UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Lone parent families and the suburban experience : making alternative suburban living environments a… Cauduro, Alessandro 1992

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_cauduro_alessandro.pdf [ 9.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098901.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098901-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098901-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098901-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098901-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098901-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098901-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098901-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098901.ris

Full Text

LONE PARENT FAMILIES AND THE SUBURBAN EXPERIENCE:MAKING ALTERNATIVE SUBURBAN LIVING ENVIRONMENTS A REALITYbyALESSANDRO CAUDUROB. Arts, The University of British ColumbiaA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(The School of Community and Regional Planning)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1992© Alessandro Cauduro, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of 4e...,11-06t_^NI 0 LA rt y^ „.e.,(Z,L0^Ft-16'4-4The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate Argi LDE-6 (2/88)iiAbstract There is a growing concern that traditional suburban tract developments, becausethey were designed with only the nuclear family in mind, are simply unable to meet thealternative needs of a growing number of non-traditional family types and householdsnow found in these same areas. In light of this view, this study examines whether or notthe particular needs of the lone parent family are, in fact, being adequately met withinpost-war suburbia. The study finds that the physical configuration of traditionalsuburban neighborhoods actually inhibits the fulfillment of the lone parent family's basicneeds such as access to adequate and affordable housing, social integration, socialsupport, accessibility, and mobility. Given these limitations, researchers have devotedconsiderable attention to the exploration of alternative suburban housing developmentsand community options for this group. Findings conclude that higher densityneighborhoods containing shared resources, collective services, integrated uses, a varietyof building forms, and a social mix are likely to be beneficial for lone parent families (aswell as other non-traditional family types). Unfortunately, to date the implementation ofsuch alternatives is not occurring on a large enough scale to reflect the dramatic growthof lone parent families. This is due, in part, to market-failure. The lone parent family,because of its low income profile, simply cannot register effective consumer demandwithin the private market place to meet its special housing needs.In addition, local zoning polices, which are biassed towards the construction oflarge single family, detached homes on large lots, were found to inhibit the constructionof innovative housing for lone parent families (and other non-traditional households).Current zoning practices, for example, effectively discourage developers from exploringa range of possible housing options and alternatives, and in the process, limit the choiceof housing stock, type, and tenure available to the general public. Local zoning policies,therefore, must become more flexible and allow for the construction of a range ofpossible housing alternatives. To increase flexibility a number of recommendations areiiimade: amendments to the assessment of development cost charges, single family zoningpolices, zoning density calculations, floor space ratio calculations, and parkingrequirements, as well as the implementation of a more intensive public informationcampaign. Such changes are intended to facilitate the construction of smaller, compact,denser, and integrated housing and community developments.Canadian federal housing policies, too, tend to overlook the needs of the loneparent family. Housing policy in Canada, for example, has traditionally favoured home-ownership programs for middle class families, despite growing demands for muchneeded intervention in the rental sector. Intervention in this area, when it has come, hasbeen largely in the form of market-welfare initiatives. While such policies have workedto stimulate housing supply, they have been largely ineffective in terms of providingdirect, long term affordable housing to those most in need: low income Canadians.Social-welfare polices, on the other hand, although used less frequently, represent theonly form of direct rental housing supply benefiting this segment of the population.Government housing policy in the future, therefore, should focus more on social-welfarerather than market-welfare initiatives when considering the housing needs of low incomehouseholds within the rental sector. Research and resources directed towards socialhousing initiatives such as cooperative and non-profit housing are recommended, at leastwithin this particular sub-market. In conjunction with such polices, more attention willneed to be given to actual land tenure considerations. The idea of linking housing supplypolicy with land tenure polices is central to the long term success of social-welfareinitiatives. The establishment of a national community land trust system represents onemechanism by which housing supply and land policy could be linked. The land trustwould ensure that affordable rental housing once built, will remain in the rental sectorinto the long term. Not only would the trust guarantee the preservation of existing rentalstock, but it would also ensure the long term continuance of cooperative and non-profitforms of tenure.ivTable of Contents^ Page Abstract ^List of Tables viiiList of Figures^ ixAcknowledgment1.0 Introduction ^  11.1. Purpose of Inquiry  11.2. Context^ 21.3. Hypothesis 31.4. Scope and Definitions ^  41.4.1. Lone Parent Family  41.4.2. Suburb^ 41.4.2.1 Descriptive Definition ^  51.4.2.2 Spatial Definition 61.4.3. Needs^ 71.5 Objectives  81.5.1. Empirical Data ^ 81.5.2. Past studies 91.5.2.1. Needs^ 91.5.2,2. Alternative Housing and Community Design^ 91.5.3. Public Policy ^ 91.6 Methodology 111.6.1 Empirical Data^  111.6.2 Past Studies and Public Policy ^  111.7 Organization of the Thesis ^ 12V2.0 Literature Review^ 162.1 Social Process and Physical Construct^ 162.2 Traditional City Planning Ideology 182.3 Contemporary City Planning Ideology^ 192.4 The Lone Parent Family^ 202.5 Summary^ 223.0 A Profile of the Lone Parent Family^233.1 Growth^ 243.2 Future Growth 253.3 Gender^  283.4 Socioeconomic Status^  293.4.1 Income  293.4.2 Occupation^ 303.4.3 Education 313.5 Housing^ 313.6 Summary 334.0 Needs, Housing Options, and Community Alternatives^354.1 Needs^ 354.1.1 Adequate and Affordable Housing^  354.1.4 Mobility and Accessibility  394.2 Housing Options and Community Alternatives^ 404.2.1 Congregate Housing^ 404.2.2 Cohousing^ 414.2.3 Restructured Housing^ 444.2.4 Pedestrian Pockets 454.3 Summary^ 46vi5.0 Making Alternative Living Environments A Reality: Public PolicyAlternatives^485.1 Implementation of Alternatives^ 495.2 Local Level: Public Policy Alternatives^ 515.2.1 Development Cost Charges  525.2.2 Single Family Zoning^ 535.2.3 Compactness 545.2.3.1 Zoning Density Calculations^ 545.2.3.2 Floor Space Ratio Calculation 555.2.3.3 Parking Requirements^ 555.2.4 Public Awareness^  565.2.5 Summary: Local Level Alternatives^ 575.3 Federal Level: Public Policy Alternatives^  585.3.1 The Rental Housing Sector 585.3.2 The Rental Market^ 595.3.3 Market-Welfare Initiatives 615.3.3.1 Supply-Side Policies^ 625.3.3.2 Demand-Side Policies 635.3.4 Social-Welfare Initiatives^ 655.3.4.1 Non-Profit and Coop Housing^ 655.3.4.2 Community Land Trusts  685.3.5 Summary: Federal Level Initiatives ^  715.5 Summary^ 73vii6.0 Conclusion^756.1 Findings 756.2 Policy Options and Initiatives ^ 776.2.1 Local Level Initiatives  786.2.2 Federal Level Initiatives^  796.2.3 Societal Level Initiatives 806.3 Areas for Future Research^ 806.4 Final Note^  82Endnotes ^  83Bibliography 87Appendices ^0 91vu'List of Tables^92Table 1 - Percentage Distribution of Husband-Wife and Lone Parent Households byAge of Household Maintainer, Vancouver CMA,^ 93Table 2 - Average Employment Income of Population 15 Years and Over by Sex andMajor Occupation, Canada, 1985^ 94Table 3 - Labour Force 15 Years and Over by Occupation, Major Groups, and Sex,Vancouver CMA, 1986 (20% Sample Data)^ 95Table 4 - Changes in Home Ownership Rates Within and Between Income QuintilesCanada, 1967-1981 ^  96Table 5 - Changes in Renter Households by Income Quintiles, Canada, 1967-1981 . ^ 96Table 6 - Market-Welfare vs Social-Welfare Subsidies 1976-1982 (Millions) ^ 97ixList of Figures.^98Figure 1 - Levittown ca., 1955^  99Figure 2 - Deriving Data for Suburban and Central City Lone Parent Families: OuterRing Definition 6Figure 3 - Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1990^  100Figure 4 - Divorce Rates, Canada, 1971-1986  101Figure 5 - Number of Divorced Lone Parents by Sex, Canada, 1971-1986. ^ 101Figure 6 - Options for Reorganizing a Typical Suburban Block^102Figure 7 - Perspective View of a Pedestrian Pocket^ 103Figure 8 - Plan View of a 50 Acre Pedestrian Pocket 103Figure 9 - Market Housing Rents: Early 1970's and 1980's^ 60Figure 10- Community Land Trust Policies and Procedures:Selected Excerpts, 1985 ^  104xAcknowledgmentI would like to acknowledge several people who were instrumental in thesuccessful completion of this project. Thanks to my two thesis advisers, Craig Davis andPenny Gurstein, for their much valued guidance and constructive criticism throughoutthis project and to Richard White and Coro Strandberg for bringing a field relatedperspective to the research. Finally, I would like to extend a special thanks to my to myclose friends and family for their support and encouragement throughout this process.11.0 Chapter 1- Introduction 1.1 Purpose of InquiryThere is today a misconception of suburbia that is still readily accepted by a largepart of the population. It is derived from the pool of anti-suburban sentiment that markedthe writing of many journalists, social critics, and novelists from the 1950's and 60's.Since then, repeated criticisms have produced a distorted stereotype commonly referredto as the "suburban myth." The typical image of suburbia, characterized by a core ofhomogeneous nuclear families living in single family homes and pursuing standardizedand conformist lifestyles, is increasingly becoming outdated.1 Contemporarysuburbanization trends are much more diverse and heterogeneous in nature. Myths,however, once ingrained, are not easily dispelled.A large amount of research in the recent past has permitted a more accuratepicture of existing suburban social and spatial patterns to be constructed. Preliminaryfindings reveal a number of reasons why it is important to continue to direct renewedresearch towards the much maligned North American suburb.First, there is every reason to believe thatsuburbia is and will continue to be the place where the majority of people will choose tolive in the future. Since the 1960's, both Canada and the United States, for example,have become decidedly suburban nations. If current growth trends continue, the growingdominance of suburbia will also follow suit.2 Increased growth will likely lead tocontinued demographic change and result in the restructuring of service demands, equityconsiderations, and political agendas. By focussing attention on demographic change atpresent, planners may be in a better position to respond to its impact in the future. One ofthe goals of this research, therefore, is to provide both quantitative and qualitativeinformation about aspects related to demographic change in suburbia.A second important reason for renewed research is the fact that so little newknowledge has been generated in this area. It is apparent that amongst politicians, policy2makers, and others, there exists relatively minimal knowledge about contemporarysuburban life. Instead, the stereotypical view that has come to typify "suburbia" remainspredominant. Another goal of this work, therefore, is intended to generate findingsaimed at increasing the suburban knowledge base as well as dispelling the suburbanmyth.A final reason for continued research is the recognition that social changes are faroutpacing physical changes within the suburban context.3 Although suburbs are nowundertaking functions, activities, and spatial features characteristic of central cities, suchtransformations are generally limited to a few concentrated suburban nodes. In general,the traditional residential living environments characteristic of suburbia have changedlittle in comparison to contemporary social restructuring trends. The impetus for thisview stems from a growing recognition by researchers of an increasing diversity andcomplexity in the organization of relationships and activities amongst suburbanhouseholds and families. Changing trends such as rising divorce and remarriage rates,for example, have prompted sociologists to recognize that the traditional definition of"family" needs to be extended beyond those who share a dwelling space to include awider network of related persons. As a result, the contemporary definition of "family"now includes a number of non-traditional family types in addition to the traditionalnuclear family. The contemporary definition, for example, now recognizes at least ninedifferent variations of family: lone parent families, nuclear families, reconstitutedfamilies, bi-nuclear families, dual income families, dual career families, commuterfamilies, gay and lesbian families, and extended families (Nett, 1988; Eichler, 1983).1.2 ContextIn light of the above views, researchers have become keenly interested inexploring how such non-traditional groups are adapting to traditional suburban livingenvironments. The present inquiry, based along the same lines, will address theexperience of one family type in particular: the lone parent family.3The selection of the lone parent family as the study unit is motivated by a numberof reasons. First, the lone parent family represents the most rapidly growing familytype in North America. 4 Continued social changes of this nature will inevitably lead tothe restructuring of service demands (e.g., day care, housing, and transit) and raisequestions about equity distribution. It is important to understand the scale of these socialchanges in order to respond to their inevitable impacts in the future. Such anunderstanding should give planners, politicians, and policy makers greater insight inseeking out public policies that will make life more satisfying and equitable for thesesame groups. Second, lone parent families represent one of the largest and poorestgroups of disadvantaged Canadian families. In fact, it is reported that this group allocatesby far the greatest proportion of income to housing and housing related expenditures.Because of such large housing allowances, it is likely that the majority of lone parentfamilies do not have enough income to generate adequate market demand in meetingtheir special needs.5 An analysis of the income problem should provide a solidfoundation upon which future policy development can take place, especially in the areaof housing provision. Finally, it is also clear that these same families have veryparticular housing and housing related needs which differ markedly from thoseassociated with traditional suburban families. In fact, commentators agree that the bestsocial and spatial arrangements for lone parent families are higher density, mixed usecommunities inhabited by a variety of socioeconomic groups (Franck, 1985; Hayden,1984). Such developments, of course, are in direct contrast to those characteristic ofpost-war suburbia.1.3 HypothesisIt is clear that lone parent families possess an alternative set of needs comparedwith those of traditional families. It is also clear that lone parent families, because oftheir socioeconomic position, may have more difficulty in meeting those needs throughthe market place. As a result, there is a likelihood that the needs of lone parent families4are not being adequately met within traditional suburban living environments. Theremainder of this study, therefore, is primarily devoted to exploring this hypothesis. Aseries of subsidiary questions will also be examined. Is the growth of lone parentfamilies, for example, substantial enough to warrant further research and policyintervention? If so, then what needs do lone parent families have and how are theydifferent from those of traditional families? Why are these needs not being met? Whattypes of physical living environments are best suited to meet those needs? Finally, whattype of public policy initiatives are necessary to allow such physical changes to occur?1.4. Scope and Definitions The above hypothesis is comprised of a number of key terms, which will reoccurthroughout the remainder of this study. It is important, therefore, to understand exactlywhat is meant by such terms. There is, for example, potential ambiguity about conceptssuch as "lone parent families", "suburbs", and "needs". The aim of this section, therefore,is merely to clarify any ambiguity that may exist with respect to these terms, and in theprocess, clearly outline the parameters of this study.1.4.1 Lone Parent FamilyFor the purpose of this inquiry, the 1986 Census definition of "lone parent family"will be used: "a mother or a father of any marital status, with no spouse present, livingin a dwelling with one or more never married children".61.4.2 Suburb While the definition of a "lone parent family" is straightforward and explicit, thedefinition of a suburb is not as clear cut. Defining what constitutes a traditional post-warresidential suburb, or any suburb for that matter, is not a simple task; in fact, it isincreasingly becoming a problematic prospect. This is so because traditional suburbanareas are now undertaking functions, activities, and spatial features characteristic ofcentral cities. Nevertheless, there is a body of literature specifically devoted to definingand redefining suburbia within the context of these changes. Using this literature, two5different definitions of suburbia were extrapolated: the descriptive definition and thespatial definition. The descriptive definition best reflects the typical residential image ofsuburbia encountered by researchers in the field. Conversely, the spatial definitionrepresents the legal interpretation of suburbia, as outlined in the 1986 Census of Canada.Both definitions are relevant and applicable to this study. A description of each isoffered below.1.4.2.1 Descriptive Definition Despite development pressures within a few concentrated suburban nodes, post-war residential suburbs have remained largely the same. As a result, the conventionaldescription of such areas is still applicable.Briefly, post-war residential suburbs, constructed between 1945 and 1970, aredescribed as having at least five common characteristics: peripheral location, lowdensity, architectural homogeneity, accessibility and affordability, and economic andracial homogeneity.? Other related aspects include: a high standard of housing design,the availability of large areas of open space, the separation of vehicular and pedestriantraffic, and a commitment to a sense of community.8 New York's Levittowndevelopment, built along these lines, is a perfect example of the traditional post-warresidential suburb (See Appendix-Figure 1). Don Mills -Canada's first corporate suburb-is another excellent example. Urban researchers and policy makers, however, aregenerally unimpressed with such developments, referring to them as "degraded inconception and impoverished in form."9 Nevertheless, Levittown, Don Mills, andsimilar developments that followed remain an ideal to which many North Americanfamilies aspire. They also represent the type of environments that at least one strand oftheorists (Franck, 1984; Hayden, 1984; Jacobs, 1960) is reacting against and withinwhich this inquiry will take place.61.4.2.2 Spatial DefinitionThe descriptive definition of suburbia offered above identifies in a physical sensethe type of residential areas under consideration; however, a good portion of this study isalso devoted to analyzing empirical differences between city and suburb and betweensuburb and suburb. As a result, a descriptive definition of suburbia, although useful in aconceptual sense, is not completely sufficient for this study. Consequently, when workingwith comparative statistical data, the legal definition of suburbia as set forth in the 1986Census of Canada will apply. Suburbs, according to this definition, refer to allincorporated municipalities, districts, townships, or cities within a region, with theexception of the central city. In the Greater Vancouver Region, for example, the suburbsconsist of all component municipalities, districts, townships, or cities within the region,with exception of the City of Vancouver. Researchers have coined this the "outer ringdefinition" (Mueller, 1976). It is useful because it allows census data to be aggregated atthe regional, urban, suburban, and local municipal level. It also allows for simplecomparison of variables between city and suburb and between suburb and suburb (SeeFigure 2 below).Figure 2: Deriving Data For Suburban and Central City Lone Parent Families: Outer Ring Definition^CMA = Census Metropolitan AreaCSD = Census SubdivisionSuburbs = CMA - CSD (Central City)a. CMAill b. CSD (Central City)0 c. Suburban Aggregated. Suburban Component71.43 Needs Defining a "need" is equally problematic, largely because different people, forwhatever reasons, have different needs at any one particular time. In arriving at aworking definition of "needs", however, one must begin with the very basic definition.In its most simplest terms, a need is defined as something requisite, useable, or desirablefor the physiological and psychological well being of an organism (Webster's, 1991).With this in mind, one must also recognize that human beings at any particular time maypossess more than one need. Given this fact, how can one predict which of the ratherlarge set of human needs is the most important at any one time? A probable answer tothis question can be found in psychological literature and is best explained by the conceptof a needs hierarchy (Maslow, 1954; 1970). The central idea underlying the needshierarchy hypothesis is that some basic needs (e.g., oxygen, food, water, shelter, andsafety,) come first and must be satisfied before other meta needs (e.g., belonging, love,self esteem, and self actualization) can be pursued.The discussion of needs to this point appears unrelated to the topic at hand;however, as we shall see, many of the concepts outlined above are, in fact, contextuallyrelevant to this study. Past research in the area of suburban living, for example, revealsthat all families living in suburbia possess a rather sizable set of living needs (such ashousing, social integration, social support, mobility, accessibility, sense of community,privacy, neighborliness, and openness). In accordance with the needs hierarchyhypothesis, some suburban living needs are very basic (e.g., housing), while others tendto be more intangible (e.g., openness). For the purpose of this study four basic needs wereselected for analysis: housing, social integration, social support, and mobility andaccessibility, in that order. The decision to include these needs and not others is notentirely an arbitrary one; it is based on the assumption that "needs" are relative. Thisparticular set of "needs", for example, was selected because research from previousstudies revealed that these were the areas where lone parent families experienced the8most disadvantage in relation to husband-wife and nuclear families. The single mostbasic need for lone parent families was that associated with securing adequate andaffordable housing; all other needs tended to be secondary. Consequently, the focus inthis study will be on housing, with secondary consideration given to other related needs.1.5 ObjectivesIn the next section a series of objectives will be outlined and used to address themain research question. The intent is to construct an argument to support the positionthat, indeed, traditional suburban residential living environments are not adequatelymeeting the needs of lone parent families. In doing so, empirical data, past studies, andexisting public policy will be employed. The next section outlines what the objectives areand how the data will be used to meet those objectives.1.5.1 Empirical Data The first series of objectives are empirically related and intended to support theview that alternative family types are assuming a greater proportion of suburban familyprofiles. Using the Census, population counts and growth rates for lone parent familieswill be compiled and compared with nuclear families over an extended period. Thecontinued growth of lone parent families is expected to raise questions about equityredistribution and the restructuring of service demands. In addition, statistics relating tohousehold income, tenure, gender, and socioeconomic status for these same family typeswill also be considered. The aim here is to reaffirm that lone parent families have lowerthan average incomes, are primarily renters, and headed by females. It is expected thatthere is a link between these socioeconomic indicators and the inability of lone parentfamilies to meet their "needs" within the marketplace. Quantitative data and statisticswill be compiled at the national and provincial level to support this view; however, localarea statistics will also be used wherever possible. Specifically, reference will be madeto the City of Vancouver, surrounding municipalities, and three electoral areas that makeup the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area (See Appendix-Figure 3).91.5.2 Past Studies1.5.2.1 NeedsA discussion about the needs of lone parent families in relation to traditionalsuburban living environments represents a second set of objectives. Drawing from paststudies, we will argue that lone parent families have needs which differ markedly fromthose of the traditional nuclear family. We will also argue that built forms andcommunity designs necessary to support such alternative needs are at odds with thesuburban ideal and most suburban settings presently in existence. In pursuing theseobjectives we will focus our discussion on four key research areas: housing, socialintegration, social support, and mobility and accessibility.1.5.2.2 Alternative Housing and Community DesignHaving established that traditional suburban living environments are ill suited forlone parent families, the next set of objectives is intended merely to review a host ofsuburban housing and community design alternatives already put forth by researchers anddesigners. Some key generalizations are expected to follow. First, the inability ofexisting suburban environments to adequately support the relationships and activitiesassociated with the lone parent family is expected to be something that has beenconsistently recognized in past studies.^Second, all of the alternative housing andcommunity design proposals will likely point to the fact that, in the future, the design ofnew suburban communities should be implemented with a variety of family types andcircumstances in mind. Finally, and what is most relevant here, is that despite themultitude of alternative proposals put forth, there is still little evidence of anycomprehensive implementation. The next logical step is to ask why this is so.1.5.3. Public Policy Lack of comprehensive implementation of housing development schemes for loneparent families in the suburbs is attributable to a number of factors, especially at the localand the federal level. Local level discussion will focus on zoning policy, since this is the10primary mechanism for controlling land use development. Conversely, discussion at thefederal level will center on housing policy and legislation, since this is the primarymechanism dictating how housing is supplied in this country. Although the provincialgovernment also has an interest in housing policy and supply, evaluation of its policeswere excluded from this study since most of the major powers in this area belong toOttawa. The provincial government does have a relatively limited mandate to intervenein housing issues; however, the majority of provincial duties center around the deliveryof housing programs generated at the federal level. It is the federal government, throughCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), that is largely responsible for thecreation of housing policy and implementation of housing legislation. As a result, thediscussion in this section will be focussed at the local and federal level. The objectiveswill be to critically evaluate existing local zoning policies and federal housing policies, inorder to locate where problems exist and identify where new solutions may be tried.At the local level, the discussion will center around the exclusionary nature ofexisting zoning and building by- laws in relation to lone parent families. Alternatively,at the federal level, the discussion will focus on the social and economic factorsunderpinning the growing housing supply and affordability problem for this same familygroup. The greatest concern is that this group, because of its lower than average income,cannot generate effective demand in the marketplace to meet its needs. This implies thatrental markets, left to their own devices, will only supply housing to those who are ableand willing to pay.10 This, in fact, is the very position in which the majority of loneparent families find themselves. Such rental market insufficiencies have not goneunnoticed by federal policy makers who, in turn, have responded by a variety of means.With this in mind, the aim of this discussion will be, first, to analyze the functioning ofresidential rental markets; and second, to evaluate the effectiveness of public policyintervention, characterized by market-welfare and social-welfare initiatives.111.6 MethodologyBriefly, information will be compiled using empirical data, past studies, andpublic policy documents. An explanation of how the information will be obtained, whatsources of data will be used, and how the data and information will be analyzed isoffered below.1.6.1 Empirical DataEmpirical data will be obtained directly from the Canada Census. Censusstatistics for the study units and variables under consideration, from the year 1961 andevery successive census year up until 1986, will serve as the primary data base. Thelongitudinal nature of the research is expected to allow for the compilation of relative andabsolute growth rates for lone parent families and serve as a basis from which futurepredictions can be made. Such projections will also be supplemented by assumptionsderived from current economic and social trends such as, rising divorce rates, increasingmarriage rates, and others.Additional empirical data will be obtained from a series of secondary sources andpublications at the local, provincial, and national level. Sources include: StatisticsCanada, ClVIFIC, Center for Human Settlements, GVRD Development Services, BCStatistics Services, the UBC Data Library, PCensus, SPARC (Social Planning andResearch Council), professional journals, and local municipalities. In all cases, statisticsrelating to family structure (male or female), composition (no. of children), population,gender, socioeconomic status, income, tenure, dwelling type, dwelling characteristics,occupation, and schooling are available and will be applied to meet the researchobjectives set forth earlier. Information will be summarized and presented using growthcurves, comparative tables, bar graphs, and numerical comparisons.1.6.2 Past Studies and Public PolicyInformation regarding past studies and existing public policy is also availablethrough many of the secondary sources cited above as well as through discussion with12policy makers and critics. Past studies will be employed when reviewing the "needs"and proposed housing and community "alternatives" for lone parent families. Becausesuch an approach takes on the form of a literature review, the nature of analysis will bedependant upon the synthesis and generalization of available facts.Alternatively, the analysis of public policy will be much more critical in nature.Policy planning and evaluation, by definition, involve a value/policy relationship wherethe very first step is to understand one's value/policy relationship and those of the otheractors involved. 11 Choosing a point of view different from another's, for example, willlead to different interests, concerns, and desires for public policy intervention. Bychoosing an alternative point of view, particularly in the area of housing policy, our aimwill be to locate where problems with current policy exist and where new solutions maybe tried.1.7 Organization of the ThesisIn this introductory chapter the purpose, context, hypothesis, scope, objectives,and methodology of the study have been reviewed. It is now possible to begin to addressthe original hypothesis. In doing so, the thesis has been divided into three parts. Thefirst part (Chapter 2) consists of a literature review in which reference is made to existingknowledge, theory, and public policy regarding suburban living and lone parent families.The second part (Chapters 3 and 4) consists of a description of relevant data andinformation about lone parent families. The demographic characteristics, suburban livingneeds, and the housing situation of lone parent families, as well as the alternative housingand community options for lone parent families, are explored. The final part (Chapters 5)is devoted to a critical analysis of the data and information collected in previous chapters.The effectiveness of public policy, both at the local and federal level, in facilitating theimplementation of housing arrangements and community options for lone parent familiesis evaluated. The focus is on housing policy, but reference is also made to earlier themes13associated with the demography, needs, and the housing situation of lone parent families.A detailed summary of each subsequent chapter is given below.Chapter 2 provides an overview of the ideas that were used to initiate, mould, andguide this inquiry. Many of the themes presented in this chapter will reoccur throughoutthe remainder of the study. Consequently, it is important to understand them from theoutset. Briefly, Chapter 2 looks at the nature of societal transformations underway insuburbia and the inability of traditional planning theory to accommodate suchtransformations. The relevance of lone parent families, given the emergent themes, isalso discussed.Chapter 3 looks at the demographic, social, and economic characteristics of thelone parent family. The discussion focuses on issues of growth, gender, socioeconomicstatus, and housing. The aim in this chapter is to construct a profile of the lone parentfamily. Findings are expected to reaffirm that, indeed, lone parent families suffer frompoverty and are more disadvantaged than most Canadian families. The residual profile oflone parent families is expected to be a key reason why such families are unable toeffectively meet their needs through the market place.Chapter 4 looks at the particular needs of lone parent families. The adequacy oftraditional suburbs in meeting such needs is addressed. This is followed by a discussionof housing options and community alternatives designed to better meet those same needs.The emergent themes are expected to form a framework within which non-traditionalsuburbs emphasizing household choice and diversifying needs can be based.Chapter 5 focuses on implementation constraints and policy options regardingalternative housing arrangements for lone parent families. Findings are expected toconfirm that lone parent families, in fact, cannot register effective housing demandthrough the private market place. Research at the local level is expected to reveal thatzoning policies themselves may actually be inhibiting the development of alternativehousing for such low income groups. The limitations of local policies will be identified,14and a series of options aimed at facilitating the construction, of smaller, denser, anddiverse housing developments for non-traditional households will be proposed. Theremainder of the discussion is devoted to a critique of federal housing policy. Theresidual nature of the rental sector and the dysfunctional aspects of the rental market areexplored in greater detail. In addition, the effectiveness of federal policy interventioninto the rental sector, characterized by market-welfare and social-welfare initiatives, isalso evaluated. Findings are expected to point to the fact that federal governmentpolicies in the future will need to focus more on social-welfare initiatives. Policies thatfacilitate the development of non-profit and coop housing are likely to be the bestalternatives in directly meeting the needs of low income households. In addition, policiesthat ensure the long term status of the non-profit and coop housing form of tenure shouldalso be actively pursued.Chapter 6 is devoted to a summary of relevant theory findings, implications, andpublic policy concerning the lone parent family type. A public policy and planningframework which facilitates diversity, choice, and affordability is expected to be the bestapproach for meeting the needs of the lone parent family, as well as the host of other non-traditional family types now living in suburbia. To encourage more social and physicalheterogeneity within suburban landscapes, however, public policy at both local andfederal level will likely need to change to reflect changing demographic trends and neweconomic realities. At the local level, such changes are expected to center around thereform of existing zoning by-laws. At the federal level, the ideology of housing policyitself will need to change to focus more on social-welfare rather than market-welfareinitiatives. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to identifying possible futuredirections for continued research. Suggestions, of course, are based on topics raisedthroughout this discussion and include reference to: issues associated directly with thelone parent family housing developments; issues linked to the implications resulting from15broader demographic restructuring trends; and finally, issues related to process-considerations in planning for alternative suburban living environments.162.0 Chapter 2 - Literature ReviewLiterature on lone parent families comes from a variety of related disciplines,which include planning, architecture, sociology, urban design, and urban studies.Articles were numerous, fragmented, and wide ranging in scope; however, a fewcomprehensive studies were found (Hayden, 1984; F. Klowdawsky et al., 1983, 1987).The ideas that emerged were used to initiate, mould, and guide this inquiry. The aim inthis chapter is merely to identify some of the themes that emerged. A detailedexploration and examination of the concepts identified will be carried out in laterchapters.The first part of the discussion looks at the interrelationship between socialprocesses and physical constructs. The nature of social and physical transformations isexplored. This is followed by a presentation of views regarding the traditional cityplanning theories. The ability of homogeneous landscapes to meet the needs ofheterogeneous households is addressed. An alternative set of views associated withcontemporary planning ideals is then presented. Finally, literature on lone parentfamilies is examined in light of the above ideas.2.1 Social Process and Physical ConstructOne of the central themes that emerges from the literature is that age, gender, andfamily are as much human constructions as are houses, buildings, and cities (Franck,1985). In the past, society's ideas about age, gender, and family have helped to shapeand sustain the design of houses, buildings, and communities (Franck, 1983). Societalexpectations of the nuclear family ideal, for example, helped realize the development ofhighly conformist, mass-produced, post-war suburbs (Jackson, 1985). The developmentof traditional suburbs, however, was not entirely a product of social changes; largereconomic and political interests were also at work. From the outset, the single familysuburb was promoted more as a means of stabilizing polity and stimulating the economy17rather than accommodating the needs of the nuclear family unit. Nevertheless, socio-psychological theorists have argued that the prototypic model of suburbia was fullyrealized and made viable because it was coincident with a retreat into family life(Sennett, 1970). Suburban migrations were propelled by a desire to escape the vice ofthe central cities opting instead for safer, child oriented environments. In a sense, thephysical model of suburbia that emerged was viable because it fit with the needs andpreferences of the emerging family unit.Since then, there has been renewed evidence that another societal transformationis underway within Western society. (1981; Eichler, 1983; Birch, 1985; Burch, 1986;).In fact, it has been underway for some time (Massotti, 1973). The reason for such atransformation is due, in large part, to the changing concept of family. Sociologists nowacknowledge that the traditional concept of family, as envisioned in the 1950's and 60's,has expanded to become increasingly more varied. In the past, the "family" for manymeant a group of people living within the same dwelling and closely bound togetheremotionally and by consanguinality, as parent and child, or husband and wife, andincluded other fictional kin (Nett, 1988). Rising divorce and remarriage rates, however,have prompted sociologists to extend the definition of family beyond those who share adwelling space to include a wider network of persons. Under this new definition,families can now contain members that are related either by blood or marriage, but whodo not necessarily share the same dwelling (Baker, 1984).. The concept of family hasindeed changed dramatically, expanding from what was generally perceived to be thenorm --the nuclear family-- to include a host of non-traditional family types. Recentstatistical findings reflect this very point. Suburban family profiles, for example, havebeen found to be much more varied and diverse than those of the 1950's and 60's. Thenumber of alternative family types is growing and assuming a greater percentage ofsuburban family profiles (Burch, 1986).182.2 Traditional City Planning IdeologyFamily restructuring patterns in suburbia, as early as the 1970's, have generatedconsiderable discourse, particularly amongst urban professionals. A common belief ofplanners and architects is that new concepts of family, household, and gender are beingcreated; however, the enactment of those concepts is taking place within livingenvironments that were meant for entirely different lifestyle arrangements (Franck,1985). This view has motivated one strand of theorists to argue for the adaptation of oldenvironments and the creation of new ones that will support the new alternativeS. In thestudies that were reviewed, two interesting themes emerged. First, it was clear that non-traditional family types possessed needs that were inherently different from those of thetraditional nuclear family (Hayden, 1983; Klowdawsky et. al., 1983, 1987); second, itwas recognized that a better fit between families and buildings would be possible only ifconventional practices associated with traditional city planning and architectural designwere abandoned, or at the least modified (Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1984; Kroll, 1986). Inthe future, planners and architects will have to rely on creative and innovative solutionsto meet the emerging needs of non-traditional families. The central problem, accordingto some urbanists, is that the tools that planners have inherited are not exactly the best forbringing about changes to meet those needs.The most renowned proponent of this view, of course, is Jane Jacobs. Accordingto Jacobs, the problem, in part, is rooted deep in the past and linked to the viewsassociated with traditional city planning ideology. The most powerful influence startswith Ebeneezer Howard and his idea for the establishment of Garden Cities. The GardenCity was seen as an alternative to the city and a solution to urban problems. It was toembody the best aspects of town and country (Howard, 1965). While the intricaciesassociated with the Garden City are not important here, it is important to identify itsunderlying principles, since city planners and designers are still governed intellectuallyby them.19Howard, according to some, set in motion a set of powerful and city destroyingideas (Jacobs, 1961). A more sympathetic view, however, sees Howard's ideas as oftenmisunderstood and misapplied (Hall, 1988). They have been used to justify low densitydevelopment, when, in fact, Howard was advocating much higher residential densities.Also, his ideas linking cities by rail and providing employment within them were neverimplemented. Unfortunately, and what is most relevant to this research, is that his ideasabout the strict separation of uses have survived to the present day. In fact, they werereadily embraced in North America in the 1920's and promoted by a group of academicsknown as the Decentrists: Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, and CatherineBauer. The Decentrists, like Howard, reiterated that the planned community should beisolated as a self-contained unit.2.3 Contemporary City Planning IdeologyInfluential critics such as Jane Jacobs, Kevin Lynch, and Lucien Kroll havereacted vehemently against the views of Howard and the Decentrists. The strictadherence to such principles, they believe, would ultimately "do the city in". In theirplace they propose an alternative set of principles designed to encourage physical andsocial diversity. Renewal, regeneration, and adaptation of cities would be possible onlythrough higher residential densities, mixed primary land uses, variety of building typesand forms, and short city blocks (Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1984).The "diversity principles" found in the planning literature, of course, are rootedin biology and ecology. In the biological and ecological world, for example, speciesdiversity is crucial to an ecosystem's flexibility, adaptability, and survival; homogeneityoften spells rigidity and death. Monotypes tend to be avoided in the natural worldbecause of their inability to adjust in the face of change (Berman, 1984). Sociologists andurbanists have picked up on this sentiment, extracting the underlying principles andarguing for their implementation when planning for new city forms. The irony is that, tothis day, a good part of Western society, Communist or Capitalist, continues to strive for20homogeneity, unity and order (Berman, 1984). Nowhere is this more apparent than inthe prescriptive planning and architecture that characterized post-war suburban tractdevelopments (Hayden 1984).The mass planning and architecture of the 1950's was, in part, a response tosocial relationships and activities characterized by the prevailing family type: the nuclearfamily. Since then, the diversification of family has led to the emergence of a wholenew set of social relationships and activities. There is now a growing recognition thatexisting physical constructs (e.g. suburbia), because of their homogeneity and simplicity,are no longer responsive to the changing needs generated by non- traditional family types(Franck, 1985). The challenge in planning and policy circles is to formulate alternativesthat are both sensitive to existing living environments, but at the same time responsive tothe needs of non-traditional family types (Vischer, 1987). Findings from past studiessuggest that public policy and planning which facilitates physical diversity is the bestalternative for meeting the needs of these family types (Jacobs, 1961; Klowdawsky et.al., 1983, 1987; Gurstein and Hood, 1975).2.4 The Lone Parent FamilyMuch of the literature covering lone parent families also contains ideas closelyrelated to those presented above. The lone parent family represents a growing non-traditional family type with very particular housing and housing related needs.Researchers are finding that such needs are not very well addressed within existingsuburban living environments, nor is there evidence that they are being met within newersuburban developments.Statistical findings in North America, for example, confirmed that suburbanfamily profiles became more heterogeneous in the 1980's. The fastest growing familytype was the lone parent family, with the majority lone parent families being female-led(Hayden, 1984). Diversification of suburban family profiles, as well as growth in thenumber of lone parent families is expected to continue into the 1990's.21There is also a recognition that lone parent families possess needs which differsomewhat from those of the traditional nuclear family. They are particularly sensitive tochild care and housing needs. Further, housing is seen by lone parent families as part ofa larger network of support services. Housing liveability, according to these groups,depends on the availability of a variety of services for their children and themselves inclose proximity to their housing (Gurstein and Hood, 1975). As a result, many of thehousing alternatives and community options that were reviewed emphasized thefulfillment of social needs within a physical setting. Alternative housing schemesreflected tendencies towards higher density, mixed use communities linked by publictransport (Hayden, 1984; Franck, 1985). There was also a strong emphasis uponsolutions that took into account only the dwelling unit itself (Kroll, 1986). This involvedeither a reworking of original homes or the provision of entirely new housing forms.Homes were designed to allow present and future users the option of organizing theirown buildings and living spaces, if they so desired. In sum, many of the aspectsassociated with these alternative proposals represented the antithesis of the suburbanideal and most suburban settings presently in existence (Franck, 1985).Finally, there was also a recognition that these alternative living arrangements,although extensively proposed, had not been effectively realized. The problem seems tobe tied to certain demographic characteristics. Evidence suggests that female-led loneparent families, because of their comparatively lower income to male-led lone parentfamilies, have been unable to effectively compete in the private market place(Klowdawsky et. al., 1983). With this in mind, there has been an extensive evaluation ofareas in which planning and public policy intervention could benefit lone parent families.In the Canadian context, renewed public policy and planning intervention at the local andfederal level were found to be the two areas where change could be effected to offer thegreatest benefits to lone parent families.222.5 Summary The literature review has served to outline the context within which the researchwill take place. The themes that emerged form a conceptual framework, and are intendedto guide the remainder of this inquiry. It is clear, for example, that social constructionslike physical constructions are the product of human invention. In the past, socialconstructions have helped to define the design and construction of communities andbuildings. There is every reason to believe that they will continue to do so in the future.In light of this view, there is a keen interest among researchers in exploring the impact ofnon-traditional social formations within traditional living environments. The concern isthat the enactment of new social relationships and activities is taking place within livingenvironments that were originally intended for very different social organizations (e.g.,the nuclear family). In order to accommodate such social changes a greater fit betweenbuildings and people will be needed in the future; however, for this to happen, traditionalplanning practices may need to be re-evaluated. The alternative being proposed is a newset of planning guidelines founded on the principles of diversity.Finally, a review of the literature covering lone parent families reveals that manyof the issues above are in fact closely related. The lone parent family, for example,represents a non-traditional family type with alternative needs, living in a traditionalfamily environment. As a result, there is a keen interest in analyzing how this familytype is adapting to life in post-war suburbia.233.0 Chapter 3 - A Profile of the Lone Parent Family One of the assumptions of this research is that new social constructions are likelyto play an integral part in helping to define the design of new living communities and therestructuring of existing ones. Judging from the literature review, however, there is verylittle evidence that new social constructions like the lone parent family are helping todefine the design and construction of such communities. The inability of this group tomake an impact in such communities seems to be linked to a variety of social andeconomic factors. The residual profile of the majority of lone parent families withrespect to socioeconomic variables such as income, gender, occupation, education, andtenure, are believed to be factors inhibiting the development of such new forms andspaces. The aim in this chapter, therefore, is to flesh out in greater detail thedemographic, social, and economic characteristics associated with lone parent families.In doing so, a profile of the typical lone parent family in Canada will be constructed.This profile should go a long way in explaining why such families are unable toeffectively meet their needs through the market place.Before proceeding though, the first part of this chapter looks at issues of growth.It is important to establish whether or not the growth of lone parent families is, indeed,sufficient enough to warrant further research in this area. Reference will be made to pastgrowth trends and the expected pace of future growth trends. Having looked at growth,the influence of gender will then be taken into account. Attention will be given to theunderlying factors causing the disproportionate representation between female and male-led lone parent families. This is followed by a discussion about socioeconomic status.The income, occupational, and educational situations of lone parent families will beexplored. Finally, the housing situation of lone parent families will be addressed. Thelinks between socioeconomic variables and the housing situation will be brought intofocus. Particular attention will be given to shelter costs, tenure, and dwellingcharacteristics.243.1 Growth The 1980's in Canada witnessed the greatest increase in non-traditional familyforms, especially lone parent families. The lone parent family continued to be by far themost rapidly growing family type in Canada. The number of lone parent families grewdramatically from 371,885 in 1967 to 853,300 in 1986.12 In addition, since 1967, loneparent families have continued to assume an ever-growing proportion of all Canadianfamilies. The percentage of lone parent families as a proportion of all Canadian families,for example, increased from 8.4% in 1967 to 11.3% in 1981, and most recently, to 12.3%in 1986. This most recent change represents a 19.3% increase in the number of loneparent families from 1981. In contrast, the most traditional family type -the nuclearfamily- increased in numbers by only 2.3% during this same period. 13 This, of course,reflects the continuation of a trend that began in the 1960's.The dramatic increase in the number of lone parent families since 1967 forCanada as a whole is reflective of combined increases in all provinces and territories.There are a number of reasons for this dramatic growth. The liberalization of divorcelaws since 1969 plus the increase in teenage pregnancies are the two most influentialfactors. Within some provinces, however, growth rates tend to be slightly higher than thenational average. This is due, in part, to provincial patterns of separation, divorce, andmarriage, but more so to internal migration patterns. Lone parent families, particularly intheir initial phase of formation, tend to move from less prosperous regions to thosewhere economic opportunities are more abundant. This, of course, results in lower ratesof divorce, separation, and lone parenthood in areas of origin and higher rates in areas ofdestination. In fact, in the 1980's, the largest concentration of lone parent families wasfound in the most populous and prosperous provinces: Ontario, Quebec, and B.C., in thatorder. 14Local trends tend to reflect the national and provincial trends outlined above. Thenumber of lone parent families as a proportion of all families for the Vancouver Census25Metropolitan Area (CMA), for example, has increased from 10.5% in 1976 to 11.3% in1981, and most recently, to 13.0% in 1986. 1 5 In each case, local growth rates were stillslightly higher than the national average confirming that regional growth is, in fact, likelyto be higher in more prosperous provinces or regions.Local statistics also reveal that the emergence of lone parent families is not solelylimited to the urban core. The highest proportion of lone parent families in theVancouver CMA in 1986, for example, was found in the University Endowment Lands(UEL), the City of North Vancouver, New Westminster, and Port Moody (Clague, 1988).In addition, the GVRD's (Greater Vancouver Regional District) 1990 BackgroundReport on Households reveals that the number of lone parent families is also on the risein traditional suburban areas (Rekart, 1989). Between 1976 and 1986, the number oflone parent families increased from 12.8% to 18.1% within the Tri-Cities (Coquitlam,Port Moody, and Port Coquitlam) alone (Murphy et. al., 1989). As of 1986, the largestnumber of these same families, with the exception of Vancouver (15,740) and nearbyBurnaby (5,140), was found in the outer suburbs south of the Fraser River: Surrey(6,405), Richmond (3,385), Maple Ridge (2,440), Delta (2,100).16 Interestingly, thesesame areas contain a higher than average percentage of lone parent families headed bythe 15-24 and 25-39 groups (See Appendix-Table 1). It is believed that younger families,the majority of which are female-led, are moving to the outer suburbs because of lowerrents and consequently cheaper housing.3.2 Future Growth In exploring the future growth possibilities for this same group, a series ofprojections were reviewed. Projection results were based on the 1976 to 1986 CanadaCensus and the most recent Statistics Canada population projections. They covered theperiod from June 1, 1989 to June 1, 2011.Briefly, projections were constructed using the headship rates approach. Threesets of potential future rates were developed: series A, B, and C. Series A and C26represented projections resulting from low and high growth assumptions, respectively,while Series B represented projections resulting from medium growth assumptions. Thisdiscussion is based on results from Series B growth rate assumptions. It is also importantto note that past rates, upon which future projections were based, were extrapolated usingthe modified exponential method. The modified exponential curve was chosen becausethe changes in growth rates and proportions observed over the base period (1976-1986)were expected to continue into the future, but at a slower pace (Note: For a more detaileddescription of the methodology see Section II: Methods and Assumptions in Larivee, D.1990. Projections of Households and Families for Canada, Provinces, and Territories. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. Cat No.91-522).Projections revealed that an increase in the number of all census family types islikely to continue, but at a slower rate of growth than in the past. The family growthrate, for example, is expected to be in the range of 0.7% to 0.9% by the year 2011. Thisis down from the 2.0% growth rate for 1976-1981 and the 1.3% rate for 1981-86. 1 7 Thegrowth in the number of lone parent families reflects similar trends. The number of loneparent families, for example, is expected to increase by 84% from 854, 000 in 1986 to 1.6million by 2011, with about 78% of those families being female-led. This is downconsiderably from the 145% increase (e.g. 347,418 in 1961 to 854,000 in 1986)witnessed in the previous twenty five year period. 1 8 The primary reason for thiscontinued, but slower growth, is that the baby boom generations of the 1950's and 60's,characterized by higher fertility rates, are progressively being replaced by the baby bustgenerations of the 1980's and 90's, which are characterized with generally lower fertilityrates. This assumption is confirmed through the continued downward trend in fertilitysince the 1960's. The fertility rate in Canada, for example, dropped from 3.8 children perwomen in 1961 to 1.7 in the 1980's. 1 9 Increased sex education, slightly later marriages,postponement of fertility, greater participation of women in higher levels of education,sharp rises in female labor participation, and the relaxation of abortion laws are all27possible factors influencing decreasing fertility patterns and the subsequent formation offamilies without children.Despite tendencies towards slower growth, the number of non-traditional familytypes is still expected to grow as a proportion of all families in both urban and suburbanareas. In fact, findings suggest that the proportion of lone parent families will increase asthe proportion of husband-wife families decrease. Husband-wife families, for example,although still the largest family group, are expected to continue to decline as aproportion of all families. The number of husband-wife families, which declined fromapproximately 92% of all families in 1961 to 87% in 1986, is expected to decline furtherto 83% in 2011. Conversely, the proportion of lone parent families, which rose from 8%in 1961 to 13% in 1986, is expected to rise to 17% of all families by 2011. The highestgrowth rates, because of inter-regional migration patterns, are anticipated in Alberta andBritish Columbia, at 68% and 63%, respectively. 20As shown above, the growth of lone parent families, although slower than in thepast, is still expected to outpace that of husband-wife families. Reasons for this morerapid growth vary, but the most obvious one is divorce. Divorce rates have beenconsistently on the rise since the early 1970's, with the most dramatic increase occurringin the late 1980's (See Appendix-Figure 4 and 5). The trend is expected to continue,however, with a slight decline in the future. This is due, in part, to a growing sexualconservatism amongst Western society as a whole. Another reason for growth amonglone parent families is a softening of cultural values. Changing cultural values, forexample, are expected to make the concept of unwed mothers a more acceptable socialphenomenon than in the past. Finally, the higher than average age at death of females isanother well established fact that will contribute to the lone parent phenomenon.The findings in this section confirm that, in general, non-traditional family types,characterized by lone parent families, are assuming and will continue to assume a greaterpercentage of composite family profiles than in the past. Unfortunately, statistics were28not available at the suburban and urban level, but one assumes that local growth trendswill be somewhat similar to those described at the regional and national level. In fact,with increasing land values, it is likely that more younger, lower income, lone parentfamilies will be even more constrained to move to the outer suburban areas. It is in theseareas where family restructuring trends are likely to be the most significant.3.3 Gender The influence of gender is also very strong and receives the most attentionwhenever discussion about this family group arises.Traditionally, there has been a disproportionate representation between femaleand male-led lone parent families. In the past, higher incidences of female loneparenthood were attributable to factors associated with widowhood; today, however, theyare largely a result of divorce. For example, there has been a dramatic increase infemale-led lone parent families following amendments to the 1969 Divorce Act. Thehigher incidence of female lone parenthood is largely attributable to the static nature ofthe distribution of custody by gender, which has remained constant at 84% female and16% male.21 Higher death rates among men and slightly lower remarriage rates amongfemales are two additional factors contributing to this phenomenon. The result of allthese factors combined is a dramatic increase in the number of single, divorced motherssince 1969. The number of never married single mothers has also increased since thistime. Statistics reflect this trend.Between 1971 and 1976, for example, lone parent families were primarily female-led and became more so into the 1980's. In 1971, 78% percent of lone parent familieswere female-led. Since then, this number has increased nationally to 83% in 1983, andremained there ever since.22 At present, of the 13% of Canadian lone parent families,2.3% or 137,600 are headed by men and 11.9% or 649,575 are headed by women.23Roughly one out of every ten families in Canada, therefore, is a lone parent family(Schlesinger, 1979); and roughly four out every five lone parent families in Canada are29headed by females. Results from B.C. and the Vancouver CMA also reflect the nationaltrend.3.4 Socioeconomic Status Gender also has an extremely significant influence upon the socioeconomiccharacteristics of the families involved. There are definite links between gender anddifferences in income, occupation, and education for the families involved. Thefollowing section looks at these differences by contrasting the situation of male andfemale lone parents. Before proceeding, however, a general overview of the incomesituation for lone parent families, irrespective of gender, is presented.3.4.1 Income The poverty in which the majority of lone parent families find themselves hasbeen a traditional focus of discussion. A detailed examination of income characteristicsconfirm that, indeed, lone parent families represent one of the poorest and mostdisadvantaged family groups in terms of income. The problem seems to be most acute inCanada. Findings from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies inWashington indicate that lone parent families are more likely to live in poverty inCanada than in any other of the eight industrialized nations, with the exception of theUnited States. Almost 30% of the 853,300 lone parent families in Canada now livebelow the poverty line (In Canada, the poverty line for a lone parent with two children isabout $23, 000. Poverty was calculated by taking the median income in each country -the normal standard of living- and cutting it in half). 24 In addition, the most recentstatistics indicate that the problem is becoming worse.A comparison between 1981 and 1986 Census data, for example, reveals thatwhile the numbers of all family types continued to rise, their income levels continued todecrease in real terms. More importantly, while the average income of husband-wifefamilies decreased by only 0.3% to $37,827 during this period, that of lone parentfamilies decreased significantly by 3.5% to $26,109. Further, both male and female lone30parent families saw their average family income decrease in 1986 from 1981 figures by6% to $31,252 and 2.8% to $19,177, respectively. 25 Interestingly, in British Columbia,average male lone parent family income in 1986 was $31,055 while that of females loneparents was $18,306 (based on 20% sample), or 5% lower than the national average. 26In the Vancouver CMA, however, average male and female lone parent family incomefor the same period was $35,157 and $20,605; respectively. 27 In both these casesaverage incomes were slightly higher than the national and provincial averages. Inaddition, the disproportion between male and female incomes was even morepronounced.This last set of statistics is most striking. Not only are female lone parent familyincomes well below the poverty line, but they are also considerably lower than those ofmales. As of 1986, for example, females had an income that was 65% that of males.28The reasons for this disparity are numerous and difficult to document; however, itappears that the nature of labour force activity and education plays an integral part inexplaining such income differences. It is to this that we now turn.3.4.2 Occupation In general, women in the labour force earn considerably less than men no matterwhat occupational category they participate in. A number of reasons have been identifiedto explain this wide wage gap such as discrimination, hours worked, marital status,education, and absenteeism. A detailed examination of all these reasons is beyond thescope of this analysis; however, whatever the reason, it is clear that there are dramaticdifferentials in earnings by gender within occupational groups (See Appendix-Table 2).In addition, a heavy concentration of women is found in the service and clerical sectorwork force where salaries have always been considerably lower than average (SeeAppendix-Table 3). In 1985, for example, service and clerical related jobs together had acombined average income of $18,910.29 A major factor attracting female lone parents tothe service sector is time commitment. In the service sector work schedules tend to be31more flexible, and part-time work is more readily available. Unfortunately, it is in thesevery sectors where salaries tend to be lowest and the chance for advancement minimal.Other occupations related to teaching, management, the natural sciences, and the socialsciences tend to involve a larger degree of full time and, in some cases, extra-timecommitment. Such commitments are simply not compatible, given the added incomeconstraints, and subsequent responsibilities of child rearing and household activitiesplaced upon the female lone parent family. Alternatively, male-led lone parent families,because of generally higher incomes, are not as constrained by child rearing and domesticresponsibilities. Male lone parents may be able to afford to pay for a wider range ofdomestic and child care services.3.4.3 Education Another factor contributing to the income disparity of lone parent families is lackof education. It is well known that higher education is generally associated with higheremployment income and chance for advancement for both males and females. This isespecially true for those with a university degree, although females with a universitydegree still only earn slightly more than a high-school graduate.30 Nevertheless, paststudies find that among married couples, females rather than males tend to be much lesslikely to have entered or completed post-secondary education. Following maritaldissolution, therefore, female-led lone parent families are at a greater disadvantage interms of education and training. Lack of education does little to help the incomesituation of such newly formed families. Further, because of increased burdens of timeand money, these same families are likely to have more difficulty in improving theirsocioeconomic position through educational betterment.3.5 HousingIt is apparent that lone parent families are generally positioned lower on thesocioeconomic scale. As a result, such families are more likely to be sensitive to certainneeds relative to other higher income families; housing related needs tend to be most32significant. In fact, housing condition, costs, and tenure, is often the focus of discussionwhenever talk about this family group arises.With regards to condition of dwelling and ability to pay for shelter costs, loneparent families compared with husband-wife families are at a disadvantage. A study inthe Canadian Statistical Review, for example, reveals that both female and male loneparent families suffer the poorest housing conditions (about 30% of their dwellings needrepair), and spend more than 35% of their income on shelter costs. In fact, 16.5% of alllone parent families spend more than 50% of their income on shelter.31Lone parent families are also at a disadvantage with regards to tenure whencompared with husband-wife families. In all cases, both female and male lone parentfamilies exhibited consistently lower rates of home ownership. Rental was by far themost common option for the majority of lone parent families, particularly in their initialphase of formation (See Appendix-Table 4). In 1982, for example, 95% of all femalelone parent families under 25 were renters. For those between 25-34, this numberdropped to 73.8%. Further, for those aged 35-44, this figure dropped lower to 49%.3 2This, however, was still 14% higher than the national average of renter families. As weshall see, the concentration of low income, lone parent families in the rental sector is acontributing factor to the growing inefficiency associated with contemporary rentalmarkets in this country. (See Chapter 5 for a more detailed explanation).Low owner occupancy among lone parent families has other serious implications.Owner occupied dwellings, for example, tend to provide better environments for childrearing than do rental accommodations. This is the case because the primary rentalmarket in the majority of cases is still targeted to families and individuals withoutchildren. Owner occupied housing also represents the primary means for assetaccumulation for many Canadian families. The value of housing resale in most areas ofthe country, particularly where economies have been strongest, has exceeded the cost ofinflation in recent years. Unfortunately, lone parent families, because of their income33situation, have been unable to access the owner occupied housing sector and takeadvantage of its associated benefits. The inability to accumulate assets through owneroccupied housing means that the lone parent family may be at a greater disadvantageonce the parent is no longer able to work in the labour force.A related aspect of tenure is dwelling type. In general, dwelling type varies withtenure. The traditional family, for example, tends to move from an apartment to a singledetached house in the suburbs, and then, possibly back to a multiple unit dwelling duringthe course of the life cycle. Lone parents also tend to follow the same pattern, however,with three important variations. First, many fewer lone parents move to owner occupiedhousing, and even fewer move to single detached dwellings. Second, those that do moveto owner occupied housing tend to concentrate in row houses, duplexes, and otherattached dwellings. Third, and this is most significant, the majority of single parentsremain renters while moving to detached dwellings.33 This last factor is most strikingbecause it shows that the majority of female lone parents must constantly allocate adisproportionate amount of their income to shelter throughout the course of their lifecycle.3.7 Summary The number of lone parent families has grown dramatically and is expected togrow in the future, although at a slower rate. The trend points to more heterogeneousand diverse suburban family profiles, with the number of lone parent families assuming agreater percentage of all families. In all cases, the predominance of female-led loneparent families is likely to continue, with increases expected in the younger age cohortsliving in the outer suburbs. Further, the influence of gender has significant impacts uponthe socioeconomic characteristics of the families involved. While lone parent families, ingeneral, are positioned lower on the socioeconomic scale, it is female-led families thatsuffer the most. Females, for example, earn less than men, tend to work in lower paidservice and clerical jobs, and tend to be less educated. Such families become highly34sensitized to housing and housing related needs, especially immediately after maritaldissolution. In fact, low socioeconomic status places lone parent families, particularlythose headed by females, at a disadvantage when it comes to issues of shelter costs,tenure, and dwelling type.354.0 Chapter 4 - Needs, Housing Options, and Community Alternatives The lone parent family represents one of the poorest and most disadvantagedfamily types in all of Canada. As will be argued in this chapter, however, the lone parentfamily also possesses a whole new set of relationships and activities requiring alternativesupport services and housing arrangements. This fact is most notable for lone parentfamilies living in traditional post-war suburban tract developments. The ability of suchneighborhoods to meet the needs of lone parent families has often come under scrutiny.The purpose of this chapter, therefore, will be to explore this question in greater detail.In doing so, the following discussion has been divided into two parts. The first examinessome of the more basic needs of lone parent families such as housing, social integration,social support, mobility, and accessibility. The adequacy of traditional suburbs inmeeting such needs will also be evaluated. The latter section is devoted to the explorationof alternative housing options and community alternatives, which are intended to bettermeet these same needs. Relationships between physical form and social needs will bemade more clear. In addition, a series of reoccurring and important themes regarding thedevelopment of alternative housing and community options is expected to emerge. Fromthese themes, an image of a typical neighborhood supportive of the needs of non-traditional family types will be presented.4.1 Needs 4.1.1 Adequate and Affordable HousingAccess to affordable housing represents the most basic and pressing need of loneparent families. This is particularly so because of the increasing poverty that existsamongst this family group in general. As a result, creating affordable housing in today'smarket to accommodate this family type has, indeed, become a challenge. Thedevelopment of single family, detached homes on large suburban lots is simply not aviable alternative in terms of achieving housing affordability for this and other lowincome groups. Rather, in today's market housing affordability for these groups is36primarily achieved by developing medium density, multi-family residences with smallerapartment units.34 Of course, smaller, compact units, although the most affordable, maynot be the most desirable for these families. A study on the relationship of income andhousing, for example, revealed that lone parent families prefer to live in housingdevelopments similar to those (e.g., suburban tract developments) in which they hadlived as part of a nuclear family (Anderson-Klief, 1981).The same study also recognized that the high cost of maintaining owned housingfollowing marital dissolution often made this option unlikely. This was particularly thecase for middle class and working class female-led families living in more affluentresidential developments. Many such families, for example, discovered that it was verydifficult to support an affluent suburban home and lifestyle with a considerably reducedincome level. Much of the problem is related to maintenance and upkeep costs resultingfrom things such as roof repairs, house painting, landscaping, insurance payments, andproperty taxes. The financial anxiety associated with home ownership often posesconsiderable economic as well as psychological problems for the families involved.Lone parent families from working and middle class backgrounds tend to be the mostvulnerable and are most likely to move from their original neighborhoods. Working classfamilies, for example, are the most likely to move, going from one apartment to another.Middle class families, on the other hand, are often forced to sell the family home, andmove into smaller, lower quality apartments in unfamiliar neighborhoods. In both cases,the ability to access similar housing arrangements in the same neighborhood is reducedconsiderably.Another factor limiting housing accessibility to these families is discrimination,both in terms of new development and existing housing stock. Discrimination is one ofthe biggest problems a lone parent must deal with when looking for adequate andaffordable housing. Many of the newer developments being constructed, for example, aremarketed solely to young singles and young couples without children; in some cases,37restrictive covenants even prevent families with children from ever living in suchdevelopments.35 Landlords tend to shy away from renting to families with childrenbecause of the potential noise, crime, and wear and tear on property. There is alsoevidence that a landlords refusal to rent is based solely on the premise that theprospective tenant is a lone parent (Gurstein and Hood, 1975). In the majority ofdiscrimination cases gender and marital status are cited as the primary factors influencinga landlord's decision not to rent to such families. The basis of such discrimination isfounded on a belief by landlords that female-led lone parent families are simply unable tocope with the maintenance and upkeep requirements associated with large homes onlarge suburban lots. The fact that females earn on average less then males, also raisesconcerns from landlords that female lone parents may be unable to consistently meetmonthly rent payments.4.1.2 Social IntegrationThe process of discrimination also contributes to create a sense of both physicaland social isolation amongst the families involved. The physical manifestation of suchisolation, of course, is reflected by the concentration of such groups in public housing,rent assisted housing, and exclusive lone parent family housing. Living in these placesoften creates a feeling that one is outside the mainstream of the neighborhood. Loneparent families, given the choice, would prefer to reside in developments that contain amix of socioeconomic groups. Such communities generally contain a variety ofhouseholds, (including families with children, families without children, empty nesters,and young singles) and are made possible though the use of higher residential densitiesand mixed primary land uses. This view has not gone unnoticed in planning and designcircles. Researchers, for example, have identified the integration of non-traditionalhouseholds into existing neighborhoods as an important and primary goal of anyalternative housing and community development strategy (Franck, 1990; Gurstein andHood, 1975). It is the role of planners to create policy to facilitate the development of38such a strategy. Currently, however, the types of neighborhoods required to provide theinterpersonal support and social contact necessary to lone parents simply do not exist at abroader scale.4.1.3 Social Support Aside from the need for social integration, lone parent families also require anextensive and closely knit social support network comprised of relatives, friends, andneighbors to help cope with their daily predicaments.36 Obviously, with one fewer adultin the family the lone parent must carry the burden for meeting the financial, social, anddomestic responsibilities of the household; in doing so, the time and energy constraintsare likely to be twice as great for the parent involved. In fact, a recent behavior studyindicates that in order to save time and energy, lone parent household heads are twice aslikely to get help from outsiders than husband-wife families (Michelson, 1985). Thepresence of a social support network, therefore, becomes important for these familytypes. The need for such a network is even more important in suburban neighborhoodswhere domestic responsibilities are placed squarely on the individual and take placealmost always in isolation from all other households. Through sensitive design,however, it is possible to devise solutions where domestic and homemakingresponsibilities can be performed in common rather than isolation. The creation ofcommunity spaces where neighbors can meet, socialize, and watch over children, forexample, is possible through the provision of shared facilities and collective servicessuch as community rooms, public courtyards, play spaces, pedestrian pathways, andlaundry rooms. The intent underlying the provision of such collective services andshared facilities is merely to replace some of the functions traditionally met within thefamily.37 The concept of shared facilities and services is most useful for families (e.g.,lone parents) where time and energy is a precious commodity.394.1.4 Mobility and AccessibilityMobility is another important need that arises in consideration of lone parentfamilies. Restriction on mobility can result because of old age, disability, anddiscrimination; however, amongst lone parent families, restriction on mobility isattributable to other factors: the absence of another adult in the family, the presence ofchildren, and the income situation of the families involved. All these factors combinedcontribute to restrict mobility and, in turn, impose considerable accessibility problems forlone parent families, especially with respect to transportation and services.It is well known, for example, that lone parent families extensively require publicand community services such as day care, schools, and health care. However, becausesuch families do not have sufficient income, they have comparatively limited access to aprivate automobile. In 1982, for example, only 57% of all female lone parents owned acar compared with 89% of husband-wife families.38 Consequently, female-led loneparent families were likely to be more dependant upon public rather than private transit.This, of course, poses serious implications for lone parent families residing in autooriented suburban tract developments where public transit service is generally poor.Limited access to private transportation in suburbia, for example, effectively restrictssuch families from pursuing higher paying jobs in the urban core, obtaining day carewithin close proximity to home and work place, and participating in nearby recreationaland social activities.An added problem is the transportation of children that is commonly associatedwith suburban living. Children often need rides to movies, lessons, parties, and schoolevents. Suburban homes, however, are located so that a resident is always reliant oneither public or, preferably, private transportation in order to get to the center of suburbancommunity where the majority of service, recreational, and employment activities tend tobe concentrated. Because most lone parents work, they are simply unable to fulfill theirchildren's transportation needs all the time. As a result, many lone parents are often40dependant on others, such as neighbors or relatives, in providing transportation servicesfor their children.4.2 Housing Options and Community AlternativesAccessibility to affordable and adequate housing, convenience of maintenance ofowned housing, accessibility to neighbors, services, and transportation, and ease ofmobility represent some of the primary needs of lone parent families, particularly thoseliving in suburbia. Such needs, of course, have generated a great deal of discussionamong numerous interested groups, which include planners, architects, urban designers,cooperative organizations, and non-profit special interest groups. Much of the discussionhas focussed on the creation of new environments and the restructuring of existingenvironments to meet such needs. The greatest influence in this area comes from thearchitectural and urban design professions. In fact, since the 1970's, architects and urbandesigners continue to propose alternative housing and design solutions, which are betterintended to reflect the specialized needs of lone parent families and other non-traditionalfamily types (Leavitt, 1990; Cook, 1990; Wekerle and Novac, 1990; Franck, 1990;McCamant and Durrett, 1988; Calthorpe, 1988; Hayden, 1984). The result is anextensive collection of housing options and community alternatives. While it isimpractical to address all these options, four of the more relevant proposals are reviewed:congregate housing, cohousing, restructured housing, and pedestrian pockets.4.2.1 Congregate HousingIn view of the problem of restricted mobility and its ramifications, one possibilityproposed by designers is to concentrate such services and activities as close to home haspossible. The idea is best reflected by an alternative housing and living arrangementknown as congregate housing. (Congregate housing was officially recognized in NorthAmerica by the passing of the Congregate Housing Act in the United States in 1970.39)There is confusion as to whether the term "congregate" refers to dwelling units, people,or services; some suggest that it refers to all three (Lawton, 1976). There is also some41confusion that congregate housing is, in effect, the same as communal or shared housing.In reality, it is not; however, all three terms are used interchangeably in many instances.Whatever the interpretation, one thing is certain: congregate housing is an idea in whichthe underlying theme is to provide housing with a range of collective services.40The concept of congregate housing was first applied to the elderly. The collectiveservices provided in such cases included meals, socio-recreational activities, classes,transportation, and health care. The same idea, however, can easily be applied to loneparent families. The only difference is that the nature of collective services offered mustchange to reflect the needs of the lone parent family. In such cases the collective servicesprovided, for example, could include day care, laundry, and public transport.The concept of congregate housing is important to lone parent families because itbegins to address the mobility problem encountered by such groups. Congregatehousing, for example, effectively reduces commuting distances by collapsing barriers ofspace, thereby allowing lone parent families more time and energy to devote to domestic,economic, and social responsibilities. In addition, the provision of collective servicesmeans that some of the functions traditionally met within the family can mow beperformed outside the family. This implies that domestic duties such as child care, meals,and yard maintenance need no longer be performed alone.4.2.2 CohousingThe idea of cohousing originated in Scandinavia in the 1960's and now, too, hassurfaced on the North American continent. The first development of its type is nearingcompletion in Seattle and another is being explored in both urban and suburban regionswithin Greater Vancouver. Like congregate housing, cohousing is also a reaction to thestate of existing residential living arrangements characteristic of suburbia. Not only doescohousing allow for the collective services found in congregate housing, but it alsoaddresses in greater depth lone parent needs of social integration, social contact, andcommunity.42Cohousing development is an attempt to consciously create concepts ofcommunity that used to occur naturally. In any cohousing development, for example, thecentral aim is to recreate an environment where people live in tightly knit villages;where people know each other over extended periods; and where people often worktogether to achieve common goals. In recreating such an environment, cohousingparticipants generally follow four basic principles: intentional neighborhood design,comprehensive resident management, participatory planning, and the sharing of commonfacilities.41 The guidelines allow all residents the opportunity to participate in thedesign, construction, and continued management of the development. The process ofdevelopment itself gets residents involved, puts them in contact with each other, andmakes them feel as if they have a real stake in their community. The process ofdevelopment is, in effect, the catalyst which begins to create a real sense of community,belonging, and attachment to place, which is currently lacking in traditional suburbanliving environments.In facilitating the process of community building, designers ensure that manysuch developments contain common areas designed for daily use. The focus of all suchdevelopments, for example, is a common house where dinners, day care, and laundryfacilities can all be shared. In some cases, this is extended to include areas whereworkshop and craft activities are also shared. The idea of common or shared facilitiesprovides practical, social, and economic benefits otherwise not found in traditional livingarrangements. The idea of common dinners, for example, means that a resident (or loneparent) will only cook once or twice a week rather than having to cook all days of theweek. A similar arrangement for yard maintenance and upkeep means that an individualneed not always be solely responsible for yard duties, but instead can rely on otherresidents for support.Again, the economic, practical, and social advantages of shared resources andcommon facilities offered by cohousing developments are numerous and varied,43particularly for lone parents. Cost savings resulting from sharing facilities and space(e.g., a common workshop) can effectively reduce rent or mortgage payments for theindividual. Also, the sharing of costs allows residents to obtain facilities that few couldafford alone such as a day care center, a workshop, a garden, a walk-in freezer, a musicroom, a computer room, a pub, and possibly others. Practical advantages include thesharing of household responsibilities such as doing laundry, cooking meals, andperforming yard and maintenance duties. This, in turn, reduces time and energyconstraints for the individual, and opens up opportunities to perform other activities.Finally, the social benefits include the safety and support provided by others. Thisincludes an opportunity for social interaction, friendship, and group activities. In sum,the sharing of resources and facilities allows all residents greater access to a range ofservices, activities, and conveniences at a lower cost per family than would be possible ina traditional single family neighborhood.42Although a central tenet of the cohousing concept is based on sharing, the idea ofsharing one's lifestyle with others is not appealing for many. Lack of privacy, in fact, isone of the most common complaints from residents when discussion about similaralternative housing arrangements such as communal living or shared housing arises. This,however, is where cohousing differs from other alternative housing arrangements.Cohousing developments are consciously designed according to values of choice andtolerance.43 Privacy is carefully ensured in each unit by design, and participation incommunal activity is purely voluntary. Each unit, for example, has a separate kitchen, soresidents can eat dinner within the privacy of their own home if they so desire. Similarly,all units are also designed to accommodate a washer and dryer should residents desirethis option.To summarize, cohousing is another viable alternative for lone parent families. Itis a response to the isolation and impracticality associated with the single familydetached house, particularly as it relates to non-traditional families. It begins to address44not only issues of mobility and affordability, but also those of community, social support,and social integration. Developments combine the autonomy of the private dwelling withthe advantages of communal living. The end result is a community which seeks out abalance between public and private activities. Until now, such communities do not existat any large scale within traditional suburban tract developments.4.2.3 Restructured HousingA reoccurring theme to this point has been the inability of suburban tractdevelopments to meet the needs of the lone parent family. In addressing this concern, thetwo options proposed so far have dealt with the construction of new housingdevelopments within existing neighborhoods. This approach, unfortunately, has oftenresulted in resistance from existing suburban residents. With this in mind, researchershave also begun to explore methods of restructuring or refitting existing suburbanneighborhoods to reflect changing social relationships and expectations. The inspirationfor this work also comes primarily from a dissatisfaction with the social and physicalconstraints imposed by the design of traditional single family neighborhoods. Much ofthis work also takes into account many of the ideas (e.g., sense of community, sharedresources, and collective facilities, and increased mobility) originating from previousproposals.The most notable example of the restructuring of suburban domestic space comesfrom Dolores Hayden in her work regarding suburban families with children. Inconsidering lone parent families, Hayden, for example, offers a plan for restructuring thetypical suburban block of single family homes into a mixed use community completewith private housing units, collective services, and a host of other support services. 44According to Hayden, outdoor spaces, previously private, can be redesigned to consist ofprivate, public, semi-public, and collective spaces. Based on the same design otheramenities could be added to such newly created common areas such as a village green,small private gardens, children's play spaces, accessory services, and shared pathways45(see Appendix-Figure 6). The single family house itself could be legally converted insome areas into a duplex, or triplex by allowing for the addition of accessory apartments.4.2.4 Pedestrian Pockets A community option based on many of the same principles that are guidinghousing alternatives for lone parents has been recently developed at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley. The concept, developed by Peter Calthorpe, is commonly knownas the Pedestrian Pocket. The Pedestrian Pocket idea is an attempt to restructuresuburban form and community; it is also intended to address problems of mobility andaccessibility, which are commonplace in suburbia. Calthorpe, like the proponents ofcongregate housing, cohousing, and restructured housing, recognizes that neighborhoodspossessing a concentration of not only services, but also housing, public facilities, stores,and employment opportunities are particularly useful to a variety of household andfamily types, not the least bf which are lone parent families. Public transit to get to suchareas is also an important consideration.In addressing these concerns, Calthorpe has devised an alternative form ofsuburban community (e.g. the Pedestrian Pocket) supporting a diversity of housing typesand community buildings. The Pedestrian Pocket is roughly 50 to 120 acres in size andconsists of a small cluster of higher density, housing, offices, and retail space withinclose proximity (1/4 mile) to a light rapid transit system (see Appendix-Figure 7 and9).45 The Pedestrian Pocket concept, like many alternative housing arrangements, isbased on similar principles of choice, convenience, and mobility. The clusteringprinciple, for example, allows lone parents a choice of walking, driving, or using publictransit. The arrangement of courtyard clusters of two and three storey townhomesallows for a common area, a private yard, and the integration of common facilities.Townhouses and duplexes are also carefully designed to reduce commuting time. Allhousing clusters, for example, are within walking distance to services, transit,employment, recreational facilities, parks, and a neighborhood shopping center. The46same housing form allows for the convenience of an attached garage, land ownership,private spaces, small private yards, and play spaces. Such buildings are less expensive tobuild, yet offer the same advantages as their detached counterparts. Again, this is aanother viable alternative for low income families with children who generally cannotafford the high financial costs and upkeep responsibilities associated with living in asingle family, detached home.4.3 SummaryThe focus in this chapter has been on the examination of the needs of lone parentfamilies and on the exploration of housing and community alternatives designed to meetthose same needs. Findings conclude that traditional, suburban, low density, singlefamily neighborhoods, although preferred by lone parents, do not in fact adequately meettheir needs. High land costs, maintenance and upkeep costs, and discrimination, forexample, all contribute to problems of housing affordability and inadequacy. The designof suburban dwellings and neighborhoods themselves tend to perpetuate social isolationand limit the formation of social support networks required by such groups. Finally,restrictions on mobility resulting from inadequate access to transportation services oftenlead to accessibility problems for this same group. Lone parents, for example, becausethey do not own a car and are dependant upon public transport, often have troublegaining access to public and community services, employment opportunities, andrecreational facilities.Accepting the inadequacy of suburban neighborhoods, many researchers havefocussed their attention on housing alternatives and community options. Although a wideand varied number of alternatives exist, four were evaluated for this discussion. Inreviewing the alternatives some common themes began to emerge. In fact, there areseveral important features that set such alternative neighborhoods apart from their moreconventional counterparts. 46 The ability to meet a range of functions such as mobility,accessibility, affordability, social support, and social integration, is one distinct feature.47The integration of different types of households (such as lone parent families, nuclearfamilies, single persons, and couples) within housing developments, and the integrationof housing with other uses (such as child care, workshops, common play areas, sharedpublic space) are two other distinct features. A fourth feature is the opportunity forresidents to participate in the design, planning, and management of their community.Finally, and perhaps one of the key features of any such development, is the transferenceof functions traditionally met within the household to the larger community.Such "alternative" neighborhoods represent a considerable departure from theirmore conventional counterparts. The point here, however, is not to argue for theabolition of the single family home and all it represents. Clearly, such homes are anaspiration for many Canadians and will remain the prevalent choice for many in thefuture. Nor is it to argue for a single physical prototype to replace the one that so manycritics have reacted against. Rather, in view of the growing social heterogeneity andchanging needs in the suburbs, we will argue for a wider range of prototypes emphasizinghousehold choice and diversity.485.0 Chapter 5 - Making Alternative Suburban Living Environments a Reality: Public Policy Alternatives The housing options and community alternatives presented in the previouschapter are, indeed, far reaching; however, there is no guarantee that they will beimplemented on a large scale. In fact, there are suggestions that policy changes must takeplace at the local and federal level to facilitate their implementation. The aim in thischapter, therefore, will be to critically evaluate the effectiveness of existing local andfederal polices in meeting the housing needs of lower income groups, specifically loneparent families. The limitations of current policies will be identified andrecommendations for new alternatives and policy directions will be presented.The remaining discussion is divided into three parts. The first addressesimplementation constraints regarding alternative housing developments for lone parentfamilies. The inability of the market place to meet the housing needs of lone parentfamilies is specifically addressed. This is followed by a discussion of local zoning by-laws and building regulations. The inability of current polices to meet the needs of non-traditional households is brought into focus. In response, a series of options designed tobring local zoning policy "in line" with contemporary housing demands and needs willbe put forth. Issues of affordability, density, and equity are addressed. Finally, theeffectiveness of federal housing policy in addressing the housing supply and affordabilityneeds of low income groups will also be evaluated. Emphasis will be on the analysis ofthe rental sector and the rental market. The central question to be addressed is whether ornot the rental market can remedy the problems of the rental sector? Federal housingpolices, characterized by market-welfare and social-welfare initiatives, will be explored.It is expected that the latter approach will be the most adequate in terms of providingdirect housing supply and achieving long term affordability for lone parent families.A final note deals with housing policies as they relate to low income families.Since the majority of lone parent families are generally located in the lower incomecategories, many of the findings in this section should also be applicable. Reference to49specific issues linking lone parent families with local and federal policies, however, willbe made wherever possible.5.1 Implementation of AlternativesDespite concerted efforts by interest groups to devise housing options andcommunity alternatives for lone parent families (and other non-traditional family types),there is still concern that such proposals are not being implemented on a large enoughscale. The inability to implement such alternatives seems to be the most pressing issuewhen talking about lone parent families, and the one which policy makers are constantlyforced to confront.Lack of implementation is due, in large part, to the nature of housing supplywithin this country. In Canada housing is overwhelmingly viewed as a marketcommodity and largely provided through the private sector. Of course, the Canadiangovernment's strict belief that housing construction be left to the private sector is by nomeans without merit. The private housing sector in Canada has produced a nation which,today, is better housed than ever before; Canada is arguably the best housed nation in theworld.47 Despite the proven success of the private housing sector, there is still aperception that it has fallen short in meeting the housing needs of the truly needy: lowand moderate income Canadians. This is reflected by an overall lack of affordablehousing throughout the country.In the Greater Vancouver area, for example, the availability of houses forpurchase at the low end of the market is limited, if not out of reach for many low andmoderate income families. As of 1990, the lowest entry level price for a single detachedhome or a multi-family housing unit was $137,000 (Langley) and $93,000 (PortCoquitlam), respectively. Correspondingly, the minimum annual income required topurchase either types of housing was $61,662 and $42,807. (Housing affordability isbased on minimum annual income required to afford payments of 30% of annual income,assuming a 20% down payment, 25 year amortization, 13% mortgage rate, and50estimation of insurance and property taxes). 48 In 1986 the average male and female loneparent family income, however, was $35,157 and $20,605, respectively (See Chapter 3).This is well below the figure required to enter either the single family or multi-familyhousing market. The home ownership option is simply out of reach for many lone parentfamilies given the current market situation.The availability of family rental market housing at the low and moderate end ofthe rental scale is also becoming a limited option for many such families. As of April1990, a two bedroom apartment in the Lower Mainland rented for $723 a month. 49Based on this figure the average female lone parent family would be required to pay$8,676 or 42% of its total family income for one year to secure adequate shelter. Thisfigure is well above the 30% housing affordability limit used by CMHC. (CMHC defineshouseholds who suffer from serious affordability problems as those who have theirseparate, adequate, and suitable dwelling unit, but who are not in a position to exercisedemand for this unit at 30% or less of their income.50) Affordability in the rental sectoris further exacerbated by a tight rental market. As of April 1990, the apartment vacancyrate for the Greater Vancouver Region, for example, was only 0.9%.51 Limited supply,coupled with the expected growth of low income groups in the rental sector, is likely tocontribute to pushing up market rents in the future.The above discussion reveals why, in fact, lone parent family housing needs arenot being adequately met within suburbia - the lone parent family, because of its limitedincome, simply cannot generate effective demand within the private market place.Developers are unable to develop housing for an income group which is unable to pay thenecessary market prices or rents. The private housing market, therefore, left to its owndevices, would simply be unable to meet the needs of the lowest income groups. Publicsector agencies at the local, provincial, and federal level have recognized this fact and,accordingly, have often intervened with various market and social assistance policies tohelp provide housing supply at affordable prices for such low income groups. The51success of such policies and the exploration of other alternatives is something that iscontinually being debated amongst policy analysts. With this in mind, the remainder ofthis discussion is devoted to a similar debate. The analysis and critique will be focussedat the local and federal level. The effectiveness of public policy intervention,characterized by local zoning policies and federal housing policies in meeting thehousing needs of low income groups will be reviewed and evaluated. In each case theaim of the analysis will be to focus on problems with existing policy and identify wherenew solutions can be tried.5.2 Local Level: Public Policy Alternatives At the local level, existing zoning policies and building by-laws have been widelycriticized by both social housing advocates and developers alike for effectively restrictingentry to a number of socioeconomic groups to both the owner occupied and rentalhousing markets (The Urban Development Institute (UDI), 1990; Keller, 1981; Fava,1981; Gurstein & Hood, 1975). Part of the problem seems to be linked to a misfitbetween traditional zoning polices and contemporary social constructs. Evidencesuggests that municipal zoning by-laws and building regulations have not changedaccordingly to reflect contemporary demographic trends. Research from the GreaterVancouver area, for example, reveals that between 1951 and 1986 the number of singleperson households increased by 850% from 17,377 to 146,809. Today, such householdsrepresent 30% of all households, whereas in 1951 they represented only 10%.52 Similartrends, although not as pronounced, can be observed for other household types such aslone parents and empty nesters (Klowdawsky et. al., 1987; Burch, 1984; Eichler, 1983).In all cases the trend towards smaller, non-traditional households is expected to continue.The Urban Developments Institute (UDI), for example, estimates that one to two personhouseholds, which include seniors, core needy, and lone parents, will form about 75% ofhousing demand over the following ten years (UDI, 1990).52Despite the tendencies toward smaller households and subsequent demand forsmaller housing units, the average size of new home construction has continued toincrease. This is largely due to an inherent bias in municipal zoning and building by-laws which disproportionately favours the construction of large homes on large lots.Large lot zoning, in fact, is blamed by the development industry for having aninflationary impact on the housing market. In most cases existing polices encourage theconstruction of large homes which exceed the needs and affordability of the smallerhouseholds involved. (The average size of a home in the Lower Mainland is about 2,000square feet). The result is that these smaller households are often excluded from suchcommunities. A more equitable and appropriate zoning policy which recognizes theneeds of non-traditional households as well as those of traditional households should beactively pursued.In light of these views, the aim in the next section will be to evaluate existingzoning policies and identify a series of options which will facilitate the construction ofsmaller, compact, denser, and moderately priced homes. In most cases, the optionspresented focus on increasing affordability by allowing for the construction of smallerdwellings, integrated developments, and intensification of developable land.5.2.1 Development Cost Charges The provision of infrastructure such as roads, curbs, water connections, and sewerconnections, is a substantial development cost of any suburban development. The cost ofproviding such services is ultimately transferred to the consumer. As such, concernshave been raised by the development industry as to whether development cost charges(DCC's) are, in fact, being levied on an equitable basis. DCC's in the majority of LowerMainland municipalities are charged on a per unit basis. Each unit is assessed the sameDCC regardless of its size. This means that a smaller dwelling unit must carry a higherDCC (on a square foot basis) than a larger unit. An $8,000 DCC, for example, willrequire a 9.1% increase in income to purchase an $80,000 unit, while a 2.5% increase in53income will be required to purchase a $350,000 unit.53 (Annual income required to payfor an additional $8,000 is based on financial assumptions of a 25% down payment, 25year amortization, and 13% mortgage rates plus estimates for insurance and propertytaxes.) Therefore, to ensure more equity and affordability for households purchasingsmaller units, it is recommended that DCC's be charged on a square foot rather than a perunit basis.5.2.2 Single Family ZoningFrom an economic perspective, the single family neighborhood represents one ofthe more inefficient uses of developable land, particularly when considering the needs oflone parents, seniors, and the core-needy. The smallest lot allowed in the GVRD, forexample, is 3,000 feet and results in a minimum house size of approximately 1500 squarefeet (In almost all cases the maximum square footage available is developed.) Also, thesite coverage in most municipalities can be no greater than 40%. Finally, single familyzoning accounts for approximately 70% of the developable land area in Lower Mainlandsuburban municipalities.54 All these factors combined act to limit housing supply andaffordability and discourage the development of alternative, compact, and integratedhousing. To achieve more affordable and adequate housing more intensive use of singlefamily lots is needed, at least in some designated areas (Calthorpe, 1990; Franck, 1985;Hayden, 1984). Municipalities, for example, could make more efficient use of land bypermitting conversion to duplex, triplex, and cluster housing; increasing allowable sitecoverage; reviewing secondary suite policies; and exploring alternative design schemessuch as thin houses, infill house, granny flats, and zero lot line housing. The intensifieduse of single family lots is likely to result in higher densities, less urban sprawl, morediversity, and, therefore, more choice when selecting a home. Mixed use, residentialzoning, should result in the creation of communities which cater to a variety of familytypes rather than just a limited few. The selection of areas where changes can occur,however, must be carried out with sensitivity. Such changes should be proposed in areas54where the interface between older established neighborhoods is minimized (Vischer,1987). Attention should be given to edges between existing single family neighborhoodsand higher density residential zones (e.g. duplex, triplex, or multi-family areas) In allcases, planners should accommodate such change carefully and resourcefully ensuringthat the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods can be retained whenever possible.5.23 CompactnessIn many municipalities the compactness of residential development is inhibited bya variety of factors. Large lot zoning is certainly one factor; its contribution to urbansprawl is self-evident. There are, however, other contributing factors which may not beas obvious and, therefore, deserve greater attention.5.2.3.1 Zoning Density Calculations In some municipalities (Surrey, Langley, Burnaby, and the City of NorthVancouver) the development of denser housing is constrained by the fact that density isgranted on a per unit per acre basis instead of a floor space ratio basis. Surrey, forexample, through "Compact House" zoning encourages development of smaller lots incases where residential development threatens environmentally sensitive areas. TheCompact Housing Zone, when used, allows for the establishment of relatively smallerlots 3,000 square feet in size; however, the maximum density requirement that no morethan 6 lots per acre be developed, effectively cancels out the benefits of such a zone.55Developers in this case would be required to subdivide 6 lots (per acre) over 6,000 squarefeet each and build houses up to 3, 600 square feet (based on an FSR of 0.6) on eachrespective lot. An increasingly smaller percentage of households in the 1990's, however,will require dwelling accommodations which are larger than 1,000 square feet in size.With this in mind, it is recommended that zoning be granted on an FSR basis rather thana unit/lot per acre basis. The City of North Vancouver is currently updating its 1980Official Community Plan to introduce such a change. The current method of unit/acrecontrol would be replaced by a floor space ratio limitation. Under the proposed changes55a 10,000 square foot lot based on an FSR of 1.0 would be limited to 10,000 square feet ofbuildable area rather than a maximum of six units per acre.56 Again, the change wouldregulate the size of a development, but not the number of units. The change is intendedto encourage smaller and more affordable units.5.23.2 Floor Space Ratio Calculation In many municipalities the number of allowable units is also restricted by floorspace ratio calculations. The permitted building size in many multi-family developmentsincludes common areas and facilities such as recreation rooms, recycling rooms, storageareas, and workshops in the calculation. The effect of excluding such areas from FSRcalculations would encourage first, the availability of more allowable floor space formore units within a site; and second, the development of common recreational, recycling,storage, and work areas. Such a policy would act to facilitate the transference offunctions within the household to common areas outside the household. The policywould result in the reduction of time and energy constraints for domestic responsibilitiesand create opportunities for parents to participate in other social or employment relatedactivities. More shared facilities and services within residential development would alsoact to strengthen community by encouraging the development of social support networksrequired by such groups. Common areas such as kitchens and laundries and designfeatures such as shared pathways and play spaces, for example, would increaseopportunities for social interaction, friendships, and other group activities. Finally, thesharing of facilities would also result in the sharing of costs, thereby increasingaffordability of individual housing units (See Chapter 4- Cohousing).5.2.3.3 Parking RequirementsAnother substantial restriction on the production of smaller, affordable housingunits is that of municipal parking requirements. In many of the suburban municipalities,for example, 1.75 to 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling are required, regardless of the sizeof the dwelling unit. A 650 square foot apartment unit, therefore, requires the same56number of parking spaces as 2,600 square foot unit. Given that the approximate cost of aparking space is $10,000 to $15,000, a consumer of a smaller unit of housing would berequired to pay proportionately more (about 15%) than a consumer of a larger unit. 57Parking spaces, therefore, should be apportioned according to the size of the unit, witheach unit having a minimum of one parking space. A recent UDI report suggests thatparking requirements for residential buildings located along rapid transit routes couldalso be reduced considerably to about 0.6 parking spaces per 650 sq. ft. and 0.2 spacesfor visitor parking. This proposal, of course, is based on the assumption that higherdensity, residential and office projects near rapid transit tend to generate fewer drivingtrips and more public transit use (Cervero, 1984). Although the thought of reducingprivate auto use by reducing parking requirements has some positive intentions, it shouldbe approached with caution. Consumers, even low and income earners such as loneparents, are still accustomed to private mobility and will make great sacrifices to obtainand maintain it. Consequently, planners should view even the most modest parkingrelaxations with caution. Only in cases where developments are near downtown areas orhighly concentrated suburban nodes near rapid transit should such proposals beconsidered, and even then reductions should be on the conservative side.5.2.4 Public Awareness With such changes being proposed, it is expected that existing residents,particularly homeowners, will view them with skepticism and uneasiness. Often policiesaimed at creating affordable and moderate priced housing are automatically linked tolower income groups. This is true to some extent, largely because discriminationprocesses in society have led to the ghettoization of low income groups within suchdevelopments. Amendments to local policy of the nature being proposed, of course, donot guarantee that the ghettoization process will diminish; however, planners can help toalleviate the process by educating the public about the positive and innovative housingand community developments that such polices could facilitate. Planners have a moral57responsibility to at least offer such an alternative vision to the larger public. Communityacceptance of denser, integrated, and alternative developments, for example, could bemade easier through public information meetings; participatory planning practices;community workshops; and the local media. The public process would be useful inraising public awareness and breaking down the stigmas and misconceptions that existabout non-traditional housing developments. Community acceptance would also begained through the implementation of a series of pilot projects. Such projects wouldproduce results immediately; the unforeseen deficiencies that arise would be identified;and the lessons learned could be used in implementing future projects. In each caseplanners will need to stress the positive social, economic, and environmental aspects thatsuch polices would facilitate.5.2.5 Summary: Local Level Alternatives Solutions to the provision of more affordable housing are never easy. Proponentsof affordable housing have indicated that they would like to build new forms of housing,including innovative, moderately priced, compact developments. Unfortunately, currentzoning policies and building by-laws effectively restrict the development of such housingalternatives. Before the construction of alternative and more affordable housing can beimplemented on a larger scale, changes must take place at the local level. Zoning andhousing polices which encourage smaller units, denser development, integrated commonfacilities, and lower priced housing should be actively pursued. Such policy changescould result in the construction of condominium units at an estimated cost of $20,000 lessthan those being constructed under current by-laws.58 The reduction of costs would beattributable to increased availability of urban land, more efficient zoning and buildingregulations, and more equitable municipal levies and cost charges. Even such areduction, however, would still be inadequate in terms of achieving housing affordabilityfor lower income groups such as lone parent families. Many of the options outlined inthis section do not directly address the issue of long term affordable rental housing for58lower income groups. Instead, the majority of initiatives are characteristic of marketassisted polices designed to assist in the immediate supply of private occupied housingthrough private sector investment. Such policies do not guarantee that the supply of newhousing will be targeted to low income groups. Instead, they are founded on a belief thataffordable housing will be provided through the process of filtering. Unfortunately, thefiltering process has not guaranteed affordable housing supply to such groups in the past.While such policies do help to stimulate the private market and facilitate the constructionof innovative and alternative forms of housing development, there is still some questionas to whether they can address the housing affordability needs of low income familiestraditionally found in the rental housing sector.5.3 Federal Level: Public Policy Alternatives5.3.1 The Rental Housing SectorThe debate over the success of market assisted policies in meeting the housingsupply and affordability needs of low income groups, while evident at the local level, hasbeen largely focussed at the national level. Traditionally, Canadian policy makers havedisproportionately favoured housing policies which focus on home ownership assistanceprograms to middle income households. While the success of such policies isundeniable, the federal government's rigid commitment to the promotion of homeownership assistance policies has caused relatively little attention to be given to the rentalsector. Recent trends, however, suggest that the rental sector is where policy makers willhave to focus their attention in the future. There is, for example, a nation wide trendtowards renting and away from home ownership. An increasing proportion of lowincome groups are becoming renters. The proportion of renters who pay more than 30%of their net income is now more than 27%.59 Lone parents and the elderly, because oftheir fixed, inadequate, and interruptible income, tend to be the most vulnerable. Theconcentration of low income groups such as lone parent families in the rental sector and59the exodus of high income groups into the owner occupied sector is causing considerableproblems in the functioning of residential markets.5.3.2 The Rental Market The supply of rental housing is one of the predominant issues facing Canadian policymakers today.60 The root of the rental housing problem is linked to the ever increasinggaps, since the 1970's, between affordable rents and market rents and between marketrents and financial recovery rents. (Briefly, "affordable rent" refers to some subjectivelevel which households do not have a problem paying. "Market rent" refers to theprivate market determined price of a rental unit and "financial recovery rent" refers tothe rent level necessary to make new construction possible in the absence of governmentsupply subsidies.6 1 ) As gaps between rents continue to increase, low income earners(such as lone parents) are no longer able to pay and high income earners are no longerwilling to pay the increased rents. During the early 1970's, for example, vacancy rateswere high, and the need to compete for tenants kept market and economic rents down.Gaps between affordable and market rents and between market and financial recoveryrents were minimal. Both high and low income earners were willing and able to pay thenecessary rents needed for the market to function efficiently. Increasing constructioncosts, inflating land prices, and escalating interest rates, however, precipitated an everincreasing disparity between market rents, affordable rents, and financial recovery rents(see Example below).62 Market rents became so extraordinarily high that tenants wereno longer willing or able to pay, yet they were still not high enough for developers toinvest and profit. High income earners, whom developers traditionally relied upon tostimulate demand, found it more profitable to become homeowners and have sincedropped out of the rental market. (The government's successful home ownershipassistance policies may have effectively contributed to the removal of many higherincome renters who were able to pay the necessary financial recovery rents from therental market.) Further, developers, who because of high financial recovery costs could60only provide rental units with rents far in excess of those which the market could beasked to bear, have also left the market. As a result, the rental sector has increasinglybecome a residual one containing a large percentage of low and moderate incomehouseholds no longer able to pay increased market rents.63Figure 9: Market Housing Rents: Early 1970's and 1980'sEarly 1970's Financial Rents$210.00FR1MR, then, builders will buildMarket Rents$200.00MRAR, then, renters will rentAffordable Rents$190.00Early 1980's •Financial Rents$900.00FR>MR, then, builders will not buildMarket Rents$500.00MR>AR, then, renters will not rentAffordable Rents$300.00To summarize, The tenant population, as late as 1967, was fairly equallydistributed with respect to income; however, socioeconomic restructuring trends in the1970's and 80's have drastically altered its profile. Higher income earners have takenadvantage of home ownership, while the rest remain confined to the rental sector (SeeAppendix-Table 4 and 5). The increasing cost pressure of providing rentalaccommodation and the low income profile of renters has resulted in a stagnant andinefficient rental market. The market's inability to serve the housing needs of low11■011b•■•••61income Canadians is at the root of the housing affordability problem in Canada andpresents the greatest challenge to policy makers.5.3.3 Market-Welfare Initiatives Rental market inefficiencies have not gone unnoticed by the federal government.Various initiatives have been introduced, as early as 1974, to address the problem ofdeclining housing starts in the rental sector. In formulating policy, one of thegovernment's central assumptions is that the rental sector problem is a temporaryabnormality in the functioning of the private rental market. Another assumption is thatthe problem of the rental sector is not so much a failure of the market mechanism butrather it is a failure of government policy to allow the market mechanism to functionproperly. "The private rental market would provide rental housing if government policycould create the right conditions".64 Federal government policy in the rental sector, byand large, has adhered to these two assumptions. The majority of policy initiatives arecharacterized by short term solutions designed to assist in the immediate supply ofhousing through private sector investment. Despite these interventions, however, thecontinued documentation of rental housing problems suggest that market-welfare policiesare not working properly. Not only have these programs failed to benefit those most inneed, but they have contributed minimally to the nation's permanent stock of affordablerental housing; such initiatives may actually be contributing to the loss of affordablerental housing stock. Often, building sites for new rental development (stimulated byprivate rental subsidy programs) have become available only through the demolition ofexisting rental buildings. Also rental units, once built, do not remain in the rental sectorvery long. Many units, for example, are lost to conversion and subsequent resale on theprivate market. A review of one such policy - the Multiple Urban Residential Housingprogram (MURB) should serve to further highlight the ineffectiveness of such polices.625.3.3.1 Supply-Side Polices While the structure and particulars of rental supply programs differ, one trend canbe identified. Rental housing policies, such as MURB, represent a supply-side, market-welfare approach. Housing policy is directed towards subsidizing private investors, eitherdirectly or indirectly, through the tax system, in hopes that their investment willeventually trickle down to the "truly needy".65 The success of these programs rests onthe premise that the creation of high priced rental units will appeal to higher incomehouseholds. As these households opt for newer units, each successively lower incomeclass will occupy the latter's dwelling. The process should, in theory, lead to downwardfiltering and provide affordable housing for the lowest income classes. A declining rentalhousing stock, since 1970, however, indicates that the theory does not necessarily workin practice. In fact, there is little evidence to suggest that supply-side, market-welfareapproach directly benefits low and moderate income families.MURB, for example, implemented in 1974, was a housing tax expenditureprogram. It was designed to respond to the dramatic decrease in housing starts occurringin the rental sector. In effect, MURB was a tax shelter which allowed investors, mainlyupper income earners, to shelter income from other sources by claiming it against rentallosses from MURB units.66 In actuality, government revenues from MURBs wereforegone in return for private sector investment in rental housing. The use of housingrelated tax expenditures, such as MURB, has appealed to politicians because the realcosts of the program are hidden and difficult to calculate; no direct spending isinvolved.67 Only recently have the financial cost and effectiveness of the programbegun to be understood. Recent estimates indicate that MURB, in its eight years ofperiodic operation since 1974, has cost the federal government over one billion dollars inindirect tax subsidies and over 500 million dollars in foregone provincial revenues.68 Inaddition, it has not been entirely effective in realizing affordability and in increasingrental supply over the long term. Most MURB units rent at the higher end of the market63and were constructed on sites where affordable units were demolished. Further, themajority of units are registered as condominiums and strata title suites to permit easyconversion and sale to individual owners once the lease agreement with CMHCexpires.69 Not only have conversions contributed to further reduce rental housing supply,but they have also undermined the filtering mechanism upon which lower incomehouseholds depend for the supply of affordable housing.In short, supply-side, market-welfare polices (such as MURB), have proven verycostly and contributed minimally to the country's affordable housing stock. Such policesare actually contributing to the erosion of affordable housing stock. Part of the problemrelates to deficiencies in the actual policy design. Such polices simply do not addressissues of allocation, equity, or tenure. The criterion of success is the number of new unitsprovided. Questions about who gets what type and quality of housing and at whatpercentage of their income are simply not taken into consideration. Questions abouthow rental housing units once built can be retained and preserved within the rental sectorare equally overlooked. The preoccupation of government seems to be with issues ofhousing supply rather than distribution and preservation.5.3.3.2 Demand-Side SubsidiesThe relative ineffectiveness of supply-side policies in serving the truly needy hascaused policy makers to turn their focus to demand-side subsidies. Unlike supply-sidesubsidies which are directed at private investors, demand-side subsidies can be targetedto those most in need. The provision of a demand-side subsidy to these groups isintended to cover the gap between market and economic rents. The ability to pay thenecessary rents should, in theory, attract developers back to the rental market.Shelter allowances, a conventional type of demand-side subsidy, have received agreat deal of attention in recent years. Because shelter allowances are being seriouslyconsidered as a central component of future Canadian housing policy, it is important tounderstand how they work, as well as their strengths and weakness.64Briefly, shelter allowances are defined by CMHC as "direct cash transfers maderegularly to households or individuals to enable them to afford adequate housing of theirown choice from existing stock. The amount of allowance is based on income andhousing costs, and is used solely for meeting these costs in their present housing unit".70Shelter allowances are designed with two main objectives in mind. First, they are beingproposed as an alternative to rent controls. Advocates of the market- welfare approach,for example, indicate that a rent control free market would allow current market rents torise to economic levels. Second, they are aimed at bridging the gap which currentlyexists between market and financial recovery rents.71 This would effectively subsidizethat portion of market rent which renters are no longer willing or able to pay. Largeinstitutions such as the Economic Council of Canada and the housing industry itselfseem to concur with these two objectives. According to the Economic Council, higherrents across the board would encourage private builders to increase the supply of rentalhousing, while a shelter allowance program would cushion the impact on low incomerenters by giving them extra money to pass on to their landlords 7 2 By increasing marketrents the private rental market would once again be profitable for developers, whileshelter allowances would cover the gap between rising rents and the ability to pay.Shelter allowances, unlike supply-side subsidies, are not housing supply programsnor do they directly assist in the construction of new rental units. Although they are stillcharacteristic of a market-welfare approach, they do appear to be more advantageousthan conventional supply-side subsidies. Shelter allowances, for instance, can be directlytargeted to provide equitable assistance to all eligible households, particularly the "trulyneedy". They are also portable in the sense that they remain with the household when thehousehold decides to move. The household is subsidized and not the housing unit.73This contrasts with the market-welfare, supply-side approach, which offers indirect anddirect subsidies to private investors in the hopes that rental investment will ultimatelyfilter downward and benefit lower and moderate income households.65An initial overview suggests that a market-welfare, demand-side approach wouldbe a more viable solution to the rental housing supply and affordability problem. Thesuccess of a national shelter allowance program, however, depends on the existence ofhigh vacancy rates. Because shelter allowances directly stimtilate demand rather thansupply, they allow a larger proportion of the population to compete for rental units 7 4Unfortunately, they are being proposed in a sub-market in which few vacancies exist andin which there is minimal new affordable rental housing being built. In the short term,the inability of limited supply to meet immediate demand may lead to inflationary rents.Assuming there are no subsidy limits, tenants would be protected, but at an enormouscost to the average citizen.75 The inflationary spiral means that shelter allowanceswould have to rise proportionately to keep pace with increasing rents. Market-welfarecritics argue that such a program would take on the form of a transfer payment fromtenants to landlords at the public's expense. It is unlikely that the government would optfor a shelter allowance program which is directly tied into inflation.5.3.4 Social-Welfare Initiatives Some policy makers argue that an alternative and less costly means to achievinglong term supply and affordability for low income groups is possible through a social-welfare or non-market approach. The essential difference between a social-welfare andmarket-welfare approach, is that the former seeks to link housing supply with landtenure, whereas the latter is concerned only with housing supply in the short term. Theremoval of land from the market, in an effort to ensure long term supply andaffordability, is the central element underlying social housing programs in Canada.76Management and ownership of land is usually held in the common interest by either, aprivate or publicly owned non-profit organization, or by a co-operative organization.5.3.4.1 Non -Profit and Cooperative HousingUntil now, most Canadian social-welfare housing initiatives have been in theform of non-profit and cooperative rental programs. They represent the only form of66direct rental housing supply benefitting households with affordability problems.Approximately 80% of residents in non-profit and coop housing, for example, are lowand moderate income households.77While social housing programs have contributed to increasing the stock ofaffordable housing, their impact has still been relatively minimal. The major problemwith social housing programs is their relative size. Non-market housing, characterized bypublic housing, rent supplement, non-profit, and coop housing makes up only 4% ofCanada's existing housing stock.78 The small size of the non-market sector, of course, isa result of the relatively disproportionate funding, which traditionally favours market-welfare initiatives. In 1982 alone, CMHC grants, loans, and subsidies to market-welfareinitiatives amounted to $885.8 million, surpassing the amount of $747.7 million providedto social housing initiatives. These figures represented only direct expenditures for 1982;they do not take into account the 150 million dollars lost in foregone tax revenues fromthe MURB program alone in that same year.79Many conservative interests, which often cite the high cost of social housing andthe tremendous drain on the federal budget, however, tend to overlook the relative size ofindirect housing expenditures and subsidies. In reality, indirect private sector subsidiesare two to three times greater than direct spending programs on housing. Funding forsocial-welfare programs is estimated to be about 1/3 that of market-welfare programs(See Appendix-Table 6).80 This is reflected by a 1982 Auditor General report, whichestimates for every $100 in direct housing expenditures, $200 to $300 dollars are spentthrough indirect housing tax expenditures in the form of indirect tax subsidies to privatebuilders. In most other sectors (such as health and education) indirect spending in theform of tax subsidies is 20% to 50% less than direct expenditures.81Apart from limited funding, the erosion of affordable rental housing stock(through demolition and conversion) is an even more problematic issue within the socialhousing sector. There is no question that federal housing policies, be they market-welfare67or social-welfare initiatives, do help to create new housing supply. The effectiveness ofmarket-welfare vs social-welfare initiatives in meeting the needs of low income familieswill most certainly remain a point for debate. The ability of federal housing policy toaddress issues of land tenure, however, is an equally important point for debate, whichuntil now has received little attention. Unfortunately, it is this disregard for land tenureconsiderations by federal policy makers that continues to undermine the success of eventhe most well intentioned housing supply policies.Existing government housing policy does little to address issues of land tenureand long term affordability. There is no guarantee, for example, that new rental housing(supplied through either market-welfare or social-welfare initiatives) will remain in therental sector for any indefinite period once constructed. The problem is a result oflimitations in the design of housing policy. In none of the alternatives examined so fardoes government policy pay attention to urban land issues. The question of who the finalowner of the land will be in the various private, public, and non-profit subsidy programsis never addressed. The assumption, of course, is that the land component will revertback to the private market once the agreement with CMHC is over. In effect, thegovernment's disregard for land issues in housing policy actually undermines any longterm social benefits resulting from its huge annual investment in the non-profit sector.In the case of CMHC funded coop developments, for example, the groupacquiring the land is bound by the rules and regulations under the lease agreement withCMHC regarding the disposition, acquisition, and transference of land. Under thisagreement, CMHC, in accordance with the principles of housing cooperatives (seeAppendix-Figure 10) ensures that both individual and community interests are protected.The essential component of all such agreements is that the central investment, land, beretained by the community for the common good. Under the majority of CMHC leases,the owners of the land, (usually coop and non-profit organizations) are restricted fromputting the land up for sale on the market place. Such restrictions, however, do not apply68with regard to the period after the agreement with CMHC expires or the mortgage is paid.The group owning the coop and its land are free to do as they wish. They could, intheory, strata title individual units, and sell them off in the private market place ascondominiums. There are also occurrences during the lease agreement itself that couldresult in the loss of land to the private market. A coop could, for example, default on itsmortgage, or on its property taxes, and the lands and buildings would then revert back toCMHC; a coop organization could obtain permission from CMHC to sell the land andbuildings and distribute the proceeds among themselves; or a coop's buildings coulddeteriorate to the point where the units were not fit for housing and the funds would notbe available to rehabilitate them.82Whatever the reason, it is clear that there are no guarantees that housing, once inthe rental sector, will remain there for any extended period. Again, the Federalgovernment, in the delivery of housing programs, has only been concerned withimmediate supply instead of paying more attention to who the final owners of the landwill be. Both the individual and community legacy associated with coop and non-profithousing is protected only in the initial phases of construction and short term occupancyphases following. The ability to keep rental housing in the rental sector for an extendedperiod is, in fact, the more important issue which policy makers should be addressing.5.3.4.2 Community Land Trusts The idea of preserving affordable rental housing has given rise within the socialhousing sector to the exploration of initiatives designed to protect the non-market statusof cooperatively owned land. The notion of a community land trust represents, perhaps,one of the more popular social-welfare initiatives to date. Because it is seriously beingconsidered as a federal housing policy option, it is important to understand its underlyingprinciples, as well as its strengths and limitations.Basically, a community land trust is a "non-profit organization controlled by localcommunity residents whose purpose is to act as stewards of any land it owns on behalf of69current and future residents of the community.83 In effect, it is a land holdingmechanism whose basic goal is to protect the needs and aspirations of the individualwithin the community, and the interests of the community as a whole. Many of theprinciples associated with land trusts are also closely related to those underlyingalternative housing developments such as cohousing and congregate housing mentionedearlier in this discussion. They are also characteristic of the non-profit, non-marketprinciples which have traditionally guided the continuing development of the coophousing sector in Canada. The majority of land trusts, for example, contain policiespertaining to individual and community interests. Individual interests are ensuredthrough policies that guarantee residents security, individual legacy, and access to earnedequity. Conversely, community interests are ensured through polices that guarantee thelocal population community access, community equity, and community legacy (A briefsummary of what is meant by such terms, and policies adopted by land trusts to achievesuch interests is offered in the Appendix-Figure 10.).The functioning of a land trust is very straightforward. The land trust, a non-governmental organization, would own the land, and the housing development wouldlease the land.84 Land, which represents the central element of the investment, would beheld in the common interest of the users, while housing units would be provided forimmediate use. The arrangement is very similar to that in which cooperative or non-profit organizations enter into with CMHC. The only fundamental difference between aland trust approach and the lease agreement approach outlined earlier is that the formerwould ensure that land, more specifically, the cooperative land holding mechanismwould be held in perpetuity. Since, in theory, there is no lease, or the lease isautomatically renewed upon expiry, there is little chance that the land component willrevert back to the market in the short term. The land trust would effectively ensure thelong term continuance of this type of land tenure.70The idea of controlling land tenure represents only one of the primary functionsof a community land trust. A trust for non-profit and coop housing could also play amore active role combining both land holding functions with financial savings and loanfunctions. Adopting these new roles, the land trust could then assist coops in financialtrouble and aid in the continued expansion of the coop housing sector. A land trust, forexample, could actively pursue financing strategies (such as loan financing, pensionfunds, donations, reverse annuities and possibly others) to assist in the acquisition ofcapital or land. The trust could then use the acquired capital or land to gain furtheraccess to other land. The accumulation of capital could also be reinvested in thecontinued development of the coop movement itself. Resources, for example could bedirected towards marketing strategies, lobbying efforts, and informations campaigns.Repair and rehabilitation of existing developments is another possible area forintervention.To summarize, the function of a community land trust can be very limited andpassive; however, a community land trust which plays a more active role, particularly inthe acquisition of capital or land, would be more beneficial in furthering thedevelopment and expansion of the cause it is serving. Although the impact on immediatesupply and land acquisition available through a housing land trust is projected to beminimal in the short term, in the long run the trust would become large enough toaccumulate enough financial resources to assist in the purchase and holding of land forsocial housing development (Hulchanski, 1983). The implementation of a communityland trust program is complex and the benefits are not immediately realized; however,given a chance, a land trust could eventually contribute to increasing rental housing stockand long term affordability. The basic recommendation, therefore, is that CanadianFederal housing Policy not be treated separate from land policy considerations. The firstbasic step would be to integrate land policy with social housing policy. A communityland trust represents a viable mechanism designed to make this linkage. Such a71mechanism will act to ensure that affordable rental units once in the rental sector willremain there and be affordable in the long term. In effect, a land trust would work toprovide long term social gains and a positive return on the huge annual investment madeby government in the rental sector.The idea of a national land trust system for non-profit and coop housing is stillrelatively new to North America. In fact, the Canadian experience with the land trustsystem is even more limited than in the United States. The land trust experience inCanada, for example, is limited to the Province of B.C. The two major trusts identifiedare the Turtle Island Stewardship Society and the National Second Century Fund ofBritish Columbia. (The former is a land conservancy and the latter is an ecologicalpreserve.) The reason for the limited size of the land trust organizations is partly due tolimited funding. Community land trusts, like the majority of other community and non-profit housing agencies, do not have access to large amounts of capital to acquire land.In fact, raising capital is the area in which land trust organizations have had the mostdifficulty. Such groups have traditionally relied on conventional loan financing,donations, grants, and increasingly so, on federal funding. The most recent reliance onfederal funding is especially problematic, given the tendency of government to withdrawfrom market interventions. The resistance by government to directly fund housingprograms, of course, is the result of a long held view that the private sector should besolely responsible for housing supply and program delivery.5.3.5 Summary: Federal Level AlternativesEven with such recommendations, it is expected that politicians will continue toshy away from directly subsidizing co-op and non-market housing; nor will they readilypursue the development of a community land trust system. There are a variety of reasonsfor this position. First, social housing policy contradicts the marketplace ethos that hasconsistently shaped federal housing efforts since the Dominion Housing Act of 1935.Politicians fear that investors and the housing industry itself, may view these social72programs as competing with their potential market. Second, politicians are reluctant toadopt more social housing initiatives because of their perceived high costs andtremendous drain on the federal budget. In reality, market-welfare subsidies in the 1970'sand 80's have been much larger than non- profit and co-op housing. Some estimatesplace market- welfare subsidies at almost three times the level of social-welfaresubsidies. The hidden nature of indirect market-welfare subsidies, however, makes themmore politically prudent. Finally, social housing policies are designed to achieve longterm housing affordability and supply. The short term nature of political agendasrequires quick, effective, result-oriented responses. Market-welfare policies are betterdesigned to meet this objective.An analysis of the political context in which social- welfare policies are beingadvocated leads one to believe that federal housing policy will not stray far from itstraditional course in the future. If viable alternatives to traditional federal housingpolicies are to be pursued, it is important for policy makers to understand the context inwhich current market-welfare policies are being proposed. Changing macro-economicand social conditions have created a situation in the rental sector in which market forcescan no longer respond; yet the logic of housing as a commodity has continued to insiston policies which revolve around a market-welfare approach. In fact, the government'srigid commitment to market-welfare initiatives has proven very costly and has beenineffective in providing long term affordable housing; it may actually be contributing tothe rental housing problem. Perhaps it is time for federal policy makers to realize whatdevelopers realized a while ago: it is no longer profitable to build private rentalaccommodation. The gap between market rents and financial recovery rents, and theunwillingness and inability to pay for current rents, is a reality which will not soondisappear. Perhaps it is time to consider a comprehensive social-welfare approach tohousing policy at the federal level, at least for lower and moderate income Canadianfamilies.735.5 SummaryLone parent families, and other low income groups, because of incomeconstraints, simply cannot register effective market demand. The private sector left to itsown devices is unable to meet the housing needs of these low income groups. In fact, thesupply of housing to low income groups is one of the key challenges facing policymakers today.A review of local policy suggests that existing zoning by-laws and buildingregulations may also be inhibiting the construction of smaller, integrated, alternativehousing developments for such low income groups. Despite changing householdstructure and needs, existing policies still favour the construction of large detachedhomes on large lots, especially in suburban areas. Proposed amendments to local by-laws, however, could facilitate the creation of a development environment that is moresensitive to the housing needs of non-traditional households. To create such anenvironment, it is recommended that changes be implemented in areas such asdevelopment cost charges, single family zoning, zoning density calculations, floor spaceratio calculations, and parking requirements. A more vigorous public information policyshould also be pursued. Such amendments and initiatives should ultimately lead to amore flexible zoning policy which recognizes principles of choice, household diversity,and equity.While such changes at the local level are a step in the right direction, they are stillcharacteristic of market- assisted policies. There is no guarantee that any housing supplygenerated from such policies will be allocated to low income groups such as lone parentfamilies. It is well documented at the federal level that market-welfare welfare initiativesin the rental sector do not directly benefit low income groups; social-welfare polices, onthe other hand, do benefit such groups. Consequently, it may be time to seriouslyconsider a social-welfare approach to housing supply, at least within this particularhousing sub-market. Social-welfare initiatives in the form of non-profit housing and74coop housing will likely form the basis for direct, affordable, housing supply to such lowincome groups. The shift to a social-welfare approach for low income families, however,is not sufficient enough. Such policies need to look beyond issues of supply and alsotake into account issues of land tenure. The question of how to preserve rental housingonce in the rental sector should be a central tenet of any future housing polices. Theimplementation of a community land trust is one possible mechanism by which suchhousing could be preserved and made affordable long into the future; it deserves furtherexploration. In any event, government will be required to act as a primary catalyst inproviding funding and generating policy of the nature required. Before such an approachcan be actively pursued, however, attitudes must change to accept that the rental sectorunder current conditions may no longer be a viable market commodity.In a final note, the housing debate itself must change its focus. Many of theissues discussed in policy circles, as witnessed in this discussion, have revolved aroundquestions of housing supply rather than distribution. The fact that the majority ofCanadian households are well housed, but an increasing minority are not, suggests thatCanadian housing policies are not working equitably for all. The remaining unaddressedhousing needs of the lowest income groups, therefore, must become a priority in thefuture. As such, the housing debate must change to deal with questions concerninghousing allocation rather than housing supply. Only when the conditions of the worst-housed families are improved, will Canada have a truly "effective" housing policy.756.0 Conclusion This study was motivated by a belief by other researchers that suburban livingenvironments are not changing adequately to reflect social restructuring trends underwaythroughout Western Society. There is a concern that we, as a society, are creatingalternative concepts of family and household; however, the enactment of these conceptsis taking place within conventional types of houses and residential communities. Thebasic premise is that such traditional developments, because they were designed withonly the nuclear family in mind, simply cannot adequately address the needs associatedwith the other family forms and household formations now emerging.In light of these views, this inquiry was dedicated to exploring how one non-traditional family type in particular --the lone parent family-- is, in fact, adapting to suchtraditional living environments. The underlying premise, of course, is that the needs oflone parent families are, in fact, not being adequately met within traditional suburbanliving environments. Our conclusions concur with this view.6.1 FindingsFindings suggest that such neighborhoods, because of their design andconfiguration, are largely unable to respond to the particular needs generated by the loneparent family. With regards to housing, high land costs, and maintenance and upkeepcosts generated by large lot zoning have contributed to problems of housing affordabilityand adequacy. The design and configuration of suburban dwellings and neighborhoodsthemselves (encouraged by local zoning policies), have tended to perpetuate socialisolation and limit the formation of social support networks also required by such familygroups. Finally, mobility constraints resulting from a lack of access to privatetransportation and inadequate public transportation service in these areas have often ledto accessibility problems regarding employment opportunities, community services, andrecreational facilities for this particular family type.76Recognizing the limitations of such traditional suburban neighborhoods,researchers have devoted considerable attention to the exploration of housing andcommunity alternatives for the lone parent family. Many of the alternatives discussed, ifimplemented, represent a considerable departure from their more conventionalcounterparts. Collective services, shared facilities, and integrated uses, for example, arestill regarded as innovations in terms of contemporary suburban residentialdevelopments. Similarly, design solutions such as cohousing and converted housing,which address needs of social integration, social support, and community, are still notreadily accepted in such areas; neither are policies which promote affordability, mobilityand accessibility by allowing higher densities, mixed uses, and a diversity of buildingtypes and forms. The general public, instead, has steadfastly held to the valuesassociated with owning a detached, single family home on a large lot in the suburbs, andpoliticians and policy makers have responded by continuing to generate zoning andhousing policies which fulfill this desire.The social norms and values of the past, however, are rapidly changing. Theemergence of numerous non-traditional families has resulted in the formation of a wholenew set of social relationships and activities. Traditional suburbs, such as Don Mills andLevittown, are no longer responsive to the pluralistic nature of housing needs beinggenerated by the non-traditional family types, and there is every indication that such newand alternative needs and demands will increase and diversify in the future. Research inthis study, for example, reveals that the number of lone parent families has growndramatically and will continue to grow in the next ten years. Increases are expected inthe younger age cohorts, particularly amongst female-led families living in the outersuburbs. Increases are also expected in the number of smaller one- and two-personhouseholds, which include seniors and the core-needy. In all cases the trend is towardsmore heterogeneous and diverse suburban family profiles.77The challenge for planners and policy makers with respect to these changes isvaried and complex. Planners and policy makers will need to better understand thecomposite picture of suburban family and household profiles that is emerging, and thesubsequent needs and service demands that are likely to result. By understanding thesechanges today, planners may be in a better position to respond to their inevitable impactsin the future. One thing, however, is certain: contemporary planning responses andpublic policy initiatives will likely be very different from those of the 1950's and 60's.Much of the theory, relevant policy, and ideas presented in this study suggest that publicpolicy and planning which facilitates physical diversity and choice is the best alternativein meeting the needs of a multiplicity of family types and households that are expected.Such policies will inevitably lead to a wider range of residential neighborhoods andcommunities, which will accommodate the range of households and family types thatalready exist. It is in these areas where social researchers should concentrate their effortsin the future.6.2 Policy Options and Initiatives At a more specific level, the challenge for planners and policy makers isunderstandably more complex when considering the needs of the lone parent family.Although many of the general concepts presented above still should apply, there are otherfactors that must be taken into consideration such as gender, occupation, education,tenure, dwelling type, and income. Lone parent families, in general, are female-led, workin low paid clerical and service jobs, have lower than average education levels, arerenters, and have lower than average incomes. All these factors contribute to make thelone parent family one of the poorest and most disadvantaged family types in all ofCanadian society. Further, the income profile of the lone parent family has created asituation where it is unable to effectively meet its housing needs within the private sector.This, of course, raises serious implications given that the majority of housing provision inthis country is provided through the private market. Nevertheless, there are means by7 8which planners and policy makers can facilitate the implementation, by both the privateand public sector, of alternative housing developments which are better suited to theneeds of lone parent families (and other non-traditional groups).6.2.1 Local Level InitiativesAt the local level, for example, planners can- explore the range of possible housing options and community alternatives, and at leastmake them available to the general public for further consultation and discussion.- increase public awareness about the advantages associated with alternative housing andcommunity developments through information meetings, community workshops, andthe local media.- encourage continued community acceptance and workable municipal zoning policiesfor alternatives housing developments by experimenting with a series of pilotprojects.- lobby for reforms to existing zoning and building by-laws, which facilitate thedevelopment of smaller units, denser development, integrated facilities, sharedservices, and moderately priced housing.- encourage city councils to introduce flexible zoning policies (at least in somedesignated areas) to encourage a diversity and choice of housing stock, type, and tenurewithin residential communities.796.2.2 Federal Level InitiativesAt the federal level, policy makers should- consult with local government agencies to explore areas where complementary policiescan be introduced to encourage housing and community intensification, densification,and diversity within existing and planned developments.- direct more attention, research, and resources to policies which deal with rental housingsupply.- focus future rental housing policy more on social-welfare rather than market- welfareapproaches.- begin a consultative process with the probable beneficiaries of social-welfare initiatives(such as non-profit corporations, tenant organizations, resident controlled corporations)and also with local and provincial authorities to increase mutual awareness.- identify problem areas and seek out common ground for new policy development.- explore mechanisms for linking housing supply polices with land tenure polices toensure that affordable housing once in the rental sector remain there.- explore and present the tradeoffs, as well as the legal, economic, and organizationalimplications associated with the development and implementation of one suchmechanism: a community land trust system.806.2.3 Societal Level InitiativesAt the broader societal level,- interest groups must continue to lobby for policies, which encourage equal pay for workof equal value, regardless of gender, race, or disability.- educational institutions will need work to eliminate the occupational streaming thatexists between men and women in school guidance programs and curriculums.6.3 Areas for Future Research The purpose of this thesis is not to present a new policy for suburban livingenvironments; the scope of the topic is simply much too complex and merits moreresearch before any specific recommendations or policies can be made. The discussionof issues (such as growth, needs, and living environments), and relevant theory, as wellas the debate over public policy should, however, if anything, provide a greater insightinto areas where public policy research and resources could be directed in the future.More importantly, the findings in this chapter should also provide a solid foundation anddirection for future policy debate and development regarding suburban communityplanning for lone parent families (and other non-traditional family types).Aside from the new directions identified, this study also points to other importantresearch areas that will need to be addressed if a more inclusive suburban planningstrategy is to be realized. Evaluations of existing housing developments created byand/or for lone parent families will need to be done. Similarly, evaluations ofdevelopments which integrate housing, employment, and services into existingneighborhoods will also be useful. Extensive research regarding the level of satisfactionthat such alternative suburban neighborhoods create for residents is another area where81research is currently lacking. Comparisons, for example, could be made with traditionalsingle family neighborhoods.At a broader scale, the changing concept of family and household identifiedinitially in this study also raises a series of planning implications. Changes in thedemographic structure of the population are likely to raise new service demands, createalternative housing needs, and require new land use assessments. Planners will mostcertainly have to respond to these issues in the future. Consequently, it is important togain a better understanding of the sociological transformations underway, and theimplications that are likely to result. Both qualitative and quantitative research needs tobe done to determine what types of families are presently living in the suburbs. Anaccurate picture could be established by constructing a composite profile of suburbanfamily types. By using past trends and current assumptions, projections could also bemade to forecast what these family profiles could look like in 10 or 20 years. Planners,then, could begin to answer a series of some of the more basic planning questions suchas the appropriate mix of land uses, the type of services, the location of services, thedelivery of transportation systems, the degree of increased mobility, and the level ofpublic participation required. If we are to plan effectively for suburban communities thataccommodate the needs of a diversity of family types, these are some of the demographicquestions worth considering.In terms of process considerations, questions about who should act to begin toresolve some of the issues raised, or what steps should be taken by what agencies to bringabout changes required, are also worth considering. Planners, almost certainly, have aresponsibility to examine and explore the range of options and alternatives available tonon-traditional families, and make recommendations for their implementation. Althoughplanners might recognize the merit of such proposals and support them accordingly, othereffective political voices or alliances between political voices may be more successful inpromoting these options. Research needs to be done to determine which other groups82(e.g., the real estate industry, the development industry, non-profit groups, specialinterest groups, and women's groups) would be willing to lobby for such proposals. Theexploration of common policy areas where alliances between certain groups could beestablished is another point for further study.6.4 Final NoteIt is hoped that other researchers and interested parties can draw from the specificfindings in this study, and also from some of the other broader themes identified.Principles, for example, linked to concepts of diversity, heterogeneity, sharing,compactness, accessibility, and mobility, are likely to be much more relevant in theplanning of contemporary residential communities in the future. In concluding, however,there is one theme, which although often overlooked, seems especially relevant to anyfuture suburban planning strategy. Simply stated, it is that space is not so much aphysical construct, but rather a social construct. Age, gender, family and household areas much a human construct as are houses, buildings, roads, and subdivisions. It is theseideas about age, gender, family and, household, that combine to define the location,configuration, and organization of the buildings and communities around us. As plannersconcerned for a better future physical environment, it may be just as important, if notmore so, to focus more on social planning issues in the future. Judging by the "misfit"between buildings and people that is emerging, it is likely that closer links between socialand physical planning will be required.83Endnotes1^Peter 0. Mueller, 1976, The Outer City (Washington, D.C.: AAG), p. 2.2^Peter 0. Mueller, 1981, Contemporary Suburban America (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), p.11.3^Karen Franck, 1985, "New Households, Old Houses: Designing for Changing Needs," Ekistics,52 (310), p. 22.4^D. Hayden, 1984, Redesigning the American Dream (New York: Norton), p. 41.5^F. Klowdawsky, A. Spector and D. Rose, 1987, Single Parent Families and Canadian HousingPolicies: Whv Mothers Lose (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, External ResearchAwards), p. 5.6^Statistics Canada, 1986, Guide to Statistics Canada Data on Families (Ottawa: Minister ofSupply and Services), p. 8.7^Kenneth T. Jackson, 1985, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of The United States(New York: Oxford University Press), p. 238.8^Jacqueline C. Vischer, 1987, "The Changing Canadian Suburb," Plan Canada, 27 (5), pp. 131.9^Kenneth T. Jackson, 1985, p. 236.10^B. Grieve & J. D. Hulchanski, 1983, Market Imperfections and the Role of Rent Regulationsin the Residential Market (Toronto: Commission of Inquiry Into Residential Tenancies), p. 5.11^H.K. Leung, 1986, Towards a Subjective Approach to Policy Planning and Evaluation:Common Sense Structured (Winnipeg: Norton), p. 35.12^Statistics Canada, 1966-1986, Censuses of Canada (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services)13^T. Burch, 1990, Families in Canada (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services), Cat No. 11-008,p. 17.14^Statistics Canada, 1984, Canada's Lone Parent Families (Ottawa: Minister of Supply andServices), Cat No. 99-533, p. 8.15^M. Clague, 1990, The Social Quality of Community Life-A Report Prepared for the GreaterVancouver Regional District (Vancouver: Social Planning and Research Council of B.C.), p.36.16^Statistics Canada, 1986, Census of Canada: Selected Characteristics 100% and 20% Data(Ottawa. Minister of Supply and Services).17^Statistics Canada, 1990, Projections of Households and Families for Canada, Provinces, andTerritories, 1989-2011. (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services), Cat No. 91-522„ p.v.18^Ibid, p.v.19^Ibid, p.4.20^Ibid, p.vi.8421^F. Klowdawsky, A. Spector and D. Rose, 1987, p.4-6.22^F. Klowdawsky, A. Spector and D. Rose, 1983, p.33,36.23^T. Burch, 1990, p.18.24^L. Eggerston, October 1991, "Single Parent Families in Canada Fare Poorly, U.S. SteadilyWorsening Think Tank Finds," Vancouver Sun, p. A6.25^Statistics Canada, 1989, Family Income: Census Families  (Ottawa: Minister of Supply andServices), Cat No. 93-117, p.vii.26^Ibid, p. 5A-7.27^Statistics Canada, 1987, Summary Tabulations of Birth, Citizenship, Immigration, Income,Household, and Dwelling Characteristics: Vancouver and Victoria CMA's  (Vancouver: StatisticsCanada Division), Table IN86BO 1F.28^Morley Gunderson, 1989, Employment Income (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services), CatNo. 98-129, p.20.29^Ibid, p.22.30^Ibid, p.22.31^Statistics Canada, 1984, Canada's Lone Parent Families  (Ottawa: Minister of Supply andServices), Cat No. 99-533, p. 24.32^F. Klowdawsky, A. Spector and D. Rose, 1987, p.6-2.33^Ibid, p.6-2.34 • Karen Franck and S. Ahrentzen, 1990, New Households, New Housing (New Jersey: VanNostrand Reinhold), p. 145.35^Karen Franck, 1985, p.26.36^S. Ahrentzen, "Overview of Housing for Single-Parent Households" in New Households, NewHousing, ed. K. Franck and S. Ahrentzen, 1990, (New Jersey: Van Nostrand Reinhold), p. 146.37^G. Wekerle, 1985, "From Refuge to Service Center. Neighborhoods That Support Women,"Sociological Focus, 18 (2), p. 86.38^F. Klowdawsky, A. Spector and D. Rose, 1987, p.6-10.39^J. Leavitt, Two Prototypical Designs for Single Parents" in New Households, New Housing,  ed.K. Franck and S. Ahrentzen, 1990, (New Jersey: Van Nostrand Reinhold), p. 164.40^Ibid, p. 164.41^K. McCamant and C. Durrett, 1989, Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to HousingOurselves, 2nd ed., (Berkeley: Habitat Press), p. 35.42^Ibid, p. 25.8543^Ibid, p. 36.44^K. Franck, 1985, p. 26.45^S. Ahrentzen, p.145.46^K. Franck and S. Ahrentzen, 1990, p.xiii.47^A. Rose, 1980, Canadian Housing Polices 1935-1980 (Scarborough: Butterworth), p. 3.48^Urban Development Institute, 1990, Discussion Paper Prepared by the Urban Development Institute Pacific Region on Home Ownership Affordability  (Vancouver: UDI), Appendix, Table 1 and2.49^GVRD, 1990, Greater Vancouver Key Facts: A Statistical Profile of Greater Vancouver,Canada (Vancouver: GVRD), p. 50.50^CMHC, 1990, Canadian Housing Statistics (Canada: Statistical Services Division), Cat No. NH12-1/1990, p.58.51^Ibid, p.49.52^UDI, 1990, p. 1.53^Ibid, p. 8.54^Ibid, p. 13.55^Ibid, p. 10.56^City of North Vancouver, 1990, "Official Community Plan," City Views, VI (II), p.4.57^UDI, 1990, p. 11.58^Ibid, Executive Summary, p.l.59^M. Clague, 1990, p.8.60^J.D. Hulchanski, 1983, Co-Operative Land Management- Government Housing SupplyPrograms (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press), p.1.61^J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, Market Imperfections and the Role of Rent Regulations in theResidential Rental Market (Toronto: Commission of Inquiry Into Residential Tenancies), p. 4-5.62^E. Charman, 1984, Housing in Canada-A Continuing Challenge  (Don Mills: Canadian RealEstate Association), p. 152.63^B. Grieve and J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, Housing Issues and Canadian Federal Budgets 1968-1984: UBC Planning Papers (Vancouver: Canadian Planning Press), p.13.64^J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, p.12.65^B. Grieve, and J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, p. 6.8666^R.G. Dowler, 1983, Housing Related Tax Expenditures-An Overview and Evaluation(Toronto: University of Toronto Press), p.2.67^Ibid, p. 5.68^B. Grieve and J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, p. 16.69^R.G. Dowler, 1986, p. 48.70^M. Goldberg, 1983, The Housing Problem: A real Crisis? (Vancouver: UBC Press), p. 84.71^Toronto Home Builders Association, 1986, Prospects For the Rental Housing Market inCanada (Toronto: Clayton Research Associates), p. 18.72^J.D. Hulchanski, 1983, Shelter Allowances & Canadian Housing Policy (Toronto: Centre forCommunity and Urban Studies), p 46.73^Ibid, p.45.74^Ibid, p.46.75^Ibid, p.24.76^A. MacAffee, 1983, Provision of Affordable Rental Housing in the Private Sector(Vancouver: City of Vancouver, Planning Dept), p.7.77^A. Fallick, 1987, A Place to Call Home: A Conference on Homelessness. Background PaperNo. 2 (Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlements), p. 4.78^F. Klowdawsky, A. Spector and D. Rose, 1987, p. 9-1.79^J.D. Hulchanski, 1985, "Tax Costs of Housing," Policy Options, (June), p. 5.80^B. Grieve and J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, p. 14.81^J.D. Hulchanski, 1985, p.6.82^J.D. Hulchanski, 1983, Co-operative Land Management-Government Housing SupplyPrograms, p.9.83^Communitas Inc, 1985, Land Trusts For Non-Profit Continuing Housing Co-Operatives(Edmonton: Communitas), p.19.84^J.D. Hulchanski, 1983, p.2.87BibliographyBacher, J.C. 1986. "Canadian Housing Policy in Perspective" in Urban History Review, Vol. XV,1.Berman, Morris. 1984. The Reenchantment of the World. New York: Cornell University.Burch, T. 1990. Families in Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services. Cat No. 11-008.Charman, E. 1984. Housing in Canada-A ContinuingChallenge. Don Mills: Canadian Real EstateAssociation.City of North Vancouver. 1990. "Official Community Plan." City Views, VI (II).Clague, M. 1990. The Social Quality of Community Life-A Report Prepared for the GreaterVancouver Regional District. Vancouver: Social Planning and Research Council of B.C.CMHC. 1990. Canadian Housing Statistics. Canada: Statistical Services Division, Cat No. NH 12-1/1990.Communitas Inc. 1985. Land Trusts For Non-Profit Continuing Housing Co-Operatives. Edmonton:Communitas.Dowler, R.G. 1983. Housing Related Tax Expenditures-An Overview and Evaluation. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.Eggerston, L. October 1991. "Single Parent Families in Canada Fare Poorly, U.S. Steadily WorseningThink Tank Finds." Vancouver Sun, p. A6.Eichler, Margaret. 1983. Families in Canada Today-Recent Changes And Their Policy Consequences.Toronto: Gage Publishing.Fallick A. 1987. A Place to Call Home: A Conference on Homelessness, Background Paper No. 2,Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlements.Franck, Karen and S. Ahrentzen. 1990. New Households, New Housing. New Jersey: Van NostrandReinhold.Franck, Karen. 1985. "New Households, Old Houses: Designing for Changing Needs." Ekistics, 52 (310),pp. 22-27.Goldberg, M. 1983. The Housing Problem: A Real Crisis? Vancouver,: U.B.C. Press.Grieve, B. & J.D. Hulchanski. 1984. Housing Issues and Canadian Federal Budgets 1968-1984: UBC Planning Papers. Vancouver: Canadian Planning Press.Gunderson, Morley. 1989. Employment Income. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Cat No. 98-129.Gurstein, P & N. Hood. 1975. Housing Needs of Lone Parent Families. Vancouver: Y.W.C.A.GVRD Development Services. 1990. Greater Vancouver Key Facts: A Statistical Profile of GreaterVancouver, Canada. Burnaby: GVRD Development Services.^ 1990. Greater Vancouver...The Liveable Region. Vancouver: GVRD.Hayden, D. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream. New York: Norton.Howard, E. 1965. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Cambridge Mass: M.I.T. (First published in 1898 asTo-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform).Hulchanski, J.D. 1986. "The 1935 Dominion Housing Act: Setting the Stage for a Permanent FederalPresence in Canada's Housing Sector." Urban History Review, (June), Vol. XV, 1,^ . 1885. "Tax Costs of Housing." Policy Options, (June), pp. 4-7.^. 1983. Co-Operative Land Management - Government Housing Supply Programs.Vancouver. U.B.C. Press.^ . 1983. Shelter Allowances & Canadian Housing Policy. Toronto: Centre for Community &Urban Studies.^. 1984. Market Imperfections and the Role of Rent Regulations in the Residential Rental Market. Toronto: Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies.Jackson, Kenneth, T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier-The Suburbanization of The United States.  New York:Oxford University Press.Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.Kelbaugh, D. et. al. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy. NewYork: Princeton Architectural Press.Keller, S. 1981. Building For Women. Toronto: DC Heath.Klowdawsky, F., A. Spector and D. Rose. 1983. The Housing Needs of Single Parent Families in Canada. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, External Research Awards.Klowdawsky, F., A. Spector and D. Rose. 1987. Single Parent Families and Canadian HousingPolicies: Why Mothers Lose. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, ExternalResearch Awards.Leung, H.K. 1986. Towards a Subjective Approach to Policy Planning and Evaluation: CommonSense Structured. Winnipeg: Norton.Lynch, K. 1981. Good City Form. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.MacAffee, A. 1983. Provision of Affordable Rental Housing In the Private Sector. Vancouver: City ofVancouver, Planning Dept.Massotti, L. & J. Hadden. 1973. The Urbanization of the Suburbs. California: Sage.McCamant, K. and C. Durrett. 1989. Cohousina: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves.2nd ed. Berkeley: Habitat Press.Michelson, William. 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfaction.New York: Oxford University Press.8889Miron, J. 1988. Housing in Postwar Canada - Demographic Change, Household Formation, & Housing Demand. Montreal: McGill University Press.Mueller, P.O. 1976. The Outer City. Washington, D.C.: AAG.Mueller, Peter 0. 1981. Contemporary Suburban America. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Murphy, Derek. et. al. 1989. The Tri-Cities: A Profile of Our Community. Vancouver: Share SocialServices.Nett, E. 1988. Canadian Families-Past and Present. Toronto: Butterworths Canada.Rashid, A. 1989. Family Income. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Service, Cat No.98-128.Rekart, J. 1989. Vancouver Metropolitan Area Household Forecast 1986-2011: Background Reporton Households: Vancouver Census Metropolitan Areas and its Sub-Regions. Vancouver:J. Rekart & Associates.Rose, A. 1980. Canadian Housing Policies 1935-1980. Toronto: Butterworths Canada.Rothblatt, Donald, J. and Daniel J. Gaff. 1986. "Suburbia: An International Assessment On Levels OfSatisfaction with the Physical Environment." ,Journal Of Planning Education and Research,Vol. 5 (2), pp. 94-106.Schlesinger, B. 1979. Families In Canada. Canada: McGraw Hill.Sennett, R. 1970. Families Against the City: Middle Class Homes of Industrial Chicago 1872-1890.Cambridge Mass: Harvard University.Statistics Canada. 1976. Census of Canada: Selected Characteristics 100% and 20% Data. Ottawa:Minister of Supply and Services.^. 1981. Census of Canada: Selected Characteristics 100% and 20% Data. Ottawa: Ministerof Supply and Services.^. 1984. Canada's Lone Parent Families. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Cat No.99-533.^. 1986. Guide to Statistics Canada Data on Families. Ottawa: Minister of Supply andServices.^ 1986. Census of Canada: Selected Characteristics 100% and 20% Data.Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.^ 1987. Summary Tabulations of Birth, Citizenship, Immigration, Income, Household, andDwelling Characteristics: Vancouver and Victoria CMA's. Vancouver: Statistics CanadaDivision, Table IN86B0 1F.^ 1987. Families, Part 1. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Cat No. 93-106.^. 1988. Current Demographic Analysis: Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada.Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Cat No. 91-209E.90^. 1988. Summary Tabulations of Labour Force, Mobility, and Schooling: Vancouver andVictoria CMA's. Vancouver. Statistics Canada Division, Table LF86B04.^. 1989. Families, Part 2. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Cat No.93-107.. 1989. Family Income: Census Families. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Cat No.93-117.^. 1990. Projections of Households and Families for Canada, Provinces, and Territories,1989-2011. Ottawa. Minister of Supply and Services, Cat. No.91-522.Toronto Home Builders Association. 1986. Prospects for the Rental Housing Market in Canada.Toronto: Clayton Research Associates.Urban Development Institute. 1990. Discussion Paper Prepared by the Urban Development InstitutePacific Region on Home Ownership Affordability. Vancouver: UDI.Vischer, Jacqueline, C. 1987. "The Changing Canadian Suburb." Plan Canada, 27 (5), pp. 130-141.Warner Jr., S.B. 1972. The Urban Wilderness - A History Of the American City. New York: Harper &Row.Wekerle, G. 1985. "From Refuge to Service Center: Neighborhoods That Support Women." SociologicalFocus, 18 (2), pp. 79-95.Appendices91List of Tables9293Table 1 -^Percentage Distribution of Husband-Wife and Lone Parent Households ByAge of Household. Maintainer, Vancouver CMA, 1990.I HUSBAND/WIFE LONE PARENT TOT FAMILIES NON FAMILIES TOTAL HHDSBURNABY/NEW WEST15 24 29.33 6.97% 3630% 63.70% 100.00%25_39 51.90% 934% 6114% 38.76% 100.00%40 49 6056% 1298% 7354% 26.46% 100.00%50 64 6206% 7.8.4% 69.89% 30.11% 100.00%4230% 3.18% 45.48% 545236 100.00%TOTAL 51.79% 8.09% 59.83% 40.12% 100.00%N.ESECTOR15 24 38.41% 9.76% 48.17% 51.83% 100.00%25 39 71.44% 9.96% 31.41% 1859% 100.00%40 49 76.42% 12.47%. 38.89% 11.11% 100.00%50 64 7217 . 3.89% 81.06% 18.94% 100.00%>65 50.67 3.64% 5430% 45.70% 100.00%TOTAL 68.39% 9.60% 77.99% 2101% 100.00%N. SHORE15 24 30.21% 5.42% 35.63%. 64.38% 100.00%25_39 60.85% 338% 69.23% 30.77% 100.00%40 49 7036 1239%. 82.75% 17.25% 100.00%50 64 69.11% 8.21% 7732% 22.68% 100.00%>65 48.17 2.96% 51.13% 48.87% 100.00%TOTAL 61.11 7.98% 69.09% 30.91% 100.00%RICHMOND15 24 45.02% 634% 5136% 48.64% 100.00%25 39 67.92% 8.44% 7636% 23.64% 100.00%40 49 7433 11.90% 86.28% 13.72% 100.00%50 64 71.87 7.71% 7953% 20.42%6 100.00%>65 54.14 3.06% 57.19% 42.111% 100.00%TOTAL 67.23 8.15% 7538% 24.62% 100.00%YANCtUEL15 24 20.45 532% 25.77% 7423% 100.00%25 39 4013 7.92% 48.15% 51.85% 100.00%40 49 50^I 1259% 63.09% 36.91% 100.00%50 64 52. • * . 8.40% 61.00% 39.00% 100.00%>65 37. I • 4.08% 41.14% 58.86% 100.00%TOTAL 4244 7.75% 50.18% 49.82% 100.00%S OF FRASER15 24 45 '^11.69% 5735% 42.65% 100.00%23 39 72. 10.40% 83.20% 16.80% 100.00%40_49 7657 11.68% 1824% 11.765E 100.005650 64 7212 7.15% 79.27% 20.73% 100.00%>65 54.14 232% 57.16% 42.84% 100.00%TOTAL 69.01 8.64% 77.66% 22.34% 100.00%LAI4GLEYS15 24 41. 11.82% 60.42% 3951% 100.00%25 39 77.56% 9.49% 87.05% 12.95% 100.00%40 49 78.72 10.29% 89.01% 10.99% 100.00%50 64 73.49 722% 80.71% 19.245E 100.00%>65 54.57% 1.98% 5654% 43.46% 100.00%TOTAL 71.67 . 8.04% 79.71% 20.29% 100.00%PMEADtMRID15 24 47.97% 1244% 60.81% 39.19% 100.00%25 39 75.8 9.93% 85.112% 14.18% 100.00%40 49 79.17 11.11% 90.28% 9.72% 100.00%50 64 70.14% 7.38% 77.53% 22.47% 100.00%>65 50.71 2.63% 5333% 46.67% 100.00%TOTAL 69.33 858%, 78.41% 2139%, 100.00%CMAHUSBAND/WIFE LONE PARENT "1"OT FAMILIES NON FAMILIES15 24 32.93 7.86%^40.79% 5911%.^103.03%25 39 61.96 9.71% 71.67% 23.33% 100.00%40 49 71.94 1339%^8513% 14.77%^100.00%50 64 68.11 8.56% 76.67% 2333% 100.00%>65 47.75 3.56%.^5131% 48.64%^100.00%TOTAL 60.68 8.33% 69.50% 30.50% 100.00%Source:^J. Rekart. 1989. Vancouver Metropolitan Area Household Forecast1986-2011 - Background Report on Households: Vancouver CensusMetropolitan Areas and its Sub-Regions. 94Table 2 -^Average Employment Income of Population 15 Years and Over By Sexand Major Occupation, Canada, 1985.Table 6.^Average Employment Income of Population 15 Years and Over by Sex and Major Occupation, Canada, 1985OccupationAverage employment income Female!maleratio'Percentage offemaleseach occupationFemales Males Both sexes( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)S 1 /aManagerial, administrative and related occupations 21,328 37,939 32,564 56.2 31.8Occupations in natural sciences, engineering andmathematics 19,878 30.756 28.828 64.6 17 7Occupations in social sciences and related fields 15,792 34,938 23.757 45.2 58.4'1 Occupations in religion 12.526 16.975 16.045 73.8 20.9Teaching and related occupations 20,137 33,009 24,973 61.0 62.4Occupations in medicine and health 18,051 46,879 24,050 38.6 79.0Artistic, literary, recreational and related occupations 12,060 18.945 15,984 63.7 43.0Clerical and related occupations 12,746 18,147 13.885 70.2 78.9Sales occupations 9,594 21.84e 15,234 -3.9 45.4Service occuoefinnc 7,362 16 Q28 45 9 54.9Farming, horticultural and animal husbandry occupations 6,233 11.858 1110.,265703 52.6 21.4Fishing, trapping and related occupations 5,900 13,644 12,874 43.2 9.9Forestry and logging occupations 5,865 16,443 15,679 35.7 7.2Mining and quarrying including oil and gas field occupations 17,893 27,844 27,602 64.3 2.4Processing occupations 9,873 21,228 18,331 46.5 25.5Machining and related occupations 13,320 22,577 22,916 59.0 7.1Product fabricating, assembling and repairing occupations 11,136 21,688 19.107 51.3 24.5Construction trades occupations 12,642 19,775 19,594 63.9 2.5Transport equipment operating occupations 11,087 22,113 21.248 50.1 7.8Material handling and related occupations 10,683 17,937 16,244 59.6 23.3Other crafts and equipment operating occupations 12,036 26,026 22.799 46.2 23.1Occupations not elsewhere classified 9,829 14,631 13,748 67.2 18.4Total. all occupations 13,027 23,411 18,910 55.6 43.31 Average employment income or females as a percentage of average employment income of males.Source:1986 Census of Canada, unpublisned oats.Source:^Gunderson, Morley. 1989. Employment Income. Cat NO. 98-129.95Table 3 -^Labour Force 15 Years and Over by Occupation Major Groups and Sex,Vancouver CMA, 1986 (20% Sample Data).Occupation major groupsGrand& grouoes de professionsBoth sixesLes deux sexesMaleSex. .ascul■reFemaleSaxe^limintniancouver^(Consolidated - Unifiett)rota'^labour^force - Population active^totale^ 757.520 420.865 336.655Occupation - Not apolicable(l)^- Profession^-Sans objet(1) ^ 23.230 12.315 10.3104.11^occupations(2)^- Tout*:^les professionslfl^ 734.295 408.545 325.745Managerial.^administrative and^related ocCupationsOirectours.^gerants.^administrateurs^it^osisonnetass ie.^e SS.OZO 57.445 27.575Occupations^in^natural^sciences.^engineering^andmethematiCS -Travailleurs^des^sciences^naturellts.^du^genie^itdes mathematioues 26.220 22.285 3.935Occupations^in^social^scienc•s^and^rel ated^fields^-7ravailleurs^specialises^des^sciences^sociales^etdomain's Confines 7.630 7.880 9.755Occupations^in^religion^-MemOres du dirge it^assimiles ^ :.455 1.185 27,3Teaching and related occupations^-8.nseignants^it^personnel^asste,i, 26.915 10.365 15.595OCCUOaTIOna^in med.e,n• and healthMeldeCine it^Sante 27.580 8.865 224.t.stic.^literary.^recreational^and^'elate:occupations -Professionnels^des^domain's^sit.st^oue^it^.ittera•ieit^Personnel^assimil. ;4.773 8.740 5.029Clerical^and^related occupations^-Employes di bureau it^travailleurs assimilos^ 146.780 30.675 115.100Sales occupations -Travailleurs spacialisas dans^la vents^ 81.390 46.155 25.235Service occupations -Travailleurs^specialises dans "es^services^ 106.120 50.325 55.795Farming. horticultural^and animalhusbandry occupations -Agricultturs.^horticuitours^it^eleveurt^ 12.295 7.825 4,470Fishing.^trdooing and^related Occupations^-Pncheurs.^trapOeurs^tt^travailieurs^nysimites ^ 2.155 1.985 210Forestry and^logging occupations^-TraviilletirS^forestial's •t^tniCnarons 2.320 2.145 75Mining^and quarrying.^including oil^and^gasoccuoatioas -Mineurs.^carriers.^foreurs de buts^do cetrole et^aegap^it^traysilleurs^assimiles^ 790 780Processing occupations -Travailleurs^des^industries^de^t'ansformat , nn ^ 19.950 15.265 aEMachining and ',fated occupations^-USinfutl •t^travatileuts^Ots^dcaMaineS^COnnexes^ 11.940 11,170 t77Product^fabttcating,^assembling^and^rana.r,nsoccupations -Travailleurs^specialises^dons^la^fabrication.^lemontage it^la reparation de oroduits^ 40.690 33.375 7.315Construction^trades occupations^-Tr avai 1 leurs^du Oitiment^ 40.980 40.120 1162Transport^equipment operating occupations^-Personnel^d •molai tat on des^transports 27.510 25.825 1.575Material^handling^and^related OCCuOat.nns.^n.a.c.^-ManutentiOnnatrtS et^travarileurs 15.410 12.330 2.480Other^crafts and equtoment operating occupations^-Autrss OumrierS Qualifies et^conducteurs^de macnines 5.225 5.280 1.545Occupations not^els•enere classified -Travailleurs^non classes ailleurs^ 9.610 7.320 1^359Source:^Statistics Canada. 1988. Summary Tabulations of Labour Force,Mobility., and Schooling: Vancouver and Victoria CMA's.96Table 4 -^Changes in Home Ownership Rates Within and Between IncomeQuintiles, Canada 1967-1981% of Houseboat Owning Their Unit1967 1973 1977 1981Chlr;t1967.1931Unvest Quintile 62.0% 50.0% 47.4% 43.0'4 -19%Second Quintile 55.5 53.6 53.3 52.4 - 3%Middle Quintile 58.6 57.5 63.2 62.7 + 4%Fourth Quintile 64.2 69.3 73.2 75.0 +11%highest Quintile 73.4 81.2 82.3 83.5 +10%Total 62.7 62.4 63.9 63.3 +0 O%Source:^Statistics Canada. 1983. Household Facilities By Income and OtherCharacteristics. Cat No. 13-567.Table 5 -^Changes in Renter Households by Income Quintiles, Canada, 1967-1983.ChineeIncome Quintile 1967 1973 1977 1981 1967•I$E,"Loutu Quintile 20.4% 26.6% 29.1% 31.1% +10.7%Sctund Quintile 23.9 24.7 25.9 26.0 +^2. i %middle Quintile 22.2 22.6 20,4 20.3 -^1.9%.Fourth Quintile 19.2 16.1 14.3 13.6 -^5.6',Highest Quintile 14.3 10.0 9.8 9.0 - 5 - 3%TOO 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Source:^Statistics Canada. 1983. Household Facilities by Income and OtherCharacteristics. Cat No. 13-567.97Table 6 -^Market-Welfare vs Social-Welfare Subsidies (Millions) AnnualTotals1950-60's Non-Profit Private^PrivatePublic^& Co-op^Rent^SectorHousing^Housing^Supplement ARP & MURB1976 $^107 $^21 $^5 $^70 S^2031977 141 31 7 97 2761978 179 32 9 126 3461979 265 37 9 148 4591980 263 36 15 171 4851981 320 74 16 195 6051982 399 197 17 215 828TOTAL $^1,674 $^428 $^78 $^1,022 $^3,202% of7 year 53% 13% 2% 32% 100%TotalSource:^Grieve, B. and J.D. Hulchanski. 1984. Housing Issues and CanadianFederal Budgets 1968-1984-UBC Planning Papers. Vancouver:Canadian Planning Press.List of Figures98orrs...401 ,11,4"99Figure 1 ^Levittown ca. 19551.5 Levittown, 1955. 1Source:^Hayden, D. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream.100Figure 3 -^Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1990Source:^GVRD. 1990. Greater Vancouver...The Liveable Re  ion.1501005001971 1981 19861976Millers250200101Figure 4 -^Divorce Rates, Canada, 1971-1986Per 100,000 population1.31.10.90.7 .••••°-0.5^I^I^l^I^I^I^1^1^i^i^I^1^iI^I1971 1976 1981 1986Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue 84205, Marriages and Divorces: Vital Statistics.Figure 5 -^Number of Divorced Lone Parent, by Sex, 1971-1986F-7 Female lone parentMale lone parentSources: Statistics Canada, 1971, 1976, 1981 and 1986 censuses of Canada .111111111111 1111111111111111  Ill 11 1 111111 1 111111A hill^1 1111111I1111111111116102Figure 6 -^Options for Reorganizing a Typical Suburban BlockC7.3 Diagram showing some of the possibilities of reorganizing a typical subur-ban block through rezoning, rebuilding, and relandscaping. A, ten single-familyhouses (1) on ten private lots (2); B, the same houses(1) with smaller private lots(2) after a backyard rehabilitation program has created a new village green (3)at the heart of the block; C, the same houses (1) and many small private gardens(2) with a new village green (3) surrounded by a zone for new services and acces-sory apartments (4) connected by a new sidewalk or arcade (5) and surroundedby a new border of street trees (6). In Figure C, (4) can include space for suchactivities as day care, elderly care, laundry, and food service as well as housing,while (3) can accommodate a children's play area, vegetable or flower gardens,and outdoor seating. (5) may be a sidewalk, a vine-covered trellis, or a formalarcade. The narrow ends of the block can be emphasized as collective entranceswith gates (to which residents have keys), leading to new accessory apartmentsentered from the arcade or sidewalk. In the densest possible situations, (3) maybe alley and parking lot, if existing street parking and public transit are not ade-quate.Source:^Hayden, D. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream.103Figure 7 -^Perspective View of a Pedestrian Pocket-^s.-: ,- -^- -^.,-----''_-- ,^„:-.-.:---__ ....._,_f.-,f,'^,,.--^7-'^fill91,e '/3.iktr.^ ...1,', ' .^)- d4I.C.?.".1( .1 1....-. ,... '.1,."'' '^2,•-^.-1---. ...^)1N f .^4. ' '^t ,,....!. le ■44^- . - '^r.).(%[A. .f'4,. p()(4; ( o.:-:„,Kl.:'-,,^• --- ,N. -f eff-^, ,r' -.^ 'ilikt.j4:?-'i•-'-'-----41,',44,, „., -,•--.. --e- , .• '. ,,,,,/,,,,-..._ - .10; cLe.ffj - r44:k.%Ncig:e.Source:^Kelbaugh, D. et al. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A NewSuburban Design Strategy. Figure 8 -^Plan View of a 60 Acre Pedestrian Pocket• 'PSource:^Kelbaugh, D. et al. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A NewSuburban Design Strategy. 104Figure 10 -Community Land Trust Policies and Procedures: Selected Excerpts From Chapter 2 inCommunitas Inc. 1985. Land Trusts For Non-Profit Continuing Housing Co-operatives. 1.0 Individual Interests1.1 Individual Security Every resident has a legitimate interest in having a secure home. Personal security,privacy, and continuity are all factors necessary for the achievement of such a goal.Policies -membership in the land trust is open-leaseholders are guaranteed a percentage of representation on the Board of Directors-once purchased or acquired, the land is held in perpetuity and is not sold.-the land is leased to the user on a long term basis1.2 Individual LegacyEvery resident has a legitimate interest in protecting the continuity associated with thedevelopment of his or her own home in which he/she already has a stake.Polices-users can bequeath their leasehold rights to their heirs.1.3 Individual Earned Equity Every resident has a legitimate interest in keeping whatever value they put into theirhome, or into the land they occupy or use, when this value is derived from their personalefforts.Policies-the improvements belong to the users-should a user terminate the lease and be unable to sell market the improvements, thecommunity land trust will sell the improvements on behalf of the user, and thenforward the proceeds and costs of the sale to the user1052.0 Community Interests2.1 Community Access A community has a legitimate interest in maintaining continuing access to its land for allits membersPolices -no absentee leaseholders are allowed-leaseholders are only allowed to lease the amount of land required for their specific use-land is held in perpetuity2.2 Community Equity A community has a legitimate interest in retaining and utilizing for the common goodwhatever value it has created or nurtured.Policies -land is owned by the community land trust and the improvements are owned by the user.-leasehold rights are not transferable (except to heirs) and upon termination of the rightsrevert back to the trust, who then transfers them to another leaseholder.-lease fees paid by the users are based only on the value of the land, and do not take intoconsideration the nature of the improvements.-the trust can charge low income households a lower lease fee.2.3 Community LegacyA community has a legitimate interest in preserving its environment and guiding its owndevelopment in a way that will provide for the legitimate interests of future generations.Policies -land use planning and modification is controlled, in part, by the community land trust-leasehold rights subject to general use restrictions, are granted by the community landtrust directly to the land userBIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION NAME: At-A4,-)1) (gc^CAL3D‘Y-g_oMAILING ADDRESS:^(ai\t\-413._t^ .PLACE AND DATE OF BIRTH:C--) 1 ,^tc)(D4---EDUCATION (Colleges and Universities attended, dates, and degrees):- 4.5,012_^LAANWs^e::=r^-Cl^AkTc7 (P1.441.114-4-1Ctt' 15^t'c)V^L41-1W-R5 13. Pf45\iv? - MAY rq,---cL)t•AAPOSITIONS HELD:r?-4\1A-t-in-Ae., '---"..--c-A-A.^t 180,Ak-k- . C c\--) of 4.-----v , \^VAtA .c.:L.,..% <, 17 1 ZAP-C-Ir-ViCA^LVA4 .- ----rr-'C-t-4- 4-4 LC_ Le \ 44. ...^C--)-71-- 0^Orf-,COV . ,e6' C.-- tr--1/4'r_n IlePUBLICATIONS (if necessary, use a second sheet):AWARDS:Complete one biographical form for each copy of a thesis presentedto the Special Collections Division, University Library.DE-5

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098901/manifest

Comment

Related Items