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


831-ubc_1992_spring_cauduro_alessandro.pdf [ 9.97MB ]
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

Full Text

LONE PARENT FAMILIES AND THE SUBURBAN EXPERIENCE: MAKING ALTERNATIVE SUBURBAN LIVING ENVIRONMENTS A REALITY by ALESSANDRO CAUDURO  B. Arts, The University of British Columbia A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (The School of Community and Regional Planning)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 1992 © Ales andro Cauduro, 19 2  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  11-06t_^NI 0 LA rt y^ „.e.,(Z,L0^Ft-16'4-4 Department of 4e..., The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  Argi L  ii  Abstract There is a growing concern that traditional suburban tract developments, because  they were designed with only the nuclear family in mind, are simply unable to meet the alternative needs of a growing number of non-traditional family types and households now found in these same areas. In light of this view, this study examines whether or not the particular needs of the lone parent family are, in fact, being adequately met within post-war suburbia. The study finds that the physical configuration of traditional suburban neighborhoods actually inhibits the fulfillment of the lone parent family's basic needs such as access to adequate and affordable housing, social integration, social support, accessibility, and mobility. Given these limitations, researchers have devoted considerable attention to the exploration of alternative suburban housing developments and community options for this group. Findings conclude that higher density neighborhoods containing shared resources, collective services, integrated uses, a variety of building forms, and a social mix are likely to be beneficial for lone parent families (as well as other non-traditional family types). Unfortunately, to date the implementation of such alternatives is not occurring on a large enough scale to reflect the dramatic growth of 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 demand within the private market place to meet its special housing needs. In addition, local zoning polices, which are biassed towards the construction of large single family, detached homes on large lots, were found to inhibit the construction of innovative housing for lone parent families (and other non-traditional households). Current zoning practices, for example, effectively discourage developers from exploring a range of possible housing options and alternatives, and in the process, limit the choice of 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 of possible housing alternatives. To increase flexibility a number of recommendations are  iii  made: amendments to the assessment of development cost charges, single family zoning polices, zoning density calculations, floor space ratio calculations, and parking requirements, as well as the implementation of a more intensive public information campaign. 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 lone parent family. Housing policy in Canada, for example, has traditionally favoured homeownership programs for middle class families, despite growing demands for much needed intervention in the rental sector. Intervention in this area, when it has come, has been largely in the form of market-welfare initiatives. While such policies have worked to stimulate housing supply, they have been largely ineffective in terms of providing direct, long term affordable housing to those most in need: low income Canadians. Social-welfare polices, on the other hand, although used less frequently, represent the only form of direct rental housing supply benefiting this segment of the population. Government housing policy in the future, therefore, should focus more on social-welfare rather than market-welfare initiatives when considering the housing needs of low income households within the rental sector. Research and resources directed towards social housing initiatives such as cooperative and non-profit housing are recommended, at least within this particular sub-market. In conjunction with such polices, more attention will need to be given to actual land tenure considerations. The idea of linking housing supply policy with land tenure polices is central to the long term success of social-welfare initiatives. The establishment of a national community land trust system represents one mechanism by which housing supply and land policy could be linked. The land trust would ensure that affordable rental housing once built, will remain in the rental sector into the long term. Not only would the trust guarantee the preservation of existing rental stock, but it would also ensure the long term continuance of cooperative and non-profit forms of tenure.  iv  Table of Contents^  Page  Abstract ^ List of Tables ^  viii  List of Figures ^  ix  Acknowledgment ^ 1.0 Introduction ^  1  1.1. Purpose of Inquiry ^  1  1.2. Context ^  2  1.3. Hypothesis ^  3  1.4. Scope and Definitions ^  4  1.4.1. Lone Parent Family ^  4  1.4.2. Suburb ^  4 Descriptive Definition ^  5 Spatial Definition ^  6  1.4.3. Needs ^ 1.5 Objectives ^  7 8  1.5.1. Empirical Data ^  8  1.5.2. Past studies ^  9 Needs ^  9  1.5.2,2. Alternative Housing and Community Design ^ 9 1.5.3. Public Policy ^ 1.6 Methodology ^  9 11  1.6.1 Empirical Data ^  11  1.6.2 Past Studies and Public Policy ^  11  1.7 Organization of the Thesis ^  12  V  2.0 Literature Review  ^  16  2.1 Social Process and Physical Construct ^  16  2.2 Traditional City Planning Ideology ^  18  2.3 Contemporary City Planning Ideology ^  19  2.4 The Lone Parent Family ^  20  2.5 Summary ^  22  3.0 A Profile of the Lone Parent Family ^23  3.1 Growth ^  24  3.2 Future Growth ^  25  3.3 Gender ^  28  3.4 Socioeconomic Status ^  29  3.4.1 Income ^  29  3.4.2 Occupation ^  30  3.4.3 Education ^  31  3.5 Housing ^  31  3.6 Summary ^  33  4.0 Needs, Housing Options, and Community Alternatives ^35  4.1 Needs ^  35  4.1.1 Adequate and Affordable Housing ^  35  4.1.4 Mobility and Accessibility ^  39  4.2 Housing Options and Community Alternatives ^  40  4.2.1 Congregate Housing ^  40  4.2.2 Cohousing ^  41  4.2.3 Restructured Housing ^  44  4.2.4 Pedestrian Pockets ^  45  4.3 Summary ^  46  vi 5.0 Making Alternative Living Environments A Reality: Public Policy Alternatives ^48  5.1 Implementation of Alternatives ^  49  5.2 Local Level: Public Policy Alternatives ^  51  5.2.1 Development Cost Charges ^  52  5.2.2 Single Family Zoning ^  53  5.2.3 Compactness ^  54 Zoning Density Calculations ^  54 Floor Space Ratio Calculation ^  55 Parking Requirements ^  55  5.2.4 Public Awareness ^  56  5.2.5 Summary: Local Level Alternatives ^  57  5.3 Federal Level: Public Policy Alternatives ^  58  5.3.1 The Rental Housing Sector ^  58  5.3.2 The Rental Market ^  59  5.3.3 Market-Welfare Initiatives ^  61 Supply-Side Policies ^  62 Demand-Side Policies ^  63  5.3.4 Social-Welfare Initiatives ^  65 Non-Profit and Coop Housing ^  65 Community Land Trusts ^  68  5.3.5 Summary: Federal Level Initiatives ^ 5.5 Summary ^  71 73  vii  6.0 Conclusion ^75  6.1 Findings ^  75  6.2 Policy Options and Initiatives ^  77  6.2.1 Local Level Initiatives ^  78  6.2.2 Federal Level Initiatives ^  79  6.2.3 Societal Level Initiatives ^  80  6.3 Areas for Future Research ^  80  6.4 Final Note ^  82  Endnotes ^  83  Bibliography ^  87  Appendices ^0^  91  vu' List of Tables ^92  Table 1 - Percentage Distribution of Husband-Wife and Lone Parent Households by Age of Household Maintainer, Vancouver CMA, ^ 93 Table 2 - Average Employment Income of Population 15 Years and Over by Sex and 94 Major Occupation, Canada, 1985 ^ Table 3 - Labour Force 15 Years and Over by Occupation, Major Groups, and Sex, Vancouver CMA, 1986 (20% Sample Data) ^  95  Table 4 - Changes in Home Ownership Rates Within and Between Income Quintiles 96 Canada, 1967-1981 ^ Table 5 - Changes in Renter Households by Income Quintiles, Canada, 1967-1981 . ^ 96 Table 6 - Market-Welfare vs Social-Welfare Subsidies 1976-1982 (Millions) ^ 97  ix  List of Figures. ^98  Figure 1 - Levittown ca., 1955 ^ Figure 2 - Deriving Data for Suburban and Central City Lone Parent Families: Outer Ring Definition ^  99 6  Figure 3 - Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1990 ^  100  Figure 4 - Divorce Rates, Canada, 1971-1986 ^  101  Figure 5 - Number of Divorced Lone Parents by Sex, Canada, 1971-1986. ^ 101 Figure 6 - Options for Reorganizing a Typical Suburban Block ^102 Figure 7 - Perspective View of a Pedestrian Pocket ^  103  Figure 8 - Plan View of a 50 Acre Pedestrian Pocket ^  103  Figure 9 - Market Housing Rents: Early 1970's and 1980's ^ 60 Figure 10- Community Land Trust Policies and Procedures: Selected Excerpts, 1985 ^  104  x  Acknowledgment I would like to acknowledge several people who were instrumental in the successful completion of this project. Thanks to my two thesis advisers, Craig Davis and Penny Gurstein, for their much valued guidance and constructive criticism throughout this project and to Richard White and Coro Strandberg for bringing a field related perspective to the research. Finally, I would like to extend a special thanks to my to my close friends and family for their support and encouragement throughout this process.  1 1.0 Chapter 1- Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Inquiry  There is today a misconception of suburbia that is still readily accepted by a large part of the population. It is derived from the pool of anti-suburban sentiment that marked the 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 referred to as the "suburban myth." The typical image of suburbia, characterized by a core of homogeneous nuclear families living in single family homes and pursuing standardized and conformist lifestyles, is increasingly becoming outdated.1 Contemporary suburbanization 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 accurate picture of existing suburban social and spatial patterns to be constructed. Preliminary findings reveal a number of reasons why it is important to continue to direct renewed research towards the much maligned North American suburb. First, there is every reason to believe that suburbia is and will continue to be the place where the majority of people will choose to live 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 growing dominance of suburbia will also follow suit.2 Increased growth will likely lead to continued demographic change and result in the restructuring of service demands, equity considerations, and political agendas. By focussing attention on demographic change at present, planners may be in a better position to respond to its impact in the future. One of the goals of this research, therefore, is to provide both quantitative and qualitative information about aspects related to demographic change in suburbia. A second important reason for renewed research is the fact that so little new knowledge has been generated in this area. It is apparent that amongst politicians, policy  2 makers, and others, there exists relatively minimal knowledge about contemporary suburban life. Instead, the stereotypical view that has come to typify "suburbia" remains predominant. Another goal of this work, therefore, is intended to generate findings aimed at increasing the suburban knowledge base as well as dispelling the suburban myth. A final reason for continued research is the recognition that social changes are far outpacing physical changes within the suburban context.3 Although suburbs are now undertaking functions, activities, and spatial features characteristic of central cities, such transformations are generally limited to a few concentrated suburban nodes. In general, the traditional residential living environments characteristic of suburbia have changed little in comparison to contemporary social restructuring trends. The impetus for this view stems from a growing recognition by researchers of an increasing diversity and complexity in the organization of relationships and activities amongst suburban households 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 a wider 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 traditional nuclear family. The contemporary definition, for example, now recognizes at least nine different variations of family: lone parent families, nuclear families, reconstituted families, bi-nuclear families, dual income families, dual career families, commuter families, gay and lesbian families, and extended families (Nett, 1988; Eichler, 1983). 1.2 Context  In light of the above views, researchers have become keenly interested in exploring how such non-traditional groups are adapting to traditional suburban living environments. The present inquiry, based along the same lines, will address the experience of one family type in particular: the lone parent family.  3 The selection of the lone parent family as the study unit is motivated by a number of reasons. First, the lone parent family represents the most rapidly growing family type in North America. 4 Continued social changes of this nature will inevitably lead to the restructuring of service demands (e.g., day care, housing, and transit) and raise questions about equity distribution. It is important to understand the scale of these social changes in order to respond to their inevitable impacts in the future. Such an understanding should give planners, politicians, and policy makers greater insight in seeking out public policies that will make life more satisfying and equitable for these same groups. Second, lone parent families represent one of the largest and poorest groups of disadvantaged Canadian families. In fact, it is reported that this group allocates by 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 parent families do not have enough income to generate adequate market demand in meeting their special needs.5 An analysis of the income problem should provide a solid foundation upon which future policy development can take place, especially in the area of housing provision. Finally, it is also clear that these same families have very particular housing and housing related needs which differ markedly from those associated with traditional suburban families. In fact, commentators agree that the best social and spatial arrangements for lone parent families are higher density, mixed use communities inhabited by a variety of socioeconomic groups (Franck, 1985; Hayden, 1984). Such developments, of course, are in direct contrast to those characteristic of post-war suburbia. 1.3 Hypothesis  It is clear that lone parent families possess an alternative set of needs compared with those of traditional families. It is also clear that lone parent families, because of their socioeconomic position, may have more difficulty in meeting those needs through the market place. As a result, there is a likelihood that the needs of lone parent families  4 are not being adequately met within traditional suburban living environments. The  remainder of this study, therefore, is primarily devoted to exploring this hypothesis. A series of subsidiary questions will also be examined. Is the growth of lone parent families, for example, substantial enough to warrant further research and policy intervention? If so, then what needs do lone parent families have and how are they different from those of traditional families? Why are these needs not being met? What types of physical living environments are best suited to meet those needs? Finally, what type 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 reoccur throughout the remainder of this study. It is important, therefore, to understand exactly what is meant by such terms. There is, for example, potential ambiguity about concepts such 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 the process, clearly outline the parameters of this study. 1.4.1 Lone Parent Family  For 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, living in a dwelling with one or more never married children".6 1.4.2 Suburb  While the definition of a "lone parent family" is straightforward and explicit, the definition of a suburb is not as clear cut. Defining what constitutes a traditional post-war residential suburb, or any suburb for that matter, is not a simple task; in fact, it is increasingly becoming a problematic prospect. This is so because traditional suburban areas are now undertaking functions, activities, and spatial features characteristic of central cities. Nevertheless, there is a body of literature specifically devoted to defining and redefining suburbia within the context of these changes. Using this literature, two  5 different definitions of suburbia were extrapolated: the descriptive definition and the spatial definition. The descriptive definition best reflects the typical residential image of suburbia encountered by researchers in the field. Conversely, the spatial definition represents 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 is offered below. Descriptive Definition  Despite development pressures within a few concentrated suburban nodes, postwar residential suburbs have remained largely the same. As a result, the conventional description of such areas is still applicable. Briefly, post-war residential suburbs, constructed between 1945 and 1970, are described as having at least five common characteristics: peripheral location, low density, architectural homogeneity, accessibility and affordability, and economic and racial homogeneity.? Other related aspects include: a high standard of housing design, the availability of large areas of open space, the separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and a commitment to a sense of community.8 New York's Levittown development, built along these lines, is a perfect example of the traditional post-war residential suburb (See Appendix-Figure 1). Don Mills -Canada's first corporate suburbis another excellent example. Urban researchers and policy makers, however, are generally unimpressed with such developments, referring to them as "degraded in conception and impoverished in form."9 Nevertheless, Levittown, Don Mills, and similar developments that followed remain an ideal to which many North American families aspire. They also represent the type of environments that at least one strand of theorists (Franck, 1984; Hayden, 1984; Jacobs, 1960) is reacting against and within which this inquiry will take place.  6 Spatial Definition  The descriptive definition of suburbia offered above identifies in a physical sense the type of residential areas under consideration; however, a good portion of this study is also devoted to analyzing empirical differences between city and suburb and between suburb and suburb. As a result, a descriptive definition of suburbia, although useful in a conceptual sense, is not completely sufficient for this study. Consequently, when working with comparative statistical data, the legal definition of suburbia as set forth in the 1986 Census of Canada will apply. Suburbs, according to this definition, refer to all incorporated municipalities, districts, townships, or cities within a region, with the exception of the central city. In the Greater Vancouver Region, for example, the suburbs consist of all component municipalities, districts, townships, or cities within the region, with exception of the City of Vancouver. Researchers have coined this the "outer ring definition" (Mueller, 1976). It is useful because it allows census data to be aggregated at the regional, urban, suburban, and local municipal level. It also allows for simple comparison of variables between city and suburb and between suburb and suburb (See Figure 2 below). Figure 2: Deriving Data For Suburban and Central City Lone Parent Families:  Outer Ring Definition  ^  CMA = Census Metropolitan Area CSD = Census Subdivision Suburbs = CMA - CSD (Central City)  a. CMA ill b. CSD (Central City)  0  c. Suburban Aggregate d. Suburban Component  7 1.43 Needs  Defining a "need" is equally problematic, largely because different people, for whatever reasons, have different needs at any one particular time. In arriving at a working 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 desirable for 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 may possess more than one need. Given this fact, how can one predict which of the rather large set of human needs is the most important at any one time? A probable answer to this question can be found in psychological literature and is best explained by the concept of a needs hierarchy (Maslow, 1954; 1970). The central idea underlying the needs hierarchy hypothesis is that some basic needs (e.g., oxygen, food, water, shelter, and safety,) 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, contextually relevant to this study. Past research in the area of suburban living, for example, reveals that all families living in suburbia possess a rather sizable set of living needs (such as housing, social integration, social support, mobility, accessibility, sense of community, privacy, neighborliness, and openness). In accordance with the needs hierarchy hypothesis, some suburban living needs are very basic (e.g., housing), while others tend to be more intangible (e.g., openness). For the purpose of this study four basic needs were selected for analysis: housing, social integration, social support, and mobility and accessibility, in that order. The decision to include these needs and not others is not entirely an arbitrary one; it is based on the assumption that "needs" are relative. This particular set of "needs", for example, was selected because research from previous studies revealed that these were the areas where lone parent families experienced the  8 most disadvantage in relation to husband-wife and nuclear families. The single most basic need for lone parent families was that associated with securing adequate and affordable housing; all other needs tended to be secondary. Consequently, the focus in this study will be on housing, with secondary consideration given to other related needs. 1.5 Objectives  In the next section a series of objectives will be outlined and used to address the main research question. The intent is to construct an argument to support the position that, indeed, traditional suburban residential living environments are not adequately meeting the needs of lone parent families. In doing so, empirical data, past studies, and existing public policy will be employed. The next section outlines what the objectives are and 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 the view that alternative family types are assuming a greater proportion of suburban family profiles. Using the Census, population counts and growth rates for lone parent families will be compiled and compared with nuclear families over an extended period. The continued growth of lone parent families is expected to raise questions about equity redistribution and the restructuring of service demands. In addition, statistics relating to household income, tenure, gender, and socioeconomic status for these same family types will also be considered. The aim here is to reaffirm that lone parent families have lower than average incomes, are primarily renters, and headed by females. It is expected that there is a link between these socioeconomic indicators and the inability of lone parent families to meet their "needs" within the marketplace. Quantitative data and statistics will be compiled at the national and provincial level to support this view; however, local area statistics will also be used wherever possible. Specifically, reference will be made to the City of Vancouver, surrounding municipalities, and three electoral areas that make up the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area (See Appendix-Figure 3).  9 1.5.2 Past Studies Needs  A discussion about the needs of lone parent families in relation to traditional suburban living environments represents a second set of objectives. Drawing from past studies, we will argue that lone parent families have needs which differ markedly from those of the traditional nuclear family. We will also argue that built forms and community designs necessary to support such alternative needs are at odds with the suburban ideal and most suburban settings presently in existence. In pursuing these objectives we will focus our discussion on four key research areas: housing, social integration, social support, and mobility and accessibility. Alternative Housing and Community Design  Having established that traditional suburban living environments are ill suited for lone parent families, the next set of objectives is intended merely to review a host of suburban housing and community design alternatives already put forth by researchers and designers. Some key generalizations are expected to follow. First, the inability of existing suburban environments to adequately support the relationships and activities associated with the lone parent family is expected to be something that has been consistently recognized in past studies.^Second, all of the alternative housing and community design proposals will likely point to the fact that, in the future, the design of new suburban communities should be implemented with a variety of family types and circumstances in mind. Finally, and what is most relevant here, is that despite the multitude of alternative proposals put forth, there is still little evidence of any comprehensive 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 lone  parent families in the suburbs is attributable to a number of factors, especially at the local and the federal level. Local level discussion will focus on zoning policy, since this is the  10 primary mechanism for controlling land use development. Conversely, discussion at the federal level will center on housing policy and legislation, since this is the primary mechanism dictating how housing is supplied in this country. Although the provincial government also has an interest in housing policy and supply, evaluation of its polices were excluded from this study since most of the major powers in this area belong to Ottawa. The provincial government does have a relatively limited mandate to intervene in housing issues; however, the majority of provincial duties center around the delivery of housing programs generated at the federal level. It is the federal government, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), that is largely responsible for the creation of housing policy and implementation of housing legislation. As a result, the discussion in this section will be focussed at the local and federal level. The objectives will be to critically evaluate existing local zoning policies and federal housing policies, in order 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 of existing 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 factors underpinning the growing housing supply and affordability problem for this same family group. 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 that rental markets, left to their own devices, will only supply housing to those who are able and willing to pay.10 This, in fact, is the very position in which the majority of lone parent families find themselves. Such rental market insufficiencies have not gone unnoticed 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 of residential rental markets; and second, to evaluate the effectiveness of public policy intervention, characterized by market-welfare and social-welfare initiatives.  11 1.6 Methodology  Briefly, information will be compiled using empirical data, past studies, and public policy documents. An explanation of how the information will be obtained, what sources of data will be used, and how the data and information will be analyzed is offered below. 1.6.1 Empirical Data  Empirical data will be obtained directly from the Canada Census. Census statistics for the study units and variables under consideration, from the year 1961 and every successive census year up until 1986, will serve as the primary data base. The longitudinal nature of the research is expected to allow for the compilation of relative and absolute growth rates for lone parent families and serve as a basis from which future predictions can be made. Such projections will also be supplemented by assumptions derived from current economic and social trends such as, rising divorce rates, increasing marriage rates, and others. Additional empirical data will be obtained from a series of secondary sources and publications at the local, provincial, and national level. Sources include: Statistics Canada, ClVIFIC, Center for Human Settlements, GVRD Development Services, BC Statistics Services, the UBC Data Library, PCensus, SPARC (Social Planning and Research Council), professional journals, and local municipalities. In all cases, statistics relating 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 research objectives set forth earlier. Information will be summarized and presented using growth curves, comparative tables, bar graphs, and numerical comparisons. 1.6.2 Past Studies and Public Policy  Information regarding past studies and existing public policy is also available through many of the secondary sources cited above as well as through discussion with  12 policy makers and critics. Past studies will be employed when reviewing the "needs" and proposed housing and community "alternatives" for lone parent families. Because such an approach takes on the form of a literature review, the nature of analysis will be dependant 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 where the very first step is to understand one's value/policy relationship and those of the other actors involved. 11 Choosing a point of view different from another's, for example, will lead to different interests, concerns, and desires for public policy intervention. By choosing an alternative point of view, particularly in the area of housing policy, our aim will be to locate where problems with current policy exist and where new solutions may be tried. 1.7 Organization of the Thesis  In this introductory chapter the purpose, context, hypothesis, scope, objectives, and methodology of the study have been reviewed. It is now possible to begin to address the original hypothesis. In doing so, the thesis has been divided into three parts. The first part (Chapter 2) consists of a literature review in which reference is made to existing knowledge, 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 and information about lone parent families. The demographic characteristics, suburban living needs, and the housing situation of lone parent families, as well as the alternative housing and 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 the implementation of housing arrangements and community options for lone parent families is evaluated. The focus is on housing policy, but reference is also made to earlier themes  13 associated 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, and guide this inquiry. Many of the themes presented in this chapter will reoccur throughout the remainder of the study. Consequently, it is important to understand them from the outset. Briefly, Chapter 2 looks at the nature of societal transformations underway in suburbia and the inability of traditional planning theory to accommodate such transformations. The relevance of lone parent families, given the emergent themes, is also discussed. Chapter 3 looks at the demographic, social, and economic characteristics of the lone parent family. The discussion focuses on issues of growth, gender, socioeconomic status, and housing. The aim in this chapter is to construct a profile of the lone parent family. Findings are expected to reaffirm that, indeed, lone parent families suffer from poverty and are more disadvantaged than most Canadian families. The residual profile of lone parent families is expected to be a key reason why such families are unable to effectively meet their needs through the market place. Chapter 4 looks at the particular needs of lone parent families. The adequacy of traditional suburbs in meeting such needs is addressed. This is followed by a discussion of housing options and community alternatives designed to better meet those same needs. The emergent themes are expected to form a framework within which non-traditional suburbs emphasizing household choice and diversifying needs can be based. Chapter 5 focuses on implementation constraints and policy options regarding alternative housing arrangements for lone parent families. Findings are expected to confirm that lone parent families, in fact, cannot register effective housing demand through the private market place. Research at the local level is expected to reveal that zoning policies themselves may actually be inhibiting the development of alternative housing for such low income groups. The limitations of local policies will be identified,  14 and a series of options aimed at facilitating the construction, of smaller, denser, and diverse housing developments for non-traditional households will be proposed. The remainder of the discussion is devoted to a critique of federal housing policy. The residual nature of the rental sector and the dysfunctional aspects of the rental market are explored in greater detail. In addition, the effectiveness of federal policy intervention into the rental sector, characterized by market-welfare and social-welfare initiatives, is also evaluated. Findings are expected to point to the fact that federal government policies in the future will need to focus more on social-welfare initiatives. Policies that facilitate the development of non-profit and coop housing are likely to be the best alternatives in directly meeting the needs of low income households. In addition, policies that ensure the long term status of the non-profit and coop housing form of tenure should also be actively pursued. Chapter 6 is devoted to a summary of relevant theory findings, implications, and public policy concerning the lone parent family type. A public policy and planning framework which facilitates diversity, choice, and affordability is expected to be the best approach for meeting the needs of the lone parent family, as well as the host of other nontraditional family types now living in suburbia. To encourage more social and physical heterogeneity within suburban landscapes, however, public policy at both local and federal level will likely need to change to reflect changing demographic trends and new economic realities. At the local level, such changes are expected to center around the reform of existing zoning by-laws. At the federal level, the ideology of housing policy itself will need to change to focus more on social-welfare rather than market-welfare initiatives. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to identifying possible future directions for continued research. Suggestions, of course, are based on topics raised throughout this discussion and include reference to: issues associated directly with the lone parent family housing developments; issues linked to the implications resulting from  15 broader demographic restructuring trends; and finally, issues related to processconsiderations in planning for alternative suburban living environments.  16 2.0 Chapter 2 Literature Review -  Literature 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 few comprehensive 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 in this chapter is merely to identify some of the themes that emerged. A detailed exploration and examination of the concepts identified will be carried out in later chapters. The first part of the discussion looks at the interrelationship between social processes and physical constructs. The nature of social and physical transformations is explored. This is followed by a presentation of views regarding the traditional city planning theories. The ability of homogeneous landscapes to meet the needs of heterogeneous households is addressed. An alternative set of views associated with contemporary planning ideals is then presented. Finally, literature on lone parent families is examined in light of the above ideas. 2.1 Social Process and Physical Construct  One of the central themes that emerges from the literature is that age, gender, and  family 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 shape and sustain the design of houses, buildings, and communities (Franck, 1983). Societal expectations of the nuclear family ideal, for example, helped realize the development of highly conformist, mass-produced, post-war suburbs (Jackson, 1985). The development of traditional suburbs, however, was not entirely a product of social changes; larger economic and political interests were also at work. From the outset, the single family suburb was promoted more as a means of stabilizing polity and stimulating the economy  17 rather than accommodating the needs of the nuclear family unit. Nevertheless, sociopsychological theorists have argued that the prototypic model of suburbia was fully realized 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 of the central cities opting instead for safer, child oriented environments. In a sense, the physical model of suburbia that emerged was viable because it fit with the needs and preferences of the emerging family unit. Since then, there has been renewed evidence that another societal transformation is 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 a transformation is due, in large part, to the changing concept of family. Sociologists now acknowledge 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 many meant a group of people living within the same dwelling and closely bound together emotionally and by consanguinality, as parent and child, or husband and wife, and included other fictional kin (Nett, 1988). Rising divorce and remarriage rates, however, have prompted sociologists to extend the definition of family beyond those who share a dwelling 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 who do not necessarily share the same dwelling (Baker, 1984).. The concept of family has indeed changed dramatically, expanding from what was generally perceived to be the norm --the nuclear family-- to include a host of non-traditional family types. Recent statistical findings reflect this very point. Suburban family profiles, for example, have been found to be much more varied and diverse than those of the 1950's and 60's. The number of alternative family types is growing and assuming a greater percentage of suburban family profiles (Burch, 1986).  18 2.2 Traditional City Planning Ideology  Family restructuring patterns in suburbia, as early as the 1970's, have generated considerable discourse, particularly amongst urban professionals. A common belief of planners and architects is that new concepts of family, household, and gender are being created; however, the enactment of those concepts is taking place within living environments that were meant for entirely different lifestyle arrangements (Franck, 1985). This view has motivated one strand of theorists to argue for the adaptation of old environments and the creation of new ones that will support the new alternativeS. In the studies that were reviewed, two interesting themes emerged. First, it was clear that nontraditional family types possessed needs that were inherently different from those of the traditional nuclear family (Hayden, 1983; Klowdawsky et. al., 1983, 1987); second, it was recognized that a better fit between families and buildings would be possible only if conventional practices associated with traditional city planning and architectural design were abandoned, or at the least modified (Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1984; Kroll, 1986). In the future, planners and architects will have to rely on creative and innovative solutions to meet the emerging needs of non-traditional families. The central problem, according to some urbanists, is that the tools that planners have inherited are not exactly the best for bringing about changes to meet those needs. The most renowned proponent of this view, of course, is Jane Jacobs. According  to Jacobs, the problem, in part, is rooted deep in the past and linked to the views associated with traditional city planning ideology. The most powerful influence starts with Ebeneezer Howard and his idea for the establishment of Garden Cities. The Garden City was seen as an alternative to the city and a solution to urban problems. It was to embody the best aspects of town and country (Howard, 1965). While the intricacies associated with the Garden City are not important here, it is important to identify its underlying principles, since city planners and designers are still governed intellectually by them.  19 Howard, according to some, set in motion a set of powerful and city destroying ideas (Jacobs, 1961). A more sympathetic view, however, sees Howard's ideas as often misunderstood and misapplied (Hall, 1988). They have been used to justify low density development, when, in fact, Howard was advocating much higher residential densities. Also, his ideas linking cities by rail and providing employment within them were never implemented. Unfortunately, and what is most relevant to this research, is that his ideas about the strict separation of uses have survived to the present day. In fact, they were readily embraced in North America in the 1920's and promoted by a group of academics known as the Decentrists: Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, and Catherine Bauer. The Decentrists, like Howard, reiterated that the planned community should be isolated as a self-contained unit. 2.3 Contemporary City Planning Ideology  Influential critics such as Jane Jacobs, Kevin Lynch, and Lucien Kroll have reacted vehemently against the views of Howard and the Decentrists. The strict adherence to such principles, they believe, would ultimately "do the city in". In their place they propose an alternative set of principles designed to encourage physical and social diversity. Renewal, regeneration, and adaptation of cities would be possible only through higher residential densities, mixed primary land uses, variety of building types and forms, and short city blocks (Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1984). The "diversity principles" found in the planning literature, of course, are rooted in biology and ecology. In the biological and ecological world, for example, species diversity is crucial to an ecosystem's flexibility, adaptability, and survival; homogeneity often spells rigidity and death. Monotypes tend to be avoided in the natural world because of their inability to adjust in the face of change (Berman, 1984). Sociologists and urbanists have picked up on this sentiment, extracting the underlying principles and arguing for their implementation when planning for new city forms. The irony is that, to this day, a good part of Western society, Communist or Capitalist, continues to strive for  20  homogeneity, unity and order (Berman, 1984). Nowhere is this more apparent than in the prescriptive planning and architecture that characterized post-war suburban tract developments (Hayden 1984). The mass planning and architecture of the 1950's was, in part, a response to social relationships and activities characterized by the prevailing family type: the nuclear family. Since then, the diversification of family has led to the emergence of a whole new set of social relationships and activities. There is now a growing recognition that existing 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 alternatives that are both sensitive to existing living environments, but at the same time responsive to the needs of non-traditional family types (Vischer, 1987). Findings from past studies suggest that public policy and planning which facilitates physical diversity is the best alternative for meeting the needs of these family types (Jacobs, 1961; Klowdawsky et. al., 1983, 1987; Gurstein and Hood, 1975). 2.4 The Lone Parent Family  Much of the literature covering lone parent families also contains ideas closely related to those presented above. The lone parent family represents a growing nontraditional family type with very particular housing and housing related needs. Researchers are finding that such needs are not very well addressed within existing suburban living environments, nor is there evidence that they are being met within newer suburban developments. Statistical findings in North America, for example, confirmed that suburban family profiles became more heterogeneous in the 1980's. The fastest growing family type 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 the number of lone parent families is expected to continue into the 1990's.  21 There is also a recognition that lone parent families possess needs which differ somewhat from those of the traditional nuclear family. They are particularly sensitive to child care and housing needs. Further, housing is seen by lone parent families as part of a 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 in close proximity to their housing (Gurstein and Hood, 1975). As a result, many of the housing alternatives and community options that were reviewed emphasized the fulfillment of social needs within a physical setting. Alternative housing schemes reflected tendencies towards higher density, mixed use communities linked by public transport (Hayden, 1984; Franck, 1985). There was also a strong emphasis upon solutions that took into account only the dwelling unit itself (Kroll, 1986). This involved either 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 their own buildings and living spaces, if they so desired. In sum, many of the aspects associated with these alternative proposals represented the antithesis of the suburban ideal 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 to be tied to certain demographic characteristics. Evidence suggests that female-led lone parent families, because of their comparatively lower income to male-led lone parent families, 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 of areas 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 and federal level were found to be the two areas where change could be effected to offer the greatest benefits to lone parent families.  22 2.5 Summary  The literature review has served to outline the context within which the research will take place. The themes that emerged form a conceptual framework, and are intended to guide the remainder of this inquiry. It is clear, for example, that social constructions like physical constructions are the product of human invention. In the past, social constructions have helped to define the design and construction of communities and buildings. 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 of non-traditional social formations within traditional living environments. The concern is that the enactment of new social relationships and activities is taking place within living environments that were originally intended for very different social organizations (e.g., the nuclear family). In order to accommodate such social changes a greater fit between buildings and people will be needed in the future; however, for this to happen, traditional planning practices may need to be re-evaluated. The alternative being proposed is a new set of planning guidelines founded on the principles of diversity. Finally, a review of the literature covering lone parent families reveals that many of 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 traditional family environment. As a result, there is a keen interest in analyzing how this family type is adapting to life in post-war suburbia.  23 3.0 Chapter 3 - A Profile of the Lone Parent Family  One of the assumptions of this research is that new social constructions are likely to play an integral part in helping to define the design of new living communities and the restructuring of existing ones. Judging from the literature review, however, there is very little evidence that new social constructions like the lone parent family are helping to define the design and construction of such communities. The inability of this group to make an impact in such communities seems to be linked to a variety of social and economic factors. The residual profile of the majority of lone parent families with respect to socioeconomic variables such as income, gender, occupation, education, and tenure, are believed to be factors inhibiting the development of such new forms and spaces. The aim in this chapter, therefore, is to flesh out in greater detail the demographic, 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 to effectively 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 past growth 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 the underlying factors causing the disproportionate representation between female and maleled lone parent families. This is followed by a discussion about socioeconomic status. The income, occupational, and educational situations of lone parent families will be explored. Finally, the housing situation of lone parent families will be addressed. The links between socioeconomic variables and the housing situation will be brought into focus. Particular attention will be given to shelter costs, tenure, and dwelling characteristics.  24 3.1 Growth  The 1980's in Canada witnessed the greatest increase in non-traditional family forms, especially lone parent families. The lone parent family continued to be by far the most rapidly growing family type in Canada. The number of lone parent families grew dramatically from 371,885 in 1967 to 853,300 in 1986.12 In addition, since 1967, lone parent families have continued to assume an ever-growing proportion of all Canadian families. 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 lone parent families from 1981. In contrast, the most traditional family type -the nuclear family- 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 for Canada 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 divorce laws since 1969 plus the increase in teenage pregnancies are the two most influential factors. Within some provinces, however, growth rates tend to be slightly higher than the national average. This is due, in part, to provincial patterns of separation, divorce, and marriage, but more so to internal migration patterns. Lone parent families, particularly in their initial phase of formation, tend to move from less prosperous regions to those where economic opportunities are more abundant. This, of course, results in lower rates of divorce, separation, and lone parenthood in areas of origin and higher rates in areas of destination. In fact, in the 1980's, the largest concentration of lone parent families was found in the most populous and prosperous provinces: Ontario, Quebec, and B.C., in that order. 14 Local trends tend to reflect the national and provincial trends outlined above. The number of lone parent families as a proportion of all families for the Vancouver Census  25 Metropolitan Area (CMA), for example, has increased from 10.5% in 1976 to 11.3% in 1981, and most recently, to 13.0% in 1986. 1 5 In each case, local growth rates were still slightly higher than the national average confirming that regional growth is, in fact, likely to be higher in more prosperous provinces or regions. Local statistics also reveal that the emergence of lone parent families is not solely limited to the urban core. The highest proportion of lone parent families in the Vancouver 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 Background Report on Households reveals that the number of lone parent families is also on the rise  in traditional suburban areas (Rekart, 1989). Between 1976 and 1986, the number of lone 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 largest number of these same families, with the exception of Vancouver (15,740) and nearby Burnaby (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, these same areas contain a higher than average percentage of lone parent families headed by the 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 lower rents and consequently cheaper housing. 3.2 Future Growth  In exploring the future growth possibilities for this same group, a series of projections were reviewed. Projection results were based on the 1976 to 1986 Canada Census and the most recent Statistics Canada population projections. They covered the period from June 1, 1989 to June 1, 2011. Briefly, projections were constructed using the headship rates approach. Three sets of potential future rates were developed: series A, B, and C. Series A and C  26 represented projections resulting from low and high growth assumptions, respectively, while Series B represented projections resulting from medium growth assumptions. This discussion is based on results from Series B growth rate assumptions. It is also important to note that past rates, upon which future projections were based, were extrapolated using the modified exponential method. The modified exponential curve was chosen because the 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 detailed description 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 is likely to continue, but at a slower rate of growth than in the past. The family growth rate, for example, is expected to be in the range of 0.7% to 0.9% by the year 2011. This is down from the 2.0% growth rate for 1976-1981 and the 1.3% rate for 1981-86. 1 7 The growth in the number of lone parent families reflects similar trends. The number of lone parent families, for example, is expected to increase by 84% from 854, 000 in 1986 to 1.6 million by 2011, with about 78% of those families being female-led. This is down considerably 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 this continued, 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 bust generations of the 1980's and 90's, which are characterized with generally lower fertility rates. This assumption is confirmed through the continued downward trend in fertility since the 1960's. The fertility rate in Canada, for example, dropped from 3.8 children per women 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 all  27 possible factors influencing decreasing fertility patterns and the subsequent formation of families without children. Despite tendencies towards slower growth, the number of non-traditional family types is still expected to grow as a proportion of all families in both urban and suburban areas. In fact, findings suggest that the proportion of lone parent families will increase as the proportion of husband-wife families decrease. Husband-wife families, for example, although still the largest family group, are expected to continue to decline as a proportion of all families. The number of husband-wife families, which declined from approximately 92% of all families in 1961 to 87% in 1986, is expected to decline further to 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 highest growth rates, because of inter-regional migration patterns, are anticipated in Alberta and British Columbia, at 68% and 63%, respectively. 20 As shown above, the growth of lone parent families, although slower than in the past, is still expected to outpace that of husband-wife families. Reasons for this more rapid growth vary, but the most obvious one is divorce. Divorce rates have been consistently on the rise since the early 1970's, with the most dramatic increase occurring in 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 sexual conservatism amongst Western society as a whole. Another reason for growth among lone parent families is a softening of cultural values. Changing cultural values, for example, are expected to make the concept of unwed mothers a more acceptable social phenomenon than in the past. Finally, the higher than average age at death of females is another 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 greater percentage of composite family profiles than in the past. Unfortunately, statistics were  28  not available at the suburban and urban level, but one assumes that local growth trends will 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 parent families will be even more constrained to move to the outer suburban areas. It is in these areas 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 attention whenever discussion about this family group arises. Traditionally, there has been a disproportionate representation between female and male-led lone parent families. In the past, higher incidences of female lone parenthood were attributable to factors associated with widowhood; today, however, they are largely a result of divorce. For example, there has been a dramatic increase in female-led lone parent families following amendments to the 1969 Divorce Act. The higher incidence of female lone parenthood is largely attributable to the static nature of the distribution of custody by gender, which has remained constant at 84% female and 16% male.21 Higher death rates among men and slightly lower remarriage rates among females are two additional factors contributing to this phenomenon. The result of all these factors combined is a dramatic increase in the number of single, divorced mothers since 1969. The number of never married single mothers has also increased since this time. Statistics reflect this trend. Between 1971 and 1976, for example, lone parent families were primarily femaleled and became more so into the 1980's. In 1971, 78% percent of lone parent families were female-led. Since then, this number has increased nationally to 83% in 1983, and remained 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.23 Roughly 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 are  29 headed by females. Results from B.C. and the Vancouver CMA also reflect the national trend. 3.4 Socioeconomic Status  Gender also has an extremely significant influence upon the socioeconomic characteristics of the families involved. There are definite links between gender and differences in income, occupation, and education for the families involved. The following section looks at these differences by contrasting the situation of male and female lone parents. Before proceeding, however, a general overview of the income situation 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 has been a traditional focus of discussion. A detailed examination of income characteristics confirm that, indeed, lone parent families represent one of the poorest and most disadvantaged family groups in terms of income. The problem seems to be most acute in Canada. Findings from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington indicate that lone parent families are more likely to live in poverty in Canada than in any other of the eight industrialized nations, with the exception of the United States. Almost 30% of the 853,300 lone parent families in Canada now live below the poverty line (In Canada, the poverty line for a lone parent with two children is about $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 recent statistics indicate that the problem is becoming worse. A comparison between 1981 and 1986 Census data, for example, reveals that while the numbers of all family types continued to rise, their income levels continued to decrease in real terms. More importantly, while the average income of husband-wife families decreased by only 0.3% to $37,827 during this period, that of lone parent families decreased significantly by 3.5% to $26,109. Further, both male and female lone  30 parent families saw their average family income decrease in 1986 from 1981 figures by 6% 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 lone parents was $18,306 (based on 20% sample), or 5% lower than the national average. 26 In the Vancouver CMA, however, average male and female lone parent family income for the same period was $35,157 and $20,605; respectively. 27 In both these cases average incomes were slightly higher than the national and provincial averages. In addition, the disproportion between male and female incomes was even more pronounced. This last set of statistics is most striking. Not only are female lone parent family incomes well below the poverty line, but they are also considerably lower than those of males. As of 1986, for example, females had an income that was 65% that of males.28 The reasons for this disparity are numerous and difficult to document; however, it appears that the nature of labour force activity and education plays an integral part in explaining 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 matter what occupational category they participate in. A number of reasons have been identified to explain this wide wage gap such as discrimination, hours worked, marital status, education, and absenteeism. A detailed examination of all these reasons is beyond the scope of this analysis; however, whatever the reason, it is clear that there are dramatic differentials 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 sector work force where salaries have always been considerably lower than average (See Appendix-Table 3). In 1985, for example, service and clerical related jobs together had a combined average income of $18,910.29 A major factor attracting female lone parents to the service sector is time commitment. In the service sector work schedules tend to be  31  more flexible, and part-time work is more readily available. Unfortunately, it is in these very sectors where salaries tend to be lowest and the chance for advancement minimal. Other occupations related to teaching, management, the natural sciences, and the social sciences tend to involve a larger degree of full time and, in some cases, extra-time commitment. Such commitments are simply not compatible, given the added income constraints, and subsequent responsibilities of child rearing and household activities placed 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 domestic responsibilities. Male lone parents may be able to afford to pay for a wider range of domestic and child care services. 3.4.3 Education  Another factor contributing to the income disparity of lone parent families is lack of education. It is well known that higher education is generally associated with higher employment income and chance for advancement for both males and females. This is especially true for those with a university degree, although females with a university degree still only earn slightly more than a high-school graduate.30 Nevertheless, past studies find that among married couples, females rather than males tend to be much less likely to have entered or completed post-secondary education. Following marital dissolution, therefore, female-led lone parent families are at a greater disadvantage in terms of education and training. Lack of education does little to help the income situation of such newly formed families. Further, because of increased burdens of time and money, these same families are likely to have more difficulty in improving their socioeconomic position through educational betterment. 3.5 Housing  It is apparent that lone parent families are generally positioned lower on the socioeconomic scale. As a result, such families are more likely to be sensitive to certain needs relative to other higher income families; housing related needs tend to be most  32 significant. In fact, housing condition, costs, and tenure, is often the focus of discussion whenever talk about this family group arises. With regards to condition of dwelling and ability to pay for shelter costs, lone parent families compared with husband-wife families are at a disadvantage. A study in the Canadian Statistical Review, for example, reveals that both female and male lone parent families suffer the poorest housing conditions (about 30% of their dwellings need repair), and spend more than 35% of their income on shelter costs. In fact, 16.5% of all lone parent families spend more than 50% of their income on shelter.31 Lone parent families are also at a disadvantage with regards to tenure when compared with husband-wife families. In all cases, both female and male lone parent families exhibited consistently lower rates of home ownership. Rental was by far the most common option for the majority of lone parent families, particularly in their initial phase of formation (See Appendix-Table 4). In 1982, for example, 95% of all female lone parent families under 25 were renters. For those between 25-34, this number dropped to 73.8%. Further, for those aged 35-44, this figure dropped lower to 49%.3 2 This, however, was still 14% higher than the national average of renter families. As we shall see, the concentration of low income, lone parent families in the rental sector is a contributing factor to the growing inefficiency associated with contemporary rental markets 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 child rearing than do rental accommodations. This is the case because the primary rental market in the majority of cases is still targeted to families and individuals without children. Owner occupied housing also represents the primary means for asset accumulation for many Canadian families. The value of housing resale in most areas of the country, particularly where economies have been strongest, has exceeded the cost of inflation in recent years. Unfortunately, lone parent families, because of their income  33 situation, have been unable to access the owner occupied housing sector and take advantage of its associated benefits. The inability to accumulate assets through owner occupied housing means that the lone parent family may be at a greater disadvantage once 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 with tenure. The traditional family, for example, tends to move from an apartment to a single detached house in the suburbs, and then, possibly back to a multiple unit dwelling during the 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 occupied housing, and even fewer move to single detached dwellings. Second, those that do move to owner occupied housing tend to concentrate in row houses, duplexes, and other attached dwellings. Third, and this is most significant, the majority of single parents remain renters while moving to detached dwellings.33 This last factor is most striking because it shows that the majority of female lone parents must constantly allocate a disproportionate amount of their income to shelter throughout the course of their life cycle. 3.7 Summary  The number of lone parent families has grown dramatically and is expected to grow in the future, although at a slower rate. The trend points to more heterogeneous and diverse suburban family profiles, with the number of lone parent families assuming a greater percentage of all families. In all cases, the predominance of female-led lone parent families is likely to continue, with increases expected in the younger age cohorts living in the outer suburbs. Further, the influence of gender has significant impacts upon the socioeconomic characteristics of the families involved. While lone parent families, in general, are positioned lower on the socioeconomic scale, it is female-led families that suffer the most. Females, for example, earn less than men, tend to work in lower paid service and clerical jobs, and tend to be less educated. Such families become highly  34 sensitized to housing and housing related needs, especially immediately after marital dissolution. In fact, low socioeconomic status places lone parent families, particularly those headed by females, at a disadvantage when it comes to issues of shelter costs, tenure, and dwelling type.  35 4.0 Chapter 4 - Needs, Housing Options, and Community Alternatives  The lone parent family represents one of the poorest and most disadvantaged family types in all of Canada. As will be argued in this chapter, however, the lone parent family also possesses a whole new set of relationships and activities requiring alternative support services and housing arrangements. This fact is most notable for lone parent families living in traditional post-war suburban tract developments. The ability of such neighborhoods 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 examines some of the more basic needs of lone parent families such as housing, social integration, social support, mobility, and accessibility. The adequacy of traditional suburbs in meeting such needs will also be evaluated. The latter section is devoted to the exploration of alternative housing options and community alternatives, which are intended to better meet these same needs. Relationships between physical form and social needs will be made more clear. In addition, a series of reoccurring and important themes regarding the development of alternative housing and community options is expected to emerge. From these themes, an image of a typical neighborhood supportive of the needs of nontraditional family types will be presented. 4.1 Needs 4.1.1 Adequate and Affordable Housing  Access to affordable housing represents the most basic and pressing need of lone parent families. This is particularly so because of the increasing poverty that exists amongst this family group in general. As a result, creating affordable housing in today's market to accommodate this family type has, indeed, become a challenge. The development of single family, detached homes on large suburban lots is simply not a viable alternative in terms of achieving housing affordability for this and other low income groups. Rather, in today's market housing affordability for these groups is  36 primarily achieved by developing medium density, multi-family residences with smaller apartment units.3 4 Of course, smaller, compact units, although the most affordable, may not be the most desirable for these families. A study on the relationship of income and housing, for example, revealed that lone parent families prefer to live in housing developments similar to those (e.g., suburban tract developments) in which they had lived as part of a nuclear family (Anderson-Klief, 1981). The same study also recognized that the high cost of maintaining owned housing following marital dissolution often made this option unlikely. This was particularly the case for middle class and working class female-led families living in more affluent residential developments. Many such families, for example, discovered that it was very difficult to support an affluent suburban home and lifestyle with a considerably reduced income level. Much of the problem is related to maintenance and upkeep costs resulting from things such as roof repairs, house painting, landscaping, insurance payments, and property taxes. The financial anxiety associated with home ownership often poses considerable economic as well as psychological problems for the families involved. Lone parent families from working and middle class backgrounds tend to be the most vulnerable and are most likely to move from their original neighborhoods. Working class families, 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, and move into smaller, lower quality apartments in unfamiliar neighborhoods. In both cases, the ability to access similar housing arrangements in the same neighborhood is reduced considerably. Another factor limiting housing accessibility to these families is discrimination, both in terms of new development and existing housing stock. Discrimination is one of the biggest problems a lone parent must deal with when looking for adequate and affordable housing. Many of the newer developments being constructed, for example, are marketed solely to young singles and young couples without children; in some cases,  37  restrictive covenants even prevent families with children from ever living in such developments.35 Landlords tend to shy away from renting to families with children because of the potential noise, crime, and wear and tear on property. There is also evidence that a landlords refusal to rent is based solely on the premise that the prospective tenant is a lone parent (Gurstein and Hood, 1975). In the majority of discrimination cases gender and marital status are cited as the primary factors influencing a landlord's decision not to rent to such families. The basis of such discrimination is founded on a belief by landlords that female-led lone parent families are simply unable to cope with the maintenance and upkeep requirements associated with large homes on large suburban lots. The fact that females earn on average less then males, also raises concerns from landlords that female lone parents may be unable to consistently meet monthly rent payments. 4.1.2 Social Integration  The process of discrimination also contributes to create a sense of both physical and social isolation amongst the families involved. The physical manifestation of such isolation, 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 places often creates a feeling that one is outside the mainstream of the neighborhood. Lone parent families, given the choice, would prefer to reside in developments that contain a mix of socioeconomic groups. Such communities generally contain a variety of households, (including families with children, families without children, empty nesters, and young singles) and are made possible though the use of higher residential densities and mixed primary land uses. This view has not gone unnoticed in planning and design circles. Researchers, for example, have identified the integration of non-traditional households into existing neighborhoods as an important and primary goal of any alternative housing and community development strategy (Franck, 1990; Gurstein and Hood, 1975). It is the role of planners to create policy to facilitate the development of  38 such a strategy. Currently, however, the types of neighborhoods required to provide the interpersonal support and social contact necessary to lone parents simply do not exist at a broader scale. 4.1.3 Social Support  Aside from the need for social integration, lone parent families also require an extensive and closely knit social support network comprised of relatives, friends, and neighbors to help cope with their daily predicaments.36 Obviously, with one fewer adult in the family the lone parent must carry the burden for meeting the financial, social, and domestic responsibilities of the household; in doing so, the time and energy constraints are likely to be twice as great for the parent involved. In fact, a recent behavior study indicates that in order to save time and energy, lone parent household heads are twice as likely to get help from outsiders than husband-wife families (Michelson, 1985). The presence of a social support network, therefore, becomes important for these family types. The need for such a network is even more important in suburban neighborhoods where domestic responsibilities are placed squarely on the individual and take place almost always in isolation from all other households. Through sensitive design, however, it is possible to devise solutions where domestic and homemaking responsibilities can be performed in common rather than isolation. The creation of community spaces where neighbors can meet, socialize, and watch over children, for example, is possible through the provision of shared facilities and collective services such as community rooms, public courtyards, play spaces, pedestrian pathways, and laundry rooms. The intent underlying the provision of such collective services and shared facilities is merely to replace some of the functions traditionally met within the family.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.  39 4.1.4 Mobility and Accessibility  Mobility is another important need that arises in consideration of lone parent families. Restriction on mobility can result because of old age, disability, and discrimination; however, amongst lone parent families, restriction on mobility is attributable to other factors: the absence of another adult in the family, the presence of children, and the income situation of the families involved. All these factors combined contribute to restrict mobility and, in turn, impose considerable accessibility problems for lone parent families, especially with respect to transportation and services. It is well known, for example, that lone parent families extensively require public and community services such as day care, schools, and health care. However, because such families do not have sufficient income, they have comparatively limited access to a private automobile. In 1982, for example, only 57% of all female lone parents owned a car compared with 89% of husband-wife families.38 Consequently, female-led lone parent 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 auto oriented suburban tract developments where public transit service is generally poor. Limited access to private transportation in suburbia, for example, effectively restricts such families from pursuing higher paying jobs in the urban core, obtaining day care within close proximity to home and work place, and participating in nearby recreational and social activities. An added problem is the transportation of children that is commonly associated with suburban living. Children often need rides to movies, lessons, parties, and school events. Suburban homes, however, are located so that a resident is always reliant on either public or, preferably, private transportation in order to get to the center of suburban community where the majority of service, recreational, and employment activities tend to be concentrated. Because most lone parents work, they are simply unable to fulfill their children's transportation needs all the time. As a result, many lone parents are often  40 dependant on others, such as neighbors or relatives, in providing transportation services for their children. 4.2 Housing Options and Community Alternatives  Accessibility to affordable and adequate housing, convenience of maintenance of owned housing, accessibility to neighbors, services, and transportation, and ease of mobility represent some of the primary needs of lone parent families, particularly those living in suburbia. Such needs, of course, have generated a great deal of discussion among numerous interested groups, which include planners, architects, urban designers, cooperative organizations, and non-profit special interest groups. Much of the discussion has focussed on the creation of new environments and the restructuring of existing environments to meet such needs. The greatest influence in this area comes from the architectural and urban design professions. In fact, since the 1970's, architects and urban designers continue to propose alternative housing and design solutions, which are better intended to reflect the specialized needs of lone parent families and other non-traditional family types (Leavitt, 1990; Cook, 1990; Wekerle and Novac, 1990; Franck, 1990; McCamant and Durrett, 1988; Calthorpe, 1988; Hayden, 1984). The result is an extensive collection of housing options and community alternatives. While it is impractical 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 Housing  In view of the problem of restricted mobility and its ramifications, one possibility proposed by designers is to concentrate such services and activities as close to home has possible. The idea is best reflected by an alternative housing and living arrangement known as congregate housing. (Congregate housing was officially recognized in North America 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 some  41 confusion 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 which the underlying theme is to provide housing with a range of collective services. 40 The concept of congregate housing was first applied to the elderly. The collective services provided in such cases included meals, socio-recreational activities, classes, transportation, and health care. The same idea, however, can easily be applied to lone parent families. The only difference is that the nature of collective services offered must change to reflect the needs of the lone parent family. In such cases the collective services provided, for example, could include day care, laundry, and public transport. The concept of congregate housing is important to lone parent families because it begins to address the mobility problem encountered by such groups. Congregate housing, for example, effectively reduces commuting distances by collapsing barriers of space, thereby allowing lone parent families more time and energy to devote to domestic, economic, and social responsibilities. In addition, the provision of collective services means that some of the functions traditionally met within the family can mow be performed 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 Cohousing  The idea of cohousing originated in Scandinavia in the 1960's and now, too, has surfaced on the North American continent. The first development of its type is nearing completion in Seattle and another is being explored in both urban and suburban regions within Greater Vancouver. Like congregate housing, cohousing is also a reaction to the state of existing residential living arrangements characteristic of suburbia. Not only does cohousing allow for the collective services found in congregate housing, but it also addresses in greater depth lone parent needs of social integration, social contact, and community.  42 Cohousing development is an attempt to consciously create concepts of community that used to occur naturally. In any cohousing development, for example, the central 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 work together to achieve common goals. In recreating such an environment, cohousing participants generally follow four basic principles: intentional neighborhood design, comprehensive resident management, participatory planning, and the sharing of common facilities.41 The guidelines allow all residents the opportunity to participate in the design, construction, and continued management of the development. The process of development itself gets residents involved, puts them in contact with each other, and makes them feel as if they have a real stake in their community. The process of development 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 suburban living environments. In facilitating the process of community building, designers ensure that many such developments contain common areas designed for daily use. The focus of all such developments, for example, is a common house where dinners, day care, and laundry facilities can all be shared. In some cases, this is extended to include areas where workshop and craft activities are also shared. The idea of common or shared facilities provides practical, social, and economic benefits otherwise not found in traditional living arrangements. The idea of common dinners, for example, means that a resident (or lone parent) will only cook once or twice a week rather than having to cook all days of the week. A similar arrangement for yard maintenance and upkeep means that an individual need not always be solely responsible for yard duties, but instead can rely on other residents for support. Again, the economic, practical, and social advantages of shared resources and common facilities offered by cohousing developments are numerous and varied,  43 particularly for lone parents. Cost savings resulting from sharing facilities and space (e.g., a common workshop) can effectively reduce rent or mortgage payments for the individual. Also, the sharing of costs allows residents to obtain facilities that few could afford alone such as a day care center, a workshop, a garden, a walk-in freezer, a music room, a computer room, a pub, and possibly others. Practical advantages include the sharing of household responsibilities such as doing laundry, cooking meals, and performing yard and maintenance duties. This, in turn, reduces time and energy constraints for the individual, and opens up opportunities to perform other activities. Finally, the social benefits include the safety and support provided by others. This includes 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 of services, activities, and conveniences at a lower cost per family than would be possible in a traditional single family neighborhood. 42 Although a central tenet of the cohousing concept is based on sharing, the idea of sharing one's lifestyle with others is not appealing for many. Lack of privacy, in fact, is one of the most common complaints from residents when discussion about similar alternative 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 and tolerance. 4 3 Privacy is carefully ensured in each unit by design, and participation in communal activity is purely voluntary. Each unit, for example, has a separate kitchen, so residents 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 desire this option. To summarize, cohousing is another viable alternative for lone parent families. It is a response to the isolation and impracticality associated with the single family detached house, particularly as it relates to non-traditional families. It begins to address  44 not only issues of mobility and affordability, but also those of community, social support, and social integration. Developments combine the autonomy of the private dwelling with the advantages of communal living. The end result is a community which seeks out a balance between public and private activities. Until now, such communities do not exist at any large scale within traditional suburban tract developments. 4.2.3 Restructured Housing  A reoccurring theme to this point has been the inability of suburban tract developments to meet the needs of the lone parent family. In addressing this concern, the two options proposed so far have dealt with the construction of new housing developments within existing neighborhoods. This approach, unfortunately, has often resulted in resistance from existing suburban residents. With this in mind, researchers have also begun to explore methods of restructuring or refitting existing suburban neighborhoods to reflect changing social relationships and expectations. The inspiration for this work also comes primarily from a dissatisfaction with the social and physical constraints imposed by the design of traditional single family neighborhoods. Much of this work also takes into account many of the ideas (e.g., sense of community, shared resources, and collective facilities, and increased mobility) originating from previous proposals. The most notable example of the restructuring of suburban domestic space comes from Dolores Hayden in her work regarding suburban families with children. In considering lone parent families, Hayden, for example, offers a plan for restructuring the typical suburban block of single family homes into a mixed use community complete with private housing units, collective services, and a host of other support services. 44 According to Hayden, outdoor spaces, previously private, can be redesigned to consist of private, public, semi-public, and collective spaces. Based on the same design other amenities 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 pathways  45 (see Appendix-Figure 6). The single family house itself could be legally converted in some 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 guiding  housing alternatives for lone parents has been recently developed at the University of California at Berkeley. The concept, developed by Peter Calthorpe, is commonly known as the Pedestrian Pocket. The Pedestrian Pocket idea is an attempt to restructure suburban form and community; it is also intended to address problems of mobility and accessibility, which are commonplace in suburbia. Calthorpe, like the proponents of congregate housing, cohousing, and restructured housing, recognizes that neighborhoods possessing a concentration of not only services, but also housing, public facilities, stores, and employment opportunities are particularly useful to a variety of household and family types, not the least bf which are lone parent families. Public transit to get to such areas is also an important consideration. In addressing these concerns, Calthorpe has devised an alternative form of suburban community (e.g. the Pedestrian Pocket) supporting a diversity of housing types and community buildings. The Pedestrian Pocket is roughly 50 to 120 acres in size and consists of a small cluster of higher density, housing, offices, and retail space within close proximity (1/4 mile) to a light rapid transit system (see Appendix-Figure 7 and 9). 4 5 The Pedestrian Pocket concept, like many alternative housing arrangements, is based on similar principles of choice, convenience, and mobility. The clustering principle, for example, allows lone parents a choice of walking, driving, or using public transit. The arrangement of courtyard clusters of two and three storey townhomes allows for a common area, a private yard, and the integration of common facilities. Townhouses and duplexes are also carefully designed to reduce commuting time. All housing clusters, for example, are within walking distance to services, transit, employment, recreational facilities, parks, and a neighborhood shopping center. The  46 same 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 to build, yet offer the same advantages as their detached counterparts. Again, this is a another viable alternative for low income families with children who generally cannot afford the high financial costs and upkeep responsibilities associated with living in a single family, detached home. 4.3 Summary  The focus in this chapter has been on the examination of the needs of lone parent families and on the exploration of housing and community alternatives designed to meet those same needs. Findings conclude that traditional, suburban, low density, single family neighborhoods, although preferred by lone parents, do not in fact adequately meet their needs. High land costs, maintenance and upkeep costs, and discrimination, for example, all contribute to problems of housing affordability and inadequacy. The design of suburban dwellings and neighborhoods themselves tend to perpetuate social isolation and limit the formation of social support networks required by such groups. Finally, restrictions on mobility resulting from inadequate access to transportation services often lead to accessibility problems for this same group. Lone parents, for example, because they do not own a car and are dependant upon public transport, often have trouble gaining access to public and community services, employment opportunities, and recreational facilities. Accepting the inadequacy of suburban neighborhoods, many researchers have focussed their attention on housing alternatives and community options. Although a wide and varied number of alternatives exist, four were evaluated for this discussion. In reviewing the alternatives some common themes began to emerge. In fact, there are several important features that set such alternative neighborhoods apart from their more conventional counterparts. 4 6 The ability to meet a range of functions such as mobility, accessibility, affordability, social support, and social integration, is one distinct feature.  47 The integration of different types of households (such as lone parent families, nuclear families, single persons, and couples) within housing developments, and the integration of housing with other uses (such as child care, workshops, common play areas, shared public space) are two other distinct features. A fourth feature is the opportunity for residents 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 transference of functions traditionally met within the household to the larger community. Such "alternative" neighborhoods represent a considerable departure from their more conventional counterparts. The point here, however, is not to argue for the abolition of the single family home and all it represents. Clearly, such homes are an aspiration for many Canadians and will remain the prevalent choice for many in the future. Nor is it to argue for a single physical prototype to replace the one that so many critics have reacted against. Rather, in view of the growing social heterogeneity and changing needs in the suburbs, we will argue for a wider range of prototypes emphasizing household choice and diversity.  48 5.0 Chapter 5 - Making Alternative Suburban Living Environments a Reality: Public Policy Alternatives  The housing options and community alternatives presented in the previous chapter are, indeed, far reaching; however, there is no guarantee that they will be implemented on a large scale. In fact, there are suggestions that policy changes must take place at the local and federal level to facilitate their implementation. The aim in this chapter, therefore, will be to critically evaluate the effectiveness of existing local and federal polices in meeting the housing needs of lower income groups, specifically lone parent families. The limitations of current policies will be identified and recommendations for new alternatives and policy directions will be presented. The remaining discussion is divided into three parts. The first addresses implementation constraints regarding alternative housing developments for lone parent families. The inability of the market place to meet the housing needs of lone parent families is specifically addressed. This is followed by a discussion of local zoning bylaws and building regulations. The inability of current polices to meet the needs of nontraditional households is brought into focus. In response, a series of options designed to bring local zoning policy "in line" with contemporary housing demands and needs will be put forth. Issues of affordability, density, and equity are addressed. Finally, the effectiveness of federal housing policy in addressing the housing supply and affordability needs of low income groups will also be evaluated. Emphasis will be on the analysis of the rental sector and the rental market. The central question to be addressed is whether or not the rental market can remedy the problems of the rental sector? Federal housing polices, 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 providing direct 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 income categories, many of the findings in this section should also be applicable. Reference to  49 specific issues linking lone parent families with local and federal policies, however, will be made wherever possible. 5.1 Implementation of Alternatives  Despite concerted efforts by interest groups to devise housing options and community 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 enough scale. The inability to implement such alternatives seems to be the most pressing issue when talking about lone parent families, and the one which policy makers are constantly forced to confront. Lack of implementation is due, in large part, to the nature of housing supply within this country. In Canada housing is overwhelmingly viewed as a market commodity and largely provided through the private sector. Of course, the Canadian government's strict belief that housing construction be left to the private sector is by no means 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 the world. 47 Despite the proven success of the private housing sector, there is still a perception that it has fallen short in meeting the housing needs of the truly needy: low and moderate income Canadians. This is reflected by an overall lack of affordable housing throughout the country. In the Greater Vancouver area, for example, the availability of houses for purchase at the low end of the market is limited, if not out of reach for many low and moderate income families. As of 1990, the lowest entry level price for a single detached home or a multi-family housing unit was $137,000 (Langley) and $93,000 (Port Coquitlam), respectively. Correspondingly, the minimum annual income required to purchase either types of housing was $61,662 and $42,807. (Housing affordability is based on minimum annual income required to afford payments of 30% of annual income, assuming a 20% down payment, 25 year amortization, 13% mortgage rate, and  50 estimation of insurance and property taxes). 4 8 In 1986 the average male and female lone parent 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-family housing market. The home ownership option is simply out of reach for many lone parent families given the current market situation. The availability of family rental market housing at the low and moderate end of the rental scale is also becoming a limited option for many such families. As of April 1990, a two bedroom apartment in the Lower Mainland rented for $723 a month. 49 Based 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. This figure is well above the 30% housing affordability limit used by CMHC. (CMHC defines households who suffer from serious affordability problems as those who have their separate, adequate, and suitable dwelling unit, but who are not in a position to exercise demand for this unit at 30% or less of their income.50) Affordability in the rental sector is further exacerbated by a tight rental market. As of April 1990, the apartment vacancy rate 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 to contribute to pushing up market rents in the future. The above discussion reveals why, in fact, lone parent family housing needs are not being adequately met within suburbia - the lone parent family, because of its limited income, 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 the necessary market prices or rents. The private housing market, therefore, left to its own devices, would simply be unable to meet the needs of the lowest income groups. Public sector agencies at the local, provincial, and federal level have recognized this fact and, accordingly, have often intervened with various market and social assistance policies to help provide housing supply at affordable prices for such low income groups. The  51  success of such policies and the exploration of other alternatives is something that is continually being debated amongst policy analysts. With this in mind, the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a similar debate. The analysis and critique will be focussed at the local and federal level. The effectiveness of public policy intervention, characterized by local zoning policies and federal housing policies in meeting the housing needs of low income groups will be reviewed and evaluated. In each case the aim of the analysis will be to focus on problems with existing policy and identify where new solutions can be tried. 5.2 Local Level: Public Policy Alternatives At the local level, existing zoning policies and building by-laws have been widely  criticized by both social housing advocates and developers alike for effectively restricting entry to a number of socioeconomic groups to both the owner occupied and rental housing markets (The Urban Development Institute (UDI), 1990; Keller, 1981; Fava, 1981; Gurstein & Hood, 1975). Part of the problem seems to be linked to a misfit between traditional zoning polices and contemporary social constructs. Evidence suggests that municipal zoning by-laws and building regulations have not changed accordingly to reflect contemporary demographic trends. Research from the Greater Vancouver area, for example, reveals that between 1951 and 1986 the number of single person households increased by 850% from 17,377 to 146,809. Today, such households represent 30% of all households, whereas in 1951 they represented only 10%.52 Similar trends, although not as pronounced, can be observed for other household types such as lone 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 person households, which include seniors, core needy, and lone parents, will form about 75% of housing demand over the following ten years (UDI, 1990).  52 Despite the tendencies toward smaller households and subsequent demand for smaller housing units, the average size of new home construction has continued to increase. This is largely due to an inherent bias in municipal zoning and building bylaws which disproportionately favours the construction of large homes on large lots. Large lot zoning, in fact, is blamed by the development industry for having an inflationary impact on the housing market. In most cases existing polices encourage the construction of large homes which exceed the needs and affordability of the smaller households involved. (The average size of a home in the Lower Mainland is about 2,000 square feet). The result is that these smaller households are often excluded from such communities. A more equitable and appropriate zoning policy which recognizes the needs of non-traditional households as well as those of traditional households should be actively pursued. In light of these views, the aim in the next section will be to evaluate existing zoning policies and identify a series of options which will facilitate the construction of smaller, compact, denser, and moderately priced homes. In most cases, the options presented focus on increasing affordability by allowing for the construction of smaller dwellings, integrated developments, and intensification of developable land. 5.2.1 Development Cost Charges  The provision of infrastructure such as roads, curbs, water connections, and sewer connections, is a substantial development cost of any suburban development. The cost of providing such services is ultimately transferred to the consumer. As such, concerns have 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 Lower Mainland municipalities are charged on a per unit basis. Each unit is assessed the same DCC regardless of its size. This means that a smaller dwelling unit must carry a higher DCC (on a square foot basis) than a larger unit. An $8,000 DCC, for example, will require a 9.1% increase in income to purchase an $80,000 unit, while a 2.5% increase in  53 income will be required to purchase a $350,000 unit.53 (Annual income required to pay for an additional $8,000 is based on financial assumptions of a 25% down payment, 25 year amortization, and 13% mortgage rates plus estimates for insurance and property taxes.) Therefore, to ensure more equity and affordability for households purchasing smaller units, it is recommended that DCC's be charged on a square foot rather than a per unit basis. 5.2.2 Single Family Zoning  From an economic perspective, the single family neighborhood represents one of the more inefficient uses of developable land, particularly when considering the needs of lone parents, seniors, and the core-needy. The smallest lot allowed in the GVRD, for example, is 3,000 feet and results in a minimum house size of approximately 1500 square feet (In almost all cases the maximum square footage available is developed.) Also, the site coverage in most municipalities can be no greater than 40%. Finally, single family zoning accounts for approximately 70% of the developable land area in Lower Mainland suburban municipalities.5 4 All these factors combined act to limit housing supply and affordability and discourage the development of alternative, compact, and integrated housing. To achieve more affordable and adequate housing more intensive use of single family 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 by permitting conversion to duplex, triplex, and cluster housing; increasing allowable site coverage; reviewing secondary suite policies; and exploring alternative design schemes such as thin houses, infill house, granny flats, and zero lot line housing. The intensified use of single family lots is likely to result in higher densities, less urban sprawl, more diversity, and, therefore, more choice when selecting a home. Mixed use, residential zoning, should result in the creation of communities which cater to a variety of family types 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 areas  54 where the interface between older established neighborhoods is minimized (Vischer, 1987). Attention should be given to edges between existing single family neighborhoods and higher density residential zones (e.g. duplex, triplex, or multi-family areas) In all cases, planners should accommodate such change carefully and resourcefully ensuring that the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods can be retained whenever possible. 5.23 Compactness  In many municipalities the compactness of residential development is inhibited by a variety of factors. Large lot zoning is certainly one factor; its contribution to urban sprawl is self-evident. There are, however, other contributing factors which may not be as obvious and, therefore, deserve greater attention. Zoning Density Calculations  In some municipalities (Surrey, Langley, Burnaby, and the City of North Vancouver) the development of denser housing is constrained by the fact that density is granted on a per unit per acre basis instead of a floor space ratio basis. Surrey, for example, through "Compact House" zoning encourages development of smaller lots in cases where residential development threatens environmentally sensitive areas. The Compact Housing Zone, when used, allows for the establishment of relatively smaller lots 3,000 square feet in size; however, the maximum density requirement that no more than 6 lots per acre be developed, effectively cancels out the benefits of such a zone.55 Developers in this case would be required to subdivide 6 lots (per acre) over 6,000 square feet each and build houses up to 3, 600 square feet (based on an FSR of 0.6) on each respective 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 than a unit/lot per acre basis. The City of North Vancouver is currently updating its 1980 Official Community Plan to introduce such a change. The current method of unit/acre control would be replaced by a floor space ratio limitation. Under the proposed changes  55 a 10,000 square foot lot based on an FSR of 1.0 would be limited to 10,000 square feet of buildable area rather than a maximum of six units per acre.56 Again, the change would regulate the size of a development, but not the number of units. The change is intended to 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 floor space ratio calculations. The permitted building size in many multi-family developments includes common areas and facilities such as recreation rooms, recycling rooms, storage areas, and workshops in the calculation. The effect of excluding such areas from FSR calculations would encourage first, the availability of more allowable floor space for more 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 of functions within the household to common areas outside the household. The policy would result in the reduction of time and energy constraints for domestic responsibilities and create opportunities for parents to participate in other social or employment related activities. More shared facilities and services within residential development would also act to strengthen community by encouraging the development of social support networks required by such groups. Common areas such as kitchens and laundries and design features such as shared pathways and play spaces, for example, would increase opportunities for social interaction, friendships, and other group activities. Finally, the sharing of facilities would also result in the sharing of costs, thereby increasing affordability of individual housing units (See Chapter 4- Cohousing). Parking Requirements  Another substantial restriction on the production of smaller, affordable housing units 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 size of the dwelling unit. A 650 square foot apartment unit, therefore, requires the same  56 number of parking spaces as 2,600 square foot unit. Given that the approximate cost of a parking space is $10,000 to $15,000, a consumer of a smaller unit of housing would be required to pay proportionately more (about 15%) than a consumer of a larger unit. 5 7 Parking spaces, therefore, should be apportioned according to the size of the unit, with each unit having a minimum of one parking space. A recent UDI report suggests that parking requirements for residential buildings located along rapid transit routes could also be reduced considerably to about 0.6 parking spaces per 650 sq. ft. and 0.2 spaces for visitor parking. This proposal, of course, is based on the assumption that higher density, residential and office projects near rapid transit tend to generate fewer driving trips and more public transit use (Cervero, 1984). Although the thought of reducing private auto use by reducing parking requirements has some positive intentions, it should be approached with caution. Consumers, even low and income earners such as lone parents, are still accustomed to private mobility and will make great sacrifices to obtain and maintain it. Consequently, planners should view even the most modest parking relaxations with caution. Only in cases where developments are near downtown areas or highly concentrated suburban nodes near rapid transit should such proposals be considered, 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 policies aimed at creating affordable and moderate priced housing are automatically linked to lower income groups. This is true to some extent, largely because discrimination processes in society have led to the ghettoization of low income groups within such developments. Amendments to local policy of the nature being proposed, of course, do not guarantee that the ghettoization process will diminish; however, planners can help to alleviate the process by educating the public about the positive and innovative housing and community developments that such polices could facilitate. Planners have a moral  57 responsibility to at least offer such an alternative vision to the larger public. Community acceptance of denser, integrated, and alternative developments, for example, could be made easier through public information meetings; participatory planning practices; community workshops; and the local media. The public process would be useful in raising public awareness and breaking down the stigmas and misconceptions that exist about non-traditional housing developments. Community acceptance would also be gained through the implementation of a series of pilot projects. Such projects would produce results immediately; the unforeseen deficiencies that arise would be identified; and the lessons learned could be used in implementing future projects. In each case planners will need to stress the positive social, economic, and environmental aspects that such polices would facilitate. 5.2.5 Summary: Local Level Alternatives  Solutions to the provision of more affordable housing are never easy. Proponents of affordable housing have indicated that they would like to build new forms of housing, including innovative, moderately priced, compact developments. Unfortunately, current zoning policies and building by-laws effectively restrict the development of such housing alternatives. Before the construction of alternative and more affordable housing can be implemented on a larger scale, changes must take place at the local level. Zoning and housing polices which encourage smaller units, denser development, integrated common facilities, and lower priced housing should be actively pursued. Such policy changes could result in the construction of condominium units at an estimated cost of $20,000 less than those being constructed under current by-laws.58 The reduction of costs would be attributable to increased availability of urban land, more efficient zoning and building regulations, and more equitable municipal levies and cost charges. Even such a reduction, however, would still be inadequate in terms of achieving housing affordability for lower income groups such as lone parent families. Many of the options outlined in this section do not directly address the issue of long term affordable rental housing for  58  lower income groups. Instead, the majority of initiatives are characteristic of market assisted polices designed to assist in the immediate supply of private occupied housing through private sector investment. Such policies do not guarantee that the supply of new housing will be targeted to low income groups. Instead, they are founded on a belief that affordable housing will be provided through the process of filtering. Unfortunately, the filtering 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 construction of innovative and alternative forms of housing development, there is still some question as to whether they can address the housing affordability needs of low income families traditionally found in the rental housing sector. 5.3 Federal Level: Public Policy Alternatives 5.3.1 The Rental Housing Sector The debate over the success of market assisted policies in meeting the housing  supply and affordability needs of low income groups, while evident at the local level, has been largely focussed at the national level. Traditionally, Canadian policy makers have disproportionately favoured housing policies which focus on home ownership assistance programs to middle income households. While the success of such policies is undeniable, the federal government's rigid commitment to the promotion of home ownership assistance policies has caused relatively little attention to be given to the rental sector. Recent trends, however, suggest that the rental sector is where policy makers will have to focus their attention in the future. There is, for example, a nation wide trend towards renting and away from home ownership. An increasing proportion of low income 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 of their fixed, inadequate, and interruptible income, tend to be the most vulnerable. The concentration of low income groups such as lone parent families in the rental sector and  59 the exodus of high income groups into the owner occupied sector is causing considerable problems 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 policy makers today.60 The root of the rental housing problem is linked to the ever increasing gaps, since the 1970's, between affordable rents and market rents and between market rents and financial recovery rents. (Briefly, "affordable rent" refers to some subjective level which households do not have a problem paying. "Market rent" refers to the private market determined price of a rental unit and "financial recovery rent" refers to the rent level necessary to make new construction possible in the absence of government supply 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 longer willing to pay the increased rents. During the early 1970's, for example, vacancy rates  were 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 recovery rents were minimal. Both high and low income earners were willing and able to pay the necessary rents needed for the market to function efficiently. Increasing construction costs, inflating land prices, and escalating interest rates, however, precipitated an ever increasing disparity between market rents, affordable rents, and financial recovery rents (see Example below).62 Market rents became so extraordinarily high that tenants were no longer willing or able to pay, yet they were still not high enough for developers to invest and profit. High income earners, whom developers traditionally relied upon to stimulate demand, found it more profitable to become homeowners and have since dropped out of the rental market. (The government's successful home ownership assistance policies may have effectively contributed to the removal of many higher income renters who were able to pay the necessary financial recovery rents from the rental market.) Further, developers, who because of high financial recovery costs could  60 only provide rental units with rents far in excess of those which the market could be asked to bear, have also left the market. As a result, the rental sector has increasingly become a residual one containing a large percentage of low and moderate income households no longer able to pay increased market rents.63 Figure 9: Market Housing Rents: Early 1970's and 1980's Early 1970's  Financial Rents $210.00  FR1MR, then, builders will build  Market Rents $200.00  MRAR, then, renters will rent  Affordable Rents $190.00 Early 1980's •  Financial Rents $900.00 Market Rents $500.00  FR>MR, then, builders will not build 11■011b  •■•••  MR>AR, then, renters will not rent Affordable Rents $300.00 To summarize, The tenant population, as late as 1967, was fairly equally distributed with respect to income; however, socioeconomic restructuring trends in the 1970's and 80's have drastically altered its profile. Higher income earners have taken advantage of home ownership, while the rest remain confined to the rental sector (See Appendix-Table 4 and 5). The increasing cost pressure of providing rental accommodation and the low income profile of renters has resulted in a stagnant and inefficient rental market. The market's inability to serve the housing needs of low  61 income Canadians is at the root of the housing affordability problem in Canada and presents 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 of declining housing starts in the rental sector. In formulating policy, one of the government's central assumptions is that the rental sector problem is a temporary abnormality in the functioning of the private rental market. Another assumption is that the problem of the rental sector is not so much a failure of the market mechanism but rather it is a failure of government policy to allow the market mechanism to function properly. "The private rental market would provide rental housing if government policy could create the right conditions".64 Federal government policy in the rental sector, by and large, has adhered to these two assumptions. The majority of policy initiatives are characterized by short term solutions designed to assist in the immediate supply of housing through private sector investment. Despite these interventions, however, the continued documentation of rental housing problems suggest that market-welfare policies are not working properly. Not only have these programs failed to benefit those most in need, but they have contributed minimally to the nation's permanent stock of affordable rental housing; such initiatives may actually be contributing to the loss of affordable rental housing stock. Often, building sites for new rental development (stimulated by private rental subsidy programs) have become available only through the demolition of existing rental buildings. Also rental units, once built, do not remain in the rental sector very long. Many units, for example, are lost to conversion and subsequent resale on the private market. A review of one such policy - the Multiple Urban Residential Housing program (MURB) should serve to further highlight the ineffectiveness of such polices.  62 Supply-Side Polices While the structure and particulars of rental supply programs differ, one trend can be identified. Rental housing policies, such as MURB, represent a supply-side, marketwelfare approach. Housing policy is directed towards subsidizing private investors, either directly or indirectly, through the tax system, in hopes that their investment will eventually trickle down to the "truly needy".65 The success of these programs rests on the premise that the creation of high priced rental units will appeal to higher income households. As these households opt for newer units, each successively lower income class will occupy the latter's dwelling. The process should, in theory, lead to downward filtering and provide affordable housing for the lowest income classes. A declining rental housing stock, since 1970, however, indicates that the theory does not necessarily work in practice. In fact, there is little evidence to suggest that supply-side, market-welfare approach directly benefits low and moderate income families. MURB, for example, implemented in 1974, was a housing tax expenditure program. It was designed to respond to the dramatic decrease in housing starts occurring in the rental sector. In effect, MURB was a tax shelter which allowed investors, mainly upper income earners, to shelter income from other sources by claiming it against rental losses from MURB units.66 In actuality, government revenues from MURBs were foregone in return for private sector investment in rental housing. The use of housing related tax expenditures, such as MURB, has appealed to politicians because the real costs of the program are hidden and difficult to calculate; no direct spending is involved.67 Only recently have the financial cost and effectiveness of the program begun to be understood. Recent estimates indicate that MURB, in its eight years of periodic operation since 1974, has cost the federal government over one billion dollars in indirect tax subsidies and over 500 million dollars in foregone provincial revenues.68 In addition, it has not been entirely effective in realizing affordability and in increasing rental supply over the long term. Most MURB units rent at the higher end of the market  63  and were constructed on sites where affordable units were demolished. Further, the majority of units are registered as condominiums and strata title suites to permit easy conversion and sale to individual owners once the lease agreement with CMHC expires.6 9 Not only have conversions contributed to further reduce rental housing supply, but they have also undermined the filtering mechanism upon which lower income households depend for the supply of affordable housing. In short, supply-side, market-welfare polices (such as MURB), have proven very costly and contributed minimally to the country's affordable housing stock. Such polices are actually contributing to the erosion of affordable housing stock. Part of the problem relates to deficiencies in the actual policy design. Such polices simply do not address issues of allocation, equity, or tenure. The criterion of success is the number of new units provided. Questions about who gets what type and quality of housing and at what percentage of their income are simply not taken into consideration. Questions about how rental housing units once built can be retained and preserved within the rental sector are equally overlooked. The preoccupation of government seems to be with issues of housing supply rather than distribution and preservation. Demand-Side Subsidies  The relative ineffectiveness of supply-side policies in serving the truly needy has caused policy makers to turn their focus to demand-side subsidies. Unlike supply-side subsidies which are directed at private investors, demand-side subsidies can be targeted to those most in need. The provision of a demand-side subsidy to these groups is intended to cover the gap between market and economic rents. The ability to pay the necessary rents should, in theory, attract developers back to the rental market. Shelter allowances, a conventional type of demand-side subsidy, have received a great deal of attention in recent years. Because shelter allowances are being seriously considered as a central component of future Canadian housing policy, it is important to understand how they work, as well as their strengths and weakness.  64 Briefly, shelter allowances are defined by CMHC as "direct cash transfers made regularly to households or individuals to enable them to afford adequate housing of their own choice from existing stock. The amount of allowance is based on income and housing costs, and is used solely for meeting these costs in their present housing unit".70 Shelter allowances are designed with two main objectives in mind. First, they are being proposed 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 to rise to economic levels. Second, they are aimed at bridging the gap which currently exists between market and financial recovery rents.71 This would effectively subsidize that portion of market rent which renters are no longer willing or able to pay. Large institutions such as the Economic Council of Canada and the housing industry itself seem to concur with these two objectives. According to the Economic Council, higher rents across the board would encourage private builders to increase the supply of rental housing, while a shelter allowance program would cushion the impact on low income renters by giving them extra money to pass on to their landlords 7 2 By increasing market rents the private rental market would once again be profitable for developers, while shelter allowances would cover the gap between rising rents and the ability to pay. Shelter allowances, unlike supply-side subsidies, are not housing supply programs nor do they directly assist in the construction of new rental units. Although they are still characteristic of a market-welfare approach, they do appear to be more advantageous than conventional supply-side subsidies. Shelter allowances, for instance, can be directly targeted to provide equitable assistance to all eligible households, particularly the "truly needy". They are also portable in the sense that they remain with the household when the household decides to move. The household is subsidized and not the housing unit.73 This contrasts with the market-welfare, supply-side approach, which offers indirect and direct subsidies to private investors in the hopes that rental investment will ultimately filter downward and benefit lower and moderate income households.  65 An initial overview suggests that a market-welfare, demand-side approach would be a more viable solution to the rental housing supply and affordability problem. The success of a national shelter allowance program, however, depends on the existence of high vacancy rates. Because shelter allowances directly stimtilate demand rather than supply, they allow a larger proportion of the population to compete for rental units 7 4 Unfortunately, they are being proposed in a sub-market in which few vacancies exist and in 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 enormous cost to the average citizen.75 The inflationary spiral means that shelter allowances would have to rise proportionately to keep pace with increasing rents. Market-welfare critics argue that such a program would take on the form of a transfer payment from tenants to landlords at the public's expense. It is unlikely that the government would opt for 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 achieving long term supply and affordability for low income groups is possible through a socialwelfare or non-market approach. The essential difference between a social-welfare and market-welfare approach, is that the former seeks to link housing supply with land tenure, whereas the latter is concerned only with housing supply in the short term. The removal of land from the market, in an effort to ensure long term supply and affordability, is the central element underlying social housing programs in Canada.76 Management and ownership of land is usually held in the common interest by either, a private or publicly owned non-profit organization, or by a co-operative organization. Non Profit and Cooperative Housing -  Until now, most Canadian social-welfare housing initiatives have been in the form of non-profit and cooperative rental programs. They represent the only form of  66 direct rental housing supply benefitting households with affordability problems. Approximately 80% of residents in non-profit and coop housing, for example, are low and moderate income households.77 While social housing programs have contributed to increasing the stock of affordable housing, their impact has still been relatively minimal. The major problem with social housing programs is their relative size. Non-market housing, characterized by public housing, rent supplement, non-profit, and coop housing makes up only 4% of Canada's existing housing stock.78 The small size of the non-market sector, of course, is a result of the relatively disproportionate funding, which traditionally favours marketwelfare initiatives. In 1982 alone, CMHC grants, loans, and subsidies to market-welfare initiatives amounted to $885.8 million, surpassing the amount of $747.7 million provided to 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 from the MURB program alone in that same year.79 Many conservative interests, which often cite the high cost of social housing and the tremendous drain on the federal budget, however, tend to overlook the relative size of indirect housing expenditures and subsidies. In reality, indirect private sector subsidies are two to three times greater than direct spending programs on housing. Funding for social-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, which estimates for every $100 in direct housing expenditures, $200 to $300 dollars are spent through indirect housing tax expenditures in the form of indirect tax subsidies to private builders. In most other sectors (such as health and education) indirect spending in the form of tax subsidies is 20% to 50% less than direct expenditures.81 Apart from limited funding, the erosion of affordable rental housing stock (through demolition and conversion) is an even more problematic issue within the social housing sector. There is no question that federal housing policies, be they market-welfare  67 or social-welfare initiatives, do help to create new housing supply. The effectiveness of market-welfare vs social-welfare initiatives in meeting the needs of low income families will most certainly remain a point for debate. The ability of federal housing policy to address issues of land tenure, however, is an equally important point for debate, which until now has received little attention. Unfortunately, it is this disregard for land tenure considerations by federal policy makers that continues to undermine the success of even the most well intentioned housing supply policies. Existing government housing policy does little to address issues of land tenure and 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 the rental sector for any indefinite period once constructed. The problem is a result of limitations in the design of housing policy. In none of the alternatives examined so far does government policy pay attention to urban land issues. The question of who the final owner of the land will be in the various private, public, and non-profit subsidy programs is never addressed. The assumption, of course, is that the land component will revert back to the private market once the agreement with CMHC is over. In effect, the government's disregard for land issues in housing policy actually undermines any long term social benefits resulting from its huge annual investment in the non-profit sector. In the case of CMHC funded coop developments, for example, the group acquiring the land is bound by the rules and regulations under the lease agreement with CMHC regarding the disposition, acquisition, and transference of land. Under this agreement, CMHC, in accordance with the principles of housing cooperatives (see Appendix-Figure 10) ensures that both individual and community interests are protected. The essential component of all such agreements is that the central investment, land, be retained 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 from putting the land up for sale on the market place. Such restrictions, however, do not apply  68 with 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, in theory, strata title individual units, and sell them off in the private market place as condominiums. There are also occurrences during the lease agreement itself that could result in the loss of land to the private market. A coop could, for example, default on its mortgage, or on its property taxes, and the lands and buildings would then revert back to CMHC; a coop organization could obtain permission from CMHC to sell the land and buildings and distribute the proceeds among themselves; or a coop's buildings could deteriorate to the point where the units were not fit for housing and the funds would not be available to rehabilitate them.82 Whatever the reason, it is clear that there are no guarantees that housing, once in the rental sector, will remain there for any extended period. Again, the Federal government, in the delivery of housing programs, has only been concerned with immediate supply instead of paying more attention to who the final owners of the land will be. Both the individual and community legacy associated with coop and non-profit housing is protected only in the initial phases of construction and short term occupancy phases following. The ability to keep rental housing in the rental sector for an extended period is, in fact, the more important issue which policy makers should be addressing. Community Land Trusts  The idea of preserving affordable rental housing has given rise within the social housing sector to the exploration of initiatives designed to protect the non-market status of 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 being considered as a federal housing policy option, it is important to understand its underlying principles, as well as its strengths and limitations. Basically, a community land trust is a "non-profit organization controlled by local community residents whose purpose is to act as stewards of any land it owns on behalf of  69 current and future residents of the community.83 In effect, it is a land holding mechanism whose basic goal is to protect the needs and aspirations of the individual within the community, and the interests of the community as a whole. Many of the principles associated with land trusts are also closely related to those underlying alternative housing developments such as cohousing and congregate housing mentioned earlier in this discussion. They are also characteristic of the non-profit, non-market principles which have traditionally guided the continuing development of the coop housing sector in Canada. The majority of land trusts, for example, contain policies pertaining to individual and community interests. Individual interests are ensured through policies that guarantee residents security, individual legacy, and access to earned equity. Conversely, community interests are ensured through polices that guarantee the local population community access, community equity, and community legacy (A brief summary of what is meant by such terms, and policies adopted by land trusts to achieve such interests is offered in the Appendix-Figure 10.). The functioning of a land trust is very straightforward. The land trust, a nongovernmental organization, would own the land, and the housing development would lease the land.84 Land, which represents the central element of the investment, would be held in the common interest of the users, while housing units would be provided for immediate use. The arrangement is very similar to that in which cooperative or nonprofit organizations enter into with CMHC. The only fundamental difference between a land trust approach and the lease agreement approach outlined earlier is that the former would ensure that land, more specifically, the cooperative land holding mechanism would be held in perpetuity. Since, in theory, there is no lease, or the lease is automatically renewed upon expiry, there is little chance that the land component will revert back to the market in the short term. The land trust would effectively ensure the long term continuance of this type of land tenure.  70 The idea of controlling land tenure represents only one of the primary functions of a community land trust. A trust for non-profit and coop housing could also play a more active role combining both land holding functions with financial savings and loan functions. Adopting these new roles, the land trust could then assist coops in financial trouble and aid in the continued expansion of the coop housing sector. A land trust, for example, could actively pursue financing strategies (such as loan financing, pension funds, donations, reverse annuities and possibly others) to assist in the acquisition of capital or land. The trust could then use the acquired capital or land to gain further access to other land. The accumulation of capital could also be reinvested in the continued development of the coop movement itself. Resources, for example could be directed towards marketing strategies, lobbying efforts, and informations campaigns. Repair and rehabilitation of existing developments is another possible area for intervention. To summarize, the function of a community land trust can be very limited and passive; however, a community land trust which plays a more active role, particularly in the acquisition of capital or land, would be more beneficial in furthering the development and expansion of the cause it is serving. Although the impact on immediate supply and land acquisition available through a housing land trust is projected to be minimal in the short term, in the long run the trust would become large enough to accumulate enough financial resources to assist in the purchase and holding of land for social housing development (Hulchanski, 1983). The implementation of a community land 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 stock and long term affordability. The basic recommendation, therefore, is that Canadian Federal housing Policy not be treated separate from land policy considerations. The first basic step would be to integrate land policy with social housing policy. A community land trust represents a viable mechanism designed to make this linkage. Such a  71 mechanism will act to ensure that affordable rental units once in the rental sector will remain there and be affordable in the long term. In effect, a land trust would work to provide long term social gains and a positive return on the huge annual investment made by government in the rental sector. The idea of a national land trust system for non-profit and coop housing is still relatively new to North America. In fact, the Canadian experience with the land trust system is even more limited than in the United States. The land trust experience in Canada, for example, is limited to the Province of B.C. The two major trusts identified are the Turtle Island Stewardship Society and the National Second Century Fund of British Columbia. (The former is a land conservancy and the latter is an ecological preserve.) The reason for the limited size of the land trust organizations is partly due to limited funding. Community land trusts, like the majority of other community and nonprofit 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 most difficulty. Such groups have traditionally relied on conventional loan financing, donations, grants, and increasingly so, on federal funding. The most recent reliance on federal funding is especially problematic, given the tendency of government to withdraw from market interventions. The resistance by government to directly fund housing programs, of course, is the result of a long held view that the private sector should be solely responsible for housing supply and program delivery. 5.3.5 Summary: Federal Level Alternatives  Even with such recommendations, it is expected that politicians will continue to shy away from directly subsidizing co-op and non-market housing; nor will they readily pursue the development of a community land trust system. There are a variety of reasons for this position. First, social housing policy contradicts the marketplace ethos that has consistently shaped federal housing efforts since the Dominion Housing Act of 1935. Politicians fear that investors and the housing industry itself, may view these social  72 programs as competing with their potential market. Second, politicians are reluctant to adopt more social housing initiatives because of their perceived high costs and tremendous drain on the federal budget. In reality, market-welfare subsidies in the 1970's and 80's have been much larger than non- profit and co-op housing. Some estimates place market- welfare subsidies at almost three times the level of social-welfare subsidies. The hidden nature of indirect market-welfare subsidies, however, makes them more politically prudent. Finally, social housing policies are designed to achieve long term housing affordability and supply. The short term nature of political agendas requires quick, effective, result-oriented responses. Market-welfare policies are better designed to meet this objective. An analysis of the political context in which social- welfare policies are being advocated leads one to believe that federal housing policy will not stray far from its traditional course in the future. If viable alternatives to traditional federal housing policies are to be pursued, it is important for policy makers to understand the context in which current market-welfare policies are being proposed. Changing macro-economic and social conditions have created a situation in the rental sector in which market forces can no longer respond; yet the logic of housing as a commodity has continued to insist on policies which revolve around a market-welfare approach. In fact, the government's rigid commitment to market-welfare initiatives has proven very costly and has been ineffective in providing long term affordable housing; it may actually be contributing to the rental housing problem. Perhaps it is time for federal policy makers to realize what developers realized a while ago: it is no longer profitable to build private rental accommodation. The gap between market rents and financial recovery rents, and the unwillingness and inability to pay for current rents, is a reality which will not soon disappear. Perhaps it is time to consider a comprehensive social-welfare approach to housing policy at the federal level, at least for lower and moderate income Canadian families.  73 5.5 Summary Lone parent families, and other low income groups, because of income constraints, simply cannot register effective market demand. The private sector left to its own devices is unable to meet the housing needs of these low income groups. In fact, the supply of housing to low income groups is one of the key challenges facing policy makers today. A review of local policy suggests that existing zoning by-laws and building regulations may also be inhibiting the construction of smaller, integrated, alternative housing developments for such low income groups. Despite changing household structure and needs, existing policies still favour the construction of large detached homes on large lots, especially in suburban areas. Proposed amendments to local bylaws, however, could facilitate the creation of a development environment that is more sensitive to the housing needs of non-traditional households. To create such an environment, it is recommended that changes be implemented in areas such as development cost charges, single family zoning, zoning density calculations, floor space ratio calculations, and parking requirements. A more vigorous public information policy should also be pursued. Such amendments and initiatives should ultimately lead to a more 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 still characteristic of market- assisted policies. There is no guarantee that any housing supply generated from such policies will be allocated to low income groups such as lone parent families. It is well documented at the federal level that market-welfare welfare initiatives in the rental sector do not directly benefit low income groups; social-welfare polices, on the other hand, do benefit such groups. Consequently, it may be time to seriously consider a social-welfare approach to housing supply, at least within this particular housing sub-market. Social-welfare initiatives in the form of non-profit housing and  74 coop housing will likely form the basis for direct, affordable, housing supply to such low income 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 also take into account issues of land tenure. The question of how to preserve rental housing once in the rental sector should be a central tenet of any future housing polices. The implementation of a community land trust is one possible mechanism by which such housing could be preserved and made affordable long into the future; it deserves further exploration. In any event, government will be required to act as a primary catalyst in providing funding and generating policy of the nature required. Before such an approach can be actively pursued, however, attitudes must change to accept that the rental sector under current conditions may no longer be a viable market commodity. In a final note, the housing debate itself must change its focus. Many of the issues discussed in policy circles, as witnessed in this discussion, have revolved around questions of housing supply rather than distribution. The fact that the majority of Canadian households are well housed, but an increasing minority are not, suggests that Canadian housing policies are not working equitably for all. The remaining unaddressed housing needs of the lowest income groups, therefore, must become a priority in the future. As such, the housing debate must change to deal with questions concerning housing allocation rather than housing supply. Only when the conditions of the worsthoused families are improved, will Canada have a truly "effective" housing policy.  75 6.0 Conclusion  This study was motivated by a belief by other researchers that suburban living environments are not changing adequately to reflect social restructuring trends underway throughout Western Society. There is a concern that we, as a society, are creating alternative concepts of family and household; however, the enactment of these concepts is taking place within conventional types of houses and residential communities. The basic premise is that such traditional developments, because they were designed with only the nuclear family in mind, simply cannot adequately address the needs associated with the other family forms and household formations now emerging. In light of these views, this inquiry was dedicated to exploring how one nontraditional family type in particular --the lone parent family-- is, in fact, adapting to such traditional living environments. The underlying premise, of course, is that the needs of lone parent families are, in fact, not being adequately met within traditional suburban living environments. Our conclusions concur with this view. 6.1 Findings  Findings suggest that such neighborhoods, because of their design and configuration, are largely unable to respond to the particular needs generated by the lone parent family. With regards to housing, high land costs, and maintenance and upkeep costs generated by large lot zoning have contributed to problems of housing affordability and adequacy. The design and configuration of suburban dwellings and neighborhoods themselves (encouraged by local zoning policies), have tended to perpetuate social isolation and limit the formation of social support networks also required by such family groups. Finally, mobility constraints resulting from a lack of access to private transportation and inadequate public transportation service in these areas have often led to accessibility problems regarding employment opportunities, community services, and recreational facilities for this particular family type.  76 Recognizing the limitations of such traditional suburban neighborhoods, researchers have devoted considerable attention to the exploration of housing and community alternatives for the lone parent family. Many of the alternatives discussed, if implemented, represent a considerable departure from their more conventional counterparts. Collective services, shared facilities, and integrated uses, for example, are still regarded as innovations in terms of contemporary suburban residential developments. Similarly, design solutions such as cohousing and converted housing, which address needs of social integration, social support, and community, are still not readily accepted in such areas; neither are policies which promote affordability, mobility and accessibility by allowing higher densities, mixed uses, and a diversity of building types and forms. The general public, instead, has steadfastly held to the values associated with owning a detached, single family home on a large lot in the suburbs, and politicians and policy makers have responded by continuing to generate zoning and housing policies which fulfill this desire. The social norms and values of the past, however, are rapidly changing. The emergence of numerous non-traditional families has resulted in the formation of a whole new set of social relationships and activities. Traditional suburbs, such as Don Mills and Levittown, are no longer responsive to the pluralistic nature of housing needs being generated by the non-traditional family types, and there is every indication that such new and alternative needs and demands will increase and diversify in the future. Research in this study, for example, reveals that the number of lone parent families has grown dramatically and will continue to grow in the next ten years. Increases are expected in the younger age cohorts, particularly amongst female-led families living in the outer suburbs. Increases are also expected in the number of smaller one- and two-person households, which include seniors and the core-needy. In all cases the trend is towards more heterogeneous and diverse suburban family profiles.  77 The challenge for planners and policy makers with respect to these changes is varied and complex. Planners and policy makers will need to better understand the composite picture of suburban family and household profiles that is emerging, and the subsequent needs and service demands that are likely to result. By understanding these changes today, planners may be in a better position to respond to their inevitable impacts in the future. One thing, however, is certain: contemporary planning responses and public 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 public policy and planning which facilitates physical diversity and choice is the best alternative in 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 and communities, which will accommodate the range of households and family types that already exist. It is in these areas where social researchers should concentrate their efforts in the future. 6.2 Policy Options and Initiatives  At a more specific level, the challenge for planners and policy makers is understandably more complex when considering the needs of the lone parent family. Although many of the general concepts presented above still should apply, there are other factors that must be taken into consideration such as gender, occupation, education, tenure, dwelling type, and income. Lone parent families, in general, are female-led, work in low paid clerical and service jobs, have lower than average education levels, are renters, and have lower than average incomes. All these factors contribute to make the lone parent family one of the poorest and most disadvantaged family types in all of Canadian society. Further, the income profile of the lone parent family has created a situation 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 in this country is provided through the private market. Nevertheless, there are means by  78 which planners and policy makers can facilitate the implementation, by both the private and public sector, of alternative housing developments which are better suited to the needs of lone parent families (and other non-traditional groups). 6.2.1 Local Level Initiatives  At the local level, for example, planners can - explore the range of possible housing options and community alternatives, and at least make them available to the general public for further consultation and discussion. - increase public awareness about the advantages associated with alternative housing and community developments through information meetings, community workshops, and the local media. - encourage continued community acceptance and workable municipal zoning policies for alternatives housing developments by experimenting with a series of pilot projects. - lobby for reforms to existing zoning and building by-laws, which facilitate the development of smaller units, denser development, integrated facilities, shared services, and moderately priced housing. - encourage city councils to introduce flexible zoning policies (at least in some designated areas) to encourage a diversity and choice of housing stock, type, and tenure within residential communities.  79 6.2.2 Federal Level Initiatives  At the federal level, policy makers should - consult with local government agencies to explore areas where complementary policies can 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 housing supply. - focus future rental housing policy more on social-welfare rather than market- welfare approaches. - 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 to ensure that affordable housing once in the rental sector remain there. - explore and present the tradeoffs, as well as the legal, economic, and organizational implications associated with the development and implementation of one such mechanism: a community land trust system.  80 6.2.3 Societal Level Initiatives  At the broader societal level, - interest groups must continue to lobby for policies, which encourage equal pay for work of equal value, regardless of gender, race, or disability. - educational institutions will need work to eliminate the occupational streaming that exists 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 living  environments; the scope of the topic is simply much too complex and merits more research before any specific recommendations or policies can be made. The discussion of issues (such as growth, needs, and living environments), and relevant theory, as well as the debate over public policy should, however, if anything, provide a greater insight into 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 and direction for future policy debate and development regarding suburban community planning for lone parent families (and other non-traditional family types). Aside from the new directions identified, this study also points to other important research areas that will need to be addressed if a more inclusive suburban planning strategy is to be realized. Evaluations of existing housing developments created by and/or for lone parent families will need to be done. Similarly, evaluations of developments which integrate housing, employment, and services into existing neighborhoods will also be useful. Extensive research regarding the level of satisfaction that such alternative suburban neighborhoods create for residents is another area where  81 research is currently lacking. Comparisons, for example, could be made with traditional single family neighborhoods. At a broader scale, the changing concept of family and household identified initially in this study also raises a series of planning implications. Changes in the demographic structure of the population are likely to raise new service demands, create alternative housing needs, and require new land use assessments. Planners will most certainly have to respond to these issues in the future. Consequently, it is important to gain a better understanding of the sociological transformations underway, and the implications that are likely to result. Both qualitative and quantitative research needs to be done to determine what types of families are presently living in the suburbs. An accurate picture could be established by constructing a composite profile of suburban family types. By using past trends and current assumptions, projections could also be made 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 such as the appropriate mix of land uses, the type of services, the location of services, the delivery of transportation systems, the degree of increased mobility, and the level of public participation required. If we are to plan effectively for suburban communities that accommodate the needs of a diversity of family types, these are some of the demographic questions worth considering. In terms of process considerations, questions about who should act to begin to resolve some of the issues raised, or what steps should be taken by what agencies to bring about changes required, are also worth considering. Planners, almost certainly, have a responsibility to examine and explore the range of options and alternatives available to non-traditional families, and make recommendations for their implementation. Although planners might recognize the merit of such proposals and support them accordingly, other effective political voices or alliances between political voices may be more successful in promoting these options. Research needs to be done to determine which other groups  82  (e.g., the real estate industry, the development industry, non-profit groups, special interest groups, and women's groups) would be willing to lobby for such proposals. The exploration of common policy areas where alliances between certain groups could be established is another point for further study. 6.4 Final Note  It is hoped that other researchers and interested parties can draw from the specific findings 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 the planning of contemporary residential communities in the future. In concluding, however, there is one theme, which although often overlooked, seems especially relevant to any future suburban planning strategy. Simply stated, it is that space is not so much a physical construct, but rather a social construct. Age, gender, family and household are as much a human construct as are houses, buildings, roads, and subdivisions. It is these ideas about age, gender, family and, household, that combine to define the location, configuration, and organization of the buildings and communities around us. As planners concerned for a better future physical environment, it may be just as important, if not more 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 social and physical planning will be required.  83 Endnotes 1  ^  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 Housing Policies: Whv Mothers Lose (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, External Research Awards), p. 5. 6^Statistics Canada, 1986, Guide to Statistics Canada Data on Families (Ottawa: Minister of Supply 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 Regulations in 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 and Services), Cat No. 99-533, p. 8. 15^M. Clague, 1990, The Social Quality of Community Life-A Report Prepared for the Greater Vancouver 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, and Territories, 1989-2011. (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services), Cat No. 91-522„ p.v. ^ 18 Ibid, p.v. 19 20  ^ ^  Ibid, p.4.  Ibid, p.vi.  84  21^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. Steadily Worsening Think Tank Finds," Vancouver Sun, p. A6. 25^Statistics Canada, 1989, Family Income: Census Families (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services), 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: Statistics Canada Division), Table IN86BO 1F.  28^Morley Gunderson, 1989, Employment Income (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services), Cat No. 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 and Services), 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: Van Nostrand Reinhold), p. 145. ^ 35 Karen Franck, 1985, p.26. 36^S. Ahrentzen, "Overview of Housing for Single-Parent Households" in New Households, New Housing, 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 Housing Ourselves, 2nd ed., (Berkeley: Habitat Press), p. 35. ^ 42 Ibid, p. 25.  85  43^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 and 2. 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. NH 12-1/1990, 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 Supply Programs (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press), p.1. 61^J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, Market Imperfections and the Role of Rent Regulations in the Residential 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 Real Estate Association), p. 152. 63^B. Grieve and J.D. Hulchanski, 1984, Housing Issues and Canadian Federal Budgets 19681984: 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.  86 66^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 in Canada (Toronto: Clayton Research Associates), p. 18. 72^J.D. Hulchanski, 1983, Shelter Allowances & Canadian Housing Policy (Toronto: Centre for Community and Urban Studies), p 46. ^ 73 Ibid, p.45. 74 75  ^  ^  Ibid, p.46.  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 Paper No. 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 Supply Programs, 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.  87 Bibliography Bacher, 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 Estate Association. 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 Greater Vancouver Regional District. Vancouver: Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. CMHC. 1990. Canadian Housing Statistics. Canada: Statistical Services Division, Cat No. NH 121/1990. 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 Worsening Think 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 Nostrand Reinhold. 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. 98129. 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 Greater Vancouver, Canada. Burnaby: GVRD Development Services. ^ 1990. Greater Vancouver...The Liveable Region. Vancouver: GVRD.  88  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 as To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform). Hulchanski, J.D. 1986. "The 1935 Dominion Housing Act: Setting the Stage for a Permanent Federal Presence 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. New York: 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 Housing Policies: Why Mothers Lose. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, External Research Awards. Leung, H.K. 1986. Towards a Subjective Approach to Policy Planning and Evaluation: Common Sense 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 of Vancouver, 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.  89 Miron, 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 Social Services. 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 Report on 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 Of Satisfaction 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: Minister of 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 and Services. ^ 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, and Dwelling Characteristics: Vancouver and Victoria CMA's. Vancouver: Statistics Canada Division, 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 and Victoria 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 Institute Pacific 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." Sociological Focus, 18 (2), pp. 79-95.  91  Appendices  92  List of Tables  93  Table 1 -^Percentage Distribution of Husband-Wife and Lone Parent Households By Age of Household. Maintainer, Vancouver CMA, 1990. I HUSBAND/WIFE LONE PARENT TOT FAMILIES NON FAMILIES TOTAL HHDS BURNABY/NEW WEST 15 24 63.70% 29.33 100.00% 6.97% 3630% 25_39 51.90% 100.00% 934% 38.76% 6114% 40 49 6056% 1298% 100.00% 7354% 26.46% 6206% 50 64 7.8.4% 100.00% 69.89% 30.11% 4230% 3.18% 45.48% 545236 100.00% TOTAL 51.79% 8.09% 59.83% 100.00% 40.12% N.ESECTOR 15 24 38.41% 9.76% 48.17% 51.83% 100.00% 71.44% 25 39 9.96% 31.41% 1859% 100.00% 76.42% 40 49 12.47%. 38.89% 11.11% 100.00% 7217 . 50 64 3.89% 18.94% 100.00% 81.06% 45.70% >65 50.67 5430% 3.64% 100.00% TOTAL 68.39% 9.60% 77.99% 2101% 100.00% N. SHORE 15 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% 48.17 >65 2.96% 48.87% 51.13% 100.00% TOTAL 61.11 7.98% 100.00% 69.09% 30.91% RICHMOND 45.02% 634% 48.64% 15 24 100.00% 5136% 67.92% 7636% 25 39 8.44% 23.64% 100.00% 7433 40 49 11.90% 86.28% 13.72% 100.00% 50 64 71.87 7.71% 7953% 20.42%6 100.00% 54.14 >65 3.06% 57.19% 42.111% 100.00% TOTAL 7538% 8.15% 67.23 24.62% 100.00% YANCtUEL 15 24 20.45 7423% 25.77% 532% 100.00% 25 39 48.15% 7.92% 51.85% 100.00% 4013 40 49 50^I 1259% 63.09% 36.91% 100.00% 50 64 52. • * . 8.40% 61.00% 39.00% 100.00% >65 41.14% 37. I • 4.08% 58.86% 100.00% 4244 TOTAL 7.75% 50.18% 49.82% 100.00% S OF FRASER 15 24 45 5735% 42.65% 100.00% '^11.69% 23 39 72. 10.40% 83.20% 16.80% 100.00% 40_49 7657 11.68% 1824% 11.765E 100.0056 7.15% 7212 50 64 79.27% 20.73% 100.00% >65 54.14 42.84% 100.00% 57.16% 232% TOTAL 69.01 8.64% 22.34% 100.00% 77.66%  LAI4GLEYS 15 24 25 39  41.  11.82%  77.56% 78.72 73.49 54.57% 71.67 .  9.49% 10.29% 722% 1.98% 8.04%  60.42% 87.05% 89.01% 80.71% 5654% 79.71%  3951% 12.95% 10.99% 19.245E 43.46% 20.29%  100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%  40 4 9 50 64 >65 TOTAL PMEADtMRID 47.97% 100.00% 15 24 60.81% 39.19% 1244% 75.8 14.18% 100.00% 9.93% 85.112% 25 39 40 49 79.17 100.00% 90.28% 9.72% 11.11% 22.47% 70.14% 100.00% 50 64 7.38% 77.53% 100.00% >65 46.67% 50.71 5333% 2.63% 100.00% 78.41% 2139%, TOTAL 69.33 858%, CMA HUSBAND/WIFE LONE PARENT "1"OT FAMILIES NON FAMILIES 5911%.^103.03% 15 24 7.86%^40.79% 32.93 23.33%^100.00% 25 39 61.96 9.71%^71.67% 14.77%^100.00% 40 49 71.94 1339%^8513% 2333%^100.00% 50 64 8.56%^76.67% 68.11 47.75 48.64%^100.00% >65 3.56%.^5131% 60.68 30.50%^100.00% TOTAL 8.33%^69.50%  Source:^J. Rekart. 1989. Vancouver Metropolitan Area Household Forecast 1986-2011 - Background Report on Households: Vancouver Census Metropolitan Areas and its Sub-Regions.  94 Table 2 -^Average Employment Income of Population 15 Years and Over By Sex  and Major Occupation, Canada, 1985.  Table 6.^Average Employment Income of Population 15 Years and Over by Sex and Major Occupation, Canada, 1985 Average employment income Occupation  Females  Males  Both sexes  (1 )  (2)  (3)  Female! Percentage of females male ratio' each occupation (4)  S Managerial, administrative and related occupations Occupations in natural sciences, engineering and mathematics Occupations in social sciences and related fields '1 Occupations in religion Teaching and related occupations Occupations in medicine and health Artistic, literary, recreational and related occupations Clerical and related occupations Sales occupations Service occuoefinnc Farming, horticultural and animal husbandry occupations Fishing, trapping and related occupations Forestry and logging occupations Mining and quarrying including oil and gas field occupations Processing occupations Machining and related occupations Product fabricating, assembling and repairing occupations Construction trades occupations Transport equipment operating occupations Material handling and related occupations Other crafts and equipment operating occupations Occupations not elsewhere classified Total. all occupations 1 Average employment income or females as  (5) 1 /a  21,328  37,939  32,564  56.2  31.8  19,878 15,792 12.526 20,137 18,051 12,060 12,746 9,594 7,362 6,233 5,900 5,865 17,893 9,873 13,320 11,136 12,642 11,087 10,683 12,036 9,829 13,027  30.756 34,938 16.975 33,009 46,879 18.945 18,147 21.84e 16 Q28 11.858 13,644 16,443 27,844 21,228 22,577 21,688 19,775 22,113 17,937 26,026 14,631 23,411  28.828 23.757 16.045 24,973 24,050 15,984 13.885 15,234  64.6 45.2 73.8 61.0 38.6 63.7 70.2 -3.9 45 9  1110.,2 65703 12,874 15,679 27,602 18,331 22,916 19.107 19,594 21.248 16,244 22.799 13,748 18,910  52.6 43.2 35.7 64.3 46.5 59.0 51.3 63.9 50.1 59.6 46.2 67.2 55.6  17 7 58.4 20.9 62.4 79.0 43.0 78.9 45.4 54.9 21.4 9.9 7.2 2.4 25.5 7.1 24.5 2.5 7.8 23.3 23.1 18.4 43.3  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.  95 Table 3 -^Labour Force 15 Years and Over by Occupation Major Groups and Sex, Vancouver CMA, 1986 (20% Sample Data).  Occupation major groups  Both sixes  Male  Female  Grand& grouoes de professions  Les deux sexes  Sex. .ascul■re  Saxe^limintn  iancouver^(Consolidated  -  Unifiett)  rota'^labour^force - Population active^totale ^ Occupation - Not apolicable(l)^- Profession^Sans objet(1) ^ 4.11^occupations(2)^- Tout*:^les professionslfl ^ Managerial.^administrative and^related ocCupations Oirectours.^gerants.^administrateurs^it^osisonnet ass ie.^e ^ Occupations^in^natural^sciences.^engineering^and methematiCS Travailleurs^des^sciences^naturellts.^du^genie^it  des mathematioues ^ Occupations^in^social^scienc•s^and^rel ated^fields^7ravailleurs^specialises^des^sciences^sociales^et domain's Confines ^ Occupations^in^religion^MemOres du dirge it^assimiles ^ Teaching and related occupations ^8.nseignants^it^personnel^asste,i, ^ OCCUOaTIOna^in med.e,n• and health MeldeCine it^Sante ^  4.t.stic.^literary.^recreational^and^'elate: occupations Professionnels^des^domain's^sit.st^oue^it^.ittera•ie it^Personnel^assimil. ^ Clerical^and^related occupations ^Employes di bureau it^travailleurs assimilos ^ Sales occupations Travailleurs spacialisas dans^la vents ^ Service occupations Travailleurs^specialises dans "es^services ^ Farming. horticultural ^and animal husbandry occupations Agricultturs.^horticuitours^it^eleveurt ^ Fishing.^trdooing and^related Occupations^Pncheurs.^trapOeurs^tt^travailieurs^nysimites ^ Forestry and^logging occupations^TraviilletirS^forestial's •t^tniCnarons ^ Mining^and quarrying.^including oil^and^gas occuoatioas Mineurs.^carriers.^foreurs de buts^do cetrole et^ae gap^it^traysilleurs^assimiles ^ Processing occupations Travailleurs^des^industries^de^t'ansformat , nn ^ Machining and ',fated occupations ^USinfutl •t^travatileuts^Ots^dcaMaineS^COnnexes ^ Product^fabttcating,^assembling ^and^rana.r,ns  occupations Travailleurs^specialises^dons^la^fabrication.^le montage it^la reparation de oroduits ^ Construction^trades occupations^Tr avai 1 leurs^du Oitiment ^ Transport^equipment operating occupations^Personnel^d •molai tat on des^transports ^ Material^handling^and^related OCCuOat.nns.^n.a.c.^ManutentiOnnatrtS et^travarileurs  Other^crafts and equtoment operating occupations^Autrss OumrierS Qualifies et^conducteurs^de macnines Occupations not^els•enere classified Travailleurs^non classes ailleurs ^  757.520  420.865  336.655  23.230  12.315  10.310  734.295  408.545  325.745  SS.OZO  57.445  27.575  26.220  22.285  3.935  7.630  7.880  9.755  :.455  1.185  27,3  26.915  10.365  15.595  27.580  8.865  22  ;4.773  8.740  5.029  146.780  30.675  115.100  81.390  46.155  25.235  106.120  50.325  55.795  12.295  7.825  4,470  2.155  1.985  210  2.320  2.145  75  790  780  19.950  15.265  aE  11.940  11,170  t77  40.690  33.375  7.315  40.980  4 0.120  1162  27.510  25.825  1.575  15.410  12.330  2.480  5.225  5.280  1.545  9.610  7.320  1^359  Source:^Statistics Canada. 1988. Summary Tabulations of Labour Force, Mobility., and Schooling: Vancouver and Victoria CMA's.  96 Table 4 -^Changes in Home Ownership Rates Within and Between Income Quintiles, Canada 1967-1981  % of Houseboat Owning Their Unit Chlr;t 1967.1931  1967  1973  1977  1981  Unvest Quintile Second Quintile  62.0%  50.0% 53.6  47.4%  43.0'4  -19%  55.5  Middle Quintile Fourth Quintile  58.6  57.5  53.3 63.2  52.4 62.7  - 3% + 4%  64.2 73.4  69.3  73.2  81.2  82.3  75.0 83.5  +11%  highest Quintile Total  62.7  62.4  63.9  63.3  +0 O%  +10%  Source:^Statistics Canada. 1983. Household Facilities By Income and Other Characteristics. Cat No. 13-567.  Table 5 -^Changes in Renter Households by Income Quintiles, Canada, 1967-1983.  Chinee Income Quintile  1967  1973  1977  1981  Loutu Quintile Sctund Quintile middle Quintile  20.4%  26.6% 24.7  29.1%  Fourth Quintile Highest Quintile  19.2 14.3  22.6 16.1 10.0  25.9 20,4 14.3  31.1% 26.0 20.3 13.6  -^1.9%. -^5.6',  9.8  9.0  - 5 - 3%  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  TOO  23.9 22.2  1967•I$E," +10.7% +^2. i %  Source:^Statistics Canada. 1983. Household Facilities by Income and Other Characteristics. Cat No. 13-567.  97  Table 6 -^Market-Welfare vs Social-Welfare Subsidies (Millions)  1950-60's Non-Profit Private^Private Public^& Co-op^Rent^Sector Housing^Housing^Supplement ARP & MURB  Annual Totals  1976  $^107  $^21  $^5  $^70  S^203  1977  141  31  7  97  276  1978  179  32  9  126  346  1979  265  37  9  148  459  1980  263  36  15  171  485  1981  320  74  16  195  605  1982  399  197  17  215  828  $^1,674  $^428  $^78  $^1,022  $^3,202  53%  13%  2%  TOTAL  % of 7 year Total  32%  100%  Source:^Grieve, B. and J.D. Hulchanski. 1984. Housing Issues and Canadian Federal Budgets 1968-1984-UBC Planning Papers. Vancouver: Canadian Planning Press.  98  List of Figures  99 Figure 1  ^  Levittown ca. 1955  orrs...401,11,4"  1.5 Levittown, 1955 .  Source:  ^  Hayden, D. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream.  1  100 Figure 3 -^Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1990  Source:^GVRD. 1990. Greater Vancouver...The Liveable Re ion.  101 Figure 4 -^Divorce Rates, Canada, 1971-1986  Per 100,000 population 1.3  1.1  0.9  0.7 .••••°-  0.5^I^I^l^I^I^I^1^1^i^i^I^1^iI^I 1971^  1976^  1981  ^  1986  Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue 84205, Marriages and Divorces: Vital Statistics.  Figure 5 -^Number of Divorced Lone Parent, by Sex, 1971-1986 Millers 250 200  150 100 50 0 1971  1976  1981  1986  F 7 Female lone parent -  Male lone parent  Sources: Statistics Canada, 1971, 1976, 1981 and 1986 censuses of Canada .  102 Figure 6 -^Options for Reorganizing a Typical Suburban Block  111111  11111111  A  Il  1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 1 I1 1 1 1 1 1  ^ hil 1  6 C 7.3 Diagram showing some of the possibilities of reorganizing a typical suburban block through rezoning, rebuilding, and relandscaping. A, ten single-family houses (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 accessory apartments (4) connected by a new sidewalk or arcade (5) and surrounded by a new border of street trees (6). In Figure C, (4) can include space for such activities 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 formal arcade. The narrow ends of the block can be emphasized as collective entrances with gates (to which residents have keys), leading to new accessory apartments entered from the arcade or sidewalk. In the densest possible situations, (3) may be alley and parking lot, if existing street parking and public transit are not adequate.  Source:^Hayden, D. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream.  103 Figure 7 -^Perspective View of a Pedestrian Pocket --''  -^s.-: ,---^- -^.,---  _-- ,^„:-.-.:---__ ....._,_  f.  ,,.--^7-'^fill ^ 91,e-,f,' '/3.iktr.^...1,',^ '^.^) . d I.C?.".1(  - 4  ...1,."'' ' ' ^2,•-^. . ,.  N  f  .1-  .^4.  ' '^t  ,,....!. le ■44^  -1---.  1....  ...^)  1  - . - '^r.).(% [A. . f'4,..p()  (4; ( o.:-: f  -  e  ,,^ „,Kl.:'-  ff-^,^  • --- , N. -  ,r' -.^  'ilikt.j4:?-'i•-'-'  '.,,,,,/,,,,..._----41,' - 44,, „., -,•--.. --e- .•^ ,  ,  .10; cLe.ffj -  4:k.%  4  r  Ncig:e.  • 'P  Source:^Kelbaugh, D. et al. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy.  Figure 8 -^Plan View of a 60 Acre Pedestrian Pocket  Source:^Kelbaugh, D. et al. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy.  104 Figure 10 Community Land Trust Policies and Procedures: Selected Excerpts From Chapter 2 in Communitas Inc. 1985. Land Trusts For Non-Profit Continuing Housing Co-  operatives.  1.0 Individual Interests  1.1 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 basis  1.2 Individual Legacy Every resident has a legitimate interest in protecting the continuity associated with the development 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 their home, or into the land they occupy or use, when this value is derived from their personal efforts. Policies -the improvements belong to the users -should a user terminate the lease and be unable to sell market the improvements, the community land trust will sell the improvements on behalf of the user, and then forward the proceeds and costs of the sale to the user  105  2.0 Community Interests 2.1 Community Access  A community has a legitimate interest in maintaining continuing access to its land for all its members Polices  -no absentee leaseholders are allowed -leaseholders are only allowed to lease the amount of land required for their specific use -land is held in perpetuity  2.2 Community Equity  A community has a legitimate interest in retaining and utilizing for the common good whatever 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 rights revert 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 into consideration the nature of the improvements. -the trust can charge low income households a lower lease fee.  2.3 Community Legacy  A community has a legitimate interest in preserving its environment and guiding its own development 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 land trust directly to the land user  BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION  NAME: At-A4,-)1) gc^CAL3D‘Y-g_o (  MAILING 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 (P1.441.114-4-1Ct t' 15^t'c)V^L41-1W-R5^ 13. Pf45  \iv? - MAY^  rq,---cL)t•AA  POSITIONS HELD:  C  ^t-180,Ak-k- . r?-4\1A-t-in-Ae., ' "..-c-A-A ---  A  --.  P-C-Ir-ViCA ^ LVA44.-  ----rr-'C-t-4- 4-4 LC_ Le \  44.  c\ ) of --  ...^  4.-----v , \^  AtA  .c.:L.,..% <, 17 1Z 1  C--)-71-- 0^Orf-,COV . ,e6' C.-- tr--1/4'r_n Ile  PUBLICATIONS (if necessary, use a second sheet):  AWARDS:  Complete one biographical form for each copy of a thesis presented to the Special Collections Division, University Library. DE-5  V  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items