Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The municipal role in housing : a case study of Burnaby, British Columbia McKay, Lauri A. 1989

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8_2 M38.pdf [ 7.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097980.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097980-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097980-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097980-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097980-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097980-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097980-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097980-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097980.ris

Full Text

THE MUNICIPAL ROLE IN HOUSING: A CASE STUDY OF BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA by LAURI A. MCKAY Bachelor of Arts, University of Calgary A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2 October 1989 © Lauri A. McKay, 1989 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. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: 2 October 1989 ABSTRACT Research on housing policy in Canada has been directed primarily towards the analysis of the policies made at the senior levels of government. As a result, there is abundant literature concerning the roles of the federal and provincial governments in housing. In contrast, little attention has focused on the municipal role. The need for studies that examine municipal involvement in housing policy and provision has become increasingly apparent in recent years, as many local governtments have begun to try to expand their role in housing beyond the traditional tasks of zoning and collecting property taxes. This thesis presents a case study of one municipality's experiences in planning for housing. Over the past three decades, housing problems have received a great deal of attention on the public agenda in Burnaby. In particular, three categories or types of housing problems have predominated since 1960; namely, apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. This research revealed that these housing problems have reached the municipal agenda on a recurrent basis and are all related to the disparity between two apparently contradictory goals: the goal of preserving the status quo in existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of encouraging and facilitating the development of a diversity of housing options for present and future residents of the Municipality. This thesis examines the process by which each of the three categories of housing problems has reached the municipal agenda and how the community has responded. An analytic framework is initially used to study the nature and ii complexity of the housing problems which have reached Burnaby's public agenda. By outlining the various stages in the lifecycle of a social problem, this framework made it possible to identify the origins of Burnaby's housing policies by tracing the housing issues through their initial recognition in the community as problems to the measures which were taken to alleviate them. There is a striking feature evident in the examination of housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda. At least once in every decade, the Municipality and the Region as a whole, are faced with what is widely defined as a "housing crisis". This case study suggests that the perception of a "housing crisis" in Burnaby appears to be related to periods of rapid growth in the Region during which time housing problems affect a large number of lower and middle income households. Similar to many other Canadian municipalities, the role of Burnaby in housing has been quite limited, restricted primarily to regulatory and zoning functions. Burnaby will continue to experience increased pressures for rapid growth and change due to its central location within the larger Metropolitan Area. There will come a point in the near future when the Municipality of Burnaby will have to seriously consider the expansion of its role in all aspects of housing. It is hoped that this study provides a useful analysis and summary of information about the Municipality's past role in housing. For understanding past events and policy decisions is essential to the development of better policies in the future. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii I. INTRODUCTION 1 1. The Municipal Role In Housing 4 2. Housing as a Social Issue 7 3. Organization of Thesis 12 II. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE 16 1. A Framework for Analysis 16 2. Housing Problems on Burnabys Public Agenda 22 III. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT 27 1. Emergence of the Problem 27 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem 28 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem 28 4. Preparation of the Official Plan of Action 29 5. Implementation of the Official Plan 30 6. Events Following the Implementation of the Plan 31 IV. SOCIAL HOUSING 40 1. Emergence of the Problem 41 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem , 47 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem 49 V. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION 54 1. Emergence of the Problem 54 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem 56 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem 58 4. Preparation of the Official Plan of Action 64 5. Implementation of the Official Plan 73 6. Events Following the Attempt to Implement the Plan 75 VI. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" 78 1. The Housing Crisis in the Late 1960s 91 2. The 1972 - 1974 Housing Crisis 95 3. The Housing Crisis of the Early 1980s 101 4. The Housing Crisis of the Late 1980s 105 5. Common Features of the Four Periods of Housing Crises 108 iv VII. SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 110 1. Summary of the Case Study 110 2. Conclusions 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY 121 APPENDIX A: CHRONOLOGY 137 APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL TABLES 153 List of Tables Table 1: Population of Burnaby and Metro-Vancouver 23 Table 2: Community Profiles (1986) 24 Table 3: Average Household Size in Burnaby 25 Table 4: Burnabys Social Housing Stock 50 Table 5: Proposed Residential Framework 70 Table 6: Summary of Compaction Actions 72 Table 7: Burnabys Multiple Housing Starts 106 Table 8: Apartment Vacancy Rates 1959-1976 153 Table 9: Apartment Vacancy Rates 1977-1989 154 Table 10: Multiple Dwelling Starts 155 Table 11: Single and Two Family Starts 156 Table 12: Consumer Price Index (Vancouver CMA) 157 Table 13: Provincial Net Migration 158 Table 14: Provincial Gross Domestic Product 159 Table 15: Provincial Unemployment Rate 160 Table 16: Conventional Five Year Mortgage Rates 161 vi List of Figures Figure 1: A Typology of Policy Analysis 3 Figure 2: Burnaby in the Region 11 Figure 3: Burnabys Vacancy Rates 33 Figure 4: Burnabys Population Growth 34 Figure 5: Apartments as a Percentage of Burnabys Dwelling Stock 37 Figure 6: Percentage of Renters in Burnaby and Vancouver 38 Figure 7: Metro—Vancouver Vacancy Rates 82 Figure 8: Burnaby Housing Starts 83 Figure 9: Metro—Vancouver Housing Starts 84 Figure 10: Change in the Consumer Price Index (1962-1971) 85 Figure 11: Change in the Consumer Price Index (1972-1988) 86 Figure 12: Provincial Net Migration 87 Figure 13: Change in the Provincial Gross Domestic Product 88 Figure 14: Provincial Unemployment Rates 89 Figure 15: Conventional Five Year Mortgage Rate 90 vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T I would like to express my appreciation to my thesis supervisors, Professors J. D. Hulchanski and B. Wiesman, for their guidance and advice in preparing this thesis. As well, I would like to thank all those individuals in Burnaby who shared their time and expertise during my research, particularly Beverly Grieve of the Planning Department. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge CMHC for the scholarship I received for the 1987—1988 academic year. To my family and friends, especially David, a special note of thanks for your never—ending support and encouragement. viii I. INTRODUCTION Planners must deal with the reality of constant change; change that they do not and cannot control. Macroeconomic conditions and societal norms and values are continually undergoing gradual and sometimes abrupt changes that ultimately shape the reality of life in our cities. Consequently, planners must be aware of prevailing values and conditions when developing policies and preparing plans, for these norms and values to a large extent guide and constrain the actions of the state and its agencies (Roweis, 1981). In an ideal model of a capitalist society, private enterprise is highly valued and is based on the workings of an unfettered marketplace. It is assumed that the prices of commodities, services and labour are entirely determined by the interaction of the forces of supply and demand. Since government intervention in the marketplace would not be permitted in such an ideal society, it is clear that such a pure capitalistic society does not exist today. Markets are rarely, if ever, completely unfettered. The nearest approximation to this ideal model were the early capitalist societies of the mid—seventeenth to the late nineteenth century. During this time period, the role of the state in the area of urban development and planning was clearly limited (Roweis, 1981:163). In Canada, a mixed version of capitalism has evolved that incorporates many aspects of a more planned society. Governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels intervene in many aspects of society, from banking to 1 INTRODUCTION / 2 health and welfare. One important area which has experienced a great deal of government intervention is housing. This is particularly true at the federal and provincial levels. Provincial governments have constitutional jurisdiction over housing and have created their own policies and programs which have worked in conjunction with federal programs. It is at the municipal level, however, where the inadequacies of many of the federal and provincial initiatives are manifested. For instance, growing numbers of homeless individuals and families are found on the streets of larger Canadian cities. As well, more and more households are experiencing affordability problems which threaten their security (Hulchanski, 1987; Peddie, 1987; Young, 1987). This is one of the major reasons why many municipalities are now considering an expanded role in housing and are searching for innovative means to address the housing problems of their residents. An important first step in the redefinition of the municipal role in housing is a review and analysis of what the municipal role has been and what this role should be. Understanding the past is essential to planning for the future. In order to do this, a foundation of knowledge must be built based on a number of case studies which examine the major issues and problems associated with planning for housing at the municipal level. The case study research method is well suited to this type of problem since a major strength of this approach is its "ability to trace changes over time" (Yin, 1989:116). As noted by Robert Yin, case studies are the preferred research strategy for understanding complex social phenomena within some real—life context (Yin, 1989:13—14). Thus, the primary purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the understanding of the INTRODUCTION / 3 municipal role in housing by presenting a case study of one municipality's experiences in planning for housing. A distinction is made by some authors1 between analysis of policy and the analysis for policy (See Figure 1). STUDY OF STUDY OF STUDY OF POLICY POLICY POLICY CONTENT PROCESS OUTPUTS INFORMATION FOR POLICY-MAKING PROCESS ADVOCACY POLICY ADVOCACY ANALYST AS POLITICAL POLITICAL ACTOR AS ACTOR ANALYST POLICY STUDIES (Knowledge of policy and the policy process) POLICY ANALYSIS (Knowledge in the policy process) Figure 1: A Typology of Policy Analysis (Source: Ham and Hill, 1985:9) Analysis of policy is mainly descriptive and is aimed at furthering the understanding of policy content, the policy process and the outcome of policy. Analysis for policy, on the other hand, is prescriptive and involves the gathering of information for policy—making, process advocacy, and policy advocacy. Evaluation or impact studies can involve either of the two general types of 'Hogwood and Gunn, 1981; Ham and Hill, 1981; and others. INTRODUCTION / 4 policy analysis and frequently incorporate both descriptive and prescriptive elements (Ham and Hill, 1985:8—10). This study focuses on the analysis of policy rather than the analysis for policy. It is primarily a study of policy content, in that it seeks to describe and explain the origin and development of housing policy within a typical Canadian municipality. A secondary concern is the analysis of the policy process, since this study also includes a discussion of the stages through which the major housing issues and policies in the municipality have passed. As this is not an evaluation or an advocacy study, the making of recommendations or prescriptions for solving the housing problems in the community is not an objective. The municipality chosen for this case study is Burnaby, British Columbia. As a constituent municipality in a larger metropolitan region, Burnaby is representative of numerous Canadian cities. As will be illustrated in later chapters, these constituent municipalities are of particular interest to planners, politicians, business organizations and residents alike, and, yet, relatively little research has been conducted on their public policy histories. 1. The Municipal Role In Housing There is abundant literature concerning the roles of the federal and provincial governments in housing.2 There is, however, a significant gap in the (Hulchanski and Grieve, 1984; Drover and Hulchanski, 1985; Grieve, 1985; Bacher, 1986) INTRODUCTION / 5 literature regarding the municipal role. The reasons for this are many. Perhaps the most important reason is that until relatively recently housing was not really on the municipal agenda. The Canadian Constitution (formerly the BNA Act of 1867) gives the provinces authority over housing matters and the power to delegate authority and responsibility to municipal governments at their discretion. A fact acknowledged repeatedly in the literature is that municipalities are basically the "creatures" of the province and have only limited powers delegated to them by the province (Cullingworth, 1985; Makuch, 1986; Lane, 1988). In Canada, responsibility for the development of housing policies and programs has rarely been given to municipal governments. Traditionally, municipal influence on housing development and policy has been limited to controlling private sector development through the use of regulatory devices such as zoning and maintenance and occupancy standards. Even the provision of infrastructure can only guide the general location of private sector development, it cannot determine if and when it will occur. A further restriction on municipalities' ability to intervene in the housing sector is their reliance on property taxes as their principal source of finances. The property tax is widely recognized to be an inadequate source of revenue for supporting the expanding needs and expectations in Canada's urban centres (Cullingworth, 1985; Makuch, 1986; Lane, 1988). Restricted constitutional authority and financial resources are not the only reasons for the limited role of municipal governments in housing. It has only been in recent decades that the need for public involvement in housing has increased. Rising housing costs, inadequate supply of rental accommodation and associated problems have contributed to the creation of a political atmosphere INTRODUCTION / 6 open to greater government involvement in housing. At the same time, growing dissatisfaction with federal and provincial housing polices and programs have led to calls for the increased involvement of local governments. Consequently, the role of municipal governments in housing has been changing in many Canadian cities (Burchinshaw et al., 1985; Makuch, 1986). In 1985 CMHC conducted a survey of municipal housing policies across Canada. The report provides a brief overview of local government activities in four key areas: 1. social housing; 2. housing conditions and rehabilitation; 3. rental housing; and 4. affordability. The survey found that the primary focus of municipal housing policies is on social housing; specifically, on determining which groups should be targeted for assistance and how that assistance should be provided (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:4). It was also found that the area of rental housing has received the least amount of attention by municipal policy—makers (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:4). Two main conclusions were drawn from the survey results. First, there was a distinct lack of policy directed at inter—municipal communication and, therefore, information on the successes and/or failures of any innovative housing related policies were not being disseminated through Canada's urban system (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:27). The second conclusion was that although most municipalities continue to function in either an administrative role or as a link between provincial and federal governments, some Canadian municipalities are INTRODUCTION / 7 directly involved in the provision of affordable housing. Efforts of these municipalities have largely focused on: 1. property tax exemptions; 2. development bonuses; 3. zoning incentives; 4. limiting condominium conversions; 5. expansion of duplex and apartment conversion rights for existing dwellings; 6. conversion of unused office and commercial space into residential units; and 7. leasing municipally owned land to social housing delivery agencies (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:29-30). 2. Housing as a Social Issue It is extremely important to note that until the post—war era the prevailing planning ethos in our society did not consider housing to be an area open to planning intervention. The municipal role was considered to exclude anything other than the zoning of land for the separation of land uses. This philosophy is exemplified in the 1928 Master Plan for Vancouver prepared by Harland Bartholomew and Associates (Bartholomew, 1928). In the Master Plan, Bartholomew argued that it was beyond the scope of town planning, as outlined by the Provincial Acts, to be concerned with the economic problems associated with the provision of housing. The following passage from the 1928 Master Plan for Vancouver illustrates this argument: INTRODUCTION / 8 "Evidently zoning, as well as the other phases of a town plan, touch closely on the matter of housing. The housing problem, however, can only be solved when the city or state is in the position to guarantee to every individual householder a wage sufficient for the payment of reasonable rent. While town planning can go far to create and maintain desirable housing conditions, it is beyond its scope, as outlined by the Provincial Acts, to concern itself with the very important economic problem involved in such an understanding, a problem which demands separate study and treatment." (Bartholomew, 1928:234). Housing was, and is still, considered by many to be a market commodity and, as such, it is argued, the pricing and provision of housing is best left to market forces and the private sector. Housing problems are, in this view, economic problems which need not concern municipal planners.3 In contrast to this perspective is the argument that housing is much more than a market commodity. Shelter is a basic necessity of life and everyone has a right to housing." It is argued that housing has certain characteristics that differentiate it from other common commodities, both socially and economically (Stone, 1986:44-45; CMHC, 1987:24). As discussed by Stone, housing is a "bulky, immobile, and very durable good" (1986:44—45). These characteristics, combined with the fact that housing prices are determined primarily by the structure of the marketplace directly influence the standard of living for most ~* (Bartholomew, 1928; Research Committee of the League for Social Reconstruction^ 1935; Marcuse, 1978) * (Carver, 1948; Atchenberg and Marcuse, 1986a; McAfee, 1986; Stone, 1986; Young, 1987; CAHRO, 1988) INTRODUCTION / 9 households. If housing costs rise or household income declines it is very difficult for a household to reduce or substitute the amount of housing they consume and, as a result, they will be forced to reduce other household expenditures, including food. Additionally, since housing costs vary with location, many households may be excluded from particular neighbourhoods and this can affect their standard of living by limiting access to schools, transportation, various community services and facilities, and even employment opportunities. Consequentially, housing is very different than other market commodities and as pointed out by Stone "no other consumption item is nearly as pervasive in its effects." (Stone, 1986:45). The way in which housing is bought and sold over time also distinguishes it from other commodities in three major ways. First, buying a house is the most substantial purchase that most households will ever make and it is also one of the most necessary expenditures. Second, housing units are usually bought and sold several times and the purchase price at each subsequent sale is not determined by actual construction cost but instead by replacement cost. As well, housing costs are directly linked to changes in land values which can easily become inflated by speculation in the land market. The third reason is that housing purchases rarely involve the direct payment of a lump sum but rather a series of incremental payments over time. Therefore, payment of interest to financiers or investors must be considered. Other costs, such as, property taxes, utilities and maintenance costs also add substantially to the total shelter costs for households (Stone, 1986:45). INTRODUCTION / 10 There are often opposing views about how to address housing needs and issues in the public sector. The difference depends on whether housing is considered to be a basic necessity of life, viewed by some to be a right of every individual, or an investment commodity to be bought and sold for profit with a minimum of government regulation. In recent years, however, it is increasingly recognized that every citizen is entitled to adequate housing and that the private sector, alone, cannot provide for all groups — particularly low income and special needs households (CMHC, 1987:12). Since World War II the federal government has established a presence in the housing sector and has instituted a number of policies and programs aimed at ensuring that all households are able to find adequate and affordable housing (Anderson, 1987; Young, 1987). For example, in the 1960s, amendments to the National Housing Act (NHA) stimulated the establishment of numerous provincial housing corporations, created to develop public housing. Additionally, in the mid— 1970s' CMHC spent over $700 million in direct loans through the Assisted Home Ownership (AHOP) and Assisted Rental (ARP) Programs (CHMC, 1987). INTRODUCTION / 11 BURNABY IN THE REGION Figure 2: Burnaby in the Region (Source: Official Community Plan, 1987:10) I N T R O D U C T I O N / 12 3. Organization of Thesis Burnaby is a city of approximately 145,000 residents (Census Canada, 1986) and is centrally located in the Metropolitan Region of Vancouver (See Figure 2). Burnaby occupies about 4% of the total land area of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and, in 1986, accounted for almost 1 1 % of the G V R D ' s total population (OCP, 1987:10). 5 The average household size in 1986 was 2.4 persons per household and the total number of occupied dwellings in Burnaby was 58,300. Over 4 8 % of the households in Burnaby are renters and apartments represent more than 3 6 % of the total housing stock (Census Canada, 1986). Research has tended to focus on the larger core cities of Canadian Metropolitan Areas rather than on the smaller constituent municipalities. One reason for the lack of investigation into the public policy histories of these smaller members of the metropolitan regions may be due to the fact that they have often remained as suburban "bedroom" communities for years, serving the residential needs of those employed in the core city, without ever establishing their own "identity." In addition, the events and the policies of the core city exert significant influence over those of the constituent municipalities and, in many cases, this may have led to the mistaken assumption that there is nothing uniquely interesting to learn from the study of such municipalities. This case study of Burnaby focuses on those housing issues that have Burnaby Planning Department, Official Community Plan, 1987. INTRODUCTION / 13 become defined as problems and placed on the municipal agenda, thereby requiring a community response. Housing problems can be considered to be social problems and, as such, the best method for investigating the complexity of housing problems is to utilize a framework designed for the analysis of social problems. Thus, an attempt is made to apply the framework proposed by Herbert Blumer (1971) for studying the "lifecycle" of social problems to the examination of housing problems and community responses in Burnaby. "Community" response in this thesis is defined as both the unofficial citizen or neighbourhood response as well as the official municipal hall political and planning response. This study covers the period between 1960 and the late 1980s. It seeks to identify the housing issues which have been recognized as problems and reached the public agenda as well as the nature of the community response that followed. The study is limited to this period since there was little in the way of planning for housing in Burnaby before 1960 and residential development was primarily restricted to single family detached housing (Apartment Study, 1966; OCP, 1987). Also, it was not until relatively recently that Burnaby began to experience sustained pressures for growth and change that have led the Municipality to plan and work towards establishing its own identity and diversifying its land use from almost total low density residential development to include higher density residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Perhaps the best expression of this trend is the concept of a town centre for Burnaby that was initiated after 1960 and, now, by the 1980s, Metrotown has become a reality. The changes in the Municipality since 1960 provide an interesting INTRODUCTION / 14 illustration of the emergence of housing problems and community response that will hopefully provide useful insights to help guide the development of local housing policies and programs in the future. Examination of the housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda and the community response that followed illustrates how the Municipality has dealt with housing in the past and how extensive the municipal housing role has been. An important question is whether the municipal role has been limited primarily to the traditional municipal task of zoning or have there been examples of additional involvement and intervention in the provision and maintenance of housing. By developing a thorough understanding of how housing problems have been addressed in the past, a foundation of knowledge is established which will help Burnaby planners and other policy—makers to define the role of the Municipality in years to come. It is also hoped that this approach will be applicable to other similar Canadian municipalities and useful in the process of assessing the adequacy of their own involvement in the housing sector. This thesis is organized into three parts. Part I, is comprised of this introductory chapter and the following chapter in which the analytic framework is established. The framework is based on the social problem "lifecycle" sequence proposed by Blumer and is used in the examination of three important categories or types of housing problems which have reached the public agenda in Burnaby. The three categories are introduced and briefly discussed in Chapter Two. Part II (Chapters Three, Four, and Five) presents the main components of INTRODUCTION / 15 the case study of Burnaby's role in housing which can be best described as an "embedded case study" (Yin, 1989:49). What distinguishes this type of case study from other research strategies is that the units of analysis are embedded within the larger case study. Each of these units may be examined individually and together they can enhance our understanding of the main focus of the case study (Yin, 1989:52, 121). For this study the embedded units constitute the three most important categories of housing problems which have reached Burnaby's public agenda since 1960; namely, apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. The three chapters in Part II present a detailed examination of each of major categories in the context of the lifecycle framework presented in Chapter Two. Part III offers another examination of housing problems in Burnaby (Chapter Six). A different approach is taken than in Part II in order to place the problems within another context. Four periods are identified during which there was general agreement in the community that a "housing crisis" existed. These periods provide the context for a discussion of possible links between a set of seven socio-economic indicators and the perception of a "housing crisis" within the community. In the final chapter a summary of the case study of Burnaby's role in housing is presented. This is followed by conclusions about the main findings in the case study and thoughts as to the relevance of this study for other municipalities. In addition, appendices supplement the text and include a chronological overview of housing issues and community responses and a collection of housing and other related statistics for the study period. II. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE The process by which social problems emerge in society and reach the public agenda, thereby requiring a community response, is complex and involves a myriad of factors. In order to illuminate certain aspects of this process an analytical framework is utilized which divides the lifecycle of a social problem into distinct stages. A framework proposed by Herbert Blumer in 1971 is adopted as a guide for the investigation of the emergence of housing problems and the community response in Burnaby. Blumer's framework divides the "career" or lifecycle of a social problem into five distinct stages. 1. A Framework for Analysis According to Blumer's thesis, social problems are the products of a process of collective definition. Blumer developed this thesis in reaction to traditional sociological theory which, at that time, viewed social problems in a much different way, assuming that "a social problem exists as an objective condition or arrangement in the texture of a society ... having an intrinsically harmful or malignant nature standing in contrast to a normal or healthful society." (Blumer, 1971:298). Blumer was critical of this approach and maintained that these sociological concepts were "conspicuously impotent to detect or identify social problems" (Blumer, 1971:299). One important argument against the traditional approach was that sociologists often identified and noted instances of deviance, dysfunction or social strain which never achieved the status of social problems on 16 HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 17 the public agenda and were, thus, never addressed by official plans of action. This inadequacy led Blumer to question the process by which a society collectively defines a social problem and how its resolution is approached by the society. He stressed that collectively defined social problems are always the focal point for the interaction of divergent and conflicting interests, intentions and objectives. The process of collective definition is an integral part of each stage in the lifecycle of a social problem. In order to examine this process, Blumer developed a five stage framework: 1. the emergence of a social problem; 2. the legitimation of the problem; 3. the mobilization of forces to address the problem; 4. preparation of the official plan of action; and 5. the implementation of the official plan. Stage One: Emergence of the Social Problem During the initial "emergence" stage some issue or condition in society begins to be recognized as a problem. Without this initial recognition, a social problem does not exist. It is important to note that societal norms and standards differ over time and among societies and those in one time period or society cannot simply be assumed to apply to another when analyzing social problems. As well, it must be acknowledged that the recognition of social problems by a HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 18 society is a highly selective process and issues or conditions which are ignored at one time may become matters of great concern at another, despite the fact that the issue or condition itself remains unchanged. As a result, relatively few collectively defined social problems emerge and the number and type change over time. Many problems never reach stage two. Stage Two: Legitimation of the Social Problem Once a social problem has been recognized by society, it must acquire social legitimacy. This second stage is what qualifies the problem to be addressed within recognized arenas of public discussion. In other words, this is the stage when the social problem is placed on the public agenda and is openly discussed by the media, community groups and considered by the political institutions. Recognition of a problem, alone, is insufficient to move it towards further public action. Social legitimacy and respectability are essential in the lifecycle of a social problem. As with the initial stage, the legitimation process is highly selective and many recognized problems will fade away without ever reaching the public agenda. Even fewer recognized problems ever reach stage three. Stage Three: Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem During the third stage, the social problem is not only discussed but can become the object of socio-political contention as the various interested parties express their opinions and concerns about the problem and the actions that should be taken to resolve it. At this stage, a common type of controversy HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 19 emerges between those who seek to change the status quo and those who fight to preserve their vested interests in maintaining it. This type of dispute is central to this study of housing problems, since the vast majority of housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda can be traced to the fundamental conflict between those who seek to preserve existing single family neighbourhoods and those who seek to create a more heterogeneous housing stock in the Municipality. The mobilization stage is characterized by discussion, advocacy, evaluation and the advancing of proposals in the media, as well as, in casual and organized meetings. The problem proceeds through a cycle of collective redefinition and evaluation of its worthiness for further action. This third stage is very important in determining the fate of the social problem because it sets the context for any official response that follows. It is by this third stage that a problem "receives" its "official" definition. That is, a consensus emerges over the fact that it is a problem with certain characteristics and that an official response is called for. Stage Four: Preparation of an Official P l a n of Action Stage four is reached once a collective decision has been made that the social problem warrants official action. At this point, official decision—makers select a course of action to address the social problem and the appropriate department or agency is directed to prepare an official plan of action. As Blumer notes, the official plan is usually a result of bargaining and compromise amongst diverse views and interests. Throughout this stage the definition of the social HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 20 problem is constantly being refined and often the official definition of the problem only remotely resembles the problem as defined in the initial' stages of its lifecycle. Consequentially, the official response may be directed towards an aspect of the problem not considered important by those who initially brought the issue or condition to the forefront of public discussion. Stage Five: Implementation of the P lan The final stage in Blumer's framework is the implementation of the official plan. It is entirely wrong to assume that this implementation stage automatically follows the preparation of a plan of action. There are numerous occasions when the actions recommended in the official plan are never set into motion. On other occasions the plan of action is manipulated and changed during the implementation process. It is also important to remember that the implementation process itself can lead to unintended consequences and in no way is there a guarantee that the implementation of the official plan will successfully address the social problem. Discussion of Blumer's Framework Blumer's framework outlines five distinct stages in the lifecycle of a social problem and implies that they follow one another in a linear manner, from social recognition of the problem to the implementation of an official plan of action which resolves the problem. This study has found that it is often very difficult to distinguish between the various stages, particularly the early stages. For HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 21 example, it is rarely possible to identify problems that have received social recognition but never gain social legitimacy and, thus, never reach the public agenda. As well, in practice it seems that there is rarely a linear progression from one stage to the next. A social problem may become stalled at any stage or simply slip from public awareness as other issues and problems gain prominence. The grey area that exists between the various lifecycle stages is especially troublesome in the analysis of complex social problems. Nonetheless, Blumer's framework helps to clarify the analysis of social problems and enables the researcher to associate certain types of actions with particular stages in the lifecycle process. It is important to understand that complex social problems, like the housing problems discussed here, are never really resolved. As pointed out, the process in which society recognizes social problems is highly selective. The collective definition of a problem is dependent on the societal conditions and values of the time. Over time different aspects or manifestations of the same issue often become recognized as different social problems as the importance of the issue is redefined by society. Wildavsky argues that social problems "are not so much solved as superseded" (Ham and Hill, 1985:6). In other words, it is not that the actions taken to alleviate the problem actually succeed in resolving the social problem, rather that the problem begins to recede from prominence on the public agenda as other problems are defined as more important by society. As a consequence, some aspect or manifestation of the same issue or condition may re—emerge as a collectively defined social problem which once more begins the five stage process outlined by Blumer. Thus, the same social problems, albeit HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 22 defined differently or with a different frame of reference, may continue to re—emerge in a cyclical manner through the lifecycle process over and over again without ever being resolved. At best, policy—makers may be able to ameliorate or reduce the harmful effects of some aspect of the social problem being experienced at a particular point in time (Ham and Hill, 1985:6). 2. Housing Problems on Burnabys Public Agenda An examination of official planning reports, Council minutes, Council Housing Committee files and other information sources (such as newspapers and personal interviews), has revealed that the specific housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda have been relatively limited in number and have tended to appear on a recurrent basis. 6 For example, apartment development first became an item on the public agenda in the early 1960s and has reappeared on the agenda several times since then. The most frequent housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda have been: 1. those associated with the type and location of apartment development within the Municipality; 2. those related to the provision and location of public or social housing in the Municipality; 3. those associated with the pressures for and attempts at residential intensification in Burnaby's low density single family "E For an overview of the major housing issues, planning reports and community responses, refer to the Chronology in Appendix A. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 23 neighbourhoods. These three types of housing problems seem to arise from the disparity between two apparently contradictory housing goals: the goal of preserving existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of creating a diversity of housing options for present and future residents of the Municipality. Both housing goals have received priority in a number of planning studies carried out since 1960 and are referred to in Burnaby's first Official Community Plan which was approved in 1987 (OCP, 1987). Census Date Merto-Vancouver Burnaby Total Population Total Population Percent Of Metro 1941 394,588 30,328 7.6 1951 561,960 58,376 10.4 1956 605,017 83,745 12.6 1961 790,165 100,157 12.7 1966 993,091 112,036 11.3 1971 1,082,352 125,660 11.6 1976 1,164,793 131,599 11.3 1981 1,268,183 136,494 10.8 1986 1,380,729 145,160 10.5 Table 1: Population of Burnaby and Metro—Vancouver (Source: Statistics Canada Census, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986) Burnaby's central location in the Vancouver Metropolitan Region has been an extremely important factor in the development of its residential HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 24 neighbourhoods. Since the Municipality's incorporation in 1892, Burnaby's growth and character have been highly influenced by the events and trends in the two adjacent municipalities of Vancouver and New Westminster. (For an idea of Burnaby's size and population in a regional context, see Tables 1 and 2.) For years Burnaby remained primarily a suburban "bedroom" community for the City of Vancouver (Parr, 1970; OCP, 1987). As such, the type of housing constructed was mainly single and two family dwellings on relatively large lots (OCP, 1987). As late as 1970, 75% of all dwellings in the Municipality were of this type (Parr, 1970). In fact, numerous neighbourhoods in Burnaby still retain an almost rural character. Long—term residents take pride in this and often explain that an important reason for initially moving to the community was to get away from the more intensive development in Vancouver and New Westminster. Additionally, the relatively lower priced dwellings in Burnaby were a strong incentive for moving to the Municipality. Total Number of Total Land % of Land in Population Households Area (hectares) Residential Use B U R N A B Y 143,998 58,492 9,217 27 Vancouver 427,131 186,854 11,593 39 New Westminster 39,603 19,421 1,566 32 Richmond 107,763 38,165 13,313 22 Table 2: Community Profiles (1986) (Source: R.E.B.G.V., 1988) H O U S I N G P R O B L E M S A N D C O M M U N I T Y R E S P O N S E / 25 Low density residential development has remained the predominant land use in Burnaby throughout most of its history. This has created a homogeneous suburban landscape that has been highly valued by the residents of these neighbourhoods. In fact, the uniformity and stability of Burnaby's existing single family neighbourhoods continue to be prized by many long—term and new residents alike. Anything that threatens, or is even perceived to threaten this stability brings strong opposition from those who have a personal stake in preserving the existing single family neighbourhoods in their present form. Despite the fact that preservation of the existing character of single family neighbourhoods is valued by many, change is inevitable in our society. It is a continuous process that is manifested by shifts in household structure and the nature of the demand for housing which have clearly indicated the need for a greater diversity of housing options (see Table 3). Y E A R H O U S E H O L D S I Z E 1961 3.55 1966 3.55 1971 3.25 1981 2.59 1986 2.48 2001 (projected) 2.23 Table 3: Average Household Size in Burnaby (Source: Statistics Canada Census and Burnaby Planning Dept.) HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 26 In the 1960s alternatives to the single and two family dwellings began to appear in Burnaby and by the mid-1960s the construction of apartments and other higher density housing projects became the subject of much discussion and controversy among residents, politicians and planners alike. The creation and maintenance of a diversity of housing types and tenures in the Municipality has gradually become a valued goal. Encouraging a diversity of housing alternatives does not in itself preclude the existence of low density single family neighbourhoods. However, since the homogeneous residential character has already been long established the promotion of housing alternatives necessarily threatens the continued existence of at least some of the single family neighbourhoods. Thus, the apparent disparity that exists between the two valued goals has resulted in a steady source of controversy which has been manifested in numerous ways; specifically in controversies surrounding apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. In Chapters Three, Four and Five, each of these categories of housing problems are examined within the context of Blumer's framework for the analysis of social problems. III. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT The 1960s were a time of change in the Municipality of Burnaby and the Vancouver Metropolitan Region as a whole. The Region was experiencing rapid growth and household formation rates were increasing as the Baby Boom generation reached maturity. The demand for housing was no longer limited to single family dwellings. It was also being expressed in a growing demand for alternative types of housing, especially apartment units. As a consequence, apartment construction rose significantly throughout the decade. The most visible example of this trend towards apartment development is in the City of Vancouver's West End. Apartment projects covered the area in the 1960s. Between 1959 and 1967, the number of apartments in the West End increased by over 96% to a total of 16,144 apartment units (R.E.B.G.V., 1959, 1968).7 In fact, the West End remained the area with the highest population density in the City of Vancouver and the nation for many years. 1. Emergence of the Problem The strong trend towards apartment construction in the Region and, particularly, the conspicuous highrise development of Vancouver's West End were matters of concern in the Municipality of Burnaby. Up until the mid— 1960s highrises were not even permitted within Burnaby's boundaries (Parr, 1988). However, by then the Council and planners could no longer ignore the growing 1 The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. 27 APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 28 trend. Pressures on existing neighbourhoods were increasing and Council began receiving proposals for apartment projects in the Municipality. As a consequence of the growing pressures, the desirability and locating of apartment developments, especially highrise apartments, became an issue that was increasingly being defined as a social problem. Thus, this housing problem had reached the first stage of its career as defined by Blumer. 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem It is extremely difficult to separate the second stage, legitimation, from the initial emergence stage since there is no way to determine if or when apartment development was defined as a problem before it was actually documented in official council minutes, planning documents and reported by the media. Therefore, once it can be determined that the citizens and officials of Burnaby considered the issue to be a problem, it is also correct to assume that it had indeed passed through the legitimation stage of its lifecycle. 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem The third stage, mobilization of forces to address the problem, followed quickly after its legitimation as a major housing problem. Recognizing that there were ever increasing demands and pressures for apartment construction in Burnaby, and after deciding that some apartment units should be permitted in APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 29 the community, Council began to consider the necessity for a policy to control and locate apartment developments. By early 1966, Burnaby Council had instructed the planning staff to prepare a plan for directing the type and location of apartment projects. 4. Preparation of the Official P lan of Action The fourth stage of Blumer's analytical framework was reached as planning staff prepared the 1966 Apartment Study (Burnaby Planning Department (BPD), 1966). This study sought to locate apartment development adjacent to the services and facilities required to support a higher density population. In the 1966 Apartment Study the planners designated 17 areas that were in close vicinity to existing commercial centres and which were adequately served by park and school facilities, as well as, transportation routes and utility servicing. By providing a plan for designated apartment areas, the planners and Council sought to achieve two objectives. First, and apparently most important, was to protect the interests of existing homeowners in the community. The plan provided homeowners within the existing single family neighbourhoods with increased security by guaranteeing that apartment buildings would not be permitted outside of the clearly defined apartment areas. The second objective achieved by the planned designations was to provide a beneficial service to developers. Designation of the apartment areas allowed prospective developers to locate their projects in areas where they were virtually assured of municipal approval. However, this was not necessarily the case as many developers experienced problems gaining APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 30 approval for their projects in later years, mainly due to the opposition of residents in adjacent neighbourhoods. Development of the apartment areas was to be gradual, through a process of phased rezoning following approval of the appropriate applications and plans for projects within the designated Apartment Areas. In the report, the planners were quick to point out that there was sufficient land designated for both present and future needs. The 1966 Apartment Study was a very influential document, as it first presented guiding concepts and principles that have played an integral part in Burnaby's development. The most important concept and closely related to the apartment area designations, was the hierarchical core concept. According to this principle, a hierarchy of centres were to be developed within Burnaby; from the low density neighbourhood and community centres to the higher density district and town centres. Various types and densities of apartment housing were to be associated with each level of centre. The hierarchical core concept has become an important principle in the planning of the Municipality and has been incorporated into all major planning studies that followed the 1966 Apartment Study. 5. Implementation of the Official Plan The implementation process of the 1966 Apartment Study began shortly after the planning staff presented a draft of the proposed plan to Council. Staff APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 31 was directed by Council to set up a series of public meetings to introduce and explain the proposals to residents and to invite them to express their opinions about the official plan. A brochure summerizing the plan, was distributed to all households and the public meetings were well attended. At the meetings the residents raised numerous concerns, most of which were related to the effects of apartment development on: 1. property values and taxes; 2. the costs of providing additional parks, schools, and community services; 3. views; and 4. existing zoning. These are common concerns of residents facing pressures on their neighbourhoods for change and have been documented in many discussions of neighbourhood planning. Despite the expressed concerns, residents were favourable towards the plan of action and on May 2, 1966 Council approved the Study's proposals for locating apartments within Burnaby. 6. Events Following the Implementation of the Plan In this instance, the collectively defined social problem — — if and where to locate apartment development — — successfully proceeded through the five stages of Blumer's framework. Strong market demand and the willingness of private sector developers to invest in the construction of apartments provided the stimulus to move the apartment development issue quickly through the lifecycle APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 32 process. Vacancy rates, as shown in Figure 3, indicate that the newly constructed apartment units were being absorbed rapidly by an ever increasing number of households in Burnaby and the Region. This trend continued through the rest of the 1960s as Burnaby's annual growth rate remained over 2.5% (See Figure 4 for an idea of Burnaby's population growth). The implementation of the apartment location policies contained in the 1966 Apartment Study did not signal the end of problems associated with apartment development on Burnaby's public agenda. In the late 1960s, Burnaby and the Region, were experiencing a critical housing shortage. Vacancy rates were extremely low and rents were increasing rapidly, despite the growing trend towards apartment development between 1966 and 1969. This trend is best illustrated by the fact that in 1961 apartments represented only 6% of the total dwellings in Burnaby (See Figure 5) and by 1969 apartments had reached 19% of the total housing stock (Apartment Study '69, 1969:8). Furthermore, apartment completions had represented an average of 60% of the total dwelling unit completions between 1962 and 1969 (Apartment Study '69, 1969:6). The construction of new apartments could not keep up with the growing demand, as indicated by the fact that vacancy rates in Burnaby remained low, and even dropped below 1% in June, 1966. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 33 Figure 3: Burnaby's Vacancy Rates (Source: R.E.B.G.V. and CMHC Vacancy Surveys) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 34 Burnaby's Population (1941 to 1986) tiOOOO-i 1941 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 Census Year Figure 4: Burnaby's Population Growth (Source: Statistics Canada) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 35 Burnaby Council became concerned over the changing housing situation and in 1969 instructed staff to undertake a review of the 1966 Apartment Study. In the Apartment Study '69, prepared by the Planning Department, the planners reported that the estimate of the future apartment potential for the Municipality appeared to be too low, in light of the development that had occurred since the 1966 study was completed. As a result, the planners increased the estimate from 26,000 to an eventual total of 35,600 apartment units (Apartment Study '69, 1969:6). Although the estimate of total numbers of apartments to be permitted in Burnaby was increased, no substantial changes were made to the apartment location policy formulated in the original study. The major conclusion reached in the review was that Burnaby needed to expand its range of housing options to meet the changing requirements of the family. Up until this point, single and two family dwellings supplemented with a limited number of three storey walk—up apartments were, for the most part, the only housing choices available to Burnaby residents. Vacancy rates clearly indicated a significant demand for family housing alternatives, such as apartments with three or more bedrooms. To illustrate, the vacancy rate for three bedroom apartments in Burnaby was only 0.3% in June, 1969 as compared to vacancy rates of 3.9% and 3.2% for bachelor and one bedroom apartments respectively. As well, three bedroom apartment represented only 7.2% of Burnaby's total apartment stock in 1969 (R.E.B.G.V., 1969). During another housing shortage in 1974, planning staff prepared a review of the report Apartment Study '69. This review, however, seemed to be more informal than the earlier 1969 review of the 1966 Apartment Study. One of the APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 36 main objectives of the 1974 review was to determine the amount and types of apartment development which had occurred between 1969 and 1974. Burnaby had experienced considerable growth in the number of apartment units and the amount of land occupied by apartment development. The number of apartment units added to the municipal housing stock averaged 1,350 units/year between June 1969 and April 1974. This was much higher than the 1,000 units/year rate that was originally predicted in the Apartment Study '69. Apartment development was expected to continue at an even higher rate of 2,000 units/year until 1981 and then level off to 1,500 units/year (BPD Report to Municipal Manager, May 1, 1974). As with the earlier review, no changes were made to the apartment area designations or any of the policies embodied in the earlier 1966 Apartment Study. The latest review of the Apartment Study '69 was conducted by planning staff in 1981. Although the apartment location maps were updated in the 1981 review, no changes were made to the original text and, therefore, no changes were made to the policies embodied in the 1969 report. This latest review was also undertaken during a time of critical housing shortage. Once again vacancy rates were extremely low (an average of 0% during 1980 and 1981) and housing costs, including rents, were skyrocketing. The number of renters in Burnaby had been increasing steadily since the 1960s (See Figure 5). APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 37 Apartments as a Percentage of Total Occupied Dwelling Stock SO-. 40-20-10-0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 2001 Years Figure 5: Apartments as a Percentage of Burnaby's Dwelling Stock (Source: Burnaby Planning Dept. and R.E.B.G.V.) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 38 Figure 6: Percentage of Renters in Burnaby and Vancouver (Source: Statistics Canada Census) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 39 However, since no changes were made to the 1969 proposals one may question what the review contributed towards alleviating the housing problems of the times. This observation could also be made about the earlier reviews. During the interim periods between the official reviews of the apartment location policies, other controversies concerning apartment construction surfaced but, rarely, if ever, did they proceed past the first or second stages of Blumer's framework. For example, in the mid-1970s, there were numerous petitions received by Council which requested changes to apartment area boundaries. However, the petitions did not receive a great deal of attention, since the planners and Council agreed that the existing apartment area designations remained the best solution and, thus, the 1966 Apartment Study policies continued to be consistently applied. IV. SOCIAL HOUSING This category of housing problems is in many ways very different from others. Foremost, is the reality that the costs involved in constructing and maintaining social housing projects definitely preclude their initiation by municipalities without substantial assistance from other levels of government. It is the federal and provincial levels of government which set the policy and initiate the programs that are essential for the construction and maintenance of social housing. These programs constitute, for the most part, administrative and financial assistance programs and are well beyond the means of local governments. As a consequence, when problems associated with the provision or location of social housing reach the public agenda the municipality may be extremely limited in its ability to address them. This also means that the options open to local governments will be dependent on the particular philosophy of the current provincial and federal governments. For example, in British Columbia a change to the NDP government in 1972 proved to be a boon to public housing delivery agencies in Burnaby and all other areas of the Lower Mainland. In fact, it has been reported that a full 41% of the money spent on public housing and hostel beds between 1964—1974 was spent during the 1972-1976 NDP provincial administration (Grieve, 1985:48). All of this, however, does not mean that there is nothing that local governments can do to encourage and assist such developments. In fact, it is sometimes possible for municipalities to take an active role in the administration of social housing projects. There are options, including the selling or leasing of 40 SOCIAL HOUSING / 41 municipally owned land below market prices to social housing delivery agencies. Such direct involvement in non—market housing is highly controversial because government intervention, in general, is not agreed upon by all members of society and this type of housing has never been totally accepted in Canada. Public housing, is thus, often highly stigmatized and in many instances this results in strong opposition from existing residents to the integration of such projects into their neighbourhoods. Despite its contentious nature, the need for this type of housing option has been apparent since the 1960s. As noted by other researchers, the 1960s was the decade most clearly associated with public housing in Canada (Dennis and Fish, 1972) and it is during this period when problems related to social housing began to appear on Burnaby's municipal agenda. 1. Emergence of the Problem The first official mention of public housing projects in the Province of British Columbia was in the 1958 Provincial Budget Speech at which time public housing was rationalized on the basis of slum clearance and employment creation (Grieve, 1985:46). Public housing remained on the provincial agenda as the Federal Government continued to pressure the Provinces to increase their support for public housing projects. In 1964, the NHA was amended with the intention of encouraging the Provinces to play a greater role in funding public housing projects. Federal pressure on the Provincial Government to increase its participation in public housing provision translated into increased pressure on SOCIAL HOUSING / 42 municipalities, particularly the City of Vancouver, to facilitate the development of public housing. As would be expected, the City of Vancouver was the leader in public housing provision. For several years Vancouver remained the only regional municipality to address the need for public housing, despite the attempts of Vancouver officials to encourage neighbouring municipalities to build their fair share of social housing (Melliship, 1985:118). Early in 1966, at the Conference of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, a discussion was held concerning the role of local governments in assisting the provision of low cost housing. This influenced the Burnaby Council to unanimously carry a motion to appoint a special committee to investigate Burnaby's role in the provision of low cost and seniors housing (Council Minutes, June 13, 1966). A search of council minutes and other official documents of the time did not reveal any significant action resulting from the investigation of this committee. By the beginning of the following year, public housing seemed to be the most important housing problem on the public agenda in Burnaby. Council had begun to receive correspondence and delegations both in favour of and in opposition to permitting public housing projects within the Municipality. In particular, an organization known as United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area (UCS) began to exert pressure on Council to assist in any way possible the construction of social housing and asked for support for their bid to have the Province establish a Regional Housing Authority with the wide powers to deal with social housing on a regional basis. Representatives from the SOCIAL HOUSING / 43 organization also expressed concern over the current critical housing shortage in the Metropolitan Region and the fact that the City of Vancouver was still the only regional municipality with public housing (UCS Letter to Council, Jan. 13, 1967). The letters and delegations from groups, such as UCS, led the Special Housing Committee to urge its members and other municipal representatives to attend a February 3, 1967 Housing Conference in Vancouver (Housing Committee Minutes, Feb. 2, 1967). The later years of the decade were marked by what was considered to be a severe housing shortage. The Metropolitan Region was experiencing a period of unprecedented growth and the demand for housing accommodation reached record levels (McKeown, 1968:C-1). Between 1966 and 1971, Burnaby's population increased by 12.2% to a total of 125,660 persons (Canada Census, 1966, 1971). In 1966, apartment vacancy rates in Burnaby fell to below 1.0% for the first time. This situation was undoubtably the major impetus behind the Vancouver Housing Conference. During the Conference discussions focused on finding practical measures to solve the current housing shortage, as well as, ways to increase the supply of low cost housing in the Region (Melliship, 1985:30). The Conference helped influence Burnaby Municipal Council to direct planning staff to investigate the opportunities for public housing in Burnaby. In response to the Municipal Council's request for information on possible sites for public housing in Burnaby, the Planning Department prepared the report entitled Public Housing Study (Public Housing Study, 1967). As noted in the study, the need for public housing in Burnaby was made evident at the SOCIAL HOUSING / 44 Vancouver Housing Conference, particularly since Burnaby had an urban population of approximately 115,000 and had no provision for public housing. The report consisted of proposals for public housing projects on six sites in the Municipality. The planning staff reported that the considerable amount of municipally owned land represented a great asset in the development of public housing. The study did not include any discussion of goals or guiding principles for the provision of public housing within Burnaby. Thus, it did not prescribe a clear role for the Municipality in this area of housing. The six proposed projects were described in the planning document and, in April, 1967, Council submitted the proposals to the Provincial Government for approval. A review of Council Housing Committee records and official Council minutes revealed that senior government delays in approval of the proposals continued to frustrate the efforts of the Municipality. None of the six projects proposed in the Public Housing Study were ever developed. Since the sites were municipally owned land, however, they remained as potential sites for public housing development and, in fact, two of the sites were fully developed with non-profit housing in the 1970s. As well, a portion of another of the sites remains designated for social housing. It is very difficult to distinguish between the first and second stages of Blumer's framework when analyzing this category of housing problems. At first glance it may appear that the Public Housing Study, and the discussions surrounding it, indicated a move from the initial emergence stage of Blumer's framework to the second, legitimation stage. Closer examination, however, reveals SOCIAL HOUSING / 45 that it actually represents a failed attempt to gain legitimacy for the idea of Municipal involvement in public housing provision in Burnaby. The Municipal Council's decision to ask the planning staff to investigate the potential opportunities for development of public housing in Burnaby was initially prompted by growing pressure, mainly from outside the Municipality, to participate in public housing provision. In particular, the City of Vancouver continued to urge other regional municipalities to facilitate their share of public housing. The internal pressures for a greater municipal commitment came principally from one community organization (United Community Services) and a relatively small number of residents experiencing affordability problems. Other residents were clearly opposed to the possible introduction of public housing into Burnaby. Some did not want the projects to be located in their neighbourhoods, while others argued that public housing was not a municipal responsibility. It is clear, however, that the forces for public housing development were weak in comparison to the strong market forces which helped move the apartment development issue from its initial emergence as a problem through the process of legitimation and onwards towards public action. The residents contacting the Municipal Council to request that their names be added to waiting lists for public housing represented a need for affordable housing rather than an effective demand for housing. There was still a very strong belief in the ability of the market to provide housing for everyone. Undoubtably there were many who assumed that the great surge in apartment construction would soon alleviate the housing problems that existed in the Municipality. SOCIAL HOUSING / 46 It is evident that The Public Housing Study was too limited in scope to satisfy those groups pressuring Council for greater municipal involvement in public housing provision. UCS, for example, continued to ask for the establishment of a Regional Housing Authority and for investigation of the possibility of providing municipal land for social housing projects. As the discussions about social housing continued intermittently over the next few years, a variety of suggestions were made about the best methods for meeting the growing need for this type of housing. For instance, in June, 1968 Council and planning staff considered the idea of leasing municipal land to housing delivery agencies in an effort to cut land costs and retain municipal control of the land. Debate over this proposal dragged on for almost two years. By February, 1970 Council officially rejected the idea. During this period, Council and staff also discussed the possibility of establishing a Municipal Housing Authority to be the agent for public housing . development in Burnaby. Again the Council decided to reject the idea. The evidence suggests that there was no real agreement that the provision of public housing was a problem; at least not a problem for Burnaby to address. Some believed that the municipality should greatly expand its role, while others argued that social housing was the responsibility of senior levels of government or that it was unnecessary. Without agreement about what the problem was, or even that a problem existed, the public housing issue became stalled at the initial emergence stage outlined by Blumer. Despite the efforts of a few diligent groups, such as UCS, there was not a consensus in the community that the provision of public housing constituted a legitimate problem for serious public discussion. SOCIAL HOUSING / 47 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem During the early 1970s there was a significant increase in the degree of commitment to social housing provision at the provincial level. Vacancy rates in the entire Region dropped rapidly in 1972 and remained very low until 1977. In Burnaby the vacancy rate dropped from 3.0% in June, 1972 to 0.5% in December of the same year (R.E.B.G.V., 1972). This serious rental housing shortage became an important issue in the 1972 provincial election. This election saw the NDP elected to the Provincial Legislature, bringing with them a new approach to housing policy. The Party's political philosophy allowed for far greater government intervention into every aspect of housing. Support and encouragement was extended for all types and tenures of housing and provincial agencies, such as the Department of Housing and the Rentalsman's Office, were quickly established. This new provincial policy approach to housing was a dramatic change from the previous Social Credit Government's approach to housing. The NDP recognized cooperatives as a legitimate housing alternative and quickly took advantage of amendments to the NHA that encouraged the construction of co—operatives and non-profit housing through new federal programs. The Provincial Government was amicable to the initiation of social housing projects throughout the Metropolitan Region and several seniors' housing projects were developed in Burnaby. As well, Burnaby's first co-op was built in the mid-1970s. 8 Initiatives for public housing provision were occurring at other levels, as 8 The Norman Bethune Housing Co—operative was built in 1975. It is a relatively small project with only 24 units. SOCIAL HOUSING / 48 well. For example, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) created the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation in 1974 and with the support and cooperation of most of the regional municipalities initiated a program to acquire and build low cost rental accommodation. Additionally, projects, such as the False Creek and Champlain Heights Neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver, exemplified a new attitude towards social housing. The public had reached greater agreement on the value of social housing and that social housing projects should be of a much smaller size than in the past and that they should reflect a mix of tenures and income groups (i.e. a social mix). The projects that have been developed based on this philosophy have been far more successful than the large public housing projects of the 1960s. Despite the favourable provincial approach to social housing and the ambitious projects being initiated by the City of Vancouver, Burnaby continued to approach social housing in an ad hoc and reactionary manner. The Municipality's role was very limited. No initiatives were taken by Burnaby itself. Instead, the Municipality relied on external agencies, such as the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC), to initiate social housing projects. Burnaby's involvement was restricted to responding to requests from social housing delivery agencies to identify suitable sites for social housing development and making the requested sites available at market prices. By cooperating with the developers of social housing, the Municipality signaled that the provision of this type of housing was a legitimate concern. Although the need for social housing had, by this time, been clearly recognized and attained a certain degree of legitimacy it still had not gained enough acceptance to warrant the mobilization of forces to SOCIAL HOUSING / 49 address the problem in Burnaby. 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem To date, Burnaby remains without a comprehensive social housing policy. This does not mean that all there has been a total neglect of social housing provision in the Municipality. Quite the contrary, social housing has continued to be an important component of Burnaby's housing stock.9 Co—operative housing projects, in particular, are becoming a popular housing option for Burnaby residents (See Table 4). Lacking a comprehensive social housing policy, however, has meant that each project has been dealt with on an individual basis. A change in this situation appears to be imminent, as a Social Planner was hired by the Municipality in 1986 and he is currently examining the social housing needs in Burnaby and preparing a policy to address social housing provision within the Municipality. Additionally, the current Council is quite determined to increase the Municipality's involvement in housing by taking a proactive approach to social housing. 9 For example, in 1984, the GVHC completed 248 units in Burnaby. SOCIAL HOUSING / 50 Year Seniors' Rental Co-op Non-market Family-Projects Units Projects Units Projects Units 1970 1 55 - - 2 110 1971 1 127 - - - -1972 1 214 - - - -1973 - - - - - -1974 5 692 1 24 10 32 1975 3 430 - - - -1976 - - - - - -1977 1 63 - - - -1978 1 206 - - 1 6 1979 - - - - - -1980 - - 1 244 - -1981 - - 3 445 1 10 1982 - - - - - -1983 - - 1 103 - -1984 - - - - 3 248 1985 - - 5 379 1 86 1986 - - 2 73 - -1987 - - 3 149 1 32 1988 2 91 3 134 - -Total 15 1878 19 1551 19 524 Table 4: Burnaby's Social Housing Stock (Source: Preliminary Figures Supplied By Burnaby Plaruiing Department) SOCIAL HOUSING / 51 Currently there are several important new housing developments underway which include a strong social housing component. The Municipal Council and the planners are insisting on a social housing component of 20—25% in all housing projects involving the Municipality and are pressuring the Federal and Provincial Governments to increase their commitment to the funding and development of assisted housing within the Municipality. As well, Burnaby planners and Council are offering recommendations to senior levels of government on how to improve their social housing programs in an effort to meet the ever increasing need for this type of housing. There has even been discussion about the possibility of establishing a municipal development arm. Finally, planners are currently pressing Council to assign priorities to social housing problems and, as mentioned, the planners are working towards the development of a formalized social housing policy to replace the essentially ad hoc and reactionary approach to addressing social housing provision and problems that has existed in the community (Grieve, 1989). It is safe to assert that the social housing problem has finally reached the third stage in the lifecycle process described by Blumer. The Municipality has begun to mobilize forces to address the location and provision of social housing after years of relying on others to provide the needed social housing units. In contrast to the problems related to apartment development described in the previous chapter, the social housing problem remained suspended between the initial emergence stage and the second legitimation stage for years and only recently reached the third lifecycle stage. In the case of apartment development, strong market forces appear to have provided the impetus needed to move the SOCIAL HOUSING / 52 problem successfully through the five lifecycle stages outlined in Blumer's framework. There are no corresponding forces behind social housing. Those households requiring social housing represent a need for housing rather than an effective market demand. There are no potential profits to motivate private sector investment in social housing. It is also difficult for municipalities to initiate their own social housing projects, given their restricted financial resources. Consequently, senior government cooperation and assistance has been essential to the development of social housing. It is true that social housing represents a more complex social problem than apartment development. Since our society is built around a profit—oriented marketplace, the private sector cannot be depended upon to provide any type of housing that lacks a strong market demand and potential for profit making. Thus, the provision of social housing requires a greater degree of involvement and commitment from the public sector. Several of those involved in the development of social housing in the Metropolitan Region consider Burnaby's role in social housing provision to be backward and entirely lacking in serious commitment, particularly in contrast to the stance taken in the neighbouring City of Vancouver. Granted the need for social housing has been greater in Vancouver and the resources of the City are greater but there has also been a much stronger commitment to facilitating the development of social housing by Vancouver's officials and planners. One example of this commitment was Vancouver's policy of leasing land to social housing delivery agencies in the 1970s that resulted in the construction of numerous co—operatives and successful projects such as the False Creek and Champlain Heights Neighbourhoods. SOCIAL HOUSING / 53 In Burnaby, this level of commitment is only recently being approached. Social housing has been built in Burnaby but not on the initiative of the Municipality. At best, the Municipality has cooperated with senior levels of government and social housing delivery agencies by making building sites available at market values. The situation is changing in the late 1980s. There finally appears to be agreement that the Municipality should take a more active role and is trying to mobilize its forces to address the social housing problem. What Burnaby's role will be has yet to be determined. V. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION Discussion of the residential intensification of Burnaby's existing neighbourhoods has taken several forms, from the controversy over secondary suites and multi—family housing projects to the "infamous" Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study (RNES) of 1984. During the early 1980s the Planning Department undertook an ambitious process of proactive planning, culminating in the preparation of a series of discussion papers (Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers, 1984) which were presented to the public for their approval. The vehement opposition from residents that ensued was unexpected and quickly brought an end to the RNES proposals. Although the RNES experience is the most important example of this category of housing problem in Burnaby, it was not the first time that problems associated with residential intensification had reached the public agenda. In fact, residential intensification, which clearly reflects the conflict between the goal of preserving existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of creating a diversity of housing options has figured prominently on the municipal agenda since the 1970s. 1. Emergence of the Problem During the 1960s the vast majority of residential construction was limited to low density single and two—family dwellings. This and the fact that there was still an abundance of undeveloped land in the Municipality kept residential intensification far from the public agenda. The only related housing concern was 54 RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 55 the growing interest in apartment development but, as already discussed, this development was initially quite isolated and the Apartment Area designations clearly delineated the zones where this type of higher density housing was permitted. It is important to remember that one of the explicit aims of the Apartment Areas was to ensure the preservation of single family neighbourhoods (Apartment Study, 1966). As a consequence, little discussion about the effects of higher density development in existing neighbourhoods took place during the decade. By 1969, however, new ideas were beginning to be expressed in discussions of Burnaby's future development. Concurrently, there was concern over a growing housing shortage, particularly for family housing options. In the Apartment Study '69 there was what seemed to be a decisive step towards expanding the range of housing options available to Burnaby residents. Until this time, only three storey frame apartments were being added to the overwhelmingly single family housing stock. In the review, the planners concluded that there was interest in alternative types of housing, including condominiums, garden apartments and row housing. Thus, Burnaby needed to develop a wider range of housing options to meet the changing requirements of families and other households. Additionally, they concluded that there was a growing need for residential development at densities slightly higher than those found in single and two—family areas. It seems clear, however, that the higher density development was not intended to occur in existing single family neighbourhoods. Instead, it was to be restricted to the designated Apartment Areas. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 56 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem In 1970, two studies were prepared by the Planning Department marking the acceptance of residential intensification as a legitimate social problem requiring official consideration. These two studies were Group Housing: A Study of Moderate Density Forms of Family Accommodation and Urban Structure. Both explored the idea of increasing densities in some of Burnaby's existing neighbourhoods. Building on the conclusions of the Apartment Study '69, the Planning Department prepared the Group Housing study. The main objective of this study was to investigate the various forms of family housing that could be encouraged within the Municipality to ease the shortage of housing alternatives for families. The planners expressed concern that Burnaby's housing stock consisted of only two options — — the low density single family detached house and the three storey frame apartment, which was considered to be unsuitable for family accommodation (Group Housing, 1970:1). Consequently, the study presented an examination of various household characteristics and their relationship to housing needs, as well as, a discussion of the requirements for group housing. The Group Housing Study did not prescribe precise locations for group housing (as was done for apartments in the 1966 Apartment Study), since this type of housing was considered by the planners to be compatible with lower density residential development. It was argued that a flexible approach to group housing location would be preferable. However, the study makes explicit the fact that areas zoned or proposed for single family housing should be preserved for this use only (Group Housing, 1970:30). Despite this apparent commitment to preserving low density single family neighbourhoods, the Group Housing Study did contain several statements RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 57 which reflected a definite dissatisfaction with the homogeneous spread of this type of suburban housing alternative. The following passage illustrates this sentiment: "In addition, continuous development of single family dwellings, which attenuates the dimensions of urbanization, has become cumbersome as a town form. The automobile, which first presented the opportunity for such an outward sprawl of low density development, offers no answer to the resulting problems. The development of family housing in denser forms will, in addition to providing a suitable alternative to the single family house, also enrich and vary the residential environment." (Group Housing, 1970:1). This sentiment was central to the controversial Urban Structure report which was also prepared by planning staff in 1970. Recognizing that Burnaby was at a critical stage in its development process and realizing that there was a need for a longer term statement of development goals than those incorporated in the Apartment Study '69, the Urban Structure report was prepared with the intention of stimulating discussion about the Municipality's future growth and development. This report was surrounded by a great deal of debate about its merits and failings which lasted for several years. Much of the controversy focused upon the implied support for a conceptual plan that presented a physical structure for Burnaby which was radically different from the existing character of the Municipality. The proposed physical structure in the report was based on an intermittent grid pattern of six high density town centres, each supporting a population of 100,000. The ideas expressed in Urban Structure were in reaction to the expansive suburban development of the 1950s and 1960s and echoed RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 58 many of the anti—suburb ideas prevalent at that time. 1 0 Urban Structure successfully prompted serious discussion about the most desirable direction for Burnaby's future and although a number the basic concepts set forth were agreeable to many, the high densities presented in the report were unacceptable to virtually everyone. Council never officially approved the Urban Structure report although they did spend a great deal of time debating its value as a Master Plan for the Municipality. As well, in May 1973, Council authorized planning staff to establish a program of public meetings to discuss any subject directly related to the future of Burnaby and, if possible, related to the proposed policies set forth in the Urban Structure report. At this point, it seems evident that Blumer's third lifecycle stage, the mobilization of forces to address the problem, had been reached. 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem The main intent of the series of public meetings in the summer of 1973 was to allow interested parties to express their views and opinions about the future development of Burnaby. A report entitled Public Meetings: Phase One was prepared after the conclusion of the series of public meetings. In this report an attempt was made to incorporate, wherever appropriate, the concerns and opinions expressed at the meetings into policy recommendations (Public Meetings, 1974:8). •~° For an example of these ideas see Jane Jacobs — The death and life of great American cities, 1961. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 59 The general consensus of residents participating in the public meetings was that Burnaby's low density single family neighbourhoods were one of the Municipality's most valuable resource and should not only be preserved but also enhanced through whatever means available (Public Meetings, 1974:10). While there was recognition that multiple family housing was a legitimate housing option, this was clearly a situation in which the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor at work (Robinson, 1989). Multiple family housing was generally considered by residents to be incompatible with established single family residential areas and they sought guarantees that existing intrusions be removed and potential intrusions be prevented (Public Meetings, 1974:10). The strong propensity for neighbourhood resistance to change in existing low density single family neighbourhoods was duely noted in the Public Meetings: Phase One report. After examining the opinions and concerns expressed during the public meetings program, the planners recommended that they be authorized to undertake a review of those single family areas where the residential character should be preserved and densities remain unchanged (Public Meetings, 1974:11). The commitment to preserving single family neighbourhoods was explicit throughout the policy recommendations set forth in the report and planning staff clearly recognized that a change to higher residential densities in most of the Municipality (as proposed in the Urban Structure report) would meet with very strong public resistance (Public Meetings, 1974:24-25). Several other planning reports related to residential intensification were prepared in 1974 including a review of the Apartment Study '69 which was authorized by Council in January of that year and completed in May. Two other RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 60 reports must be mentioned here. First is the Multiple Housing Questionnaire Report which was prepared to gage the quality of development of the growing number of multiple family dwellings being constructed in Burnaby. Planning staff administered what was essentially a satisfaction survey that asked questions primarily related to transportation, facilities and services, noise and accessibility. The survey was conducted within the designated apartment areas. Results of the survey were compiled and presented in the report, which did not contain any analysis, recommendations, or conclusions that would have tied the information together and related it to other planning studies. As a consequence, the value of such a survey is questionable, particularly since it is not referred to in other planning studies. The second study that should be mentioned is Residential Conversions: A Background Report. The timing of this report was directly linked to rising housing costs and the growing housing shortage which was being experienced in the Metropolitan Region (R.E.B.G.V., 1974—75). The Residential Conversions Study was intended to "serve as background material with which to better understand the process and implications of converting single family dwellings to a more intensive residential use." (Residential Conversions, 1974:1) Four main reasons were cited in the report for the increased interest of Council in an active policy on residential conversions: 1. "the worsening shortage of rental accommodation, especially ground oriented family units" 2. "the problem posed by increasing numbers of illegal suites" 3. "the interest residents have demonstrated concerning conversions" RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 61 4. "the Provincial Government $12,000 conversion mortgage loan available to individuals wishing to convert their homes" (Residential Conversions, 1974:4). These factors led Council to direct planning staff to determine the impacts, implications, and the potential of residential conversions; specifically, the duplexing of single family dwellings and the fourplexing of duplexes. Council suggested that the planners examine the possibility of granting temporary permission for conversions in an attempt to ease the worsening housing shortage, however, this option was quickly ruled out, since it was believed that such a temporary measure would be virtually impossible to phase out. Planning staff seemed to approach the idea of encouraging residential conversions with optimism noting that conversions had "the potential of accommodating more people in existing neighbourhoods without reducing the quality of the environment." (Residential Conversion, 1974:4). In fact, it was maintained that conversions could actually help to revitalize some of the older neighbourhoods in Burnaby by attracting young families to them. Additionally, allowing residential conversions represented a way to help meet Burnaby's Regional obligations to provide a diversified range of housing opportunities, encouraging homogeneity and stability in local neighbourhoods, as set out in the 1972 GVRD Report on Livability. Despite the apparent optimism with which planning staff approached the idea of allowing residential conversions, they were not able to recommend this plan of action based on the results of their study and those of the Public Meetings program. Two main reasons were given in the report for not allowing residential conversions: 1. conversions would actually narrow the range of housing RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 62 opportunities by destroying an essential part of the range of alternatives in Burnaby — — namely, the low density single family neighbourhoods; and 2. such a plan would evoke negative reactions from residents. Although the discussion in Residential Conversion: A Background Report seemed to imply support for the general idea of promoting more intensive residential land use within the Municipality, little action towards this end took place until the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study of the early 1980s. The interest in residential intensification did decrease substantially as the regional housing shortage ended. Furthermore, initiatives at the senior levels of government, such as the federal RRAP and NIP programs,1 1 strongly supported the nation's single family neighbourhoods. At the provincial level, a change in administration back to the Social Credit Party marked a resurgence of support for homeownership and the single family home. During the late 1970s Burnaby's Municipal Council expressed growing concern over the increasing number of illegal secondary suites in single family neighbourhoods and began to crack down on homeowners with second suites in their homes. Secondary suites were (and are still for many) considered to be a threat to the viability of and quality of life within the Municipality's single family neighbourhoods, since they potentially increase the residential density. In November 1976, Burnaby Council was accused of taking drastic measures to rid its single family neighbourhoods of suites (Vancouver Sun, Nov. 5, 1976). The 1 1 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and Neighbourhood Improvement Program RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 63 hard—line approach, as it was called, included consideration of $1,000 plus fines for illegal suite landlords and possible prison terms for repeat offenders (Vancouver Province, Nov. 5, 1976). The suggestions of stiff penalties for illegal suite landlords appear to have been idle threats since none of the measures were ever put into practice. However, in 1978, Council ordered a house to house inspection for illegal secondary suites that lasted until early 1980. The crackdown on illegal suites was discontinued undoubtably because of increased pressures on Council due to a severe housing shortage that gripped the Lower Mainland. The house to house inspection program led to many disagreements between Council members who wanted to continue the intensive search and those who wanted to return to a policy of action on a complaint basis only. Throughout the 1980s the problem of illegal suites in single family neighbourhoods has emerged on and receded from the public agenda. The only attempt to to address the problem of how suites actually affect existing neighbourhoods in Burnaby was the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study which was never implemented. Since the RNES there have been no further attempts to address the illegal secondary suite problem by the Municipality. To take a definitive stand and act towards legalizing second suites or eliminating them would be a no win political situation for any Council since there is a strong body of support for each side of the issue. As a consequence, most Councils have chosen to adopt a policy of action against second suite owners on a complaint basis only. This remains the official policy on second suites as of 1989. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 64 4. Preparation of the Official Plan of Action By 1980 there seemed to be a concerted effort in the Planning Department to prepare a plan for the densification of Burnaby's single family neighbourhoods. The same planner who had prepared the earlier Residential Conversions: A Background Report (1974) initiated the effort in response to the need to plan for the preservation and change in Burnaby's neighbourhoods which had become evident during the Municipality's participation in the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. The timing of these efforts coincided with the recognition of a growing "housing crisis" in the Lower Mainland. Housing prices increased sharply during the 1979—1981 period. As well, vacancy rates were very low (Planistics, 1980). With the growing housing shortage there was pressure on the Municipality to find ways to increase Burnaby's housing stock. The greatest demand was for ground—oriented family housing and the best and perhaps only way to meet this demand was to increase residential densities in the existing single family neighbourhoods that predominate in the Municipality. As a first step towards neighbourhood intensification the prevailing residential framework was reviewed to determine its appropriateness for directing future residential growth. This task was undertaken by planning staff during 1980 and the Residential Growth Management Study: A Draft Report For Discussion Purposes (RGMS) was completed in September of that year. In this report the existing residential framework was examined in relation to projected demographic patterns and trends, current Regional and Municipal development objectives and plans, as well as, prevailing public attitudes (RGMS, 1980:129). Six goals were developed which formed the basis for a revised residential framework: RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 65 1. "To accommodate growth and accompanying change to the extent that it provides for a properly structured environment that will satisfy the residential and commercial needs of the Municipality and, at the same time, enhance community self—sufficiency and identity. 2. To ensure that the Municipality's residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, recreational and transportation land uses are mutually supportive and located within an appropriate municipal framework. 3. To create and maintain identifiable and stable residential neighbourhoods which collectively offer a range of living environments within the Municipality in a variety of appropriate locations. 4. To increase community identity and residential and commercial self—sufficiency in the Municipality in keeping with the assigned functions of a hierarchy of multi—family residential/commercial centres. 5. To ensure appropriately scaled and compatible uses, forms and relationships between higher density residential and/or commercial centres and adjacent lower density residential neighbourhood areas. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 66 6. To help ensure an effective and co-ordinated planning approach for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) through the development of a concept and strategy that will provide a comprehensive means for dealing with issues raised by the continuing growth of the Region." (RGMS, 1980:130). The revised residential framework included a number of objectives with the aim of increasing the density of some of the Municipality's single family neighbourhoods. Smaller lot subdivisions and properly located and scaled cluster housing projects were considered to be compatible with the existing suburban character in some neighbourhoods and to be acceptable methods for addressing the need for affordable family housing, the diminishing supply of residential land and, also, to reflect the changing demographic characteristics of Burnaby's present and future residents (RGMS, 1980:131). A wide range of compact family housing was to be accommodated according to the following principle: "Within the dominant suburban character for the existing and proposed low density neighbourhood areas of the Municipality, the possible introduction of compact family housing forms must be evaluated against the prevailing local character, conditions, resident attitudes and the extent to which the introduction of compact housing can make a positive contribution to the development objectives for that area as a whole." (RGMS, 1980:131). In order to implement this principle the revised residential framework incorporated the development of a neighbourhood classification system which was intended to identify and prioritize residential areas to determine where preservation and RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 67 maintenance of the existing character was desirable and where residential redevelopment or a change in land use was the most realistic and desirable approach. This classification system was being prepared concurrently with the Residential Growth Management Study and was the initial stage of the controversial Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study (RNES). The Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study began in 1980 and consisted of three separate phases: 1. preparation of comparative neighbourhood profiles which indicated the neighbourhoods considered to be best suited for change and those that were considered to be the best candidates for preservation of the existing character (Planistics, 1980) 2. a resident opinion survey conducted to determine residents' opinions towards their neighbourhoods and identify problems facing individual neighbourhoods (The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group, 1981) 3. preparation of a series of discussion papers that outlined a residential intensification strategy known as Compaction (Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers, 1984). Although consideration of a number of aspects of the residential environment was included in the preparation of the RNES, it seems clear that the central aim of the study was to develop a strategy for accommodating greater housing densities within some of Burnaby's existing low density RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 68 neighbourhoods. In the initial phase of the study, the Municipality commissioned a consulting firm to prepare a series of neighbourhood profiles that identified and prioritized neighbourhoods according to the pressures for change being exerted on each residential area. Central to this process was the inclusion of opinions from the real estate and financial groups operating in Burnaby. Each neighbourhood was assigned a rank based on the appropriateness of the area for a change in residential character or land use. As well, those neighbourhoods where preservation and enhancement of the existing residential character was considered to be most appropriate were identified (Planistics, 1980). Over 1,700 households were surveyed in phase two of the RNES. All residents surveyed lived in neighbourhoods which had been identified, in the previous neighbourhood profiles, as those where maintenance of the existing character would be the best planning approach. Questions in the resident opinion survey focused on a variety of aspects of the residential environment, including transportation and commercial facilities. The consultants' report summarized a number of policy implications, two of which were directly related to potential increases in residential densities. First, it was determined that any proposal to generally increase residential densities in the neighbourhoods surveyed would be met with strong opposition from residents. The only forms of housing found to be generally acceptable to the respondents were the single family detached house, the single family house with one suite and one design of a duplex; any higher density of housing was expected to be opposed. Furthermore, respondents indicated that the existing low density character was one aspect of their neighbourhoods that should never change (The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group, 1981:40). RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 69 The second policy implication identified was that a significant majority of the households surveyed responded negatively to the idea of allowing further subdivision of residential lots (The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group, 1981:41). This is a particularly interesting observation considering the fact that, in December of the previous year, Council approved a new zoning category, R9, which enabled many homeowners to subdivide their lots. The R9 program was intended to help ease the housing shortage of the early 1980s by providing a new supply of relatively low cost housing units. The final phase of the study was based on consideration of the two previous consultants' reports and other planning studies, such as the Residential Growth Management Study and the Conceptual Transportation Plan. The Compaction Strategy proposed in the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers was based on the following conclusion: "compact family housing forms have the potential to make a positive contribution to the development objectives of the Municipality and that if properly designed and controlled it is possible to introduce specific types of compact housing into some neighbourhoods without major disruption to the local character, conditions or residents of an area." (RNES, 1984:6-4). RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 70 General Land Use Type Variety of Neighbourhood Environments Range of Housing Options SUBURBAN Rural small holdings Single detached Suburban low density Single detached Single detached; single detached Suburban medium density conversion internal suite; single detached conversion internal or external suite; semi-detached; duplex URBAN Urban medium density Single detached; single detached conversion internal suite; single detached conversion internal or external suites; semi-detached duplex; conversion to triplex or fourplex; small 3-8 unit in-fill; over 8 unit in-fill; R8 group house; R6 row house Multiple low density Small 3-8 unit in-fill; over 8 unit in-fill; R8 group house; R6 row house; garden apartment Multiple medium density Small 3-8 unit in-fill; over 8 unit in-fill; R8 group house; R6 row house; garden apartment; low rise apartment Multiple high density High rise apartment Table 5: Proposed Residential Framework (Source: RNES Discussion Papers, 1984:8-17) The strategy RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 71 itself consisted of three steps which were outlined in the discussion papers: 1. "Introduce compaction into designated neighbourhoods utilizing a. secondary suites b. compatible scale duplexes c. small lot development in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. 2. Introduce limited seniors' housing alternatives into designated neighbourhoods near appropriate services. 3. Pursue small scale multiple i n — f i l l housing alternatives such as zero lot line and townhouses in accordance with the design guidelines on qualities suggested by residents in the opinion survey." (RNES, 1984:6-4). The Compaction Strategy was used as a foundation for the development of a residential framework that incorporated a wide range of housing options and a variety of neighbourhood environments (RNES, 1984:7—26). Neighbourhoods were designated for preservation and for Compaction based on their type as outlined in the revised residential framework (See Table 5). Areas designated as Urban Medium Density were the areas proposed for the greatest amount of Compaction Actions. These areas were located near town centres and were older areas tending towards urban development and offering potential for change (RNES, 1984:8—15). Neighbourhoods designated as Suburban Medium Density were to retain their single and two family residential character. Thus, only limited RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 72 changes were proposed for these areas. In order to increase the number of ground oriented units in Suburban Medium Density areas the addition of internal secondary suites in single family houses constructed prior to 1984 and some small lot development under the R9 program were to be permitted (For a summary of Compaction Actions See Table 6). Those neighbourhoods classified as Suburban Low Density were to be preserved as single family in order to maintain this housing option within the Municipality (RNES, 1984:8—16). Multiple family areas were discussed in the previous Residential Growth Management Study and the 1981 Apartment Study Review and were not reviewed for the RNES. Recognizing the potential for conflict associated with the implementation of the Compaction Strategy, the planners proposed a consultation approach for the refinement of the neighbourhood designations. Compaction Action for Residential Intensification Suburban Medium Density Areas Urban Medium Density Areas 1) Internal Suites X X 2) Small Lots (R9) X 3) Triplex/Fourplex Conversions X 4) Small 3-8 Unit In-Fill X 5) Over 8 Unit In-Fill X Table 6: Summary of Compaction Actions (Source: RNES Discussion Papers, 1984:8—16) RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 73 This approach was to involve discussions with the Council, other Municipal staff and residents. The first step in the consultation process was to explain the proposed strategy, the revised residential framework and the proposed neighbourhood designations. The second step was to refine and adjust the neighbourhood designations and set appropriate implementation guidelines, in consultation with each neighbourhood slated for Compaction Action. Neighbourhoods were to be dealt with on an individual basis in order to indicate a willingness to involve residents in the planning process at the neighbourhood level. 5. Implementation of the Official P lan In March 1984, Council approved in principle the residential framework outlined in the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers and authorized the Council Housing Committee and planning staff to proceed with the consultation phase. No one was prepared for the overwhelming opposition that erupted as the RNES Compaction Strategy was presented to the public. A series of five public meetings were held during a two week period in June, 1984. Before each public meeting, brochures were sent out to local residents inviting them to attend the meeting. Each meeting began with an informative presentation by planning staff that explained the RNES proposals and was followed by discussion and questions from the audience. Turnout at the meetings was heavy; one meeting was attended by over 500 residents. Opposition to the proposals was intense. In fact, only a handful of people, at all of the meetings combined, spoke out in favour of proposals. The concerns expressed by residents focused on RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 74 parking, transportation, overburdening of existing services and the general destruction of the quality of life in Burnaby's single and two family neighbourhoods. Opposition at the meetings was mainly from long—term residents. However, many newcomers to the Municipality also spoke out against Compaction. There was even an organized group of residents formed called "People Against Compaction". Council and planning staff were inundated with letters and petitions all strongly opposed to any implementation of Compaction Actions in their neighbourhoods. Residents raised concerns about the timing of the study. Many questioned why the RNES background research had been underway for three years before it was presented to the public. Others complained that the timing of the public meetings during the summer months was suspicious, arguing that many residents were on holidays at that time of year. Additionally, residents complained that the meetings were held too close together and asked for more time for citizen input. Residents were clearly expressing feelings of alienation from the Council and planners, arguing that their views were being ignored and that Council was only concerned with making money and not with the quality of life in Burnaby's single and two family neighbourhoods. On August 7, 1984, after receiving a petition with over 4,000 names, Council voted to abandon the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study and its Compaction Strategy. The Municipal Council's vote came even before its own Housing Committee had presented its report on the study and the public meetings. Subsequent tabulations of citizen response during the RNES consultation R E S I D E N T I A L I N T E N S I F I C A T I O N / 75 phase indicated that 3,650 responses were received by August 31, 1984, and of these, 3,064 were petition responses in opposition to R N E S . Only 55 individual responses were in favour of the proposals. A full 11.6% of all households in single and two family dwellings had responded (Municipal Manager 's Report (MMR) No. 70, Nov. 5, 1984). 6. Events Following the Attempt to Implement the Plan The failure of the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study has been attributed to numerous factors. One commonly held explanation is that the proposals were misunderstood by residents. Others maintain that the scale of the R N E S proposals was too all encompassing. In other words, that the Compaction Strategy potentially affected too many households. What is obvious, however, is that the Council and the planners grossly underestimated the potential for conflict that had led them to propose the consultation process in the first place. The R N E S Compaction Strategy became a black mark on the Municipality's public record, one that residents have not easily forgotten. As a consequence, there has been little serious discussion of residential intensification in Burnaby's low density residential areas since the R N E S proposals were abandoned. Even the relatively new R9 rezoning program was affected by the outcome of the R N E S experience. Unt i l recently, approval of R9 rezoning applications was discontinued while planning staff reviewed how the zoning category was being used. Council wanted assurance that the subdivisions were actually being developed into two single family dwellings and not into two duplexes or single family dwellings with suites. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 76 Presently, applications for R9 rezonings are again being accepted and the small lot subdivisions are permitted in areas where previous R9 rezonings have occurred. As would be expected the residential goals presented in the Official Community Plan, adopted in 1987, reflect the RNES experience. There are three goals identified for residential development: 1. GOAL - HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES To provide a balanced range and choice of living opportunities and neighbourhood types (OCP, 1987:41). 2. GOAL - NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVABILITY To maintain and improve neighbourhood livability and stability (OCP, 1987:42). 3. GOAL - SPECIAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS To , help ensure that Burnaby's residential environments accommodate the needs of those having special housing requirements (OCP, 1987:42). Further discussion of the Housing Opportunities Goal indicates a strong commitment to maintaining the predominantly low density single and two family suburban character of Burnaby, while at the same time trying to achieve the seemingly contradictory objective of encouraging a diversity of neighbourhood types and housing opportunities. On the surface it appears that the Municipality has truly abandoned the RNES concepts and objectives. However, closer analysis RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 77 reveals that the residential framework proposed in the Official Community Plan is basically the same as the one presented in the RNES and RGMS, albeit softened to reflect a stronger emphasis on the preservation of existing neighbourhoods. With the residential framework as a guide, it will be interesting to see how the Municipality handles the increasing pressures for residential growth and change over the next few years. Will there be a reactive approach to future pressures on existing neighbourhoods or will the Municipality, once again try a proactive approach and try to revive some of the features of the more aggressive RNES proposals. VI. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS There is a striking feature evident in the overview of housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda. At least once in every decade the Municipality, and the Region as a whole, are faced with what is widely defined as a "housing crisis". Usually a "crisis" becomes recognized when there is a period of rising housing costs and a shortage of supply of lower cost rental accommodation. Most of the conditions that lead to the emergence of a "housing crisis" are far beyond the control of any local government. For instance, business investment cycles, interest rates and migration patterns are important determining factors in "housing crises" but are almost totally immune to municipal government intervention. As a consequence, there are few avenues for action open to municipalities to help alleviate housing problems during these periods and even less they can do to prevent these "crises" from emerging. Municipal Councils and the planners are left to react to the problems to the best of their ability. Consequently, there is rarely development of an official plan of action to deal with a "housing crisis." Instead, there are a variety of measures that are attempted during each period which may or may not help to alleviate the housing problems. As mentioned previously, there is growing agreement in our society that housing is much more than just a common economic commodity; at the very least it is considered to be a necessity of life, at best it is considered to be a right of all individuals. Speculative buying and selling of residentially zoned lots and homes force house prices up. As well, since housing provision is left 78 AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 79 primarily to the profit—oriented private sector, investment in the production of various types of housing is controlled and limited by the profitability of the venture as compared to other investment opportunities (Achtenberg and Marcuse, 1986a:5). Thus, the type of housing constructed often does not meet the need for lower and moderate priced housing that exists. Investors are more apt to direct their capital towards the construction of luxury condominiums or single family dwellings which would be more profitable for them. Many housing analysts argue that "housing crises" of affordability and availability are endemic to our capitalist society (Achtenberg and Marcuse, 1986a+b; McAfee, 1986; Stone, 1986). They argue that it is a failure of the market system that is the underlying reason for "housing crises" and that without drastic reforms to the system (for example, the decommodification of housing), these "crises" will continue to plague our society. From this perspective, until housing ceases to be treated as a common market commodity, there will continue to be housing affordability and availability problems for many individuals and families, resulting in increasing numbers of homeless. The nature of housing, itself, makes it extremely difficult to address a housing shortage, at least in the short—term. On the one hand, housing is immobile: it cannot be moved from place to place in order to meet shifting demands. On the other hand, it takes time to construct housing units and even if the units were started the exact moment that the "housing crisis" was recognized, there would still be a lag between the growing need and the new supply. Again, it must be emphasized that in Canada, the private sector is AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 80 almost completely relied on for the provision of housing and the relatively small component of social housing that exists is directly funded and controlled by senior levels of government. Therefore, there is very little that municipalities can do during periods of "housing crisis." Usually, the "crisis" ends before the municipalities have formulated plans for any action aimed at alleviating the housing problems. Since the majority of discussions of and emphasis on housing problems occurs during these periods of so called "housing crisis," it is useful to examine the societal conditions during each of the four periods in an attempt to identify any possible trends or common features that help to explain what led to general agreement in the community that there was a "housing crisis." In this chapter, seven indicators of growth and change are examined in order to determine if their have been socio-economic conditions or changes common to all four periods of "housing crisis" that have been recognized in Burnaby and the Metropolitan Region since 1960. It must be emphasized that it is beyond the scope of this paper to include an in depth analysis of each of the seven socio-economic indicators. What is intended here is an exploration of the possible factors behind the perception of these periods of "housing crisis" in Burnaby and the Region. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 81 The seven socio-economic indicators examined in this discussion are: 1. Apartment Vacancy Rates for Burnaby and Metropolitan Vancouver (see Figures 3 and 7); 2. Housing Starts for Burnaby and Metropolitan Vancouver (see Figures 8 and 9); 3. Consumer Price Index for Metropolitan Vancouver (see Figures 10 and 11); 4. Provincial Net Migration (see Figure 12); 5. Provincial Gross Domestic Product (see Figure 13); 6. Provincial Unemployment Rates (see Figure 14); and 7. Rates for a Conventional Five Year Mortgage (see Figure 15). 1 2 The four periods during which time there was the recognition of a "housing crisis" within the community are indicated by the shaded areas on Figures 7 through 15. In the following sections, the seven socio-economic measures are discussed as they pertain to each period of "housing crisis". As well, a brief summary of the community response during the "crisis" is included. The actual values for each of these indicators are provided in Appendix B. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 82 Figure 7: Metro—Vancouver Vacancy Rates (Source: CMHC Vacancy Surveys) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 83 Housing Starts in Burnaby (1959-1988) SOOO-i <M 1 1 1 i *r"" 1 — " - " I 1955 1980 , 1865 1970 197S 1980 1989 1990 Years Figure 8: Burnaby Housing Starts (Source: R.E.B.G.V. and CMHC) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 84 Metro Vancouver Housing Starts (1959-1988) 195S 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Years Figure 9: Metro—Vancouver Housing Starts (Source: R.E.B.G.V. and CMHC) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 85 % Change in CPI from Previous Year for Metro Vancouver (1962-1971) 4 . 5 -i 4-1962 1963 1964 1965 196& 1987 (968 1969 1970 1971 Year Figure 10: Change in the Consumer Price Index (1962—1971) (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 62-001) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 86 16-1 U -% Change in CPI from Previous Year for Metro Vancouver (1972-1988) X 8 £ io-E 3 8 -6 -l l it • 11 Year Figure 11: Change in the Consumer Price Index (1972-1988) (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat 62-001) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 87 Provincial Net Migration (1961-1990) 6OOOO-1 o-i wymara— i m p i iii^im ,—mmm I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Y«ars Figure 12:1 3 Provincial Net Migration (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 91-208 and CMHC, Summer, 1989) CMHC estimate for 1988-89, and projections for 1989-90 and 1990-91. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 88 Percentage Change In the Provincial Gross Domestic Product 3 0 - , Figure 13: Change in the Provincial Gross Domestic Product (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 13—213) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / Provincial Unemployment Rates (1960-1988) 2-I -flfff^---' ,—*m , ,—-mmf I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Years Figure 14: Provincial Unemployment Rates (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 71-001) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 90 Conventional 5-Year Mortgage Rates (1964-1988) 20-1 M wp;-m*:*:- 1 "' i mjfiizz 1 ;•:•;•;•;*;•»:*, 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Years Figure 15: Conventional Five Year Mortgage Rate (Source: Bank of Canada Statistical Summary and Bank of Canada Review) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 91 1. The Housing Crisis in the Late 1960s Emergence on the Public Agenda The first indication of the impending "housing crisis" during this time period was the drop in the official vacancy rates. In 1964, the vacancy rate in Burnaby was 6.6% but, one year later, it had dropped to 1.7% and by 1966 it had fallen to 0.4% (R.E.B.G.V., 1964, 1965, 1966). The Metropolitan Region was experiencing substantial industrial growth that was affecting every segment of the economy and, as noted by analysts of the time, "The demand for housing accommodation was at a record level" (McKeown, 1968:C— 1). Net migration to the province was increasing dramatically. Total net migration increased from 2,772 migrants in the 1961—1962 period to 46,334 migrants between 1965—1966; an increase of almost seventeen times the net migration for 1961—1962. It is safe to assume that the majority of these migrants settled in the Vancouver Metropolitan Region since the census figures indicate a 25.7% increase in the total population between 1961 and 1966. The provincial Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose steadily throughout the decade. From 1963 to 1966 the provincial GDP increased by over 10% annually. The unemployment rate in the province was relatively low during the early 1960s, as would be expected, given the booming provincial economy. The chartered bank rate for a conventional five year mortgage increased AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 92 only slightly between 1964 and 1965 but did increase more rapidly after 1965, reaching 9.84% by 1969. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Metropolitan Vancouver began to rise slowly in 1963 (relative to the base year of 1961). During the period between 1966 and 1969 the CPI rose by an average of 4% annually. From 1961 to 1964 total housing starts in the Metropolitan Region increased yearly. In particular, the number of multiple unit starts rose more than threefold. By 1969, multiple unit starts in the Region reached a record 12,525 starts. In Burnaby, the major increases in multiple unit starts did not occur until 1967 and were nowhere near as high as in the City of Vancouver, which was the regional municipality experiencing the most substantial increases in multiple unit construction. The early 1960s, thus, represented a time of prosperity in the Province and particularly for the Vancouver Metropolitan Region. The economy was booming, the population was growing, due in a large part to migration into the province, and prices were not inflationary. Housing starts increased annually during most of the decade. Multiple unit starts, mainly in the form of apartment units, were reaching all time highs, helping to push the problem of apartment development and location through the initial stages of the lifecycle process (described in Chapter Three). What then was the "housing crisis"? The decisions to allow apartment development into Burnaby and the preparation of a plan to properly locate apartments did not constitute a "housing crisis." The only one of the seven socio-economic indicators that provides a clue to the reason for the existence of AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 93 a publicly recognized "housing crisis" are the low vacancy rates which were experienced in the late 1960s. Despite the fact that housing starts were rising and rental starts were at peak levels, the vacancy rates indicate that there was still an unsatisfied demand for apartment units. More to the point, a need for lower cost rental accommodation, that cannot be quantified using measurements of market demand, was becoming increasingly apparent throughout the Region. This was the primary manifestation of the "housing crisis" of the late 1960s. C o m m u n i t y R e s p o n s e The demand for alternatives to single family detached dwellings was growing, yet, the supply of other housing options in the Municipality was still severely limited. In particular there was a shortage of low cost family housing alternatives. This shortage was duely noted by municipal officials, planners and other community groups. Many organized public discussions focused on the housing problems being faced by lower income households in the Municipality and the Region. For example, in February 1967, a Housing Conference was held in the City of Vancouver which gathered together regional officials and experts in the housing field to discuss the current housing shortage and explore ways to increase housing production, particularly low and moderate cost accommodation (Melliship, 1985:30). Burnaby was represented at the Conference by the Council Housing Committee, as well as, other Municipal officials and staff (Housing Committee Minutes, Feb. 2, 1967). Pressure from individuals and groups, such as United Community Services AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 94 of Greater Vancouver, to increase efforts to ease the housing shortage was constant in the late 1960s. UCS, in particular, regularly expressed their concerns about the problem through letters and delegations to Council, pointing out that the need for low cost accommodation had been present since 1964 and that the City of Vancouver was the only regional municipality addressing the need for public housing. These pressures and the discussions in public arenas, such as the Vancouver Housing Conference, led to the preparation of the Public Housing Study in early March, 1967 (for a more detailed discussion of this study refer to previous Chapter on Social Housing). In an effort to explore the potential for low cost housing in Burnaby, this report proposed public housing projects for six sites in the Municipality. Examination of official minutes of Council meetings during this period indicates that the Municipality's proposal for the six public housing projects was met by ongoing delays from senior levels of government (Council Minutes, Mar. 11, 1968, Oct. 21, 1968). This prompted the Municipality to explore other avenues of approach to ease the housing shortage. Suggestions were made aimed at lowering the cost of land in order to reduce the high cost of housing. The possibilities discussed included making more serviced lots available, leasing municipally owned land and utilizing the land assembly provisions of the NHA. Although the "housing crisis" and the various measures available to address the problem were discussed repeatedly in Council meetings, other public forums and in the media, none of the efforts made served to ease the situation. The leasing of municipally owned land to housing delivery agencies was a topic of debate for several years but was finally rejected as an unsuitable solution to the affordability problems of lower income households AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 95 because it would not necessarily cut the high cost of housing (MMR No. 11, Feb. 16, 1970). An attempt was made to take advantage of the NHA land assembly provisions in July, 1968. The Municipality submitted an application for a land assembly project to the Provincial Government but it was denied because provincial authorities considered the land values of the proposed site to be too high. No mention was made in the Council minutes or Housing Committee records about any further attempts at land assembly projects. By 1969 discussions of the "housing crisis" in the Council minutes, Housing Committee records and in other arenas of public discussion, became less common. Vacancy rates in Burnaby had climbed over 3% by 1970 and remained over 2% until late 1972. As well, newly completed apartments were continually coming onto the market. Soon the prominence of the "housing crisis" on the municipal agenda ended as the issue receded from public attention. 2. The 1972 - 1974 Housing Crisis Emergence on the Public Agenda By 1972, the Region was again in the midst of a publicly defined "housing crisis". In fact, the housing situation was considered serious enough to play an important role in the 1972 provincial election. A number of factors appear to have led to the emergence of this "housing crisis". The cost of land AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 96 and servicing were increasing steadily (R.E.B.G.V., 1972—1973). Vacancy rates were falling again and by 1972 the Metropolitan Vancouver vacancy rate had reached a low of 0.6%; Burnaby's vacancy rate was 0.5%. One reason for the short supply of rental accommodation was reported to be that investors were no longer finding that they were getting an acceptable return on their investments. Increasing militancy of tenant organizations, fear of provincial government imposed rent controls, changes in the federal tax legislation and increasing demands being placed on developers by municipalities were all considered to contribute to the decreasing interest of investors in apartment development (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 27, 1973). Multiple unit starts in Metropolitan Vancouver had dropped from a peak of 12,525 starts in 1969 to only 6,070 starts in 1975. In Burnaby, multiple unit starts had peaked at 2,116 starts in 1970 and then began to decrease until 1974. During 1974 and 1975, Burnaby's multiple unit starts increased, but only slightly and then once again began to fall. Adding to the problems caused by the decreasing supply of rental units was the fact that during this time period there was a growing demand for a wide variety of housing types. An increase in the household formation rate and, even more important, a heavy flow of migrants, attracted by the employment opportunities in the province, were the main forces behind the increased demand for housing of all types. Provincial net migration continued to exceed 30,000 persons per year throughout the early 1970s. During 1973 to 1974, over 50,000 people were added to the provincial population through migration. Although the total number of migrants moving to the province was greater than in the early 1960s, the rate of increase during the 1960s was not matched in the 1970s. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 97 The buoyant provincial economy was indicated by the significant increases in the provincial GDP. The provincial GDP increased by 14.8% between 1971 and 1972 , by 23.8% from 1973 to 1974, and by 18.5% between 1973 and 1974. The provincial unemployment rate varied from 6.0% to 7.6% between 1971 and 1974 and then rose to 8.5% in 1975. Mortgage rates stayed below 10% from 1971 to 1973 but increased sharply to 11.24% in 1974 and remained over 11% until 1977. The CPI for the Vancouver Metropolitan Region rose by 5 to 7% annually during the first three years of the 1970s and then shot up by over 12% between 1973 and 1974 and by almost 11% in 1975. The "housing crisis" of the early 1970s appears to be related to increasing housing prices and other goods combined with a growing demand for housing which was fuelled by a steady flow of migrants into the province. As well, the construction of rental accommodation had dropped and vacancy rates had fallen. All these factors helped to keep housing issues on the the public agendas of the regional municipalities and the province. C o m m u n i t y Response Rising housing prices and a short supply of affordable rental accommodation were being experienced on a national scale (Bysse, 1974) and both the federal and provincial governments were increasing their commitment to finding ways to alleviate the housing problems faced by Canadians. The federal government, for example, introduced a number of programs aimed at increasing the supply of rental accommodation and assisting households to cope with rising AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 98 housing costs.1 4 The "housing crisis" in British Columbia was considered serious enough to influence the 1972 provincial election. Following their defeat of the incumbent Social Credit Government, the NDP embarked on a new approach to housing problems that provided support and encouragement for all types and tenures of housing. Thus, there existed a relatively positive and receptive political environment for any municipal initiatives to help ease the "housing crisis." The housing situation clearly took precedence in Municipal Council discussions, in the media, and had become the rallying point for many community groups in Burnaby. Early in 1974, the Municipal Council authorized a review of the Apartment Study '69 to determine the amount and type of apartment development that had occurred between 1969 and 1974. This review did not result in any significant changes to the already established apartment policies. The 1974 review was directly followed by the authorization of another study to develop a simple and reasonable plan for temporarily permitting the duplexing of single family dwellings and the fourplexing of duplex units (Residential Conversions, 1974). Planning staff was to investigate the impacts, implications and the potential for residential conversions. It was believed that conversions of single family detached houses and duplexes could potentially ease the housing shortage without reducing the quality of the neighbourhood environments. In the report, planning staff concluded that there was no way to 1 - 1 5 The Multiple Unit Residential Building tax shelter program (MURB), the Assisted Rental Program (ARP), the Assisted Home Ownership Program (AHOP), and the Registered Home Ownership Program (RHOSP) were put into place by the Federal Government. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 99 use residential conversions as a temporary measure during the housing shortage as Council had initially requested. The planners maintained that conversions would not adversely affect single family neighbourhoods and could help to revitalize some older neighbourhoods by attracting young families. However, based on the results of this study and the Public Meetings: Phase One Report (prepared earlier that year) the planners concluded that despite the fact that, existing single family neighbourhoods had the greatest potential for conversions, they should not be permitted. Two reasons were given for this conclusion: 1. permitting conversions would actually decrease the range of housing opportunities in Burnaby by destroying one alternative — the low density single family neighbourhood 2. any attempt at promoting widescale residential conversions would evoke negative reactions from residents. Even if the plan to permit residential conversions had been adopted it would have taken some time before enough new dwelling units would have been constructed and available to meet the growing demand for housing at that time. One additional measure taken by the Municipality was to impose a moratorium on the conversion of occupied multiple family residential development from rental to condominiums. This moratorium was imposed because of concerns about the effect that condominium conversions were having on the supply of rental accommodation, particularly in light of the shortage of rental units at the time (MMR No. 27, Apr. 21, 1986). AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 100 By 1975 the socio-economic conditions in the province had changed. The level of net migration had dropped sharply from the 1974—1975 period. The provincial GDP was still increasing but at a slower rate than in the previous four years. During the years between 1975 and 1978, the provincial unemployment remained over 8%. Five year mortgage rates were relatively stable between 1974 and 1976, and decreased below 11% during 1977 and 1978. The CPI for Metropolitan Vancouver continued to rise but at a much slower rate. Vacancy rates, on the other hand, indicated an ongoing rental supply problem. In Burnaby, the vacancy rate climbed to over 1% in 1977 but had fallen once again in 1978. The vacancy rate for Metropolitan Vancouver reached a high of 1.6% before dropping below 1% in 1979. Although the housing problems of lower income households continued throughout the decade, less attention was focused on addressing the shortage of lower cost accommodation in Burnaby after 1976. For many the serious "housing crisis" was over and a review of Council minutes and Housing Committee records indicated that the priorities of Council and the planners had shifted to other matters. In fact, the Municipal Council of the time must have considered the housing situation so much improved that in 1976 they felt able to initiate a crackdown on illegal secondary suites in Burnaby. This would have been a political disaster if there was still a community focus on the shortage of affordable housing in Burnaby. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 101 3. The Housing Crisis of the Early 1980s Emergence on the Public Agenda Another "housing crisis" began to emerge in 1979. Vacancy rates had remained 1% or below for much of the 1970s but by April 1981 the vacancy rate in Burnaby was an all time low of 0.0%. Demand for all types of housing was increasing rapidly and was related in part to an inflow of migrants attracted to British Columbia by employment opportunities and the booming provincial economy. Housing prices in the Metropolitan Region skyrocketed between 1979 and 1981 and mortgage rates reached a high of 21.46% in September 1981 (Planistics, 1980; Grieve, 1985; Ford, Aug. 5, 1985), The rapidly increasing cost of housing in the Lower Mainland was a serious concern and Burnaby's Council continuously received delegations and correspondence offering suggestions on the best ways to alleviate the housing problems being faced by a growing number of lower income and middle income households. In comparison to the earlier periods of "housing crisis," housing affordability problems were being experienced on a much wider scale. As indicated by the unprecedented high mortgage rates and the rise in the CPI, this was a period of high inflation. To further exacerbate the situation, there had been a slowdown in the construction of rental housing during the last five years of the 1970s. In fact, 1979 multiple housing starts in the Metropolitan Region were only half what they had been in 1972. Consequentially, little new rental accommodation had been added to the total housing stock for some time. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 102 The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver suggested that a primary cause of the rapidly escalating housing prices was a shortage of serviced lots for residential development on the market. In their correspondence with Burnaby's Council, representatives of the Real Estate Board urged the Municipality to bring as many serviced residential lots as possible onto the market and also to consider provisions for higher density accommodation, such as allowing smaller lots or greater numbers of multiple family developments (R.E.B.G.V., Letter to Council, Oct. 12, 1980). Other groups, such as the students attending Simon Fraser University were concerned about the continuing crackdown on illegal secondary suites and requested that the Municipality's approach to suites be relaxed to avoid an even more serious student "housing crisis" (SFU Week, Oct. 29, 1980). C o m m u n i t y Response The rate at which housing prices rose during the early 1980s and the level they reached was unprecedented. Housing prices increased by 60% in 1980 alone (Planistics, 1980). The seriousness of the "housing crisis" for a wide range of households made it essential for all levels of government to attempt to find means to alleviate the affordability and availability problems facing Canadians. At the national level, for instance, the Federal Government reinstated the MURB program, introduced two direct subsidy programs,1 5 and created a temporary plan to alleviate the hardships placed on homeowners by high mortgage interests 1 5 t h e Canadian Rental Supply Program (CRSP) and the Canadian Homeowners Stimulation Plan (CHOSP) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 103 rates.1 6 At the municipal level, Burnaby Council and planners responded in a number of ways. Acknowledging the need for more affordable rental units in the Municipality, Council finally agreed to end its crackdown on illegal secondary suites and began to once again deal with illegal suites on a complaint basis only. In 1980, the seriousness of the "housing crisis" was central to the preparation of three major planning studies which focused on residential planning; a review of the Apartment Study '69, the Residential Growth Management Study and the first consultants' background report (Planistics, 1980) for the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study. Both the RGMS and the Planistics consultant report emphasized the need for residential densities higher than the existing single family neighbourhoods. Undoubtably, these reports were influential in the decision of the then Council Housing Committee Chairman to submit a motion that would have required the Director of Planning to bring forward a proposal for allowing the duplexing of any single family detached house and the fourplexing of any duplex in a two family zoned neighbourhood (Council Minutes, Sept. 29, 1980), This motion appears to have been tabled and instead a scheme for creating some slightly higher density neighbourhoods was adopted. The scheme offered a rezoning option in any R4 and R5 (Suburban Medium Density) single and two family neighbourhoods. The new zoning category, R9, permitted small lot development and the subdivision of existing duplex zoned lots into two single family lots. The R9 zoning category was established, in 1 6 Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan - (CMRP) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 104 December, 1980, with the intention of creating an affordable housing alternative for many Burnaby residents (Burnaby Now, Mar. 4, 1987). In the first six months of its existence, numerous homeowners expressed the desire to take advantage of the new zoning category. However, neighbourhood resistance to the R9 subdivisions soon became evident. Several neighbourhoods submitted requests to be rezoned from R4 and R5 (Suburban Medium Density) to R2 (Suburban Low Density) to eliminate the possibility of being rezoned to R9. This opposition to R9 rezonings was typical of the resistance to any type of residential intensification in existing single family neighbourhoods (for further discussion refer to previous Chapter on Residential Intensification). Whether or not the new R9 zoning category actually helped to ease the shortage of affordable housing is debatable. Some critics argued that the houses that resulted from the R9 rezonings in the early 1980s were priced beyond the means of most lower income households; for example, one Burnaby realtor argued that a three bedroom home on even the smallest allowable lot would cost at least $130,000 (Constantineau, July 10, 1981). Housing prices plummeted in 1981 as the economic climate changed. The province, and the nation as a whole, entered a period of recession during the early 1980s which brought an end to skyrocketing mortgage rates and inflationary prices. As well, migration to the province dropped off sharply; by over 50% in 1981-1982 and by a further 70% during 1982—1983. Provincial unemployment rates remained above 12% from 1972 to 1987, reaching a peak of 14.7% in 1984. With the economic climate worsening, discussions about the "housing crisis" abated in Burnaby, as other problems began to supersede it on AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 105 the public agenda. 4. The Housing Crisis of the Late 1980s Emergence on the Public Agenda The late 1980s have marked a period of spiralling housing prices and rents, as well as, extremely low vacancy rates and little construction of lower priced rental units. Housing prices in the Metropolitan Region, particularly in the inner municipalities, have skyrocketed over the past two years, fuelled by foreign and domestic investment and speculation in the housing market. In fact, the average selling price in Greater Vancouver, for all housing types combined, rose 19% during the first 3/4 of 1988 (Vancouver Sun, Oct. 5, 1988). The housing situation has been further aggravated by rising interest rates and this has meant that the purchase of even a modest home is now well beyond the means of the majority of households in the Lower Mainland. In a recent report by the Royal Bank of Canada, it was estimated that 70% of Vancouver households could not qualify for a mortgage (Vancouver Sun, Aug. 12, 1989). As in the earlier periods of "housing crisis", net migration levels began to increase significantly by 1986. In fact, after reaching a low (since 1960) of 1,153 migrants in 1985-1986, net migration rose to over 16,000 in 1986-1987. The provincial unemployment rate began to decline slowly after 1984 and by AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 106 1987 was just over 10%. The Metropolitan Region has entered a period of rapid growth and change that is being translated into housing problems for many households, particularly low income households. There are serious problems in the rental sector (Bramham, Aug. 19, 1989a+b; Vancouver Sun, Aug. 12, 1989). Concerns are increasing over the demolition of existing rental accommodation, which is being replaced by fewer and more expensive luxury condominiums (Bramham, Aug. 15, 1989). 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Private Rental 684 163 420 126 - - -Non-Profit Rental - 57 - 59 - 51 37 Co-operative 181 103 94 189 29 146 65 Condominium 18 600 202 170 305 727 324 Total 883 923 716 544 334 924 426 Table 7: Burnaby's Multiple Housing Starts (Source: Burnaby Planning Department) Although this seems to be limited (so far) mainly to the City of Vancouver, it is expressed by increased pressures on neighbouring municipalities to supply low and moderate priced rental accommodation. This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that there is very little construction of this type of housing occurring AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 107 in the Lower Mainland. Developers maintain that it is not profitable for them to build rental housing at this time, largely because of high interest rates and land values (Rebalski, Apr. 21, 1989). There seems to be no end in sight to the extremely low vacancy rates that have gripped the Region for almost two years. Over the last eighteen months, vacancy rates have been 1% or lower (Vancouver Sun, Aug. 12, 1989). C o m m u n i t y Response With the rising housing costs and low vacancy rates have come renewed pressures for residential intensification and to increase the number of social housing units being built within Burnaby. As a consequence, the planners and Municipal Council have begun to give priority to social housing provision. Several municipally owned sites have been identified for non—market housing and the Municipality is in the process of putting together a plan for the development of the projects. One serious problem is emerging in this effort. Land values of all residential land in the Municipality (and in the entire Region) are reaching levels where it is becoming almost impossible to develop the social housing projects within the parameters set out by the senior levels of government, even with the Municipality writing down the cost of the land. Despite this, the planners are still optimistic that they will be successful in their efforts. Additionally, the Municipal planners and Council are insisting that 20—25% of the units in major housing projects involving the Municipality be assisted housing and are pressuring senior governments to increase their commitment to AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 108 the provision of assisted units within the Municipality (for example, in the Provincial Government's development on the Oakalla Prison site). The Municpality is also continuing to offer suggestions and recommendations to senior levels of government on how to improve their social housing programs (Grieve, 1989). The demand for more ground—oriented family housing has once again led to pressures for intensification of Burnaby's existing low density residential neighbourhoods. One response to these pressures is that Council has finally reinstated the R9 zoning category and has passed it into the Municipal Zoning Bylaw. As it stands now, property owners in areas where R9 development has already occurred can apply for permission to subdivide their lots and construct two single family homes (Grieve, 1989). This small lot subdivision program is intended to help ease the housing supply problem in the Municipality. Whether or not the Municipal efforts will have any impact on the worsening housing situation remains to be seen. However, two things are certain. First, these efforts cannot resolve the housing problems of all residents and, second, there appears to be no early end to the "housing crisis" that exists in the Metropolitan Region today. 5. Common Features of the Four Periods of Housing Crises There appear to be several common socio-economic conditions that prevail around or during the time that the community began to perceive that a "crisis" AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF "HOUSING CRISIS" / 109 in housing affordability or availability was occurring. Most obvious, is that the "housing crises" seem to be associated with periods of economic growth in the Region and the province. The provincial GDP is usually increasing at a faster rate at the beginning of the "crisis" period and the unemployment rate is generally low relative to other years. While net migration has always been positive since 1960, there is a rise in the level of net migration just prior to or at about the same time as the "housing crisis" becomes an item on the public agenda. At the height of the "crisis", there is usually a jump in the mortgage rate and the CPI has tended to increase at a faster rate. Vacancy rates, on the other hand, have remained very low for most of the time since the early 1970s. Only during the economic recession of the early 1980s did the vacancy rates climb over 2%. The constantly low vacancy rates indicate an ongoing rental housing shortage. This alone, however, does not appear to be enough to lead to the perception of a "housing crisis" by the community. It seems that there must be other factors at work, such as rising mortgage rates or excess demand for housing of all types, before a "crisis" becomes recognized and discussed in Council meetings, in the media and by a wide range of groups within the community. One thing is certain, Burnaby has never been the leader in the recognition of a "housing crisis". The discussions and responses to the housing problem always appear to follow after the the "crisis" had become a problem on the public agenda in the City of Vancouver, the province, and in some cases the nation. VII. SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Housing problems have received a great deal of public attention in Burnaby. Undoubtably this is because the Municipality has remained primarily a residential community, with relatively little commercial and industrial development. It is only recently (the last 15 years or so) that the Municipality began to make a concerted effort to create its own identity apart from its role as a suburban bedroom community for the City of Vancouver. In particular, three categories or types of housing problems have predominated since 1960; apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. Each type of housing problem has appeared on the municipal agenda on a recurrent basis, albeit not always in the same way or with the same frame of reference. Clearly, all three are related to the disparity between two apparently contradictory goals: the goal of preserving the status quo in existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of encouraging and facilitating the development of a diversity of housing options for present and future residents of the Municipality. 1. Summary of the Case Study This thesis examines the process by which housing issues have become defined as problems and reached the municipal agenda and how the community has responded. Blumer's framework, has proven to be a useful tool for the study of the types of complex housing problems identified on Burnaby's public agenda. By outlining the various stages in the lifecycle of a social problem, the analytic 110 SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 111 framework made it possible to identify the origins of Burnaby's housing policies (or lack of a policy in the case of social housing) by tracing the issue through its initial recognition in the community as a problem to the measures taken to alleviate the problem. Despite its usefulness as a tool for looking at social problems over time, it must be emphasized that it is often difficult to distinguish between the lifecycle stages, especially in the early stages, during which the issue receives initial recognition as a problem and becomes legitimated enough to warrant the mobilization of forces to address the problem. Nonetheless, Blumer's framework represents an acceptable strategy for this type of case study and can be utilized as the basis for study of other municipal issues and problems. In Chapters Three through Five the three categories of housing problems, apartment development, social housing and residential intensification, were described in the context of Blumer's framework. The problems related to the type and location of apartment development, were observed to be quickly legitimated and addressed with an official plan of action that has guided the development of apartments in Burnaby since the mid-1960s. The provision of social housing as another form of multiple family housing, has only recently begun to enter the third lifecycle stage of mobilization of forces to address the problem. This is despite the fact that it was first recognized as a problem by some members of the community in the late 1960s. It took many years for the social housing problem to become legitimate enough in Burnaby to warrant serious discussion about whether or not it was one that should be addressed by the Municipality and equally as long to come to a collective agreement that Burnaby should, indeed, take a more active role in social housing provision. What this role will SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 112 be has yet to be clearly defined. The third type of problems, those related to residential intensification, began to emerge on the municipal agenda in the 1970s and by the early 1980s the Municipality was in the process of developing an official plan of action to deal with the pressures for residential intensification in existing neighbourhoods. This was an example of the Municipal Council and the planners attempting to take a proactive approach to residential intensification. They had recognized the growing pressures for change in existing low density neighbourhoods and had agreed that there needed to be a comprehensive plan to deal with the changes that were expected to occur throughout many of the neighbourhoods in Burnaby. The Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study represented a well thought out plan that had developed over several years. In fact, the RNES plan received attention in other parts of the country as an example, of innovative municipal planning. However, an attempt to implement the Compaction Strategy, as it was referred to, failed quickly and completely. The residents of Burnaby were almost entirely opposed to the strategy that would have utilized several methods for intensifying the residential land use in some of Burnaby's single and two family neighbourhoods. For instance, the Municipality was planning to permit secondary suites in existing dwellings and the construction of small compatibly scaled i n — f i l l housing. The plan of action was quickly abandoned by Council and planners. Residential intensification had risen to the fourth stage in the lifecycle sequence outlined by Blumer, but it was blocked from continuing onto the final implementation stage. In fact, the credibility of the problem and those who tried to address it was severely damaged in the opinion of the community. Residential SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 113 intensification must once again achieve social legitimacy if it is to be addressed further in Burnaby. Why did one category of housing problem complete the five lifecycle stages outlined in the framework while the others failed to move successfully through all the stages? First, in the case of social housing, there has always been disagreement about whether or not the Municipality should play an active role in the provision of this type of housing. Many have argued that social housing is the responsibility of senior levels of government, while some still maintain that social housing is not needed within Burnaby. Without general agreement that the Municipality should be addressing the issue, there can be no mobilization of forces and no plan of action prepared. The other two categories discussed, apartment development and residential intensification, had strong market forces behind them which were absent with the provision of social housing. Social housing addresses a social need rather than an effective market demand. Its provision requires a significant political and financial commitment. This degree of commitment has not existed in Burnaby in the past and has only been approached in the last few years. Both apartment development and residential intensification related housing problems were driven by market forces which appear to have made the difference in their transitions through the various lifecycle stages. Additional case studies are needed to verify this but these forces do seem to have helped to legitimate the problems in the opinion of the community and to provide justification for official action to address them. Why was it possible to implement SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 114 the plan in the 1966 Apartment Study and not the RNES plan? The reason may lie in the fact that the apartment location plan directly affected fewer residents than the RNES Compaction Strategy. In the 1966 plan, areas for apartment development were clearly designated and the homeowners in Burnaby's low density residential neighbourhoods were assured that there would be no intrusion of apartments in their neighbourhoods. Thus, the plan actually provided a type of security for residents and, therefore, it was to their advantage to support the implementation of the official plan. The Compaction Strategy, on the other hand, was to directly affect a large number of neighbourhoods and virtually all residents in these neighbourhoods opposed the plan. Compaction threatened their sense of security and appeared to force change upon them that they did not want. Thus, the Council and the planners ran head on into the dreaded NIMBY factor that has become the planning issue of the late 1980s and is sure to increase in prominence in the next decade. The pressures for residential intensification did not disappear with the abandonment of the RNES proposals; as is evidenced by the illegal addition of second suites in homes throughout the Municipality. Thus, it can be assumed that as the population of the Region, and Burnaby itself, continues to increase and as the supply of undeveloped residential land declines further in the inner municipalities of the Region, the pressures to develop higher density housing and intensify the residential land use in existing neighbourhoods will grow substantially. It is, therefore, inevitable that the Municipality of Burnaby will have to once again find this type of housing problem on its public agenda. SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 115 In Chapter Six, four periods during which the community perceived the existence of a "housing crisis" were discussed in relation to seven socio-economic indicators. As well, the community responses during these periods were briefly discussed. It is possible to make some tentative observations about the relationships of the seven indicators of growth and change to the community's perception of a "housing crisis". However, it must be emphasized that this was an exploratory exercise and the potential relationships identified here might be purely coincidental. Additional studies are needed to verify these relationships and to determine how each factor might influence the community's perception of housing problems. The major observation made in this chapter is that the perception of a serious "housing crisis" appears to be connected to periods of rapid growth in the Region. Net migration was higher at the beginning of these periods of "housing crisis", as people from other parts of Canada became attracted by the booming provincial economy and began to migrate to B.C. to take advantage of growing employment opportunities. As well, there appears to be a relatively sharp rise in prices and mortgage rates at the height of the "housing crises". This was particularly true during the "crisis" in the early 1980s, when mortgage rates reached record levels and prices, in general, became highly inflationary. Another observation can be made about the fact that vacancy rates have indicated an ongoing shortage of rental accommodation in the Region. Multiple housing starts declined substantially in the 1970s and for most of the 1980s. In fact, virtually all the multiple housing being constructed in the later years of the 1980s have been relatively expensive condominiums rather than rental SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 116 accommodation. Low vacancy rates and a shortage of rental accommodation does not appear to always be enough to lead the community to perceive a serious "housing crisis". It seems that housing problems must affect a wide range of lower and middle income households before a "crisis" is perceived. As mentioned above, these observations are only tentative. Further studies, perhaps on other regional municipalities, are required to determine whether these observations can be generalized to other municipalities or whether they are coincidental. 2. C o n c l u s i o n s Housing problems of some kind are inevitable in our market—oriented society. Since housing provision remains primarily a private sector function there will always be housing affordability and availability problems for many, particularly lower income households. At times these housing problems reach the public agendas of municipalities and, thus, require some form of community response. As illustrated by this case study, the response might be to prepare a plan of action to help alleviate the problem or some aspect of the problem. On the other hand, the response might be to ignore or avoid addressing the problem altogether. Wildavsky argues, that social problems are never really resolved but that they are merely superseded by other "more important" or pressing problems (Ham and Hill, 1985:6). This would appear to be the case with housing problems in our society as they are continually being redefined and various SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 117 manifestations of the same problem are often placed on the public agenda at different times. In Burnaby, for example, the three major categories of housing problems apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification are in many ways all manifestations of the same conflict between the goals of preserving the status quo in existing neighbourhoods and the acceptance of change in the residential environment and recognition of the need for a diversity of housing options within the Municipality. Since the housing problems can never be resolved, in the sense that a particular problem (or some aspect of the problem) never again requires the attention and action of the community, the most that can be achieved is to ameliorate or reduce the undesirable effects of the housing problem as defined at the time. This case study represents an exercise in the analysis of policy. Thus, the preceding chapters have attempted to describe and explain the origin and development of housing policy within the Municipality of Burnaby. Overall, the Municipality's role in housing has been quite limited, restricted primarily to the traditional task of zoning land for residential purposes. Burnaby's response to the growing trend towards apartment development in the 1960s was to use zoning as a tool for implementing the plan aimed at alleviating the pressures on existing neighbourhoods for apartment development. The designated apartment areas kept this type of development from intruding into the Municipality's single family neighbourhoods and, thus, successfully addressed the concerns of all those who had considered the location and development of apartments in Burnaby a problem. Even the attempt to approach residential intensification proactively, was based on the use of zoning to encourage relatively higher densities in existing SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 118 neighbourhoods. This plan of action failed to be implemented because of the very strong resistance to change in the Municipality's existing neighbourhoods and not because it involved some new or increased involvement of the Municipality in housing. The provision of social housing is one area that has been open to greater municipal involvement and the development of proactive and innovative plans. For example, the City of Vancouver's policy of leasing municipal land to social housing delivery agencies in the past is widely acknowledged as a primary reason for the successful development of projects such as False Creek and Champlain Heights. In Burnaby, the commitment to addressing this problem has not been strong enough to warrant such innovative actions. Social housing represents one area that cannot be adequately addressed by the use of regulatory tools, such as zoning, alone. Burnaby's central location in the Vancouver Metropolitan Region ensures that it will continue to be one of the first regional municipalities to experience the pressures for growth and change within the Region. With these pressures will come renewed concerns about residential intensification in existing neighbourhoods and the development of higher density apartments. As well, there will likely be pressure on the Municipality to increase its commitment to social housing as the need for this type of housing continues to grow. It will be increasingly difficult for Burnaby to limit its involvement in housing to the traditional regulatory and zoning actions. There may come a point in the near future when Burnaby will have to consider the expansion of its role in housing. It is hoped that this study can provide a useful source of information about the Municipality's past role in housing. For understanding past events and policy SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 119 decisions is essential to the development of better policies in the future. It is also hoped that this study will be only one in a series of similar studies that explore the municipal role in housing. Such studies are vital to furthering our understanding of how municipalities address problems, particularly in light of the many constitutional and financial constraints placed on them in our society. This examination of Burnaby's role in housing has led to several more general insights into the practice of urban planning in our society. It is important for planners to understand that social problems have a "lifecycle". As illustrated in this study, there is an identifiable sequence of events that occurs with any social problem. Therefore, the timing of any planning action is critical. If, for example, planners were to try to introduce a plan to address an issue that had not yet been clearly defined as a problem in the community, they would likely be met by strong opposition from the community. This resistance could inevitably result in the defeat of the particular plan of action. On the other hand, if there had been collective agreement within the community that a problem existed and that it required municipal intervention, the plan of action would be more apt to reach implementation. In his discussion of urban planning in capitalist societies, Roweis argues that it is during periods of territorial instability and social turmoil (for example, during the World War n and the Depression) that urban planning "acquires relatively high social significance and is given the opportunity to influence the course of urban development most pronouncedly" (1981:173). Alternatively, he argues that it is during the "good times" that urban planning becomes less SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS / 120 accepted and less able to "influence the trends of urban development" (1981:174). The findings of this study suggest that Roweis's argument may be incorrect, at least for planning at the local level. The examination of the four periods of percieved "housing crisis" within the community revealed that it was not during the "bad times" that planning intervention was most desirable, it was during the "good times". Each of the "housing crises" was recognized by the community during a period of economic prosperity and relative social stability. The findings in this study suggest that it is during the "good times" that planning intervention into the housing sector is most desirable and accepted by the community. It must be cautioned that further studies in a number of municipalities are needed to verify these findings. This study does indicate, however, that there Roweis's argument may be mistaken and that the acceptance and achievments of urban planning in capitalist societies may not be limited to "troubled times". Rather, it appears that it is during the "good times" that the need for urban planning is the greatest. BIBLIOGRAPHY Achtenberg, E. P. and Marcuse, P. "The Causes of the Housing Problem", in Critical Perspectives on Housing. Edited by R. G. Bratt et al.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985a, pp. 4-11. Achtenberg, E. P. and Marcuse, P. "Toward the Decommodification of Housing", in Critical Perspectives on Housing. Edited by R. G. Bratt et al.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985b, pp. 474-483. Anderson, G. "Modern Times in Canadian Housing. Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring, 1987, pp. 22-24. Bacher, J. C. "Canadian Housing 'Policy' in Perspective", in Urban History Review. Vol. XV, No. 1, June, 1986, pp. 3-40. Bank of Canada. Statistical Summary. Ottawa. Bank of Canada. Bank of Canada Review. Ottawa. Bartholomew, Harland and Associates. A Plan for the City of Vancouver British Columbia. Vancouver: 1928. Blumer, H. "Social Problems As Collective Behavior", in Social Problems. Vol. 18, 1971, pp. 298-306. Bramham, D. "Apartment Demolition Protested", in The Vancouver Sun. Aug. 15, 1989a, p. BI. Bramham, D. "Rental housing plan drops chance for developer to buy land", in The Vancouver Sun. Aug. 15, 1989b, p. BI and BIO. 121 / 122 Bramham, D. "Condo craze creates risks", in The Vancouver Sun. Aug. 18, 1989, p. B l and B8. Bramham, D. "East side, west side, evicted are all around", in The Vancouver Sun. Aug. 19, 1989a, p. A5. Bramham, D. and Buttle, J. "Housing scheme faces hurdles", in The Vancouver Sun. Aug. 12, 1989b, p. A l and A2. Burchinshaw, M., Jeu, D., and Spurr, P. Survey of Municipal Housing Policy. Canada: CMHC Research Division, 1985. Burnaby Chamber of Commerce. Letter to Council. Aug. 12, 1969. Burnaby Planning Department. Zoning Bylaw. 1965. Burnaby Planning Department. 1966 Apartment Study. March, 1966. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Housing Committee. Mar. 29, 1967. Burnaby Planning Department. Public Housing Study. May, 1967. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Housing Committee. May 6, 1968. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Housing Committee. May 30, 1968. Burnaby Planning Department. Apartment Study '69. June, 1969 (Reprinted in 1981). Burnaby Planning Department. Urban Structure. March, 1970. Burnaby Planning Department. Group Housing: A Study of Moderate Density Forms of Family Accommodation. Sept., 1970. / 123 Burnaby Planning Department. Public Meetings: Phase One. March, 1974. Burnaby Planning Department. Multiple Housing Questionaire. 1974. Burnaby Planning Department. Residential Conversions: A Background Report. 1974. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Municipal Manager. May 1, 1974. Burnaby Planning Department. Burnaby Metrotown; a development plan. June, 1977. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Municipal Manager. June 19, 1979. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Municipal Manager. July 9, 1979. Burnaby Planning Department. Residential Growth Management Study: A Draft Report for Discussion Purposes. Sept., 1980. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Municipal Manager. Sept. 15, 1981. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Municipal Manager. Apr. 26, 1982. Burnaby Planning Department. Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers. Feb.; 1984. Burnaby Planning Department. Official Community Plan. June, 1987. Burnaby Planning Department. Report to Municipal Manager. Sept. 26, 1988. Burnaby Now. "Others Join Fight", Jan. 28, 1987, p.9. Burnaby Now. "R9s offer independence", Mar. 4, 1987, p.3. / 124 Burnaby Now. "R9s stopped", Mar. 4, 1987, p.3. Burnaby Now. '"Nimby factor' stammed", Apr. 29, 1987. Burnaby Now. "Freeze stays on R9s pending staff review", Feb. 24, 1988, p.9. Burnaby Now. "Greed Pushes Land Costs Up", Sept. 28, 1988, p.3. Bysse, J. L. "Why Did Prices of Homes Go Up So Much?", in Real Estate and Business Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver. 1973—1974, p.Al—A3. CAHRO. Canadian Agenda for Action on Housing and Homelessness Through the Year 2000. Canada: 1988. Carver, H.. "A Decent Home for Every Family", in his Houses for Canadians: A Study of Housing Problems in the Toronto Area. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1948. Chow, W. "All income housing slated in Burnaby", in The Vancouver Sun. Nov. 23, 1973. City of Vancouver Planning Department. Vancouver Quaterly Review, April, 1987. CMHC. Housing in Canada 1945 to 1986; An Overview and Lessons Learned. Ottawa: 1987. CMHC. Rental Market Survey Report, Vancouver CMA. Ottawa: April, 1989. CMHC. National Housing Outlook, Summer 1989. Ottawa: Summer, 1989. Constantineau, B. "Review order revives Burnaby highrise issue", in The Vancouver Sun. Nov. 27, 1979. / 125 Constantineau, B. "Residents oppose hoghrise proposal", in The Vancouver Sun. Feb. 20, 1980. Constantineau, B. "Small lots a boon to Burnaby homeowners", in The Vancouver Sun. Jul. 10, 1981. Constantineau, B. "Speculating on the Future: Is local house-price bubble set to burst?", in The Vancouver Sun. June 10, 1989, p. DI. Cullingworth, J. B. "Provincial and municipal roles in Canadian planning", in Cities. Vol. 2, No. 3, 1985, pp. 223-229. Curtis, , H. (Prov. Minister of Housing). Letter to Council. Sept. 10, 1976. Dennis, M. and Fish, S. Programs in Search of a Policy: Low Income Housing in Canada. Toronto: Hakkert, 1972. Drummond, D. (Alderman). Personal Interview. Nov., 1988. Farrow, M., "Average home too costly, study says", in The Vancouver Sun. June 16, 1989, p. C3. Ford, A. "Vancouver house market turns 'hot' again", in The Financial Times. Aug. 5, 1985, p. 20. Government of Canada. Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada . Canada: Minister of Supply and Services, 1985. Greater Vancouver Apartment Owners Association. Presentation to Council. Jan. 22, 1974. Grieve, B. Continuity and change: Provincial housing policy in British Columbia 1945-1985. Vancouver, B. C: U.B.C., 1985. / 126 Grieve, B. Personal Interviews. 1988 and 1989. Ham, C. and Hill, M. The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1984. Hogwood, B. W. and Gunn, L. A. Policy Analysis for the Real World. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1984. Hulchanski, J. D. St. Lawrence and False Creek: A Review of the Planning and Development of Two New Inner City Neighbourhoods. Vancouver, B. C: U.B.C. Planning Papers, 1984. Hulchanski, J. D. and Grieve, B. Housing Issues and Canadian Federal Budgets, 1968 to 1984. Vancouver, B. C: U.B.C. Planning Papers, 1984. Hulchanski, J. D. and Drover, G. Housing Subsidies in a Period of Restraint; The Canadian Experience, 1973 — 1984. Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies, 1985. Hulchanski, J. D. Who Are The Homeless? What Is Homelessness? The politcs of Defining An Emerging Policy Issue. Vancouver, B. C: U.B.C. Planning Papers, 1987. Hulchanski, J. D. Rental Housing Trends in the City of Vancouver. Vancouver, B. C: U.B.C. Centre for Human Settlements, April, 1989. Hunter, J. "Greedy vendors blamed for housing increases", in The Vancouver Sun. Oct. 3, 1988, p. B l . Jacobs, Jane. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. / 127 Lane, W. T. Meech Lake; After Entrenchment The Consequences For Local Government. Paper presented to the 10th Anniversary Invitational Seminar, Centre for Human Settlements, U.B.C., Jan. 8, 1988. League for Social Reconstruction. "A Housing Program", in Social Planning for Canada. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1935. Lewarne, B. (Former Mayor). Personal Interview. Nov., 1988. Makuch, S. M. "Urban Law and Policy Development in Canada", in Labour Law and Urban Law in Canada. Canada: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1986. Marler, B. "No Room For The Poor", in Burnaby Now. Sept. 28, 1988, p.3. McAfee, K. "Socialism and the Housing Movement: Lessons from Boston", in Critical Perspectives on Housing, edited by R. G. Bratt et al.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985, pp. 405-427. McCarthy, G. (MLA). Letter to Council. Nov. 12, 1970. McKeown, J. "Industrial Growth in Greater Vancouver", in Real Estate and Business Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver. 1968, p.Cl—C3. Melliship, K. S. The contribution of theories of the state in analyzing local government housing initiatives: the City of Vancouver's housing actions, 1900-1973. Vancouver, B. C: U.B.C., 1985. Morton, B. "Oakalla Neighbors: Prison fence preferred to high—density housing", in The Vancouver Sun. Sept. 16, 1982, p.A18. Municipality of Burnaby. Housing Committee Minutes. Feb. 2, 1967. / 128 Municipality of Burnaby. Housing Committee Minutes. Jul. 8, 1969. Municipality of Burnaby. Housing Committee Minutes. Jan. 4, 1983. Municipality of Burnaby. Housing Committee Minutes. Mar. 19, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Jul. 18, 1963. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. May 5, 1966. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Nov. 16, 1966. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Jun. 28, 1967. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Oct. 4, 1968. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Mar. 11, 1971. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Mar. 28, 1972. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Jun. 14, 1972. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Mar. 23, 1973. Municipalhy of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Council. Apr. 29, 1975. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Director of Planning. June 17, 1970. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Director of Planning. Mar. 28, 1972. / 129 Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Director of Planning. Aug. 1, 1973. Municipality of Burnaby. Memo from Municipal Clerk to Director of Planning. Mar. 21, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Minutes of Public Meetings. Apr. 1, 1966. Municipality of Burnaby. Minutes of Public Meetings. Jun. 7, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Minutes of Public Meetings. Jun. 12, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Minutes of Public Meetings. Jun. 20, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Minutes of Public Meetings. Jun. 21, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Jun. 13, 1966. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Feb. 12, 1968. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Mar. 11, 1968. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Jun. 10, 1968. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Oct. 21, 1968. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Apr. 28, 1969. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Mar. 29, 1969. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Mar. 31, 1970. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Council Minutes. Sept. 29, 1980. / 130 Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 34 (supp.), Jun. 13, 1966. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 11, Feb. 16, 1970. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 70, Nov. 1, 1971. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 41, May. 28, 1973. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 57, Jul. 30, 1973. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 25, Apr. 1, 1974. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 43, Jun. 10, 1974. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 19, Dec. 15, 1974. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 23, Mar. 24, 1980. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 60, Sept. 29, 1980. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 25, Jun. 1, 1981. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 17, Mar. 2, 1983. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 46, Jun. 27, 1983. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 13, Feb. 20, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 70, Nov. 5, 1984. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 68, Oct. 28, 1985. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 21, Mar. 24, 1986. / 131 Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 27, Apr. 21, 1986. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 74, Dec. 15, 1986. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 17, Mar. 9, 1987. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 65, Oct. 26, 1987. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 77, Dec. 14, 1987. Municipality of Burnaby. Municipal Managers Report. No. 43, Jun. 20, 1988. Oberfeld, H. "Planner Looks At Burnaby; Mixture of 'urban towns' favored", in The Vancouver Sun. Jan. 15, 1970. O'Brien, J. "Vancouver starts process of accepting illegal suites", in The Vancouver Province. Jul. 10, 1980, p. C8. Parfitt, B. "Minister criticized by housing advocates", in The Vancouver Sun. Oct. 8, 1988, p. A12. Parr, T. "Burnaby '70", in Real Estate and Business Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver. 1970. Parr, T. Changing Burnaby. Burnaby: Planning Department, Aug., 1973. Parr, T. (Planning Director). Personal Interview. Nov., 1988. Parton, N. "Housing price spiral creates modern nomads", in The Vancouver Sun. Apr. 5, 1989, p. A2. Peddie, R. "Homeless in a cold climate", in Canadian Housing. Vol. 4, No. 3, Fall, 1987, pp. 8-9. / 132 Planistics Planning Group of Consultants. Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study, Vol. 1-3. B. C: Dec, 1980. Power, B. and Fralic, S. "Oakalla housing plan was shocker", in The Vancouver Sun. Sept. 16, 1982.. Randall, F. (Alderman). Personal Interview. Nov., 1988. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (R.E.B.G.V.). Real Estate and Business Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver. Vancouver, B. C: 1959 —1983. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (R.E.B.G.V.). Metrotrends. Vancouver, B. C: 1986 and 1988. Rebalski, N. "Economics blamed for rental housing crunch", in The Vancouver Sun. Apr. 21, 1989, p. D5. Robinson, H. "NIMBY'S cousin L U L U is back in town", in The Seattle Times. Aug. 6, 1989, p. A18. Romell, K. "Illegal suite market thrives in Burnaby", in Burnaby Now. Mar. 4, 1987, p.3. Romell, K. "150 oppose proposed bulk changes", in Burnaby Now. Apr. 22, 1987, p.3. Romell, K. "Housing crunch 'crisis' ahead", in Burnaby Now. Feb. 3, 1988, p. 11. Rounds, H. C. (Prov. Director of Home Acquisition). Letter to Council. Aug. 4, 1976. / 133 Roweis, S. T. "Urban planning in early and late capitalist societies: outline of a theoretical perspective", in Urbanization and urban planning in capitalist society, edited by M. Dear and A. J. Scott. London: Methuen, 1981. Sawicki, J. (Alderman). Personal Interview. Oct., 1988. SFU Week, Oct. 29,1980. Statistics Canada. Census. Ottawa: 1961, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986. Statistics Canada. The Consumer Price Index (Cat. 62—001). Ottawa. Statistics Canada. International and interprovincial migration in Canada (Cat. 91-208). Ottawa. Statistics Canada. The Labour Force (Cat. 71 — 001). Ottawa. Statistics Canada. Prvincial Economic Accounts (Cat. 13—213). Ottawa. Stone, M. E. "Housing and the Dynamics of U.S. Capitalism", in Critical Perspectives on Housing, edited by R. G. Bratt et al.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985, pp. 41-67. Stusiak, V. (Alderman). Personal Interview. Nov., 1988. The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group. Resident Opinion Survey, Vol. 1: Summary Report. B. C: Apr., 1982. The Vancouver Province. "Proposal provides for sale of housing", Apr. 21, 1976. The Vancouver Province. "'Robot' amid protesters of highrises", Mar. 20, 1980, p.A4. / 134 The Vancouver Sun. "Planners Oppose Suite Development", Apr. 20, 1964. The Vancouver Sun. "Burnaby okays housing plan", Jul. 22, 1970. The Vancouver Sun. "660 Subsidized Units: Burnaby housing plan proposed", May 20, 1972. The Vancouver Sun. "Subsidized Project 'Not Dead': Turndown stalls Burnaby housing scheme", Jun. 13, 1972. The Vancouver Sun. "Burnaby, North Van Act; District housing plan urged", Jun. 20, 1972. The Vancouver Sun. "Opponents win rezoning battle", Oct. 17, 1972. The Vancouver Sun. "City faces serious apartment lack", Feb. 27, 1973, pp. A l and 11. The Vancouver Sun. "Burnaby gov't housing plan revealed", Oct. 24, 1974. The Vancouver Sun. "Burnaby plan for townhouse gains support", Jan. 5, 1975. The Vancouver Sun. "Rental Housing Talks Set", Mar. 30, 1976. The Vancouver Sun. "City takes 'tolerant view' of illegal suites, boarders", Nov. 5, 1976. The Vancouver Sun. "Housing units stand vacant after scheme scrapped", Jun. 4, 1977. The Vancouver Sun. "Maclnnis Place housing project sold by government for $10 million", Dec. 31, 1977. / 135 The Vancouver Sun. "Burnaby drive against illegal basement suites to continue", Mar. 30, 1978. The Vancouver Sun. "Burnaby does flip—flop on highrise development", Oct. 23, 1979. The Vancouver Sun. "Crackdown on illegal suites ends", Feb. 26, 1980. The Vancouver Sun. "Grant Increase Boosts Size of Co—op Project", Jun. 23, 1980. The Vancouver Sun. "Plans for Deer Lake 'not etched in stone'", Oct. 5, 1982. The Vancouver Sun. "Burnaby urges CMHC to keep housing aid", May 7, 1985. The Vancouver Sun. "House sales 'hitting new highs'", Sept. 28, 1988, p. E6. The Vancouver Sun. "House sales soar", Oct. 5, 1988, p. C l . The Vancouver Sun. "Housing scheme faces hurdles", Aug. 12, 1989, p. A l . Townsend, T. "Burnaby: The traffic keeps flooding back to merge with high—rise woes", in The Vancouver Sun. Nov. 18, 1981, p.Bl. Trickey, M. "Too many Toronto homes by 2000?", in The Vancouver Sun. Sept. 29, 1988, p.El and E4. United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area. Letters to Council. Jan. 13, 1967, Jan. 31, 1968, and May 2, 1968.. Vancouver and District Labour Council. Letter to Council. Apr. 9, 1975. / 136 Volkart, C. and Lee, J. "Skyrocketing property values shift tax load west, Puil says", in The Vancouver Sun. Sept. 28, 1988, p. A8. United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area. We've Got Land! Demand! Goodies! Bodies! Why Haven't We Got Housing?. 1973. Yen, R. K. Case Study Research; Design and Methods. U.S.A.: Sage Publications Ltd., 1989. Young, N. "We need the political will to deal with homelessness", in Canadian Housing. Vol. 4, No. 3, Fall, 1987, pp. 34-35. Pre-1960s A P P E N D I X A : C H R O N O L O G Y • 1940 : The Federal Government encourages all cities to permit homeowners to relieve wartime housing shortages through suites in single family homes (Vancouver Quaterly Review April, 1987:16). • 1958: The first mention of public housing projects in B.C. occurred in the 1958 Provincial Budget Speech. Public housing construction was rationalized on the basis of slum clearance and employment creation (Grieve, 1985:46.) • 1950 —1964: There was very little activity in public housing in B.C. between 1950 - 1964. (Grieve, 1985) The 1960s • 1960s: The 1960s were the years "...most clearly associated with public housing in Canada...". (Melliship, 1985:118) • 1961 —1965: During the period between 1961 and 1965 there was a surge of apartment construction in the City of Vancouver. (R.E.B.G.V., 1966) • July, 1963: Burnaby Council established an Advisory Planning Commission, as provided for in the Municipal Act. (Municipal Clerk Memo to Council, July 18, 1963) • August, 1963: Vancouver City Council reviewed the status of public housing in Vancouver. Their main conclusion was that the high cost of land in the Municipality was making the provision of public housing difficult. Furthermore, it was noted that Vancouver was the only regional municipality providing public housing and that other municipalities should be encouraged to initiate public housing projects. (Melliship, 1985:118) • 1964: Ammendments to the National Housing Act (NHA) were made in order to encourage the provincial construction of public housing. (Grieve, 1985) • April, 1964: The BPD recommended against the construction of a 16 acre development in central Burnaby arguing that the area is part of a developing single family neighbourhood and should be reserved for that use. 137 / 138 • 1964 — 1965: Prior to 1964/65 no highrises were permitted in Burnaby. (Parr, 1988) • 1965: Regional concept established by the Province • 1965: Burnaby's first Zoning Bylaw was approved. • October, 1965: The BPD prepared a plan for the upgrading of the Hastings Street area — Urban Renewal Scheme: Hastings Street, Burnaby, B. C. • January — April, 1966: In the first four months of 1966, dwelling unit completions were substantially greater than in the same period of 1965. This increase was almost wholly single family and duplexes representing "... a check on the strong trend which had developed in recent years toward the construction of apartment units at the expense of single—detached houses." (R.E.B.G.V., 1966:A-2) • 1966: The Vancouver Real Estate Board reported that the suburban housing market had ceased to be exclusively represented by single detached dwellings; an actual market for apartment units was noted. (R.E.B.G.V., 1966) • 1966: The inner municipalities of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver contained 98% of all apartment units in the Metropolitan Region. (R.E.B.G.V., 1966) • 1966: All areas in the Metropolitan Region had far lower vacancy rates than in 1965, particularly for two and three bedroom units. (R.E.B.G.V., 1966) • March, 1966: Burnaby's first Apartment Study was submitted to Council. This study was undertaken at the request of Council reflecting their concern over the growing apartment construction trend in the Region. The report designated Apartment Areas in locations with the facilities and services in place to meet the needs of a higher density population. One important objective of the plan was to protect the interests of the single family homeowner by providing assurance that apartments would only be constructed within the clearly defined apartment areas. The hierarchical core concept first appeared in this planning document creating a new structure for the Municipality. A hierarchy of centres, from the neighbourhood, community, and district centres to three higher density town centres, was proposed. Different densities of residential development were associated with each level of centre. / 139 • 1967: B.C.H.M.C. was created "with its only responsibility being the centralized administration of federal—provincial public housing projects" (Grieve, 1985:48) — "It is clear that there was disatisfaction with the small provincial role in low—income housing and the delay to get approvals." (Grieve, 1985:48—49) • 1967: Reference to a "housing crisis" began to appear in the media and in discussions of the Municipal Council. • February, 1967: A Housing Conference was held in Vancouver on Feb. 3. The conference brought together municipal officials and experts in the design, building and associated fields to discuss the current "housing crisis" and ways to increase the construction of housing for low and moderate income households. (Melliship, 1985:30) • May, 1967: The BPD submitted the report Public Housing Study to Council. The report was prepared at the request of Council, who had asked the planning staff to investigate the potential for public housing in Burnaby. Public Housing Study contained a proposal for public housing projects on six municipally owned sites in the Municipality. This proposal was submitted to the Province for approval but was held up by delays at the senior levels of government. • 1968—69: The City of Vancouver published reports on SF zones, apartments, duplex and conversion districts. • January, 1969: Federal Cabinet Minister Paul Hellyer led the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development which conducted a cross—country study of federal housing programs. The federal government imposed a moritorium on all public housing and urban renewal projects in Canada as a result of the Task Forces findings. • 1969—70: The City of Vancouver established a new policy which made public housing sites smaller and more dispersed (Melliship, 1985:119) • 1969: The BPD was authorized to prepare a review and update of the 1966 Apartment Study. No changes were made to the apartment location policy established in the earlier study. However, in the Apartment Study '69 the planners reported that the earlier estimates of the potential for apartment construction in Burnaby were too low and the estimates for future development of apartments were adjusted. / 140 The 1970s • February, 1970: Burnaby's Municipal Council discussed a report on the disposal of municipal land. The report contained a reccommendation that Council not adopt a policy of leasing municipal land for residential purposes, as it was not considered to be the solution to the affordability problems of lower income households, since it would not necessarily cut the high cost of housing. It was argued that other measures under the NHA provided the "only reasonable methods" to end the "housing crisis". (MMR. NO. 11, Feb. 16, 1970) • March, 1970: The Urban Structure report was presented to Council. This report was prepared by the BPD with the intention of stimulating discussion about the direction of the Municipality's future development. One of the most controversial aspect of the report was its projection of a sixfold increase in population over the next 20—30 years. A possible master plan for Burnaby was discussed in Urban Structure that would have meant an almost total restructuring of the Municipality. The report described the plan as an intermittent grid pattern, in which six town centres, each supporting a population of 100,000, were arranged. Urban Structure was never officially approved by Council but it did provoke a great deal of discussion about the future of Burnaby and led to the authorization of a series of public meetings to allow residents to express their views on all aspects of the Municipality's future development. (See 1974 — Public Meetings: Phase One) • June, 1970: Burnaby's Council decided to defer a proposed BPD housing study until after the status of the GVRD's study was known. (Municipal Clerk Memo to Planning Director, June 17, 1970) • September, 1970: Group Housing: A Study of Moderate Density Forms of Family Accommodation was completed by the BPD. The report identified a definite need for alternative forms of family housing, particularly in light of the "housing shortage" of the late 1960s. Medium density group housing developments were considered to be desirable options for alleviating the affordability problems for many households. The report, however, recommended against the development of group housing in any single family neighbourhoods, existing or proposed. • November, 1970: Council received a letter from MLA Grace McCarthy which discussed the need for more housing in the province. She appealed to Council to alot 15% of the next year's housing starts to the provision of housing for lower income households. MLA McCarthy did not support subsidized rental housing, rather, she encouraged the development of townhouses and the utilization of the Provincial Home Aquistion Grant and new Federal programs which offered mortgage financing for innovative housing for low income families. (Letter to Council, Nov. 12, 1970) / 141 • 1971: The Urban Structure report was discussed throughout the year by Council, the planners and community representatives. • 1972: The GVRD releases its Report on Livibility • March, 1972: Discussions concerning the Urban Structure report continued in 1972. Council agreed that the report had some merit and authorized the preparation of a tabloid summerizing the report which was distributed to all residents and business owners. Public response was invited and public meetings were to be organized if required. (Municipal Clerk Memo to the Planning Director, Mar. 28, 1972) • May, 1972: Burnaby's planning director recommended that the Municipality initiate a housing program which would provide over 660 units on 9 sites (mainly municipal land) and be administered by the GVRD. Council was divided on the issue. • June, 1972: Council initially turned down the idea to set aside the 9 sites for the proposed regional program but later reversed its decision and agreed to formally ask the GVRD to initiate a regional housing program. The City of North Vancouver also supported the proposed program for a regional housing scheme to provide housing for low income households. • June, 1972: Council discussed the affordability problems being experienced by some residents of the Municipality and the concept of neighbourhoods with a social mix. • October, 1972: Burnaby's Council abandoned plans to rezone the south slope area of Burnaby Mountain for a controversial condominium project. Residents of the existing single family neighbourhood had strongly opposed the project. • 1972: A bouyant provincial economy began to attract migrants from across the country. • 1972: A serious "housing crisis" began to be recognized in the province which influenced the 1972 provincial election. • 1972: The NDP were elected provincially and brought with them a different approach to housing than the previous Social Credit Government. Their philosophy allowed for a wide scope of government intervention in housing and encouragement and support for all types and tenures of housing. / 142 • 1972—1974: A full 41% of the money spent on public housing and hostel beds between 1964-1974 was spent during the NDP administration (1972-1974). (Grieve, 1985:48) • 1972: Changes to federal tax laws in 1972 that removed the Capital Cost Allowance deduction for rental buildings decreased the attractiveness of investing in private rental construction. As a consequence, multiple unit starts in Metropolitan Vancouver declined substantially during the 1970s. • 1972: The final goals for the False Creek development in the City of Vancouver were established. The neighbourhood was to be designed according to a policy of socially mixed housing which would incorporate a diversity of housing types and provide accommodation for a wide range of income groups. (Melliship, 1985) • 1972: It soon became apparent that municipal governments in the province were unable to react to the "housing crisis" because of neighbourhood resistance to increased densities and inadequate finances for increasing the number of serviced lots on the market. (Grieve, 1985) • 1973: Amendments to the NHA introduced several new housing programs: the AHOP (Assisted Homeownership Program), the Non-profit and Cooperative Housing programs, the NIP (Neighbourhood Improvement Program) and RRAP (Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program). • February, 1973: The Municipal Council rejected the idea of relaxing standards to allow fourplexes in two family residential zones (ie. conversions of duplexes to fourplexes) as a means of lessening the current "housing shortage". (MMR., Feb. 5, 1973) • February, 1973: The seriousness of the shortage of rental accommodation was discussed by the media. A representative of CMHC said in an interview with the Vancouver Sun, that he expected the rental housing situation to get worse, at least in the short run of the next few years. A number of representatives from local government, industry and CMHC were interviewed, all agreed that a number of causes were contributing to the problem but the primary reason for the shortage of rental housing was that investors were no longer finding investment in rental housing construction to be a lucrative venture. (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 27, 1973:1 & 11) • 1972 —1973: The severity of the "housing crisis" was reported and discussed extensively by the media during 1972 and 1973. / 143 • July, 1973: The GVRD sponsored a Colloquia on Housing and Land Development which brought together municipal politicians, planners, developers, and academics. One item on the agenda were the low vacancy rates in Metropolitan Vancouver. • August, 1973: Council requests the BPD to establish a program of public meetings with interested parties to discuss the future development of Burnaby. (Municipal Clerk Memo to Director of Planning, Aug. 1,1973) • August, 1973: The BPD distributed a brochure entitled Changing Burnaby to residents of the Municipality. It outlined the ways in which Burnaby was changing and was intended to raise public awareness about the need for discussions about the direction of the Municipality's future development. Changing Burnaby helped set the stage for a series of public meetings that were held to allow residents to express their views about Burnaby's future. • October, 1973: A group known as the United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area (UCS) presented a brief to the Provincial Legislature entitled "We've Got Land! Demand! Goodies! Bodies! Why Haven't We Got Housing?". The brief was comprised of an examination of the housing problems in Burnaby and concluded that land prices were the main reason for "skyrocketing" housing prices. Also included were a series of reccommendations for all 3 levels of government. • November, 1973: The federal and provincial governments agreed in principle to develop a $25 million housing project in Burnaby (with the federal government to pay 75%). Between 1,000 to 1,200 units were to be built in a mixed income development. This was a Provincial initiative to finance low cost housing in Burnaby by taking advantage of a federal offer of three new housing programs under the NHA which were designed to avoid large public housing projects • 1974—1975: The Federal Government introduced several new housing programs. The Multiple Unit Residential Buildings (MURB) tax incentive was intended to encourage investment in private rental construction. The Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan (RHOSP), the Assisted Rental Program (ARP) and the Assisted Home Ownership Program (AHOP) were also introduced. • 1974: The Federal and Provincial Governments agreed to adopt a policy that would ensure that all future public housing projects for families would contain a mix of income groups. (Grieve, 1985:84) • 1974: In order to facilitate the development of co-operative housing, the Province extended its support to the United Housing Foundation (an existing / 144 non-profit organization), as the main development agency for co-ops in B.C.. (Grieve, 1985:88) • 1974: The GVRD created the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation to aquire and build rental accommodation for lower income families. • January, 1974: Burnaby's Council authorized the BPD to review the Apartment Study '69 in order to determine the amount and type of develoment that had occurred since 1969. • January, 1974: The Greater Vancouver Apartment Owners Association made a presentation to Council concerning the Association's concerns about rent controls and other government interventions into the housing sector which they blamed for the slowdown in rental construction. (Open Letter to Council, Jan. 22, 1974) • March, 1974: A report on a series of public meetings held to allow residents to voice their opinions about Burnaby's future development was released by the BPD. In the report Public Meetings: Phase One the planners noted the strong resistance to change expressed by those involved in the public meeting program. Most agreed that some provision should be made for multiple family accommodation but were concerned about the manner in which it was to be provided and it location. First and foremost the residents agreed that existing single family neighbourhoods should be protected and preserved. • April, 1974: Burnaby's Council sent a request to Prime Minister Trudeau to ask him to find a way to stop the rising bank rate from increasing mortgage rates to home buyers and, thus, worsen the "housing crisis". • May, 1974: The review of the Apartment Study '69 was submitted to Council. The main conclusion was that the apartment growth rate predicted in the earlier study was too low and it was adjusted to an estimate of 2,000 units per year until 1981 after which an estimated 1500 units per year was considered to be reasonable. (Apartment Study Review — BPD Report to Municipal Manager, May 1, 1974) • 1976: Burnaby puts a freeze on condominium conversions. The moratorium on the strata—titling of occupied two family dwellings continued until July, 1982 (MMR No. 27, Apr. 21, 1986) • 1974: The growing trend towards higher density living (as evidenced by the findings of the 1974 review of the Apartment Study '69) led the BPD to initiate a survey to probe the opinions of apartment residents about their residential / 145 environment. The survey results were compiled and documented in the report Multiple Housing Questionaire 1974. The report did not draw any conclusions nor did it make any recommendations for the future planning of higher density residential neighbourhoods. No reference to this survey is made in any of the subsequent major housing studies. • October, 1974: Housing Minister Lorne Nicolson announced details of a $7.25 million government housing project in Burnaby. The 568 unit medium density project was to be located south of the Lougheed Mall area and appeared to be acceptable at a public meeting • December, 1974: The BPD released its report Residential Conversions: A Background Report. This report was prepared at the request of Council, who had directed staff to submit a "simple and reasonable plan" for granting temporary permission for duplexing of single family dwellings and the fourplexing of duplexes. Council's concern stemmed from the current rental housing shortage and the increase in the number of illegal suites in the Municpality. Residential Conversions: A Background Report rejected the idea of conversions as a temporary measure to ease the "housing crisis" and recommended against allowing coversions in existing single family neighbourhoods for two main reasons. First, because permitting conversions would destroy the character of single family neighbourhoods and, second, because such a plan would evoke negative reactions from residents. • March, 1975: The Municipal Council formally established its own Housing Committee. The mandate of the Committee was to act as the advisor to Council on all housing matters. An informal version of this Committee seems to have been in place since April, 1969. (Municipal Clerk Memo to Council, Apr. 29, 1975) • April, 1975: The Vancouver and District Labour Council submitted a brief to Burnaby's Council which outlined their concerns about the affordability problems facing the Region's working people. The brief also included the Labour Council's suggestions on how to help alleviate the "housing crisis". (Letter to Council, Apr. 9, 1975) • April, 1975: A proposal to rezone sections of the Brentwood area from residential into a "long—range expansion area" with RM3 zoning to act as a buffer between a single family area in the north and a highrise area to the south was sent back to the planners after a public meeting attended by about 300 residents. • August, 1975: Two areas in Burnaby were selected by the Province and CMHC to participate in the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. / 146 • December, 1975: The NDP looses the provincial election to the Social Credit Party. This meant a return to less government intervention in the housing sector and a greater reliance on the private sector for the provision of all types of housing. • 1976: The RRAP began to be administered by CMHC in the Eastburn area of Burnaby. • March, 1976: The Provincial Government expressed its intention to sell Maclnnis Place (218 units built by the Province with Federal and Municipal agreement). The units were intended to provide rental housing for various income levels with suppliments so that low income tenants need not pay over 25% of income. The Norman Bethune Co—operative Housing Association asked Council to consider the conversion of the units to co-ops. • March, 1976: Council tabled the first reading of a zoning bylaw amendment to permit construction of 2 towers (288 units) at Maclnnis Place. • April, 1976: Burnaby's Council and the Province reached a tenative compromise over the use of 216 unit Maclnnis Place. Controversy had erupted when the Province had said it wanted to sell the units which had been intended for rental (under the NDP). Under the tentative agreement units were to be sold but, to families of mixed incomes and up to 25% of the units were to be purchased by lower income families through federal programs. Housing and Municipal Affairs Minister Hugh Curtis said that most interest in the project had been from lower income households and that the Province did not want to create a "ghetto" but, Mayor Constable said the government had not adequately advertised the project. • August & September, 1976: Correspondence from the Provincial Ministry of Housing was received by Council. The letters try to encourage Burnaby to participate in the Federal/Provincial Municipal Incentive Grants program. Grants were available for medium density housing projects. (Letters to Council, Aug. 4 and Sept. 10, 1976) • November, 1976: Vancouver's Aid. Harcourt accussed neighbouring municipalities (Burnaby, Delta and Richmond) of taking a drastic measures against illegal suites. All municipalities were in agreement that illegal secondary suite were increasing throughout the Lower Mainland. (The Vancouver Sun, Nov. 5, 1976) • November, 1976: The municipalities on the Lower Mainland were divided on the issue of illegal suites. The "hardline" approach was being taken in Burnaby. Council was considering $1,000 plus fines and prison terms for illegal landlords. (The Vancouver Province, Nov. 5, 1976) / 147 • June, 1977: Sales in the 282 unit Quesnel Green were very slow. This project was initiated during the NDP administration and intended to be co-operative housing but the when the Social Credit Party was re—elected in 1975 they decided to sell the units on the market. The Norman Bethune Co—operative Housing Society was to buy the units from the previous Government (NDP) but, according to a representative of the Society, the newly elected Government would not agree to the sale. • December, 1977: Maclnnis Place was sold to Vancouver businessman, Neil Cook, for $10 M in an agreement which allowed 25% of the units to continue to be leased by BCHMC and also provided for a buy back from the remaining 25 owners in the future. The complex was built under the NDP as co-ops but when the Social Credit came into power the units were put on the market. Sales were terrible as only 25 units were sold and 54 rented. The government blamed the poor housing market for the poor sales. • 1977: Council continued its crackdown on illegal secondary suites. • 1978-1980: Between 1978 - 1980 both ARP and AHOP were phased out by the Federal Government. The MURB tax incentive was cancelled, then reinstated and finally cancelled again in 1982. • January, 1978: Maclnnis Place had its name changed to Glenrobin Place and the new owner expressed his intent to rent out as many units as was possible. The remaining owners said that the terms of the new buy back offer were unfair and that they are being forced out; there was no provision made for the reimbursement of mortgage payments. • May, 1978: Council decided to authorize a house to house search for illegal suites, despite some disagreement among council members. Some said that the suites in basements are legal and that the search was only meant to bring them up to standard, while others argued that action against suites should be on a complaint basis only • July, 1978: CMHC made changes to its national policy requiring all new NIP and RRAP areas, such as Willingdon Heights, to administer their own grants and loans. In 1978 Burnaby had 1 NIP staff person and 1 RRAP advisor to help residents with proposals • June, 1979: The BPD recommended to Council that they not adopt a policy of allowing secondary suites for hardship cases because of legal implications and other problems associated with that type of policy (Report to Municipal Manager, June 19, 1979). / 148 • July, 1979: BPD reported to the Council regarding illegal suites and the potential for residential conversions in R4 and R5 districts. This report was tabled for further discussion and Council asked that the 1974 Residential Conversions Report be resubmitted for their information. • October, 1979: Council reversed its decision to allow a controversial twin—tower development at Hastings and Boundary, voting unanimously to reject the proposal. • November, 1979: The North Burnaby Residents Association successfully pressured Council to withdraw its support of a proposed highrise at Boundary Road and Hastings. • November, 1979: Council ordered staff to review the 1969 Hastings Area Plan that would have allowed the controversial twin tower development at Boundary Road and Hastings. • 1979: By late 1979, the was general agreement that there was a serious "housing crisis". Housing prices had begun to skyrocket and vacancy rates were very low. • December, 1979: Burnaby's hard—line approach to illegal suites continued through 1979. Representatives for students from BCIT and SFU appealed to Council to discontinue their crackdown. The 1980s • January, 1980: With the intention of protecting and preserving the character in existing low density neighbourhoods, the Council's Housing Committee held two public information meetings to discuss the rental housing situation and illegal suites. The problem of illegal four—plexing was also discussed (Housing Committee Files, Jan. 14, 1980). • 1980: Burnaby's Council expresses concern about the impact of strata—titling on the illegal four—plexing of two family dwellings (Housing Committee Files, 1980). • February, 1980: Burnaby Council agreed to discontinue the house to house inspection for secondary suites. Over 1,700 homes were searched since 1978 and estimates suggested that there were 4,000 illegal units in Burnaby, mostly in converted duplexes (fourplexes). Staff were directed to investigate suites on a complaint basis only. Council also authorized the BPD to explore the feasibility of / 149 creating a four—plex zone (Memo from Municipal Clerk, Feb. 25, 1980). • February, 1980: There was renewed controversy over the proposed highrise at Boundary Road and Hastings. Overl50 people attended a public hearing, most speaking out in opposition development, arguing that the highrise development would destroy the surrounding neighbourhood. A spokesman for the Burnaby Chamber of Commerce spoke out in support of the project. He argued that the buildings were needed to lessen the impact of new residents moving into Burnaby, which would otherwise put the pressure on to densify existing single family neighbourhoods. • March, 1980: Muncipal Council adopted the Housing Committee recommendation that they maintain the moratorium on the conversion of exisiting duplexes (MMR No. 23, Mar. 24, 1980). • March, 1980: Residents of the neighbourhoods adjacent to the proposed highrise project (Boundary and Hastings) continued to protest the development. • May and June 1980: Many delegations made presentations to Council with concerns about the operation of rental agencies in the Municipality (Housing Committee Files, May 26 and June 23, 1980). • May, 1980: Representatives from Columbia Housing Advisory Association asked Council to intercede with key federal representives to plead for more funding for co-op housing. Council refered the matter to the Municipal Manager for more background information (Housing Committee Files, May 30, 1980). • September, 1980: The BPD released their report entitled A Residential Growth Management Study for Burnaby: Draft Report for Discussion Purposes. The main purpose of the report was to determine the appropriatness of the prevailing residential framework as a guide for the future development of the Municipality. • December, 1980: The first consultants' study for the Residential Neighbourhood Environments Study was received. Planistics Consultants had identified the neighbourhoods best suited to change and those best suited for the preservation of their existing character. • 1981: The Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan (CMRP) was introduced by the Federal Government. • July, 1981: More than 140 homeowners expressed the desire to take / 150 advantage of a new zoning category, R9 (created in Dec. 1980) which allowed residents to subdivide their lots and were to be permitted in areas zoned for duplexes and other areas where suitable. The Municipality decided to hold public hearings about every 2 weeks to handle the rush of applications. It was hoped that this plan would help ease the Lower Mainland's housing crunch by adding more units near the "bottom end" of the market but one local realtor said a 3BR home on the smallest allowable lot would still cost at least $130,000. • August, 1981: Development in the Metrotown area was occurring rapidly. The first highrises had appeared 5 or 6 years ago but the development intensified during i the last 2 years, possibly because the MURB program was set to expire at the end of the year. • 1981: The Apartment Study '69 was updated and reprinted. No changes were made to the text of the earlier report. • November, 1981: Traffic problems and highrise developments were cited as two of the most important issues in the civic election. • April, 1982: The second consultant's report in the RNES program was completed. This was the resident opinion survey conducted by The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group. • 1982: The Federal Government introduced two direct subsidy programs in response to low levels of housing starts the Canada Homeownership Stimulation Plan (CHOSP), and the Canada Rental Supply Plan (CRSP). The MURB program was also reinstated. • September, 1982: Premier Bennett announced the phasing out of Oakalla Prison and the creation of a "massive housing and park development surrounding Deer Lake". Residents expressed their disagreement with this plan. The provincial announcement was a shock to Burnaby planners, politicians and residents. According to a 1978 town centre concept, the land was to be developed into a 256 hectare park. Many expressed concern that the provincial plan could focus development outside of the Metrotown area. • 1984: A permanent mortgage insurance scheme — the Mortgage Rate Protection Plan — replaced the CMRP. • 1984: The major housing issue of this year was the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study and its Compaction Strategy. In August, Council voted to abandon the plan after receiving a petition with 4,000 names. / 151 • January, 1985: A proposal to rezone property on Dominion St. for townhouses passed second reading despite opposition from neighbouring homeowners. • October, 1985: The BPD prepared a report on residential bulk standards of single family dwellings. A growing number of complaints were received over the previous two years concerning what was considered to be the excessive bulk of certain single family dwellings. The report examined the existing bulk regulations and standards in Burnaby and other municipalities and advanced zoning bylaw amendments for the consideration of council. • 1986: Home sales had begun to pick up in 1985 and by 1986 it was reported that they had reached record levels. • December, 1986: Illegal suites once again became a concern in Burnaby (MMR No. 74, Dec. 15, 1986). • January, 1987: Burnaby's Mayor vowed to battle the illegal suite problem and called for a regional approach to the problem (Burnaby Now, Jan. 28, 1987). • March, 1987: Burnaby Council decided to stall R9 applications until staff determined how each dwelling was to be used. R9's were created by Council in 1980 as an affordable housing alternative. Council had become concerned that the rezonings were being abused by developers who were installing illegal suites. (Burnaby Now, Mar. 4, 1987) • March, 1987: Many Council members began to express fears that Burnaby is becoming out of reach of the first time home buyer but they also noted that the housing situation in Burnaby had not reached the "crisis" level that existed in Vancouver (Burnaby Now, Mar. 4, 1987). • February, 1988: Council approved a continued freeze on R9 applications pending the outcome of a full review of Burnaby's zoning guidelines (Burnaby Now, Feb. 24, 1988). • February, 1988: Newspaper articles in early 1988, began to focus on the worsening housing situation. Rising housing costs and continued low vacancy rates were considered to be sure signs of a serious "housing crisis" in the very near future (Burnaby Now, Feb. 3, 1988) • February, 1988: Redevelopment in the Metrotown area is forcing long—time residents out of the area and destroying the Municipality's affordable housing / 152 stock according to a representative of the Burnaby Housing Rights Action Centre (Burnaby Now, Feb. 3, 1988). • 1988—1989: Several housing issues (other than the "housing crisis") have been on the Municipal agenda including: continued concerns about residential bulk standards; the provision and location of group homes in the community; and the growing need for more social housing in Burnaby. APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL TABLES Survey Date Burnaby Vancouver Metro-Vancouver MAR. 1959 3.7 2.3 -FEB. 1961 8.5 4.2 5.1 FEB. 1962 5.1 4.3 4.7 JUN. 1963 6.0 3.7 4.2 JUN. 1964 6.6 4.3 4.8 JUN. 1965 1.7 4.1 4.0 JUN. 1966 0.4 1.6 1.5 JUN. 1967 1.0 1.0 1.0 JUN. 1968 2.2 1.1 1.3 JUN. 1969 2.2 0.8 1.2 DEC. 1969 0.7 0.7 0.8 JUN. 1970 3.3 2.1 2.7 DEC. 1970 2.2 1.7 2.1 JUN. 1971 4.0 3.7 4.1 DEC. 1971 2.7 2.1 2.8 JUN. 1972 3.0 1.9 2.4 DEC. 1972 0.5 0.4 0.6 JUN. 1973 0.7 0.6 1.0 DEC. 1973 0.2 0.2 0.4 JUN. 1974 0.5 0.2 0.3 DEC. 1974 0.1 0.1 0.1 APR. 1975 0.4 0.1 0.2 OCT. 1975 0.1 0.1 0.1 APR. 1976 0.2 0.2 0.4 OCT. 1976 0.8 0.5 0.7 Table 8: Apartment Vacancy Rates 1959-1976 (Source: R.E.B.G.V. and CMHC) 153 / 154 Survey Date Burnaby Vancouver Metro-Vancouver APR. 1977 1.4 1.1 1.6 OCT. 1977 1.2 1.0 1.6 APR. 1978 0.9 1.2 1.5 OCT. 1978 1.0 1.1 1.4 APR. 1979 0.7 0.8 0.9 OCT. 1979 0.2 0.2 0.2 APR. 1980 0.1 0.1 0.1 OCT. 1980 0.1 0.0 0.1 APR. 1981 0.0 0.0 0.1 OCT. 1981 0.1 0.0 0.1 APR. 1982 0.5 0.2 0.6 OCT. 1982 2.2 1.2 1.9 APR. 1983 2.7 1.5 2.6 OCT. 1983 2.2 0.8 1.3 APR. 1984 2.5 2.0 2.4 OCT. 1984 1.9 1.4 2.2 APR. 1985 2.9 2.2 2.8 OCT. 1985 2.1 1.7 2.2 APR. 1986 1.0 0.5 0.9 OCT. 1986 0.7 1.0 0.9 APR. 1987 2.1 2.3 2.3 OCT. 1987 0.6 1.2 1.1 APR. 1988 1.1 1.0 1.0 OCT. 1988 0.5 0.5 0.4 APR. 1989 0.7 0.5 0.5 Table 9: Apartment Vacancy Rates 1977-1989 (Source: R.E.B.G.V. and CMHC) Year Burnaby Vancouver Metro-Vancouver 1959 174 1881 2532 1960 117 594 1123 1961 198 1772 2319 1962 532 2221 3784 1963 589 3176 5067 1964 883 6273 8572 1965 247 5213 7589 1966 600 2359 4673 1967 1310 3649 7568 1968 1628 4626 10032 1969 1320 6106 12525 1970 2116 1290 8605 1971 2000 2716 9770 1972 1119 1936 8103 1973 1027 2610 7865 1974 1595 2010 6586 1975 1676 1735 6070 1976 835 3004 7955 1977 1038 3751 8766 1978 792 1671 4993 1979 410 1680 4749 1980 1228 2017 6910 1981 1771 2536 9850 1982 910 1943 7403 1983 1045 1564 5481 1984 716 2073 5233 1985 544 2074 4749 1986 334 2217 5598 1987 924 2754 8357 1988 526 2306 7979 Table 10: Multiple Dwelling Starts (Source: R.E.B.M.V. and CMHC) Year Burnaby Vancouver Metro-Vancouver 1959 662 705 6978 1960 484 456 3552 1961 397 596 3269 1962 436 888 3603 1963 433 795 3874 1964 454 899 4219 1965 408 904 4095 1966 417 587 4465 1967 523 595 6328 1968 558 528 5658 1969 498 393 5165 1970 330 405 4832 1971 595 595 5653 1972 496 601 6023 1973 544 699 9099 1974 511 570 5451 1975 510 553 5762 1976 601 808 6751 1977 452 670 6015 1978 474 792 7000 1979 448 816 7968 1980 506 948 9870 1981 332 702 5377 1982 121 360 2713 1983 380 867 6821 1984 317 811 4450 1985 301 925 6566 1986 422 1028 7980 1987 412 1409 9453 1988 563 1519 9922 Table 11: Single and Two Family Starts (Source: R.E.B.M.V. and CMHC) / 157 Year Consumer Price Index % Change From Previous Year 1961=100 1981=100 1961 100.0 - -1962 100.0 - -1963 101.9 - 1.90 1964 102.6 - 0.69 1965 104.5 - 1.85 1966 107.0 - 2.39 1967 111.0 - 3.74 1968 115.1 - 3.69 1969 119.0 - 3.39 1970 123.0 - 3.36 1971 127.0 41.9 3.25 1972 - 44.1 5.25 1973 - 47.3 6.80 1974 - 52.8 12.10 1975 - 58.6 10.98 1976 - 64.3 9.73 1977 - 68.9 7.15 1978 - 74.3 7.84 1979 - 80.0 7.67 1980 - 87.5 9.38 1981 - 100.0 14.29 1982 - 110.5 10.50 1983 - 116.6 5.97 1984 - 121.3 4.03 1985 - 125.2 3.22 1986 - 129.3 3.27 1987 - 133.3 3.09 1988 - 138.1 3.60 Table 12: Consumer Price Index (Vancouver C M A ) (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 62-001 ) / 158 Year Net Migration % Change From Previous Year 1961-62 2,772 -1962-63 9,179 231.1 1963-64 16,852 83.6 1964-65 24,498 45.4 1965-66 46,334 89.1 1966-67 48,560 4.8 1967-68 34,120 -29.7 1968-69 • 34,565 1.3 1969-70 42,983 24.4 1970-71 32,962 -23.3 1971-72 35,950 9.1 1972-73 40,222 11.9 1973-74 50,357 25.2 1974-75 34,417 -31.7 1975-76 11,313 -67.1 1976-77 14,012 23.9 1977-78 24,381 74.0 1978-79 26,952 10.5 1979-80 55,731 106.8 1980-81 55,962 0.4 1981-82 24,501 -56.2 1982-83 7,339 -70.0 1983-84 14,087 91.9 1984-85 2,935 -79.2 1985-86 1,153 -60.7 1986-87 16,002 1,287.9 1987-88 32,249 101.5 1988-89 46,579 44.4 1989-90 53,700 13.3 1990-91 54,000 0.6 Table 13:1 7 Provincial Net Migration (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 91-208 and CMHC, Summer, 1989) 1 ' 1988-89 value is a CMHC estimate and 1989-90and 1990-91 are CMHC projections. / 159 Year G D P (millions) % Change From Previous Year 1961 4,040 -1962 4,363 8.0 1963 4,695 7.6 1964 5,208 10.9 1965 5,843 12.2 1966 . 6,538 11.9 1967 7,113 8.8 1968 7,789 9.5 1969 8,871 13.9 1970 9,317 5.0 1971 10,349 11.1 1972 11,880 14.8 1973 14,709 23.8 1974 17,437 18.5 1975 19,486 11.8 1976 22,990 18.0 1977 25,647 11.6 1978 28,732 12.0 1979 33,360 16.1 1980 38,239 14.6 1981 44,691 16.9 1982 46,115 3.2 1983 48,151 4.4 1984 51,119 6.2 1985 54,445 6.5 1986 56,543 3.9 1987 61,636 9.0 1988 67,027 8.7 Table 14: Provincial Gross Domestic Product (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 13-213) Year Unemployment Rate 1960 7.8 1961 7.5 1962 5.4 1963 5.1 1964 5.3 1965 4.2 1966 4.5 1967 5.2 1968 5.9 1969 5.0 1970 7.7 1971 7.0 1972 7.6 1973 6.5 1974 6.0 1975 8.5 1976 8.6 1977 8.5 1978 8.3 1979 7.7 1980 6.9 1981 7.7 1982 12.1 1983 13.8 1984 14.7 1985 14.5 1986 13.3 1987 10.4 1988 10.3 Table 15: Provincial Unemployment Rate (Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. 71-001) / 161 Year Annual Average % Change From Previous Year 1964 6.97 -1965 7.02 0.72 1966 7.66 9.12 1967 8.07 5.35 1968 9.06 12.27 1969 9.84 8.61 1970 10.45 6.20 1971 9.43 -9.76 1972 9.21 -2.33 1973 9.59 4.13 1974 11.24 17.21 1975 11.43 1.69 1976 11.78 3.06 1977 10.36 -12.05 1978 10.59 2.22 1979 11.98 13.13 1980 14.32 19.53 1981 18.15 26.75 1982 17.89 -1.43 1983 13.29 -25.71 1984 13.58 2.18 1985 12.13 -10.68 1986 11.21 -7.58 1987 11.17 -0.36 1988 11.65 4.30 Table 16: Conventional Five Year Mortgage Rates (Source: Bank of Canada Statistical Summary and Bank of Canada Review) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097980/manifest

Comment

Related Items