UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Gentrification : an intra-urban predictive model Tourigny, Mark Claude 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A4_6 T68.pdf [ 6.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097588.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097588-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097588-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097588-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097588-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097588-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097588-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097588-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097588.ris

Full Text

GENTRIFICATION: AN INTRA-URBAN PREDICTIVE MODEL by MARK CLAUDE TOURIGNY • A . ( E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e ) , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 198 6 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION) i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 1988 © Mark C laude T o u r i g n y , 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of (Xrlpg^ /-o ^ d fcip siv^x't^ ^ fw^li^ 0 f &u<>> A<hb The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DF.fin/ft-n ABSTRACT S i n c e 1970, many i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods t h a t were the domain o f low- income groups o c c u p y i n g c h e a p , d i l a p i d a t e d h o u s i n g have a t t r a c t e d h i g h e r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c g r o u p s . As a consequence , c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d has i n c r e a s e d the c o n d i t i o n and p r i c e o f i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g . T h i s phenomenon i s commonly c a l l e d " g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . " T h i s t h e s i s rev iews the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , a n a l y z e s g e n t r i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n an economic framework, and uses r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s t o t e s t the f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s : There i s a l a g between the f i r s t stetge o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , the s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n , and t h e second s t a g e , r i s i n g r e a l h o u s i n g p r i c e s . An i n c r e a s e i n r e a l h o u s i n g p r i c e s c a n , t h e r e f o r e , be p r e d i c t e d by o b s e r v i n g which c e n t r a l ne ighbourhoods a r e b e g i n n i n g t o undergo demographic change . The i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n model d e s i g n e d f o r t h i s t h e s i s r e g r e s s e s the change i n r e a l h o u s i n g p r i c e s d u r i n g the 1970s a g a i n s t the change i n demographics d u r i n g the 1960s. The sample i s 95 i n n e r - c i t y census t r a c t s from V a n c o u v e r , O t t a w a - H u l l , and T o r o n t o . The c o n c l u s i o n from s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s t h a t r i s i n g h o u s i n g p r i c e s i n g e n t r i f y i n g ne ighbourhoods can i n d e e d be p r e d i c t e d by o b s e r v i n g which i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods a r e s t a r t i n g t o undergo demographic change . i i TABLE OP CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i L I S T OF TABLES v i L I S T OF FIGURES v i i i 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 "RINGED" STRUCTURE THEORY 4 GENTRIFICATION THEORY 6 D e m o g r a p h i c 7 E c o n o m i c 8 U r b a n A m e n i t i e s 10 H o u s i n g M a r k e t 10 G o v e r n m e n t P o l i c y 13 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n S t a g e s 13 F u t u r e G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 14 ESTIMATION MODELS 15 I n t e r - u r b a n G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 15 I n t r a - u r b a n G e n t r i f i c a t i o n 18 CHAPTER SUMMARY 2 2 3. GENTRIFICATION I N AN ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK 2 5 HOUSING MARKET BACKGROUND 2 5 Demand 2 5 S u p p l y . 27 C a p i t a l S t o c k 29 F I L T R A T I O N 29 GENTRIFICATION 31 i i i C H A P T E R SUMMARY 3 3 4. A C A N A D I A N I N T R A - U R B A N G E N T R I F I C A T I O N MODEL 3 5 MODEL 37 P r e m i s e 3 7 S a m p l e 37 D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e s 4 1 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s 4 2 D a t a L i m i t a t i o n s 47 E X T E N S I O N S TO THE MODEL 48 C H A P T E R SUMMARY 50 R e g r e s s i o n E q u a t i o n s 5 1 5. DATA A N A L Y S I S 53 C O R R E L A T I O N A N A L Y S I S 53 V a r i a b l e s 53 C i t i e s 57 L a g 60 R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S I S 6 1 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s f r o m O n e P e r i o d 62 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s , B o t h P e r i o d s P o o l e d ... 69 C o m p a r i s o n B e t w e e n M o d e l s 7 1 C H A P T E R SUMMARY 7 4 6. SUMMARY, C A V E A T S , AND C O N C L U S I O N 7 6 SUMMARY 7 6 C A V E A T S 79 C O N C L U S I O N 8 0 R E F E R E N C E S 82 A P P E N D I X A 84 i v APPENDIX B 92 APPENDIX C 100 APPENDIX D 108 APPENDIX E 109 v LIST OF TABLES 1 Summary o f C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 54 2 % Change i n Hous ing P r i c e s p e r Room R e l a t i v e t o the CMA 56 3 Summary o f M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s 6 3 4 Compar ison o f " B e s t Model" A d j u s t e d R 2 s 66 5 Summary: M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f P e r i o d 2 G e n t r i f i c a t i o n a g a i n s t P o o l e d P e r i o d 1 and 2 Demographic E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s 70 6 F - S t a t Compar ison o f Va lue2 R e g r e s s i o n R 2 s : Complete v s Reduced Models 7 3 7 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x , 3 C i t i e s Combined 84 8 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Rent and V a l u e , 3 C i t i e s Combined 85 9 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x , Vancouver 86 10 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Rent and V a l u e , Vancouver 87 11 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x , O t t a w a - H u l l 88 12 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Rent and V a l u e , O t t a w a - H u l l 8 9 13 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x , T o r o n t o 90 14 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Rent and V a l u e , T o r o n t o 91 15 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f R e n t , 3 C i t i e s Combined 92 16 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f V a l u e , 3 C i t i e s Combined 9 3 17 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f R e n t , Vancouver 94 18 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f V a l u e , Vancouver 95 19 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f R e n t , O t t a w a - H u l l . . . . 96 20 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f V a l u e , O t t a w a - H u l l . . . 97 21 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f R e n t , T o r o n t o 98 v i 22 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f V a l u e , T o r o n t o 99 23 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , 3 C i t i e s Combined 100 24 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t S e l e c t e d P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , 3 C i t i e s Combined 101 25 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , Vancouver 102 26 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t S e l e c t e d P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , Vancouver 103 27 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , O t t a w a - H u l l ... 104 28 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t S e l e c t e d P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , O t t a w a - H u l l 105 29 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , T o r o n t o 106 3 0 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n o f Rent and V a l u e , P e r i o d 2, a g a i n s t S e l e c t e d P e r i o d 1 and P e r i o d 2 E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s P o o l e d , T o r o n t o 107 31 C a l c u l a t i o n o f F - s t a t i s t i c f o r Compar ison Between Reduced and Complete Model V a l u e R 2 s 108 v i i LIST OF FIGURES 1 N e i g h b o u r h o o d H o u s i n g M a r k e t 2 6 2 O p t i m a l M a i n t e n a n c e S t r a t e g y 2 6 3 V a n c o u v e r I n n e r - C i t y H o u s i n g P r i c e I n c r e a s e s R e l a t i v e t o CMA, 1 9 7 1 - 1 9 8 1 38 4 O t t a w a - H u l l I n n e r - C i t y H o u s i n g P r i c e I n c r e a s e s R e l a t i v e t o CMA, 1 9 7 1 - 1 9 8 1 39 5 T o r o n t o I n n e r - C i t y H o u s i n g P r i c e I n c r e a s e s R e l a t i v e t o CMA, 1 9 7 1 - 1 9 8 1 40 v i i i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n " i s one o f many l a b e l s g i v e n t o the p o s t - 1 9 7 0 phenomenon o f i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhood r e j u v e n a t i o n . Other names i n c l u d e " r e v e r s e f i l t r a t i o n , " " i n n e r - c i t y r e v i t a l i z a t i o n , " " i n n e r - c i t y r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , " and "urban r e - i n v a s i o n " (Hamnett, 1984) . They a l l r e f e r t o the same phenomenon: many c e n t r a l - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d s t h a t were the domain o f low- income groups o c c u p y i n g c h e a p , d i l a p i d a t e d , " f i l t e r e d " h o u s i n g have a t t r a c t e d h i g h e r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c g r o u p s . As a consequence , c a p i t a l improvements made by the h i g h e r - i n c o m e groups have i n c r e a s e d the c o n d i t i o n and p r i c e o f i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g ( B e r r y , 1985; L e y , 1985; Hamnett, 1984) . The l i t e r a t u r e p o s i t s t h a t i n the e a r l i e s t s t a g e o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , a few w e l l - e d u c a t e d bu t r e l a t i v e l y l o w - p a i d young p r o f e s s i o n a l s move i n t o an i n n e r - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d . They a r e a t t r a c t e d t o the ne ighbourhood by i t s p r o x i m i t y t o CBD ( C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t ) employment and a m e n i t i e s and by i t s r e l a t i v e l y cheap h o u s i n g . There i s no immediate e f f e c t on h o u s i n g p r i c e s , though . T h i s f i r s t group o f g e n t r i f i e r s i s s m a l l so ne ighbourhood v a c a n c i e s remain h i g h ; t h e i r income i s s t i l l low so c a p i t a l i n v e s t m e n t i s l i m i t e d . Once t h e r e has been some moderate r e n o v a t i o n t o the h o u s i n g s t o c k by t h i s f i r s t group o f g e n t r i f i e r s , however, s p e c u l a t o r s and h i g h e r income groups a r e a t t r a c t e d 1 t o the ne ighbourhood and b i d up p r i c e s ( B e r r y , 1985; L e y , 1985; M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f , 1987) . In o t h e r words, h o u s i n g p r i c e s i n a g e n t r i f y i n g ne ighbourhood f o l l o w a l o g i s t i c S - c u r v e (Ley , 1985; M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f , 1987) . There i s a l a g between the i n i t i a l change i n the demographic m i l i e u o f an i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhood t h a t i s g e n t r i f y i n g and t h e r i s e i n ne ighbourhood h o u s i n g p r i c e s . The purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t o p r e s e n t a r e g r e s s i o n model d e s i g n e d t o t e s t what t h e l i t e r a t u r e i m p l i e s : S i n c e t h e r e i s a l a g between the s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n i n a g e n t r i f y i n g i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhood and t h e consequent r i s e i n h o u s i n g p r i c e s , one can p r e d i c t which i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods w i l l g e n t r i f y and have f u t u r e p r i c e i n c r e a s e s by o b s e r v i n g which ones a r e u n d e r g o i n g demographic change as young, w e l l e d u c a t e d , CBD employed s i n g l e s and c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s b e g i n t o move i n . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n can be measured two ways: s o c i o -economic change i n a ne ighbourhood o r h o u s i n g market change (Ley 1985) . T h i s t h e s i s measures g e n t r i f i c a t i o n by the i n c r e a s e i n c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g p r i c e s r e l a t i v e t o the t o t a l CMA (Census M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a ) . The model r e g r e s s e s the change i n r e n t s and d w e l l i n g v a l u e s i n c i t y - c e n t r e ne ighbourhoods r e l a t i v e t o the CMA d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1971 t o 1981 a g a i n s t demographic changes d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1961 t o 1971. The sample i s from the i n n e r - c i t y c e n s u s t r a c t s o f V a n c o u v e r , O t t a w a - H u l l , and T o r o n t o . 2 The model assumes t h a t c e n t r a l ne ighbourhoods w i t h r i s i n g r e n t s and v a l u e s r e l a t i v e t o t h e CMA a r e g e n t r i f y i n g , i . e . , ne ighbourhood h o u s i n g demand and c o n d i t i o n a r e r i s i n g . In most c a s e s , t h e a s s u m p t i o n i s a r e a s o n a b l e one . One example o f when t h e a s s u m p t i o n i s wrong, however, i s i f an i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t i a l ne ighbourhood has been rezoned t o c o m m e r c i a l . Rents w i l l not r i s e because h o u s i n g demand has no t i n c r e a s e d and h o u s i n g c o n d i t i o n has not improved but d w e l l i n g v a l u e s w i l l r i s e because o f r e z o n i n g . R i s i n g v a l u e s i n t h i s c a s e i s not g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . There a r e f i v e c h a p t e r s f o l l o w i n g t h i s f i r s t i n t r o d u c t o r y one . Chapte r 2 r e v i e w s the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e f o r t h e o r i e s e x p l a i n i n g i n n e r - c i t y r e j u v e n a t i o n . Chapte r 3 examines how g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s an i n n e r - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s h o u s i n g market . C h a p t e r 4 d e s c r i b e s the Canad ian i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n r e g r e s s i o n model i n t h i s t h e s i s . Chapte r 5 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o f the mode l . C h a p t e r 6 summarizes the t h e s i s and d i s c u s s e s the c a v e a t s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f the a n a l y s i s . The c o n c l u s i o n s from t h i s t h e s i s w i l l be o f i n t e r e s t t o s o c i a l p l a n n e r s and d e v e l o p e r s , b o t h o f whom endeavor t o a n t i c i p a t e h o u s i n g demand and p r i c e s . 3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW T h i s chapter begins by summarizing t h e o r i e s f o r the " r i n g e d " s t r u c t u r e t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d pre-1970 urban d e s i g n (the poor l i v i n g a t the c i t y c e n t r e and the r i c h l i v i n g a t the c i t y p e r i p h e r y ) . The chapter then reviews the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e f o r t h e o r i e s e x p l a i n i n g i n n e r -c i t y r e j u v e n a t i o n and f o r e s t i m a t i o n models des i g n e d t o p r e d i c t i t . "RINGED" STRUCTURE THEORY The " r i n g e d " s t r u c t u r e t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d pre-1970 urban d e s i g n was the r e s u l t o f " f i l t r a t i o n " o f the housing s t o c k . Lowry notes t h a t both p h y s i c a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n and t e c h n o l o g i c a l and s t y l e obsolescence o f a g i n g c e n t r a l - c i t y housing prompted h i g h e r income groups t o seek new housing (Lowry, 1960). Muth suggests t h a t as the r e a l incomes of a l l households i n c r e a s e d over time, a l l income groups i n c r e a s e d the q u a n t i t y of t h e i r housing over time (Muth, 1969). S i n c e the newest, l a r g e s t , and most t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y advanced housing was c o n s t r u c t e d i n s u c c e s s i v e r i n g s a t the c i t y p e r i p h e r y where vacant l a n d was a v a i l a b l e , the wealthy kept moving f u r t h e r away from the c i t y c o r e . Each time the wealthy moved, t h e i r vacated housing a t t r a c t e d the next income group whose vacated housing, i n t u r n , a t t r a c t e d the next group, and so on. As a r e s u l t , the housing s t o c k 4 " f i l t e r e d " down the income h i e r a r c h y . The p o o r i n h e r i t e d the d i s c a r d e d h o u s i n g a t the c i t y c o r e where demand f o r h o u s i n g was l e a s t ( B e r r y , 1985) . F i l t r a t i o n o f the h o u s i n g s t o c k i s a r e s u l t o f s u p p l y d e c i s i o n s as w e l l as demand o n e s . Lowry e x p l a i n s t h a t as demand f o r o l d e r c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g d e c r e a s e d , t h e r e n t r e c e i v e d by the l a n d l o r d s d e c r e a s e d as w e l l . To o f f s e t the r e d u c t i o n i n t h e i r r e v e n u e s , l a n d l o r d s r e d u c e d o r s t o p p e d maintenance and thus has tened t h e p h y s i c a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g s t o c k . As a r e s u l t , demand d e c r e a s e d even more (Lowry, 1960) . O ther e x p l a n a t i o n s o f the r i n g e d urban s t r u c t u r e i n c l u d e B u r g e s s ' s " i n v a s i o n and s u c c e s s i o n " t h e o r y and W a r n e r ' s " s t r e e t c a r " t h e o r y . Burgess e x p l a i n s t h a t d u r i n g the f i r s t h a l f o f t h i s c e n t u r y , r e s i d e n t s o f t h e c i t y c e n t r e t r i e d t o d i s t a n c e themse lves from i n v a d i n g immigrants by i n v a d i n g the next r i n g o f h o u s i n g whose r e s i d e n t s , i n t u r n , invaded the next r i n g , and so o n , e f f e c t i n g a s u c c e s s i o n o f income groups b e i n g "pushed" outward ( S h o r t , 1984) . Warner t e l l s o f how t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n n o v a t i o n s s t a r t i n g w i t h the s t r e e t c a r i n t h e e a r l y p a r t o f t h i s c e n t u r y a l l o w e d the wea l thy t o f l e e from t h e gr ime and n o i s e o f the i n d u s t r i a l c i t y c o r e t o t h e " r u r a l i d e a l " o f t h e s u b u r b s . The poor were p r o h i b i t e d by commuting c o s t s (Warner, 1962) . 5 GENTRIFICATION THEORY B e f o r e b e g i n n i n g the d i s c u s s i o n on c e n t r a l - c i t y r e s u r g e n c e , one must f i r s t no te t h a t no t a l l i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods d e t e r i o r a t e d as f i l t r a t i o n t h e o r y p r e d i c t s . Hamnett r e p o r t s t h a t t h e r e have been many e l i t e ne ighbourhoods i n the U . S . t h a t have p e r s i s t e d i n c i t y c e n t r e s (Hamnett, 1984) . Ley no tes t h a t Canadian c i t y c e n t r e s have no t degenera ted t o the degree t h a t Amer ican ones have because o f t h r e e r e a s o n s : the r e l a t i v e absence o f heavy i n d u s t r y and i t s n e g a t i v e e x t e r n a l i t i e s , the c o n t i n u i n g p r e s e n c e o f the m i d d l e - c l a s s , and ongoing p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n v e s t m e n t (Ley , 1986) . Two o t h e r r e a s o n s a r e t h e Canad ian w e l f a r e system (Canadian poor a r e not as p o o r as A m e r i c a n poor) and the absence i n Canada o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r a c i s m (no r a c i a l l y induced f l i g h t from c i t y c e n t r e s by t h e m i d d l e -c l a s s ) (Goldberg and M e r c e r , 1979) . Wi th the above s t i p u l a t i o n made, we can now move t o a rev iew o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n t h e o r i e s e x p l a i n i n g the pos t -1970 t r e n d o f i n n e r - c i t y r e s u r g e n c e . I w i l l r e l y p r i m a r i l y on two papers t h a t have summarized the vo luminous g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e : Hamnet t ' s " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n and R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n T h e o r y : A Review and Assessment" (1984) and L e y ' s " A l t e r n a t i v e E x p l a n a t i o n s f o r I n n e r - C i t y G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : A Canadian Assessment" (1986) . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n s can be s o r t e d , as Ley has done, i n t o f o u r m u t u a l l y n o n - e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s : 6 demographic , economic , urban a m e n i t i e s , and h o u s i n g market . A f i f t h e x p l a n a t i o n i s government p o l i c y . Demographic: The postwar baby boom c o h o r t caused a surge i n h o u s i n g demand as i t e n t e r e d t h e h o u s i n g market i n the 1970s. As househo ld f o r m a t i o n i n c r e a s e d , t h e p r e s s u r e on suburban house p r i c e s d rove t h e c o h o r t t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e c e n t r a l - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d s . A s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s growth i n f i r s t - t i m e home b u y e r s i s a r e d u c t i o n i n h o u s e h o l d s i z e i n the 1970s. The d e c r e a s e i n m a r r i a g e r a t e s , t h e t r i p l i n g o f t h e d i v o r c e r a t e , the i n c r e a s e o f s i n g l e - p e r s o n h o u s e h o l d s , and the i n c r e a s e o f s i n g l e - p a r e n t , c h i l d l e s s , and n o n - n u c l e a r f a m i l i e s (two o r more u n r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s ) a l l c o n t r i b u t e d t o the b u r g e o n i n g h o u s i n g demand o f t h e 1970s. Medium and h i g h - d e n s i t y c e n t r a l - c i t y ne ighbourhoods accommodated t h i s growth i n s m a l l h o u s e h o l d s . C o n t r i b u t i n g t o the d e c r e a s e i n h o u s e h o l d s i z e d u r i n g the 1970s was an i n c r e a s e i n t h e female work f o r c e , e s p e c i a l l y i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l , h i g h - i n c o m e CBD j o b s . Smi th n o t e s t h a t w h i l e women have a lways been a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f the work f o r c e , the f e m i n i s t movement o f the 1960s and the b r e a k i n g down o f " s e x u a l a p a r t h e i d " made many h i g h - p a y i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l o c c u p a t i o n s a c c e s s i b l e t o women i n the 1970s t h a t had been t r a d i t i o n a l l y c l o s e d t o them (Smi th , 1987) . A c c o r d i n g t o B e r r y , as economic o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r women grew and b i r t h - c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s i m p r o v e d , the o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t o f c h i l d - r e a r i n g r o s e 7 (Hamnett, 1984). A t h i r d demographic e x p l a n a t i o n f o r g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s urban sprawl. As commuting time t o CBD employment and, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the 1973 o i l embargo, commuting c o s t s e s c a l a t e d , the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of c e n t r a l - c i t y neighbourhoods to the CBD became a t t r a c t i v e . As Ley and Hamnett both p o i n t out, however, the commuting c o s t / a c c e s s i b i l i t y argument f o r g e n t r i f i c a t i o n does not e m p i r i c a l l y h o l d t r u e . Surveys o f i n n e r - c i t y g e n t r i f i e r s show t h a t o n l y a s m a l l m i n o r i t y are r e t u r n i n g s u b u r b a n i t e s . I n s t e a d , g e n t r i f i e r s are t y p i c a l l y young u r b a n i t e s who choose t o remain i n the i n n e r - c i t y when they form households. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s not a b a c k - t o - t h e - c i t y movement as w i d e l y s p e c u l a t e d . Economic: The second g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s the post i n d u s t r i a l growth i n s e r v i c e and w h i t e - c o l l a r employment. Ley r e p o r t s t h a t the percentage growth i n the s e r v i c e s e c t o r between 1971 and 1981 i n Canada was f o u r times g r e a t e r than job growth i n r e s o u r c e and manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s . As the downtown work f o r c e has i n c r e a s e d , so has the d e s i r a b i l i t y of proximate neighbourhoods. While CBD w h i t e - c o l l a r employment has r i s e n , manufacturing employment has suburbanized. M i l l s e x p l a i n s t h a t manufacturing has moved t o the l e s s expensive l a n d of the suburbs f o r two reasons: F i r s t , the change from r a i l t o r e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e t r u c k t r a n s p o r t a t i o n has f r e e d manufacturing from l o c a t i n g near CBD r a i l y a r d s . Second, 8 the change i n p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y has t r a n s f o r m e d m a n u f a c t u r i n g from a l a n d i n t e n s i v e , v e r t i c a l f l o w a c t i v i t y t o a l a n d e x t e n s i v e , h o r i z o n t a l one ( M i l l s , 1972) . B l u e -c o l l a r househo lds have f o l l o w e d m a n u f a c t u r i n g ou t o f t h e c i t y c e n t r e t o the s u b u r b s . To put the chang ing economic base o f p o s t i n d u s t r i a l w e s t e r n c i t i e s i n t o a g l o b a l p e r s p e c t i v e , Cohen e x p l a i n s how a new i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r has r e d u c e d the m a n u f a c t u r i n g s e c t o r and i n c r e a s e d the s e r v i c e / a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e c t o r i n western d e v e l o p e d n a t i o n s . No l o n g e r does the West impor t s t a p l e s from d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s and then s h i p back manufactured g o o d s . The advent o f m u l t i n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n s has changed i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a d e p a t t e r n s . Now, the w o r l d ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s a r e conduc ted p r i m a r i l y i n the West w h i l e m a n u f a c t u r i n g ones a r e done i n the d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s . The r e a s o n s f o r t h i s new d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r a r e as f o l l o w : 1) Cheap o c e a n i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a l l o w s m u l t i n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n s t o manufacture i n the c h e a p - l a b o u r d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s and e x p o r t f i n i s h e d goods back t o t h e West. 2) T o d a y ' s t e c h n o l o g y a l l o w s i n s t a n t a n e o u s communicat ion between the western head o f f i c e s and t h e d e v e l o p i n g -n a t i o n b ranch p l a n t s . 3) D e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s b o o s t t h e i r m a n u f a c t u r i n g and e x p o r t i n g s e c t o r s by e n c o u r a g i n g m u l t i n a t i o n a l s u b s i d i a r i e s t o l o c a t e t h e r e . 9 As a consequence o f t h i s new i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r , the m a n u f a c t u r i n g s e c t o r has d e c r e a s e d i n t h e West w h i l e CBD w h i t e - c o l l a r employment has grown (Cohen, 1981) . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n was f a c i l i t a t e d by e d u c a t e d , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and p r o f e s s i o n a l CBD employees l o c a t i n g c l o s e t o t h e i r j o b s . Urban A m e n i t i e s : C o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom i s t h a t the " g e n t r y " a r e t y p i c a l l y the upwardly m o b i l e young c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s ( B e r r y , 1985) . Wi th the i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d l e s s and n o n - n u c l e a r f a m i l i e s i n the 1970s, g e n t r y h o u s e h o l d s chose t h e a m e n i t i e s o f the c i t y c e n t r e o v e r t h e c h i l d r e l a t e d a m e n i t i e s o f the s u b u r b s . P r o x i m i t y t o c i t y c u l t u r e , e n t e r t a i n m e n t , r e s t a u r a n t s , and employment became f a v o u r e d o v e r s c h o o l s and p l a y g r o u n d s . The V i c t o r i a n a r c h i t e c t u r e o f c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g became p o p u l a r . I n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods t h a t were c o n s i d e r e d h i s t o r i c a l p r e s e r v a t i o n a r e a s were d e s i r e d by the g e n t r i f i e r s . M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f found t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s were a t t r a c t e d t o o l d e r h o u s i n g t h a t , a l t h o u g h i n d i l a p i d a t e d c o n d i t i o n , was o f good s t r u c t u r a l q u a l i t y . The l e s s "sweat e q u i t y " r e q u i r e d t o r e s t o r e t h e h o u s i n g , the b e t t e r (Me lcher t and N a r o f f , 1987) . H o u s i n g Market : Hous ing market f a c t o r s t h a t h e l p e d e f f e c t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a re bo th demand and s u p p l y r e l a t e d . Much o f t h e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e p o s i t s t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e i n demand f o r h o u s i n g i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h i n c r e a s i n g mortgage r a t e s i n the 1970s c a u s e d an 10 a f f o r d a b i l i t y c r i s i s f o r f i r s t - t i m e home b u y e r s . The baby boom home buyers were c o n s e q u e n t l y f o r c e d t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y cheap h o u s i n g o f the c i t y c e n t r e by d e f a u l t , not c h o i c e . As Ley p o i n t s o u t , however, the f l aw i n t h i s argument i s t w o - f o l d : F i r s t , s u r v e y s show t h a t most g e n t r i f i e r s p r e f e r the i n n e r - c i t y o v e r the s u b u r b s . S e c o n d , i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods were the c h o i c e o f some h i g h e r s t a t u s r e n t e r s and f a m i l i e s , h o u s e h o l d s t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y not a f f e c t e d by an a f f o r d a b i l i t y c r i s i s . Three h o u s i n g market arguments f o r t h e r e s u r g e n c e o f c i t y c e n t r e ne ighbourhoods can be made from a s u p p l y p e r s p e c t i v e : r e v e r s e f i l t r a t i o n , t h e i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between new h o u s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , and the r e n t gap . F i l t r a t i o n d e s c r i b e s how d e c r e a s i n g demand f o r i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g p r i o r t o 1970 l e d t o lower r e n t s and reduced maintenance by l a n d l o r d s . Reduced maintenance h a s t e n e d the p h y s i c a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f t h e h o u s i n g and thus d e c r e a s e d demand f u r t h e r . By t h i s p r o c e s s , c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g " f i l t e r e d " down the income h i e r a r c h y (Lowry, 1960) . C o n v e r s e l y , i n c r e a s e d demand f o r c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g due t o demographic and employment changes i n t h e 1970s encouraged l a n d l o r d s t o r e n o v a t e so t h a t t h e y c o u l d c o l l e c t more r e n t . Reverse f i l t r a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , l e d t o t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f the i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g s t o c k . B e r r y argues t h a t r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f o l d e r h o u s i n g i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o the b u i l d i n g c y c l e . When t h e s u p p l y 11 o f new h o u s i n g d e c l i n e s because o f economic r e a s o n s , e . g . , h i g h i n t e r e s t r a t e s , h o u s i n g demand i s s a t i s f i e d by r e n o v a t i n g e x i s t i n g s u p p l y . The surge o f h o u s e h o l d f o r m a t i o n s i n the 1970s was c o n c u r r e n t w i t h a p e r i o d o f combined i n f l a t i o n and r e c e s s i o n i n which new h o u s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n l a g g e d . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the baby boom demand f o r h o u s i n g was accommodated by the r e n o v a t i o n o f c e n t r a l -c i t y h o u s i n g ( B e r r y , 1980) . The " r e n t gap" t h e o r y i s championed by N e i l Smi th who t a k e s a M a r x i s t approach t o g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o S m i t h , l a r g e f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s maximize c a p i t a l a c c u m u l a t i o n . The most e f f i c i e n t use o f t h e i r funds i n the h o u s i n g market i s t o f i n a n c e l a r g e r e s i d e n t i a l deve lopments t h a t , because o f t h e i r requ i rement f o r l a r g e t r a c t s o f v a c a n t l a n d , a r e t y p i c a l l y i n suburbs a t t h e c i t y p e r i p h e r y . The s i n g l e c e n t r a l - c i t y homeowner cannot compete f o r f u n d s ; t h e r e f o r e , maintenance o f c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g i s c u r t a i l e d and the h o u s i n g d e t e r i o r a t e s . I n n e r -c i t y h o u s i n g w i l l c o n t i n u e t o d e t e r i o r a t e u n t i l t h e r e i s a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e " r e n t g a p " , the d i f f e r e n c e between the r e n t f o r the h o u s i n g i f i t i s r e h a b i l i t a t e d and the r e n t r e c e i v e d f o r i t s e x i s t i n g u s e . A c c o r d i n g t o S m i t h , the r e n t gap was l a r g e enough i n the 1970s f o r d e v e l o p e r s and f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s t o i n v e s t i n c e n t r a l - c i t y h o u s i n g redeve lopment (Smi th , 1982) . As s t a t e d e a r l i e r i n the d i s c u s s i o n on demographic e x p l a n a t i o n s , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was found not t o be a 12 b a c k - t o - t h e - c i t y movement as w i d e l y b e l i e v e d . The l i t e r a t u r e suggests, however, t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may i n f a c t be a back t o - t h e - c i t y movement o f c a p i t a l r a t h e r than people. Government P o l i c y : The f i f t h and f i n a l c a t e g o r y of g e n t i f i c a t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n s i s government p o l i c y . Ley notes t h a t p u b l i c s e c t o r redevelopment o f an i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhood has o f t e n been the c a t a l y s t f o r p r i v a t e market redevelopment of the surrounding a r e a . The most s p e c t a c u l a r example i s the m u n i c i p a l redevelopment o f F a l s e Creek i n Vancouver t h a t p r e c i p i t a t e d p r i v a t e redevelopment o f neighbouring F a i r v i e w S lopes. Government involvement i n i n n e r - c i t y r e h a b i l i t a i o n can, however, have a d e s t a b i l i z i n g e f f e c t . Goldberg and Mercer argue t h a t the r e l a t i v e v i t a l i t y o f Canadian c i t y c e n t r e s compared t o American ones i s a t t r i b u t e d i n p a r t t o l e s s government i n t e r v e n t i o n . L a r g e - s c a l e urban renewal programs i n the U.S. d i s t o r t neighbourhood housing markets where the programs are implemented. T h i s c r e a t e s u n c e r t a i n t y which discourages p r i v a t e investment. As a r e s u l t , the neighbourhood c o n t i n u e s t o d e t e r i o r a t e . In c o n t r a s t , Canadian i n n e r - c i t y redevelopment has been predominantly p r i v a t e . Investment has been i n response t o t r u e market demands (Goldberg and Mercer, 1979) . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n Stages: Most of the l i t e r a t u r e r e p o r t s t h a t d u r i n g the e a r l i e s t stage o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n t h e r e i s no e f f e c t on neighbourhood housing p r i c e s . Well-educated 13 but s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y l o w - p a i d young p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n g l e s and c o u p l e s , as w e l l as s t u d e n t s and a r t i s t s , a r e a t t r a c t e d t o the i n n e r - c i t y by i t s p r o x i m i t y t o CBD employment, urban a m e n i t i e s , and cheap h o u s i n g . On ly a f t e r t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f h o u s i n g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , i . e . , moderate r e n o v a t i o n s t o the h o u s i n g s t o c k made by t h i s f i r s t wave o f g e n t r i f i e r s , do d e v e l o p e r s and h i g h e r income groups i n v e s t i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d . T h i s second wave o f g e n t r i f i e r s f o r c e up the demand a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , the p r i c e o f h o u s i n g ( B e r r y , 1985; L e y , 1983; M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f , 1987) . Future G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : Hamnett muses t h a t , on t h e one hand , the demographic r e a s o n s f o r g e n t r i f i c a t i o n w i l l not c o n t i n u e beyond the 1980s: F i r s t , the mid-1960s d e c l i n e i n the b i r t h r a t e has d i m i n i s h e d the s i z e o f t h e 20-30 y e a r age c o h o r t . S e c o n d , c u r r e n t g e n t r i f i e r s may move t o t h e suburbs once they b e g i n t o have c h i l d r e n . T h i r d , t h e r e i s now a t r e n d o f o f f i c e d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n t h a t might draw w h i t e - c o l l a r employees away from t h e i n n e r - c i t y . On the o t h e r hand , Hamnett r e a s o n s t h a t t h e r e i s t o o much c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d i n g e n t r i f i e d ne ighbourhoods t o expec t t h a t t h e s e i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods w i l l be abandoned. As w e l l , Ley p o i n t s out t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s i n Canada i n c l u d e o l d e r e m p t y - n e s t e r s . Even i f young c o u p l e s l e a v e the i n n e r - c i t y t o r e a r t h e i r f a m i l i e s , t h e o l d e r g e n t r y s h o u l d r e m a i n . 14 ESTIMATION MODELS While the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e abounds w i t h d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s e s , t h e r e a re few p r e d i c t i v e models r e p o r t e d . T h i s s e c t i o n o f the cha p t e r reviews two i n t e r - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n models: David Ley's Canadian model and the London/Lee/Lipton U.S. model. For i n t r a -urban g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , Ley's Canadian m u l t i - c i t y model i s d i s c u s s e d . No m u l t i - c i t y model f o r U.S. i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was found i n the l i t e r a t u r e so two s i n g l e -c i t y a n a l y s e s are presented: the M e l c h e r t / N a r o f f Boston model and the Laska/Seaman/McSeveney New Orleans one. Int e r - u r b a n G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : Ley's 1985 study t e s t e d the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t i e s o f t h i r t y - f i v e demographic, housing, amenity, and economic independent v a r i a b l e s a g a i n s t a r e v i t a l i z a t i o n dependent v a r i a b l e f o r twenty-two Canadian CMAs. R e v i t a l i z a t i o n was measured as the p r o p o r t i o n a l change i n a CMA's i n n e r - c i t y q u aternary s e c t o r between 1971 and 1981 ( p r o f e s s i o n a l , managerial, t e c h n i c a l , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e occupations) and persons w i t h a u n i v e r s i t y e ducation. The r e v i t a l i z a t i o n dependent v a r i a b l e was c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s : 1981 %Quarternary + % U n i v e r s i t y - 1971 %Ouartern + %Un i v r 2 2 The independent v a r i a b l e s were measured a t v a r i o u s times d u r i n g the t e n year p e r i o d . The data was o b t a i n e d p r i m a r i l y from census and CMHC p u b l i c a t i o n s . 15 Ley found t h a t the s t r o n g e s t s i m p l e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h r e v i t a l i z a t i o n were the economic and ameni ty v a r i a b l e s . The h i g h e s t s i n g l e c o r r e l a t i o n was w i t h o f f i c e s p a c e p e r c a p i t a a t . 6 5 . Demographic and h o u s i n g v a r i a b l e s f a r e d o n l y m o d e s t l y . N e x t , a f t e r f i n d i n g e x c e s s i v e m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y d u r i n g m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , Ley conducted a p r i n c i p l e components r e g r e s s i o n . The h i g h e s t a d j u s t e d R 2 a c h i e v e d u s i n g t h i s method was . 6 1 . C o n s i s t e n t th roughout h i s a n a l y s i s , Ley found t h a t economic and amenity f a c t o r s were t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r s o f i n n e r - c i t y r e v i t a l i z a t i o n . Ley summarizes h i s i n t e r - u r b a n a n a l y s i s by c o n c l u d i n g t h a t economic o r i e n t a t i o n towards p r i v a t e a n d / o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e employment was a fundamenta l—but no t c o m p l e t e — c o n d i t i o n f o r Canadian i n n e r - c i t y r e v i t a l i z a t i o n d u r i n g the 1970s. A secondary c o n d i t i o n f o r r e v i t a l i z a t i o n was t h a t the i n n e r - c i t y o f f e r p h y s i c a l and c u l t u r a l a m e n i t i e s c o n d u c i v e t o a h i g h q u a l i t y o f l i f e . C o n t r a r y t o s p e c u l a t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e , the baby boom demand surge f o r h o u s i n g i n the 1970s d i d not have more o f an e f f e c t on Canad ian i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods than on t h e s u b u r b s (Ley , 1985) . London e t a l . conducted an i n t e r - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f f o r t y - e i g h t U . S . c i t i e s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were t h e p r e s e n c e and the degree o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e s e c i t i e s had e x p e r i e n c e d by 1983. V a l u e s f o r the dependent v a r i a b l e s were o b t a i n e d by m a i l i n g 16 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o s o c i o l o g y , p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e , and urban s t u d i e s departments i n c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n t h e c i t i e s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked t h e r e c i p i e n t s t o e s t i m a t e t h e e x t e n t o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n t h e i r c i t i e s . There were e i g h t independent v a r i a b l e s d e r i v e d from t h e 1970 census t h a t measured the s i z e o f t h e baby boom p o p u l a t i o n , the p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n t h a t was c h i l d r e n , the p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e l a b o u r f o r c e t h a t was b l u e - c o l l a r , the p r o p o r t i o n t h a t was w h i t e - c o l l a r , the p e r c a p i t a number o f c u l t u r a l a m e n i t i e s , the number o f h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t s , the p r e s e n c e o f c o r p o r a t e h e a d q u a r t e r s , and the number o f r e a l t o r s . The r e a l t o r measure was i n c l u d e d t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the fewer the number o f r e a l t o r s p e r c a p i t a , the g r e a t e r the p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y o f r e a l t o r s t o c o o p e r a t e i n promot ing g e n t r i f i c a t i o n by m a n i p u l a t i n g t h e market . London e t a l . found t h a t i n a s i m p l e c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , a l l the independent v a r i a b l e s had t h e a n t i c i p a t e d s i g n s . The s t r o n g e s t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was m a n u f a c t u r i n g employment a t - - . 4 1 . The c o n c l u s i o n from m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n was t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was most l i k e l y t o have o c c u r r e d i n c i t i e s w i t h low m a n u f a c t u r i n g employment, many h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t s , s t r o n g c o r p o r a t e p r e s e n c e , and , i n t e r e s t i n g l y , h i g h c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f r e a l t o r power (a l though i t ' s b e t a was o n l y - . 0 8 ) . The b e s t a d j u s t e d R 2 was . 4 3 ; o n l y t h r e e independent v a r i a b l e s had a t - s t a t i s t i c g r e a t e r than 2 (London e t a l . , 1986) . 17 Comparing the Ley s tudy o f Canad ian i n t e r - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and the London e t a l . Amer ican s t u d y t o the l i t e r a t u r e , one must f i r s t q u e s t i o n the s u b j e c t i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t London used t o measure g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , b o t h s t u d i e s c o n c u r w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e about the impor tance o f a s t r o n g CBD w h i t e - c o l l a r s e c t o r and i n n e r - c i t y a m e n i t i e s i n c i t i e s t h a t have g e n t r i f i e d . Both s t u d i e s a l s o show t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o the l i t e r a t u r e , demographic v a r i a b l e s p l a y e d a modest r o l e i n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . The London s tudy d i d not t e s t t h e h o u s i n g market i n the 1970s but L e y ' s s t u d y found i t s i m p o r t a n c e f o r g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was s l i g h t . Intra-urban Gentrification: The M e l c h e r t / N a r o f f model used 437 randomly s e l e c t e d Boston i n n e r - c i t y b l o c k s . U s i n g Boston Redevelopment A u t h o r i t y d a t a , M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f i d e n t i f i e d which b l o c k s had g e n t r i f i e d . T h e i r model c o n s i s t e d o f two dependent v a r i a b l e s ( g e n t r i f i e d b l o c k s and n o n - g e n t r i f i e d ones) and t h i r t y - f o u r independent v a r i a b l e s . The independent v a r i a b l e s were d e r i v e d from t h e 197 0 U . S . Census and were c a t e g o r i z e d as b e i n g e i t h e r a m e n i t y , h o u s i n g , s o c i a l , o r economic . A f t e r u s i n g t - t e s t s t o s e l e c t the b e s t p r e d i c t o r s from the t h i r t y - f o u r independent v a r i a b l e s , M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f found t h a t none o f t h e f o u r c a t e g o r i e s by t h e m s e l v e s were s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l o g i s t i c r e g r e s s i o n . C o l l e c t i v e l y , however, the independent v a r i a b l e s d i d a c c u r a t e l y c l a s s i f y i n d i v i d u a l b l o c k s i n t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e g e n t r i f i e d and 18 n o n - g e n t r i f i e d g r o u p s . U s i n g t h e Hosmer-Lemeshow s t a t i s t i c f o r goodness o f f i t , the model had a c h i - s q u a r e o f 5.63 ( e i g h t degrees o f freedom) and a p - v a l u e l e s s t h a n . 0 5 . M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f ' s Boston Model i n d i c a t e d t h a t g e n t r y h o u s e h o l d s p r e f e r r e d o l d e r h o u s i n g (1900-1920) but no t h o u s i n g too o l d t h a t i t would r e q u i r e s u b s t a n t i a l r e n o v a t i o n . Gen t ry l o c a t e d near t h e i r CBD employment but p r e f e r r e d t o have a s l i g h t b u f f e r between home and work. Neighbourhoods o f f e r i n g t h e s e two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and e x h i b i t i n g d e p r e s s e d h o u s i n g v a l u e s as w e l l were h i g h l y a t t r a c t i v e t o g e n t r y househo lds (Me lcher t & N a r o f f , 1987) . There were t h r e e dependent g e n t r i f i c a t i o n v a r i a b l e s used i n the Laska/Seaman/McSeveney New O r l e a n s m o d e l , a l l based on r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y i n 68 census t r a c t s : e x i s t e n c e , e x t e n t , and peak y e a r o f r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y . R e n o v a t i o n l e v e l s were measured by t h e number o f house s a l e s i n a census t r a c t . Laska e t a l . assumed t h a t a h i g h l e v e l o f ownership t r a n s f e r s i n a ne ighbourhood i s e v i d e n c e o f h o u s i n g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . There were 22 independent v a r i a b l e s measur ing the l o c a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , and h o u s i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the t r a c t s . S tepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n produced the f o l l o w i n g R 2 s : e x i s t e n c e o f r e n o v a t i o n , . 6 4 ; e x t e n t o f r e n o v a t i o n , . 4 4 ; y e a r o f peak r e n o v a t i o n , . 54 . The New O r l e a n s model i n d i c a t e d t h a t ne ighbourhoods w i t h a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y a t t r a c t i v e , p re -1939 h o u s i n g were f a v o u r e d by r e n o v a t o r s . P r o x i m i t y t o p u b l i c h o u s i n g was a 19 s t r o n g d e t e r r e n t t o r e n o v a t i o n . C o n t r a r y t o t h e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , however, Laska e t a l . found t h a t p r o x i m i t y t o i n d u s t r y and warehousing was an a t t r a c t i o n f o r r e n o v a t o r s w h i l e p r o x i m i t y t o p a r k s and u n i v e r s i t i e s was a d e t e r r e n t (Laska e t a l . , 1982) . The c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n b o t h t h e M e l c h e r t / N a r o f f and the Laska/Seaman/McSeveney models s h o u l d be s c r u t i n i z e d . Both models a r e p a r o c h i a l ; t h e y do not c l a i m t o b e — n o r s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d a s — a g e n e r a l model o f i n t r a - c i t y g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Both models i g n o r e t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a g e n t r i f i e d ne ighbourhood as b e i n g an independent v a r i a b l e ( the M e l c h e r t / N a r o f f model i g n o r e s e d u c a t i o n and income l e v e l s as w e l l ) even though the l i t e r a t u r e c o n s i d e r s t h e s e ne ighbourhood c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as g e n t r i f i c a t i o n d e t e r m i n a n t s . In the New O r l e a n s mode l , the i n f e r e n c e o f r e n o v a t i o n a c t i v i t y from s a l e s a c t i v i t y i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . A b e t t e r i n t r a - u r b a n model i s Dav id L e y ' s Canad ian one . L e y ' s independent v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d a l l t h e ne ighbourhood t r a i t s t h a t the l i t e r a t u r e s p e c u l a t e s t o be d e t e r m i n a n t s o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . As w e l l , Ley c o n d u c t e d a m u l t i - c i t y a n a l y s i s o f i n t r a - u r b a n r e j u v e n a t i o n r a t h e r than a s i n g l e - c i t y one and h i s measurement o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was l e s s s u b j e c t i v e than the M e l c h e r t and Laska m o d e l s . L e y ' s methodology f o r i n t r a - u r b a n a n a l y s i s was s i m i l a r t o t h a t used i n h i s i n t e r - u r b a n one . Ley t e s t e d t h e p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t i e s o f t w e n t y - s i x independent v a r i a b l e s 20 a g a i n s t a r e v i t a l i z a t i o n dependent v a r i a b l e f o r 462 i n n e r - c i t y Canadian census t r a c t s . The census t r a c t s c o m p r i s e d the i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods o f H a l i f a x , M o n t r e a l , Ottawa, T o r o n t o , Edmonton, and V a n c o u v e r . R e v i t a l i z a t i o n was a g a i n measured as t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l change i n a t r a c t ' s q u a t e r n a r y s e c t o r and u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n between 1971 and 1981. The independent v a r i a b l e s were measured a t 1971. Ley f i r s t conducted a s i m p l e c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . When m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n y i e l d e d h i g h m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y , he conduc ted a p r i n c i p l e components r e g r e s s i o n . The b e s t R 2 t h a t he o b t a i n e d was . 3 6 . Ley found t h a t the s t r o n g e s t d e t e r m i n a n t o f i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s p r o x i m i t y t o an a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d i n n e r - c i t y e l i t e a r e a . Nex t , ne ighbourhoods near CBD and e n v i r o n m e n t a l a m e n i t i e s were f a v o u r e d . The t h i r d s t r o n g e s t de te rminan t o f ne ighbourhood g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was the absence o f r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n and n o n - e n g l i s h s p e a k e r s . A ne ighbourhood t h a t g e n t r i f i e d d u r i n g the 1971 t o 1981 p e r i o d would a l s o have had average incomes , v a r i e d h o u s i n g t y p e s , a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f unmar r ied p e o p l e , and few b l u e c o l l a r workers a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the p e r i o d . C o n t r a r y t o the l i t e r a t u r e , Ley found t h a t t h e r e was no r e n t gap . Canadian ne ighbourhoods t h a t g e n t r i f i e d d u r i n g t h e 1971 t o 1981 p e r i o d had average house v a l u e s and r e n t s i n 1971 g r e a t e r than the c i t y average (Ley , 1985) . 21 CHAPTER SUMMARY T h i s c h a p t e r began by r e v i e w i n g t h e o r i e s f o r t h e p r e -1970 " r i n g e d " s p a t i a l s e g r e g a t i o n o f income g r o u p s . F i l t r a t i o n , i n v a s i o n and s u c c e s s i o n , and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n n o v a t i o n s e x p l a i n why the wea l thy t y p i c a l l y l i v e d a t the p e r i p h e r y o f the c i t y and the p o o r l i v e d a t t h e c i t y c e n t r e . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n t h e o r i e s c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e t o e x p l a i n the post -1970 phenomenon o f i n n e r - c i t y r e s u r g e n c e a r e c a t e g o r i z e d as b e i n g demographic , economic , u rban a m e n i t i e s , h o u s i n g market , and government p o l i c y . Demographic reasons t h a t s t i m u l a t e d demand f o r i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods i n the 1970s i n c l u d e t h e m a t u r a t i o n o f t h e baby boom c o h o r t , the r e d u c t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d s i z e , and urban s p r a w l . Growth i n CBD employment made t h e p r o x i m i t y o f i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods d e s i r a b l e f o r w h i t e - c o l l a r w o r k e r s ; m a n u f a c t u r i n g employment d e c r e a s e d and s u b u r b a n i z e d . Changing l i f e - s t y l e s , e s p e c i a l l y the i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d l e s s two- income f a m i l i e s , f a v o u r e d ne ighbourhoods c l o s e t o urban a m e n i t i e s . The 1970s h o u s i n g market and a w iden ing r e n t gap made i n n e r - c i t y r e i n v e s t m e n t p r o f i t a b l e . Government p o l i c y encouraged i n n e r - c i t y r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n some c a s e s and d i s c o u r a g e d i t i n o t h e r s . Hous ing p r i c e s a re not a f f e c t e d d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l s t a g e o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n when low- income CBD employees move i n t o t h e ne ighbourhood but a r e a f f e c t e d l a t e r once h i g h e r income groups and d e v e l o p e r s move i n . 22 The l i t e r a t u r e p r e d i c t s t h a t w h i l e t h e demographic r e a s o n s f o r g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may d i m i n i s h i n t h e 1980s, t h e r e i s t o o much c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d i n g e n t r i f i e d ne ighbourhoods t o e x p e c t them t o be abandoned s o o n . T h i s c h a p t e r then p r e s e n t e d f i v e p r e d i c t i v e models f o r g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . L e y ' s Canadian and L o n d o n ' s A m e r i c a n i n t e r - u r b a n models c o r r o b o r a t e the l i t e r a t u r e ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t a s t r o n g CBD w h i t e - c o l l a r s e c t o r and t h e p r e s e n c e o f i n n e r - c i t y a m e n i t i e s p r e c i p i t a t e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . The two s t u d i e s do not s u p p o r t the t h e s e s t h a t t h e baby boom demand surge f o r h o u s i n g i n the 1970s and the a f f o r d a b i l i t y c r i s i s i n the h o u s i n g market i n the 1970s were s t r o n g d e t e r m i n a n t s o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Two U . S . i n t r a - u r b a n models were r e v i e w e d : t h e M e l c h e r t / N a r o f f Boston model and the Laska/Seaman/McSeveney New O r l e a n s one . M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f found t h a t ne ighbourhoods most l i k e l y t o have g e n t r i f i e d i n B o s t o n would have been near but not a d j a c e n t t o CBD employment, had o l d e r but not d i l a p i d a t e d h o u s i n g , and had d e p r e s s e d house v a l u e s . Laska e t a l . found t h a t c o n t r a r y t o t h e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , g e n t r i f i e r s i n New O r l e a n s p r e f e r r e d p r o x i m i t y t o i n d u s t r y and warehous ing r a t h e r than p a r k s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . The m e t h o d o l o g i e s u s e d i n t h e s e two m o d e l s , however, a r e q u e s t i o n a b l e . L e y ' s i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n model f o r e i g h t Canad ian aggrega ted i n n e r - c i t i e s was more comprehens ive and b e t t e r d e s i g n e d than the M e l c h e r t and Laska m o d e l s . Ley 23 found t h a t p r o x i m i t y t o an a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d i n n e r - c i t y e l i t e a r e a was the s t r o n g e s t d e t e r m i n a n t o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Neighbourhoods near CBD and e n v i r o n m e n t a l a m e n i t i e s were a l s o l i k e l y t o have g e n t r i f i e d as w e l l as ne ighbourhoods w i t h few r e l i g i o u s h o u s e h o l d s and few n o n e n g l i s h s p e a k e r s . The major c o n t r a d i c t i o n between L e y ' s r e s u l t s and t h e l i t e r a t u r e was the absence o f a r e n t gap i n Canad ian g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . In f a c t , Ley found t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n Canada d u r i n g the p e r i o d from 1971 t o 1981 was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ne ighbourhoods t h a t had h i g h e r than average r e n t s and house v a l u e s i n 1971. 24 CHAPTER 3 GENTRIFICATION IN AN ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK C h a p t e r 2 rev iewed the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f why demand f o r i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods has i n c r e a s e d s i n c e the e a r l y 1970s. T h i s c h a p t e r examines how a change i n demand f o r a n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s h o u s i n g a f f e c t s t h a t n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s h o u s i n g market . The c h a p t e r b e g i n s w i t h a background a n a l y s i s o f h o u s i n g market demand, s u p p l y , and c a p i t a l s t o c k . F i l t r a t i o n and g e n t r i f i c a t i o n a r e t h e n v iewed w i t h i n t h i s economic framework. The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n i s based on H e n d e r s o n ' s book Economic Theory and the C i t i e s (1977) and L o w r y ' s a r t i c l e " F i l t e r i n g and Hous ing S t a n d a r d s : A C o n c e p t u a l A n a l y s i s " (1960) . HOUSING MARKET BACKGROUND Demand: F i g u r e 1 i l l u s t r a t e s a c o m p e t i t i v e ne ighbourhood h o u s i n g market . The h o r i z o n t a l a x i s , H, measures the amount o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s s u p p l i e d by l a n d l o r d s i n the n e i g h b o u r h o o d ; the v e r t i c a l a x i s , P H , measures the p r i c e p e r u n i t o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s . Hous ing s e r v i c e s i s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y o f h o u s i n g and i s a homogeneous d i v i s i b l e good s o l d a t a u n i f o r m p r i c e p e r u n i t w i t h i n the n e i g h b o u r h o o d . Demand i s a f u n c t i o n o f ne ighbourhood income, l o c a t i o n , a m e n i t i e s , p u b l i c g o o d s , and the p r i c e o f h o u s i n g r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r 25 Figure 1 Neighbourhood Housing Market i_ Q-po © o 1. 0- p i \ \ \ 4. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \y N \ \ . X X V , .. v \ \ \ \ \ ^ D 2 \ s \ s D ° D 1 H 1 H° H 2 Housing Services H Figure 2 Optimal Maintenance Strategy k( t )« k(o° kO)= Maintenance Capital k(t) 26 neighbourhoods. The demand curve s l o p e s down because of the d i m i n i s h i n g marginal u t i l i t y o f housing. Supply i s determined by investment d e c i s i o n s made by l a n d l o r d s . The supply curve s l o p e s up because o f the f i x e d amount o f l a n d a v a i l a b l e f o r housing and because of d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l r e t u r n s t o c a p i t a l when a p p l i e d t o l a n d f o r p r o d u c i n g housing s e r v i c e s . E q u i l i b r i u m i s a t H° and Pjr 0-Supply: The amount of housing s e r v i c e s produced by l a n d l o r d s i s a p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n o f the amount o f c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d by them, where h ( t ) i s housing s e r v i c e s produced i n time t and K(t) i s the t o t a l c a p i t a l s t o c k of housing s e r v i c e s . There are, however, d i m i n i s h i n g marginal r e t u r n s when c a p i t a l i s a p p l i e d t o a f i x e d amount of l a n d when pr o d u c i n g housing s e r v i c e s : For the p r o f i t maximizing l a n d l o r d , t h e r e i s an o p t i m a l amount of maintenance t o i n v e s t i n h i s housing a t any time t : the l a n d l o r d should i n v e s t u n t i l the mar g i n a l b e n e f i t , MB, of maintenance equals the t o t a l m a r g i n a l o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t , MC, where dh ( t ) / d K ( t ) > 0 (1) d 2 h ( t ) / d K ( t ) 2 < 0 (2) 27 MB = V M P K = P H * M P K = P H ( d h ( t ) / d K ( t ) ) ( 3 ) a n d , w i t h i n t e r e s t r a t e r , t h e p r i c e o f c a p i t a l P K , a n d t h e i m m e d i a t e d e p r e c i a t i o n o f m a i n t e n a n c e c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d i n t i m e t a s a ( t ) , E q u a t i n g (3) t o (4) e s t a b l i s h e s t h e o p t i m a l m a i n t e n a n c e p a t h f o r t h e l a n d l o r d . The l a n d l o r d s h o u l d i n v e s t i n m a i n t e n a n c e s u c h t h a t MB = MC, i . e . , f o r a n y t i m e p e r i o d t . F i g u r e 2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e l a n d l o r d ' s o p t i m a l m a i n t e n a n c e s t r a t e g y f o r a n y t i m e p e r i o d t . The v e r t i c a l a x i s m e a s u r e s t h e m a r g i n a l c o s t o f c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d i n m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t h e m a r g i n a l b e n e f i t d e r i v e d ; t h e h o r i z o n t a l a x i s m e a s u r e s t h e amount o f m a i n t e n a n c e c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d a t t i m e t . The m a r g i n a l c o s t o f m a i n t e n a n c e c u r v e i s t h e t o t a l m a r g i n a l o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t o f i n v e s t i n g i n m a i n t e n a n c e : t h e p r i c e o f c a p i t a l t i m e s t h e sum o f f o r e g o n e i n t e r e s t a n d i n s t a n t a n e o u s d e p r e c i a t i o n t h a t m a i n t e n a n c e c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d i n t i m e t i s s u b j e c t e d t o ( 4 ) . The m a r g i n a l b e n e f i t c u r v e i s t h e p r i c e o f o n e u n i t o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s t i m e s t h e c h a n g e i n h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s MC = ( r + a ( t ) ) P (4) P H ( d h ( t ) / d K ( t ) ) = ( r + a ( t ) ) P K ( 5 ) 28 p r o d u c e d ( 3 ) ; i t s l o p e s down b e c a u s e o f d i m i n i s h i n g m a r g i n a l r e t u r n s t o c a p i t a l ( 2 ) . The e q u i l i b r i u m l e v e l o f m a i n t e n a n c e f o r t h e l a n d l o r d i n t i m e t° i s k(t)°, w h e r e M B 0 a n d MC° i n t e r s e c t . C a p i t a l S t o c k : The t o t a l c a p i t a l s t o c k o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s i s t h e sum o f a l l d e p r e c i a t e d p r e v i o u s c a p i t a l i n p u t s ( i n i t i a l l a n d a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s p l u s y e a r l y m a i n t e n a n c e e x p e n s e s ) . I f a ( t ) i s t h e r a t e o f d e p r e c i a t i o n i n t i m e t f o r a l l c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d i n n e i g h b o u r h o o d h o u s i n g a n d K ( t ) i s t h e t o t a l c a p i t a l s t o c k , t h e n t h e c h a n g e i n t h e c a p i t a l s t o c k i n a n y p e r i o d i s g r o s s i n v e s t m e n t ( m a i n t e n a n c e ) i n t h a t p e r i o d , k ( t ) , l e s s t h e d e p r e c i a t e d e x i s t i n g c a p i t a l s t o c k , d K ( t ) / d ( t ) = k ( t ) - a ( t ) K ( t ) (6) A s t a t i c n e i g h b o u r h o o d w o u l d h a v e no c h a n g e i n t h e s t o c k o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s f r o m one p e r i o d t o t h e n e x t . The l e v e l o f demand w o u l d be c o n s t a n t a n d r e a l p r i c e s w o u l d n o t v a r y . The f l o w o f a n n u a l m a i n t e n a n c e , k ( t ) , w o u l d p e r f e c t l y o f f s e t t h e a n n u a l d e p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g c a p i t a l , a ( t ) K ( t ) . FILTRATION F i l t r a t i o n c a n be i l l u s t r a t e d u s i n g H e n d e r s o n ' s e q u a t i o n s a n d F i g u r e s 1 a n d 2. On t h e demand s i d e , f i l t e r i n g o c c u r s i n a n e i g h b o u r h o o d when demand f o r i t s 29 h o u s i n g d e c r e a s e s . H i g h e r i n c o m e g r o u p s a r e " p u l l e d " away f r o m t h e c i t y c e n t r e b y t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r new h o u s i n g w h i c h i s c o n s t r u c t e d o n v a c a n t l a n d i n t h e s u b u r b s ; t h e y a r e " p u s h e d " away b y t h e n e g a t i v e e x t e r n a l i t i e s o f t h e i n d u s t r i a l c i t y c o r e . When t h e y move, t h e i r v a c a t e d h o u s i n g a d d s t o t h e s t o c k o f u s e d h o u s i n g i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d . B e c a u s e t h e number o f h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e u s e d h o u s i n g m a r k e t i s c o n s t a n t , t h e demand f o r u s e d h o u s i n g r e l a t i v e t o t h e s u p p l y d e c r e a s e s a n d p r i c e s f a l l . I n F i g u r e 1, t h e demand c u r v e s h i f t s f r o m D° t o D 1 a n d P H ° f a l l s t o PJJ 1. On t h e s u p p l y s i d e , w i t h a f a l l i n t h e p r i c e o f h o u s i n g i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d a n d t h u s a d e c r e a s e i n VMP K, t h e l e f t s i d e o f ( 5 ) , i . e . , t h e m a r g i n a l b e n e f i t o f m a i n t e n a n c e c a p i t a l , d e c r e a s e s . The MB 0 c u r v e s h i f t s b a c k t o M B 1 i n F i g u r e 2. I f r a n d a ( t ) r e m a i n c o n s t a n t , t h e m a r g i n a l c o s t o f m a i n t e n a n c e now e x c e e d s t h e m a r g i n a l b e n e f i t b y t h e v e r t i c a l d i s t a n c e a b . To k e e p MC e q u a l t o MB, t h e l a n d l o r d m ust r e d u c e t h e amount o f c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d i n m a i n t e n a n c e . I n F i g u r e 2, k(t)° s h i f t s b a c k t o k ( t ) 1 . R e d u c i n g m a i n t e n a n c e , t h e r e f o r e , i s a r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n f o r t h e p r o f i t m a x i m i z i n g l a n d l o r d when h o u s i n g p r i c e s a r e f a l l i n g . T he c a p i t a l s t o c k i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d w i l l d e c l i n e . B e c a u s e l a n d l o r d s w i l l r e d u c e t h e f l o w o f m a i n t e n a n c e c a p i t a l , t h e c h a n g e i n t h e s t o c k o f h o u s i n g c a p i t a l w i l l b e n e g a t i v e b e c a u s e t h e r i g h t s i d e o f (6) i s n e g a t i v e , i . e . , 30 k ( t ) i s l e s s than a ( t ) K ( t ) . Reduced maintenance hastens p h y s i c a l d e p r e c i a t i o n which depresses demand and p r i c e s more. The MB c u r v e w i l l f a l l back again, maintenance w i l l be c u r t a i l e d even more, and the c a p i t a l s t o c k w i l l d i m i n i s h f u r t h e r . E v e n t u a l l y , demand and p r i c e f o r housing may f a l l t o a l e v e l where not even the l a n d l o r d ' s f i x e d c o s t s are covered. A t t h i s p o i n t , the l a n d l o r d w i l l abandon the housing. F i l t r a t i o n d e s c r i b e s what has happened t o the t r a d i t i o n a l i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhood. C e n t r a l - c i t y housing f i l t e r e d down the income s t r a t a because o f the r e i n f o r c i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between f a l l i n g demand, p r i c e s , and maintenance. By 1970, c e n t r a l c i t y neighbourhoods became home f o r low income groups or, as i n some U.S. extremes, abandoned wastelands. GENTRIFICATION S i n c e 1970, demand f o r i n n e r - c i t y housing by h i g h e r income groups has re t u r n e d . The l i t e r a t u r e e x p l a i n s why t h i s has happened. F i r s t , the economic base of the c i t y may have changed. Growth i n s e r v i c e o r i e n t e d , w h i t e - c o l l a r CBD employment and the s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n — o r d e c l i n e — o f blue c o l l a r manufacturing employment may have made the i n n e r -c i t y ' s p r o x i m i t y t o the CBD a t t r a c t i v e t o the downtown worker but no lo n g e r so f o r the b l u e - c o l l a r one. Second, l i f e - s t y l e s have changed. The postponement o f c h i l d -r e a r i n g may have made young a d u l t s favour the downtown s o c i a l a m e n i t i e s t h a t i n n e r - c i t y l i v i n g o f f e r s o v e r t h e f a m i l y o r i e n t e d o n e s o f f e r e d i n t h e s u b u r b s . T h i r d , i n n e r -c i t y h o u s i n g may h a v e become r e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e . The g r o w i n g d i s p a r i t y i n p r i c e b e t w e e n new s u b u r b a n h o u s i n g and f i l t e r e d i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g may h a v e made t h e i n n e r - c i t y a "g o o d b u y " . F o u r t h , t a s t e s may h a v e c h a n g e d . The V i c t o r i a n a r c h i t e c t u r e o f t h e i n n e r - c i t y may h a v e become f a v o u r e d o v e r t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y d e s i g n o f t h e s u b u r b s . One o r a n y c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e a b o v e r e a s o n s w i l l s h i f t t h e demand c u r v e i n F i g u r e 1 f r o m D° t o D 2. P H ° r i s e s t o P H 2 . On t h e s u p p l y s i d e , t h e e f f e c t o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n o n t h e amount o f c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d b y a l a n d l o r d i n a c e n t r a l -c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d i s t h e c o n v e r s e t o t h e f i l t r a t i o n e f f e c t . B e c a u s e t h e p r i c e , P H , o f a u n i t o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s h a s r i s e n , V M P K r i s e s ( t h e l e f t s i d e o f ( 5 ) ) . M B 0 s h i f t s o u t t o MB 2 i n F i g u r e 2. M a r g i n a l b e n e f i t s o f m a i n t e n a n c e now e x c e e d m a r g i n a l c o s t s b y t h e v e r t i c a l d i s t a n c e b e . The l a n d l o r d r e s p o n d s b y i n c r e a s i n g h i s i n v e s t m e n t i n m a i n t e n a n c e c a p i t a l . k(t)° s h i f t s o u t t o k ( t ) 2 . The c a p i t a l s t o c k o f h o u s i n g w i l l r i s e i n a g e n t r i f y i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d i f i n v e s t m e n t , k ( t ) , i s g r e a t e r t h a n d e p r e c i a t i o n , a ( t ) K ( t ) , i n e q u a t i o n 6. I n g e n t r i f y i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , t h e r e f o r e , a p r o f i t m a x i m i z i n g l a n d l o r d w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e l e v e l o f m a i n t e n a n c e c a p i t a l , i . e . , he w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e l e v e l o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s p r o d u c e d . A t f i r s t , i n c r e a s e d h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s 32 w i l l e n t a i l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f the o r i g i n a l h o u s i n g . • I f demand c o n t i n u e s t o r i s e and t h e MB c u r v e c o n t i n u e s t o s h i f t o u t , however, the l a n d l o r d may f i n d i t p r o f i t a b l e t o d e m o l i s h the o r i g i n a l h o u s i n g and r e d e v e l o p . The o p t i m a l t ime t o r e d e v e l o p i s when v n > v o + D o + B n where V n i s t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e o f the b e n e f i t f l o w s from a new h o u s i n g s t r u c t u r e , V 0 i s the p r e s e n t v a l u e o f t h e b e n e f i t f l ows o f the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e , D Q i s the d e m o l i t i o n c o s t , and B n i s t h e c o s t o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a new s t r u c t u r e p l u s l o s t r e n t d u r i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d ( C l a p p , 1977) . In a g e n t r i f y i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d , t h e r e f o r e , i n c r e a s e d demand and p r i c e s e f f e c t an i n c r e a s e i n t h e q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f h o u s i n g s u p p l i e d . CHAPTER SUMMARY G e n t r i f i c a t i o n and i t s a n t i t h e s i s , f i l t r a t i o n , can be examined w i t h i n the same economic framework. Both r e s u l t i n a n e t change t o a n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s c a p i t a l s t o c k o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s . Whi le f i l t r a t i o n e f f e c t s a n e t d e c r e a s e i n t h e c a p i t a l s t o c k , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n e f f e c t s a ne t i n c r e a s e . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o as "up" o r " r e v e r s e " f i l t r a t i o n . On the demand s i d e , the r e c e n t d e s i r a b i l i t y o f i n n e r -c i t y h o u s i n g by h i g h e r income groups b i d s up t h e p r i c e o f 33 housing in central neighbourhoods. On the supply side, profit maximizing landlords in these gentrifying neighbourhoods respond to the price-induced increase in the marginal benefits of maintenance by increasing the flow of maintenance capital. As a result, gentrifying neighbourhoods receive a net increase to their total stock of housing services. 34 CHAPTER 4 A CANADIAN INTRA-URBAN GENTRIFICATION MODEL C h a p t e r 2 r e v i e w e d t h e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f why demand f o r c e n t r a l - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d s r e b o u n d e d a f t e r 1970. C h a p t e r 3 e x a m i n e d , f r o m a n e c o n o m i c p o i n t o f v i e w , how t h e r i s e i n h o u s i n g demand e f f e c t e d h i g h e r p r i c e s a n d a n i n c r e a s e d s u p p l y o f h o u s i n g s e r v i c e s i n t h e s e n e i g h b o u r h o o d s . The l i t e r a t u r e p o s i t s t h a t i n t h e e a r l i e s t s t a g e o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , w e l l - e d u c a t e d b u t r e l a t i v e l y l o w - p a i d y o u n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s move i n t o a n i n n e r - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d . T h e y a r e a t t r a c t e d t o t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d b y i t s p r o x i m i t y t o CBD emp l o y m e n t a n d a m e n i t i e s a n d b y i t s r e l a t i v e l y c h e a p h o u s i n g . B e c a u s e t h e i r i n c o m e s a r e s t i l l l o w , h o w e v e r , t h e r e i s no i m m e d i a t e e f f e c t o n h o u s i n g p r i c e s . N o t u n t i l t h e r e h a s b e e n m o d e r a t e r e n o v a t i o n t o t h e h o u s i n g s t o c k b y t h i s f i r s t wave o f g e n t r i f i e r s a r e s p e c u l a t o r s a n d h i g h e r i n c o m e g r o u p s a t t r a c t e d t o t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d a n d p r i c e s b i d up ( B e r r y , 1 9 8 5 ; L e y , 1 9 8 5 ; M e l c h e r t a n d N a r o f f , 1 9 8 7 ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , h o u s i n g p r i c e s i n a g e n t r i f i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d f o l l o w a l o g i s t i c S - c u r v e ( L e y , 1 9 8 5 ; M e l c h e r t a n d N a r o f f , 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e r e i s a l a g b e t w e e n t h e i n i t i a l c h a n g e i n t h e d e m o g r a p h i c m i l i e u o f a n i n n e r - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d t h a t i s g e n t r i f y i n g a n d t h e r i s e i n n e i g h b o u r h o o d h o u s i n g p r i c e s . A s d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 3, o n c e h o u s i n g p r i c e s do b e g i n t o r i s e , t h e m a r g i n a l b e n e f i t 35 o f maintenance investment r i s e s so p r o f i t m a x i m i z i n g l a n d l o r d s i n c r e a s e ma in tenance . Improved h o u s i n g e f f e c t s a f u r t h e r and r a p i d r i s e i n demand and p r i c e s , wh ich r a i s e s m a r g i n a l b e n e f i t s even more, and so o n . By t h i s p r o c e s s , t h e ne ighbourhood becomes g e n t r i f i e d . The i n i t i a l wave o f " Y u p p i e s " t h a t moved i n t o the ne ighbourhood was t h e s p a r k t h a t i g n i t e d the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s . The purpose o f t h i s c h a p t e r — a n d t h i s t h e s i s — i s t o p r e s e n t a r e g r e s s i o n model d e s i g n e d t o t e s t what the l i t e r a t u r e i m p l i e s : S i n c e t h e r e i s a l a g between t h e s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n i n a g e n t r i f y i n g i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhood and the consequent r i s e i n h o u s i n g p r i c e s , one can p r e d i c t which i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods w i l l have f u t u r e p r i c e i n c r e a s e s by o b s e r v i n g wh ich ones a r e u n d e r g o i n g the f i r s t phase o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , v i z . , demographic change, as young, w e l l - e d u c a t e d CBD employed s i n g l e s and c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s b e g i n t o move i n . Changes i n the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e o f a c e n t r a l -c i t y ne ighbourhood and changes i n i t s h o u s i n g market have a r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t on each o t h e r . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n can be measured by the improvement i n one o r the o t h e r , o r bo th (Ley , 1985) . The model p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s d e f i n e s g e n t r i f i c a t i o n as an i n c r e a s e i n an i n n e r - c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s h o u s i n g p r i c e s r e l a t i v e t o t h e CMA as a who le . Change i n p r i c e w i l l be the dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h e model and w i l l be r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t ne ighbourhood demographic change. 36 T h i s c hapter w i l l f i r s t d e s c r i b e the Canadian c r o s s -s e c t i o n a l , i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n model p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . E x t e n s i o n s t o the model designed t o e v a l u a t e the model's p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y w i l l then be d e s c r i b e d . The r e s u l t s from r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s w i l l f o l l o w i n Chapter 5. M O D E L Premise: S i n c e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s r e p o r t e d t o be a phenomenon t h a t s t a r t e d i n the 1970s, t h e r e s h o u l d have been i n i t i a l demographic t r a n s i t i o n s d u r i n g the 1960s i n those neighbourhoods t h a t experienced an e s c a l a t i o n i n housing p r i c e s d u r i n g the 1970s. The model, t h e r e f o r e , r e g r e s s e s changes i n i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhood housing p r i c e s d u r i n g p e r i o d 2, 1971 t o 1981, a g a i n s t demographic changes d u r i n g p e r i o d 1, 1961 t o 1971. A l l d a t a i s d e r i v e d from the 1961, 1971, and 1981 Canada census. Sample: The sample i s 95 of approximately 200 census t r a c t s t h a t comprise the i n n e r - c i t i e s of Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa-Hull. I n n e r - c i t y census t r a c t s t h a t had even i d e n t i t y numbers i n the 1961 census form the sample. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of census t r a c t s i s 20 from Vancouver, 20 from Ottawa-Hull, and 55 from Toronto. The t h r e e c i t i e s were s e l e c t e d because they r e p r e s e n t an e a s t -west mix o f Canadian c i t i e s and because they are among the s i x major Canadian CMAs t h a t Ley r e p o r t s t o have g e n t r i f i e d (1985). F i g u r e s 3, 4, and 5 show the i n n e r - c i t y boundaries of the sample f o r each c i t y . The boundaries a r e those 37 LEGEND: - Rent i n c r e a s e d a t l e a s t 10% more t h a n CMA i n c r e a s e - V a l u e i n c r e a s e d a t l e a s t 10% more t h a n CMA i n c r e a s e - Rent and V a l u e both i n c r e a s e d 10% more than CMA - Rent and V a l u e bo th i n c r e a s e d l e s s t h a n CMA - Not i n c l u d e d i n the sample F i g u r e 3: Vancouver i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g p r i c e i n c r e a s e s  r e l a t i v e t o CMA, 1971-1981. 38 LEGEND: - Rent i n c r e a s e d a t l e a s t 10% more t h a n CMA i n c r e a s e - V a l u e i n c r e a s e d a t l e a s t 10% more t h a n CMA i n c r e a s e - Rent and V a l u e bo th i n c r e a s e d 10% more t h a n CMA - Rent and V a l u e bo th i n c r e a s e d l e s s t h a n CMA | 1 - Not i n c l u d e d i n the sample F i g u r e 4: Ottawa i n n e r - c i t y housing; p r i c e i n c r e a s e s  r e l a t i v e t o CMA, 1971-1981. 39 LEGEND: - Rent i n c r e a s e d a t l e a s t 10% more t h a n CMA i n c r e a s e - V a l u e i n c r e a s e d a t l e a s t 10% more t h a n CMA i n c r e a s e - Rent and V a l u e b o t h i n c r e a s e d 10% more than CMA - Rent and V a l u e b o t h i n c r e a s e d l e s s t h a n CMA | | - Not i n c l u d e d i n the sample F i g u r e 5: Toron to i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g p r i c e i n c r e a s e s  r e l a t i v e t o CMA. 1971-1981. 40 d e f i n e d by Ley (1985) based on the CMHC document The  Canadian Inner C i t y 1971 t o 1976: A S t a t i s t i c a l Handbook (Brown and Burke, 1979). Dependent V a r i a b l e s : A l l the v a r i a b l e s i n the model, dependent and explanatory, are designed t o measure t h e performance of an i n n e r - c i t y census t r a c t r e l a t i v e t o the performance of the CMA as a whole. There are two dependent v a r i a b l e s . Both measure changing housing p r i c e s d u r i n g p e r i o d 2, 1971 t o 1981. The f i r s t dependent v a r i a b l e measures the p e r c e n t change i n a census t r a c t ' s average r e n t per room r e l a t i v e t o the CMA p e r c e n t change, 1971 t o 1981: RENT2 = 1981 CT mean/room - 1971 m/r - 1981 CMA m/r - 1971 CMA m/r 1971 CT mean/room 1971 CMA mean/room x 100 The second dependent v a r i a b l e measures the p e r c e n t change i n a census t r a c t ' s median v a l u e per room r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change, 1971 t o 1981: VALUE2 = 1981 CT median/r - 1971 m/r - 1981 CMA m/r - 1971 CMA m/r 1971 CT median/room 1971 CMA median/room x 100 Rents and v a l u e s are c a l c u l a t e d "per room" because, i f one i s t o compare the p r i c e or r e n t o f an i n n e r - c i t y 4 1 d w e l l i n g t o a suburban d w e l l i n g , one must compensate f o r l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s i n the suburbs than i n t h e c i t y c o r e . A b e t t e r measure o f p r i c e o r r e n t when compar ing d i f f e r e n t s i z e d h o u s i n g i s "per square f o o t " but d a t a on t h e average s i z e o f census t r a c t d w e l l i n g s i s not a v a i l a b l e . A p o t e n t i a l problem w i t h the v a r i a b l e VALUE2 i s t h a t i t i s based on s u b j e c t i v e r a t h e r than o b j e c t i v e d a t a . The census asks the o w n e r - o c c u p i e r t o e s t i m a t e t h e market v a l u e o f h i s d w e l l i n g . The census d a t a , however, has been c o r r o b o r a t e d w i t h a c t u a l market s a l e s d a t a . The 1981 census was m a i l e d t o househo lds i n J u n e , 1981. The median Vancouver CMA d w e l l i n g v a l u e r e p o r t e d i n the 1981 census i s , f o r example, $171,726. The Vancouver R e a l E s t a t e Board r e c o r d e d t h a t f o r J u n e , 1981, the average s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s o l d f o r $179,730. S i n c e the Vancouver R e a l E s t a t e Board s t a t i s t i c does not i n c l u d e t h e r e l a t i v e l y l e s s e x p e n s i v e Vancouver CMA m u n i c i p a l i t i e s o f S u r r e y , L a n g l e y , and W h i t e - R o c k , the census d a t a appears t o be a c c u r a t e . F i g u r e s 3 t o 5 show which t r a c t s i n t h e sample had h o u s i n g p r i c e i n c r e a s e s g r e a t e r than t h e CMA i n p e r i o d 2. Explanatory Variables: There a r e 14 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s . The f i r s t group o f e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i s d e s i g n e d t o measure demographic changes d u r i n g p e r i o d 1, 1961 t o 1971, as young, w e l l - e d u c a t e d , c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s and s i n g l e CBD p r o f e s s i o n a l s b e g i n t o move i n t o a c e n t r a l -c i t y n e i g h b o u r h o o d . 42 GROUP 1: 1) P e r c e n t change i n 20 - 34 y e a r o l d s r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change, 1961 t o 1971: AGE1 = 1971 CT% 20-34 v r s - 1961% - 1971 CMA% 20-34 v r s - 1961% 1961 CT% 20-34 y e a r s o l d 1961 CMA% 20-30 y e a r s o l d x 100 2) P e r c e n t change i n u n i v e r s i t y educa ted r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change, 1961 t o 1971: UNVRS1 = 1971 CT% u n i v e r . e d . - 1961% - 1971 CMA% u n i v e r . e d . - 1961% 1961 CT% u n i v e r . e d u c a t i o n 1961 CMA% u n i v e r . e d u c a t i o n x 100 3) P e r c e n t change i n p r o f e s s i o n a l , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and m a n a g e r i a l o c c u p a t i o n s r e l a t i v e t o t h e CMA change , 1961 t o 1971: PRFOC1 = 1971 CT% p r o f / a d m i n - 1961% - 1971 CMA% p r o f / a d m i n - 1961% 19 61 CT% p r o f / a d m i n / t e c h 1961 CMA% p r o f / a d m i n / t e c h x 100 4) P e r c e n t change i n female l a b o u r f o r c e r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change, 1961 t o 1971: FMLBR1 = 1971 CT% fern, wrkrs - 1961% - 1971 CMA% fern, wrkrs - 1961% 1961 CT% female workers 1961 CMA% female workers x 100 43 5) Percent change i n female p r o f e s s i o n a l , t e c h n i c a l , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o c c u p a t i o n s r e l a t i v e t o t h e CMA change, 1961 t o 1971: FMPR0C1 = 1971 CT% fm.prf/adm - 1961% - 1971 CMA% fm.prf/adm - 1961% 1961 CT% fern.prof/admn/tech 1961 CMA% fern.prof/admn/tech x 100 6) Percent change i n non-family households r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change, 1961 t o 1971: NFMHS1 = 1971 CT% non-familv - 1961% - 1971 CMA% non-familv - 1961% 1961 CT% non-family h s h l d s 1961 CMA% non-family h s h l d s x 100 7) Change i n average number o f c h i l d r e n p e r f a m i l y r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change, 1961 t o 1971: CHLD1 = (1971 CT mean c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y - 1961 mean) -(1971 CMA mean c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y - 1961 mean) 8) Percent change i n no r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change, 1961 t o 1971: N0RLG1 = 1971 CT% no r e l i g i o n -1961% - 1971 CMA% no r e l i g i o n -1961% 1961 CT% no r e l i g i o n 1961 CMA% no r e l i g i o n x 100 44 E x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s 1 th rough 5 r e f l e c t t h e consensus t h a t the " g e n t r y " a r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y young w e l l -educa ted w h i t e - c o l l a r CBD employees (Hamnett 1984, B e r r y 1985, Ley 1986, Smith 1987) . V a r i a b l e s 4 and 5 t e s t Smith and B e r r y ' s s i m i l a r t h e o r i e s t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s l a r g e l y the r e s u l t o f an i n c r e a s e i n the female work f o r c e , e s p e c i a l l y i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l h i g h - i n c o m e CBD j o b s . E x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e 6 r e f l e c t s t h e c o n s e n s u s t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s t y p i c a l l y form n o n - p a t r i a r c h h o u s e h o l d s . V a r i a b l e 6 i s a c a t c h a l l f o r h o u s e h o l d s composed o f c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s , s i n g l e s , o r u n r e l a t e d a d u l t s w h i l e v a r i a b l e 7 measures the d e c r e a s i n g number o f c h i l d r e n i n g e n t r y househo lds t h a t a r e f a m i l i e s (Smith 1987, B e r r y 1985, Ley 1985, Hamnett 1984) . E x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e 8 i s i n c l u d e d t o t e s t one o f the c o n c l u s i o n s from L e y ' s 1985 r e s e a r c h t h a t a n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s p i o n e e r i n g g e n t r y t end t o be n o n - c o n f o r m i s t s . Ley used the Canad ian census c a t e g o r y "no r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n " as a s u r r o g a t e f o r n o n - c o n f o r m i t y (Ley , 1985) . A l l e i g h t p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s — e x c e p t CHLD1—are expec ted t o have a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the dependent h o u s i n g p r i c e v a r i a b l e s . The e i g h t demographic v a r i a b l e s a r e s i m i l a r l y c a l c u l a t e d f o r p e r i o d 2, 1971 t o 1981, t o be u s e d i n the e x t e n s i o n s t o the model t h a t a r e d i s c u s s e d a t t h e end o f t h i s c h a p t e r . 45 GROUP 2: The second group o f v a r i a b l e s i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e model t o a n a l y z e the h o u s i n g market p r i o r t o p e r i o d 2. 9) P e r c e n t change i n r e n t r e l a t i v e t o t h e CMA p e r c e n t change , 1961 t o 1971: RENT1 = 1971 CT mean/room - 1961 m/r - 1971 CMA m/r - 1961 CMA m/r 1961 CT mean/room 1961 CMA mean/room x 100 10) P e r c e n t change i n v a l u e r e l a t i v e t o t h e CMA p e r c e n t change, 1961 t o 1971: VALUE1 = 1971 CT m e d i a n / r - 1961 m/r - 1971 CMA m/r - 1961 CMA m/r 1961 CT median/room 1961 CMA median / room x 100 11) P o t e n t i a l f o r an i n c r e a s e i n r e n t , measured as the d i f f e r e n c e ( i n s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) between a census t r a c t ' s average r e n t and the average r e n t o f the i n n e r - c i t y , 1971: RSTZDV = 1971 CT mean r e n t / r o o m - 1971 i n n e r - c i t y mean r e n t / r o o m 1971 i n n e r - c i t y s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n 46 12) P o t e n t i a l f o r an i n c r e a s e i n v a l u e , measured as the d i f f e r e n c e ( i n s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) between a census t r a c t ' s median v a l u e and t h e median v a l u e o f the i n n e r - c i t y , 1971: VSTZDV = 1971 CT median r e n t / r o o m - 1971 i n n e r - c i t y median r e n t / r o o m 1971 i n n e r - c i t y s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n 13) VANDUM = Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r Vancouver 14) OTTDUM = Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r O t t a w a - H u l l E x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s 9 and 10 t e s t f o r c o r r e l a t i o n i n the change i n h o u s i n g p r i c e s between p e r i o d s 1 and 2. E x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s 11 and 12 a r e z - s c o r e s t h a t t e s t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f (1987) t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s f a v o u r the i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods t h a t o f f e r the " b e s t b u y " . Data Limitations: The paramount l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e d a t a i s t h a t i t i s a v a i l a b l e i n t e n - y e a r p e r i o d s o n l y . A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a m i n i census every f i v e y e a r s , much o f the demographic i n f o r m a t i o n and a l l o f t h e h o u s i n g p r i c e i n f o r m a t i o n i s e x c l u d e d . One would e x p e c t t h a t i f t h e r e i s a l a g between the b e g i n n i n g s o f demographic t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n an i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhood and the r i s e i n h o u s i n g p r i c e s , the l a g would be l e s s than t e n y e a r s . The model w i l l not p i c k up the l a g i f bo th e v e n t s o c c u r i n t h e same 47 t e n - y e a r p e r i o d . A n o t h e r l i m i t a t i o n o f the d a t a i s t h e use o f h o u s i n g p r i c e s p e r room r a t h e r than p e r square f o o t as d i s c u s s e d above . The t h i r d hand icap i n the d a t a i s t h a t r e n t c o n t r o l s were i n s t i t u t e d i n Canada i n 1975. Vancouver r e n t c o n t r o l s ended i n 1984; Ottawa and T o r o n t o s t i l l have them. 80-85% o f the Vancouver r e n t a l s t o c k , f o r example , i s e s t i m a t e d t o have been under r e n t c o n t r o l i n the f i r s t y e a r s o f c o n t r o l s w h i l e 50-60% were under c o n t r o l i n 1981 (CMHC, 1988) . Rent c o n t r o l s w i l l a t t e n u a t e the change i n average r e n t s i n p e r i o d 2, 1971 t o 1981, i n r e s p o n s e t o demographic changes i n p e r i o d 1, 1961 t o 1971. EXTENSIONS TO THE MODEL The f i r s t e x t e n s i o n t o the model w i l l be t o run each o f the t h r e e c i t i e s s e p a r a t e l y t o t e s t f o r i n t e r - c i t y v a r i a t i o n . The s e c o n d , t h i r d , and f o u r t h e x t e n s i o n s t o the model a r e i n c l u d e d t o address the f o l l o w i n g i s s u e : The model i s d e s i g n e d t o p r e d i c t h o u s i n g p r i c e changes i n p e r i o d 2, 1971 t o 1981, w i t h demographic changes i n p e r i o d 1, 1961 t o 1971. But even i f c o r r e l a t i o n i s found between t h e demographic changes and p r i c e changes , a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two i s not p r o v e n . As a l r e a d y s t a t e d , t h e r e i s a r e i n f o r c i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between h o u s i n g p r i c e s and ne ighbourhood s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s . P e r i o d 1 48 demographic changes might be the consequence of, rather than the determinant of, p r i c e increases that started i n period 1 and continued into period 2. The explanatory variables RENT1 and VALUE1 w i l l help resolve the issue. I f period 2 housing p r i c e increases are strongly correlated to period 1 increases, then any co r r e l a t i o n between demographic changes i n period 1 and pr i c e changes i n period 2 cannot be considered causal. In addition to the RENT1 and VALUE1 t e s t , there are three extensions to the model that evaluate the rela t i o n s h i p i n the model between period 1 demographic and period 2 price changes. The f i r s t extension regresses RENT1 and VALUE1 against the period 1 demographic explanatory variables. I f the period 1 demographic variables predict contemporaneous period 1 p r i c e increases i n the extension better than they predict period 2 p r i c e increases i n the model, then the r e s u l t s of the model must be questioned. The second extension regresses RENT2 and VALUE2 against the period 2 demographic explanatory v a r i a b l e s . I f period 2 price increases are predicted by contemporaneous period 2 demographic variables i n the extension better than they are predicted by period 1 demographic variables i n the model, then the r e s u l t s of the model must be questioned. The t h i r d extension regresses RENT2 and VALUE2 against pooled period 1 and period 2 demographic v a r i a b l e s . The 49 u t i l i t y o f t h i s e x t e n s i o n i s a p p e a l i n g . The e f f e c t on p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s by demographic v a r i a b l e s i n p e r i o d 1 v e r s u s t h o s e i n p e r i o d 2 can be compared d i r e c t l y . As w e l l , the n a t u r e o f the l a g between ne ighbourhood demographic t r a n s i t i o n and ne ighbourhood p r i c e i n c r e a s e s can be i n v e s t i g a t e d . The problem w i t h the t h i r d e x t e n s i o n i s t h a t once a l l 16 demographic e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s (8 v a r i a b l e s x 2 p e r i o d s ) and h o u s i n g market v a r i a b l e s a r e l o a d e d i n t o the r e g r e s s i o n , t h e r e w i l l be few r e m a i n i n g d e g r e e s o f f reedom. F o r Vancouver and Ottawa t h e r e w i l l be o n l y 1 d . f . ; f o r T o r o n t o t h e r e w i l l be 36. The r e s u l t s from t h i s e x t e n s i o n t o t h e model must be v iewed w i t h s k e p t i c i s m b u t w i l l n e v e r t h e l e s s be i n c l u d e d f o r c o m p l e t e n e s s . C H A P T E R SUMMARY The c h a p t e r has d e s c r i b e d the r e g r e s s i o n model c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h i s t h e s i s t o p r e d i c t i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n Canada. The model i s based on t h e p r e m i s e t h a t , as the l i t e r a t u r e c l a i m s , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n f o l l o w s a l o g i s t i c c u r v e so t h e r e i s a l a g between the i n i t i a l demographic change i n an i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhood t h a t i s g e n t r i f y i n g and the r i s e i n h o u s i n g p r i c e s . I f the l i t e r a t u r e i s c o r r e c t , then one can p r e d i c t wh ich i n n e r -c i t y ne ighbourhoods w i l l have f u t u r e p r i c e i n c r e a s e s by o b s e r v i n g which ones a re u n d e r g o i n g demographic change . The m o d e l ' s v a r i a b l e s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d from 1961, 1971, 50 and 1981 Canada Census d a t a . On t h e who le , t h e d a t a i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a c c u r a t e . The u n d e r l y i n g l i m i t a t i o n o f the d a t a , however, i s t h a t i t i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y i n t e n - y e a r p e r i o d s . There a re f o u r e x t e n s i o n s t o e v a l u a t e t h e p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y o f the mode l . The e x t e n s i o n s a r e d e s i g n e d t o de te rmine whether demographic changes i n p e r i o d 1 can i n f a c t be o b s e r v e d e f f e c t i n g h o u s i n g p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n p e r i o d 2. I f n o t , demographic changes i n p e r i o d 1 may mere ly be a c o r r e l a t e t o p e r i o d 2 p r i c e i n c r e a s e s and not a de te rminan t o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Regression Equations: The r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s f o r the model and e x t e n s i o n s a r e as f o l l o w : MODEL: RENT2 i = B 0 + B-LAGEli + B 2 U N V R S l i + B 3 P R F O C l i + B 4 F M L B R l i + BFJFMPROCIJ^ + BgNFMHSl^ + ByCHLDl^ + BgNORLGl^ + BgRENTljL + B-^QRSTZDV^ + B-^iVANDUM^ + B 1 2 0 T T D U M i +  E i VALUE 2 =BQ + B ^ G E l i + B 2 U N V R S l i + B 3 P R F O C l i + B 4 F M L B R l i + BsFMPROCli + BgNFMHSlj^ + B ? C H L D l i + BgNORLGl^ + BgVALUEl i + Bj^oVSTZDVi + B-L-JVANDUMJL + B 1 2 0 T T D U M i + E i EXTENSION 1: R E N T l i = B 0 + B^AGElj^ + B 2 U N V R S l i + B 3 P R F O C l i + B 4 F M L B R l i + BgFMPROCljL + BgNFMHSlj^ + ByCHLDl^ + BgNORLGl-^ + BgVANDUM^ + B-J^QOTTDUM^ + Ej^ VALUER =BQ + B-LAGEIJ^ + B 2UNVRSl i + B 3PRFOCl i + B 4FMLBRl i + BsFMPROCli + BgNFMHSli + B^CHLDl^ + BgNORLGl-^ + BgVANDUMi + B 1 0°' I" I' D U Mi + E i 51 EXTENSION 2: RENT 2 ^  = B Q + B 1AGE2 i + B 2UNVRS2 i + B 3PRFOC2i + B 4FMLBR2 i + B 5FMPROC2 i + B 6NFMHS2 i + B yCHLD2 i + BgNORLG2 i + BgRENTli + B-LQRSTZDV! + B^VANDUMi + B-^OTTDUMi + E i VALUE 2 £ = B Q + B 1AGE2 i + B 2UNVRS2 i + B 3PRFOC2JL + B 4FMLBR2 i + B 5FMPROC2 i + B 6NFMHS2 i + B 7CHLD2JL + B QNORLG2 i + BgVALUEl^ + B^^oVSTZDVi + B^^VANDUM^ + B 1 2 O T T D U M I + E i EXTENSION 3: RENT 2 ^  = B Q + B^AGElj^ + B 2AGE2 i + B 3UNVRSl i + B 4UNVRS2 i + BgPRFOCli + B 6PRFOC2i + B ?FMLBRl i + BgFMLBR2 i + BgFMPROCli + B 1 0FMPROC2 i + B-j^NFMHSl^ + B 1 2NFMHS2 i + B 1 3 C H L D l i + B 1 4CHLD2 i + B-j^NORLGli + B 1 6NORLG2 i B ^ R E N T ^ + B^gRSTZDV^ + B^gVANDUM-^ + B 2 QOTTDUM i + E i VALUE2j, =B Q + B^AGE^ + B2AGE2j, + B 3UNVRSl i + B 4UNVRS2 i + BsPRFOCli + B 6PRFOC2 i + B ?FMLBRl i + Bg FMLBR2 ^  + BgFMPROCl^ + B 1 0FMPROC2 i + B^NFMHSli + B 1 2NFMHS2 i + BJ^-JCHLDIJL + B 1 4CHLD2 i + B^NORLGl^ + B 1 6NORLG2 i B^^yVALUEljL + B-LgVSTZDVi + B-^gVANDUM^ + B 2 QOTTDUM i + E i EXTENSION 4: Run the r e g r e s s i o n s without the dummy v a r i a b l e s f o r each c i t y s e p a r a t e l y . 52 CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS T h i s c hapter p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o f the i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n p r e d i c t i v e model and i t s e x t e n s i o n s t h a t were d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 4. C o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s are used t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether t h e r e i s a c a u s a l , lagged r e l a t i o n s h i p between the e a r l i e s t phase of g e n t r i f i c a t i o n (demographic t r a n s i t i o n ) and subsequent p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n s . CORRELATION ANALYSIS Appendix A c o n t a i n s m a t r i c e s and t a b l e s compiled from c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f the t h r e e c i t i e s . T a b l e 1 i s a summary o f the a n a l y s i s . P a r t A of the t a b l e shows which v a r i a b l e s are contemporaneous c o r r e l a t e s t o i n n e r - c i t y housing p r i c e change, i . e . , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , i n p e r i o d s 1 and 2. P a r t B shows which p e r i o d 1 v a r i a b l e s a re c o r r e l a t e d t o p e r i o d 2 p r i c e changes. The t a b l e i s designed so t h a t the performance of each v a r i a b l e can be ana l y z e d by r e a d i n g a c r o s s the t a b l e ; the performance o f each c i t y can be analyzed by r e a d i n g down the t a b l e . Variables: The s i g n s o f the c o r r e l a t i o n s a re predominantly as expected—unexpected s i g n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s e c t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t er. 53 Table 1: Summary of Correlation Analysis A) Contemporaneous Correlates to Gentrification. Period 1 and 2 3 C i t i e s Vancouver Ottawa-Hull Toronto Per.1 Per. 2 Per.1 Per.2 Per.1 Per.2 Per.1 Per.2 Tot Rnt Val Rnt Val Rnt Val Rnt Val Rnt Val Rnt Val Rnt Val Rnt Val .05 Variables University education C1 C C1 C1 C C C1 C 8 20-34 year olds C1 C1 2 Not religious C1 -C C1 CI -C 5 Non-family households C1 C 2 Children per family -C1 •C1-C -C -C -C -C -C1-C 9 Professional occupations C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C 7 Female labour force C C1 C C1 C -C -C 7 Female prof, occupations C1 -C1 C1 C C1 C C 7 Sub-total Total: .05 s i 8 5 2 4 11 5 6 6 13 6 16 12 .01 s i 9 4 7 5 Legend: C = Correlation at the .05 significance level C1= Correlation at the .01 significance level B) Period 1 Variables that are Correlated to Period 2 Ge n t r i f i c a t i o n 3 C i t i e s Vancouver Ottawa Toronto Total Rent Value Rent Value Rent Value Rent Value .05 .01 L_ Variables University education P1L P 2 1 1 20-34 year olds PL -P1L P1L 3 2 3 Not religious PL P1 P1L 3 2 2 Non-family households -PL 1 0 1 Children per family P 1 0 0 Professional occupations P P1L -P P1 P1L 5 3 2 Female labour force PL P1 PL 3 1 2 Female prof, occupations PL P 2 0 1 Rent/Value -P 1 0 n/a 1971 rent/value z-score -P1 1 1 n/a Sub-total 1 5 2 2 2 1 4 5 Total: .05 s i 6 4 3 9 .01 s i 1 3 1 5 L 5 1 2 4 Legend: P = Correlation at the .05 significance level P1= Correlation at the .01 significance level PL= Evidence of lag Data compiled from Appendix A. 54 In p a r t A o f T a b l e 1, " c h i l d r e n p e r f a m i l y " and " u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n " have the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e o f contemporaneous c o r r e l a t i o n t o h o u s i n g p r i c e s . By r e a d i n g a c r o s s t h e t a b l e , one sees t h a t " c h i l d r e n p e r f a m i l y 1 1 i s a s i g n i f i c a n t contemporaneous c o r r e l a t e t o h o u s i n g p r i c e s i n n i n e o f the s i x t e e n r e g r e s s i o n s ; " u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n " i s so i n e i g h t o f the r e g r e s s i o n s . On ly two o f t h e e i g h t demographic v a r i a b l e s per fo rm p o o r l y : "20-34 y e a r o l d s " and " n o n - f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s . " R e l e v a n t t o t h i s t h e s i s i s which demographic v a r i a b l e s were a b l e t o p r e d i c t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . P a r t B o f T a b l e 1 shows how the demographic v a r i a b l e s per fo rmed as l a g g e d p e r i o d 1 p r e d i c t o r s o f p e r i o d 2 g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l o n e , however, i s not c o n v i n c i n g p r o o f o f p r e d i c t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n . I f demographics i n p e r i o d 1 was c o r r e l a t e d t o p r i c e s i n p e r i o d 2 but a l s o t o p r i c e s i n p e r i o d 1, p e r i o d 1 demographics might no t have a c t u a l l y caused p e r i o d 2 p r i c e i n c r e a s e s . I n s t e a d , p e r i o d 1 demographic changes might have been the a f f e c t , r a t h e r than the e f f e c t , o f p r i c e movements t h a t s t a r t e d i n p e r i o d 1 and c o n t i n u e d i n t o p e r i o d 2. A s t r o n g e r case f o r p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s i f demographics i n p e r i o d 1 i s c o r r e l a t e d t o p r i c e s i n p e r i o d 2 bu t not t o p r i c e s i n p e r i o d 1. E v i d e n c e o f t h i s t y p e o f c o r r e l a t i o n i s i n p a r t B o f T a b l e 1. P e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s t h a t a r e c o r r e l a t e d t o p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s but a r e no t contemporaneous c o r r e l a t e s t o p e r i o d 1 p r i c e s i n p a r t A o f 55 the t a b l e a r e i n d i c a t e d by " L " . Read ing a c r o s s p a r t B o f T a b l e 1, one sees t h a t t h e b e s t p e r i o d 1 p r e d i c t o r s o f p e r i o d 2 g e n t r i f i c a t i o n were "20-34 y e a r o l d s , p r o f e s s i o n a l o c c u p a t i o n s , " "not r e l i g i o u s , " and " female l a b o u r f o r c e . " However, t h e r e i s s t i l l d o u b t . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e g e n t r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s might have s t a r t e d w i t h a s l i g h t r i s e i n p r i c e s i n a ne ighbourhood i n p e r i o d 1 t h a t i n t u r n caused a change i n demograph ics . The r i s e i n p r i c e s might not have been enough t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d t o the change i n demographics i n p e r i o d 1 but the change i n demographics might have been enough t o be c o r r e l a t e d t o p r i c e i n c r e a s e s t h a t c o n t i n u e d i n t o p e r i o d 2. In o t h e r words , the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s might have been s p a r k e d by p r i c e movements r a t h e r than by demographic c h a n g e s , c o n t r a r y t o what the l i t e r a t u r e c l a i m s . T a b l e 2 h e l p s r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e . The numbers i n T a b l e 2 a r e the d i f f e r e n c e s between the average i n n e r - c i t y p e r c e n t change i n h o u s i n g p r i c e s p e r room minus t h e CMA p e r c e n t change f o r the two p e r i o d s . T a b l e 2: % Change i n Hous ing P r i c e s p e r room  R e l a t i v e t o the CMA Rent V a l u e 61-71 71-81 61-71 71-81 Vancouver O t t a w a - H u l l T o r o n t o -10 1 -1 35 38 29 4 0 7 20 58 64 Data compi led from Canada C e n s u s , 1961, 1971, and 1981 The average change i n i n n e r - c i t y r e n t s and v a l u e s i n the t h r e e c i t i e s v a r i e s l i t t l e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e CMA change d u r i n g p e r i o d 1. I n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods as a whole d i d not e x p e r i e n c e r e l a t i v e p r i c e g a i n s u n t i l p e r i o d 2. T h e r e f o r e , p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s i n p a r t B o f T a b l e 1 t h a t a r e c o r r e l a t e d t o p r i c e s i n p e r i o d 2 b u t not t o p r i c e s i n p e r i o d 1 ( the "PLs" ) s u p p o r t what t h e l i t e r a t u r e c o n t e n d s : The i n i t i a l phase i n a g e n t r i f y i n g ne ighbourhood i s demographic . The r i s e i n p r i c e s and the whole g e n t r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s i s a consequence o f t h i s i n i t i a l demographic s t i m u l u s . C i t i e s : By r e a d i n g down p a r t A o f T a b l e 1, one s e e s t h a t Ot tawa, w i t h a s c o r e o f s i x t e e n , had t h e h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e o f contemporaneous c o r r e l a t i o n o f t h e t h r e e c i t i e s . Ottawa f a r e d p o o r l y , t h o u g h , w i t h p r e d i c t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s and p e r i o d 1 demographics i n p a r t B o f the t a b l e — t h e o n l y two " P L " c o r r e l a t e s have the wrong s i g n . The d a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t i f t h e r e was a l a g between demographic change and h o u s i n g p r i c e change i n Ottawa, the l a g and the two e v e n t s must have a l l o c c u r r e d w i t h i n the same t e n - y e a r p e r i o d . The h i s t o r y o f O t t a w a ' s i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g market i s r e f l e c t e d i n the d a t a . O t t a w a ' s i n n e r - c i t y d i d no t undergo h o u s i n g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n u n t i l 1975. F o r t h e f i r s t few y e a r s , r i s i n g p r i c e s were p r e d o m i n a n t l y i n t h e r e n t a l s e c t o r . L a r g e - s c a l e condominium c o n s t r u c t i o n c l o s e t o downtown o c c u r r e d l a t e r i n the decade (Ley , 1985) . P a r t A 57 o f T a b l e 1 shows t h a t t h e r e a r e f o u r contemporaneous c o r r e l a t e s t o p e r i o d 2 Ottawa r e n t . I f demographic t r a n s i t i o n s t a r t e d the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s o f f i n Ot tawa, then demographic t r a n s i t i o n , t h e l a g , and t h e s t a r t o f r e n t i n c r e a s e s must have a l l o c c u r r e d i n t h e f o u r p e r i o d 2 y e a r s p r i o r t o 1975. The Ottawa d a t a does no t show t h i s l a g , however. The d a t a shows o n l y t h a t t h e r e was a contemporaneous c o r r e l a t i o n between p r i c e s and demograph ics , not a c a u s a l l a g g e d one . The c h r o n o l o g y o f Vancouver g e n t r i f i c a t i o n was s i m i l a r t o O t t a w a ' s . R e s i d e n t i a l redevelopment i n t h e c i t y c o r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y o f the F a l s e Creek i n d u s t r i a l a r e a , was i n the mid 1970s. Demographic t r a n s i t i o n i n F a l s e Creek and o t h e r w e s t - s i d e i n n e r - c i t y ne ighbourhoods o c c u r r e d t h r o u g h o u t the 1970s (Ley, 1985) . L i k e Ot tawa, demographic change and p r i c e change bo th happened i n p e r i o d 2, 1971 t o 1981. The c o r r e l a t i o n d a t a f o r Vancouver i s not as s t r o n g as i t i s f o r Ot tawa. A reason f o r weak c o r r e l a t i o n i n Vancouver may be t h a t a l t h o u g h v a l u e s i n Vancouver i n n e r -c i t y ne ighbourhoods i n c r e a s e d 20 p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t s more than the CMA i n p e r i o d 2, the i n n e r - c i t y i n c r e a s e s i n Ottawa and Toron to were t h r e e t imes t h a t o f Vancouver (Tab le 2 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the d a t a does s u p p o r t what a c t u a l l y happened i n Vancouver . P a r t A o f T a b l e 1 shows t h a t t h e r e i s some c o r r e l a t i o n between p e r i o d 2 demographics and p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s . P a r t B o f t h e t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s p r a c t i c a l l y no l a g g e d c o r r e l a t i o n 58 between p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s and p e r i o d 1 d e m o g r a p h i c s . S i n c e i n n e r - c i t y p r i c e s d i d not move i n Vancouver u n t i l t h e mid 1970s, the i n n e r - c i t y demographic change t h a t Ley r e p o r t s t o have s t a r t e d i n the e a r l y 1970s c o u l d have p r e c i p i t a t e d t h e mid-1970s p r i c e i n c r e a s e . The Vancouver d a t a , however, does no t show t h i s l a g g e d r e l a t i o n s h i p . The d a t a o n l y shows a contemporaneous one . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n T o r o n t o s t a r t e d e a r l i e r t h a n i n e i t h e r Ottawa o r Vancouver . The s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n from lower - income b l u e - c o l l a r h o u s e h o l d s t o m i d d l e - i n c o m e CBD w h i t e - c o l l a r ones i n the c i t y c e n t r e was i n 1969. House s a l e s a c t i v i t y p i c k e d up i n c e n t r a l ne ighbourhoods b u t , j u s t as the l i t e r a t u r e c l a i m s , t h e r e was no s u b s t a n t i a l r i s e i n p r i c e s d u r i n g t h i s e a r l y phase o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . By 1978, however, two i n n e r - c i t y T o r o n t o ne ighbourhoods , Don V a l e (Cabbage Town) and The Annex, f o r example, had f o r the f i r s t t ime e q u a l l e d the metro T o r o n t o mean s a l e s p r i c e . By 1981, Don V a l e ' s mean s a l e s p r i c e was 156% o f the CMA mean and The A n n e x ' s mean was 139% (Ley, 1985) . The t i m i n g o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n T o r o n t o e n a b l e s the i n t r a - u r b a n model i n t h i s t h e s i s t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e l a g between the s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n and t h e subsequent r i s e i n h o u s i n g p r i c e s . P a r t A o f T a b l e 1 shows t h a t t h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e contemporaneous c o r r e l a t i o n between p e r i o d 2 changes i n d w e l l i n g v a l u e and p e r i o d 2 d e m o g r a p h i c s . In f a c t , two o f the o n l y t h r e e c o r r e l a t e s 59 have the wrong s i g n . Lagged p r e d i c t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , on the o t h e r hand , i s v e r y s t r o n g . T h e r e a r e f o u r demographic v a r i a b l e s t h a t i n p e r i o d 1 a r e l a g g e d c o r r e l a t e s o f p e r i o d 2 changes i n T o r o n t o d w e l l i n g v a l u e but i n p e r i o d 2 a r e not contemporaneous c o r r e l a t e s t o p e r i o d 2 v a l u e ( the " P L s " i n p a r t B o f T a b l e 1 ) . In o t h e r words , the r i s e i n i n n e r - c i t y house p r i c e s i n T o r o n t o i n the 1970s i s c o r r e l a t e d t o demographic t r a n s i t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d i n the 1960s, no t i n t h e 1970s. The model p i c k s up t h e l a g between demographics and p r i c e s because i t o c c u r s a t the boundary between p e r i o d 1 and p e r i o d 2. The c o i n c i d e n c e o f t h e l a g i n T o r o n t o g e n t r i f i c a t i o n w i t h the m o d e l ' s t ime p e r i o d boundary e n a b l e s the model t o show s t a t i s t i c a l l y what has o n l y been i m p l i e d by the l i t e r a t u r e : f u t u r e h o u s i n g p r i c e i n c r e a s e s , i . e . , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , can be p r e d i c t e d by o b s e r v i n g which ne ighbourhoods a r e b e g i n n i n g t o undergo demographic change . L a g : The da ta f o r T o r o n t o shows t h a t demographic t r a n s i t i o n i s i n f a c t the p r e c u r s o r o f h o u s i n g p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n g e n t r i f y i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d s . But how l o n g i s the l a g ? Vancouver and Ottawa d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e , i f any , demographic change b e f o r e 1971 i n c e n t r a l - c i t y ne ighbourhoods t h a t had p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n the 1970s. S i n c e g e n t r i f y i n g ne ighbourhoods i n b o t h Ottawa and Vancouver had e s c a l a t e d h o u s i n g p r i c e s by 1975 (Ley , 1985) and s i n c e t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t demographic change i n t h e s e ne ighbourhoods b e f o r e 1971, the 6 0 l a g must have been between 0 and 4 y e a r s . I t was p r o b a b l y l e s s than f o u r y e a r s . P r i c e s would have s t a r t e d i n c r e a s i n g b e f o r e t h e y reached the l e v e l t h a t t h e y were a t i n 1975. REGRESSION ANALYSIS A p p e n d i c e s B and C c o n t a i n the r e s u l t s o f m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s f o r the t h r e e c i t i e s combined and s e p a r a t e d . F o r each r e g r e s s i o n , a l l e x p l a n a t o r y demographic v a r i a b l e s and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e h o u s i n g market v a r i a b l e s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e mode l . V a r i o u s per formance and d i a g n o s t i c measurements were r e c o r d e d . Then , by r e p e a t e d l y sweeping the v a r i a b l e w i t h the lowest t - s t a t i s t i c u n t i l a l l r e m a i n i n g v a r i a b l e s had a t - s t a t i s t i c g r e a t e r t h a n 1 (backward s t e p w i s e r e g r e s s i o n ) , a " B e s t Mode l " was d e t e r m i n e d . A " B e s t Model" i s the c o m b i n a t i o n o f e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i n a model t h a t y i e l d e d the h i g h e s t a d j u s t e d R 2 . Backward s t e p w i s e r e g r e s s i o n was i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s t o de te rmine which group o f e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i n each model b e s t p r e d i c t e d h o u s i n g p r i c e c h a n g e s . G e n e r a l l y , the d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f r e s i d u a l e r r o r s were n o r m a l . F o r most o f the " B e s t Model" r e g r e s s i o n s , skewness was l e s s than 1 and k u r t o s i s was l e s s than 2. There were two T o r o n t o o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h e sample whose r e s i d u a l e r r o r was c o n s i s t e n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n 5 s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s from the mean. One o b s e r v a t i o n was a census t r a c t a d j a c e n t t o Cabbage Town i n T o r o n t o . I t was 61 an extreme o u t l i e r when v a l u e was r e g r e s s e d on p e r i o d 1 o r p e r i o d 2 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s . The second o b s e r v a t i o n was a t r a c t a d j a c e n t t o R o s e d a l e and F o r e s t H i l l . I t was an extreme o u t l i e r when r e n t was r e g r e s s e d on p e r i o d 1 o r p e r i o d 2 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s . Both o b s e r v a t i o n s were i n T o r o n t o a r e a s t h a t Ley i d e n t i f i e d as s t r o n g g e n t r i f i e r s d u r i n g the 1970s (Ley, 1985) . In a l l r e g r e s s i o n s t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s , n o r m a l i t y o f r e s i d u a l e r r o r s was a c h i e v e d o n l y once the o u t l i e r o b s e r v a t i o n was d e l e t e d (see Appendix B, pages 92, 93, 98, and 9 9 ) . The " B e s t Mode l" r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s a r e w i t h the two o b s e r v a t i o n s d e l e t e d . The r e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n two p a r t s : r e g r e s s i o n s w i t h e x p l a n a t o r y demographic v a r i a b l e s from one p e r i o d o n l y and r e g r e s s i o n s w i t h e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s from bo th p e r i o d s p o o l e d . Explanatory Variables from One Period: T a b l e s 3 and 4 a r e summaries o f the " B e s t Model" r e s u l t s f o r r e g r e s s i o n s u s i n g e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s from one p e r i o d o n l y (Appendix B ) . T a b l e 3 a n a l y z e s the per formance o f the e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s ; T a b l e 4 compares t h e per formances o f t h e c i t i e s . T a b l e 3 i s d e s i g n e d so t h a t the o v e r a l l per fo rmance o f the e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s can be a n a l y z e d a c r o s s t h e c i t i e s . P a r t A o f the t a b l e shows which " B e s t M o d e l " e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s had s i g n i f i c a n t r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s when r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t contemporaneous dependent p r i c e v a r i a b l e s . P a r t B o f t h e t a b l e shows which 62 Table 3: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis A) "Best Model" Regression Coefficients for Gentrification Regressed Against Contemporaneous Variables 3 C i t i e s Vancouver Ottawa Toronto Perl Per2 Perl Per2 Perl Per2 Perl Per2 Total Rt VI Rt V! Rt yi Rt VI Rt Yi Rt V i Rt yi Rt V i .05 .01 Explanatory Variables University education C1 -C2 C 2 1 20-34 year olds C C C1 1 0 Not re l i g i o u s C2 C -C2 C C1-C -C1 -C -C1 5 2 Non-family households C C -C1 -C 1 0 Children per family -C1 C -C2-C2 -C2-C1-C2-C2 C C -C1 C -C1-C2 10 6 Professional occupations C2 C2 C C C1 C2 C C C2 C C1 C1-C 7 4 Female labour force C -C2 C2 C C2 -C -C2 -C2-C -C2 6 6 Female prof, occupations C C C -C2 C -C -C C2-C 2 2 Multicol I inearity n n n y n y y n n n n n n y y y legend: C = Variable included in "Best Model", i . e . , regression c o e f f i c i e n t t-stat > 1 C1= Regression coefficient s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ; C2= s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 B) "Best Model" Regression Coefficients for Period 2 Gentrification Regressed Against Period 1 Variables 3 C i t i e s Vancouver Ottawa Toronto Total Rent Value Rent Value Rent Value Rent Value .05 .01 L Explanatory Variables University education -P P2L 1 1 1 20-34 year olds -P -P 0 0 0 Not re l i g i o u s P1 -P1 P P2L 3 1 1 Non-family households -P2L P1L -P -P 2 1 2 Children per family -P1L -P -P2L 2 1 2 Professional occupations P2 P2L P1L P2 -P1L P2 P1 7 4 3 Female labour force P1L P2 -P P2 3 2 1 Female prof, occupations -P2L -P P1L 2 1 2 Rent/Value -P -P1 -P 1 0 n/a 1971 rent/value z-score -PI -P1 -P2 P -P 3 1 n/a M u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y y y n y y y n n Legend: P = Variable included in "Best Model", i.e., regression co e f f i c i e n t t-stat > 1 P1= Regression coefficient s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ; P2= s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 PL= Evidence of lag Data compiled from Appendix B. 63 p e r i o d 1 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s had s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s when r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t p e r i o d 2 p r i c e v a r i a b l e s . As i n c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , v a r i a b l e s t h a t p r e d i c t p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s when l a g g e d i n p e r i o d 1 but not when contemporaneous i n p e r i o d 2 a r e noted w i t h " L " . The per formances o f t h e demographic v a r i a b l e s d u r i n g m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n i n T a b l e 3 a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e of c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s i n T a b l e 1. F o r b o t h contemporaneous r e g r e s s i o n and l a g g e d r e g r e s s i o n , the f o u r s t r o n g e s t demographic v a r i a b l e s a r e " c h i l d r e n p e r f a m i l y , " "not r e l i g i o u s , " " p r o f e s s i o n a l o c c u p a t i o n s , " and " female l a b o u r f o r c e . " The o n l y d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e r e s u l t s and the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s ones i s t h a t "20-34 y e a r o l d s " i s not a s t r o n g p e r f o r m e r i n r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . I n c l u d e d i n p a r t B o f T a b l e 3 a r e the two h o u s i n g market e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s . One h o u s i n g v a r i a b l e i s the z - s c o r e v a r i a b l e . I t measures the d i f f e r e n c e between an i n d i v i d u a l i n n e r - c i t y census t r a c t ' s 1971 average h o u s i n g p r i c e and the average p r i c e f o r the e n t i r e i n n e r - c i t y . T a b l e 3 shows e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e z - s c o r e v a r i a b l e i s a n e g a t i v e p r e d i c t o r o f p e r i o d 2 p r i c e change , e s p e c i a l l y the v a l u e z - s c o r e i n the Vancouver mode l . T h i s s u p p o r t s M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f ' s f i n d i n g t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s p r e f e r ne ighbourhoods t h a t o f f e r the b e s t h o u s i n g d e a l (1987) . The second h o u s i n g market e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e i s the change i n average h o u s i n g p r i c e i n p e r i o d 1. There i s l i t t l e c o r r e l a t i o n between p e r i o d 1 i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g 64 p r i c e changes and p e r i o d 2 c h a n g e s . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n t h e Canadian i n n e r - c i t y d i d n o t o c c u r u n t i l t h e 1970s which i s c o r r o b o r a t e d by T a b l e 2. The l i t e r a t u r e contends t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n c r e a s e d female p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e l a b o u r f o r c e (Smi th , 1987; B e r r y , 1985) and an i n c r e a s e i n n o n - c o n f o r m i n g househo lds (Ley , 1985) . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t i n p a r t B o f T a b l e 3, as i n T a b l e 1 f o r c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , " female l a b o u r f o r c e " and "not r e l i g i o u s " c o e f f i c i e n t s have a p o s i t i v e s i g n when r e g r e s s e d as p e r i o d 1 l a g g e d e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s a g a i n s t p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s , y e t have a n e g a t i v e s i g n i n p a r t A o f the t a b l e when r e g r e s s e d as p e r i o d 2 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s a g a i n s t contemporaneous p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s . The most extreme s w i t c h i n s i g n s i s f o r T o r o n t o "not r e l i g i o u s . " As a l a g g e d p e r i o d 1 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t p e r i o d 2 v a l u e , i t s t - s t a t i s t i c i s +4.8; as a contemporaneous v a r i a b l e r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t p e r i o d 2 v a l u e , i t s t - s t a t i s t i c i s - 2 . 5 (Appendix B, page 9 9 ) . I t seems t h a t i n the e a r l i e s t s t a g e o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , b e f o r e h o u s i n g p r i c e s s t a r t e d t o r i s e , T o r o n t o ' s i n n e r - c i t y p r o p o r t i o n o f n o n - c o n f o r m i s t i n d i v i d u a l s r e l a t i v e t o the CMA r o s e . Once moderate r e n o v a t i o n s were made t o t h e h o u s i n g by the f i r s t wave o f g e n t r i f i e r s and p r i c e s s t a r t e d t o r i s e , h i g h e r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c groups were a t t r a c t e d t o the n e i g h b o u r h o o d . T h i s s c e n a r i o conforms t o t h e " s t a g e d g e n t r i f i c a t i o n " r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e ( B e r r y , 1985; 65 Ley, 1985; Melchert and N a r o f f , 1987). I f one assumes t h a t a f f l u e n t "second wave" households are g e n e r a l l y more conforming than l e s s a f f l u e n t " f i r s t wave" ones, then the r i d d l e o f the s w i t c h i n g s i g n i s e x p l a i n e d . Of course, the e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r e d here should be s u b s t a n t i a t e d w i t h data. T a b l e 4 summarizes the r e g r e s s i o n performances o f the c i t i e s . I t compares the a d j u s t e d R 2 s and Fs ( F - s t a t i s t i c from R 2 t e s t ) o f the r e g r e s s i o n s t h a t had e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s from one p e r i o d o n l y . Table 4: Comparison of " B e s t M o d e l " A d j u s t e d R 2 s ( F - s t a t from R^ t e s t i n Parentheses) RENT Indp. V a r i a b l e s i n : P e r i o d 1 Per.2 Rent2 R e n t l Rent2 VALUE Indp. V a r i a b l e s i n : P e r i o d 1 Per.2 Valu2 V a l u l Valu2 3 C i t i e s .14 .38 .30 ( 3 . 6 ) 2 ( 2 0 . ) 2 ( 5 . 9 ) 2 .18 .06 .15 ( 4 . 4 ) 2 ( 3 . 8 ) 1 ( 3 ) 2 Vancouver Ottawa-Hull Toronto .56 (9.2) .39 (3.0) .27 .28 (2.9) .72 (13.) . 39 .64 (6.7) .41 (3.7) .35 .80 .72 84 ( 4 . 3 ) z (9.5)^ (6.6) (1 6 . 6 ) 2 ( 1 3 . ) 2 ( 2 1 ) 2 50 .53 46 ( 5 . 9 ) 2 ( 6 . ) 2 ( 3 . 7 ) 1 .52 .17 .29 ( 2 0 . ) 2 ( 6 . 5 ) 2 ( 4 . 9 ) 2 Note: 1 = s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l 2 = s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 l e v e l Data compiled from Appendix B 66 I f p e r i o d 1 demographic change i s the determinant of p e r i o d 2 p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n i n g e n t r i f y i n g i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods, p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s must s a t i s f y two requirements: F i r s t , p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s must p r e d i c t p r i c e changes i n p e r i o d 2 b e t t e r than they p r e d i c t p r i c e changes i n p e r i o d 1, i . e . , the R 2 s and Fs i n columns 1 and 4 o f the t a b l e must exceed those i n columns 2 and 5 r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s would e s t a b l i s h t h a t p e r i o d 1 demographics are not merely the a f f e c t o f p e r i o d 1 p r i c e movements t h a t continued i n t o p e r i o d 2. Second, p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s must p r e d i c t p r i c e changes i n p e r i o d 2 b e t t e r than p e r i o d 2 demographic v a r i a b l e s do, i . e . , the R 2 s and Fs i n columns 1 and 4 of the t a b l e must exceed those i n columns 3 and 6 r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s would i n d i c a t e t h a t p e r i o d 2 p r i c e changes were e f f e c t e d by lagged demographics i n p e r i o d 1 r a t h e r than by contemporaneous demographics i n p e r i o d 2. T a b l e 4 shows t h a t these two requirements a r e f u l f i l l e d c o n v i n c i n g l y when v a l u e i s r e g r e s s e d f o r Toronto. The p r e d i c t i v e , c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between lagged demographic change i n the l a t e 1960s and d w e l l i n g v a l u e i n c r e a s e i n the e a r l y 1970s i n Toronto m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the c o n c l u s i o n from c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s : Future housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e s can be p r e d i c t e d by o b s e r v i n g which neighbourhoods are b e g i n n i n g demographic change as the f i r s t wave of g e n t r i f i e r s move i n . As s t a t e d i n the d i s c u s s i o n on c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , 67 the model i s s u c c e s s f u l f o r Toronto but not f o r Vancouver and Ottawa because the l a g between the s t a r t o f Toronto i n n e r - c i t y demographic t r a n s i t i o n and subsequent house p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n c o i n c i d e s w i t h the time p e r i o d boundary i n the model. The s t a r t o f Vancouver and Ottawa demographic change was i n the same time p e r i o d i n t h e model as housing p r i c e change was so the l a g was not d e t e c t e d . Why does the model work w e l l f o r Toronto house p r i c e s but not f o r Toronto r e n t s ? To answer, one must move from o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s t o s u b j e c t i v e c o n j e c t u r e . The answer i s pro b a b l y a two-part one. F i r s t , r e n t c o n t r o l s l i m i t e d the i n c r e a s e i n r e n t s i n the 1970s. Ta b l e 2 shows t h a t Toronto v a l u e s i n the 1970s rose r e l a t i v e t o the CMA by 64% but r e n t s rose by on l y 29%. Rent c o n t r o l s are not e n t i r e l y the answer, however, because even i f c o n t r o l s had a t t e n u a t e d r e n t i n c r e a s e s , p e r i o d 1 demographics should be a b l e t o p r e d i c t p e r i o d 2 r e n t s b e t t e r than p e r i o d 2 demographics which i s not the case i n Table 4. P a r t 2 of the answer might be t h a t Toronto i n n e r - c i t y r e n t s s t a r t e d t o respond e a r l y i n p e r i o d 2 t o l a t e p e r i o d 1 demographics and i n c r e a s e d g r e a t e r than CMA r e n t s . Landlords, responding t o i n c r e a s e d revenues, would have i n c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e — r e c a l l the economic d i s c u s s i o n i n Chapter 3. Increased maintenance would have improved the housing i n the e a r l y 1970s; h i g h e r socio-economic groups would then have been a t t r a c t e d t o the c i t y c e n t r e . Due t o the r e i n f o r c i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between demographic change and 68 housing p r i c e change, what the model d e t e c t s as a s t r o n g e r c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h p e r i o d 2 r e n t s by p e r i o d 2 demographics than p e r i o d 1 demographics i s probably because p e r i o d 2 r e n t i n c r e a s e s , sparked by p e r i o d 1 demographic changes, r e i n f o r c e d the demographic change i n p e r i o d 2 t h a t had s t a r t e d i n p e r i o d 1. The c o n c l u s i o n s from m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s t a t e d thus f a r must be s l i g h t l y q u a l i f i e d . As noted i n T a b l e 3, t h e r e was no e x c e s s i v e m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y when Toronto p e r i o d 2 housing p r i c e s were r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t p e r i o d 1 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s but t h e r e was m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y i n some of the o t h e r r e g r e s s i o n s . M u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y was c o n s i d e r e d t o be e x c e s s i v e when the c o r r e l a t i o n between any two s i g n i f i c a n t e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i n a r e g r e s s i o n was g r e a t e r than e i t h e r ' s c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the dependent v a r i a b l e (Ott and H i l d e b r a n d , 1983). C o r r e l a t i o n t a b l e s are i n Appendix A. E x p l a n a t o r y V a r i a b l e s from bo th P e r i o d s P o o l e d : Table 5 i s a summary of the "Best Model" r e g r e s s i o n s o f p e r i o d 2 housing p r i c e s a g a i n s t pooled p e r i o d 1 and 2 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s (Appendix C). The t a b l e shows which demographic v a r i a b l e s from which time p e r i o d had r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t t - s t a t i s t i c s . When a demographic v a r i a b l e from both p e r i o d s was s i g n i f i c a n t , the t a b l e i n d i c a t e s which time p e r i o d had the g r e a t e r t -s t a t i s t i c . The o b j e c t of the t a b l e i s t o determine which o f the two time p e r i o d s ' demographics had the s t r o n g e r i n f l u e n c e on p e r i o d 2 p r i c e changes. 69 Table 5: Summary: Hulti p l e Regression of Period 2 Gentrif i c a t i o n against Pooled Period 1 and 2 Demographic Explanatory Variables A) A l l 8 Demographic Explanatory Variables Included 3 C i t i e s Vancouver Ottawa Toronto Rent Value Rent Value Rent Value Rent Value Demographic Variables University education 1 2 2>1 1>2 2 20-34 year olds 2 1>2 2>1 2 Not religious 2 1 1>2 2 1 Non-family households 1>2 1>2 1 1>2 1 Children per family 2 1 1 2 2 1 1>2 Professional occupations 1>2 2>1 1>2 1>2 2 2>1 Female labour force 2 1 2>1 2>1 Female prof, occupations 1>2 1 1 2>1 1>2 Dominating Period: P1 P1 P1 7 PI P2 P2 P1 Housing Market Variables Rent/Value 1 1 1971 rent/value z-score 1 1 1 1 B) Best 4 Demographic Explanatory Variables Only Explanatory Variables Not religious Children per family Professional occupations Female labour force Dominating Period: 3 C i t i e s Rent Value 2 2 2 P2 P2 Vancouver Ottawa Rent Value Rent Value 2 2 1 1 1>2 1>2 P1 PI Toronto Rent Value 2 1 1>2 1 PI P1 Legend: 1 = Only period 1 beta coefficient s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level 2 = Only period 2 beta co e f f i c i e n t s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level 1>2 = Period 1 and 2 beta c o e f f i c i e n t s both s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level but period 1 t - s t a t i s t i c > period 2 t - s t a t i s t i c 2>1 = Period 1 and 2 beta c o e f f i c i e n t s both s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level but period 2 t - s t a t i s t i c > period 1 t - s t a t i s t i c Data compiled from Appendix C. P a r t A of the t a b l e i s r e g r e s s i o n s t h a t i n c l u d e a l l e i g h t demographic v a r i a b l e s from both p e r i o d s . Because the l a r g e number of e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s l e f t few remaining degrees of f r e e d o m — e s p e c i a l l y i n the Ottawa and Vancouver m o d e l s — a second s e t of r e g r e s s i o n s was run. The second r e g r e s s i o n s used f o u r demographic v a r i a b l e s o n l y . The v a r i a b l e s chosen were the f o u r most c o n s i s t e n t c o r r e l a t e s t o housing p r i c e s throughout c o r r e l a t i o n and one p e r i o d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . The r e s u l t s from the second s e t of the r e g r e s s i o n s are summarized i n p a r t B o f the t a b l e . C o n c l u s i o n s drawn from Ta b l e 5 are tenuous a t b e s t but do c o r r o b o r a t e those from c o r r e l a t i o n and o n e - p e r i o d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . F i r s t , the v a l u e z-score was a s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e p r e d i c t o r of p e r i o d 2 house p r i c e i n c r e a s e s f o r a l l t h r e e c i t i e s . T h i s supports M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s p r e f e r neighbourhoods t h a t o f f e r a good housing buy. Second, p e r i o d 2 house p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n Toronto c e n t r a l neighbourhoods were predominantly the r e s u l t of demographic t r a n s i t i o n d u r i n g p e r i o d 1, not p e r i o d 2 . T h i s f a c t supports the l i t e r a t u r e ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e i s a l a g between the s t a r t of demographic t r a n s i t i o n i n a g e n t r i f y i n g neighbourhood and r i s i n g housing p r i c e s . Comparison Between Models: One f i n a l t e s t t o determine i f p e r i o d 1 demographic changes can be s t a t i s t i c a l l y shown t o p r e d i c t p e r i o d 2 housing p r i c e 7 1 i n c r e a s e s i s the "complete and reduced model comparison" t e s t . The t e s t determines whether the a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i n a complete r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n t h a t a re not i n a reduced form o f the eq u a t i o n have a s i g n i f i c a n t a f f e c t on the unadjusted R 2, i . e . , whether the increment t o R 2 i s s i g n i f i c a n t when adding t h e a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s t o the reduced model. The t e s t i s an F - t e s t . There are t h r e e models i n t h i s t h e s i s t h a t p r e d i c t p e r i o d 2 housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e s : Model 1: p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s from p e r i o d 1 o n l y . Model 2: p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s from p e r i o d 2 o n l y . Model 3: p e r i o d 2 p r i c e s r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s from p e r i o d s 1 and 2 combined. Models 1 and 2 are reduced forms o f Model 3. Model 3 c o n t a i n s a l l the p e r i o d 1 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s t h a t are i n Model 1 p l u s p e r i o d 2 ex p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s not i n Model 1. S i m i l a r l y , Model 3 c o n t a i n s a l l the p e r i o d 2 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s t h a t are i n Model 2 p l u s p e r i o d 1 e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s not i n Model 2. Table 6 shows the F - t e s t s t a t i s t i c s f o r the inc r e m e n t a l R 2 s between the two reduced models and the complete one when p e r i o d 2 v a l u e i s r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t the ex p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s (see Appendix D f o r F - s t a t i s t i c c a l c u l a t i o n s ) . I f lagged p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s are p r e d i c t o r s o f p e r i o d 2 housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e s but 72 T a b l e 6: F - S t a t Comparison of Value2 R e g r e s s i o n R^s:  Complete vs Reduced Models (.05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s i n parentheses) 3 C i t i e s Vancver Ottawa Toronto Model 3 vs 1.70 .56 .94 6.04 Model 2 (2.05) (239) (239) (2.25) Model 3 vs 2.31 .75 .99 1.10 Model 1 (2.05) (239) (239) (2.25) Data from Appendix D contemporaneous p e r i o d 2 demographic v a r i a b l e s a re not, then two c o n d i t i o n s i n Table 6 should be met: F i r s t , the i n c r e a s e i n the unadjusted R 2 when p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s are added t o Model 2 ( p e r i o d 2 demographic v a r i a b l e s only) t o make Model 3 ( p e r i o d 1 and 2 demographic v a r i a b l e s combined) must be s i g n i f i c a n t , i . e . , t he F - s t a t s i n t he f i r s t row of Table 6 must be s i g n i f i c a n t . Second, the i n c r e a s e i n the unadjusted R 2 when p e r i o d 2 demographic v a r i a b l e s are added t o Model 1 ( p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s only) t o make Model 3 must be i n s i g n i f i c a n t , i . e . , t he F - s t a t s i n the second row of T a b l e 6 must be i n s i g n i f i c a n t . The Toronto data i n Tab l e 6 c o r r o b o r a t e s the c o n c l u s i o n from c o r r e l a t i o n and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . The i n c r e a s e i n the unadjusted R 2 from adding p e r i o d 2 demographic exp l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s t o p e r i o d 1 v a r i a b l e s when p r e d i c t i n g p e r i o d 2 housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . The converse, however, i s s i g n i f i c a n t 73 (adding p e r i o d 1 v a r i a b l e s t o p e r i o d 2 ones). In o t h e r words, p e r i o d 1 demographic v a r i a b l e s are much s t r o n g e r p r e d i c t o r s of p e r i o d 2 Toronto d w e l l i n g v a l u e i n c r e a s e s than p e r i o d 2 demographic v a r i a b l e s a r e . CHAPTER SUMMARY T h i s chapter p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o f the i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n m o d el—and e x t e n s i o n s — t h a t i s d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 4 . The c o n c l u s i o n s from the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n t h i s c h apter are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ( d e f i n e d i n the model as i n c r e a s e d i n n e r -c i t y housing p r i c e s r e l a t i v e t o the CMA) i s p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n c r e a s e s i n the p r o p o r t i o n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l / t e c h n i c a l / a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o c c u p a t i o n s , female l a b o u r f o r c e , and non-conformist i n d i v i d u a l s ( p r o x i e d by not r e l i g i o u s ) i n the c i t y c e n t r e . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d t o i n c r e a s e s i n the number of c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y r e l a t i v e t o the CMA. Second, t h i s study c o r r o b o r a t e s M e l c h e r t and N a r o f f ' s f i n d i n g t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s are a t t r a c t e d t o neighbourhoods t h a t o f f e r a good housing buy. T h i r d , the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f Toronto g e n t r i f i c a t i o n supports the l i t e r a t u r e ' s c l a i m t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a two-staged p r o c e s s . The f i r s t stage i s the s t a r t of demographic change i n a c e n t r a l neighbourhood; the second stage i s the a f f e c t o f the f i r s t s t a g e : r i s i n g 74 housing p r i c e s . F ourth, and of paramount i n t e r e s t t o t h i s t h e s i s , the a n a l y s i s i n t h i s chapter shows s t a t i s t i c a l l y — a t l e a s t f o r T o r o n t o — w h a t the l i t e r a t u r e has o n l y been a b l e t o imply: f u t u r e housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e s can be p r e d i c t e d by o b s e r v i n g which c i t y c e n t r e neighbourhoods are s t a r t i n g demographic change as young, well-educated, c h i l d l e s s c o u p l es and s i n g l e CBD employees b e g i n t o move i n . The f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s c h apter i s e x t r a p o l a t e d from the data. Based on the chronology of events i n Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver, the l a g between the s t a r t o f demographic change i n a g e n t r i f y i n g neighbourhood and the s t a r t of housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e i s between 0 t o 4 y e a r s — p r o b a b l y l e s s than 4 y e a r s . 7 5 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY/ CAVEATS, AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY T h i s t h e s i s uses c o r r e l a t i o n and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s t o show t h a t f u t u r e housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n g e n t r i f y i n g c i t y - c e n t r e neighbourhoods can be p r e d i c t e d by ob s e r v i n g which o f these neighbourhoods a re b e g i n n i n g t o undergo demographic change, the f i r s t phase o f g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Chapter 2 reviewed the g e n t r i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a post-1970 urban phenomenon. I n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods t h a t had t r a d i t i o n a l l y been the domain o f lower-income, b l u e - c o l l a r households l i v i n g i n f i l t e r e d , i n e x p e n s i v e housing became popu l a r among higher-income groups. As a consequence, the p r i c e o f housing was b i d up i n these neighbourhoods and the housing s t o c k was r e h a b i l i t a t e d . The consensus i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t t he new urban "gentry" are t y p i c a l l y the young, upwardly mobile s i n g l e s and c h i l d l e s s couples. T h e o r i e s t o e x p l a i n why i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods became favoured by t h i s group can be c a t e g o r i z e d as f o l l o w s : demographic, economic, urban a m e n i t i e s , and housing market. Demographic reasons l i s t e d i n t he l i t e r a t u r e t o have s t i m u l a t e d demand f o r i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods i n the 1970s i n c l u d e t he mat u r a t i o n o f the baby boom cohort, the r e d u c t i o n o f household s i z e , and 7 6 urban sprawl. The growth i n CBD employment i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the decrease and s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n o f manufacturing employment made the p r o x i m i t y o f i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods d e s i r a b l e f o r w h i t e - c o l l a r workers. Changing l i f e s t y l e s , e s p e c i a l l y t he i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d l e s s two-income f a m i l i e s , favoured neighbourhoods c l o s e t o urban a m e n i t i e s . The 1970s housing market and a widening r e n t gap made i n n e r -c i t y reinvestment p r o f i t a b l e . Government p o l i c y a l s o i n f l u e n c e d g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Chapter 3 d i s c u s s e d g e n t r i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n an economic framework. On the demand s i d e , the r e c e n t d e s i r a b i l i t y of i n n e r - c i t y housing by h i g h e r income groups b i d s up the p r i c e o f housing i n c e n t r a l neighbourhoods. On the supply s i d e , p r o f i t maximizing l a n d l o r d s i n these g e n t r i f y i n g neighbourhoods respond t o the p r i c e - i n d u c e d i n c r e a s e i n the margi n a l b e n e f i t s o f maintenance by i n c r e a s i n g the flow o f maintenance c a p i t a l . As a r e s u l t , the housing s t o c k i n g e n t r i f y i n g neighbourhoods i s r e h a b i l i t a t e d . Chapter 4 d e s c r i b e s the r e g r e s s i o n model c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h i s t h e s i s t o p r e d i c t i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n Canada. The model i s based on the premise t h a t , as the l i t e r a t u r e c l a i m s , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n f o l l o w s a l o g i s t i c S-curve so t h e r e i s a l a g between the i n i t i a l demographic change i n an i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhood t h a t i s g e n t r i f y i n g and t h e r i s e i n housing p r i c e s . I f the l i t e r a t u r e i s c o r r e c t , then one can p r e d i c t which i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods w i l l have f u t u r e p r i c e i n c r e a s e s by 77 o b s e r v i n g which ones are s t a r t i n g t o have demographic change as the young, well-educated, c h i l d l e s s CBD workers s t a r t t o move i n . The sample f o r the model i s 95 census t r a c t s c o m p r i s i n g the i n n e r - c i t i e s of Vancouver, Ottawa-Hull, and Toronto. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s d e f i n e d as an i n c r e a s e i n housing p r i c e s g r e a t e r than the CMA i n c r e a s e . The change i n a census t r a c t ' s average r e n t and d w e l l i n g v a l u e r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change d u r i n g the p e r i o d from 1971 t o 1981 i s r e g r e s s e d a g a i n s t the change i n e i g h t demographic v a r i a b l e s and two housing market v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i v e t o the CMA change d u r i n g the p e r i o d 1961 t o 1971. Chapter 5 pr e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of the i n t r a - u r b a n g e n t r i f i c a t i o n model d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 4. The c o n c l u s i o n s from the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n ( d e f i n e d i n the model as i n c r e a s e d i n n e r - c i t y housing p r i c e s r e l a t i v e t o the CMA) i s p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n c r e a s e s i n the p r o p o r t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l / t e c h n i c a l / a d m i n i s t r a t i v e occupations, female l a b o u r f o r c e , and non-conformist i n d i v i d u a l s ( proxied by not r e l i g i o u s ) i n the c i t y c e n t r e . G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d t o i n c r e a s e s i n the number of c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y r e l a t i v e t o the CMA. Second, Melchert and N a r o f f ' s f i n d i n g t h a t g e n t r i f i e r s p r e f e r i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods t h a t o f f e r a good housing d e a l i s supported by t h i s a n a l y s i s . T h i r d , the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s s u p p o r t s — a t l e a s t i n 78 T o r o n t o — t h e l i t e r a t u r e ' s c l a i m t h a t g e n t r i f i c a t i o n i s a two-staged p r o c e s s . The f i r s t stage i s the s t a r t o f demographic change i n a c e n t r a l neighbourhood; t h e second stage i s the a f f e c t of the f i r s t stage: r i s i n g h o using p r i c e s . Of paramount i n t e r e s t t o t h i s t h e s i s , the a n a l y s i s i n Chapter 5 shows t h a t f u t u r e housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e s can be p r e d i c t e d — i n Toronto a t l e a s t — b y o b s e r v i n g which c i t y c e n t r e neighbourhoods are s t a r t i n g demographic change as young, well-educated, c h i l d l e s s couples and s i n g l e CBD employees begin t o move i n . The model works w e l l f o r Toronto because the l a g between the s t a r t o f demographic change and house p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n i n c e n t r a l Toronto c o i n c i d e s w i t h the boundary between p e r i o d 1 and p e r i o d 2 i n the model. Ottawa and Vancouver l a g s are not d e t e c t e d because both events ( s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n and s t a r t o f p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n ) seem t o occur i n p e r i o d 2. Based on the chronology of events i n Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver, the l a g between the s t a r t o f demographic change i n a g e n t r i f y i n g neighbourhood and the s t a r t o f housing p r i c e i n c r e a s e i s between 0 t o 4 y e a r s . CAVEATS A fundamental assumption on which the model i n t h i s t h e s i s i s based i s t h a t r i s i n g i n n e r - c i t y housing p r i c e s r e l a t i v e t o the CMA i n d i c a t e s g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . The assumed r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s i n g p r i c e s and g e n t r i f i c a t i o n may 79 not always h o l d t r u e . Furthermore, the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n t h i s t h e s i s must be q u a l i f i e d because of the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the d a t a . The major l i m i t a t i o n i s t h a t the data i s i n t e n - y e a r p e r i o d s . Although t h e r e i s a m i n i census every f i v e y e a r s , much of the demographic i n f o r m a t i o n and a l l o f t h e housing p r i c e i n f o r m a t i o n i s excluded. G e n t r i f i c a t i o n , a post-1970 phenomenon, i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighbourhood demographics and neighbourhood housing p r i c e s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p would be b e t t e r a n a l y z e d by i n c r e a s i n g the number o f p e r i o d s examined w h i l e d e c r e a s i n g the number of y e a r s per p e r i o d . Another l i m i t a t i o n o f the data i s the use o f p r i c e per room f o r comparing housing p r i c e s o f the i n n e r - c i t y t o those of the CMA as a whole. One would expect t h a t d w e l l i n g s i n the suburbs are l a r g e r than d w e l l i n g s i n the c i t y c e n t r e . The proper measure when comparing d i f f e r e n t s i z e d d w e l l i n g s i s by the p r i c e p er square f o o t . D w e l l i n g s i z e i s not r e p o r t e d i n the census so p r i c e p e r room i s used as a s u b s t i t u t e i n the model. The t h i r d problem with the data i s t h a t r e n t c o n t r o l s were i n s t i t u t e d i n Canada i n 1975. Rent c o n t r o l s probably a t t e n u a t e the response by r e n t s t o demographic change. CONCLUSION Although the model i s handicapped by the t h r e e data l i m i t a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d above, the model does work. 80 F i r s t , i t produces the a n t i c i p a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n s between demographic v a r i a b l e s and r i s i n g housing p r i c e s i n the g e n t r i f i e d i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods of Toronto, Vancouver, and Ottawa-Hull. S e c o n d — f o r Toronto a t l e a s t — t h e model d e t e c t s the l a g between the s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n and the s t a r t o f r i s i n g p r i c e s . Improving the frequency and q u a l i t y o f the data w i l l , undoubtedly, hone the model's s e n s i t i v i t y t o changing demographics and changing housing p r i c e s . With more fr e q u e n t data, the l a g i n Vancouver and Ottawa s h o u l d be d e t e c t e d . As w e l l , a more a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e o f t h e l a g ' s l e n g t h c o u l d be made. Nev e r t h e l e s s , the i n t r a - u r b a n model p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s does s t a t i s t i c a l l y show what the l i t e r a t u r e has so f a r o n l y been a b l e t o imply: S i n c e t h e r e i s a l a g between the s t a r t o f demographic t r a n s i t i o n i n a g e n t r i f y i n g i n n e r -c i t y neighbourhood and the consequent r i s e i n housing p r i c e s , one can p r e d i c t which i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods w i l l g e n t r i f y and have f u t u r e p r i c e i n c r e a s e s by o b s e r v i n g which ones are undergoing demographic change as young, w e l l educated, CBD employed s i n g l e s and c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s begin t o move i n . The lagged r e l a t i o n s h i p i s demonstrated s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n the Toronto model. 81 R E F E R E N C E S Apgar, W.; Kain, J.(1979) "Modeling Neighbourhood Change", The Economics o f Neighbourhood, ed. David Segal (New York: Academic Press) Beauregard, R.; Holcomb, H. (1981). R e v i t a l i z i n g C i t i e s . (Wasington, D.C.: A s s o c i a t i o n o f American Geographers) Berry, B. (1980). "Inner C i t y F u t u r e s : an American Dilemma R e v i s i t e d , " The I n s t i t u t e o f B r i t i s h Geographers. (Oxford: Alden Press) Berry, B. (1985). " I s l a n d s o f Renewal i n Seas o f Decay," The New Urban R e a l i t y , ed. Paul E. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings I n s t i t u t e ) Brown, M.; Burke, D (1979). The Canadian Inner C i t y . 1971- 1976: A S t a t i s t i c a l Handbook. (Ottawa: CMHC) Clapp, (1977) "Urban Land Use S u c c e s s i o n Under R i s k " , Urban  S t u d i e s . (Harlow, Essex: Longman) CMHC; (1988). From an i n t e r v i e w w i t h Mr. Helmut P a s t r i c k , R e g i o n a l Economist, Vancouver o f f i c e Cohen, (1981). "The New I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i v i s i o n o f Labour, M u l t i n a t i o n a l C o r p o r a t i o n s and Urban H i e r a r c h y , " U r b a n i z a t i o n and Urban P l a n n i n g i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t y . (New York: Methuen) Gale, D. (1984). Neighbourhood R e v i t a l i z a t i o n and the  P o s t i n d u s t r i a l C i t y . (Toronto: L e x i n g t o n Books) Goldberg and Mercer (1979). "Canadian and U.S. C i t i e s : B a s i c D i f f e r e n c e s , P o s s i b l e E x p l a n a t i o n s , and t h e i r Meaning f o r P u b l i c P o l i c y , " The Re g i o n a l S c i e n c e  A s s o c i a t i o n Papers, ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e As.) Hamnett, C. (1984). " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n and R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n Theory: A Review and Assessment", Geography and  the Urban Environment. (John Wiley & Sons Ltd) Henderson, V. (1977) Economic Theory and the C i t i e s . (New York: Academic Press) Chapter 6 Lang, M. (1982). G e n t r i f i c a t i o n Amid Urban D e c l i n e , (Cambridge: B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g ) Laska, Seaman, and McSeveney, (1982). " I n n e r - C i t y Reinvestment: Neighbourhood C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and S p a t i a l P a t t e r n s Over Time", Urban S t u d i e s (Essex: Longman) 82 9 Ley, D. (1983). A S o c i a l Geography of the C i t y . (New York: Harper & Row) Ley, D. (1985). G e n t r i f i c a t i o n i n Canadian Inner C i t i e s , (CMHC) Ley, D. (1986) . " A l t e r n a t i v e E x p l a n a t i o n s f o r I n n e r - C i t y G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : A Canadian Assessment," Annals o f the  A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers. Vol.76, No.4 Ley, D. (1987). " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n : A Ten Year Overview", C i t y  Magazine. (Winnipeg: P o l i s P u b l i s h i n g ) V o l . 9 , No.l London; Lee; L i p t o n ; (1986) "Determinants o f G e n r i f i c a t i o n i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s " , Urban A f f a i r s Q u a r t e r l y (London: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s ) London, B.; Palen, J . eds (1984). G e n t r i f i c a t i o n . Displacement, and Neighbourhood R e v i t a l i z a t i o n , (Albany: S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of New York) Lowry, I. (1960) " F i l t e r i n g and Housing Standards: A Conceptual A n a l y s i s , " Land Economics. (Madison, Wisconsin: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin) M e l c h e r t ; N a r o f f ; (1987) " C e n t r a l C i t y R e v i t a l i z a t i o n : A P r e d i c t i v e Model", AREUEA J o u r n a l f Vol.15, No.l M i l l s , (1972) S t u d i e s i n the S t r u c t u r e of the Urban Economy Chapter 3 Muth, (1969) C i t i e s and Housing, (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press) O t t ; H i l d e b r a n d ; (1983) S t a t i s t i c a l T h i n k i n g f o r Managers, (Boston: Duxbury Press) Smith, N. (1982) " G e n t r i f i c a t i o n and Uneven Development," Economic Geography. V58 N2 Smith, N.; W i l l i a m s , P., eds. (1986). G e n t r i f i c a t i o n of the  C i t y . (Boston: A l l e n & Unwin) Smith, N. (1987) "Of yuppies and housing: g e n t r i f i c a t i o n , s o c i a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g , and the urban dream", S o c i e t y and  Space (London: Pion Ltd.) Short, J . (1984) An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Urban Geography, (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul) Vancouver Real E s t a t e Board, (1981) "Monthly S t a t i s t i c s " Warner, Sam Bass (1962) S t r e e t c a r Suburbs (Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press) 83 APPENDIX A Table 7: Correlation Matrix, 3 C i t i e s Combined li-eu o *» 01 r-. in cc oowmm m —t — O O O O 2 . . . u_ *- OOM^-W or oO'-N'-n a) _j «- o o o o o 2 . . . . Ii. CM O <M O T "*f O <j O *- c*> r*. m O U_ — O O O O O O cc . . . . a. — otvimo^ Ncoco o LL — o o o o o o o cc . . . a. o^ fT-rvnonoico CM o^ wovnw -^o _j - - o o o o o o o o x (_> — OO wtnw»-0(n^ n Q _l — O O O O O O O O O x u CM o*-CDMWo>inini-eoo (/) on--'•ONCMOO'-cy x 2 — o o o o o o o o o o 11. . . . . . . . Z •- owM^otoinoKflinoin cn o (\in-oon •-(vjO'-ty x ZE — o o o o o o o o o o o u. . . . . . . . z wooi'HosvcooW'-now OO-ONOWnNi-ONyn _l C C ' - O O O O O O O O O O O O o . . . . z — omsofoim'-NONOino CD oftiw—^ t(\in'-mon^ ''~r-cr — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . . . . . z orKOOO'-rinNorowoioo) OOf'-ONM'-^ OWONP)'-C\J LU - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C3 . . . . . . . •< OMmOinOffl'-CT-fNinQCVJN ui --o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o •< CM ow'jN^ ninioainoO'-iocouif cn oc\i'womooc\inor-c\imO'«»roc\* cc > — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o z • . . . . . . •— om--no)'-o)t*>^ ci)(\J<DU)«)'#N(\i<D cn oO'-^ -^oo-ciD'-ni'-inO'- >-cr > — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o z . . . , . 13 *- Ovjnwoooi^ o'^ iO'-oiO'-innfvj Ul O CM * - O O — O O O r- w r~ m O — O O 13 _J - - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O <£ . . . . > cu o«<ofn(\iin'-wcnv<j)(\it-«»-iD'-0(\i<o UJ oo-owo<vNoO'-«tnoNt-N''(no =3 _t O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O •< • . > — o — f^ '"'-f^ *-u>»-'_o^ tcMm — racum — »— z <-a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Ul cr Oioin-O'-incorxjiDforocooi'-MciviocKDn OJOO'—— rnO*-'—OOOOrocuroo*-0*"~'—O I— Z ' - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O UJ * . . . . cr CM •- *- CV - - N - W T -CM--CU*-CM>-> CM «- LU iu </i co cjjocotn — OJCJOCCCCUOOO t-t-DDaa-NjjjiOQOOmajooNN zz_i_i>>a)uia:a:22jJiLU i _» ce cc v- • -tutu<<zzoc)OOu.u.iiQ:a:22a.a.(/iui ca:>>3D<<zzz2uuio.iLinm.o:> APPENDIX A Table 8: Correlation Coefficients for Rent and Value. 3 C i t i e s Combined ( t - s t a t i s t i c s in parentheses) ALL 3 CITIES: n = 95 inner-city census tracts Independent Variables in Period 1 Indep. Var. in Per. 2 Cor. Hiqher With RENT2 Cor. Hiqher With RENT1 RENT2 RENT2 RENT1 RENT2 RENT1 UNVRS1 .18 ( 1.8) .42 ( 4.4)" UNVRS2 .31 ( 3.1V AGE1 .05 ( 0.5) .34 ( 3.5)" AGE2 .18 ( 1.8) N0RLG1 .12 ( 1.2) .56 ( 6.5)" N0RLG2 .06 ( 0.5) NFMHS1 .03 ( 0.3) .15 ( 1.4) NFHHS2 -.03 (-0.2) CHLD1 -.08 (-0.1) -.40 (-4.2)" CHLD2 -.39 (-4.1)' PRF0C1 .21 ( 2.0)' .52 ( 5.8)" PRF0C2 .33 ( 3.4) FHLBR1 -.03 (-0.3) .23 ( 2.3)' FHLBR2 .14 ( 1.3) FPR0C1 .06 ( 0.5) .34 ( 3.4)" FPR0C2 .18 ( 1.7) RSTZDV -.16 (-1.6) n/a n/a n/a RENT1 -.05 (-0.5) n/a n/a n/a Independent Variables i n Period 1 Indep. Var. in Per. 2 Cor. Higher With VALUE2 Cor. Higher With VALUE1  VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 UNVRS1 .16 ( 1-5) .24 ( 2-4)' UNVRS2 -.03 (-0-3) NFHHS1 -.09 (-0.9) .09 ( 0.9) NFMHS2 -.04 (-0.4) AGE1 .22 ( 2.2)' .03 ( 0.3) AGE2 .05 ( 0.5) NORLG1 .21 ( 2.0)' .10 ( 1.0) NORLG2 -.22 (-2.2) CHLD1 -.19 ( -1.8) -.16 (-1.6) CHLD2 -.22 (-2.1) PRFOC1 .31 ( 3.2)" .16 ( 1.5) PRFOC2 -.04 (-0.4) FMLBR1 .21 ( 2.0)' .09 ( 0.9) FMLBR2 -.20 (-1.6) FPR0C1 .21 ( 2.0)' .11 ( 1.0) FPROC2 -.10 (-1.0) VSTZDV -.06 ( -0.6) n/a n/a n/a VALUE1 -.02 ( -0.2) n/a n/a n/a = Significant at the .05 level = Significant at the .01 level APPENDIX A Table 9: Correlation Matrix. Vancouver CM O 1^  V ID Ol Ql O f"1 '— CO ID CQ ^ — O O O O LL — O CO lO — O CX O O " O Ul v CD ^ — o o o o o u_ cvj o N (D f"i CD n O) CJ o in ^ (o v »-O u_ —oooooo cr . . . Q_ *- Ocn — omunmcD O U- — o o o o o o o CL OrifOiifiWOOn Q ^ —oooooooo O o o o w o j i n T f m u j o — oon--^ -nooinv Q —I —ooooooooo X • • . . . CM o -co tn inu iN ' j in — in CO o cu — m o O —- T n n X 2 —oooooooooo u_ . . . . . . . 2 •~ OOOCOioO*-- to r*. m •— CO o"iwnomo - if^ OM x 2 —ooooooooooo LL . . . . . . . CM O — "Of^ OCDMlOlflcyoirl O O O OJCMO—(MCn-srO — m _J C  — OOOOOOOOOOOO O • • . . . . . 2 — OOf^cN-CvirnflonoiDn _» CC —ooooooooooooo o . . . . . . z CM ai — oooooooooooooo o . . . . . . . <: OOUl-DOWWl/lrlifi'-MOnw LU *-o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o • OJ ocoowN.nvr~o^oi^ifi(0(ono </l o — twryn«-rnr- o 10 ^  m o to cc > --oooooooooooooooo z ID — 0<OOOinK(\j(0--r-.r)cOiflOa)--ri-<f t/i om^OrKMi-n-ONTT'-ioinri C  > —ooooooooooooooooo z . . . 3 — owoir-'q-air-ncocniaoicor-. w v N n »i LU o^Or_0,_vt\jnri(D,-inuiniooO(\J 13 _J —oooooooooooooooooo < . . . . . . . . > CM OCDO>Or*1(M'-'».<fl',lTj'TfiOfslsrnc\Jr-0) 3 _j —ooooooooooooooooooo -« . . . . . . , >• oin,-Ou>iD^ owin^ wo)(DOiMO><oin cu >— 00<MOJOOOJ*-«-OOLOOO"-*OWO — (OCVJ t  z — o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o LU C  O'--Ma>Oft)^ e\)i^ Nt»Nrd»-OWC00>c0<DiP woiflN'-iow«-oo,-'-fl1wwfononioinpi>-2*-000000000000000000000 ( M •— •— CM —try — C\J —c\j — cu — co>> CM — LU Ul (/l (71 OCK/1  ^  WUUCCUU DO h- I— D a^tt'-NjJlIQQOOm OOONN zzj_j>>iuuj(rmi_i-iii.u j_icrair-t— LUUJ<<ZZ(JC3OOLLU-XXCCCCa20.CLC/lCn ao:>>D3«<<zzz2uu .aij.iJ.iLu. r> APPENDIX A Table 10: Correlation Coefficients for Rent and Value. Vancouver ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) VANCOUVER: n = 20 inner-city census tracts Independent Variables in Period 1 Indep. Var. in Per. 2 Cor. Higher With RENT2 Cor. Higher With RENT1 RENT2 RENT1 RENT2 RENT1 RENT2 N0RLG1 .02 ( 0.7) -.10 (-0.4) N0RLG2 -.17 (-0.8) NFMHS1 -.17 (-0.7) .05 ( 0.2) NFHHS2 -.39 (-1.8) CHLD1 .27 ( 1.2) -.52 (-2.6)' CHLD2 -.22 (-0.9) FMLBR1 -.02 (-0.1) .02 ( 0.1) FMLBR2 .38 ( 1.7) UNVRS1 .57 ( 3.1)" -.20 (-0.9) UNVRS2 .30 ( 1.3) AGE1 .12 ( 0.5) .06 ( 0.3) AGE2 .07 ( 0.3) PRF0C1 .31 ( 1.1) .06 ( 0.3) PRF0C2 .40 ( 1.8) FPROC1 .09 ( 0.4) .06 ( 0.2) FPR0C2 .58 ( 3.0)" RSTZDV -.38 (-1.7) n/a n/a n/a RENT1 -.51 (-2.5)' n/a n/a n/a Independent Variables in Period 1 Indep. Var. in Per. 2 Cor. Hiqher With VALUE2 Cor. Hiqher With VALUE1 VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 FPR0C1 .03 ( 0.1) -.64 (-3.5)" FPR0C2 .12 ( 0.5) NORLG1 .02 ( 0.1) -.18 (-0.8) N0RLG2 -.11 (-0.5) CHLD1 -.03 (-0.1) -.39 (-1.8) CHLD2 -.14 (-0.6) PRF0C1 -.14 (-0.6) -.19 (-0.8) PRF0C2 .36 ( 1.7) UNVRS1 .39 ( 1.8) .32 ( 1.4) UNVRS2 .20 ( 0.8) AGE1 -.27 (-1.2) -.17 (-0.7) AGE2 .24 ( 1.0) NFMHS1 -.37 (-1.7) -.23 (-1.0) NFHHS2 .56 ( 2.9)' FMLBR1 .67 ( 3.9)" .57 ( 2.9)" FMLBR2 .47 ( 2.3) VSTZDV -.69 (-4.0)" n/a n/a n/a VALUE1 .26 ( 1.2) n/a n/a n/a = Significant at the .05 level = Significant at the .01 level APPENDIX A Table 11: Correlation Matrix.  Ottawa-Hull cc *- o o o — o o o o o - o o o o o o *-ooooooo • - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -ooooooooo -oooooooooo — o o o o o o o o o o o ft — o o o o o o o o o o o o • ro — o -ooooooooooooo • o o o o o o o o o o o o o o • o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o - o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o - o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o - o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o - o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o OJ — — OJ »— CM — CM — CM— CM — CM>-;> CM — LU LU C/l CO O O W W N U U I K E U O Q O h t - D D i r i E - W J J l I Q a O O l D I D O O N N z z - i J > > w i u o : Q : 2 2 J J i L U . j j a : a : r - i -u j u j < < z z o c 3 0 0 i L U . i i a : i r 2 3 Q . a w u ) CCC>>3D<<ZZZZUUCLQ.U.U.U.U.a:> APPENDIX A Table 12: Correlation Coefficients for Rent and Value. Ottawa-Hull ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) OTTAWA-HULL: n = 20 inner-city census tracts Independent Variables in Period 1 Indep. Var. in Per. 2 Cor. Higher With RENT2 Cor. Higher With RENT1 RENT2 RENT1 RENT2 RENT1 RENT2 UNVRS1 -.32 (-1.4) .81 ( 5.9)" UNVRS2 .49 ( 2.4)' N0RLG1 -.15 (-0.7) .85 ( 6.7)" N0RLG2 .28 ( 1.3) NFMHS1 -.01 (-0.0) .47 ( 2.3)' NFHHS2 -.05 ( -0.2) CHLD1 .11 ( 0.5) -.51 ( •2.5)' CHLD2 -.54 ( •2.7)' PRFOC1 -.48 (-2-3)' .71 ( 4.2)" PRFOC2 .56 ( 2.9)" FMLBR1 -.14 (-.06) .64 ( 3.5)" FHLBR2 .36 ( 1.7) FPROC1 -.43 (-2.0) .49 ( 2.4)' FPR0C2 .56 ( 2.8)' AGE1 -.58 (-3.0)" .23 ( 1.0) AGE2 .22 ( 1.0) RSTZDV -.31 (-1.4) n/a n/a n/a RENT1 -.24 (-1.0) n/a n/a n/a Independent Variables in Period 1 Indep. Var. i n Per. 2 Cor. Higher With VALUE2 Cor. Higher With VALUE1  VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 UNVRS1 -.02 (-0.1) .53 ( 2.7)' UNVRS2 .05 ( 0.2) N0RLG1 -.12 (-0.5) .38 ( 1.7) N0RLG2 -.19 ( -0.8) CHLD1 .16 ( 0.7) -.29 (-1.3) CHLD2 -.05 ( -0.2) PRF0C1 .34 ( 1.5) .62 ( 3.3)" PRF0C2 .06 ( 0.2) FMLBR1 -.41 (-1.9) .49 ( 2.3)' FHLBR2 -.51 ( -2.5) FPR0C1 .35 ( 1.6) .66 ( 3.7)" FPROC2 .06 ( 0.3) AGE1 .39 ( 1.8) .34 ( 1.5) AGE2 .06 ( 0.3) NFMHS1 -.48 ( •2.3)' .38 ( 1.8) NFHHS2 -.15 ( -0.7) VSTZDV .36 ( 1.7) n/a n/a n/a VALUE1 .01 ( 0.0) n/a n/a n/a = Significant at the .05 level = Significant at the .01 level APPENDIX A Table 13: C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x .  Toronto *— o co n cn u o o *- •-o • • • • cc-ooo Q_ • 1 • ca -J —OOOO a . . . u_ — o w i P i i n n C  owrnwon CD —) — o o o o o 3 . . . u_ cj o CM -*r — r- *r n O u_ — o o o o o o cc . . . o_ o ootyws'-oj'-o u_ — o o o o o o o cc . . . CL oin on oo io in OJ O^-V- V T C M C M — Q —J — o o o o o o o o x •— o orin o^ O^ ioif) o - J — o o o o o o o o o X CJ CU 0(Df'iOT"'~0)iN-***-(0 to O'-W'-m^ wocynn x 3 — o o o o o o o o o o u_ 2 — O*—Ofu<,o^ *-cO'**-iocn CO OCM — OO — —CMCM — O — 2* — o o o o o o o o o o o 2 WOOiont-c»'-rsmoi(Own OO*- m *r »— m»— N » - w i f l « - J C  — OOOOOOOOOOOO o . . . 2 — o<nN^"Cnmnow(oO'-<\i _ J CC *» O O O O O O O O O O O O o o • 2 CM LU — o o a o o o o o o o o o o o a <f oojincu*— (\JIO-—mcyoci'-cvi^'ci LU — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CM ocnr«.inN'f-o)f^ v-'-NO)ina3ui co O'-^ TQifl'-fi'-voajWfn'-'Trnfu cc > — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 2 • ' ' — Oinrnoj^ w-rxntfjOooi'-fT-co'-co o — — mm — --ootDto T\ic\i(o-- >- CM cc > — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o z • • • • •— O U D C O-c^in-C M C M O T — C O ' - - O C O C M — LOCO LU o — CM — — QCV — CMO - — rnroocM-OO Z3 _j — o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o < . . . . . OJ OOaD (OCO'-KPl (Or- .1 f^O)CDtCOO)r-.inO LU o — — ocooTmoo<''iCMro — rooj*- — mo => _i — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o < • • > OOOcO'-(,i--innrn'jio^O^O)'-fJV'j — O rn n ro — in o ^ oj O — nnto»-»-NfnT- t w t— 2 — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o LU . . . . cc O 0 ) 0 > C 0 ^ M D O C 0 ^ l v m » J . - C 0 N n W O N f U ' -wo»-'-np)fu^ wnooow^ 'rWOOnoow z — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CM — — OJ — CM — CM — CM — CM — CM>> CM —' LU UJ CO C/l OOWW'-WOUIKUUQQ i - K D D i r t i i ' - w j j i T Q Q o o m m o o N N 22_J_J>>LULUCCCC33-l_IU.U._J_ICCCCI-t-ujuj<<zzauoou.iLXic:Q:Z2Q.a.(A(/) irir>>D3<<zzzz uun o_ u_ u. u. LL <x > APPENDIX A Table 14: Correlation Coefficients for Rent and Value. Toronto ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) TORONTO: n = 55 inner-city census tracts Independent Variables in Period 1 Indep. Var. in Per. 2 Cor. Higher With RENT2 Cor. Higher With RENT1 RENT2 RENT1 RENT2 RENT1 RENT2 UNVRS1 .33 ( 2.6)' .38 ( 3.0)" UNVRS2 .27 ( 2.1)' AGE1 .16 ( 1.2) .53 ( 4.6)" AGE2 .20 ( 1.5) N0RLG1 .38 ( 3.0)" .45 ( 3.7)" N0RLG2 -.04 (-0.3) CHLD1 -.24 (-1.8) -.34 (-2.6)' CHLD2 -.41 (-3.2)" PRF0C1 .48 ( 4.0)" .57 ( 5.1)" PRFOC2 .27 ( 2.0)' FMLBR1 -.03 (-0.2) .14 ( 1.1) FHLBR2 -.02 (-0.1) FPR0C1 .30 ( 2.3)' .31 ( 2.3)' FPR0C2 .07 ( 0.5) NFMHS1 .07 ( 0.5) -.03 (-0.2) NFMHS2 .03 ( 0.2) RSTZDV -.02 (-0.2) n/a n/a n/a RENT1 .19 ( 1.4) n/a n/a n/a Independent Variables in Period 1 Indep. Var. in Per. 2 Cor. Higher With VALUE2 Cor. Higher With VALUE1 VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 VALUE1 VALUE2 NFHHS1 -.06 (-0.4) .12 ( 0.9) NFMHS2 -.07 (-0.5) FPR0C1 .19 ( 1.4) .22 ( 1.7) FPR0C2 -.17 (-1.3) UNVRS1 .18 ( 1.3) .16 ( 1.2) UNVRS2 -.08 (-0.6) AGE1 .38 ( 3.0)" .10 ( 0.8) AGE2 .01 ( 0.1) N0RLG1 .47 ( 3.9)" .05 ( 0.4) NORLG2 -.33 (-2.6)' CHLD1 -.34 (-2.6)' -.09 (-0.6) CHLD2 -.27 (-2.0)' PRF0C1 .39 ( 3.1)" .18 ( 1.4) PRFOC2 -.18 (-1.3) FMLBR1 .34 ( 2.6)' -.30 (-2.3)' FMLBR2 -.28 (-2.1)' VSTZDV -.00 (-0.0) n/a n/a n/a VALUE1 -.10 (-0.8) n/a n/a n/a ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level APPENDIX B Table 15: Multiple Regression of Rent. 3 C i t i e s Combined ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) ALL 3 CITIES: n = 95 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables i n Period 1 RENT2 RENT1 Best RENT2 Best RENT1 Explanatory Variables RENT2 in Period 2 Best RENT2 UNVRS1 AGE1 N0RLG1 NFMHS1 CHLD1 PRF0C1 FMLBR1 FPR0C1 RSTZDV RENT1 VANDUM OTTDUM CONSTANT 0.09 ( 0.9) - 0.14 (-0.4) - 0.03 (-0.4) 0.15 ( 0.7) -10.01 (-0.2) 1.42 ( 3.2)" - 0.77 (-1.3) - 0.69 (-2.5)' -16.55 (-1.8) - 0.46 (-1.3) 22.81 ( 1-3) 45.81 ( 2.1)' 4.70 ( 0.4) 0.03 ( 1.0) 0.09 ( 0.9) 0.04 ( 2.0)' 0.01 ( 0.1) -17.78 (-1.3) 0.18 ( 1.3) 0.16 ( 0.8) - 0.04 (-0.4) n/a n/a - 6.28 (-1-1) - 0.19 ( 0.0) - 6.66 (-1.7) 1.38 ( 4.2)" 0.06 ( 3.0)" -21.22 (-2.0)' 0.21 ( 3.0)" - 0.60 (-2.6)" -17.80 n/a (-2.4)' - 0.48 n/a (-1.5) 18.31 ( 1.1) 40.40 ( 2.3)' 14.05 - 7.59 ( 1.5) (-3.4)" Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .11 .35 .14 3.59 < .01 0.76 0.34 .38 20.23 < .01 UNVRS2 - 0.10 (-0.7) AGE2 - 0.29 (-0.9) NORLG2 - 0.06 (-0.7) NFHHS2 - 0.21 (-1.6) CHLD2 -224.1 (-4.1)" PRF0C2 0.54 ( 2.9)" FMLBR2 - 0.85 (-1.1) FPROC2 - 0.20 (-1-8) RSTZDV 0.15 ( 0.0) RENT1 - 0.52 (-1.8) VANDUM2 3.39 ( 0.2) OTTDUM 23.63 ( 1.4) CONSTANT 36.88 ( 3.1)" - 0.10 (-1.5) - 0.18 (-1.4) -195.8 (-4.3)" 0.42 ( 3.3)" - 0.90 (-1.3) - 0.16 (-1.6) 0.48 (-1.8) 21.78 ( 1-3) 37.70 ( 3.8)" Adjusted R2 .20 F-score 2.99 p-value < .01 Residuals: Skewness 1.15 Kurtosis 2.11 .23 (.30*) 4.47 (5.89*) < .01 (<.01*) 1.32 (0.79*) 2.70 (0.22*) ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level * n = 94, observation #82 deleted 92 APPENDIX B Table 16: Multiple Regression of Value. 5 C i t i e s Combined ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) ALL 3 CITIES: n = 95 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables i n Period 1 VALUE2 VALUE1 Best VALUE2 Best VALUE1 Explanatory Variables in Period 2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 Adjusted R2 .14 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .00 .18 4.43 < .01 1.80 7.22 -12.67 (-1.4) UNVRS1 - 0.34 0.06 - 0.39 0.05 (-1.3) ( 1.7) (-1.7) ( 2.2)' AGE1 0.41 - 0.04 ( 0.5) (-0.4) N0RLG1 - 0.02 - 0.02 (-0.1) (-0.8) NFMHS1 - 1.33 0.03 (-2.4)' ( 0.4) CHLD1 -187.78 -14.86 (-1.6) (-1.1) PRFOC1 1.44 0.06 ( 1.3) ( 0.4) FMLBR1 3.21 - 0.06 ( 2.0)' (-0.3) FPROC1 0.37 - 0.03 ( 0.5) (-0.3) VST2DV -42.67 n/a (-1.9) VALUE 1 - 0.21 n/a (-0.2) VANDUM -37.50 4.53 (-0.8) ( 0.8) OTTDUM 2.27 1.67 ( 0.0) ( 0.2) CONSTANT 81.76 - 3.66 75.22 - 2.05 ( 2.7)" (-0.9) ( 3.5)" (-0.9) - 1.23 (-2.7)" -189.69 (-2.0)' 2.02 ( 3.2)" 2.83 ( 2.0)' -45.89 (-2.2)' n/a n/a .06 3.75 < .05 UNVRS2 AGE2 NORLG2 NFMHS2 CHLD2 PRF0C2 FMLBR2 FPR0C2 VSTZDV VALUE1 VANDUM OTTDUM CONSTANT - 0.01 (-0.0) 0.88 ( 1-0) - 0.66 (-3.3)" - 0.38 (-1.1) -343.1 (-2.6)" 0.54 ( 1.1) - 5.76 (-3.2)" - 0.48 (-1-7) -45.72 (-2.4)' - 0.26 (-0.3) -84.97 (-2.0)' 29.70 ( 0.7) 122.4 ( 4.1)" 1.01 ( 1.2) 0.62 (-3.6)" -331.1 (-2.9)" 0.45 ( 1.3) - 6.05 (-3.5)" - 0.44 (-1.7) -42.54 (-2.4)' -89.56 (-2.2)' 124.5 ( 4.7)" Adjusted R2 .18 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .21 (.15*) 4.09 (3.00*) < .01 (<.01*) 1.24 (0.34*) 4.20 (0.60*) ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level * n = 94, oberservation #60 deleted 9 3 APPENDIX B Table 17: Multiple Regression of Rent. Vancouver ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) VANCOUVER: n = 20 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables i n Period 1 RENT2 RENT1 Best RENT2 Best RENT1 Explanatory Variables in Period 2 RENT2 Best RENT2 UNVRS1 AGE1 N0RLG1 NFMHS1 CHLD1 PRFOC1 FMLBR1 FPR0C1 RSTZDV RENT1 CONSTANT 0.57 ( 1.4) 0.06 ( 0.1) - 0.35 (-0.5) 0.81 ( 0.9) 88.64 ( 0.6) 1.81 ( 1.1) - 0.57 (-0.3) - 0.69 (-0.7) 0.10 ( 0.0) - 1.05 (-1.1) - 2.45 (-0.1) Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .30 - 0.05 (-0.4) 0.06 ( 0.3) - 0.10 (-0.4) • 0.35 (-1.0) -113.50 (-2.2)' - 0.45 (-0.8) 0.22 ( 0.3) 0.39 ( 1.2) n/a n/a - 5.41 (-0.5) 0.55 ( 3.3)" 1.03 ( 2.3)' 1.28 (-2.8)' 7.07 (-0.5) - 0.40 (-1.6) -126.7 (-3.4)" - 0.63 (-1.9) 0.45 (1.8) n/a n/a 9.98 (-2.1)' .04 .56 9.22 < .01 - 0.17 - 1.56 .28 2.85 < .10 UNVRS2 AGE2 NORLG2 NFMHS2 CHLD2 PRFOC2 FMLBR2 FPROC2 RSTZDV RENT1 CONSTANT - 0.17 (-0.4) - 0.81 (-1.2) - 0.52 (-1.3) - 1.46 (-1.4) -190.1 (-1.5) 0.35 ( 1-1) 0.13 ( 0.1) 0.15 ( 0.3) -14.64 (-0.5) - 1.27 (-1.6) 36.58 ( 1.6) Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .51 3.01 < .10 -0.08 -2.31 - 0.75 (-1.5) - 0.53 (-1.9) - 1.20 (-2.1)' -221.0 (-3.1)" 0.43 ( 3.2)" - 1.70 (-4.0)" 32.98 ( 2.4)' .64 6.67 < .01 -0.14 -1.72 ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level 94 APPENDIX B Table 18: Multiple Regression of Value. Vancouver ( t - s t a t i s t i c s in parentheses) VANCOUVER: n = 20 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables in Period 1 VALUE2 VALUE1 Best VALUE2 Best VALUE1 Explanatory Variables in Period 2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 UNVRS1 AGE1 NORLG1 NFMHS1 CHLD1 PRFOC1 FMLBR1 FPROC1 VSTZDV VALUE1 CONSTANT Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis - 0.02 (-0.0) - 0.18 (-0.3) 0.02 ( 0.2) 1.19 ( 1-0) -64.24 (-0.3) 2.98 ( 1.4) 6.93 ( 2.5)' - 0.83 (-0.6) -77.85 (-2.3)' 0.09 ( 0.1) 5.95 ( 0.1) .71 0.02 ( 0.3) 0.00 ( 0.0) - 0.06 (-0.4) 0.02 ( 0.1) -52.92 (-1.5) 0.49 ( 1.3) 0.96 ( 2.0) - 0.52 (-2.3)' n/a n/a 3.60 ( 0.5) 1.57 ( 2.5)' 3.38 ( 3.6)" 7.10 ( 4.8)" - 1.13 (-1.4) -74.98 (-3.9)" 7.07 ( 0.5) -47.63 (-2.2)' 0.50 ( 2.4)' 1.08 ( 3.7)" - 0.52 (-4.1)" n/a n/a 3.86 ( 1.2) .63 .80 16.63 < .01 0.12 - 2.08 .72 13.22 < .01 UNVRS2 AGE2 N0RLG2 NFMHS2 CHLD2 PRFOC2 FMLBR2 FPROC2 VSTZDV VALUE1 CONSTANT - 1.58 (-2.5)' - 0.15 (-0.2) - 0.13 (-0.2) 0.96 ( 0.5) -553.3 (-3.2)" 0.81 ( 1.5) - 1.09 (-0.5) - 0.07 (-0.1) -115.1 (-3.6)' 2.82 ( 1.9) 77.77 ( 2.4)' 1.62 (-3.4)" Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .78 -534.7 (-4.5)" 0.59 ( 2.0) -119.6 (-8.2)" 3.70 ( 4.5)" 86.11 ( 4.2)" .84 21.31 < .01 -0.30 -1.65 ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level 95 APPENDIX B Table 19: Multiple Regression of Rent. Ottawa-Hull ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) OTTAWA-HULL: n = 20 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables i n Period 1 RENT2 RENT1 Best RENT2 Best RENT1 Explanatory Variables i n Period 2 RENT2 Best RENT2 UNVRS1 AGE1 NORLG1 NFMHS1 CHLD1 PRFOC1 FMLBR1 FPROC1 RSTZDV RENT1 CONSTANT Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis - 0.25 (-0.9) - 2.18 (-1.8) 0.49 ( 2.3)' - 0.68 (-1.3) -98.09 (-0.9) - 4.87 (-2.4)' - 1.26 (-0.6) 2.00 ( 2.2)' 28.05 ( 1.3) - 0.25 (-0.2) -33.48 (-0.8) .31 0.07 ( 0.8) 0.08 ( 0.2) 0.05 ( 0.8) 0.07 ( 0.4) 50.78 ( 1.7) 0.42 ( 0.7) 0.47 ( 0.8) 0.17 (-0.6) n/a n/a 5.58" ( 0.4) 2.03 (-2.0) 0.38 ( 2-5)' 0.76 (-1.9) 4.62 (-2.4)' 1.69 ( 2.1)' 27.93 ( 1-5) 2.50 (-0.1) .65 .39 3.00 < .05 0.01 - 2.15 0.08 ( 2.8)' 43.16 ( 1.7) 0.21 ( 1.4) 0.55 ( 1.4) n/a n/a 2.19 ( 0.3) .72 13.44 < .01 UNVRS2 - 0.22 (-0.5) AGE2 - 0.24 (-0.3) N0RLG2 0.17 ( 1-1) NFMHS2 - 0.23 (-1.1) CHLD2 -257.5 (-1.9) PRFOC2 0.05 ( 0.0) FMLBR2 3.10 ( 1.3) FPR0C2 0.04 ( 0.6) RSTZDV 15.98 ( 0-8) RENT1 - 0.48 (-1-0) CONSTANT 57.30 ( 2.0) - 0.19 (-1.3) -202.8 (-2.1)' 1.87 ( 1.2) 0.35 ( 1.5) - 0.42 (-1.0) 58.46 ( 2.7)' Adjusted R2 .19 .41 F-score 3.66 p-value < .05 Residuals: Skewness 0.10 Kurtosis -1.73 ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level 96 APPENDIX B Table 20: Multiple Regression of Value. Ottawa-Hull ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses). OTTAWA-HULL: n = 20 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables i n Period 1 VALUE2 VALUE1 Best VALUE2 Best VALUE1 Explanatory Variables in Period 2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 UNVRS1 AGE1 NORLG1 NFMHS1 CHLD1 PRFOC1 FMLBR1 FPR0C1 VSTZDV VALUE1 CONSTANT Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis - 0.49 (-0.8) - 1.26 (-0.5) - 0.36 (-0.9) - 1.34 (-1.2) -17.00 (-0.1) 6.57 ( 1.5) 1.01 ( 0.2) - 0.49 (-0.3) -34.45 (-0.8) - 2.32 (-0.8) 216.96 ( 2.3)' 0.02 ( 0.3) 0.01 ( 0.0) - 0.05 (-1.3) 0.02 ( 0.2) 21.87 ( 1.1) 0.47 ( 1.2) 0.73 ( 1.8) - 0.06 (-0.4) n/a n/a 11.33 ( 1.2) 0.33 (-2.2)' 0.91 (-1.7) 3.91 ( 3.5)" - 2.66 (-1.3) 160.26 ( 5.2) .30 .37 .50 5.85 < .01 0.87 0.03 0.04 (-2.0) 19.56 ( 1.2) 0.38 ( 3.9)" 0.74 ( 3.1)" n/a n/a 9.68 ( 2.4)' .53 6.35 < .01 UNVRS2 AGE2 N0RLG2 NFMHS2 CHLD2 PRFOC2 FMLBR2 FPROC2 VSTZDV VALUE1 CONSTANT 0.14 ( 0.1) - 0.23 (-0.2) - 0.65 (-2.0) 0.24 ( 0.5) -123.7 (-0.5) 2.06 ( 1.1) -17.43 (-3.4)" - 1.28 (-1.0) -20.42 (-0.6) - 4.64 (-1-9) 30.31 ( 0.5) 0.58 (-2.8)' -189.1 (-1.0) 1.91 ( 1.8) -14.43 (-4.4)" - 1.16 (-1.3) - 3.83 (-2.0) 54.21 ( 1.5) Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .29 .46 3.74 < .05 0.07 -1.78 ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level 97 APPENDIX B Table 21: Multiple Regression of Rent. Toronto ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) TORONTO: n = 55 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables in Period 1 RENT2 RENT1 Best RENT2 Best RENT1 Explanatory Variables RENT2 in Period 2 Best RENT2 UNVRS1 AGE1 N0RLG1 NFMHS1 CHLD1 PRF0C1 FMLBR1 FPR0C1 RSTZDV RENT1 CONSTANT Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis 0.03 ( 0.3) - 0.65 (-1.3) 0.16 ( 1.5) 0.04 ( 0.1) -88.12 (-1.4) 0.87 ( 1-7) - 0.90 (-1.2) - 0.13 (-0.4) -14.55 (-1.2) - 0.10 (-0.2) 6.25 ( 0.4) .20 0.05 ( 1-3) 0.33 - 0.70 ( 2.0)' (-1.6) 0.00 ( 0.1) 0.02 ( 0.2) 0.67 ( 0.0) 0.28 ( 1.6) 0.04 ( 0.2) 0.12 (-0.9) n/a n/a 9.84 (-2.3)' 0.18 ( 1-7) -99.56 (-1.9) 0.77 ( 2.5)' - 0.90 (-1.3) -16.02 (-1.6) 8.75 ( 0.8) .33 .27 4.28 < .01 0.78 0.50 0.05 ( 1.4) 0.32 ( 2.5)' 0.28 ( 2.0)' - 0.1 (-1.0) n/a n/a -10.15 (-3.1)" .39 9.48 < .01 UNVRS2 - 0.03 (-0.1) AGE2 - 0.02 (-0.0) N0RLG2 - 0.16 (-1.3) NFMHS2 - 0.02 (-0.1) CHLD2 -154.6 (-2.0)' PRFOC2 0.56 ( 1-8) FMLBR2 - 1.57 (-1.5) FPR0C2 - 0.23 (-1-6) RSTZDV 0.39 ( 0.0) RENT1 - 0.09 (-0.2) CONSTANT 32.75 ( 2.3)' 0.16 (-1.7) -144.1 (-2.5)' 0.52 ( 2.6)' - 1.53 (-1.9) - 0.22 (-1.8) 32.38 ( 2.5)' Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .14 .23 (.35*) 4.25 (6.63*) < .01 (<.01*) 1.83 (1.20*) 4.69 (2.05*) ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level * n = 54, observation #82 deleted 98 APPENDIX B Table 22: Multiple Regression of Value. Toronto ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parentheses) TORONTO: n = 55 inner-city census tracts Explanatory Variables i n Period 1 VALUE2 VALUE1 Best VALUE2 Best VALUE1 Explanatory Variables i n Period 2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 UNVRS1 AGE1 N0RLG1 NFMHS1 CHLD1 PRF0C1 FMLBR1 FPR0C1 VSTZDV VALUE1 CONSTANT Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis 0.30 ( 0.1) - 0.59 (-0.7) 0.67 ( 3.6)" - 0.18 (-0.4) -237.18 (-2.2)' - 0.27 (-0.3) 3.71 ( 2.6)' 0.16 ( 0.3) - 2.79 (-0.1) - 0.58 (-0.8) 53.75 ( 2.4)' 0.02 ( 0.5) 0.07 ( 0.5) 0.01 (-0.4) 0.06 ( 0.7) 0.31 (-0.0) 0.04 ( 0.2) 0.72 (-3.0)" 0.12 ( 1.0) n/a n/a 9.13 (-2.2)' 0.58 ( 4.8)" -177.83 (-2.9)" 4.14 ( 3.7)" 0.72 (-3.1)" 0.18 ( 2.7)" n/a n/a 54.29 - 7.72 ( 3.3)" (-2.3)' .46* .09 .32 (.52*) .17 9.54 (20.4*) 6.47 <.01 (<.01*) < .01 3.21 (0.29*) 16.10 (-.29*) UNVRS2 AGE2 NORLG2 NFMHS2 CHLD2 PRF0C2 FMLBR2 FPR0C2 VSTZDV VALUE1 CONSTANT 0.49 ( 1.0) 0.26 ( 0.2) - 0.74 (-2.3)' - 0.05 (-0.1) -490.6 (-2.7)" - 0.67 (-0.8) - 6.55 (-2.6)' 0.00 ( 0.0) -43.37 (-1.6) - 0.05 (-0.1) 156.3 ( 3.4)" 0.74 (-2.5)' -503.6 (-3.1)" -67.95 (-1.4) - 6.41 (-2.8)" -43.73 (-1.8) 157.2 ( 4.3)" Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .24 .30 (.29*) 4.85 < .01 1.42 (0.07*) 4.73 (-.36*) ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level * n = 54, observation #60 deleted 99 APPENDIX C Table 23: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Period 1 and Period 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. 3 C i t i e s Combined ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parenthesis) ALL 3 CITIES: n = 95 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 UNVRS1 - 0.02 (-0.2) - 0.47 (-1.6) - 0.47 (-2.1) UNVRS2 - 0.15 (-1.0) - 0.13 (-0.3) AGE1 - 0.10 (-0.3) 1.10 ( 1.3) 1.07 ( 1.4) AGE2 - 0.35 (-1.0) 1.94 ( 2.1) 2.09 ( 2.4) N0RLG1 - 0.01 (-0.2) - 0.07 (-0.5) N0RLG2 0.01 ( 0.1) - 0.53 (-2.5) - 0.53 (-3.0) NFMHS1 0.23 ( 1.1) 0.18 ( 1.1) - 1.31 (-2.4) - 1.49 (-3.0) NFMHS2 - 0.24 (-1.7) - 0.76 (-2.0) - 0.73 (-2.1) CHLD1 -27.55 (-0.6) -294.8 (-2.4) -294.9 (-2.8) CHLD2 -200.0 (-3.4) -136.7 (-3.3) -186.4 (-1.2) -167.8 (-1.3) PRF0C1 1.19 ( 2.7) 1.23 ( 4.2) 0.33 ( 0.3) PRF0C2 0.58 ( 3.0) 0.40 ( 3.6) 0.66 ( 1.2) 0.25 ( 1.0) FMLBR1 - 0.26 (-0.4) 2.71 ( 1-4) 2.87 ( 1.8) FMLBR2 - 0.45 (-0.5) - 2.17 (-1.0) - 2.19 (-1.1) FPROC1 - 0.65 (-2.4) - 0.68 (-3.2) 0.85 ( 1.2) 0.99 ( 2.0) FPR0C2 - 0.24 (-2.1) - 0.20 (-2.0) - 0.29 (-0.9) RSTZDV - 5.09 (-0.5) n/a n/a VSTZDV n/a n/a -68.12 (-2.9) -68.12 (-3.1) RENT1 - 0.81 (-2.4) - 0.80 (-2.9) n/a n/a VALUE1 n/a n/a - 0.48 (-0.5) VANDUM 15.02 ( 0.9) -79.31 (-1.8) -79.14 (-2.0) OTTDUM 34.34 ( 1.6) 26.01 ( 1.6) 2.52 ( 0.1) CONSTANT 22.61 ( 1.6) 23.68 ( 2.2) 127.2 ( 3.1) 127.3 (3.8) Adjusted R2 26 .31 (.36*) .24 .29 (.27") F-score 2. 68 6.38 (7.46*) 2. .50 3.70 i (3.30 A) p-value < . 01 <.01 (<.01*) < . 01 <.01 i c<.or) Residuals: Skewness 0.96 (0.52*) 1. .04 1.18 i C0.45A) Kurtosis 1.35 (-.73*) 2. .18 2.99 < co.ir) * n = 94, observation #82 deleted A n = 94, observation #60 deleted 100 APPENDIX C Table 24: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Selected Period 1 and 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. 3 C i t i e s Combined ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parenthesis) ALL 3 CITIES: n = 95 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 N0RLG1 - 0.03 (-0.5) - 0.10 (-0.6) N0RLG2 - 0.03 (-0.4) - 0.27 (-1.6) - 0.24 (-1.5) CHLD1 -50.45 (-1.5) -45.14 (-1.5) -53.44 (-0.6) CHLD2 -125.3 (-2.5)' -109.9 (-2.5)' -281.0 (-2.1)' -293.8 (-2.2)' PRF0C1 0.22 ( 0.9) 0.22 ( 1.2) 0.80 ( 1.2) 0.62 ( 1.1) PRF0C2 0.31 ( 3.3)" 0.30 ( 3.3)" 0.21 ( 0.8) FMLBR1 - 0.14 (-0.3) 2.13 ( 1.6) 1.86 ( 1.5) FMLBR2 - 0.31 (-0.4) - 3.45 (-1.8) - 3.44 (-1.9) CONSTANT 26.26 ( 2.3)' 24.46 ( 2.4)' 80.33 ( 2.7)" 127.3 ( 3.8)" Adjusted R2 .19 .21 (.26*) .13 .15 (.17A) F-score 3. .74 7.55 (9.24*) 2. .82 4.38 (4.82 A) p-value < , .01 <.01 (<.01*) < , .01 <.01 (<.or) Residuals: Skewness 1.23 (0.88*) 1.74 (0.44") Kurtosis 1.94 (-.25*) 9.34 (2.41 A) ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level * n = 94, observation #82 deleted A n = 94, observation #60 deleted APPENDIX C Table 25: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Period 1 and Period 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. Vancouver ( t - s t a t i s t i c s in parenthesis) VANCOUVER: n = 20 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 UNVRS1 - 0.53 (-0.5) - 1.31 (-1.0) - 0.75 (-2.5) UNVRS2 - 1.06 (-1.1) - 1.16 (-5.2) - 1.31 (-2.1) - 1.40 (-4.0) AGE1 4.17 ( 2.3) 3.72 ( 6.0) - 0.23 (-0.1) AGE2 4.29 ( 1-7) 4.19 ( 5.0) - 1.34 (-0.5) - 0.80 (-1.5) N0RLG1 - 1.80 (-2.0) - 1.71 (-4.6) - 1.06 (-1.1) - 0.69 (-1.8) NORLG2 - 0.32 (-0.3) - 0.57 (-0.5) NFMHS1 3.01 ( 1.8) 2.93 ( 7.4) 0.67 ( 0.5) 1.11 ( 2.3) NFMHS2 - 3.93 (-1.3) - 2.58 (-5.0) 0.65 ( 0.2) CHLD1 151.7 ( 0.3) 151.5 ( 2.8) 76.62 ( 0.4) CHLD2 64.44 ( 0.2) -308.2 (-1.2) -393.3 (-3.7) PRFOC1 1.95 ( 0.6) 1.73 ( 2.9) 6.04 ( 2.8) 5.34 ( 6.0) PRF0C2 0.93 ( 1.4) 0.71 ( 5.4) 1.43 ( 1.8) 1.55 ( 4.9) FMLBR1 1.27 ( 0.4) 5.01 ( 1.9) 4.42 ( 3.8) FMLBR2 4.68 ( 0.9) 3.91 ( 5.9) 1.72 ( 0.6) FPROC1 - 1.28 (-0.7) - 1.57 (-3.9) - 2.29 (-1.6) - 2.41 (-3.3) FPROC2 - 0.26 (-0.2) - 0.75 (-0.8) - 1.15 (-3.7) RSTZDV -12.90 (-0.2) n/a n/a VSTZDV n/a -135.5 (-2.7) -132.2 (-7.3) RENT1 0.12 ( 0.1) n/a n/a VALUE1 n/a n/a CONSTANT 76.10 ( 1.2) 50.93 ( 4.1) 161.5 ( 2.3) 128.0 ( 4.3) Adjusted R2 .50 .90 .85 .94 F-score 2. .05 16.45 7.41 26 .55 p-value < . .10 < .01 < , .15 < , .01 Residuals: Skewness 0. .01 -0.24 0. .05 Kurtosis -3. .00 -2.37 -2, .62 102 APPENDIX C Table 26: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Selected Period 1 and 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. Vancouver ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parenthesis) VANCOUVER: n = 20 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 N0RLG1 - 0.27 ( -0.5) 0.81 ( 1.1) 0.81 ( 1.4) NORLG2 - 0.66 ( -1.5) - 0.57 ( -1.6) 0.18 ( 0.3) CHLD1 173.6 ( 1.6) 177.4 ( 1.9) -147.3 ( -1.0) -195.9 ( -1.7) CHLD2 11.54 ( 0.1) -138.9 ( -0.7) -224.0 ( -1.5) PRF0C1 1.68 ( 1.6) 1.55 ( 2.7)' 1.07 ( 0.7) PRF0C2 0.23 ( 0.9) 0.27 ( 1.8) - 0.05 ( -0.2) FMLBR1 - 0.21 ( -0.1) 9.83 ( 4.3)" 8.82 ( 6.1)" FMLBR2 1.86 ( 1.2) 1.59 ( 1.3) 4.70 ( 2.2)' 4.60 ( 2.6)' CONSTANT 45.81 ( 1.6) 24.46 ( 2.4)' 34.92 ( 0.9) 42.89 ( 1.5) Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .27 1.87 < .20 .41 3.63 < .05 -0.13 -1.52 .68 6.07 < .01 .73 11.46 < .01 -0.02 -1.89 ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level 103 APPENDIX C Table 27: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Period 1 and Period 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. Ottawa-Hull ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parenthesis) OTTAWA-HULL: n = 20 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 UNVRS1 - 1. 36 (-6.3) - 1. ,43 (-14 ) - 0.16 (-0.2) UNVRS2 1. 43 ( 4.9) 1. 36 ( 9.7) 2.30 ( 0.5) 2.42 ( 4.0) AGE1 - 2. 19 (-1.6) - 2. ,75 (-6.7) 5.20 ( 0.2) 3.57 ( 1.3) AGE2 5. 52 ( 8.8) 5. ,46 (14.7) 3.31 ( 0.3) 2.72 ( 2.1) N0RLG1 2. 86 ( 7.1) 2. ,99 (17.3) 0.19 ( 0.1) 0.39 ( 1.1) N0RLG2 - 0. 91 (-4.8) - 0. .84 (-14 > - 0.87 (-0.6) - 0.89 (-4.3) NFMHS1 - 4. 68 (-7.3) - 4. ,89 (-18 ) - 2.22 (-1.0) - 2.29 (-3.3) NFMHS2 1. 45 ( 4.0) 1. ,59 (12.8) - 0.38 (-0.1) CHLD1 -105 i.3 (-0.5) -909.7 (-0.3) -766.3 (-4.5) CHLD2 -249 i.5 (-2.2) -290.7 (-6.8) -42.84 (-0.1) PRFOC1 -35. 30 (-9.7) -35. ,91 (-18 ) - 4.99 (-0.3) - 6.18 (-1.3) PRFOC2 - 2. 97 (-4.8) - 3. ,16 (-11 ) - 2.68 (-0.7) - 3.01 (-2.5) FMLBR1 -11. 89 (-6.6) -11. 76 (-13 ) - 6.35 (-0.5) - 7.97 (-3.3) FMLBR2 -25. 72 (-7.7) -25. 48 (-15 ) -17.45 (-0.8) -18.99 (-3.7) FPR0C1 12. 32 ( 8.9) 12. ,66 (18.5) 1.97 ( 0.4) 2.40 ( 1.6) FPR0C2 - 2. 73 (-7.0) - 2. .79 (-13 ) 1.26 ( 0.4) 1.23 ( 1.6) RSTZDV -12. 14 (-0.4) n/a n/a VSTZDV n/a n/a -160.6 (-0.5) -144.7 (-4.7) RENT1 7. 74 ( 8.6) 7. ,68 (15.2) n/a n/a VALUE1 n/a n/a 0.43 ( 0.1) CONSTANT -240 1.1 (-3.6) -217.9 (-8.3) -102.6 (-0.1) -98.36 (-0.9) Adjusted R2 .95 ,98 ,26 .84 F-score 21. .29 59. .60 1. ,37 8. .04 p-value < , .30 < . ,01 < . .60 < . .05 Residuals: Skewness 0, .01 0. .01 0. .01 0, .04 Kurtosis -3 .00 -2. .94 -3. .00 -2, .77 104 APPENDIX C Table 28: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Selected Period 1 and 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. Ottawa-Hull ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parenthesis) OTTAWA-HULL: n = 20 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 NORLG1 0.08 ( 0.6) - 0.17 (-0.8) NORLG2 - 0.01 (-0.0) - 0.30 (-1.5) - 0.27 (-1.9) CHLD1 -65.30 (-0.6) -83.84 (-0.4) CHLD2 -155.2 (-1.2) -225.7 (-3.0)" -292.6 (-1.4) -356.8 (-2.3)' PRFOC1 - 1.15 (-1.3) - 0.80 (-2.6)' 2.02 ( 1.4) 1.25 ( 1.8) PRFOC2 0.37 ( 0.8) 0.52 ( 0.6) FMLBR1 - 0.71 (-0.5) - 4.44 (-1.7) - 5.67 (-3.6)" FMLBR2 - 1.14 (-0.5) - 6.13 (-1.5) - 6.83 (-2.3)' CONSTANT 4.99 ( 0.1) 54.87 ( 4.0)" 100.1 ( 1.2) 42.89 ( 1.5) Adjusted R2 F-score p-value Residuals: Skewness Kurtosis .27 .44 8.35 < .01 .51 3.45 < .05 .58 6.37 < .01 0.33 -1.35 ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level 105 APPENDIX C Table 29: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Period 1 and Period 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. Toronto ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parenthesis) TORONTO: n = 55 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 UNVRS1 0.01 ( 0.1) - 0.28 (-0.6) UNVRS2 - 0.17 (-0.8) 0.17 ( 0.3) AGE1 - 0.53 (-1.0) - 0.37 (-0.3) AGE2 0.25 ( 0.4) 0.20 ( 0.1) N0RLG1 0.09 ( 0.7) 0.76 ( 2.1) 0.85 ( 3.3) N0RLG2 - 0.03 (-0.2) - 0.21 (-0.5) NFMHS1 0.05 ( 0.2) - 0.22 (-0.3) NFMHS2 0.05 ( 0.1) - 0.50 (-0.4) CHLD1 -67.76 (-1.0) -48.11 (-1.1) -351.2 (-1.8) -321.1 (-2.5) CHLD2 -70.03 (-0.7) -428.6 (-1.4) -419.2 (-2.3) PRF0C1 1.04 ( 1.8) 1.23 ( 3.0) - 1.16 (-0.7) - 1.43 (-1.6) PRF0C2 0.63 ( 1.9) 0.53 ( 3.4) - 0.60 (-0.7) - 0.61 (-1.9) FMLBR1 - 0.75 (-0.8) 1.01 ( 0.3) FMLBR2 - 1.14 (-0.9) - 4.18 (-1.2) - 4.90 (-1.9) FPROC1 - 0.30 (-0.7) - 0.34 (-1.1) 0.35 ( 0.3) FPR0C2 - 0.25 (-1.7) - 0.21 (-1.9) 0.04 ( 0.1) RSTZDV - 3.67 (-0.3) n/a n/a VSTZDV n/a n/a -75.86 (-2.2) -71.89 (-2.8) RENT1 - 0.47 (-0.9) - 0.41 (-1.1) n/a n/a VALUE1 n/a n/a - 0.20 (-0.1) CONSTANT 4.24 ( 0.2) - 3.50 (-0.3) 147.3 ( 2.3) 120.6 ( 2.9) Adjusted R2 ,20 .33 (.36*) ,24 .40 (.42") F-score 1. ,75 5.53 (6.13*) 1. ,96 6.02 (6.86") p-value < . ,10 <.01 (<.01*) < , ,05 <.01 (<.01") Residuals: Skewness 0. ,68 1.08 (0.74*) 1.02 1.48 (0.04") Kurtosis -0. 40 1.55 (-.17*) 1. ,61 4.60 (-.54") * n = 54, observation #82 deleted " n = 54, observation #60 deleted 106 APPENDIX C Table 30: Multiple Regression of Rent and Value. Period 2. Against Selected Period 1 and 2 Explanatory  Variables Pooled. Toronto ( t - s t a t i s t i c s i n parenthesis) TORONTO: n = 55 inner-city census tracts RENT2 Best RENT2 VALUE2 Best VALUE2 N0RLG1 0.03 ( 0.3) 0.58 ( 2.0)' 0.62 ( 2.4)' N0RLG2 - 0.04 (-0.4) - 0.13 (-0.4) CHLD1 -51.84 (-1.1) -66.16 (-1.6) -191.0 (-1.5) -237.1 (-2.1)' CHLD2 -56.49 (-0.8) -403.8 (-2.0)' -350.0 (-1.9) PRF0C1 0.61 ( 1.7) 0.79 ( 3.5)" - 1.08 (-1.1) - 1.13 (-1.1) PRF0C2 0.27 ( 1.9) 0.30 ( 3.0)" - 0.16 (-0.4) FMLBR1 - 0.40 (-0.5) 3.37 ( 1.6) 3.91 ( 2.0)' FMLBR2 - 0.43 (-0.5) - 4.63 (-1.8) - 4.69 (-1.8) CONSTANT 5.54 ( 0.3) 24.46 ( 2.4)' 129.7 ( 2.9)" 110.9 ( 3.0)" Adjusted R2 .26 .31 (.35*) .32 .34 (.54") F-score 3.35 9.21 (10.5*) 4.20 5.65 (11.2 A) p-value < .01 <.01 (<.01*) < .01 <.01 (<.01A) Residuals: Skewness 2.64 (0.84*) 2.50 (0.30 A) Kurtosis 8.71 (0.36*) 10.60 (-.94A) ' = Significant at the .05 level " = Significant at the .01 level * n = 94, observation #82 deleted A n = 94, observation #60 deleted APPENDIX D Table 31: C a l c u l a t i o n o f F - s t a t i s t i c f o r Comparison Between  Reduced and Complete Model Value R^s 3 C i t i e s Vancver Ottawa Toronto Model 3: R 2 k Model 2: R 2 k Model 1: R 2 n F - s t a t : Model 3 vs 2 (.05 s i g ) Model 3 vs 1 (.05 s i g ) .40 20 .29 12 .25 12 95 1.70 (2.05) 2.31 (2.05) .98 18 .89 10 .86 10 20 .56 (239) .75 (239) 96 18 66 10 67 10 20 .94 (239) .91 (239) .59 8 .37 4 .55 4 55 6.04 (2.25) 1.10 (2.25) Note: F - s t a t i s t i c c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s : ?2 __t?2. ( R C" R R)/( kC" kR> o ~ FkC-kR,n-kC-l ( l - R 2 c ) / ( n - k c - l ) Where: R 2 i s unadjusted C = complete model R = reduced model k = number or e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s n = o b s e r v a t i o n s APPENDIX E SUMMARY, HOUSING VARIABLES V=VANCOUVER, H=QTTAHA-HULL, T=T0R0NTO 1971 1971 61-71 61-71 Rent Value Rent Value Stzd Dv Stzd Dv 1961 71-81 71-81 Obsrvtn Tract Rent Value VCMA 1 V28 -16 5 -2 -13 -.3 -.8 2 V34 4 96 -67 -22 .7 .0 3 V36 -16 82 55 9 1.5 .1 4 V54 105 131 -56 2 -.9 - .4 5 V32 -49 14 -5 -12 - .5 -.8 6 V30 26 31 -15 -5 - .7 - .9 7 V52 -27 27 6 -9 - .2 -.8 8 V24 29 -20 -19 -5 - .6 -.7 9 V22 -40 -245 -8 -84 1.6 2.2 10 V20 86 99 -12 -16 -.4 - .6 11 V18 12 239 -11 14 -.4 n • i. 12 V16 3 -31 -2 31 .9 .7 13 V14 243 125 -20 1 -.6 -.1 14 Vi2 60 -6 -27 -14 -.7 -.8 15 V10 69 -6 -56 -19 -1.2 -.8 16 V8 7 88 17 21 .0 -.4 17 V50 119 98 -24 8 -1.2 - .5 18 V6 -6 207 -5 99 - .7 .2 19 V2 -20 -315 5 8 2.3 2.6 20 V4 112 -230 -13 -84 1.3 1.7 HCMA 21 H12 -14 68 -18 -51 -.1 -.1 22 H28 -7 74 -26 -4 c 1 J -.1 23 H26 16 99 -17 -10 -.8 .1 24 H24 -44 75 7 16 3.2 3.6 25 H22 8 48 -11 4 -.6 - .7 26 H30 -58 21 24 31 .3 -.3 27 H34 -17 13 2 -2 .1 - .6 28 H20 71 607 9 1 1.9 1.2 29 H14 -31 110 1 1 .7 .5 30 H16 92 58 -29 -32 -.8 .2 31 N18 33 27 -10 18 -.6 - .0 32 H4 121 41 -2 -4 -.4 -.4 33 H70 145 -68 -15 -17 .2 .4 34 H72 156 22 -26 -0 -.3 - .0 35 H74 48 3 -16 -11 - .2 - .4 36 moo 134 -2 11 -17 -.9 -1.0 37 H102 86 -3 28 15 -.4 -1.1 38 H106 1 -21 -2 0 - .9 -.1 39 H104 35 11 -3 -5 - .6 -1.1 40 H108 -7 -16 112 23 .6 - .0 APPENDIX E TCMA 41 T30 26 46 42 TUB 33 -54 43 T116 -18 -8 44 T114 94 96 45 T102 16 343 46 T74 78 67 47 T62 185 426 48 T60 45 280 49 T44 -54 -77 50 T46 -22 -40 51 T24 1 11 52 T28 -47 -66 53 T26 -28 -57 54 T20 50 72 55 T22 -33 -76 56 T40 5 -69 57 T42 8 -97 58 T56 193 95 59 T58 34 -60 60 T72 17 1060 61 T96 2 248 62 T98 81 -148 63 T100 101 325 64 T112 88 10 65 T110 3 -26 66 T122 14 -56 67 T120 42 -82 68 T108 31 2 69 T106 -14 39 70 T94 -16 122 71 T70 210 216 72 T54 44 74 73 T38 -37 -81 74 T18 1 -87 75 T16 15 -102 76 T10 87 45 77 T8 102 -98 78 T12 40 -116 79 T14 -32 -25 80 T36 36 31 81 T52 -15 216 82 T68 287 79 83 T66 -8 57 84 T92 36 142 85 T88 1 63 86 T86 12 181 87 T152 -24 266 88 T232 -8 -80 89 T298 1 -86 90 T230 -3 -80 91 T228 41 143 92 T296 -7 68 93 T180 -23 -26 94 T182 -36 116 95 T138 -22 282 -30 -27 .7 1.2 0 -84 - .4 - .9 -3 -6 - .6 -1.0 -12 22 -1.0 -1.0 -19 -84 -.8 -1.2 7 -84 .5 3.4 85 -84 0 . i. -.4 20 -84 - .5 .1 -9 -9 - .9 -.5 11 16 -1.0 - .6 -11 -28 -.4 -.4 -18 -27 -.8 - .9 16 -10 _ T • L. -.4 -23 -24 - .9 - .5 -31 -2 -1.2 -.8 -23 -0 -1.0 -.4 3 -84 - .7 .1 25 -84 - .2 -.1 25 -84 .3 1.3 11 -84 2.9 -1.1 34 -84 1.7 .4 22 -84 .9 3.2 -1 -84 -.4 -.8 -14 23 - .9 -.7 -15 24 - .7 - .6 -10 20 - .6 -.8 -28 8 -.8 c - . J -14 8 -.7 - .6 52 37 .7 .5 -19 -17 1.5 1.6 5 -84 1.3 1.5 22 33 .6 .8 4 11 - .6 -.7 -19 13 - .9 -.8 -19 -26 -.9 - .9 -5 -4 c J -.4 -20 30 -1.1 - .5 -2 -2 -.7 - .6 -11 -15 -.7 .0 1 3 C • J -.4 95 28 1.9 .7 -4 68 .0 1.1 -1 30 2.6 2.2 -9 -10 -.1 .2 15 12 .5 -.4 -17 -24 .3 .3 -17 -17 .0 1.2 -12 -10 -.1 - .7 -14 15 -.1 - .6 -24 7 J - .6 -.3 -22 -25 - .2 .3 23 -2 1.9 .7 -13 -12 .4 -.4 -12 -37 .4 .1 -6 -55 2.3 -.1 APPENDIX E SUMMARY TABLE, DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES, 1961 - 1971 VANCOUVER, H=OTTAWA-HULL, T=TQR0NT0 1961 No Soee Nonfaly I Feiale P/A/ t ZPAT srvtn Tract Age Religion Unvrsty Hsehds Chldrn Labour Labour FaLabr VCMA 1 V28 -18 -28 9 -18 .0 -1 -7 22 2 V34 -16 -16 -7 64 .0 7 -12 32 3 V36 -1 14 10 39 -.4 0 -6 5 4 V54 -6 31 38 57 -.1 -8 19 39 5 V32 -6 20 78 -4 .1 -10 -10 -6 6 V30 -5 15 50 15 .2 2 4 17 7 V52 -13 6 73 17 .0 B 5 45 8 V24 -26 37 64 19 .1 -2 -16 3 9 V22 12 11 -23 -24 -.1 -18 12 7 10 V20 14 83 14 16 .1 -14 17 22 11 V18 35 94 -6 24 - .2 12 12 -2 12 V16 48 79 74 9 7 -6 39 4 13 V14 29 9 229 -20 .0 -2 53 47 14 V12 103 37 94 12 .1 -3 -14 9 15 V10 -38 33 24 19 .1 6 -36 -29 16 V8 11 28 53 30 -.1 8 -1 12 17 V50 -52 -41 182 -37 .3 25 -41 -44 18 V6 -47 -38 142 -16 -.1 37 -46 -95 19 V2 26 22 -23 -7 - .0 -15 3 -2 20 V4 36 14 34 -23 -.1 -18 16 -43 HCMA 21 H12 37 14 23 2 - .6 12 -17 -20 22 H28 9 -3 -65 -4 .0 -19 -8 23 H26 31 31 -47 -14 .1 -10 -11 -2 24 H24 38 66 -14 -24 - .2 -13 16 1 25 H22 0 -58 37 9 .1 -5 -14 28 26 H30 22 68 118 130 - .2 8 45 173 27 H34 -0 -46 -15 38 .0 -7 -20 -23 28 H20 26 52 29 -25 -.1 -16 47 100 29 H14 25 100 16 8 _ T • X. -11 -3 15 30 H16 -14 47 8 -15 - .2 -27 -19 -28 31 H18 -15 23 1 97 -.1 7 -8 24 32 H4 -4 -41 -72 24 - .2 -1 -31 -12 33 H70 2 -37 -87 56 - .2 6 -45 -28 34 H72 -1 176 38 70 - .4 4 -13 15 35 H74 -7 -56 26 70 - .2 12 -47 -44 36 H100 -11 87 -104 67 .1 -7 -54 -71 37 H102 -15 55 -11 19 -.1 5 -44 -58 38 H106 -5 211 -54 75 T 15 -4 7 39 H104 -1 120 -20 116 -.4 12 -19 -15 40 H108 25 1153 493 140 - .9 49 106 112 111 APPENDIX E TCHA 41 T30 -7 -18 15 -17 -.1 -17 11 42 42 TUB -11 93 58 41 - .0 -9 24 19 43 T116 -10 35 276 15 .1 -7 13 48 44 T114 -1 28 137 67 - .0 -14 21 44 45 T102 5 -14 290 69 -.1 5 60 122 46 T74 6 50 132 -33 -.4 -39 -27 -75 47 T62 54 304 456 -31 .1 35 120 99 48 T60 9 371 142 -38 .3 15 88 94 49 T44 -13 -17 11 -12 .1 -11 5 IB 50 T46 -11 -44 37 9 .1 -10 -29 -37 51 T24 -7 -15 -14 -25 .1 -9 -23 -1 52 T28 -15 -69 176 -17 .1 13 36 30 53 T26 9 78 79 -25 - .0 -6 59 -4 54 T20 1 11 -1 -1 - .0 -15 20 1 55 T22 1 -54 97 -29 - .0 -4 -2 37 56 T40 -3 -40 -6 -31 .2 -17 -1 -19 57 T42 4 77 75 66 - .0 -6 52 39 58 T56 13 162 213 63 - .0 -6 83 112 59 T58 105 267 58 4 -.1 -34 43 1 60 T72 41 96 51 -24 - .2 -4 36 19 61 T96 70 40 153 14 -.8 7 74 3 62 T98 26 3 111 -11 -.3 -20 61 64 63 T100 -0 360 240 -17 .0 -12 85 76 64 Tl 12 •J 0 93 94 15 .1 -18 11 28 65 T110 1 -30 29 19 .1 -17 8 27 66 T122 -0 -59 -26 -15 T .0 -6 -11 13 67 T120 5 -81 6 -35 .3 -10 -6 12 68 T108 3 -51 129 1 .2 -20 -11 -28 69 T106 55 43 120 40 -.1 -9 74 125 70 T94 -7 50 -36 -11 .1 -10 7 -24 71 T70 24 52 16 -12 -.4 -17 85 -0 72 T54 57 309 118 32 - .2 -10 62 50 73 T38 -16 -79 90 -34 .2 -15 -11 15 74 T18 -7 -76 16 -19 .2 -19 -13 -24 75 T16 -8 -80 119 -13 T • t 4 -6 10 76 T10 C J 1 12 18 -.1 -7 \i 13 24 77 T8 -59 -77 69 161 0 • L. -3 -20 29 78 T12 -18 -80 85 -47 .3 -7 -21 -5 79 T14 -1 -42 -31 -22 .2 -12 -8 -15 80 T36 6 -7 21 14 .2 -4 13 29 81 T52 17 50 -3 -10 - .2 -17 14 -13 82 T68 21 100 58 -25 - .4 -11 48 6 83 T66 8 29 -43 -20 - .2 -6 4 -6 84 T92 11 182 -36 -38 .2 2 6 7 85 T88 22 -3 34 40 -.1 -2 16 12 86 T86 29 84 -32 -22 .1 -10 -0 -4 87 T152 28 102 -29 3 .0 -2 -17 -25 88 T232 -20 -36 83 19 .2 -14 -8 -25 89 T298 -14 -63 103 20 .1 -6 -24 -17 90 T230 -5 -44 -12 3 .2 -11 -16 -5 91 T228 31 107 -28 8 -.1 8 -22 -1 92 T296 21 11 19 -9 -.1 -8 15 17 93 T180 8 -29 50 18 -.1 -3 3 2 94 T182 28 65 -40 25 - .3 15 -14 -45 95 T138 -19 31 -39 73 -.1 10 -8 -28 112 APPENDIX E SUMMARY TABLE, DEMQ6RAPHIC VARIABLES, 1971 - 1981 VANCOUVER, H=OTTAHA, T=T0R0NT0 srvtn 1961 Tract Age Na Religion Soee Unvrsty Nonfaly Hsehds 1 Chldrn Fenale Labour P/fl/t Labour XPAT FflLabr VCMA 1 V28 14 135 47 -8 .1 0 48 55 2 V34 -11 10 -42 1 .0 -19 -66 -18 7 0 V36 -IB -24 -11 7 • 1 -0 0 8 4 V54 -2 18 -19 17 .1 13 -19 -2 5 V32 1 9 57 2 .1 8 44 35 6 V30 13 48 102 -2 .1 -3. 33 18 7 V52 14 12 40 9 .1 -8 42 68 8 V24 11 30 19 -6 .1 5 32 20 9 V22 -4 27 -3 -12 .2 -14 -17 -13 10 V20 30 3 38 11 i -0 32 32 11 V18 -10 -21 -37 26 .0 -4 -21 2 12 V16 -14 -30 -7 -4 .2 -17 10 74 13 V14 -5 2 131 -33 -.1 11 253 210 14 V12 -62 10 5 22 .2 3 -15 -12 15 V10 40 16 46 0 ,2 -3 91 101 16 V8 5 13 93 25 .0 0 78 44 17 V50 26 -30 17 -13 n • L. 10 132 27 18 V6 17 -38 58 33 .6 -20 291 ERR 19 V2 -20 -8 -10 -13 .1 -20 -4 6 20 V4 -10 -25 -1 -25 .3 -27 9 67 HCMA 21 H12 -24 -127 -95 433 .0 10 12 4 22 H28 4 58 5 -28 .4 0 20 12 23 H26 4 62 17 -25 .2 r - J 44 55 24 H24 7 -9 -14 -36 7 • -j -17 3 4 25 H22 27 206 135 -5 .1 -4 127 56 26 H30 -23 58 -52 8 .3 -12 -30 -27 27 H34 13 97 13 -14 • 3 -7 20 13 28 H20 8 -25 70 -38 .0 4.4. 60 64 29 H14 -43 65 38 -20 .1 -3 36 28 30 H16 89 514 115 17 .1 1 116 60 31 HIS 39 382 163 24 .0 -16 82 41 32 H4 -20 286 175 27 .1 4 72 25 33 H70 -19 114 63 10 .1 - ! 59 55 34 H72 5 -80 -16 81 -.1 7 41 35 35 H74 -10 49 -41 IB .1 -5 -16 35 36 moo 14 91 206 19 -.2 13 161 176 37 H102 4 313 48 18 T • 4. -8 121 159 38 K106 3 75 75 40 .0 1 40 52 39 H104 -14 155 -32 66 .0 4. -28 -40 40 H108 -12 -77 -43 76 .0 1 4. -45 -62 113 APPENDIX E TCMA 41 T30 -77 12 -14 -14 .4 -19 -19 -29 42 TUB 26 96 160 -3 .0 -6 143 187 43 TU6 10 261 63 18 .0 2 72 89 44 T114 38 216 426 14 -.2 17 250 182 45 T102 11 122 12 27 -.3 33 44 35 46 T74 49 -29 99 -15 -.1 25 65 27 47 T62 18 -18 47 6 -.4 -16 87 48 48 T60 9 -17 -17 -12 .1 -2 31 42 49 T44 -13 50 -32 -17 .1 -5 15 26 50 T46 5 35 9 -15 .0 7 132 103 51 T24 -6 3 -2 61 .1 3 2 -21 52 T2B -6 -90 -60 -39 .2 -7 -102 -106 53 T26 -3 7 9 33 .1 -1 10 101 54 T20 13 71 49 14 .1 -11 77 102 55 T22 -8 22 -74 -10 i • t. -9 -37 -36 56 T40 -1 93 121 21 .1 16 79 106 57 T42 -12 197 75 13 .3 -1 88 100 58 T56 17 51 89 30 _ T • L. 4 89 69 59 T58 -35 -32 -63 -28 .1 2 18 18 60 T72 -2 -25 _TT -25 .1 -28 -17 -22 61 T96 -24 -24 -52 -21 .1 -21 -48 -53 62 T98 7 53 37 -25 ".I -14 23 -5 63 T100 25 54 289 7 -.4 11 253 254 64 T112 3 143 157 -8 .1 -0 282 239 65 T110 -12 153 224 -14 .2 4 221 223 66 T122 7 269 313 19 -.0 -3 192 150 67 T120 -4 364 65 -9 .3 -13 42 20 68 T108 -16 158 5 38 .1 3 125 300 69 T106 -12 34 16 -18 .1 -10 5 8 70 T94 -27 -52 -35 -23 .2 -14 -20 16 71 T70 -42 -86 7 -29 .1 -13 8 19 72 T54 -24 -26 -6 -15 .2 -12 33 17 73 T38 -8 288 63 2 .1 5 41 67 74 T18 -2 32 6 -6 .1 1 54 3 75 T16 -5 171 15 1 .1 -1 77 48 76 T10 26 131 126 116 -.0 -7 143 123 77 T8 68 76 14 -0 .2 15 71 9 78 T12 -13 76 21 -3 .2 4 122 99 79 T14 -2 104 67 -6 .2 -8 113 87 80 T36 -13 109 2 -5 .1 -8 39 28 81 T52 -20 -7 -15 -17 .2 -12 12 36 82 T68 -25 -6 14 -33 .2 -13 36 29 783 T66 -23 -47 -22 -22 .3 -8 -19 -16 84 T92 -7 -62 -28 -37 .0 -1 -18 1 85 TB8 6 50 22 -18 .1 -3 43 32 86 T86 6 31 -1 -12 .2 -2 6 24 87 T152 2 -36 -19 -7 .1 -1 -10 21 88 T232 -5 -28 -16 -13 .1 7 198 621 89 T29B -7 7 12 -9 .2 5 39 75 90 T230 -16 -10 57 6 .2 9 88 37 91 T22B 10 31 45 3 .1 -2 34 65 92 T296 • -4 32 -10 -16 .2 -13 10 11 93 T180 -11 42 -17 -9 .3 -12 -2 -8 94 T182 -15 -52 -26 15 .2 -4 7 66 95 T138 -31 -65 -46 21 .4 -9 -45 -25 114 

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.831.1-0097588/manifest

Comment

Related Items