2 Prefer to l i v e above stores 1 Distance from f a m i l y / f r i e n d s 1 Health 1 Low upkeep required 1 Temporary dwelling 1 Southern exposure 1 No p a r t i c u l a r reason 1 Mixed-use not a f a c t o r 1 No Answer 3 T o t a l 171 102 66 9 8 ("attractive, modern, clean"). The l o c a t i o n a l convenience of the project, i n terms of access to work, stores and services, family and friends, and t r a n s i t was also commonly mentioned. Reasonable rent l e v e l was likewise i d e n t i f i e d as a factor, though t h i s was more prevalent among east-side respondents. Some of the l e s s frequent comments focused on the benefits they f e l t might a r i s e from l i v i n g i n a r e n t a l , multiple-unit b u i l d i n g ("building security, temporary dwelling, low upkeep required"), while others saw advantages due to the b u i l d i n g being mixed-use ("privacy, no neighbours above or below, prefer to l i v e above stores"). O v e r a l l however, the factors i d e n t i f i e d by the respondents, were for reasons other than that the b u i l d i n g was mixed-use; indeed, one resident frankly noted that the combination of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l uses had no bearing on h i s decision. In an attempt to derive a simple index that would weight the elements that may have helped shape the d e c i s i o n to move into a mixed-use bu i l d i n g , the respondents were asked to rate the importance of a v a r i e t y of f a c t o r s . (See Table IV-26.) Eleven factors were l i s t e d i n the questionnaire, and the respondents were requested to rate each from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important). The two lowest scores o v e r a l l (1.6) were f o r a "convenient l o c a t i o n " and an " a t t r a c t i v e dwelling u n i t " . These factors were i d e n t i f i e d by both west^and east-side residents as the most c r u c i a l and they r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s of the open-ended question discussed above. The attractiveness of the l o c a l area i n which the subject b u i l d i n g was located earned the next lowest score. Proximity to work, with an index value of 2.4, was important to a l l survey par t i c i p a n t s , while "reasonable rent/price", with the same 99 T A B L E I V - 2 6 C H C X ) S I N G T H E [DWELLING U N I T : R E S P O N D E N T S ' R A T I N G O F T H E F A C T O R S I N F L U E N C I N G T H I S D E C I S I O N F a c t o r T o t a l W e s t S i d e E a s t S i d e C o n v e n i e n t l o c a t i o n 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 9 A t t r a c t i v e d w e l l i n g u n i t 1 . 6 1 . 5 2 . 0 D e s i r a b l e a r e a 2 . 2 1 . 7 3 . 0 C l o s e t o w o r k 2 . 4 2 . 4 2 . 3 R e a s o n a b l e r e n t / p r i c e 2 . 4 2 . 6 2 . 0 A t t r a c t i v e o u t s i d e a p p e a r a n c e 2 . 6 2 . 3 3 . 0 C l o s e t o p u b l i c t r a n s i t 2 . 6 2 . 9 2 . 2 C l o s e t o s h o p p i n g 2 . 9 2 . 6 3 . 2 S a f e t y / s e c u r i t y 2 . 9 3 . 4 2 . 0 Q u i e t n e s s 3 . 0 2 . 7 3 . 4 C l o s e t o s c h o o l s 4 . 4 4 . 7 3 . 9 100 o v e r a l l score, was a more c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n influencing east-side r e s -pondents. An " a t t r a c t i v e outside appearance" and proximity to pu b l i c t r a n s i t shared the next lowest score (2.6), though the f i r s t f a c t o r was more highly valued by west-side respondents, while access to t r a n s i t was rated as more important by those l i v i n g on the east side. S i m i l a r l y , proximity to shopping and safety/security shared the same ranking (2.9), though the f i r s t f a ctor was rated more hig h l y by west-side residents, and the second by east-side respondents. "Quietness" of the dwelling u n i t gained second highest score (3.0), and perhaps suggests that the survey p a r t i c i p a n t s r e a l i z e d that a b u i l d i n g located along a commercial s t r e e t would be subjected to high l e v e l s of noise (discussed further below). Proximity to schools was i d e n t i f i e d as the l e a s t important factor i n se l e c t i n g the unit, and i s i n d i c a t i v e of the make-up of the households surveyed. In only s i x of the households p a r t i c i p a t i n g were there any school-age c h i l d r e n (5-16 years of age), and only three with pre-school members. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , a l l of these households were located on the east side. 5) Resident S a t i s f a c t i o n Although a considerable body of l i t e r a t u r e has been devoted to the evaluation of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , measuring the .-satisfaction expressed by residents can be an el u s i v e exercise. The s a t i s f a c t i o n residents may f e e l f o r his/her dwelling i s the r e s u l t of a "highly complex i n t e r p l a y of forces" (Beck, Rowan, and Teasdale, 1974, p. 299): the layout, s i z e , appliances, and q u a l i t y of construction of the un i t i t s e l f ; i t s l o c a t i o n / environment; the services a v a i l a b l e to i t ; the proximity of neighbouring residents; rent/price; and innumerable other factors shape t h i s perception. 101 For t h i s reason, many researchers have defined "housing" as a c o l l e c t i o n or package of a t t r i b u t e s c o n s t i t u t i n g a " r e s i d e n t i a l bundle" (Michelson, 1970, p. 190; Menchik, 1971, p. 2; Maslove, 1977, p. 5 ) . 8 To a r r i v e at a meaningful measure of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , Onibokun has argued that the four i n t e r r e l a t e d elements of a "housing h a b i t a b i l i t y system" should each be examined: tenant, environment, dwelling, and management subsystems (Onibokun, 1974, p. 189). A v a l i d survey of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , he suggests, would ask respondents to rate a v a r i e t y of a t t r i b u t e s regarding each subsystem. By s c a l i n g each response f o r the various f a c t o r s composing the t o t a l housing package, a " r e l a t i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n index" could be c a l -culated f o r each respondent. Recognizing the inherent d i f f i c u l t i e s i n measuring resident s a t i s f a c t i o n , and d e s i r i n g to l i m i t the s i z e of the questionnaire to help to ensure a high response rate, the mixed-use survey simply asked respondents "how s a t i s f i e d generally are you with t h i s dwelling u n i t ? " Each response was scaled from 1 (very s a t i s f i e d ) to 5 (very d i s s a t i s f i e d ) to allow an o v e r a l l index of s a t i s f a c t i o n to be derived. I t was hoped that the s p e c i f i c sources of t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n would come to l i g h t i n the space l e f t f o r comments, or i n following questions which asked i f they had encountered any p a r t i c u l a r problems or benefits from l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . As a group, the residents surveyed expressed a high l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r dwelling u n i t s . (Refer to Table IV-27.) An o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n Further complicating the assessment of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n are the d i f f e r i n g backgrounds, needs, and expectations of residents. D i f f e r e n t people w i l l perceive and evaluate the same environment d i f f e r e n t l y (Ermuth, 1974, p. 4). 102 TABLE TV-27 RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION INDEX Proje c t Location/Size S a t i s f a c t i o n Index West Side Two-Dwelling Unit Projects 1.7 Plus Two-Dwelling Unit Projects 1.9 East Side Two-Dwelling Unit Projects 1.8 Plus Two-Dwelling U n i t Projects 2.2 T o t a l Sample Index 1.9 103 index of 1.9 was calculated based on the following responses: 26 very s a t i s f i e d , 39 s a t i s f i e d , 5 i n d i f f e r e n t , 5 d i s s a t i s f i e d , and 2 very d i s s a t i s f i e d . Breaking down these r e s u l t s by area of the c i t y and s i z e of the building, i t i s c l e a r that residents of smaller buildings ( i . e . two-dwelling unit projects) throughout the study area reported s l i g h t l y higher l e v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n than residents of larger b u i l d i n g s . Among the residents of larger projects, the p r i n c i p l e source of t h e i r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was an annoying l e v e l of t r a f f i c noise, followed by com-p l a i n t s of poor management, poor q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n / f i n i s h i n g and high rent. (Refer to Table IV-28.) These were also the most frequent complaints of the f u l l survey group. Other negative factors i d e n t i f i e d by the r e s -pondents included: poor design and small s i z e of the u n i t (4); unattractive l o c a l area (3); lack of concern f o r b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y (2); noisy neighbours (2); and, an unattractive b u i l d i n g appearance. Two other complaints, though mentioned only once each, were due to the b u i l d i n g being mixed-use: the cost of household insurance was higher due to the presence of commercial a c t i v i t i e s i n the b u i l d i n g ; and, because of the building's l o c a t i o n along a busy commercial street, more dust and d i r t f i l t e r e d i n t o the u n i t . 6) L i v i n g i n a Mixed-Use Building In the f i n a l section of t h i s chapter, some of the benefits and drawbacks of l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g are b r i e f l y described, and the problem of noise i s examined i n some d e t a i l . Question #12 of the resident survey asks respondents i f they encountered problems i n l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Out of the 75 responses received to t h i s question, 35 r e p l i e d that they had, while 40 responded i n 104 TABLE IV-28 POSITIVE AND NEGATVE FACTORS INFLUENCING RESIDENT SATISFACTION Factors Frequency Negative Bothersome s t r e e t / t r a f f i c noise 9 High rent 7 Poor design/layout/too small 4 Poor q u a l i t y construction 3 Poor l o c a l area 3 Poor maintenance 3 Lack of concern f o r b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y 2 Noisy neighbors 2 Unattractive b u i l d i n g 1 Insurance more due to mixed-use 1 Du s t / d i r t from s t r e e t 1 T o t a l 36 P o s i t i v e Good maintenance/well managed 6 F e e l i n g of privacy due to few neighbors 4 Good l o c a t i o n 4 Within walking distance of amenity areas 2 105 TABLE IV-28 (continued) Factors Frequency Commercial use an i n s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r 2 Sizeable unit/good appliances 2 Good mix of neighbors/co-operation between s t r a t a members 2 Suitable f o r temporary accomodation 2 Commercial a c t i v i t y below i s an added convenience 1 L i v i n g here three years i s proof of s a t i s f a c t i o n 1 T o t a l 26 106 the negative. (See Table IV-29.) The concern over a lack of b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y was the most frequently mentioned problem (11); as 6 respondents indicated that e i t h e r t h e i r dwelling or car had been broken into, while 5 others f e l t that s e c u r i t y measures for the project were inadequate. Almost as numerous were complaints about poor q u a l i t y b u i l d i n g construction, f i n i s h i n g , and sound i n s u l a t i o n between un i t s (10). Underlining the m u l t i -dimensional nature of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , 8 respondents complained of e i t h e r noisy neighbours or minor c o n f l i c t s a r i s i n g between b u i l d i n g r e s i -dents. Not unexpectedly, t r a f f i c noise was i d e n t i f i e d as a major i r r i t a n t by 7 respondents. Other problems reported by the respondents included: increased household insurance costs (5); poor management and maintenance (4); and, d i f f i c u l t i e s i n f i n d i n g parking and the lack of parking f o r guests during business hours (4). The resident survey also asked respondents i f they had found "any p a r t i c u l a r benefits or a t t r a c t i o n s of l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g such as t h i s one?" Again there was a wide range of comments, touching on a v a r i e t y of issues. (See Table IV-30.) The most frequently mentioned be n e f i t was the convenient l o c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g , o f f e r i n g ready access to shops, services, or t r a n s i t (16). For 13 of the respondents, the b u i l d i n g i t s e l f was convenient f o r several reasons: 8 residents mentioned the convenience of having a store or service located i n the same structure; 4 other respondents indicated that they worked i n the commercial space below; while one p a r t i c i p a n t found i t handy f o r r e c e i v i n g d e l i v e r i e s when she was out during the day. An equal number of survey p a r t i c i p a n t s indicated that there was greater privacy i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g because: there are fewer neighbours and hence les s need to worry about causing noise (9); there are TABLE IV-29 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN LIVING IN A MIXED-USE BUILDING Comments Frequency Security Apartment or car burglarized 6 Poor s e c u r i t y 5 B u i l d i n g Construction/Finishing Occasional problems with appliances/hot water/ heating 5 Poor c o n s t r u c t i o n / f i n i s h i n g 2 Poor sound i n s u l a t i o n 2 Minor r e p a i r s required 1 Inter-Resident Problems Neighbors o c c a s i o n a l l y noisy 7 Some c o n f l i c t s between residents 1 T r a f f i c Noise 7 Increased Insurance Costs Due to Mixed-Use 5 Poor Management/Maintenance 4 Problems f i n d i n g parking/parking unavailable f o r v i s i t o r s during business hours 4 T o t a l 4 9 108 TABLE IV-30 BENEFITS OR ATTRACTIONS OF LIVING IN A MIXED-USE BUILDING Comments Frequency Location Convenient to shops, s e r v i c e s , t r a n s i t 15 Desirable area/due to l o c a t i o n not mixed-use 1 Convenience Convenient f o r using commercial a c t i v i t y below 8 Work i n commercial area below 4 Handy f o r d e l i v e r i e s while out during the day 1 Privacy Fewer neighbors/less need to worry about causing noise 9 Fewer people around a f t e r business hours and on weekends 2 Due to nature of commercial use (office) very l i t t l e t r a f f i c i n and out of b u i l d i n g 2 No D i f f e r e n t From an Apartment B u i l d i n g Located on opposite s i d e of b u i l d i n g from commercial use/don't n o t i c e commercial a c t i v i t y a t a l l 6 No d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n an apartment b u i l d i n g 3 Design and Maintenance Well designed/constructed/neintained/managed 4 Good view 2 Due to commercial use, entrance and lobby are att r a c t v e and w e l l maintained 1 TABLE PV-30 (continued) Comments Frequency Savings St r a t a expenses shared by commercial occupants 5 Low cost 1 Security Greater b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y due to commercial space below/people don't notice dwelling u n i t s above stores 5 Friends f i n d i t d i f f e r e n t and i n t e r e s t i n g 2 Negative No p a r t i c u l a r benefits 8 Not s u i t a b l e f o r a family 1 No Answer 18 T o t a l 97 110 fewer people i n the b u i l d i n g a f t e r business hours and on weekends (2); and, because the commercial use was an o f f i c e , there i s very l i t t l e t r a f f i c entering and leaving the b u i l d i n g (2). Six of the respondents mentioned that because t h e i r dwelling u n i t s were located on the opposite side of the b u i l d i n g from the commercial a c t i v i t y , i t was not noticed at a l l , while three others added that they found the b u i l d i n g no d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n an apartment b u i l d i n g . The design, construction, management and maintenance of the b u i l d i n g were applauded by 7 other respondents. For 5 s t r a t a t i t l e residents, the sharing of b u i l d i n g operation expenses with the commercial occupant was appreciated, while one resident noted that the rent paid f o r the u n i t was very reasonable. Five p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l t that there was greater b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y due to the presence of a commercial a c t i v i t y on the ground f l o o r . And f i n a l l y , two residents mentioned that some of t h e i r v i s i t o r s thought i t was " d i f f e r e n t and i n t e r e s t i n g " to l i v e i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Balancing these p o s i t i v e comments, 8 respondents indicated that they had found no p a r t i c u l a r b e n e f i t i n l i v i n g i n such a b u i l d i n g , and another noted that i t was not s u i t a b l e accommodation f o r a family with c h i l d r e n . 7) Noise In d r a f t i n g the resident questionnaire, i t was f e l t that the issue of t r a f f i c noise might prove to be a common complaint among mixed-use b u i l d i n g residents. A s e r i e s of questions were included i n the resident survey, the f i r s t of which asked respondents i f they had found t h e i r dwelling u n i t to be noisy. A c l e a r majority of residents indicated that t h e i r u n i t was "occasionally" noisy, while almost equal numbers noted that i t was e i t h e r "very" or "never" noisy. (Refer to Table IV-31; these of course, are TABLE TV-31 LEVEL OF NOISE HEARD IN THE SURVEYED DWELLING UNITS Project Size Level of Noise Very Occasional Never Two-Dwelling Unit Projects Plus Two-Dwelling Unit Projects 4 5 11 T o t a l 14 47 16 112 subjective ratings, but nonetheless do provide a rough i n d i c a t i o n of noise l e v e l s . ) This open-ended question asked the respondent to i d e n t i f y the three main sources of noise heard i n the u n i t . (See Table IV-32.) S t r e e t / t r a f f i c noise was the p r i n c i p l e source, i d e n t i f i e d by 45 of the residents, though noise from neighbouring residents was a l s o mentioned frequently (31). Other noises originated from a v a r i e t y of external sources: 11 respondents complained of noise from the surrounding neighbourhood; 9 residents iden-t i f i e d the adjoining commercial area as the source; and 8 others singled out t r a f f i c i n the lane as a c u l p r i t . Less frequent were noises o r i g i n a t i n g i n the b u i l d i n g : from the commercial use below (6); from plumbing and appliances (4); and, from the laundry room (1). The next question asked respondents to indicate whether they heard "no st r e e t noise" or "some st r e e t noise" i n t h e i r dwelling u n i t . The r e s u l t s of t h i s question were then r e l a t e d to the l o c a t i o n and o r i e n t a t i o n of t h e i r u n i t within the b u i l d i n g . Orientation of the u n i t would appear to be c r u c i a l i n a f f e c t i n g whether s t r e e t noise i s heard or not. (See Table IV-33.) Almost a l l the respondents whose dwelling faced a major s t r e e t reported hearing t r a f f i c noise, while the majority of residents l i v i n g i n u n i t s located at the back of the b u i l d i n g d i d not. Respondents were a l s o asked to report the duration of t r a f f i c noise heard i n t h e i r dwelling u n i t s . (Refer to Table IV-34.) Their r e p l i e s i n d i c a t e that there i s a f a i r l y constant l e v e l of s t r e e t noise which peaks with the two d a i l y rush-hour periods. This c y c l e begins between 6-8 a.m., continues at a s l i g h t l y reduced l e v e l through the day, and slowly tapers o f f TABLE IV- 32 SOURCES OF NOISE HEARD IN THE DWELLING UNITS SURVEYED Sources Frequency Street/traffic noise 45 Neighboring residents 31 Noise from surrounding neighborhood 11 Adjoining commercial area 9 Service and other vehicles in lane 8 Commercial use below 6 Appliances/plumbing 4 Laundry room in building 1 No Answer 1 Total 116 TABLE IV-33 LOCATION/ORIENTATION OF DWELLING UNIT IN BUILDING VS. TRAFFIC NOISE Orien t a t i o n of Unit T r a f f i c Noise Heard i n Unit Yes No Major S t r e e t 42 1 Side Street 6 3 Lane 8 19 Other 2 1 T o t a l 58 24 5 0 4 0 3 0 u 2 0 1 0 1 1 5 T A B L E I V - 3 4 D U R A T I O N O F T R A F F I C N O I S E A S R E P O R T E D B Y S U R V E Y R E S P O N D E N T S 6 a . m . 1 2 6 p . m . 1 2 T i m e 1 1 6 through the evening hours, though d i s t u r b i n g l y , some respondents reported that t r a f f i c noise p e r s i s t e d t i l l past midnight i n t o the e a r l y hours of the morning. Cross-checking these r e s u l t s with the lo c a t i o n and design of the projects suggests that a lower l e v e l of t r a f f i c noise i s reported by those l i v i n g i n buildings located along l e s s t r a v e l l e d s t r e e t s , r e s i d i n g i n dwellings situated at the rear of the building, and among residents of projects with a courtyard b u i l d i n g plan. The l e v e l of noise heard i n the dwelling was then cross-tabulated with the housing s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by each respondent. Presumably, as the i n t e n s i t y of t r a f f i c noise heard i n the u n i t increased, the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the dwelling would diminish. Although the r e s u l t s of t h i s cross-tabulation are les s than perfect, they do lend some support to t h i s assertion. (See Table IV-35.) For example, of the respondents reporting that t h e i r u n i t was "never" noisy, a l l were e i t h e r very s a t i s f i e d or s a t i s f i e d . None of the residents who indicated that t h e i r u n i t s were "very noisy", f e l l i n t o the "very s a t i s f i e d " category, though h a l f t h i s group was " s a t i s f i e d " . Further, nearly a t h i r d of the respondents reporting t h e i r units to be "very noisy" were " d i s s a t i s f i e d " with t h e i r dwelling. The more numerous middle group, i n terms of noise heard i n t h e i r dwelling u n i t , were d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the various l e v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n , the overwhelming majority of which were e i t h e r very s a t i s f i e d or s a t i s f i e d . TABLE IV-35 NOISE LEVEL VS. RESIDENT SATISFACTION Noise Level Resident S a t i s f a c t i o n V e r y - S a t i s f i e d S a t i s f i e d I n d i f f e r e n t D i s s a t i s f i e d V e r y - D i s s a t i s f i e d Very - 9 Occasional 17 23 Never 8 8 Total 25 40 118 V. DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS In t h i s chapter the hypotheses and assumptions set out e a r l i e r w i l l be re-stated and evaluated i n l i g h t of the research findings. Each of the questions posed i n the f i r s t chapter w i l l be addressed. The data derived from the surveys w i l l be analyzed to provide answers to these questions. A. PROPORTION OF DEVF1QPMENT ACTIVITY ACCOUNTED FOR BY MIXED-USE A review of recent b u i l d i n g completions shows that mixed-use accounts f o r nearly 40 per cent of the development a c t i v i t y i n the commercial d i s t r i c t s of the study area. At the outset of the study, i t was assumed that the penalizing e f f e c t of the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r would discourage mixed-use development i n the C - l and C-2 zoning d i s t r i c t s . Construction a c t i v i t y i n the various commercial d i s t r i c t s , and the comments of the developer-respondents, however, i n d i c a t e that the negative impact of the m u l t i p l i e r i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t . As has been found to be true with respect to the downtown floorspace bonus, so a l s o i s apparently true of the r e s i d e n t i a l m u l t i p l i e r : underlying market forces are more important than e i t h e r the floorspace penalty or bonus i n explaining the d i f f e r i n g proportions of mixed-use development i n the various commercial d i s t r i c t s i n the study area. The four commercial zones (C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, and MC-1) where over h a l f the projects completed i n the study period were mixed-use, share two common at t r i b u t e s : weak demand f o r commercial space above the ground-floor, as evidenced by the lack of o f f i c e use on the second and t h i r d storeys; and, to varying degrees, pedestrian-oriented r e t a i l / s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s at grade. 119 Location of these commercial zones i s c r u c i a l i n explaining the large proportion of mixed-use development occurring there. For example, the C-2B, C-2C, and C-2C1 d i s t r i c t s are a l l located along major a r t e r i a l s i n the K i t s i l a n o area. Commercial a c t i v i t i e s are vi a b l e at grade, due to r e l a t i v e l y high v e h i c l e and pedestrian t r a f f i c volumes; also, because t h i s i s a desirable r e s i d e n t i a l area, the upper f l o o r s of buil d i n g s i n these zones can be su c c e s s f u l l y u t i l i z e d f o r housing. The MC-1 (Cedar Cottage) D i s t r i c t i s a rather unique zone. A mix of commercial, r e s i d e n t i a l , and l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l uses are permitted i n t h i s d i s t r i c t . Perhaps r e f l e c t i n g the European character of the Commercial Drive area and supported by l o c a l market demand, many of the bu i l d i n g s i n the MC-1 zone would appear to s u c c e s s f u l l y combine these d i f f e r e n t uses i n a s i n g l e structure. Mixed-use accounts f o r a much smaller proportion of development i n the C - l , C-3A, and FM-1 d i s t r i c t s . This may be explained i n part by the function and character of these zoning d i s t r i c t s . Dispersed throughout the c i t y , the C - l zone i s s t r i c t l y intended to allow r e t a i l and commercial services catering to l o c a l areas. Commonly found i n t h i s zone are con-venience stores and corner gas s t a t i o n s . With the recent changes i n gasoline r e t a i l i n g , a number of these o u t l e t s have e i t h e r been converted to "self-serve" stations or have been replace by small r e t a i l plazas. In few instances have r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial uses been combined i n t h i s redevelopment a c t i v i t y . The C-3A d i s t r i c t serves p r i m a r i l y as a regional o f f i c e centre. This 120 zone, centred on Broadway between Vine Street and Kingsway, has witnessed a steady i n f i l l of l a r g e r commercial o f f i c e buildings. I f t h i s d i s t r i c t i s viewed as a lowerscale "bridgehead" of the downtown core, the absence of mixed-use development i s easy to understand. The market demand f o r commercial space i n t h i s d i s t r i c t i s greater than that f o r any other land use. The adjoining FM-1 zone (Fairview Slopes), has of course undergone a dramatic transformation i n the past several years. Although compatible commercial a c t i v i t i e s are permitted as a condi t i o n a l use, the p r i n c i p l e form of new development are the many condominium townhouse projects now appearing throughout t h i s area. While 40 per cent of the recent development a c t i v i t y i n the C-2 d i s t r i c t took the form of mixed-use, i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y the factors prompting t h i s trend as the C-2 zone encompasses an extensive amount of commercial land scattered throughout the c i t y and permits a wide range of r e t a i l and service a c t i v i t i e s . The s p e c i f i c reasons why mixed-use development occurs i n t h i s d i s t r i c t , as well as throughout the study area, can be suggested i n the discussion of the r e s u l t s of the developer/owner survey i n the next section. B. FACTORS PROMPTING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT The p r i n c i p l e purpose of the developer/owner survey was to determine why mixed-use buildings are being developed i n commercial zoning d i s t r i c t s i n Vancouver outside of the downtown. Two possible explanations were advanced e a r l i e r . F i r s t , i t was speculated that there i s an excess of commercially zoned land throughout the c i t y , combined with an i n s u f f i c i e n t demand f o r commercial space above grade. Under t h i s scenario, i t was 121 assumed that the demand f o r housing exceeds that f o r commercial use above the ground f l o o r . A mixed-use project can take advantage of these market conditions despite the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r i n e f f e c t i n the C - l and C-2 zones. Secondly, a mixed-use b u i l d i n g may o f f e r a d i v e r s i f i e d property investment. The concept of a d i v e r s i f i e d p o r t f o l i o i s widely recognized i n investment finance; i t quite possibly also may apply to mixed-use development. By combining two uses that cater to d i f f e r e n t r e a l estate markets, the income flows from each component are u n l i k e l y to fluctuate together; hence, the r i s k associated with that investment option i s reduced. The r e s u l t s of the developer/owner survey confirm both of these arguments. The most frequently reported reason f o r developing or acquiring a mixed-use b u i l d i n g was that i t offered an a t t r a c t i v e property investment. This of course, i s the r a t i o n a l e guiding any revenue property development or a c q u i s i t i o n decision, though unfortunately does not reveal why mixed-use was considered to be d e s i r a b l e . However, two respondents i n t h i s group d i d indicate that, i n addition to being a v i a b l e property investment, mixed-use presented the opportunity to s e l l e i t h e r the commercial or r e s i d e n t i a l portions while r e t a i n i n g the other f o r r e n t a l . These comments, though mentioned only twice, may suggest another advantage of a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Dependent upon location and construction/ f i n i s h i n g , the r e s i d e n t i a l portion of the project may be marketed as s t r a t a t i t l e units, enabling the developer/owner to recoup part of h i s i n i t i a l c a p i t a l investment. The commercial space can be retained f o r leasing, while the often more demanding management/maintenance of the housing component w i l l now be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the b u i l d i n g s t r a t a c o u n c i l . 122 A substantial proportion of the respondents noted that mixed-use projects generate greater revenue by combining two uses, o f f e r investment d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n , and lessen the chance of vacancy. Although r e a l estate i s generally considered to be one form of investment, these responses suggest that many of the property developer/owners surveyed perceive mixed-use to represent a d i v e r s i f i e d investment. Their comments provide j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the d i v e r s i f i e d investment hypothesis, which may be seen as one advantage of a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Although not i n i t i a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d to be a major factor, the survey found that nearly a t h i r d of the respondents occupy a l l or part of the commercial space f o r t h e i r business. A range of small commercial a c t i v i t i e s are accommodated i n these p a r t i c u l a r b u i l d i n g s : f o r example, pr o f e s s i o n a l o f f i c e s f o r a doctor, lawyer, and a r c h i t e c t , a food s t o r e / d e l i , a beauty salon, a metal f a b r i c a t i n g shop. Such bui l d i n g s not only provide the owner space f o r h i s business, but al s o a secondary source of income from the re n t a l of the dwelling units above. Less common, however, was evidence supporting the notion of the shop owner l i v i n g above h i s store, as only four respondents both work and reside on the premises. Zoning regulations and planning considerations also have an impact, i n a "carrot and s t i c k " manner. Acting as a p o s i t i v e inducement, o f f - s t r e e t parking i s not required f o r the f i r s t two dwelling units i n a mixed-use bu i l d i n g . Encouragement from the l o c a l area planning o f f i c e to proceed with a mixed-use project were a l s o reported. Evidently, i n one case the l o c a l area planner reportedly f e l t that a residential/commercial b u i l d i n g , developed during an acute housing shortage, could p a r t i a l l y compensate f o r the demolition of the two older non-conforming dwellings previously occupying 123 the s i t e . At the same time, commercial zoning acts i n a negative sense, by re q u i r i n g that r e s i d e n t i a l units be combined with commercial space at grade: the zoning regulations applicable to commercial d i s t r i c t s only permit a s t r i c t l y r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Dir e c t o r of Planning " i f the s i t e has unusual p e c u l i a r i t i e s of lo c a t i o n " (City of Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-law, No. 3575, p. 176). A mixed-use b u i l d i n g i n t h i s sense, i s a compromise s o l u t i o n i n providing multi-family housing. This zoning r e s t r i c t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r two reasons. F i r s t , often the only means ava i l a b l e f o r constructing medium density housing along a r t e r i a l s f lanking single-family neighborhoods i s through mixed-use. Secondly, as pointed out i n the f i r s t chaper, mixed-use projects allow the developer to circumvent the almost c e r t a i n opposition of l o c a l area residents to any proposed medium density housing i n t h e i r neighborhood. Mixed-use, i n t h i s regard, may be viewed as an unobtrusive form of development that, while located i n a commercial d i s t r i c t , permits the i n f i l l of higher density housing without r e q u i r i n g rezoning. That developers desire to provide housing i n these locations i s prompted by the unequal demand for r e s i d e n t i a l vs. commercial space as hypothesized e a r l i e r . A number of respondents stated that there was a greater demand fo r housing than f o r commercial space above the ground f l o o r , and thus, to r e a l i z e the f u l l development p o t e n t i a l of the s i t e required including dwelling units i n the b u i l d i n g . This a t t i t u d e suggests that there i s an excess of commercially zoned land throughout the study area. (Alternately, t h i s f i n d i n g may also indicate a shortage of s u i t a b l e multiple-unit r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e s i n the study area.) The issues surrounding the rezoning of some commercial land to permit medium density housing are obviously 124 contentious and beyond the scope of t h i s study. However, the survey does provide some evidence i n support of doing so. The assertion that there i s an imbalance i n demand between r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial use above grade i s a l s o supported by the comments to a question attempting to gauge the impact of the r e s i d e n t i a l floorspace m u l t i p l i e r . Over h a l f the respondents answering stated that despite the floorspace m u l t i p l i e r , they f e l t e i t h e r that the demand f o r housing exceeded that f o r commercial space, or that a mixed-use project offered the most p r o f i t a b l e development option f o r the property. These comments suggest that the floorspace mul t i p l e r i s not regarded as a penalty, nor has i t excerted a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on r e s t r i c t i n g mixed-use. Not one of the respondents reported that the m u l t i p l i e r l i m i t e d the development p o t e n t i a l of the s i t e . Although, two stated that they would increase the proportion of r e s i d e n t i a l to commercial space i f they were to develop another mixed-use project. The intent of the r e s i d e n t i a l m u l t i p l i e r was to r e s t r i c t the amount of housing i n commercial d i s t r i c t s , and hence maintain and preserve the C i t y ' s commercial land base. This o r i g i n a l objective, a r a t i o n a l and laudable planning goal, has been overriden i n recent years by the unequal demand between r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial d i s t r i c t s . Property developers, recognizing these market forces, have responded with a form of development they f e e l best takes advantage of these conditions. I r o n i c a l l y , perhaps the only r e a l impact of the m u l t i p l i e r , i s on the design of many of the larger mixed-use projects appearing i n the C-2 d i s t r i c t . The reduced floorspace caused by the r e s i d e n t i a l m u l t i p l i e r often r e s u l t s i n a b u i l d i n g where the upper f l o o r s are "stepped-back" from the s t r e e t i t fronts on. 125 This arrangement l o g i c a l l y helps to reduce the l e v e l of s t r e e t / t r a f f i c noise heard i n the dwelling u n i t s above grade, as may be v e r i f i e d by further research. A number of survey p a r t i c i p a n t s indicated that t h e i r property was favourably s i t e d f o r a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . These respondents f e l t e i t h e r that the ground f l o o r was best used f o r commercial a c t i v i t y , that the surrounding buildings and area were mixed-use i n character, or that the l o c a t i o n was well suited f o r a combined-use project. Their comments lend support to an observation made i n Chapter II that the separation of land uses i s less s t r i c t i n commercial d i s t r i c t s ; and, t h i s arguably has not resulted i n any major negative e f f e c t s . Other reasons f o r undertaking or purchasing a mixed-use project were mentioned less frequently. The v a r i e t y of these responses i s considerable, ranging from an a t t r a c t i v e purchase p r i c e to the advantage f o r the developer to s t r a t a t i t l e and market the r e s i d e n t i a l portion, while r e t a i n i n g the commercial space. Perhaps most i n t r i g u i n g , and of i n t e r e s t f o r those d e s i r i n g to increase the supply of affordable housing, was one respondent's comment that the r e n t a l revenue earned from the commercial portion helped to subsidize the cost of the r e s i d e n t i a l units i n a co-op project. C. GREATER SECURITY IN A MIXED-USE BUILDING? The developer/owner survey also sought to t e s t the argument often made i n support of mixed-use, that because of the presence of two uses, each with d i f f e r e n t hours of occupance, the b u i l d i n g w i l l be more secure due to mutual su r v e i l l a n c e . Jane Jacobs (1961) has argued t h i s point persuasively, while Oscar Newman (1972) views t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p more s k e p t i c a l l y . The 126 survey findings on t h i s issue are inconclusive, and indic a t e that b u i l d i n g l o c a t i o n and sec u r i t y measures ( i . e . c l e a r separation between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l components, and e f f e c t i v e entry security) are more c r u c i a l . Possibly, the mutual s u r v e i l l a n c e - s e c u r i t y argument i s l e s s applicable to the i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g , but may come in t o e f f e c t at the s t r e e t scale, where a number of mixed-use buildings located i n close proximity would a l l overlook the same streetscape. In addressing the question of greater b u i l d i n g security, however, the survey r e s u l t s o f f e r no proof to accept the mutual surveillance t h e s i s . D. MIXED-USE BUILDING MANAGEMENT In terms of marketability, a large majority of the sample group reported that i t was "average-easy" to f i n d both commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l tenants. Indeed, several of the respondents noted that the f a c t that the b u i l d i n g combined commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l uses had l i t t l e e f f e c t on a t t r a c t i n g residents, and that t h i s was influenced more by l o c a l market conditions. While r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s were rented with r e l a t i v e ease, some respondents did encounter d i f f i c u l t y i n leasing t h e i r commercial space. Assuming that t h i s commercial floorspace was offered at a competitive rate, t h e i r comments suggest e i t h e r that these projects occupy marginal commercial locations (which some of them do, f o r example by being situated across from a cemetary), or again substantiate the e a r l i e r argument that there i s p o s s i b l y a weak demand f o r commercial space i n some areas of the c i t y due to an excess of commercially zoned land. Several of the respondents did, however, a t t r i b u t e the d i f f i c u l t y i n securing business tenants to the presence of residents i n the b u i l d i n g . 127 Among the commercial a c t i v i t i e s recommended by the respondents to be "suitable" f o r mixed-use development were r e t a i l , o f f i c e , and to a l e s s e r degree, r e p a i r / s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s . Commercial uses thought to be "unsuitable" f o r t h i s form of development included: a c t i v i t i e s that operate during the evening hours, that cause noise or odors, or that posed a f i r e hazard. Other inappropriate commercial uses, though mentioned infrequently, were security-conscious commercial occupants, those that require good v i s i b i l i t y to a t t r a c t passersby, and professional o f f i c e uses. Two of the respondents had found that due to noise caused by residents during the day, or the poor separation between the commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l components, some o f f i c e tenants were les s than s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r location i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . The survey p a r t i c i p a n t s were also asked to i d e n t i f y problems encountered i n the course of managing/owning a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . Over two-thirds of the project owners stated that they had experienced no s p e c i f i c problems i n mixing commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l uses. Those respondents reporting d i f f i c u l t i e s , however, d i d o u t l i n e a broad l i s t of complaints. Some of these can be termed "inter-tenant c o n f l i c t s " , or problems due to combining two uses i n one structure. They include: noise o r i g i n a t i n g i n e i t h e r the commercial or r e s i d e n t i a l portions and heard i n the other area; decreased v i s i b i l i t y of the commercial component due to the dwelling units above; parking c o n f l i c t s ; d i f f i c u l t i e s i n c l e a r l y d i v i d i n g commercial and r e s i -d e n t i a l areas; and, r e s t r i c t i o n s of the v a r i e t y of commercial uses that can be attracted due to housing on the upper f l o o r s . C l e a r l y such problems can be mitigated through more thoughtful b u i l d i n g design and layout (for example, a more d i s t i n c t separation between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l entranceways), 128 by better construction (such as greater sound i n s u l a t i o n between f l o o r s ) , or through more c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n to the front facade, so to emphasize the, separate uses without s a c r i f i c i n g the o v e r a l l appearance of the b u i l d i n g . Another group of problems are more varied, and are l a r g e l y beyond the con t r o l of the project owner/manager: r e s i d e n t i a l tenants require more attention; a combined use b u i l d i n g i s more prone to vandalism; and, the return per square foot f o r r e s i d e n t i a l space i s lower than that f o r commercial space. Although each of these should be recognized as p o t e n t i a l problems i n managing/owning a mixed-use project, they were only r a i s e d by a very small proportion of the survey group. As the preceding comments suggest, mixed-use design does c a l l f o r p a r t i c u l a r care. Respondents were asked to indicate what changes they would make i f they were to develop/acquire another b u i l d i n g . Good design/ cons true tion/maintenance were i d e n t i f i e d as the most c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s f o r the success of the surveyed b u i l d i n g s . For example, i t was recommended that adequate parking and secure storage space f o r residents are necessary. Other suggested changes i n design are equally minor and can be i n s t r u c t i v e : placing l i g h t e d store signs so that they do not shine i n t o the dwelling u n i t s ; or, designing facades and f l o o r plans to promote v i s i b i l i t y and access. As with any r e n t a l property, the success of the surveyed projects was also dependent on co-operation between tenants, low vacancy rates, and competitive rent l e v e l s . These were the second most important factors i d e n t i f i e d by the respondents, and do underline the need f o r good management. Although the majority of survey p a r t i c i p a n t s reported few problems with managing/owning t h e i r b u i l d i n g , several of the respondents indicated 129 that e i t h e r they would not develop/own another mixed-use project, or would opt f o r a s t r i c t l y r e s i d e n t i a l or commercial structure. Several reasons were put forward f o r t h i s d e c i s i o n : c o n f l i c t s between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l tenants over noise and lack of concern f o r s e c u r i t y ; a mixed-use b u i l d i n g l i m i t s the range of commercial tenants; and, that residents require more constant attention while the return i s lower than that f o r commercial. E. WHO ARE THE RESIDENTS OF MIXED-USE BUILDINGS? An i n i t i a l hypothesis of the study suggested that mixed-use projects o f f e r a convenient and less-expensive form of housing for those residents that either do not require or cannot a f f o r d a single-family dwelling, yet who wish to remain i n a s p e c i f i c l o c a l area. Two po t e n t i a l r e s i d e n t i a l groups i d e n t i f i e d were e l d e r l y singles and couples no longer d e s i r i n g a single-family dwelling, or young adults just leaving the family home. A mixed-use building, by i t s l o c a t i o n along a major a r t e r i a l t y p i c a l l y bordered by single-family and duplex r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s , i s frequently the only form of medium-density housing found i n these areas. The dwellings i n these projects may be a t t r a c t i v e to some l o c a l area residents, such as "empty-nesters", who would be freed from the maintenance and upkeep require-ments of a single-family home, who could enjoy the convenient access to shops, services, and t r a n s i t , and who could gain the value of t h e i r equity i n t h e i r home f o r t h e i r retirement. Although these are commonly the reasons why e l d e r l y home-owners choose an apartment dwelling, a mixed-use b u i l d i n g can o f f e r the advantage of being located i n a community that i s f a m i l i a r , and one i n which the resident may wish to remain. Young adults leaving the family home may s i m i l a r l y d e s i r e to remain i n t h e i r l o c a l area. For reasons 130 of housing a f f o r d a b i l i t y , proximity, and s i z e requirements, these groups were thought to be prospective residents of a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . The study r e s u l t s , however, provide l i t t l e evidence to substantiate t h i s hypothesis. To examine t h i s issue, the findings of several of the questions i n the resident survey were cross-tabulated. F i r s t , previous housing type i s r e l a t e d to the age of the respondent to determine i f any p a r t i c u l a r age group was more l i k e l y to have moved from a s i n g l e - f a m i l y home. The r e s u l t s indicate that of those few respondents i n the two oldest age groups (51-60 and +60), several had previously l i v e d i n a single-family dwelling. For the sample group o v e r a l l , however, a small proportion of the respondents that had previously l i v e d i n the same general area as that Of the surveyed projects had moved from a single-family dwelling. There were i s o l a t e d cases of course, of both e l d e r l y and young adults moving from nearby single-family residences i n t o a mixed-use dwelling but these were not representative of the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s . In terms of previous dwelling l o c a t i o n , nearly h a l f the respondents had moved from within Vancouver, and i n t e r e s t i n g l y , they i n v a r i a b l y remained i n the same side of the c i t y where they had previously resided. About a quarter of the respondents had moved from a dwelling e i t h e r "close" or "near" ( i . e . ranges 1 and 2) the surveyed projects. There was very l i t t l e evidence of movement between the two sides of town. These r e s u l t s may suggest that residents of the east and west sides of the c i t y have an attachment f o r those d i s t r i c t s due to f a m i l i a r t y or proximity to family, friends, or place of employment. What then i s the demographic make-up of the residents l i v i n g i n the 131 surveyed projects? The o v e r a l l average (mean) age of the survey group i s 32 years. This f i g u r e was found to be higher f o r west-side residents compared to those l i v i n g on the east side: 35 years vs. 27 years of age. Several reasons can be suggested to account f o r t h i s d i s p a r i t y . The majority of e l d e r l y respondents — those over age 59 — l i v e i n bu i l d i n g s located i n the western portion of the study area, while a l l the surveyed households with c h i l d r e n reside i n the east end. The study r e s u l t s r e f l e c t a s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e i n average age f o r the c i t y as a whole; the median age group f o r Vancouver's east side population i s 25-34; while the west side median age cohort i s 35-44 years ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Table 95-937, 1981). The age structure of the mixed-use sample, however, d i f f e r s markedly from that f o r the C i t y of Vancouver, and though i t approximates the age/sex p r o f i l e f o r apartment dwellers i n f i v e medium to high-density r e s i d e n t i a l areas, there i s a major differ e n c e between these two sub-populations as w e l l . g (Refer to Tables IV-12, IV-13, IV-13a i n Chapter IV.) Nearly two-thirds of the residents l i v i n g i n the surveyed u n i t s f a l l i n t o the young adult through e a r l y middle-age cohort (20-34 years). This age cohort likewise accounts for a large proportion of the apartment dweller sub-group (44 per cent). In Unfortunately, no s t a t i s t i c s are c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e f o r the 1981 Census that r e l a t e demographic data with housing type by l o c a l areas of Vancouver. As a surrogate, age/sex data f o r the Enumeration Areas contained within the f i v e following apartment d i s t r i c t s were u t i l i z e d : Marpole (RM-3A); K e r r i s -dale (north of 41st Avenue, RM-3); Broadway-Granville (RM-3); K i t s i l a n o (Arbutus-Burrard, RM-3A1, RM-3B); and the West End (WED). The degree of overlap between the E.A. 's and the above zoning d i s t r i c t s i s quite high, and therefore, the population data c o l l e c t e d should be representative of the apartment dwellers i n those d i s t r i c t s . 132 comparison, the population pyramid f o r the C i t y of Vancouver e x h i b i t s a si m i l a r , though l e s s pronounced, "baby-boom bulge". Two other d i s t i n c t differences between these population structures are the under-represented older (plus 55) and younger (less than 20) age cohorts of the mixed-use sample. Two observations can be drawn from t h i s comparison. Mixed-use development, as with apartment buildings i n general, does not provide a form of housing that a t t r a c t s f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n . Only s i x of the households surveyed included any school-age c h i l d r e n (5-16 years), and only three had pre-school members. Over three-quarters of the dwelling units surveyed were occupied by s i n g l e - and double-person households. The average household s i z e f o r the sample was 1.9; t h i s compares c l o s e l y with the 1.5 "average number of persons per p r i v a t e household" f o r the apartment sub-population ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Table 95-937, 1981). A dwelling u n i t i n a mixed-use building, because of i t s l i m i t e d s i z e (over h a l f the households surveyed resided i n one-bedroom u n i t s ) , lack of d i r e c t ground access, and loc a t i o n i n a commercial area, i s l i k e l y l e s s suitable f o r family housing. However, f o r the majority of residents i n the sample group, who are t y p i c a l l y young adults through e a r l y middle-age forming smaller households, i t i s a form of housing that l a r g e l y meets t h e i r needs. This may be a p r i n c i p l e reason why the majority of respondents reported a high l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r dwellings. The under-representation of older age cohorts i n the mixed-use population i s somewhat more s u r p r i s i n g than the absence of households with chil d r e n . The 1981 census revealed that just over a quarter of Vancouver's inhabitants were 55 or older; a proportion that w i l l increase i n the future with the "aging" of the c i t y ' s population. While nearly 30 per cent of the 133 apartment dweller sub-group belong to the older-age cohort, only 10 per cent of a l l residents i n the surveyed households are 55 or older. This may be a sampling bias, on the other hand, i t may indicate that despite convenient access to stores, services, and t r a n s i t offered by a mixed-use building, there are possibly reservations on the part of p o t e n t i a l e l d e r l y residents towards l i v i n g i n a dwelling over a commercial u s e . ^ Although the survey d i d not touch on t h i s subject, perhaps the "image" of l i v i n g above a store or o f f i c e i s not a l l u r i n g f o r some. Another f a c t o r that may be relevant, i s that only i n the larger (three-storey) mixed-use projects surveyed were there elevators; t h i s i s a feature often important f o r an older person. F. WHY LIVE IN A MIXED-USE BUILDING? The reasons i d e n t i f i e d by the respondents f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e i r dwelling u n i t are s i m i l a r to those commonly reported i n other medium-density housing studies. A convenient l o c a t i o n i n a d e s i r a b l e area, o f f e r i n g access to shops, t r a n s i t , or work was rated highly by the respondents, d u p l i c a t i n g the findings of other studies (Erikson, 1965, p. 1; Michelson, 1977, p. 121; Vischer, 1980, p. 35). Because i t i s t y p i c a l l y located along a commercial a r t e r i a l , a mixed-use project i s well situated to o f f e r t h i s convenient access, and as indicated by the respondents' r e p l i e s , t h i s appears to help draw c e r t a i n residents to these b u i l d i n g s . Michelson, i n h i s study of the man-environment r e l a t i o n s h i p , found that people who value convenience are l i k e l y to prefer neighbourhoods of mixed-land use (1970, p. 147). This low proportion of older residents may also be due to a reluctance on t h e i r part to respond to survey-questionnaires. 134 The benefits of l o c a t i o n , however, were perceived d i f f e r e n t l y between some west- and east-side residents: a project's l o c a t i o n i n a "desirable area" was valued more highly by west-side respondents. In contrast, those on the east side focused on the b u i l d i n g ' s convenient access to t r a n s i t and place of employment. In the same vein, east siders mentioned "reasonable rent l e v e l s " more frequently, while an " a t t r a c t i v e b u i l d i n g appearance" was rated more highly by west-side residents. The majority of respondents throughout the study area, however, i d e n t i f i e d factors such as privacy, a v a i l a b i l i t y , and freedom from maintenance r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s that appeal to apartment residents generally; thus a mixed^-use project may be regarded as an a l t e r n a t i v e to l i v i n g i n an apartment b u i l d i n g . Indeed, the survey found that h a l f the respondents had previously l i v e d i n an apartment unit, while a c l e a r majority reported that t h e i r previous premises were r e n t a l . L i k e -wise, an apartment dwelling was the most frequently reported "other housing option" considered p r i o r to moving. These findings suggest that there are not only demographic s i m i l a r i t i e s between the sample group and apartment dwellers, but that mixed-use development caters to much the same housing sub-market as apartment bui l d i n g s . G. MIXED-USE: A SATISFACTORY HOUSING ENVIRONMENT? A mixed-use bu i l d i n g , by i t s l o c a t i o n and combination of d i f f e r e n t uses, o f f e r s a somewhat unique form of housing. I f mixed-use i s to be advocated as a means to broaden Vancouver's housing stock, the question of resident s a t i s f a c t i o n should be addressed. The study found that a majority of those residents surveyed (65 of 77) were e i t h e r "very s a t i s f i e d " or " s a t i s f i e d " , while only 7 respondents indicated that they were " d i s s a t i s f i e d " or "very d i s s a t i s f i e d " . 135 To i s o l a t e possible f a c t o r s that may p a r t i a l l y explain ( i n a non-s t a t i s t i c a l way) some of the v a r i a t i o n i n s a t i s f a c t i o n , a serie s of variables were cross-tabulated with the l e v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by each respondent. The variables examined included age of respondent, household size, length of residence, previous dwelling type, present dwelling tenure, and project s i z e . The r e s u l t s of these cross-tabulations were l a r g e l y inconclusive, as i t was found that these variables were minimally related to any v a r i a t i o n i n r e s i d e n t i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . By s c a l i n g the responses from 1 (very s a t i s f i e d ) to 5 (very d i s s a t i s f i e d ) , a r e s i d e n t i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n index of 1.9 was calculated f o r the sample group. The index value determined f o r the mixed-use sample c l o s e l y compares with the findings of s i m i l a r studies. Wilson, i n a survey examining urban l i v a b i l i t y , noted that 82 per cent of the sample group were e i t h e r s a t i s f i e d or very s a t i s f i e d i n rep l y to a d i r e c t question regarding r e s i d e n t i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n (Wilson, 1962, p. 367). Although employing a broader based r e s i d e n t i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n index, Onibokun i n a study of several p u b l i c housing projects i n Ontario, found that only 10 per cent of the respondents f e l l into the "low" ( l e a s t s a t i s f i e d ) category, while the majority of r e p l i e s were strongly skewed towards the high end (Onibokun, 1974, p. 193). The major sources of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by the mixed-use respondents likewise are those t y p i c a l l y reported i n other housing evaluation studies. The most frequent complaints concerned s t r e e t / t r a f f i c noise (Whitebread, 1979, p. 44) followed by high rent l e v e l s , poor design/layout (Onibokun, 1973, p. 464; Soen, 1974, p. 130), small dwelling unit s i z e (Cooper, 1975, p. 26; Michelson, 1977, p. 279), poor q u a l i t y construction/ f i n i s h i n g , and poor management/maintenance (Beck, Rowan, Teasdale, 1975, 136 p. 58). In addition to s t r e e t / t r a f f i c noise, only two respondents c i t e d negative factors a f f e c t i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n that can be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d to the b u i l d i n g being mixed-use: higher household insurance premiums, and more dust and d i r t f i l t e r i n g into the dwelling u n i t . Excessive noise has been recognized as a major fa c t o r causing r e s i d e n t i a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n multi-unit housing (Becker, 1974, p. 82). When the b u i l d i n g i s located on a busy thoroughfare, t h i s problem i s compounded by the sounds of road t r a f f i c . Well over three-quarters of the survey p a r t i -cipants reported that t h e i r u n i t s were e i t h e r "very" or "occasionally" noisy. The most frequent sources of t h i s noise were due to passing t r a f f i c , the surrounding commercial area, and vehicles i n the rear lane, while approxi-mately a t h i r d of the noise reported originated i n the b u i l d i n g i t s e l f . The r e s i d e n t i a l survey also found that t r a f f i c noise p e r s i s t s at a f a i r l y high l e v e l throughout the day, peaking with the two rush-hour periods, and gradually tapering o f f over the evening hours. From these r e s u l t s , two somewhat contradictory observations can be made. F i r s t , the f a i r l y high l e v e l of noise heard i n the surveyed dwelling units, which was i d e n t i f i e d by the respondents as a major source of resident d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , indicates the need f o r greater attention to t h i s problem. Better sound i n s u l a t i o n between same-floor units, suspended c e i l i n g s between f l o o r s , carpeting i n hallways, and heavier, better f i t t i n g entry doors are known to reduce the transmission of noise o r i g i n a t i n g within multiple-unit buildings. Changes i n b u i l d i n g design and layout may a l s o help to a l l e v i a t e t h i s problem. In cross-checking residents' complaints of high t r a f f i c noise l e v e l s with the l o c a t i o n of the dwelling u n i t and the o v e r a l l design of the project, i t was found that fewer respondents l i v i n g 137 at the rear of the b u i l d i n g or i n projects with a courtyard layout r a i s e d t h i s issue. Both a courtyard layout and the placing of dwelling u n i t s at the rear of the structure may be impractical or too c o s t l y i n many commercial locations, though these design solutions were seen i n several innovative projects i n Fairview Slopes. More p r a c t i c a l l y , to overcome the problem of excessive noise, the sound b a f f l i n g q u a l i t y of the dwellings f r o n t i n g on a major a r t e r i a l can l i k e l y be improved by the use of double-pane windows, improved sound i n s u l a t i o n (up to STC 55) of the front outer-wall, and the placement of glazed balconys constructed of sound r e f l e c t i v e material along t h i s side of the b u i l d i n g . While a majority of the respondents report that t h e i r u n i t s are noisy, an even greater proportion i n d i c a t e that they are eit h e r " s a t i s f i e d " or "very s a t i s f i e d " with l i v i n g there. ( I t should be recognized of course, that the perception of noise and resident s a t i s f a c t i o n are both r e l a t i v e concepts, that nearly defy exact q u a n t i t a t i v e measurement.) This may suggest that the p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s of l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g , such as a convenient l o c a t i o n outweigh the problem of noise. Further, i t i s possible that the respondents have adapted to t h i s l e v e l of noise over time, so that i t no longer detracts from t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with the dwelling u n i t . H. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF LIVING IN A MIXED-USE DWELLING? Among r e s i d e n t i a l problems i d e n t i f i e d f o r mixed-use buildings, approxi-mately a quarter of the comments voice concern about the lack and inade-quacy of bu i l d i n g security. Although the incidence of crime may be due more to location, improved b u i l d i n g and parking area s e c u r i t y are issues 138 that deserve greater a t t e n t i o n i n future mixed-use project design. A second type of complaint concerned poor b u i l d i n g construction and f i n i s h i n g ; again, such problems can be corrected, though at a cost. The other problems noted by the respondents may be considered somewhat unique to mixed-use: increased household insurance costs; problems fin d i n g parking, e s p e c i a l l y f o r v i s i t o r s , along a commercial st r e e t during business hours; and those that might a r i s e i n a t y p i c a l apartment b u i l d i n g such as inter-tenant problems and poor management/maintenance. Respondents a l s o s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned t r a f f i c noise as an annoyance, which was dealt with at length e a r l i e r . Balancing t h i s l i s t of problems, the respondents i d e n t i f i e d a v a r i e t y of benefits they enjoyed by l i v i n g i n the surveyed projects. The l o c a t i o n a l convenience of the b u i l d i n g was mentioned most frequently. The convenience offered by the b u i l d i n g i t s e l f f o r those e i t h e r working i n or o c c a s i o n a l l y patronizing the commercial a c t i v i t y below were also among the reported benefits. Other p o s i t i v e features due to the b u i l d i n g being mixed-use included: increased privacy; lower upkeep costs f o r r e s i d e n t i a l s t r a t a members due to maintenance fees paid by commercial occupants; a perception of greater security due to the commercial use below or because the dwelling u n i t s above are l e s s noticeable; or, simply because they f e l t i t was a novel and i n t e r e s t i n g form of housing. Others noted that l i v i n g i n the subject buildings was no d i f f e r e n t from an apartment, or they d i d not notice the commercial use at a l l . 139 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study was undertaken to accomplish two tasks. The f i r s t was to examine mixed-use as a means to increase the housing stock of Vancouver by determining why t h i s form of development i s occurring and to assess the h a b i t a b i l i t y of the housing provided i n these projects. As well, the study sought to te s t several hypotheses concerning mixed-use. Secondly, the survey methodology u t i l i z e d i n the study was designed to obtain information i n an exploratory manner, to both a s s i s t i n the future design and management of mixed-use projects, and to provide the basis f o r speculating on the p o t e n t i a l r o l e f o r mixed-use projects i n commercial d i s t r i c t s outside of the CBD. A. CONCLUSIONS The simple answer to the question of why mixed-use projects are being developed i n commercial d i s t r i c t s outside of the downtown core without the inducement of a zoning bonus i s that i t o f f e r s a viable property investment. Underlying t h i s obvious explanation are a number of factors brought to l i g h t by the developer/owner survey. The demand f o r housing, even when located above commercial a c t i v i t i e s along busy a r t e r i a l s , appears to exceed that f o r commercial space above grade i n many locations throughout the c i t y . As i n i t i a l l y hypothesized, a number of developer/ owners have perceived these market conditions, and i n seeking to r e a l i z e the f u l l development p o t e n t i a l of t h e i r properties, have opted f o r mixed-use development. Unlike single-use properties, t h i s form of development also provides the inherent advantage of investment d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . One 140 a t t r a c t i o n of a mixed-use project, as reported by the survey p a r t i c i p a n t s , i s that i t caters to two separate r e a l estate markets, and therefore o f f e r s greater s t a b i l i t y i n the o v e r a l l return from that investment. Other factors important i n explaining the occurrence of mixed-use development are: i t provides the property owner space f o r h i s business; the parking requirement f o r the f i r s t two dwelling u n i t s i s exempted; or, that these projects are located i n areas of mixed land use where s i m i l a r b u i l d i n g s e x i s t . Combining r e s i d e n t i a l with commercial uses appears to provide a s a t i s f a c t o r y housing environment. Although the residents surveyed i d e n t i f i e d several problems with l i v i n g i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g (noise, inadequate security, lack of parking), the o v e r a l l l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n reported was high, and corresponds c l o s e l y with the findings of other medium density housing evaluation studies. Indeed, mixed-use can be viewed as an a l t e r n a -t i v e to an apartment dwelling as a large majority of the residents pre-v i o u s l y resided i n and considered an apartment u n i t p r i o r to moving in t o the surveyed projects, while some noted that the two types of housing were very much a l i k e . Rent l e v e l s were found to be s i m i l a r when comparing mixed-use and apartment bu i l d i n g s . The assumption that mixed-use b u i l d i n g rents would be discounted due to l o c a t i o n and combination of uses was disproven, though the two data sets are not d i r e c t l y comparable. The young adult-empty n e s t - l o c a l area hypothesis was a l s o disproven by the survey. Although there were several cases where e i t h e r young or e l d e r l y adults had moved from nearby s i n g l e - f a m i l y dwellings, t h i s trend was not representative of the sample group. Demographically, the mixed-use residents surveyed are s i m i l a r to the apartment comparison•sub-population: 141 the young adult through e a r l y middle age (20-34 years) i s the l a r g e s t age cohort; household s i z e i s t y p i c a l l y small (1.7); and, there are very few f a m i l i e s with children. Unlike the apartment sub-population, the sample group contained proportionately fewer residents i n the e l d e r l y age cohorts. The study also found l i t t l e support f o r the argument that the combination of uses enhanced b u i l d i n g s e c u r i t y due to mutual surveillance. While tested only on the basis of the perceptions of the b u i l d i n g owners surveyed, t h i s issue remains unresolved. Perhaps, as noted e a r l i e r , the influence of mutual sur v e i l l a n c e i s a matter of scale and may come into e f f e c t at the street/block l e v e l . B. LESSONS FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR Overall the developer/owners survey reported few problems i n e i t h e r developing or managing a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . C o n f l i c t s between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l occupants were rare. The f a c t that the surveyed bu i l d i n g s combined two uses had l i t t l e e f f e c t on a t t r a c t i n g tenants, though several respondents d i d have d i f f i c u l t y i n securing commercial occupants ( t h i s was a t t r i b u t e d more to l o c a l market conditions than to the buildings combination of uses). A few survey p a r t i c i p a n t s did, however, note that managing the r e s i d e n t i a l portion was more demanding, while the return per square foot was lower than for commercial. An objective of the study was to i d e n t i f y these problems to a s s i s t i n the future development of these projects. As with most property developments, the success of a mixed-use b u i l d i n g i s r e l a t e d to c a r e f u l design, q u a l i t y construction, a good management pr a c t i c e s . (This assumes, of course, that there i s an e f f e c t i v e market 142 demand for the space i n these projects.) In a b u i l d i n g combining two separate uses, the d i f f e r i n g needs of each component should be recognized at the design stage. Design considerations to be noted include: good separation between uses such as through c l e a r l y defined and separate entranceways; the provision of adequate parking; increased awareness of b u i l d i n g security, f o r example, by c o n t r o l l e d access to the r e s i d e n t i a l portion or to underground parking; and, greater attention to the need of minimizing the l e v e l of noise heard i n the dwelling units. Many of the projects surveyed displayed t h i s design s e n s i t i v i t y , as r e f l e c t e d i n the appreciative comments of the owners and the r e s i d e n t i a l occupants, as w e l l as i n the a t t r a c t i v e appearance of the buildings themselves. The q u a l i t y of c o n s t r u c t i o n / f i n i s h i n g was found to be one source of resident s a t i s f a c t i o n (or conversely, resident d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . ) . A number of project owners s i m i l a r l y i d e n t i f i e d t h i s as deserving the greatest attention i f they were to develop or acquire a s i m i l a r b u i l d i n g . Construc-t i o n improvements to minimize the transmission of noise heard from outside and from within the b u i l d i n g are a l s o recommended. Few problems were reported i n managing a mixed-use building, and those that were i d e n t i f i e d were generally traced to shortcomings i n b u i l d i n g design or construction. Ensuring a compatible mix of uses i s important, and as common sense would suggest, " s u i t a b l e " commercial occupants should not operate i n the evening, cause noise or odors, or pose a f i r e hazard. Beyond these rather obvious recommendations regarding project design/ construction/management, i s perhaps the overlooked opportunity that mixed-use development o f f e r s f o r "small" business entrepreneurs. An unexpectedly 143 high proportion of the survey respondents (approximately a t h i r d ) e i t h e r developed or acquired t h e i r b uildings to provide space f o r t h e i r business or residence, and simultaneously gained a secondary source of income from the r e n t a l of the unused portion. The broader public good i s a l s o served by the construction of r e n t a l u n i t s dispersed throughout the c i t y without di s r u p t i n g e x i s t i n g neighbourhoods. In l i g h t of government desires to promote small business, the C i t y of Vancouver should consider the oppor-t u n i t i e s presented by mixed-use, and encourage t h i s form of development. The public benefits alone, i n terms of additions to the c i t y ' s housing stock, can be s i g n i f i c a n t . C. IMPLICATIONS OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Despite c y c l i c a l downturns i n the urban land market, pressures to expand Vancouver's housing stock w i l l i n t e n s i f y i n the future. Over the longer term, an imbalance e x i s t s between the p o t e n t i a l f o r employment-generating o f f i c e development i n the core and the opportunity to add to the supply of housing i n Vancouver. Although re-development of the B.C. Place lands and the con-tinued i n f i l l of apartment and townhouse projects i n the False Creek south-Fairview Slopes area w i l l provide a d d i t i o n a l housing units, the issue of d e n s i f i c a t i o n elsewhere i n the c i t y w i l l a r i s e . Mixed-use o f f e r s one option f o r increasing the supply of housing throughout the c i t y without r e q u i r i n g up-zoning to permit medium density r e s i d e n t i a l development. What i s the p o t e n t i a l f o r adding to Vancouver 1s housing stock through mixed-use develop-ment? In a quantitative sense, the opportunity i s sizeable. The 144 projects inventoried i n the study area contain dwelling unit b u i l t at an o v e r a l l 144 average density of 36 units/acre (the 74 two-dwelling u n i t b u i l d i n g s average 22 units/acre, while the 70 plus-two-unit projects average 42 units/acre). Applying t h i s o v e r a l l average density to the land area (524 acres) of the s i x commercial zones ( C - l , C-2, C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, and MC-1) i n which either mixed-use development has occurred or has the p o t e n t i a l to be located, produces a gross estimate of nearly 19,000 dwellings. Of course, t h i s p o t e n t i a l figure would have to be adjusted downward to r e f l e c t both e x i s t i n g mixed-use projects and s t r i c t l y commercial buildings of 2-3 s t o r i e s . However, the development p o t e n t i a l f o r added housing through mixed-use under current zoning appears considerable, as may be demonstrated by b r i e f l y examining an e x i s t i n g commercial d i s t r i c t . Along much of i t s length, Broadway i s flanked by low-scale commercial a c t i v i t i e s . With the exception of the emerging o f f i c e d i s t r i c t i n a portion of the C-3A (Central Broadway) zone, most commercial structures are l i m i t e d to one-storey, despite the 3.0 maximum FSR permitted under the C-2 and C-3A zoning codes. The seven-block s t r i p between Collingwood and MacDonald t y p i f i e s t h i s streetscape and contains a mix of ground-level commercial uses i n both old and new structures, very few of which r i s e above one-storey. In the two blocks immediately east of MacDonald Street, several mixed-use projects have recently been completed along the south side of Broadway. This redevelopment has not only maintained the continuous s t r e e t f r o n t facade, i t has provided up-graded commercial space as well as nearly 50 new dwelling u n i t s . (Data a v a i l a b l e on two of these projects indicate that t h i s housing i s being b u i l t at s l i g h t l y over 100 units/acre.) Taking advantage of the presently unused development p o t e n t i a l over the ground-floor commercial space for the seven blocks west of MacDonald (13.6 acres net), would permit 145 the addition of nearly 500 dwelling u n i t s i f constructed at the o v e r a l l mixed-use project density of 36 units/acre. Mixed-use development at t h i s scale, while improbable, would pose a number of impacts. To avoid adding to the pressure f o r l i m i t e d on-street parking would require that adequate parking be provided within each mixed-use project. Underground parking may be necessary, though t h i s would increase construction costs. In t h i s regard, the c i t y may a l s o wish to remove the parking require-ment exemption f o r the f i r s t two units i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g . A second concern may be that by u t i l i z i n g the f u l l development p o t e n t i a l of these s i t e s above the ground f l o o r f o r housing, might r e s t r i c t the future opportunity for commercial space should market conditions change. However, as the down-zoning of some C-2 areas to C-2B, C-2C, and C-2C1 i n the mid-70 's suggests, the C i t y of Vancouver i s reluctant to see regional-scale o f f i c e development occurring i n scattered, b a s i c a l l y l o c a l - s e r v i n g commercial d i s t r i c t s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , while r e a l estate developers do not possess better c r y s t a l b a l l s than planners, i t i s u n l i k e l y that mixed-use development would proceed i n locations where the property developer d i d not foresee a v i a b l e market for the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s . F i n a l l y , the design of larger mixed-use projects could permit f l e x i b i l i t y i n allowing second f l o o r dwelling u n i t s to be converted to o f f i c e space i f future market conditions warranted doing so. Several p o s i t i v e benefits can be suggested for encouraging mixed-use development along commercial str e e t s such as Broadway between Collingwood and MacDonald. One p o s i t i v e impact would be the a d d i t i o n a l l o c a l r e t a i l sales generated by the mixed-use b u i l d i n g residents. Based on 1982 family 146 expenditure patterns ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1982, Table 62-555), 500 new households situated along t h i s commercial s t r i p would spend the following on goods and services, a proportion of which presumably would be purchased l o c a l l y : $1.5 m i l l i o n on food purchases; .5 m i l l i o n f or dining out; and, .25 m i l l i o n on personal care (eg. cosmetics, t o i l e t r i e s , h a i r s t y l i n g ) . While l o c a l merchants and businesses would not capture t h i s f u l l p o t e n t i a l spending, the addition of 500 households at the core of the west Broadway trade area would doubtlessly boost l o c a l sales volumes. Further, t h i s portion of Broadway ( l i k e many other r e t a i l d i s t r i c t s i n the c i t y ) i s well suited to serve an expanded, r e s i d e n t i a l base, as i t i s composed of a wide array of r e t a i l and service o u t l e t s . Established commercial d i s t r i c t s would not only benefit from the infu s i o n of added consumer spending, but several broader planning goals may also be r e a l i z e d . The planning process i n part i s based on seeking a r a t i o n a l and e f f i c i e n t use of society's scarce resources. In addressing t h i s goal, mixed-use development can be advocated on the basis that i t allows greater e f f i c i e n c y i n the use of urban land. These projects are located along commercial str e e t s already serviced with t r a n s i t , sewer, water, power and gas u t i l i t i e s i n areas that contain public i n f r a s t r u c t u r e such as parks, schools, and other amenities. Mixed-use projects i n t h i s context, can be seen as a form of higher density i n f i l l redevelopment that can u t i l i z e often under-used i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . Integrating residences i n t o a commercial area may also serve to lessen the need to use the pri v a t e car, as many convenience services and goods are close at hand. Greater usage of public t r a n s i t i s a l s o encouraged, as r i d e r s h i p has been shown to diminish r a p i d l y with increasing distance from the t r a n s i t l i n e . Further, as the 147 r e s u l t s of the developer/owner survey suggest, i n many of the commercial areas of the c i t y the f u l l development p o t e n t i a l allowed under the current zoning cannot be supported by the demand f o r commercial space alone. By mixing r e s i d e n t i a l with commercial i n the same structure, the f u l l develop-ment potential of the s i t e can be u t i l i z e d . This provides a b e n e f i t to both the owner, who now r e a l i z e s the maximum economic return on the property, and to the broader community, due to t h i s form of development's more inten-sive and compact use of scarce urban land. Perhaps a le s s obvious b e n e f i t of mixed-use development, i s i t s p o t e n t i a l for creating d i v e r s i t y along commercial streets. ("Diversity" i s defined here as a broadened choice and range of a c t i v i t i e s : r e s i d e n t i a l , r e t a i l , commercial service, and o f f i c e uses.) Urban planners have long noted the abandoned, l i f e l e s s character of many c i t y centres a f t e r the d a i l y working and shopping hours. One s o l u t i o n often suggested i s to promote housing i n the downtown core so as to a t t r a c t people beyond the 9-to-5 working day. This objective was the basis f o r Vancouver's downtown housing bonus policy. On a smaller scale, mixed-use projects located along the shopping d i s t r i c t s of 10th Avenue, 4th Avenue, Broadway, Fraser Street, or Commercial Drive, could s i m i l a r l y generate a human presence i n the evenings and weekends. The restaurants, cafes, lounges, theatres and other enter-tainment services catering to these residents would help contribute to a more active, safe, and i n t e r e s t i n g streetscape. Jane Jacobs was one of the f i r s t urbanists to recognize t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . S u f f i c i e n t population density she argued, permits a wide range of a c t i v i t i e s and services to l o -cate i n close proximity, each uniquely supported by the diverse and d i s -parate wants and needs of the population. Concentration of a c t i v i t i e s 148 allows broader choice and greater convenience, a t t r a c t i n g more people, which i n turn increases the demand f o r a wider range of goods and services, drawing more a c t i v i t i e s to s a t i s f y these demands, and so on; which, i n essence describes the modern c i t y . Mixed-use buildings located along established commercial s t r e e t s can perform a s i m i l a r function, though of course, on a much more l i m i t e d scale. Yet the same r e l a t i o n s h i p of popula-t i o n density, concentration of a c t i v i t i e s , and convenient access remains. The mixed-use project, by incorporating a r e s i d e n t i a l component can thus add to the d i v e r s i t y and therefore v i t a l i t y of the commercial streetscape. Another i n d i r e c t benefit a r i s i n g from mixed-use development follows from the one above. By helping to generate more active and diverse commer-c i a l streets, mixed-use projects can a s s i s t i n creating intense pockets of urban l i f e . This broadened range of a c t i v i t i e s and the r e s u l t i n g contrasting differences i n scale and form from the surrounding predominantly lower density r e s i d e n t i a l areas, can give r i s e to community f o c a l points. The Kerrisdale shopping d i s t r i c t f o r example, serves t h i s r o l e v i s - a - v i s the surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods of Point Grey - Magee. These intense commercial streets can help i n d i v i d u a l i z e and thus d i f f e r e n t i a t e l o c a l areas of the c i t y . As Lynch has suggested, people often conceive the c i t y i n terms of i d e n t i f i a b l e l o c a l communities (Lynch, 1981, p. 247). Active commercial streetscape can impart a strong image, and thereby give i d e n t i -f i a b l e meaning to that area within the l a r g e r and often incoherent image of the c i t y . Mixed-use development can a s s i s t i n giving greater c l a r i t y to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s image of the c i t y by helping recognizable commercial sub-areas to emerge. 149 D. ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR VIS-A-VIS MIXED-USE One of the tasks of planning i s to an t i c i p a t e and evaluate changing trends i n land use. The recent development of mixed-use projects through-out Vancouver represents one such trend, and should be addressed by the C i t y . Several questions a r i s e with regards to t h i s form of development: Can housing and commercial uses be s u c c e s s f u l l y combined?; Is increased r e s i -d e n t i a l density desirable i n commercial d i s t r i c t s ? ; What public b e n e f i t s and drawbacks does i t create?; Is i t occurring at a scale compatible with surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods?; I f mixed-use i s deemed desirable, where should these projects be located? The f i r s t step therefore, i s to examine and evaluate within a planning framework the opportunities and problems posed by mixed-use. By t h i s assessment process, the C i t y of Vancouver can e s t a b l i s h a p o s i t i o n with regards to mixed-use. In one sense the C i t y has already assumed a favourable stance towards t h i s form of development, though based l e s s on the merits of mixed-use, but due rather to a reluctance to permit large o f f i c e projects i n commercial d i s t r i c t s at a scale considered incompatible with adjoining r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods. In the mid-70's several C-2 d i s t r i c t s i n K i t s i l a n o were re-zoned (to C-2B, C-2C, and C-2C1) with the intent of discouraging o f f i c e development and emphasizing r e s i d e n t i a l uses above grade. Other commercial d i s t r i c t s i n Vancouver (eg. Commercial Drive) are thought also to be appropriate f o r implementing t h i s new zoning. However, a l a t e r proposal to re-zone a portion of West Broadway from C-2 to C-2B was met with consider-able opposition from property owners and was withdrawn. Although the C i t y recognizes the need to review and perhaps re v i s e i t s commercial zoning 150 p o l i c y , t h i s has not been c a r r i e d out as of yet, the p o t e n t i a l f o r mixed-use development should be examined. I f mixed-use i s found to be desirable, the C i t y can encourage t h i s form of development by performing an informational/advisory r o l e . For example, upon r e c e i v i n g development proposals for properties i n commercial d i s t r i c t s considered suitable, a mixed-use project can be recommended to the applicant. While inducements such as floorspace bonuses may stimulate private sector i n t e r e s t , these are not advised due to e x i s t i n g concerns about the scale of commercial development; these also represent a r t i f i c i a l market supports that are unnecessary given the present d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of demand f o r commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l space above the ground f l o o r . The C i t y can, however, p u b l i c i z e the advantages of mixed-use and b r i n g these to the attention of commercial property owners and developers. E. FURTHER RESEARCH Several further l i n e s of i n q u i r y can be suggested regarding mixed-use. The problem of noise, mentioned frequently by the surveyed residents, requires greater attention. Additional study i s necessary to a r r i v e at improvements i n design and construction to ameliorate t h i s problem. More de t a i l e d study of resident s a t i s f a c t i o n would also prove useful; s p e c i f i -c a l l y , to evaluate b u i l d i n g and dwelling u n i t design to reveal where changes could be made to increase resident s a t i s f a c t i o n . This study was i n i t i a t e d on the b e l i e f that mixed-use development o f f e r s c e r t a i n public b e n e f i t s ; these p o s i t i v e impacts should be evaluated to determine i f they are v a l i d . The presence of more residents along a 151 commercial street would presumably generate increased l o c a l sales of goods and services. Surveys of mixed-use resident shopping patterns would be necessary to quantify the proportion of consumer purchases made from l o c a l merchants and businesses. S i m i l a r l y , i t was suggested that mixed-use b u i l d i n g residents would be l e s s i n c l i n e d to use t h e i r own car (as shops and services are nearby), and possibly would make greater use of public t r a n s i t (since i t i s at t h e i r f ront door). Again, study of resident mobility patterns would be required to v a l i d a t e these assertions. The argument that mixed-use contributes to the " d i v e r s i t y " of a commercial d i s t r i c t also requires i n v e s t i g a t i o n : What i s meant by " d i v e r s i t y " ? ; Can i t be measured?; Is there a threshold amount of mixed-use housing required to create d i v e r s i t y ? . I f the C i t y of Vancouver chooses to encourage mixed-use development, a re-evaluation of the function, needs, and form of commercial d i s t r i c t s w i l l be necessary. There i s a l s o the question of where mixed-use projects should i d e a l l y be located: What are the c r i t e r i a to guide i n the l o c a t i o n of such buildings? L a s t l y , the impact of mixed-use development on abutting r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods should be assessed. For example, i s i t possible to up-grade lanes behind commercial s t r e e t s as part of a mixed-use develop-ment so they serve as a t r a n s i t i o n between adjoining commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s ? 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abercrombie, Stanley, "Mixed-use: New Zoning f o r Urban Regenera-t i o n , " Urban Design, v o l . 8, No. 2, (Summer 1979), 28-31. American Public Health Association, An Appraisal Method f o r  Measuring the Quali t y of Housing: A Yardstick f o r Health O f f i c e r s , Housing O f f i c i a l s , and Planners, Part 1, Nature and Uses of the  Method, 1945, Committee on the Hygiene of Housing, New York. Appleyard, D., and Mark L i n t e l l s , "The Environmental Quality of C i t y Streets: The Residents Viewpoint," Journal of the American  I n s t i t u t e of Planners, 38, (March 1972), 84-101. Babcock, Richard, The Zoning Game, Municipal Practices and P o l i c i e s , 1966, The Un i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin Press, Madison Babcock, Richard, and Fred P. Bpsselman, Exclusionary Zoning and Land Use Regulations, Housing i n the 1970's, 1973, Praeger Publishers, New York. Bair, Frederick H. J r . , Planning C i t i e s , 1970, American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , Chicago. Basset, Edward M., Zoning, The Laws, Administration, and Court  Decisions During the F i r s t Twenty Years, 1936, W.F. F e l l Co., Philadelphia. Bauer, Catherine, " S o c i a l Questions i n Housing and Community Planning," Journal of S o c i a l Issues, v o l . 7, No.l (1951), 1-34 Beck, Robert J . , Robert Rowan, P i e r r e Teasdale, "The Evaluation of Family S a t i s f a c t i o n with the Design of the Stacked Maisonette," i n Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications, Part II Ed. Daniel H. Carson, Community Development Series, v o l . 22, Environmental Design Research Association, 1974, Halsted Press. Beck, Robert J . , Robert Rowan, P i e r r e Teasdale, House Design  Requirements, User Generated Program for Low-Rise Multiple Dwelling  Houses, 1975, Centre de Recherches et d'Innovation Urbaine, University de Montreal. Becker, F r a n k l i n D., Design For L i v i n g , The Resident's View of M u l t i - Family Housing, 1974, Center f o r Urban Development Research, C o r n e l l University. B e l l , C.I., and Jan Cons tant ineseu, The Housing Game, A Survey of  Consumer Preferences i n Medium Density Housing i n the Greater Vancouver  Region, 1974, S o c i a l P o l i c y and Research Department, United Way of Greater Vancouver. 153 13. Berdie, Douglas R., and John F. Anderson, Questionnaires: Design  and Use, 1974, The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey. 14. Bergman, Edward M., Eliminating Exclusionary Zoning: Reconciling  Workplace and Residence i n Suburban Areas, 1974, B a l l i n g e r Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachussetts. 15. Blalock, Hubert M. J r . , An Introduction to So c i a l Research, 1970, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey. 16. Bourne, Larry S., The Geography of Housing, 1981, W.H. Winston & Sons, London. 17. B r i e r l y , E., "A Survey of Space and Sa t i s f a c t i o n " , B u i l t Environment, v o l . 2, No.6, (1973), 345-347. 18. Br i t t e n , J.R., What i s a S a t i s f a c t o r y House? A Report of Some House-holders' Views, 1977, CP26/77, Bu i l d i n g Research Station, Department of the Environment. 19. Brownell, Blaine A., and C l i f f o r d C. Petersen, " C i t i e s Within C i t i e s , " A r c h i t e c t u r i a l Forum, 140, (January 1974), 38-43. 20. Chapin, F. Stuart J r . , and Edward J . Kaiser, Urban Land Use Planning, 1979, Third E d i t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, Urbana. 21. C i t y of Toronto Planning Board, Yonge-Lawrence Commercial Area, O f f i c i a l Plan Proposals', 1978. 22. Cooper, Clare, Easter H i l l V i l l a g e : Some Soci a l Implications of  Design, 1975, Free Press, New York. 23. Cooper, Clare, "St. Francis Square: Attitudes of i t s Residents," American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s Journal, 56, (December 1971),22. 24. Cooper, Clare, and Lindsay Hogue, Design Guidelines f o r High-Rise  Family Housing, 1975, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley. 25. Cooper-Marcus, Clare, "User Needs Research i n Housing," i n The Form  of Housing, Ed. Sam Davis, 1977, Van Nostrand Company, New York. 26. Davern, Jeanne M., "A New Kind of Development," A r c h i t e c t u r a l Record, 162, (December 1977), 96-107. 27. Department of Environment, New Housing and Road T r a f f i c Noise, A Design Guide f o r Ar c h i t e c t s , Design B u l l e t i n 26, 1972, Her Majesty's Stationary O f f i c e , London. 28. Erickson, Donald K., An Analysis of Human Needs i n Apartment Architecture, 1965, Design Research Labaratory, College of Environmental Design, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley. 29. Ermuth, F., Residential S a t i s f a c t i o n and Urban Environmental  Preferences, 1974, Geographical Monographs, No. 3, York University. 154 Florence, Colden, " M X D , " American I n s t i t u t e of Arch i t e c t s Journal, 66, (September, 1977), 28-33. Francescato, Guido et a l , "Evaluating Resident's S a t i s f a c t i o n i n Housing f o r Low and Moderate Income Families: A Multi-method Approach," i n Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications, Part II, 1974, Environmental Design and Research Association, Halsted Press, 285-295. Freeman, A l l e n , "Introverted T r i o of MXDs Dominates Atlanta's New Downtown," American I n s t i t u t e of Architects Journal, 66, (September, 1977), 34-37. Freeman, A l l e n , "In Montreal, Promenades Weave Mixed-Use Developments Into and Integrated Core," American In s t i t u t e of Ar c h i t e c t s Journal, 66, (September, 1977) 38-41. Gilham, Louis C , "Mixed-Use Zoning and Neighborhood Control," P r a c t i c i n g Planner, (September, 1978), 14-17. Goldberg, Michael, and Daniel D. Ulinder, Residential Developer  Behavior, 1975, Urban Land Economics Publications, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Goldberg, Michael, and Peter Howard, Zoning, Its Costs and Relevance for the 1980's, 1980, The Fraser I n s t i t u t e , Vancouver. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , A Qual i t a t i v e Checklist For  Compact Housing, 1975, reprinted by the Canadian Housing Design Council, CHDC 117, Ottawa, Ontario. Hinshaw, Mark, and Kathyrn A l l o t , "Environmental Preferences of Future Housing Consumers, Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, v o l . 38, (March, 1982), 102-107. Hughes, Roger, Ar c h i t e c t s , and A.A. Robins & Associates, Study f o r  Proposed A l t e r a t i o n s to C - l and C-2 Commercial D i s t r i c t Schedules, prepared f o r the Cancouver C i t y Planning Department, 1982. Hugo-Brunt, Michael, The History of C i t y Planning: A Survey, 1972, Harvest House Ltd., Montreal. Jacobs, Jane, The Death and L i f e of Great American C i t i e s , 1961, Vintage Books, New York. Kain, J . F., and J . M. Quigley, "Evaluating the Quality of the Residential Environment," Environment and Planning, v o l . 2, (1970), 23-32. Knight, Robert L., and Mark D. Menchik, Residential Environmental  Attitudes and Preferences: Report of A Questionnaire Survey, 1974, IES Report 24, Un i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison. 155 Larsen and Nielsen Constructor A/S, Tenant Survey, Translated by H. R. Hayes, NRC TT-1423, 1970, The D i v i s i o n of Bu i l d i n g Research, Ottawa. Lewis, Nelson P., The Planning of the Modern City, A Review of the  Pr i n c i p l e s Governing C i t y Planning, 1916, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. Lewis, Harold MacLean, Planning the Modern City, V o l . 1, 1949, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. Linowes, R. Robert, and Don T. Allensworth, The P o l i t i c s of Land Use, Planning, Zoning, and the Private Developer, 1973, Praeger Publishers, New York. Lohman, Karl, P r i n c i p l e s of C i t y Planning, 1931, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Lynch, Kevin, A Theory of Good C i t y Form, 1981, MIT Press, Cambridge. Maslove, A l l a n M., Towards the Measurement of Housing Quality, 1977, Discussion Paper No. 95, Economics Council of Canada, Ottawa. McConnell Shean, Theories For Planning, 1981, William Heineman Ltd., London. Menchik, Mark D., Residential Environmental Preferences and Choice: Some Preliminary Empirical Results Relevant to Urban Form, 1971, Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e Discussion Paper Series, No. 46, Philadelphia. Michelson, William, Man and His Urban Environment: A S o c i o l o g i c a l  Approach, 1970, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass. Michelson, William, "Analytic Sampling f o r Design Information: A Survey of Housing Experience," i n ERDA1, Proceedings of the 1st Annual  Environmental Design Research Association Conference, Eds. Henry Senoff and Sidney Cohen, 1970! Michelson, William, Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential  S a t i s f a c t i o n , 1977, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, New York. M i l l e r , Robert M., Bonusing Downtown Housing: An Evaluation of Goals  and Means, 1982, Unpublished M.A. (Planning) Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. "Mixed-Use Buildings, Microcosms of Urbanity," Progressive Architecture, v o l . 56, No. 2, (December, 1975), 37-51. Newman, Oscar, Defensible Space, 1973, C o l l i e r Books, New York. Onibokun, A.G., "Environmental Issues i n Housing H a b i t a b i l i t y , " Environment and Planning, v o l . 5, (1973), 461-476. 156 60. Onibokun, A.G., "Evaluating Consumer's S a t i s f a c t i o n With Housing: An Application of Systems Approach," Journal of the American Ins i t u t e of Planners, No. 3, (May, 1974), 189-200. 61. Oppenheim, A.N., Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement, 1966, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London. 62. Petersen, C l i f f o r d C , "Multifunctional Buildings and Their Implications For the Modern C i t y , " Urban A f f a i r s Quarterly, v o l . 11, No. 4, (Junw, 1976), 429-452. 63. Procos, D i m i t r i , Mixed Land Use, Past Record and Future Prospects, 1970, School of Architecture Report Series, Nova Scotia Technical • College, Halifax. 64. Procos, D i m i t r i , Mixed Land Use: From Revival to Innovation, 1976, Halsted Press, New York. 65. Pyron, B., "Form and D i v e r s i t y i n Human Habbtats, Judgmental and Attitude Responses," Environment and Behavior, v o l . 4, (1972), 87-120. 66. Royal A r c h i t e c t u r i a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada, J o i n t Committee on Housing Design, Reflections on Zoning, The Report of the Zoning Study Committee, 1964. 67. Schmartz, Mildred F., "La C i t e , " A r c h i t e c t u r i a l Record, 163 (January, 1978), 111-116. 68. Scott, M., American C i t y Planning Since 1890, 1969, Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, Berekeley. 69. Soen, Dan, " H a b i t a b i l i t y - Occupants' Needs and Dwelling S a t i s f a c t i o n , " E k i s t i c s , v o l . 46, No. 275, (March/April, 1974), 129-134. 70. Tucker, S.N., "Mixed-Use Area Development Control," Urban Studies, v o l . 17, No. 3, (October, 1980), 287-296. 71. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, O f f i c e of P o l i c y Development and Research, The Affordable Community: Growth, Change and  Choice i n the 80's, 1981, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington, D.C. 72. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Apartment Zoning and Suburban  Commercial Centres, 1964. 73. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Downtown Vancouver, Part I, the Issues, 1968. 74. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Downtown Vancouver Development  Concepts, 1970. 75. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Suburban Commercial Study, 1971. 157 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Downtown Vancouver, Part JE, Proposed  Goals, 1973. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Understanding Vancouver, 1977. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Downtown Guidelines, Planning  P o l i c i e s , 1980. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department, Goals For Vancouver, 1980. Vischer Skaburski Planners, False Creek, Area 6_, Phase JL_, Post-Occupancy  Evaluation, v o l . 2, F i n a l Report, 1980. Walkey/Olson A r c h i t e c t s , Privacy i n Compact Housing, T e r r i t o r y and  Individual Control, prepared f o r the GVRD Planning Department, Compact Housing Program,1976. Walker, Robert A v e r i l l , "The History of Modern C i t y Planning," i n C i t y  Planning, A Selection of Readings i n i t s Theory and Practice, Eds. William Anderson et a l , 1950, Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis. Weaver, C l i f f o r d , and Richard Babcock, C i t y Zoning: The Once and Future  Frontier, 1979, Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago. Weaver, John C , "The Property Industry and Land Use Controls: The Vancouver Experience, 1910-1945," Plan Canada, 19, (September/December, 1979), 211-225. Whitbread, Michael, Attitudes to Residential Environments, 1979, Centre f o r Environmental Studies, Research Series 28, London. Williams, Frank Backus, "Public Control of Private Land," i n C i t y  Planning, Ed. John Nolen, 1922, D. Appleton and Company, New York. Wilson, Robert L., " L i v a b i l i t y of the C i t y : Attitudes and Urban Development," i n Urban Growth Dynamics In a Regional Cluster of C i t i e s , Eds. F. Stuart Chapin J r . and S h i r l e y F. Weiss, 1962, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. Wirth, Louis, "Urbanism As a Way of L i f e , " American Journal of  Sociology, 44, (1938), 1-24. Witherspoon, Robert E., Jon P. Abbett, and Robert M. Gladstone, Mixed-Use Development: New Ways of Land Use, 1976, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. Witherspoon, Robert, "Community Development, Mixed-Use Development: Redevelopment Problem and Real Estate Solution," Urban Land, v o l . 35, No. 2, (February, 1976), 3-11. Wright, Bruce N., "Megaform Comes to Motown," Progressive Architecture, 59, (February, 1978), 57-61. Zogby, Teresa, "Mixed-Use D i s t r i c t s , " PAS Memo, 1979, Planning Advisory Service, American Planning Association, Chicago. 158 APPENDIX I DESCRIPTION OF SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS CITY OF VANCOUVER Zone F.S.R. Description C - l 1.2 Local commercial d i s t r i c t permitting small-scale convenience r e t a i l and services C-2 3.0 General business d i s t r i c t intended to service l a r g e r neighborhoods. C-2B 1.5-2.5 S i m i l a r to C-2, but encourages good design and r e s i d e n t i a l , at s l i g h t l y reduced density. 1.5 F.S.R. i f used only f o r r e s i d e n t i a l ; 2.5 F.S.R. i n a l l other cases. C-2C 3.0 Intended to create pedestrian-oriented d i s t r i c t centres and r e s i d e n t i a l i s encouraged. C-2C1 1.2-3.0 Companion to C-2C, represents a s l i g h t emphsis on auto-oriented functions and r e s i d e n t i a l uses. 1.2 F.S.R. f o r o f f i c e , 1.5 F.S.R. f o r s t r i c t l y r e s i d e n t i a l , and 3.0 F.S.R. i n a l l other cases. C-3A 1.0-3.0 Serves p r i m a r i l y as a regional o f f i c e centre. FM-1 .6-1.5 (Fairview Slopes) Although p r i m a r i l y a medium density r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t , compatible commercial and l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l uses are permitted. MC-1 1.5-2.5 (Cedar Cottage) Commercial, r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l uses that are compatible with one another and with nearby r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s are permitted. APPENDIX II MIXED-USE PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS 4390 West 10th Avenue. S i x dwelling u n i t s above; f i v e r e t a i l / s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s at grade. B u i l t 1984 (C-2 zone). Dunbar and West 28th Avenue. Eighteen dwelling u n i t s b u i l t around an i n t e r i o r courtyard; c r e d i t union at grade. B u i l t 1984 (C-2). 161 2705 West 4th Avenue. Twenty dwel l ing u n i t s ; ground l e v e l medica l and dental o f f i c e . Separate r e s i d e n t i a l entry "c-ff Stephen S t r e e t . B u i l t 1983 ( C - 2 ) . 162 5752 Victoria Street. Two dwelling units above ground level restaurant. Residential entry at side. Built 1976 (C-2). 1969 East 49th Avenue. Two dwel l ing un i t p r o j e c t . R e s i d e n t i a l entry on l e f t . Note enclosed ba lcony , and proximi ty to ad jo in ing dwel l ing . B u i l t 1977 ( C - 2 ) . 1085 Kingsway. Twenty-two dwel l ing u n i t s over a grocery s t o r e , h a i r s t y l i s t , and restaurant at grade. B u i l t 1979 (C -2 ) . 164 3603 Conmercial Drive. Commercial o f f i c e and engraving shop at grade; ten units above. B u i l t 1979 (MC-1). APPENDIX III :XED-USE PROJECT SURVEY/QUESTIONNAIRES MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SURVEY PROJECT*: The p u r p o s e o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s t o l e a r n t h e o p i n i o n s o f m i x e d -use p r o j e c t d e v e l o p e r s a n d owners r e g a r d i n g t h i s f o r m o f d e v e l o p m e n t . I t i s a l s o i n t e n d e d t o g a t h e r y o u r i n s i g h t s and e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h m i x e d - u s e b u i l d i n g s . Y o u r c o n s e n t i n c o m p l e t i n g t h i s f i f t e e n m i n u t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be much a p p r e c i a t e d . A l l r e s p o n s e w i l l be k e p t s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d w i l l n o t be u s e d o u t s i d e o f t h i s s t u d y . P l e a s e s k i p o v e r any q u e s t i o n s t h a t y o u do n o t d e s i r e t o a n s w e r . What were some o f y o u r r e a s o n s f o r d e v e l o p i n g o r a c q u i r i n g t h i s m i x e d -use c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t * i n s t e a d o f a s i n g l e use b u i l d i n g ? 1. 2. Have y o u f o u n d t h a t r e n t i n g , l e a s i n g , o r s e l l i n g t h e c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l s p a c e i n t h i s p r o j e c t c o m p a r e d t o a n o n - m i x e d use b u i l d i n g has b e e n : C o m m e r c i a l s p a c e R e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s D i f f i c u l t A v e r a g e E a s y o o o o o o P l e a s e comment on any f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g r e n t i n g , l e a s i n g , o r s e l l i n g s p a c e : 3. Do y o u f e e l t h e r e i s g r e a t e r s e c u r i t y f o r c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l o c c u p a n t s i n a m i x e d - u s e p r o j e c t ? Yes Comme r c i a 1 Res i de n t i a l o o o o P l e a s e comment: 167 MIXED-USE PROJECT SURVEY page two 4. P l e a s e i n d i c a t e t h e r e n t r a n g e s o f t h e r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n t h e p r o j e c t ( c h e c k a r a n g e o f S c a t e g o r i e s i f n e c e s s a r y ) . < $ 4 0 0 401-4.50 45 1-500 501-550 551-600 601-650 + 650 S t u d i o o o o o o o o One bdrm. o o o 0 0 0 o Two bdrm. o o 0 o o o o T h r e e bdrm. 0 o o o o O o + T h r e e bdrm. o o o o o O o 5. Have y o u e n c o u n t e r e d any s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s i n m i x i n g c o m m e r c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s i n one b u i l d i n g ? 1. 2 . 3 . 6. Have y o u f o u n d t h a t c e r t a i n c o m m e r c i a l u s e s a r e more s u i t a b l e f o r a m i x e d - u s e b u i l d i n g ? Which have y o u f o u n d t o be " s u i t a b l e " a n d w h i c h t o be " n o t s u i t a b l e ? " 7. As a m i x e d - u s e p r o j e c t d e v e l o p e r o r owner, what t h r e e f a c t o r s h a v e y o u s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d t o be i m p o r t a n t f o r s u c h a b u i l d i n g t o be s u c c e s s f u l ? 1. 2 . 3 . MIXED-USE PROJECT SURVEY page three 8. Did you experience any p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s or problems i n developing or a c q u i r i n g t h i s mixed-use p r o j e c t ? 1. 2. 3. 9. Given the advantage of h i n d s i g h t , i f you were to develop or acquire another mixed-use b u i l d i n g what one o r two things would you change or do d i f f e r e n t l y , or not do? 1. 2. FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPERS OR DEVELOPER/OWNERS: 10. At the time you developed t h i s p r o j e c t , were you aware t h a t under the C - l and C-2 commercial zoning codes r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r s p a c e i n a mixed-use b u i l d i n g i s p e n a l i z e d by counting each square f o o t o f r e s i d e n t i a l space as 2.5 square f e e t i n c a l c u l a t i n g the f l o o r s p a c e r a t i o ? no 11. I f you were aware o f t h i s r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r s p a c e m u l t i p l i e r , why d i d you choose to develop a mixe-use p r o j e c t a t t h i s l o c a t i o n d espite the p e n a l i z i n g e f f e c t of t h i s clause? THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION. 169 MIXED-USE RENTER/OWNER PROJECT: RESIDENT SURVEY The purpose of this questionnaire i s to learn how satisfied occupants are with li v i n g i n a dwelling unit in a mixed-use building. It i s also designed to gain an impression of what i t i s like to l i v e i n a dwelling over a store or office along a commercial street. This information i s valuable for evaluating this form of housing. Your consent in conpleting this fifteen minute questionnaire w i l l be much appreciated. A l l responses w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y confidential and w i l l not be used outside of this study. 1. Do you own or rent this dwelling unit? Q own Q rent 2. How many bedrooms are there i s this dwelling unit? Q studio Q one Q two Q- more than two 3. Does your dwelling unit face.... Q a side street Q lane Q a major street Q other (please specify) 4. Please l i s t a l l the persons that at present are regularly living in this dwelling unit. (Please l i s t yourself f i r s t . ) Age Sex 1. ; 2. 3. 4. ' 5. How long has the current renter or owner lived here? years 6. What type of housing did you l i v e i n before moving here? (^) townhouse (^) high-rise apartment (^) low-rise apartment (^) single-family Q duplex Q other (please specify) 7. In your last dwelling were you: (2) owning (^) renting Q other (please specify) MIXED-USE RESIDENT SURVEY page two 8. Approximately, where was your previous dwelling? Please l i s t the hundred-block number, the street/avenue, and the town/city. hundred-block street/avenue town/city. 9. Before you chose this dwelling unit, what other forms of housing did you consider moving into? Q single-family Q duplex ("2") townhouse (^ J) low-rise apartment Q high-rise apartment (*""") other (please specify) 10. Think back to before you moved here this mixed-use building? ... what were your reasons for moving into 11. When you chose this dwelling unit, how important were the following factors in making your decision? Please rate each from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important). 1 2 3 4 5 Attractive dwelling unit o o o o o Attractive outside appearance o o o o o Close to public transit o o o o o Close to work o o o o o Close to shopping o o o. o o Close to schools o o o o o Convenient location o o o o o Desirable area o o o o o Quietness o o o o o Reasonable rent/price o o o o o Safety/security o o o o o Other (please specify) o o o. o o MTXED-USE RESIDENT SURVEY page three 11. Hew satisfied generally are you with this dwelling unit? Q indifferent Q very satisfied Q very dissatisfied Q dissatisfied Q satisfied Please conment: 12. Have you encountered any problems i n li v i n g i n this building? Q no Q yes If "yes", what are these problems? 13. Have you found your dwelling unit to be noisy? Q never (JJ) occasionally ("J) very 14. If you do hear noise(s) in your dwelling unit, what are the three main source(s) of this noise? 1. 2. 3. 15. If str e e t / t r a f f i c noise i s present, what time during the day i s i t worse? some street noise (^) no street noise From . to o'clock. 16. Are there any particular benefits or attractions of l i v i n g i n a mixed-use building such as this one? Thank you for your co-operation. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096461/manifest

Comment

Related Items