UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The ownership of Vancouver’s C.B.D., 1951-1971 Ball, Brian Kent 1974

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A4_6 B34.pdf [ 4.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099897.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099897-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099897-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099897-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099897-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099897-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099897-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099897-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099897.ris

Full Text

T H E O W N E R S H I P O F V A N C O U V E R ' S C . B . D . 1951 - 1971 b y B R I A N K E N T B A L L B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1968 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F S C I E N C E i n B U S I N E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N i n the F a c u l t y o f C o m m e r c e and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n We a c c e p t th i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A J u n e , 1974 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r equ i r emenrs f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb i a , I agree that: the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l owed w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of C o m m e r c e and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date 30 June, 1974 A B S T R A C T T h e p u r p o s e o f th i s t h e s i s i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the o w n e r s h i p o f V a n c o u v e r ' s C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . P r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e the type o f C . B . D . p r o p e r t y o w n e r s can affect the g r o w t h and d e v e l o p m e n t o f the C . B . D . , k n o w l e d g e o f o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s can be a u s e f u l t o o l o f g o v e r n m e n t . A s the C . B . D . i s a p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f p r o p e r t y t ax r e v e n u e , l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h p r o m o t i n g the v i a b i l i t y o f t h i s u r b a n d i s t r i c t . T h i s a spec t of u r b a n e c o n o m i c s , p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p , i s r e l a t i v e l y u n k n o w n , and c o m p a r a t i v e l y l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l r e s e a r c h has b e e n u n d e r t a k e n . A r e v i e w of r e l e v a n t p u b l i c a t i o n s p r o -d u c e d C . B . D . o w n e r s h i p s t a t i s t i c s r e l a t i n g to o n l y two c i t i e s - - Sea t t l e and San F r a n c i s c o . It i s p r o p o s e d then to a s c e r t a i n who a r e the o w n e r s o f V a n c o u v e r ' s C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . T h e a n a l y s i s w i l l be c o n d u c t e d as o f the y e a r s 1951, 1960 and 1971 . T h i s e r a i s one of g r e a t g r o w t h o f the C . B . D . , and i t i s hoped that some i n s i g h t in to the o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n b e h i n d t h i s g r o w t h , w i l l be g a i n e d . The o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s w i l l t h e r e f o r e be c o m p a r e d o v e r the t h ree s tudy p e r i o d s , i n o r d e r to eva lua t e changes that have e v o l v e d . T h e o w n e r s w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d i n a c e r t a i n w a y that w i l l c l e a r l y r e v e a l any changes i n the o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n . F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of V a n c o u v e r ' s C . B . D . w i l l be c o m -p a r e d to that o f Sea t t l e and San F r a n c i s c o . i i The method of analys is begins with de l imi t ing the C . B . D . for each of the three study yea r s . The means of de l imi ta t ion is the Murphy -Vance technique, which has been s l ight ly modif ied to meet the requirements of this invest igat ion. F o r each of the proper t ies within the C . B . D . boundaries , the proper ty owner i s determined f i r s t by legal and then by benef ic ia l c l a s s i f i ca t ion . E s s e n t i a l l y , this type of c l a s s i f i -cation reveals whether the owner as r eg i s t e red lega l ly (by assessment r o l l ) , is in fact the person or organizat ion which controls the use of and rece ives the benefits f rom the r ea l estate. With in this s t ructure , the two owner -c l a s ses are each divided into severa l groups which d is t inguish var ious types of owners as ind iv iduals , corpora t ions , estates, govern-ments and so on. Once the raw data are c lass i f i ed , coded and p rocessed by computer , the resu l t s are compared with each of the study years and wi th that of Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o . B a s i c a l l y , it was d i scovered that rea l ty and business c o r -porations enjoyed the legal ownership of the major i ty of Vancouver ' s C . B . D . in 1951, I960 and 1971. When benef ic ia l ownership was con-s idered though, it was found that individuals owned the ma jo r i ty of C . B . D . proper t ies , although their share of the total decl ined over 1960-1971. The benef ic ia l ownership of the C . B . D . by proper ty value gen-e r a l l y was dominated, over the three yea r s , by business corporat ions and two or more ind iv idua l s . Individuals and governments also owned p r o p e r t y r e p r e s e n t i n g a r e l a t i v e l y l a rge percentage of the total C.B.D. a s s e s s e d value. Over the two decades, the po s i t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l non-corporate owners declined while that of co r p o r a t i o n s i n c r e a s e d . The a n a l y s i s also r e v e a l e d that the three l e v e l s of government (federal, p r o v i n c i a l , city) play a prominent r o l e , both in number of p r o p e r t i e s owned and by value of property. The ownership st r u c t u r e of the Seattle and.San F r a n c i s c o C.B.D. r e v e a l e d that the m a j o r i t y of p r o p e r t i e s were b e n e f i c i a l l y owned by estates and co r p o r a t i o n s . T hese owner-classes, as would be ex-pected, tended to hold their p r o p e r t i e s for a r e l a t i v e l y long time. It was suggested that this pattern had some effect on r e s t r i c t i n g the growth and redevelopment of the C.B.D. • A s these two studies are now n e a r l y fifteen y e a r s old, subsequent events indicate that f a c t o r s other than ownership patterns can induce expansion and redevelopment i n the C.B.D. Once the ownership structure of Vancouver's C.B.D. was determined, it was possible to evaluate the f e a s i b i l i t y of using this knowledge to formulate a p o l i c y to guide the C.B.D. 's future. B y c l a s s i f y i n g b e n e f i c i a l owners as active or passive i n v e s t o r s i n r e a l estate and analyzing the turnover of r e a l p r o p e r t y owned by these invest-o r s in the C.B.D., it was d i s c o v e r e d that active i n v e s t o r s did in fact own the m a j o r i t y of C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s . T h e r e f o r e , it i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that p o l i c y guidelines d i r e c t e d to maintaining the involvement of active i n v e s t o r s , or to encourage passive i n v e s t o r s to at least redevelop "their i v p r o p e r t y when necessary, could ensure continued growth of Vancouver's C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . v T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page A B S T R A C T i i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S v i LIST O F T A B L E S v i i LIST O F I L L U S T R A T I O N S v i i i Chapter I P U R P O S E 1 II M E T H O D O L O G Y 4 D e l i m i t the C . B . D 5 R e c o r d C . B . D . P r o p e r t i e s 11 C la s s i fy P r o p e r t y Owners 13 III P A S T R E S E A R C H O F C . B . D . O W N E R S H I P 17 San F r a n c i s c o 18 Seattle 22 Vancouver 28 IV T H E C . B . D . O F V A N C O U V E R 31 V O W N E R S H I P O F V A N C O U V E R ' S C . B . D 43 L e g a l Ownership 43 Bene f i c i a l Ownership 53 VI C O N C L U S I O N S 69 VII P O L I C Y I M P L I C A T I O N S 77 B I B L I O G R A P H Y 84 v i L I S T O F T A B L E S T a b l e P a g e I B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p of San F r a n c i s c o ' s C . B . D . 1957-1958 19 II B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p o f S e a t t l e ' s C . B . D . I960 23 III C . B . D . O f f i c e and R e t a i l Supp ly 36 I V S u r v e y o f O f f i c e B u i l d i n g s 36 V C . B . D . R e t a i l and S e r v i c e T r a d e 40 V I L e g a l O w n e r s h i p 1971 44 V I I L e g a l O w n e r s h i p I960 46 VII I L e g a l O w n e r s h i p 1951 49 I X S u m m a r y of L e g a l O w n e r s h i p 1951-1971 51 X B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p 1971 54 X I B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p I960 57 X I I B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p 1951 59 X I I I S u m m a r y o f B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p 1 951 - 1971 . . . . 62 X I V C . B . D . B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p V a n c o u v e r - S e a t t l e - S a n F r a n c i s c o 73 X V C . B . D . P r o p e r t y S a l e s 80 X V I S u m m a r y of C . B . D . P r o p e r t y S a l e s 81 v i i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Map Page 1 City of Vancouver and Downtown Peninsula 30 2 The C. B.D. of Vancouver 1951-1971 32 Figure 1 Vacancy Rates Downtown Office Buildings 38 2 Commercial Land Values Downtown Vancouver .... 39 vi i i PURPOSE The purpose of the research is to investigate the characterist-ics of property ownership in Vancouver's Central Business District. The distribution of these property owners, classified into generalized categories, will be examined as of the years 1951, I960 and 1971. This feature will indicate the direction of the C.B.D. 's growth over time, as well as describe changes in the composition of C.B.D. property owners. Research of C.B.D. property ownership is desirable for the simple reason that "this is in a very real sense a frontier of urban real estate research. The many implications to be discovered from research into C.B.D. ownership revolve about one essential question. That is, whether the property owners are developers or investors. As each class of owner acquires property for different reasons, each can have a noticeable effect upon the character of the Central Business District. F or example, if the passive investors predominate, the Central Business District may be characterized by a lack of change, a "stagnation" or even decay. This type of owner is characterized by owning property for long periods of time and therefore also a relatively low redevelopment or turnover rate. Collectively this type of owner can cause an area to remain static over the long-term or at worst produce ^ D.T. Rowlands, Urban Real Estate Research (Washington, Urban Land Institute, 1969), p. 23. 2 " s l u m " b u i l d i n g s . In the opposite s i t u a t i o n , the m a j o r i t y of the C.B.D. m a y be owned by s h o r t - t e r m a c t i v e i n v e s t o r s , f o r r e d e v e l o p m e n t . T h i s type of i n v e s t o r g e n e r a l l y i s m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h o b t a i n i n g a h i g h e r e c o n o m i c r e t u r n f r o m development of r e a l p r o p e r t y , c o m p a r e d to the p a s s i v e i n -v e s t o r . T hus a c o m m e r c i a l a r e a i n w h i c h the " d e v e l o p e r " dominates, i s often d i s t i n g u i s h e d by newer b u i l d i n g s , a h i g h e r r a t e of r e d e v e l o p -ment plu s m o r e a c t i v i t y i n r e a l estate t r a n s a c t i o n s . Knowledge of who owns the C.B.D. should be an o b j e c t i v e of the l o c a l l e v e l of government. I n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the make-up of the downtown p r o p e r t y o w n ers would be u s e f u l i n f o r m u l a t i n g p o l i c y to m a i n t a i n tax r e v e n u e s f r o m thi s a r e a . If the downtown s e c t o r does not r e d e v e l o p when b u i l d i n g s r e a c h the l a t t e r y e a r s of e c o n o m i c u s e f u l n e s s , o r i f p r o p e r t y o w n e r s do not r e s p o n d to new demands, the p r o p e r t y v a l u e s o b v i o u s l y d e c l i n e . T h e r e f o r e , so does the p r o p e r t y tax r e v e n u e f r o m thi s r e a l e s t a t e . The c i t y government m a y be able to deter o r a t t r a c t c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of p r o p e r t y owners to a gi v e n d i s t r i c t i n o r d e r to m a i n t a i n a gi v e n l e v e l of r e n o v a t i o n o r r e d e v e l o p m e n t of e x i s t i n g p r o p e r t i e s . C o n c e i v a b l y s u c h a p o l i c y c o u l d be a p p l i e d to p r e v e n t the de c l i n e of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t , o r any other u r b a n a r e a . 3 S p e c i f i c a l l y , the purpose of this r e s e a r c h is to investigate the response to the following questions: what a r e the m a j o r ownership groups i n the C.B.D. ? is there any differ e n c e (and i f so, how much) between p r o p e r t y owners when c l a s s i f i e d by leg a l and b e n e f i c i a l status ? has there been any change i n the rat i o of property-owner c l a s s e s over t i me? how does the r e s u l t s of this r e s e a r c h compare with that conducted in other c i t i e s ? 4 METHODOLOGY The first step to carrying out the desired research is to delimit the physical area in which the research is to be undertaken. Given that the area of interest is the Central Business District, what are its boundaries? Further, it was desired to analyze C.B.D. owner-ship through time, and three periods of analysis were chosen. The Central Business District had therefore to be delimited as of the years 1971, I960 and 1951. These years will relate the ownership pattern of the post-World War II era through to a period of rapid expansion of retail and office development in Vancouver's Central Business District. This aspect, of change in ownership over time, does not appear to have been investigated at all, to date. 5 Delimit the C.B.D. A well-known means of delimiting the C.B.D. is that developed during the early 1950's - the Murphy-Vance method. While it does have its limitations, this technique is reasonably accurate, it is easily calculable and perhaps most important, it is easily understood. Murphy and Vance based their method of analysis on the ob-servation that: "the really essential central business uses appear to be the retailing of goods and services, and the performing of various financial and office functions. "^ These activities, though also located outside the C.B.D., tend to con-centrate inthe central core. They serve the needs of the city rather than that of the immediate, surrounding locale. 4 The method considers non-C.B.D. land uses to be: permanent residences (apartments, rooming houses) government and public property organizational establishments industrial establishments (except newspapers) wholesaling with stocks and commercial storage vacant buildings vacant lots railway tracks and switching yards 2 Raymond E. Murphy, The Central Business District (Chicago, Aldine Atherton, 1972), p. 25. 3 Ibid. Ibid., p. 26. 6 Presumably all other land uses are central business uses. Delimiting a city's Central Business District by the Murphy-Vance method essentially involves categorizing each city block in the general area of interest, as being occupied by C. B. D. or non-C. B. D. uses. The first c riteria of measurement is the Central Business Height Index. It is calculated by dividing the total area of central business uses on all floors of every building in the block, by the total ground floor area. The second criteria is the Central Business Intensity Index. This measure represents the ratio of central business uses to all floor space within the block; or total central business area divided by the total floor space in the city block. A city block is considered part of the C.B.D. if it has a C. B. H. I. greater than or equal to 1.0, and a C. B. 1.1, greater than or equal to 0. 50. Blocks meeting these requirements must be contiguous, although a block not having the accepted index levels will be included if it is surrounded by blocks meeting the required index levels. Other requirements are that government uses when occupying an entire block, are included in the C.B.D., and that the C.B.D. cannot include areas separated by a railway or freeway. ^  To define the C.B.D. for 1971, use was made of a study undertaken by Takahashi, which defined the 1969 C.B.D. of Vancouver by the Murphy-Vance me thod. 6 While s everal modifications were made _ _ Ibid. , p. 35. ^ D.L. Takahashi, "C.B.D. Office Location Patterns" (Vancouver: University of B. C . , unpublished M. A. thesis, 1972). 7 to adapt the method, these m o d i f i c a t i o n s a r e c o n s i d e r e d b e n e f i c i a l and do not r e d u c e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the method f o r the p u r p o s e s of this a n a l y s i s . F i r s t , a l l government uses have been i n c l u d e d , although these a r e c l a s s i f i e d by M u r p h y and Vance as be i n g n o n - c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s u s e s . A s w i l l be shown i n l a t e r pages, the v a r i o u s l e v e l s of government a r e quite a c t i v e i n the C.B.D., and i g n o r i n g t h e i r p r e s e n c e w o u l d not be a d v i s a b l e . E x c l u s i o n of government uses w o u l d not p r o v i d e an a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . Second, the C.B.D. has been a n a l y z e d on the b a s i s of b l o c k -f r o n t s o r h a l f - b l o c k s , r a t h e r than c i t y b l o c k s . The m a i n r e a s o n f o r t a k i n g t h i s a p p r o a c h was that there can be c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l e v e l of development between the two b l o c k - f r o n t s of a gi v e n b l o c k . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y so at the b o u n d a r i e s of the C.B.D., w h i c h i s the p r e c i s e a r e a where a c c u r a c y of a n a l y s i s i s r e q u i r e d . In Ta k a h a s h i ' s a n a l y s i s , the 1969 C.B.D. was a l s o d e f i n e d u s i n g grouped f l o o r space f i g u r e s . In updating t h i s data, the f l o o r space and use of those c i t y b l o c k s l o c a t e d on the edge of Ta k a h a s h i ' s C.B.D. were e v a l u a t e d as of 1971. The b o u n d a r i e s were then expanded o r c o n t r a c t e d f r o m the 1969 base, and brought up to date f o r 1971. D e l i m i t a t i o n of the C.B.D. f o r I960 and 1951 was a l s o b a s e d 7 - • ' Ib i d . , pp. 112-13. 8 upon the M u r p h y - V a n c e technique. A p p l i c a t i o n of the technique i n a h i s t o r i c a n a l y s i s often p r e s e n t s d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s i n g f r o m inadequate data. R e s e a r c h conducted b y M a t t i n g l y , p l u s M a t t i n g l y and B o h n e r t has i n d i c a t e d that the C.B.D. can be def i n e d r e a s o n a b l y a c c u r a t e l y Q u s i n g the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s I n t e n s i t y Index f o r ground f l o o r u s e s o n l y . T h i s adaptation i s n e c e s s i t a t e d because of inadequate data on b u i l d i n g height i n past y e a r s . Where p o s s i b l e however, use was made of f i r e 9 i n s u r a n c e maps and c i t y d i r e c t o r i e s . These r e f e r e n c e s can often i n d i c a t e b u i l d i n g height and type of b u s i n e s s use per f l o o r of b u i l d i n g s i n a given a r e a . E s s e n t i a l l y though, the I960 and the 1951 C.B.D. was defi n e d by the C. B. 1.1. , w i t h the c r i t i c a l l e v e l b e i n g 5 0%. The p r o c e d u r e b y w h i c h the C.B.D. was de f i n e d f o r a l l three study p e r i o d s began w i t h that a r e a d e f i n e d by T a k a h a s h i f o r 1969. It was r e l a t i v e l y e a s y to update to 1971 f r o m t h i s b ase as has been des-c r i b e d . F o r I960, the C.B.D. was de f i n e d by w o r k i n g i n w a r d f r o m the 1971 b o u n d a r i e s , e l i m i n a t i n g those c i t y b l o c k s o b v i o u s l y not m e e t i n g the C.B.I. I. c r i t e r i a of 5 0 % ground f l o o r c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s use. The r e f e r e n c e s f o r d e c i s i o n w e re the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r d i r e c t o r y , and the P a u l F. M a t t i n g l y , " D e l i m i t a t i o n and M o v e m e n t of C.B.D. B o u n d a r i e s T h r o u g h T i m e : The H a r r i s b u r g E x a m p l e , " P r o f e s s i o n a l G e o g r a p h e r 16-17 (November 1964); John E. B o h n e r t and P a u l F. M a t t i n g l y , " D e l i m i t a t i o n of the C.B.D. T h r o u g h T i m e , " E c o n o m i c G e o g r a p h y 40 (October 1964). 9 F i r e i n s u r a n c e maps d i s p l a y the l o c a t i o n of b u i l d i n g s on a s i t e , p l u s the b u i l d i n g ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n , n u m b e r o f s t o r i e s and type of use. To the author's knowledge the o n l y f i r e i n s u r a n c e maps r e l a t i n g to down-town V a n c o u v e r i s kept by the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r A r c h i v e s . 9 1960 c i t y a s s e s s m e n t r o l l . D e l i m i t i n g the C.B.D. f o r 1951 i n v o l v e d the same p r o c e s s as was a p p l i e d to define the 1960 C.B.D. ; that i s , w o r k i n g i n w a r d f r o m the I960 C.B.D. b o u n d a r i e s . The M u r p h y - V a n c e technique of C.B.D. d e l i m i t a t i o n has disadv a n t a g e s of c o u r s e and these w e re c o n s i d e r e d b e f o r e a c c e p t i n g t h i s m ethod of d e f i n i t i o n . It m u s t a l s o be r e m e m b e r e d that d e l i m i t a t i o n of the C.B.D. was of s e c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c e , f o r the p u r p o s e s of t h i s study. A m i n o r l e v e l of i n a c c u r a c y i n the C.B.D. 's d e l i m i t a t i o n c o u l d be t o l e r a t e d , i n s o f a r as the p r o p o r t i o n of p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p l i k e l y w o u l d not be s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d . The advantages of the M u r p h y - V a n c e technique have been d e s c r i b e d , and a r e e s s e n t i a l l y i t s r e l a t i v e l y e a s y a p p l i c a t i o n . The m a i n disadvantage i s that the C.B.D. 's b o u n d a r y i s a zone, not a d e f i n i t i v e l i n e . The def i n e d b oundary " i s a second-best s o l u t i o n , as the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t i s o n l y a concept, not a r e a l i t y . The method i s b a s e d on a n a l y s i s c a r r i e d out i n the e a r l y 1950's, on A m e r i c a n c i t i e s of a l i m i t e d range of s i z e . The two e s s e n t i a l i n d i c e s (C. B.H.I, and C. B. 1.1. ) a r e b a s e d upon a s u b j e c t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n r e t a i l and o f f i c e uses into c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s o r n o n - c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s u s e s . "The i n d i c e s p r o v i d e a m e c h a n i c a l d e f i n i t i o n w h i c h o n l y p a r t l y r e f l e c t s the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s u n d e r l y i n g the C.B.D. " ^ L a s t l y , no c o n s i d e r a -M urphy, The C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t , p. 37. T a k a h a s h i , P a t t e r n s , p. 111. 10 t i o n i s g i v e n to the q u a l i t y of the i m p r o v e m e n t s to p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d w i t h i n the C.B.D. The r e a l estate a n a l y z e d i s t r e a t e d w i t h e q u a l weight; i f i t w e r e weighted p e r h a p s the C.B.D. woul d be m o r e a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e d . 11 R e c o r d C.B.D. P r o p e r t i e s Once the boundaries of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t were delineated, the next r e q u i r e m e n t was to r e c o r d each p r o p e r t y within the C.B.D. by le g a l address, street address, land and improvements assessment, and r e g i s t e r e d owner. T h i s data i s available in the pr o p e r t y a s s e s s m e n t r o l l s r e c o r d e d by the C i t y of Vancouver for r e a l •estate taxation purposes. The total (land and building) a s s e s s m e n t of r e a l p r o p e r t y in the C.B.D. as defined for each study p e r i o d was r e c o r d e d in o r d e r to a s c e r t a i n the r e l a t i v e value of the r e a l t y owned by each c l a s s of pr o p e r t y owner. U s i n g a s s e s s m e n t data is a second-best solution, as id e a l l y each p r o p e r t y should be r e c o r d e d a c c o r d i n g to its m a r k e t value. T h i s would be ex t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t and also would r e q u i r e an ex c e s s i v e length of time. The a s s e s s e d value is an acceptable alternative however, because it i s d e r i v e d f r o m "market" r e a l estate s a l e s . It is applied on a r e l a t i v e l y u n i f o r m b a s i s to a l l r e a l t y and therefore the a s s e s s e d value of the r e a l t y is in r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n to its market value. In the ana l y s i s of the p r o p e r t i e s located in Vancouver's C.B.D. , the total (land and building) a s s e s s e d value of the r e a l t y owned by each ownership group was r e c o r d e d by group total, by m i n i m u m and m a x i m u m value, and also by median and mean total a s s e s s e d value. Many of the owner-groups exhibited g r e a t l y right-skewed curves, i n total a s s e s s e d value of p r o p e r t y owned. F o r this reason, 12 o n l y the m e d i a n value of the r e a l t y owned i s d e s c r i b e d i n the text. Often, the mean was unduly i n f l u e n c e d by the skewness of the d i s t r i b u -t i o n of p r o p e r t y v a l u e s and i t was c o n s i d e r e d not as a c c u r a t e as the m e d i a n . One m i n o r p r o b l e m e n c o u n t e r e d i n r e c o r d i n g the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s a c c o r d i n g to a s s e s s m e n t r o l l d e s i g n a t i o n i s that a p r o p e r t y i s r e c o r d e d s e p a r a t e l y when i t i s i m p r o v e d by one s t r u c t u r e . T h a t i s , i f a p e r s o n owns s i x adjacent l o t s , and there a r e two b u i l d i n g s b u i l t on two p a r c e l s of three l o t s , then the a s s e s s m e n t r o l l r e c o r d s two p r o p e r -t i e s - e ach c o m p r i s e d of t h r e e l o t s and each having the same owner. T h e r e f o r e , i n the a n a l y s i s of the data, there i s a degree of i n f l a t i o n i n the number of p r o p e r t i e s a n a l y z e d i f one f e e l s that a d i s t i n c t i o n should be made by owner and not by b u i l d i n g . 13 C l a s s i f y P r o p e r t y O w n e r s The m ethod of c l a s s i f y i n g the o w n e r s h i p of C.B.D. r e a l t y i s that u s e d b y M o n s e n . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t r u c t u r e i t s e l f i s taken f r o m 1 2 G r e b l e r ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n into h ousing i n New Y o r k C i t y . F i r s t , the p r o p e r t y o w n ers a r e s e g r e g a t e d into l e g a l and b e n e f i c i a l owner c l a s s e s . The l e g a l owner i s d e f i n e d as that p e r s o n o r body r e g i s t e r e d as the owner of the p r o p e r t y , a c c o r d i n g to C e r t i f i c a t e of In d e f e a s i b l e T i t l e , a s s e s s m e n t r o l l o r deed. The b e n e f i c i a l owner "has the r i g h t to enjoy the b e n e f i t s a c c r u i n g f r o m the p r o p e r t y - although the t i t l e to such p r o p e r t y m a y not I 3 be r e c o r d e d i n h i s name." O b v i o u s l y , the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p d i s t r i -b u t i o n w i l l d i f f e r f r o m that of l e g a l o w n e r s h i p . The a n a l y s i s of b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p i s the m o r e r e v e a l i n g , because i t i s the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s who c o n t r o l the development and r e d e v e l o p m e n t of the C.B.D. The m a j o r i t y of the C.B.D. c o u l d be l e g a l l y owned, f o r example, by c o r p o r a t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e w h i l e i t m a y be the l e g a l owner, the c o r p o r a t i o n c o u l d i n f a c t be c o n t r o l l e d by one p e r s o n , many people, another c o r p o r a t i o n o r even the government. It i s the a n a l y s i s of the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n that b e s t r e v e a l s who a r e the d e c i s i o n -m a k e r s i n the development of the C.B.D. The m a j o r i t y of the c o r p o r a t i o n s w h i c h a r e l e g a l o w n e r s 12 ' . L e o G r e b l e r , H o u s i n g M a r k e t B e h a v i o u r i n a D e c l i n i n g A r e a (New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1952). 1 3 R. J o s e p h Monsen, "Who Owns the C i t y ? " L a n d E c o n o m i c s 37 ( May 1961), p. 174, 1 4 of C.B.D. r e a l p r o p e r t y a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d under the B.C.. C o m p a n i e s A c t . To d i s c o v e r the b e n e f i c i a l owner of a gi v e n company i t i s n e c e s -s a r y to ana l y z e the annual r e p o r t of that company and d e t e r m i n e who the v o t i n g s h a r e h o l d e r s a r e . The i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d i s p u b l i c and a v a i l a b l e at the R e g i s t r y of C o m p a n i e s i n V i c t o r i a , B.C. C o m p a n i e s i n c o r p o r a t e d e x t r a - p r o v i n c i a l l y a r e not r e q u i r e d to d e c l a r e those s h a r e h o l d e r s not r e s i d i n g i n B.C. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , use was made of p u b l i s h e d i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e i n p u b l i c and u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s . ^  F i n a l l y , i n t e r v i e w s w e re conducted w i t h e x e c u t i v e s of those c o r p o r a t i o n s for w h i c h data on b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p was o t h e r w i s e not a v a i l a b l e . W i t h i n the two c l a s s e s of l e g a l and b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p , p r o p e r t y o w n e r s have been f u r t h e r c a t e g o r i z e d by type. The c a t e g o r i e s under l e g a l and b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p a r e e s s e n t i a l l y the same, although the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p c a t e g o r i e s a r e s l i g h t l y m o r e d e t a i l e d . The f o l -l o w i n g a r e the c a t e g o r i e s u s e d i n t h i s study - where there i s a d i f f e r e n c e 1 5 between that u s e d between the two o w n e r - c l a s s e s i t i s noted: I N D I V I D U A L S - e i t h e r a s i n g l e p e r s o n o r husband and w i f e . F o r b e n e f i -c i a l o w n e r s h i p , c o r p o r a t i o n s w h i c h a r e l e g a l c o n v e n i e n c e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s a r e a l s o i n c l u d e d . TWO OR M O R E I N D I V I D U A L S - two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s other than m a r r i e d c o u p l e s o r other o w n e r s h i p s as c l a s s i f i e d b e low. _ P a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l a r e Moody's I n d u s t r i a l M a n u a l , and Moody's  Bank and F i n a n c e M a n u a l . 1 5 Monsen, pp. 177-78. 15 E S T A T E S - f o r l e g a l o w n e r s h i p , p r o p e r t y was c l a s s i f i e d as e s t a t e -owned when the l e g a l document co n t a i n e d the w o r d s " e x e c u t o r " , " a d m i n i s t r a t o r " , " t r u s t e e " o r when the owner was r e c o r d e d as b e i n g a s p e c i f i c e s t a t e . U n d e r b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p , an estate i n c l u d e s p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d through i n h e r i t a n c e , or g i f t and w h i c h i s s t i l l m anaged o r c o n t r o l l e d c o l l e c t i v e l y as p a r t of the o r i g i n a l e s t a t e . R E A L T Y C O R P O R A T I O N S - the company name often i n d i c a t e s the p u r -pose o r c o n t a i n s the w o r d s " r e a l t y " , " h o l d i n g s " o r " i n v e s t -ments". F I N A N C I A L I N S T I T U T I O N S - banks, t r u s t companies, i n s u r a n c e com-panies and f i n a n c e c o m p a n i e s . . C l a s s i f i e d under b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p , p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p by th i s group i s s p l i t into p r o p e r t y h e l d f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s own use, and that h e l d f o r i n v e s t m e n t o r f u t u r e e x p a n s i o n . C O R P O R A T I O N S - b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g government c o r p o r a -tions when the p r o p e r t y i s not r e g i s t e r e d i n the government's name. F o r b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p thi s c a t e g o r y i s s e g r e g a t e d to account f o r p r o p e r t y owned by the c o r p o r a t i o n f o r i t s own use, and f o r p r o p e r t y h e l d f o r e x p a n s i o n o r as an i n v e s t m e n t . O T H E R - other types of i n s t i t u t i o n s such as r e l i g i o u s , s o c i a l , e d u c a t i o n a l and f r a t e r n a l . G O V E R N M E N T - a p p l i e d when the r e a l t y ' s owner i s the f e d e r a l , p r o v i n -c i a l o r m u n i c i p a l government. L i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y was e n c o u n t e r e d i n c a t e g o r i z i n g the p r o -p e r t y o w n e rs a c c o r d i n g to the v a r i o u s l e g a l and b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p d e s i g n a t i o n s . The m o s t s e r i o u s o b s t a c l e was posed by p r o p e r t i e s l e g a l l y r e g i s t e r e d i n the name of a t r u s t company, but w h i c h w e r e i n r e a l i t y o n ly b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d by the t r u s t company on b e h a l f of the true owner. W h i l e the number of p r o p e r t i e s i n v o l v e d i s s m a l l , they a r e often s t r a t e -g i c a l l y l o c a t e d and many have been a d m i n i s t e r e d on t h i s b a s i s f o r a con-s i d e r a b l e length of t i m e . Short of a t t e m p t i n g to f o r c e the t r u s t company 16 to divulge the identity of the b e n e f i c i a l owner, there i s no other way to gain a l l the r e q u i r e d information. Fortunately, there are a number of knowledgeable r e a l t o r s in Vancouver who are f a m i l i a r with these p r o -p e r t i e s . B y this means, many of the p r o p e r t i e s r e g i s t e r e d l e g a l l y i n the name of a trust company have been identified by b e n e f i c i a l owner. If Monsen's method is to be followed p r e c i s e l y , the r e a l estate managed by and r e g i s t e r e d i n the name of, a trust company for the true owner should be l e g a l l y and b e n e f i c i a l l y c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the actual owner. In the case of the Vancouver data it was not po s s i b l e either to identify or v e r i f y p o s i t i v e l y the actual owner. T h e r e f o r e , these p r o p e r t i e s are c l a s s i f i e d by l e g a l ownership as r e a l p r o p e r t y owned by a f i n a n c i a l institution. B y b e n e f i c i a l ownership they are c l a s s i -f i e d as r e a l p r o p e r t y owned by f i n a n c i a l institutions for uses other than their own. 17 P A S T R E S E A R C H O F C. B. D. O W N E R S H I P T h i s study has been u n d e r t a k e n because of the d e c i d e d s c a r c i t y of past r e s e a r c h into the subject. C o n s i d e r i n g the i m p a c t the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t has i n the u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t , i t seems s u r -p r i s i n g that l i t t l e has been done to i n v e s t i g a t e into the e f f e c t of owner-s h i p p a t t e r n s shaping the g r o w t h and s t r u c t u r e of t h i s v i t a l a r e a . A f t e r an e x t e n s i v e r e v i e w of books and p e r i o d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to the u r b a n f i e l d , there a p p e a r s to have been i n t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h into the q u e s t i o n of C.B.D. o w n e r s h i p i n only two c i t i e s . B o t h c i t i e s a r e A m e r i c a n , and s i t u a t e d on the West C o a s t - Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o . 18 San F r a n c i s c o San F r a n c i s c o ' s C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t was a n a l y z e d as of 1957-1958. ^  No m e n t i o n i s made as to the b a s i s on w h i c h the C.B.D. study a r e a was defined, although i t i s d e s c r i b e d as c o m p r i s i n g 788 p r o p e r t i e s . C o n s i d e r i n g b r i e f l y the l e g a l o w n e r s h i p of these p r o -p e r t i e s , the l a r g e s t c l a s s of l e g a l owner was I n d i v i d u a l s ( 2 4 % ) , f o l l o w e d by R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s ( 2 1 % ) , N o n - r e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s (18%), Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s ( 1 3 % ) , F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s ( 1 3 % ) , E s t a t e s (6%) and Other I n s t i t u t i o n s ( 5 % ) . In g e n e r a l , t h i s p a t t e r n a l s o p r e v a i l e d i n r e s -pect of o w n e r s h i p of p r o p e r t y a s s e s s e d at or below $250, 000. The o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n of the m o r e v a l u a b l e r e a l estate (over $250, 000 a s s e s s e d value) d i f f e r s n o t i c e a b l y . R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s own 32%, C o r -p o r a t i o n s own 1 6 % and F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s own 2 3 % of the m o r e 1 7 va l u a b l e r e a l t y . The l e g a l o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n i d e n t i f i e s the C.B.D. owners s u p e r f i c i a l l y . It i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s that i s r e q u i r e d , and i t d i f f e r s n o t a b l y f r o m the l e g a l o w n e r s h i p d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table I). A l t h o u g h I n d i v i d u a l s r e m a i n the owner of the l a r g e s t n u m ber of p r o p e r -t i e s ( 2 9 % ) , E s t a t e s a r e next l a r g e s t ( 1 9 % ) , then C o r p o r a t i o n s f o r Own Use (13%) and Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s ( 1 1 % ) . The r e m a i n i n g subgroups each own l e s s than 8% of the t o t a l C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s . E s t a t e s f a r out-_ I b i d . , pp. 174-78. 17 I b i d . , p. 175. T A B L E I B E N E F I C I A L O W N E R S H I P O F S A N F R A N C I S C O ' S C.B.D. ~ 1957 - 1958 N u m b e r P r o p e r t i e s % .Ownedv T o t a l I n d i v i d u a l s • 225'. 29 E s t a t e s 143 19 C o r p o r a t i o n s : Own U s e 106 13 Ot h e r Use 28 4 Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s 88 11 F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n : Own U s e 43 5 Other Use 32 4 R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n 52 7 Other I n s t i t u t i o n 47 6 Not A v a i l a b l e 19 2 T O T A L 788 P R O P E R T Y A S S E S S M E N T O v e r Under N u m b e r $250,000 $250, 000 of Sal e s 1 2 % 4 1 % 3 9 % 31 16 19 14 7 31 3 4 64 6 15 32 10 4 21 8 3 56 12 3 46 3 3 23 under 1 3 44 Sou r c e : R. J . M o n s e n 20 number other subgroups i n o w n e r s h i p of r e a l p r o p e r t y a s s e s s e d at o v e r $250,000 - they own 3 1 % c o m p a r e d to C o r p o r a t i o n s f o r Own Use, the next l a r g e s t subgroup at 14%. Other subgroups owing m o r e than 1 0 % of the r e a l t y a s s e s s e d o v e r $250, 000 a r e R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s ( 1 2 % ) , I n d i -v i d u a l s (12%) and F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r Own Use ( 1 0 % ) . I n d i v i d u a l s a r e the l a r g e s t o w n e r - g r o u p of r e a l e s t ate a s s e s s e d at under $250, 000, owning 4 1 % of the t o t a l p r o p e r t i e s i n t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The r e m a i n i n g o w n e r - g r o u p s have a m u c h s m a l l e r p e r -centage, r a n g i n g f r o m l 6 % d o w n to l e s s than 1%. The m o s t i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t of the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p a n a l y s i s i s that w h i l e E s t a t e s own the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of the m o r e v a l u a b l e r e a l p r o p e r t y , these h o l d i n g s had a v e r y low t u r n o v e r . O v e r the decade 1947-8 to 1957-8, E s t a t e s s o l d o n l y 1 9 % of t h e i r p r o p e r t y , the l o w e s t r a t i o of s a l e s a c t i v i t y amongst the ten owner subgroups. In c o n t r a s t , C o r p o r a t i o n s and F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s owning p r o p e r t y f o r i n v e s t m e n t , had a r e s a l e r a t i o of 6 4 % and 56%, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The i m p a c t of t h i s e f f e c t i s m i n i m a l , however, as these two sub r o u p s own a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of the C.B.D.'s p r o p e r t y . "It i s v e r y c l e a r f r o m the data that i n v e s t o r s i n r e a l estate have d i f f e r e n t and d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n s of m a r k e t b e h a v i o u r . "18 E s t a t e s , F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s and O t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s a l l tend to be con-s e r v a t i v e , a p p a r e n t l y s e l l i n g t h e i r r e a l p r o p e r t y o n l y i n f r e q u e n t l y . O n l y _ I b i d . , p. 1 76. 21 E s t a t e s own a large p r o p o r t i o n of the total C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s , and would have any effect on C.B.D. development through their r e s a l e a c t i v i t y . At the other end of the s p e c t r u m are the owner subgroups which are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a high r e s a l e rate - Rea l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s , C o r p o r a t i o n s and F i n a n c i a l Institutions holding r e a l p r o p e r t y for other than their own use. These subgroups only own 1 5 % of the C.B.D., and 2 3 % of the C.B.D. a s s e s s e d at over $250, 000. Thus the effect of their high r e s a l e a c t i v i t y i s l a r g e l y n u l l i f i e d . In.San F r a n c i s c o ' s case, then, the r e s u l t of the large bene-f i c i a l ownership ra t i o of E s t a t e s is a r e l a t i v e l y static r e c o r d of con-s t r u c t i o n and new development. Another trend thought to a r i s e f r o m the C.B.D. 's ownership pattern was the "developing i n San. F r a n c i s c o of 1 9 adjacent 'New B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t s ' . " That i s , redevelopment g e n e r a l l y was d i f f i c u l t i n the C.B.D. because the r e a l t y was not available; there-fore, developers turned to nearby, m ore a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s . "In the case of San F r a n c i s c o it has been the corporate owners who have contributed most, i n the post-war era , to the development of both the ce n t r a l business d i s t r i c t and the city through new buildings, with their concomitant i n c r e a s e in tax revenue. " ^ !9 Ibid. , p. 177. 2 0 Ibid. 22 Seattle The same a n a l y t i c a l s t r u c t u r e as was used i n the San 21 F r a n c i s c o study was a p p l i e d to Seattle's C.B.D. The I960 Se a t t l e C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t , as de f i n e d by the Seattle P l a n n i n g C o m m i s -si o n , c o m p r i s e d 429 p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d on 78 c i t y b l o c k s . T h i s a r e a r e p r e s e n t s o n l y 5.8% of the c i t y ' s c o m b i n e d b u s i n e s s and c o m m e r c i a l a r e a . No l e g a l o w n e r s h i p a n a l y s i s was undertaken, on the p r e m i s e that l e g a l o w n e r s a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y the f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k e r r e g a r d i n g the p r o p e r t y ' s use. Of the 429 p r o p e r t i e s i n the C. B. D. , 35. 9% a r e owned b e n e f i c i a l l y by e s t a t e s . The r e m a i n i n g seven owner sub-groups own m u c h s m a l l e r amounts. R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s a r e second at 18.1%, f o l l o w e d by i n d i v i d u a l s at 1 7 . 2 % (see T a b l e II). C o n s i d e r a t i o n was a l s o g i v e n to C.B.D. o w n e r s h i p , on the b a s i s of t o t a l a s s e s s e d value of the p r o p e r t y owned by each owner sub-group. A g a i n , as was i n d i c a t e d by a n a l y s i s of the number of C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s , E s t a t e s a l s o own the l a r g e s t amount of the C.B.D. r e a l estate by value. Of the t o t a l C.B.D. a s s e s s e d value of $81 m i l l i o n , E s t a t e s own p r o p e r t y a s s e s s e d i n t o t a l at $19. 1 m i l l i o n o r 23. 5 % of the t o t a l . W i t h one exc e p t i o n , the other subgroups r a n k a f t e r E s t a t e s i n a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n to that a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d f o r o w n e r s h i p by number of p r o p e r t i e s . The e x c e p t i o n i s O t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s , w h i c h r a n k second, W a r r e n R. S e y f r i e d and B u r t o n A. A p p e l l o , " L a n d T e n u r e i n the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t " , L a n d E c o n o m i c s 42 (May 1966). T A B L E II B E N E F I C I A L O W N E R S H I P O F S E A T T L E ' S C.B . D . 1960 -P R O P E R T I E S A S S E S S M E N T S N u m b e r % - % N u m b e r Owned T o t a l V a l u e T o t a l Sale s ( $ M i l l i o n ) E s t a t e s 154 35.9 19. 1 23. 5 7. 5 % R e a l t y C o r p . 78 18. 1 17. 5 21. 6 29. 2 I n d i v i d u a l s 74 17. 2 6. 2 7.6 24. 2 Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s 37 8. 6 3. 7 4.6 10. 2 F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s 35 8. 2 6. 2 7. 7 15. 0 Other I n s t i t u t i o n s 27 6. 3 1 8 . 9 23. 3 6.4 C o r p o r a t i o n s 15 3. 6 2.9 3. 7 7. 5 Go v e r n m e n t 7 9 2. 1 6.5 8. 0 0. 0 T O T A L 429 81. 0 S o u r c e : W.R. S e y f r i e d and B. A. Appelo Note: "Number S a l e s " c o l u m n r e f e r s to p r o p e r t y t r a n s f e r s , by owner-group, d u r i n g the y e a r s 1950-1960 24 owning 2 3 . 3 % of the t o t a l C.B.D. a s s e s s e d v a l u e . T h i s a n o m a l y i s l a r g e l y due to the fact that the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington s t i l l owns i t s f o r m e r s i t e . The U n i v e r s i t y ' s o r i g i n a l l o c a t i o n o c c u p i e s 10 a c r e s i n what i s the c o r e of Seattle's p r e s e n t C.B.D. A m o u n t i n g to a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8. 5 % of the C.B.D. 's a r e a , the p r o p e r t y owned by the U n i v e r s i t y r e -p r e s e n t s a c o n s i d e r a b l e sum, and l a r g e l y accounts f o r the high r a n k i n g 22 of the Other I n s t i t u t i o n s subgroup. The m a j o r i t y of Seattle's C.B.D., o r 6 0 % of the p r o p e r t i e s , w o r t h 6 8 % of the C. B. D. 's t o t a l a s s e s s e d value, i s owned b e n e f i c i a l l y by E s t a t e s , R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s , and Other I n s t i t u t i o n s . O n l y 3 0 % of the to t a l n umber of p r o p e r t i e s , r e p r e s e n t i n g 15. 9% of the C.B.D.'s t o t a l v alue i s owned by I n d i v i d u a l s , Two or M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s and C o r p o r a t i o n s . It w o u l d appear, at l e a s t i n the case o f San F r a n c i s c o and Seatt l e , that there a r e s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s i n the o w n e r s h i p of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . " C l e a r l y , i n both c i t i e s the m o s t v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t i e s a r e owned by p e r p e t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s : E s t a t e s , R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s , C o r p o r a t i o n s and F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s . 1 , 2 3 These b o d i e s owned 6 7 % of the m o r e va l u a b l e p r o p e r t y i n San F r a n c i s c o , as c o m p a r e d to 5 6 % i n S e a t t l e . Of the p r o p e r t i e s a s s e s s e d at o v e r $250, 000 i n each c i t y , the l a r g e s t owner subgroup i s E s t a t e s - 27. 1 % i n 22 I b i d . , p. 174. 23 Ibid . , p. 175. 25 Seattle and 3 1 . 0 % i n San F r a n c i s c o . Two d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s i n d i c a t e d by the two st u d i e s d e s e r v e m e n t i o n . In Seat t l e , E s t a t e s a r e the l a r g e s t s i n g l e owner of p r o p e r t y a s s e s s e d below.$250, 000 w h i l e f o r San F r a n c i s c o , I n d i v i d u a l s own the l a r g e s t p e r c e n t of this type of p r o p e r t y . Secondly, government owner-ship, w h i l e low i n S e a t t l e , i s n o n - e x i s t e n t i n San F r a n c i s c o ' s C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . Two m a j o r c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e r e a c h e d by the authors of the Seattle study. The f i r s t c o n c l u s i o n has a l r e a d y been stated. N a m e l y , i n both Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o , the m a j o r i t y of the C.B.D. i s b e n e f i -c i a l l y owned by l e g a l e n t i t i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l o n g e v i t y o r at l e a s t i n d e -f i n i t e l i f e . In a d d i t i o n , these b o d i e s own the m o r e va l u a b l e of the r e a l 24 estate s i t u a t e d i n the C.B.D. Second, when the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s w e r e a n a l y z e d as to the l e v e l of s a l e s a c t i v i t y b y owner group, i t was d i s c o v e r e d that the m a j o r i t y of l a n d o w n e r s ( i . e . , E s t a t e s , C o r p o r a t i o n s , F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s ) ex-h i b i t e d a r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l of r e s a l e a c t i v i t y . The a u t h o r s of the Seattle study suggest that the above C.B.D. o w n e r s h i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s m a y be a f a c t o r i n the d e c l i n e of the C.B.D. 's i m p o r t a n c e i n the u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t . " S u c c e s s i o n o f l a n d use i n the c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t s of Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o i s stagnant r e l a t i v e to t h e i r m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s . . . the o v e r a l l value of the c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t has been d e c l i n i n g and v a c a n c i e s r i s i n g . " 2 ^ 2 4 I b i d . 2 5 I b i d . , p. 178. 26 B o t h the San F r a n c i s c o and Seattle studies a r e now a l m o s t f i f t e e n y e a r s o l d . I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the C.B.D. c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these c i t i e s was un d e r t a k e n to d e t e r m i n e whether they did, i n fa c t , s u f f e r f r o m " s t a g n a t i o n " as was i m p l i e d by the a u t hors of the two s t u d i e s . Since the p e r i o d of Monsen's r e s e a r c h , San F r a n c i s c o ' s C.B.D. has, c o n t r a r y to h i s i m p l i e d p r e d i c t i o n , g rown n o t i c e a b l y . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e to o f f i c e space. F r o m I960 to 1964, g r o s s o f f i c e space i n the downtown a r e a i n c r e a s e d by 3. 0 m i l l i o n sq. f t . , then by 8.3 m i l l i o n sq. f t . f r o m 1965 to 1969 and then ag a i n by 7.8 m i l l i o n sq. f t . d u r i n g 1970 - 1974. The e s t i m a t e d downtown g r o s s f l o o r a r e a of o f f i c e space was 25 m i l l i o n sq. f t . i n I960, but by 19?4 t h i s i n c r e a s e d to 44 m i l l i o n sq. f t . A f u r t h e r 9. 7 m i l l i o n sq. f t . of o f f i c e space i s c u r -r e n t l y planned o r under c o n s t r u c t i o n . V a c a n c y r a t e s amongst c o m p e t i -t i v e and o w n e r - o c c u p i e d o f f i c e space was 5. 0% i n I960 and 6. 2 % i n 1973. M o s t of th i s r e c e n t growth has been i n o f f i c e space, w i t h r e t a i l a c c o m m o d a t i o n r e m a i n i n g c o m p a r a t i v e l y s t a t i c . T h e r e f o r e , des-pite the fact that e s t a t e s own a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the r e a l estate i n San F r a n c i s c o ' s C.B.D., there has n o t b e e n a d e c l i n e i n new development. A s was true f o r San F r a n c i s c o , i t a p p e a r s that the C.B.D. of Seattle has continued to grow, i n spite of the fact that i n I960 the m a j o r i t y of C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s were owned by e n t i t i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by low r e s a l e s a c t i v i t y . 27 M o s t of Seattle's new c o n s t r u c t i o n , l i k e that of San F r a n c i s c o , has been i n o f f i c e and ho t e l b u i l d i n g s . The e s t i m a t e d t o t a l p r i v a t e and p u b l i c o f f i c e space i n Seattle's downtown a r e a i n 1961 was 7.836 m i l l i o n g r o s s sq. f t . F r o m then to 1964, 898,500 sq. f t . was b u i l t . D u r i n g 1965-1969, 2.9 m i l l i o n sq. f t . was c o n s t r u c t e d , w i t h a f u r t h e r 3.5 m i l l i o n sq. f t . b u i l t f r o m 1970 to 1972. C l e a r l y , the C.B.D. of Seattle i s not i n a d e c l i n i n g c o n d i t i o n . In s h o r t , i t w o u l d appear that the p a t t e r n of C.B.D. owner-ship has not been the s o l e d e t e r m i n a n t of the future development of t h i s d i s t r i c t , at l e a s t not f o r Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o . D e s p i t e what w o u l d be a poor c l i m a t e f o r g rowth i n t e r m s of o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s only, the C.B.D. of these c i t i e s has n e v e r t h e l e s s e x h i b i t e d a d e c i d e d e c o n o m i c v i a b i l i t y . 28 V a n c o u v e r F i n a l l y , i t s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d that there has been some, but v e r y l i t t l e , i n v e s t i g a t i o n into l a n d o w n e r s h i p i n Vancouver's C.B.D. A study by J a m i e s o n i n v e s t i g a t e d the growth of Vancouver's C. B. D. , and touched on l e g a l o w n e r s h i p i n the downtown a r e a . The C.B.D. of Jami e s o n ' s a n a l y s i s i s p h y s i c a l l y s i m i l a r to that d e s c r i b e d i n thi s study as of 1971. J a m i e s o n ' s study a r e a i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y bounded by Bute S t r e e t , N e l s o n S t r e e t , B e a t t y S t r e e t and the w a t e r f r o n t . The p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h i s a r e a w e re then c l a s s i f i e d by l e g a l o w n e r s h i p as to o w n e r - u s e r , o w n e r - i n v e s t o r , r e s i d e n t , n o n - r e s i d e n t , t r u s t company, m u n i c i p a l government, p r o v i n c i a l g overnment o r f e d e r a l government. E a c h c l a s s of owner was c a t e g o r i z e d by the amount of square feet of la n d and b u i l d i n g a r e a owned, and by c o n d i t i o n of i m p r o v e m e n t s to the s i t e . Of the 19. 73 m i l l i o n square feet of b u i l d i n g space i n h i s 27 s u r v e y a r e a , J a m i e s o n found that: 4 0 % was owned by r e s i d e n t - o w n e r s 3 4 % was owned by n o n - r e s i d e n t o w n e r s 9% was owned by t r u s t c o m p a n i e s 1 7 % was owned by the three l e v e l s of government It was a l s o d i s c o v e r e d that of p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d west of B u r r a r d , there was a hi g h e r l e v e l of n o n - r e s i d e n t o w n e r s h i p , than of those p r o p e r t i e s 26 ~ ~ W i l l i a m S. J a m i e s o n , " A n a l y s i s of G r o w t h i n Vancouver's C.B.D., (Vanc o u v e r : U n i v e r s i t y of B. C. , u n p u b l i s h e d M. B. A. t h e s i s , 1972) 27 ...... I b i d . , p. 34. 29 east of B u r r a r d Street. A p p r o x i m a t e l y the same was found true, in the a n a l y s i s of ownership by square feet of site a rea. Owner-users c o n t r o l l e d 4 3 % of the land and owner-investors c o n t r o l l e d 57%. In D. L. 541, owner-28 i n v e s t o r s c o n t r o l l e d 5 5 % of the land, compared to 7 0 % in. D.L.. 185. Unfortunately, the J a m i e s o n study is only i n c i d e n t a l l y con-c e r n e d with C.B.D. ownership and this a n a l y s i s is r e s t r i c t e d to l e g a l ownership. Data was obtained f r o m the city a s s essment r o l l , and there-fore b e n e f i c i a l ownership is not considered. As was shown by the Seattle and'San F r a n c i s c o studies, a n a l y s i s by l e g a l ownership can produce m i s -leading conclusions about p r o p e r t y ownership. A l s o , if the p r o p e r t y owners in Jamieson's study were c l a s s i f i e d as r e s i d e n t or non-resident a c c o r d i n g to their address on the a s s e s s m e n t r o l l , this too is m i s l e a d i n g . In many instances the indicated owner's address i s a c t u a l l y that of his lawyer, his p r o p e r t y manager, or is that of the p r o p e r t y owned. F i n a l l y , it i s true that many p r o p e r t i e s l e g a l l y r e g i s t e r e d in the name of trust companies are a c t u a l l y owned by another party for whom the trust com-pany i s an estate a d m i n i s t r a t o r , trustee or p r o p e r t y manager. F o r these reasons then, no further c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given to the J a m i e s o n study. 28 ...... Ibid., p. 37. \ W E S T V A H C / O U V E R 1 N C 0 U JT E R , WITH W, tMT D O W N T O W N P E N I N S U L A 5ITT orT 1 MOUTH VANCOUVER * * /? R A *  D 1 N L e r (9 se* IS LAMP ff Mil 1 FS M U N I C I P A L f !TY I " » « » « " '\ 04. i S T 5 v k S T d « tLtfii P O R T l M O O O T -p-AUSTi. . = J3t , | T I *U—-It I C H M O I D D C L r V A N C O U V E R AND V IC IN ITY . DOMINION MAP LIMITED V A N C O U V E R , B. C . 31 T H E C.B.D. O F V A N C O U V E R Vancouver's C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t is located on a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l a r e a known as the "Downtown P e n i n s u l a " . A l m o s t e n t i r e l y separated p h y s i c a l l y f r o m the r e s t of downtown Vancouver, this P e n i n s u l a i s the economic heart of M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, and the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. Downtown Vancouver and its C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t s e r v e s as the r e g i o n a l centre for B.C., and Western Canada. Its functions, in this r o l e , are seen as: (1) head o f f i c e l ocation for e n t e r p r i s e s operating i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and Western Canada (Z) p r o f e s s i o n a l centre for those s e r v i c e s r e l a t e d to and acting with a c t i v i t i e s of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Centre (3) s p e c i a l t y r e t a i l i n g centre for r e s i d e n t s of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver a r e a (4) r e g i o n a l location for s e r v i c e s of the F e d e r a l , P r o v i n c i a l and F o r e i g n Governments (5) c u l t u r a l and entertainment centre f or the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver inhabitants (6) hotel and convention centre for the M e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (7) ins t i t u t i o n a l centre for the M e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (8) r a i l w a y terminus and inte r n a t i o n a l port for Western Canada A s of 1970, the Downtown P e n i n s u l a c o m p r i s e d 1, 060 a c r e s , 29 C i t y of Vancouver, Planning Department, Downtown Vancouver  Concepts, 1970, p. 23. 33 and 51. 5 m i l l i o n square feet of developed b u i l d i n g a r e a w i t h a t o t a l a s s e s s e d value of $819, 491, 000. In other w o r d s , w h i l e the Downtown P e n i n s u l a r e p r e s e n t s o n l y 3. 7% of the C i t y of Vancouver's l a n d a r e a , the t o t a l a s s e s s e d value of r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n t h i s d i s t r i c t amounts to a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 2 % of the c i t y t o t a l . Of the 1970 Downtown t o t a l b u i l d i n g a r e a of 51. 5 m i l l i o n 31 s quare feet, the use was a p p r o x i m a t e l y as f o l l o w s : R e s i d e n t i a l 4 5 . 2 % O f f i c e 15.2 R e t a i l 11.8 H o t e l 6.0 S e r v i c e and w a r e h o u s i n g 15.0 P u b l i c b u i l d i n g s and i n s t i t u t i o n s 3. 3 Vac a n t 3. 5 M o s t of the above uses, except f o r r e s i d e n t i a l and s e r v i c e and warehous-i n g , a r e l o c a t e d i n what has been d e f i n e d i n a p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n as the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . W h i l e i t i s l a r g e l y r e s t r i c t e d i n a p h y s i c a l sense, to the Downtown P e n i n s u l a , V a n c o u v e r ' s C.B.D. has no n e t h e l e s s been s t e a d i l y expanding. D u r i n g the y e a r s 1951 to 1971, w h i c h a r e under a n a l y s i s i n t h i s r e p o r t , t here w e re 394 p r o p e r t i e s i n the C.B.D. d e f i n e d f o r 1951, 708 i n that of I960 and 856 i n the 1971 C.B.D. To e x p r e s s the C.B.D. "s gr o w t h i n t e r m s o f c i t y b l o c k - f a c e s , t h i s a r e a g r e w f r o m the e q u i v a l e n t of 66 b l o c k - f a c e s i n 1951, to 103 i n I960 and to 126 b l o c k - f a c e s i n 1971. _ (  I b i d . , pp. 11-13. 31 I b i d . 34 M a p Z p r o v i d e s a good i d e a of how the C.B.D. has grown. In 1951, the C.B.D. d i d not extend we st of B u r r a r d S t r e e t o r east of Abbott S t r e e t . . C o m m e r c i a l development d i d l o c a t e o u t s i d e , but not to a high enough d e n s i t y to be i n c l u d e d i n the C.B.D. as defined. The C.B.D. was compact and perh a p s s t i l l l a r g e l y o r i e n t e d to p e d e s t r i a n a n d m a s s t r a n s i t t r a f f i c . It c e n t r e d on West H a s t i n g s and G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t s p r i m a r i l y , r e f l e c t i n g the l o c a t i o n of the m a j o r department s t o r e s , p l u s the r e t a i l and s e r v i c e o u t l e t s c o n c e n t r a t e d on these two s t r e e t s . B y I960, the C.B.D. had expanded quite c o n s i d e r a b l y , e s -p e c i a l l y i n a w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n . T h i s e x p a n s i o n p r o b a b l y i s due to a g r e a t e r use of auto m o b i l e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , plus V a n c o u v e r ' s i n c r e a s i n g i m p o r t a n c e as a r e g i o n a l o f f i c e c e n t r e . What some r e f e r to as "The Go l d e n T r i a n g l e " has e m e r g e d - that a r e a west of B u r r a r d S t r e e t and n o r t h of G e o r g i a S t r e e t w h i c h i s a l m o s t e n t i r e l y devoted to o f f i c e d e v e l o p m e n t s . P r i o r to the 1960's, r e a l estate i n t h i s a r e a was r e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e and developed to low d e n s i t y u s e s . A l t h o u g h the d e n s i t y of c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s u s e s on H a s t i n g s east of Abbott has i n c r e a s e d , t h i s i s l a r g e l y due to new e n t e r p r i s e s l o c a t i n g i n o r i g i n a l b u i l d i n g s - not new development. The m a j o r i t y of new development i s o c c u r r i n g i n the we s t e r n h a l f of the C.B.D. The e a s t e r n h a l f i s r e l a t i v e l y s t a t i c , i n t e r m s of new development. The C.B.D. of 1971 has expanded a g a i n e s p e c i a l l y west of B u r r a r d S t r e e t . New development continues i n t h i s a r e a , although some r e d e v e l o p m e n t of o l d e r p r o p e r t i e s i n the c e n t r e of the C.B.D. i s con-t e m p l a t e d o r under way. These a r e v e r y l a r g e p r o j e c t s , such as P a c i f i c C e n t r e on two c i t y b l o c k s at G e o r g i a and G r a n v i l l e , P r o j e c t ZOO at the foot of G r a n v i l l e and the R o y a l C e n t r e at B u r r a r d and G e o r g i a . M a j o r r e t a i l d evelopments a r e a l s o planned o r underway, and a r e the f i r s t such developments of t h i s s i z e to be b u i l t f o r decades. O v e r the y e a r s under a n a l y s i s i n t h i s r e p o r t , the C.B.D. has e x p e r i e n c e d a r a p i d g r o w t h i n o f f i c e and r e t a i l f a c i l i t i e s . T h i s has come about p r i m a r i l y because V a n c o u v e r i s the o n l y l a r g e c i t y on Canada's west coast, i t s status as a deepsea port, the s u c c e s s of the B.C. f o r e s t r y i n d u s t r y and the g rowth of the c i t y as a r e g i o n a l o f f i c e c e n t r e . • A v a i l a b l e s t a t i s t i c s r e g a r d i n g C.B.D. o f f i c e and r e t a i l space i n d i c a t e i t s r a t e of growth (Table III). The r a t e of a c t i v i t y i n o f f i c e b u i l d i n g development has been m e a s u r e d through a s u r v e y o f the o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s l o c a t e d i n the downtown a r e a (Table IV)'. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by date of c o m p l e t i o n , f r o m 1900 to y e a r - e n d 1971, p r o v i d e s an i n d i c a -t i o n of the c y c l e s i n downtown o f f i c e b u i l d i n g a c t i v i t y . T h e r e a r e , f r o m T a b l e IV, three peaks of o f f i c e b u i l d i n g a c t i v i t y , i n the p e r i o d s of 1900-19, 1950-59 and 1960-69. The g r e a t e s t a c t i v i t y took p l a c e d u r i n g 1950 to 1971, w h i c h i s a l s o the p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h the o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n of the C.B.D. w i l l be a n a l y z e d . T h i s h i g h r a t e of growth w i l l continue into the n e a r future a l s o , as i s shown b y the amount of o f f i c e space under c o n s t r u c t i o n i n 1971. 36 T A B L E III C.B.D. O F F I C E A N D R E T A I L S U P P L Y O f f i c e Supply % A n n u a l Y e a r (sq. f t . ) I n c r e a s e R e t a i l Supply (sq. f t . ) % A n n u a l I n c r e a s e 1951 4,000,000 4,300,000 -1954 4,968,000 8.1 4, 437, 000 1.0 1970 7,761,000 3.5 6, 150, 000 2. 4 1971 8,570,000 10.4 6, 300, 000 2.4 Source: G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e a l E s t a t e B o a r d T A B L E IV S U R V E Y O F O F F I C E B U I L D I N G S P e r i o d of % T o t a l C o n s t r u c t i o n B u i l d i n g s T o t a l Net F l o o r A r e a (sq. f t . ) % T o t a l N. F. A. 1900-1919 24.1 866,500 12. 7 1920-1929 6.3 279,000 4. 1 1930-1949 2.6 282,000 2. 6 1950-1959 18.9 879,500 13. 2 1960-1969 32.9 2, 452, 000 35.9 1970-1971 8.9 750,500 11.0 Under c o n s t r . 6.3 1,396,000 20. 5 Sou r c e : G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e a l E s t a t e B o a r d 37 A n o t h e r i n d i c a t o r of the h e a l t h of the C.B.D. o f f i c e m a r k e t i s the o f f i c e space v a c a n c y r a t e . A s F i g u r e 1 i n d i c a t e s though, the o v e r a l l v a c a n c y l e v e l i n the downtown o f f i c e space i s f a i r l y low. When the l e v e l has o c c a s i o n a l l y r i s e n , i t has a l s o f a l l e n away quite q u i c k l y . The y e a r s of r e l a t i v e l y h i g h v a c a n c i e s r e f l e c t the e n t r y of a number of new, l a r g e b u i l d i n g s into the m a r k e t , c a u s i n g a s h o r t - t e r m o v e r s u p p l y of o f f i c e space. The demand was s t r o n g though, and the new o f f i c e space g e n e r a l l y was a b s o r b e d w i t h i n one y e a r o r so. The change i n l a n d v a l u e s i s a t h i r d i n d i c a t o r of c o n d i t i o n s i n the downtown a r e a . The a v e r a g e l a n d v a l u e s shown i n F i g u r e 2 r e f l e c t the demand f o r c o m m e r c i a l l y - z o n e d s i t e s i n the downtown a r e a . The highest l a n d v a l u e s , i n the H a s t i n g s - R o b s o n - B u r r a r d -S eymour s e c t o r r e l a t e t h i s area's l o c a t i o n i n the c o r e of the C.B.D. zoning i s p r i m a r i l y f o r h i g h d e n s i t y c o m m e r c i a l u s e s . T he "Golden T r i a n g l e " d i s t r i c t has i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y i n value s i n c e the 1960's. A s was po i n t e d out i n a p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , t h i s d i s t r i c t d i d not meet the d e f i n i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s to be i n c l u d e d i n the C.B.D., as of the 1951 study p e r i o d . It was not u n t i l the 1960's, that the C.B.D. expanded west of B u r r a r d S t r e e t to any extent. Due to low site v a l u e s , ease of c o n s o l i d a t i o n and of re d e v e l o p m e n t , t h i s s e c t o r has been h i g h l y demanded b y d e v e l o p e r s . In the H a s t i n g s - R o b s o n - S e y m o u r - C a m b i e s e c t o r , r e c e n t l a n d v a l u e s have been i n c r e a s i n g at a r e l a t i v e l y slow r a t e . T h i s r e f l e c t s m ovement of new r e t a i l and o f f i c e development away f r o m t h i s F I G U R E 1 38 V A C A N C Y R A T E S D O W N T O W N V A N C O U V E R O F F I C E B U I L D I N G S — I9T3 P E R C E N T a i S O U R C E : G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e a l E s t a t e B o a r d FIGURE 2 39 C O M M E R C I A L L A N D V A L U E S D O W N T O W N V A N C O U V E R 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 7 2 DOLLARS P E R S Q U A R E F O O T 7b-60-/ H A S T I N G S -/ R O B S O N -/ B U R R A R O - . / S E Y M O U R -50- 1 / j . t 40-/ H A S T I N G S ' " / . R O B S O N / S E Y M O U R / C A M B I E 3 0 I : / " G O L D E N T R I A N G L E " . 1 / / B U R R A R O -/ / / W. G E O R G I A — / . / W A T E R F R O N T 20-S O U T H O F R O B S O N / ^ ^ " ^ ^ - " " " " " ^ B U R R A R D -^y^^-Z^^"^ C A M B I E io-' 1 r- 1 1950 1955 I960 1965 1970 • 40 a r e a w i t h i n the l a s t few decades. The s e c t o r south of R o b s o n S t r e e t has not been i n g r e a t demand. D e v e l o p m e n t i n thi s a r e a g e n e r a l l y does not meet the d e f i n i -t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s to be i n c l u d e d i n the C.B.D. , and p r e s e n t l y l a n d use i s m i x e d i n d u s t r i a l , c o m m e r c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l . The growth of r e t a i l f a c i l i t i e s , as i n d i c a t e d by T a b l e III (p. 36), has not been as r a p i d as that of o f f i c e space. The g r e a t e r p r o p o r -t i o n of r e t a i l development has o c c u r r e d i n suburban l o c a t i o n s r a t h e r than i n the C. B. D. , d u r i n g the p e r i o d 1951-1971. i n the downtown a r e a have been able to m a i n t a i n a r e s p e c t a b l e p r o p o r -t i o n of the b u s i n e s s conducted i n V a n c o u v e r . A s T a b l e V suggests, the r e t a i l and s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e T A B L E V C. B. D. R E T A I L A N D S E R V I C E T R A D E 1951 1961 1966 R e t a i l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s s a l e s ($000) % c i t y t o t a l 1Z43 245, 898. 5 53. 9 870 210, 876.7 25. 2 757 262, 706.4 36.8 S e r v i c e e s t a b l i s h m e n t s r e c e i p t s ($000) % c i t y t o t a l 724 33, 155. 8 58.8 932 71, 141. 1 39.4 889 96,402.9 43. 0 Sour c e : S t a t i s t i c s Canada Note: Above s t a t i s t i c s r e f e r to census t r a c t s 4 and 5, the a p p r o x i m a t e a r e a of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . 41 R e t a i l s a l e s d e c l i n e d i n d o l l a r and p e r c e n t o v e r 1951-1961, but have i n c r e a s e d t h e r e a f t e r up to 3 6 . 8 % i n 1971. S e r v i c e r e c e i p t s have i n c r e a s e d i n d o l l a r amounts f r o m $33 m i l l i o n i n 1951 to $96 m i l l i o n i n 1966. A s a p e r c e n t of a l l s e r v i c e r e c e i p t s i n V a n c o u v e r , the C.B.D. area's s h a r e d e c l i n e d o v e r 1951-1961 f r o m 5 8 . 8 % to 39.4%, but then r o s e i n 1966, to 43.0%. Thus, w h i l e the C.B.D.'s r o l e as the u r b a n r e t a i l c e n t r e i s d i m i n i s h i n g , and b e i n g r e p l a c e d by the r o l e of o f f i c e c e n t r e , the r e t a i l a n d s e r v i c e i n d u s t r y i s n e v e r t h e l e s s s u b s t a n t i a l i n the C.B.D. Wh i l e past g r o w t h of C.B.D. r e t a i l space has been at a r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l , s e v e r a l r e c e n t developments have g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d the s u p p l y of t h i s f a c i l i t y . The new Eaton's department s t o r e i n the P a c i f i c C e n t r e , w i t h 465,000 sq. f t . , was c o m p l e t e d i n 1972. T h e r e i s a d d i t i o n a l 30, 000 sq. f t . of r e t a i l space i n P a c i f i c C e n t r e South. Now under c o n s t r u c t i o n , P a c i f i c C e n t r e N o r t h w i l l i n c l u d e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 200, 000 sq. f t . of r e t a i l a r e a . A new Simpson's S e a r s department s t o r e and c o m p l e m e n t a r y r e t a i l f a c i l i t i e s i s under c o n s t r u c t i o n at the o l d Eaton's s i t e , on West H a s t i n g s S t r e e t . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 100,000 sq. f t . of r e t a i l a r e a was i n c l u d e d i n the R o y a l C e n t r e development, w h i c h was c o m p l e t e d i n e a r l y 1973. Wh i l e few s t a t i s t i c s a r e m a i n t a i n e d c o n c e r n i n g v a c a n c y r a t e s amongst Vancouver's downtown r e t a i l space, those who have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s m a r k e t m a i n t a i n that v a c a n c i e s have a l m o s t a l w a y s 42 been v e r y low. The data r e l a t i n g to l a n d v a l u e s ( F i g u r e 2) a l s o a p p l i e s to r e t a i l and c o m m e r c i a l site demand. H o p e f u l l y , the p r e c e d i n g b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t has shown that t h i s a r e a i s expanding, i s g r o w i n g and i s e c o n o m i c a l l y v i a b l e . O v e r the time p e r i o d of t h i s study, 1951-1971, the V a n c o u v e r C.B.D. has, c o n t r a r y to the e x p e r i e n c e of s e v e r a l N o r t h A m e r i c a n c i t i e s , expanded and grown. 43 O WNERSHIP O F VANCOUVER'S C. B. D. The ownership of Vancouver's C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t is d e s c r i b e d f i r s t l y by legal ownership and then by b e n e f i c i a l ownership. The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of leg a l ownership is s u m m a r i z e d in Table IX, p. 51, while that of b e n e f i c i a l ownership is s u m m a r i z e d in Table XIII, p. 62. L e g a l Ownership The a r e a of the C. B. D. , for 1971, encompasses 126 block-face.s. It extends east-west approximately f r o m M a i n Street to C a r d e r o Street and nor th-south f r o m the harbour to N e l s o n Street (see Map 2, p. 32). T h e r e were 856 p r o p e r t i e s located in the C.B.D., and the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of l e g a l ownership are s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e VI, p. 44). The sub-groups owning the la r g e s t percentages of C.B.D. pr o p e r t y are Real t y C o r p o r a t i o n s (30.6%), C o r p o r a t i o n s (25.0%), and Individuals (14.6%). The r e m a i n i n g 29.8% of the C.B.D. is owned by five owner-types, each having le s s than 10% of the total. C o m p a r i s o n of the a s s e s s e d value of the p r o p e r t i e s owned by each of the sub-groups r e v e a l s a slightly different s t r u c t u r e . R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s are f i r s t - r a n k e d by number of p r o p e r -ties owned, and also a c c o r d i n g to median total a s s e s s e d value, which is $185, 975. C o r p o r a t i o n s rank second with a median value of $157, 280, T A B L E V I 1971 L E G A L O W N E R S H I P P R O P E R T I E S A S S E S S E D V A L U E P R O P E R T Y V A L U E I n d i v i d u a l s Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s E s t a t e s R e a l t y C o r p . C o r p o r a t i o n s F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s O t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s G o v e r n m e n t s No. 125 53 41 262 214 74 34 53 856 % T o t a l 14.6 6. 2 4.8 30. 6 25. 0 8. 6 4. 0 6. 2 Sum ( $ M i l l i o n ) 17.6 5.2 10. 2 162. 0 129. 2 60. 7 9.4 37. 7 $432.0 % T o t a l 4. 1 1.2 2.4 37. 5 29. 2 14. 1 2. 2 8. 7 M i n . $14,800 19,800 22,010 19,380 10, 450 9, 540 27, 450 15', 960 Max. M e d i a n $5,647,930 $83,885 484,895 4,222,000 14, 599, 262 17, 036, 621 79,222 94,796 185, 975 157, 280 16,963,293 156,132 2,862,925 97,982 7,062,199 109,610 Note: Due to r o u n d i n g , percentages and a s s e s s e d value s t a t i s t i c s m a y e x h i b i t s l i g h t e r r o r s . 45 and financial institutions are next with a median of $156, 13Z. The three lowest me dian values belong to Estates ($94, 796), Individuals ($83, 885) and Two or More Individuals ($79, 222). Classification of legal ownership by percent of total C. B. D. value also indicates the dominance of Realty Corporations and business corporations. Realty Corporations own property having a total assessed value of $162. 0 million, or 37. 5% of the total assessed value of all C.B.D. property of $432. 0 million. Next are the Corporations owning 29. 2% of the total and Financial Institutions, owning 14. 1% of the total. Note that Government property represents only 8. 7% of the total C. B. D. property value. The remaining owner-groups each own real property valued less than 5% of the total C.B.D. property value. In summary, it appears that during 1971, both realty and business corporations legally owned the majority of the C.B.D. proper-ties. The I960 Central Business District has a similar shape com-pared to that of 1971, but does not extend as far westward or southward. It also is more closely related to Hastings Street, between Cambie and Main Streets. The equivalent of 103 block-faces are contained in the I960 C.B.D. Total number of properties are 708, which indicates that the C.B.D. enjoyed a moderate rate of growth over the years 1960-1971. Ownership patterns also are relatively unchanged. On the T A B L E VII I960 L E G A L O W N E R S H I P P R O P E R T I E S A S S E S S E D V A L U E P R O P E R T Y V A L U E No. % T o t a l Sum ( $ M i l l i o n ) % T o t a l M i n . Max. M e d i a n I n d i v i d u a l s 176 24.9 9.5 8. 6 $5', 600 $949,770 $35, 085 Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s 54 7.6 3. 7 3. 3 8, 440 443,400 49,945 E s t a t e s 32 4. 5 2. 1 1.9 10,600 197, 745 49,438 R e a l t y C o r p . 187 26.4 42. 2 37. 8 3, 920 5,182,000 71,605 C o r p o r a t i o n s 149 21. 0 25. 1 22. 5 5, 170 3,504,600 55, 232 F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s 71 10. 0 15. 3 13. 7 l ] 520 2, 160, 360 89, 295 Other I n s t i t u t i o n s 18 2. 5 2. 1 1.9 13, 610 593,000 56, 845 G o v e r n m e n t s 21 708 3.0 11.6 $111.6 10.4 7~ 450 2, 991, 065 186,259 Note: Due to ro u n d i n g , p e r c e n t a g e s and a s s e s s e d value s t a t i s t i c s m a y e x h i b i t s l i g h t e r r o r s . 47 b a s i s of number of C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s owned, the l a r g e s t o w n e r - g r o u p s a r e R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s ( 2 6 . 4 % ) , I n d i v i d u a l s ( 2 4 . 9 % ) , C o r p o r a t i o n s (21.0%) and F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s ( 1 0 . 0 % ) . D u r i n g I960, I n d i v i d u a l s h e l d a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e of p r o p e r t i e s - 24.9%, c o m p a r e d to 1 4 . 6 % i n 1971. The p r o p o r t i o n s owned by r e a l t y and b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s both w e r e s m a l l e r i n I960 than i n 1971. Government-owned p r o p e r t y has the hi g h e s t m e d i a n t o t a l a s s e s s e d value, at $186, 259. Next, i n desc e n d i n g o r d e r a r e : F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s ($89,295) and R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s ($71,605). The r e m a i n d e r own p r o p e r t y w i t h m e d i a n va l u e s b e l o w $57, 000. The three l o w e s t - v a l u e d p r o p e r t y h o l d i n g s a r e owned by Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s ($49,945), E s t a t e s ($49, 438) and I n d i v i d u a l s ($35, 085). W h i l e I n d i v i d u a l s own 24. 9% of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s , these h o l d i n g s a r e r e l a t i v e l y low i n value as i n d i c a t e d by a m e d i a n a s s e s s e d value of $35, 085. T h e r e f o r e , i t i s not a s u r p r i s e to d i s c o v e r that the p r o p e r t i e s owned by I n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t a sum of $9. 5 m i l l i o n , o r o n l y 8.6% of the t o t a l value of r e a l t y i n the C.B.D. The R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s and B u s i n e s s C o r p o r a t i o n s a g a i n own the m a j o r i t y of the C.B.D. 's p r o p e r t y , by va l u e . R e a l t y C o r p o r a -t i o n s own r e a l t y w o r t h 3 7 . 8 % of the C.B.D. 's t o t a l v a l ue, w h i l e b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s own 22. 5% of the t o t a l . T he r e m a i n i n g o w n e r - h o l d i n g s a r e m u c h l e s s v a l u a b l e , and except f o r f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s (13. 7%) and government (1 0. 4%) a r e each l e s s than 1 0 % of the t o t a l . 48 E x a m i n a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n of the C.B.D. 's total value owned by each subgroup during I960 to 1971 also p r o v i d e s an indication of the change in worth. It has been shown that the a r e a of the C.B.D. p h y s i c a l l y i n c r e a s e d m o d e r a t e l y f r o m I960 to 1971. O v e r the same p e r i o d however, the total value of pr o p e r t y owned by r e a l t y c o rporations i n c r e a s e d f r o m $42. 2 m i l l i o n to $162.0 m i l l i o n and that of business c o r p o r a t i o n s i n c r e a s e d from^$25.1 m i l l i o n to $129.2 m i l l i o n . Obviously, this e x t r e m e l y great i n c r e a s e r e f l e c t s a p p r e c i a t i o n in p r o -perty value, but must also involve a large degree of new con s t r u c t i o n of high density buildings on v e r y valuable s i t e s . T o be sure, other owner groups i n c r e a s e d the value of their r e a l p r o p e r t y holdings but not to the extent of the f i v e - and s i x - t i m e s i n c r e a s e r e a l i z e d by the business and r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s . The C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t , f r o m which the 1951 data is obtained, i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l (see Map 2, p. 32). The a r e a is equiva-lent to 66 b l o c k - f a c e s and g e n e r a l l y i s bounded on the north by the water-front, south by Robson Street, west by B u r r a r d Street and east by Abbott Street plus R i c h a r d s Street. T h e r e are a total of 394 p r o p e r t i e s con-tained within the 1951 C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . In t e r m s of the number of p r o p e r t i e s owned the ranking r e m a i n s l a r g e l y unchanged since I960 - only the percentages change. R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s own the l a r g e s t number, r e p r e s e n t i n g 24.6% of the total, followed by cor p o r a t i o n s at 22.6%, individuals at 21.8% and finan-T A B L E VIII 1951 L E G A L O W N E R S H I P P R O P E R T I E S A S S E S S E D V A L U E P R O P E R T Y V A L U E No. % T o t a l Sum ( $ M i l l i o n ) % T o t a l M i n . Max. M e d i a n I n d i v i d u a l s 86 21. 8 5. 9 9.9 $10,625 $817,740 $35, 400 Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s 33 8.4 2. 0 3.4 13, 035 223,500 39,692 E s t a t e s 15 3. 8 0. 8 1.3 11,025 135, 090 38, 425 R e a l t y C o r p . 97 24. 6 20.4 34. 2 8, 350 4,373,262 60, 672 C o r p o r a t i o n s 89 22. 6 16. 2 27. 1 7, 500 2,724,970 61,225 F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s 42 10. 7 7.6 12. 7 16, 340 762,060 103, 415 Other I n s t i t u t i o n s 7 1.8 1.0 1.7 23', 610 365", 810 120,275 G o v e r n m e n t s 2J5 394 6. 3 5. 8 $59.7 9. 7 7, 500 2, 985, 000 18,636 Note: Due to r o u n d i n g , percentages and a s s e s s e d value s t a t i s t i c s m a y e x h i b i t s l i g h t e r r o r s . 50 c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s at 10.7%. R e m a i n i n g o w n e r - g r o u p s each own l e s s than 1 0 % of the r e a l t y s i t u a t e d w i t h i n the C.B.D. . R e l a t i v e p r o p e r t y v a l u e s i n d i c a t e d by m e d i a n t o t a l a s s e s s e d value i s , f o r the 1951 data, not too m e a n i n g f u l - at l e a s t not without c o n s u l t i n g the other two i n d i c a t o r s . . F o r example, p r o p e r t y owned by Other I n s t i t u t i o n s has the h i g h e s t m e d i a n - $120, 275, f o l l o w e d by F i n a n -c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s at $103,415, b u s i n e s s C o r p o r a t i o n s ($61,225) and R e a l t y C o r p o r a t i o n s ($60,672). A l l the r e m a i n d e r ( i n c l u d i n g g o v e r n m e n t s w h i c h had the highest m e d i a n value i n I960) own p r o p e r t y having a m e d i a n value b e l o w $40, 000. When o w n e r s h i p a c c o r d i n g to p e r c e n t of the t o t a l C.B.D. a s s e s s e d value of $59. 7 m i l l i o n i s i n t r o d u c e d , the dominance of the r e a l t y and b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s i s again a f f i r m e d . R e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s own p r o p e r t y r e p r e s e n t i n g 3 4 . 2 % of the t o t a l v a l u e , w h i l e 27. 1 % i s owned by b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s . F i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ' p r o p e r t y c o m p r i s e s 12. 7% of the F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s ' p r o p e r t y c o m p r i s e s 12. 7% of the C.B.D. t o t a l value and the r e m a i n d e r r e p r e s e n t l e s s than 10%. It i s once m o r e evident that, though i n d i v i d u a l s owned a f a i r l y l a r g e number of C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s , the r e a l estate had a r e l a t i v e l y low m e d i a n and c u m u l a t i v e v a l u e . F r o m the f o r e g o i n g , some g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g V a n c o u v e r ' s C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t can be drawn. F i r s t , i t i s evident that the l e g a l o w n e r s h i p of the C.B.D. i s l a r g e l y i n the hands of r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s and b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s . T h i s s i t u a t i o n a p p l i e s T A B L E I X S U M M A R Y O F L E G A L O W N E R S H I P P r o p o r t i o n of T o t a l C.B.D. P r o p e r t i e s 1971 I960 1951 I n d i v i d u a l s 14. 6% 24. 9% 21.8 ( Two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s 6. 2 7.6 8.4 E s t a t e s 4.8 4. 5 3. 8 R e a l t y C o r p . 30. 6 26.4 24.6 C o r p o r a t i o n s 25. 0 21. 0 22. 6 F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s 8.6 10. 0 10. 7 Other I n s t i t u t i o n s 4. 0 2. 5 1.8 G o v e r n m e n t s 6. 2 3. 0 6. 3 P r o p o r t i o n of T o t a l C.B.D. A s s e s s e d V a l u e 1971 I960 1951 4 . 1 % 8.6% 9.9% 1.2 3. 3 3.4 2.4 1.9 1.3 37. 5 37. 8 34. 2 29. 2 22. 5 27. 1 14. 1 13. 7 12. 7 2. 2 1.9 1.7 8. 7 10. 4 9. 7 to a l l three study p e r i o d s , i n t e r m s of the r a t i o of p r o p e r t i e s p l u s by r a t i o of t o t a l C.B.D. a s s e s s e d v a l u e . • Second, i n d i v i d u a l s as a l e g a l owner c l a s s r e p r e s e n t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t f o r c e i n each of the study p e r i o d s but p a r t i c u l a r l y so i n I960 and 1951. T h i s group, w h i l e owning a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l p r o p e r t i e s , d i d not own an a p p r e c i a b l e amount of the m o r e v a l u a b l e p r o p e r tie s. T h i r d , there was a v e r y g r e a t i n c r e a s e i n the sum value of the r e a l p r o p e r t y owned by r e a l t y and b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s , f r o m I960 to 1971. A s was d e s c r i b e d , m o s t o w n e r - g r o u p s i n c r e a s e d the value of t h e i r h o l d i n g s f r o m 1951-1960 and 1960-1971. None i n c r e a s e d i n the o r d e r of f i v e to s i x t i m e s , as d i d the r e a l t y and b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s . L a r g e l y due to the i n c r e a s e c r e a t e d by these two ow n e r - g r o u p s the t o t a l a s s e s s e d value of the C.B.D. a l m o s t quadrupled, f r o m $111.6 m i l l i o n i n I960 to $432.0 m i l l i o n i n 1971. 53 B e n e f i c i a l O w n e r s h i p A n a l y s i s of the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n v o l v e s the same time p e r i o d , same C.B.D. a r e a and number of p r o p e r t i e s i n each p e r i o d p l u s the same method of a n a l y s i s as was e m p l o y e d to an a l y z e l e g a l o w n e r s h i p of the C.B.D. The number of o w n e r - g r o u p s has been expanded s l i g h t l y , f r o m eight to ten, to p r o v i d e a m o r e d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s e s a r e s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e XIII, p. 62. B e g i n n i n g w i t h 1971, as shown i n T a b l e X, 856 p r o p e r t i e s w e r e a n a l y z e d . F o r 17 of these p r o p e r t i e s , the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p c o u l d not be a s c e r t a i n e d due to m i s s i n g o r u n a v i l a b l e data. M o r e than h a l f of the t o t a l p r o p e r t i e s a r e owned by i n d i v i d u a l s (26. 3%) and two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s (25. 5%). The r e m a i n i n g eight owner groups each own m u c h s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n s , as the next l a r g e s t a r e governments ( 8 . 8 % ) , then r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s (7. 6%), f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , f o r other use (7. 1%) and estat e s (7. 0%). The three l e v e l s of government own 75 p r o p e r t i e s o r 8.8% of the t o t a l . Of the 75, the c i t y government owns 25. 3%, the p r o v i n c i a l g o vernment owns 5 6 . 0 % and the f e d e r a l government owns 18. 7%. The o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n by value of p r o p e r t y r e v e a l s an a l t o -gether d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n . The m o s t v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t y i s owned by government and c o r p o r a t i o n s (for own use). In each case, the owner-group's r e a l estate r e p r e s e n t s 1 8 . 9 % of the t o t a l value of a l l C.B.D. T A B L E X 1971 B E N E F I C I A L O W N E R S H I P P R O P E R T I E S A S S E S S E D V A L U E P R O P E R T Y V A L U E I n d i v i d u a l s Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s E s t a t e s R e a l t y C o r p . F i n a n c i a l Inst; Own Use Other Use O t h e r Inst. C o r p o r a t i o n s : Own Use Other U s e G o v e r n m e n t s Unknown No. 225 218 60 65 21 61 36 56 22 75 17 856 % T o t a l 26. 3 25. 5 7. 0 1. 6 2, 5 7. 1 4. 2 6. 5 2.6 8. 8 2. 0 Sum ( $ M i l l i o n ) 42. 0 59.8 11.5 58. 0 16. 5 43.6 11.4 81.6 20. 3 81. 5 5. 8 $432.0 % T o t a l 9. 7 13. 8 2. 7 13.4 3. 8 10. 1 2.6 18.9 4. 7 18.9 1.3 M i n . $14,800 19, 380 22,010 32' 165 106,600 9, 540 27. 450 12, 440 29, 170 15, 960 Max. M e d i a n $5,647,930 $97,557 3, 839, 780 1,441,600 11,293,262 3,198, 000 16, 963, 293 2, S6Z, 925 15, 901, 797 9, 075, 039 114,300 191,512 237.801 253,906 124,020 97, 982 246,487 220.845 17,036,621 135,720 Note: Due to r o u n d i n g , p e r c e n t a g e s and a s s e s s e d value s t a t i s t i c s m a y e x h i b i t s l i g h t e r r o r s . 55 properties. Yet governments only own 8.8% of the number of C.B.D. properties and real property owned by corporations for their own use only amounts to 6. 5% of the 856 C.B.D. properties. The two or more individuals group owns property assessed at 13.8% of the total, and that owned by realty corporations amounts to 13.4% of the C.B.D. total. Property owned by individuals is numerically quite large (26. 3% of the total), but is comparatively low-valued, as it represents only 9. 7% of the C.B.D. 's total assessed value. The opposite applies to the property owned by corporations (for own use) and governments. The number of properties is only 6. 5% and 8. 8% of the total, while the sum value of the property for each is 18.9% of the sum value of all C.B.D. properties. Properties owned by financial institutions for their own use have the highest median value - $253, 906. This group owns little of the C.B.D. and their holdings are not the most valuable. The high median is caused by the minimum property value of this group's holdings being $106,600 - comparatively high. Second highest median is $246, 487 for real estate owned by corporations for their own use, followed by realty corporations ($237,801), and corporations (for other use) with a median of $220, 845. The lowest property median values are those of the individuals owner-group at $97, 557 and other institutions at $97, 982. 56 The I960 data c o m p r i s e d 708 p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n the C.B.D. F o r 20 of these p r o p e r t i e s or 2.8% of the t o t a l , the b e n e f i c i a l owner c o u l d not be i d e n t i f i e d . T h e r e a r e o n l y two groups w h i c h b e n e f i c i a l l y own, each, m o r e than 1 0 % of the t o t a l number of C.B.D. p r o p e r t y . I n d i v i d u a l s own 34. 9%, and two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s own 25. 7% of the p r o p e r t i e s . T h e s e two groups a l s o own a g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e of the C.B.D. i n I960 than they d i d i n 1971. In fact , i n d i v i d u a l s d e c l i n e d by o v e r 8% f r o m I960 to 1971 wh i l e the two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s group h e l d i t s p o s i t i o n o v e r the same p e r i o d . The two l a r g e s t o w n e r - g r o u p s of I960 d e c i s i v e l y con-t r o l l e d the C.B.D., owning 60. 6% of a l l p r o p e r tie s. It i s notable that amongst p r o p e r t y owned by the v a r i o u s l e v e l s of government, there was an a l m o s t equal d i v i s i o n . The f e d e r a l g overnment owned 36. 7%, the p r o v i n c i a l government owned 33. 3 % and the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r owned 30.0%. In c o n t r a s t to 1971, the m o s t va l u a b l e of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t y i s owned by two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s group owns p r o p e r t y r e p r e s e n t i n g 28. 3 % of the t o t a l a s s e s s e d value of a l l C.B.D. r e a l t y . The three n e x t - r a n k e d groups a r e , i n d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r , c o r p o r a t i o n s (for own use) at 1 8 . 3 % of the t o t a l a s s e s s e d value, government at 1 6 . 0 % and i n d i v i d u a l s at 1 4 . 2 % of t o t a l v a l u e . The r e m a i n d e r each own l e s s than 6% of the C.B.D. t o t a l v a l u e . O v e r I960 - 1971, three m a r k e d changes o c c u r r e d i n the r a n k i n g of ow n e r - g r o u p s by a s s e s s e d v a l u e . The two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s T A B L E XI I960 B E N E F I C I A L O W N E R S H I P P R O P E R T I E S A S S E S S E D V A L U E P R O P E R T Y V A L U E I n d i v i d u a l s Two or M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s E s t a t e s R e a l t y C o r p . F i n a n c i a l Inst. Own Use Other U s e Other Inst. C o r p o r a t i o n s : Own U s e Other U s e G o v e r n m e n t s Unknown No. 247 182 40 40 9 49 20 52 19 30 20 708 % T o t a l 34. 9 25. 7 5. 6 5. 6 1.3 6.9 2. 8 7. 3 2. 7 4. 2 2. 8 Sum ( $ M i l l i o n ) 15.8 31. 6 2. 7 5.3 4.6 6. 2 2. 6 20. 5 2. 7 17. 9 1.7 % T o t a l 14. 2 28. 3 2.4 4. 7 4. 1 5. 6 2. 3 18. 3 2.4 16. 0 l " . 5 M i n . $5, 180 3, 920 10, 600 5, 170 118,200 1, 520 13, 610 8, 900 7, 300 7. 450 Max. $949,770 3, 734, 010 205,725 711,250 1,645,700 835, 800 593, 000 4,709,789 1, 155. 735 5, 182, 000 M e d i a n $38,387 60,622 49,438 76. 675 228,450 71,837 56,845 131,707 44, 819 173, 612 Note: Due to r o u n d i n g , p e r c e n t a g e s and a s s e s s e d value s t a t i s t i c s m a y e x h i b i t s l i g h t errors-.-58 group f e l l f r o m owning 2 8 . 3 % of the I960 C.B.D. value to 1 3 . 8 % i n 1971. R e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s , on the other hand, i n c r e a s e d t h e i r h o l d i n g s f r o m 4. 7% of the I960 C. B. D. 's value, to 1 3. 4 % of that o f 1 971. T h i r d l y , p r o p e r t y owned by f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r use other than t h e i r own, r o s e f r o m 5. 6% to 1 0 . 1 % of the C.B.D. 's value d u r i n g the p e r i o d 1 960 -1971. The m e d i a n t o t a l a s s e s s e d value f o r the p r o p e r t y h e l d by each o w n e r - g r o u p i n d i c a t e s once m o r e that w h i l e i n d i v i d u a l s r a n k h i g h i n the two c r i t e r i a of p r o p e r t i e s owned and p e r c e n t of t o t a l C.B.D. value, t h e i r p r o p e r t y i s r e l a t i v e l y low i n value . The m e d i a n value of $38, 387 i s lo w e s t of a l l ten o w n e r - g r o u p s . The highest m e d i a n i s $228, 450 and i t a p p l i e s to p r o p e r t y owned by f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use. A s t h i s group o n l y owns 1.3% of the t o t a l C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h have o n l y 4. 1 % of the t o t a l C.B.D. value, the m e d i a n value m u s t r e f l e c t a s m a l l number of v a l u a b l e and w e l l - l o c a t e d p r o p e r t i e s . The two next h i g h e s t m e d i a n p r o p e r t y v a l u e s a r e those of the r e a l estate owned by government ($173, 612) and r e a l estate owned by c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use ($131, 707 ). The r e m a i n i n g seven owner-groups i n d i c a t e m e d i a n p r o p e r t y v a l u e s r a n g i n g downward f r o m $76, 675 to $38, 387. The 1951 C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t i n c l u d e d a t o t a l of 394 p r o p e r t i e s , of w h i c h 16 o r 4. 1 % of the t o t a l c o u l d not be i d e n t i f i e d as to b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p . T A B L E X I I 1951 B E N E F I C I A L O W N E R S H I P P R O P E R T I E S A S S E S S E D V A L U E P R O P E R T Y V A L U E I n d i v i d u a l s Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s E s t a t e s R e a l t y C o r p . F i n a n c i a l Inst: Own Use Other U s e Other Inst. C o r p o r a t i o n s : Own Use Other U s e G o v e r n m e n t s Unknown No. 116 99 14 10 10 21 60 12 28 16 394 % T o t a l 29.4 25. 1 3. 6 2. 5 2. 5 5. 3 2. 0 15. 2 3. 0 7. 1 4. 1 • Sum ( $ M i l l i o n ) 8. 8 10. 7 0. 7 1.7 3. 0 2. 6 1. 3 15.4 3. 1 10. 5 1.9 $59. 7 % T o t a l 14. 7 17. 9 1. 2 2.8 5. 0 4. 4 2.2 25. 8 5. 2 17. 6 3.2 M i n . 8, 350 11,025 14,225 23,610 36,250 23'. 610 7, 500 10, 965 7. 500 Max. $10,625 $817,740 904,785 142,000 494,300 1,549,600 2, 557, 000 365,810 4, 015, 520 1,074,420 4. 373. 262 M e d i a n $36,955 58,972 57,637 111,450 145, 530 92,804 150. 150 49,975 86,450 31,502 Note: Due to r o u n d i n g , percentages and a s s e s s e d value s t a t i s t i c s m a y e x h i b i t s l i g h t e r r o r s . \ 60 A s was true i n I960 and i n 1971, there a r e two groups i n 1951 w h i c h b e n e f i c i a l l y own the m a j o r i t y of the p r o p e r t i e s i n the C.B.D, T h e s e same owne r - g r o u p s c o n t r o l l e d 5 4 . 5 % of the 1951 C.B.D. p r o p e r -t i e s . I n d i v i d u a l s owned 2 9 . 4 % of the t o t a l and two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s owned 25. 1 %. E x c e p t f o r p r o p e r t y h e l d by c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use (15.2%) and governments (7. 1%), none of the other s i x groups each owned m o r e than 5. 5 % of the C.B.D. Of the 28 p r o p e r t i e s b e n e f i c i a l l y owned b y government, 64. 3 % w e r e owned by the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r , 2 1 . 4 % w e re owned by the P r o v i n c e of B. C. , and 14. 3 % w e r e owned by the G o v e r n m e n t of Canada. P r o p e r t y owned by c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use had a t o t a l as se s s e d value of $ 1 5. 4 m i l l i o n , o r 25. 8% of the t o t a l value of a l l p r o -p e r t i e s i n the C.B.D. T h i s i s the l a r g e s t s i n g l e r a t i o amongst the 1951 grou p s . O t h e r groups owning p r o p e r t y having a value e x c e e d i n g 1 0 % of the C.B.D. t o t a l a r e two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s ( 1 7 . 9 % ) , g o v e r n m e n t (17.6%) and i n d i v i d u a l s (14. 7%). The r e m a i n i n g groups own p r o p e r t y h a v i n g a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l C.B.D. a s s e s s e d v a l u e . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of o w n e r - g r o u p s by p r o p e r t y a s s e s s e d value was, w i t h two e x c e p t i o n s , f a i r l y stable f r o m 1951 to I960. The owner of the m o s t v a l u a b l e of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s i n 1951 was the c o r p o r a t i o n s (for own use) group, w h i c h owned 2 5 . 8 % of the C.B.D. by value. T h i s r a t i o f e l l to 1 8 . 3 % i n I960. The r e v e r s e o c c u r r e d w i t h the two o r m o r e 61 i n d i v i d u a l s group, w h i c h owned 1 7 . 9 % of the C.B.D. by value i n 1951. In 1960, t h e i r h o l d i n g s r e p r e s e n t e d 2 8 . 3 % of t o t a l v a l u e . A n a l y s i s by m e d i a n t o t a l p r o p e r t y value does not c o m p a r e w i t h the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d by the p r e c e d i n g two c r i t e r i a . F o r ex a m p l e , the h i g h e s t m e d i a n value i s $150, 150 f o r the "other i n s t i t u t i o n s " group. T h i s group owns a v e r y s m a l l amount of the C.B.D. ; the h i g h m e d i a n r e f l e c t s the s m a l l number of p r o p e r t i e s owned by t h i s group, and the fa c t that the a s s e s s e d v a l u e s of these p r o p e r t i e s a r e r e l a t i v e l y high. A somewhat opposite s i t u a t i o n a p p l i e s to the p r o p e r t y owned by gov e r n m e n t s . The low m e d i a n value of $31, 502 i s due to the l a r g e number of l o w - v a l u e d p r o p e r t i e s , l a r g e l y u s e d f o r p a r k i n g l o t s . D e s p i t e t h i s , a s m a l l n u mber of v e r y v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t i e s (up to $4, 373, 262) r e s u l t i n t h i s group's r e a l estate r e p r e s e n t i n g 1 7 . 6 % of the t o t a l C.B.D. p r o p e r t y v a l u e . A n o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t group i s " I n d i v i d u a l s " , w h i c h owns 2 9 . 4 % of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s . The m e d i a n value of these p r o p e r t i e s i s o n l y $36, 955 though - the second l o w e s t of the ten o w n e r - g r o u p s . The l o w e s t i s the government p r o p e r t y , as d e s c r i b e d above. T h i r d l o w e s t i s the es t a t e s ' r e a l p r o p e r t y at $37, 637, but t h i s group p l a y s only a m i n o r r o l e i n C.B.D. o w n e r s h i p . C o r p o r a t i o n s , owning the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of the C.B.D.'s m o r e v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t y , have quite a low m e d i a n value of $49, 975 f o r p r o p e r t i e s kept f o r t h e i r own use, and $86,450 on r e a l estate h e l d f o r i n v e s t m e n t . T A B L E X I I I S U M M A R Y O F B E N E F I C I A L O W N E R S H I P P r o p o r t i o n of P r o p o r t i o n of T o t a l T o t a l C. B.D. P r o p e r t i e s C.B.D. A s s e s s e d V a l u e 1971 I960 1951 1971 1960 1951 I n d i v i d u a l s 26. 3 % 34. 9% 2 9 . 4 % 9. 7% 14. 2 % 14. 7' Two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s 25. 5 25. 7 25. 1 13.8 28. 3 17. 9 E s t a t e s 7. 0 5.6 3'! 6 2. 7 2.4 1.2 R e a l t y C o r p . 7. 6 5.6 2. 5 13.4 4. 7 2.8 F i n a n c i a l Inst: Own U s e Other U s e 2. 5 7. 1 1. 3 6.9 2. 5 5. 3 3. 8 10. 1 4. 1 5. 6 5. 0 4.4 Ot h e r Inst. 4.2 2.8 2. 0 2.6 2. 3 2. 2 C o r p o r a t i o n s : Own Use Other Use 6. 5 2. 6 7.3 2. 7 15,2 3. 0 18.9 4. 7 18. 3 2.4 25. 8 5. 2 G o v e r n m e n t s 8. 8 4.2 7. 1 18.9 16. 0 17. 6 Unknown 2. 0 2. 8 4. 1 1.3 1. 5 3.2 63 The p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s of the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p of Vancouver's C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t f r o m 1951 to 1972 has brought f o r t h s e v e r a l i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s . F i r s t , i n d i v i d u a l s and two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s , w e r e con-s i s t e n t l y the o w n e rs of the l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e s of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s i n e a c h of the study p e r i o d s . T o g e t h e r , these groups have c o n t r o l l e d no l e s s than 5 0 % of the t o t a l p r o p e r t i e s . T h e i r dominance has been d e c r e a s -i n g however, f r o m the I960 m a x i m u m , when 6 0 . 6 % of the C.B.D. was owned, to the 5 1 . 8 % of 1971. The r a t i o of p r o p e r t i e s owned by i n d i v i d u a l s has, o v e r a l l , d e c l i n e d . It r o s e f r o m 29.4% i n 1951, to 34.9% i n I960. D u r i n g I960 to 1971 though, the r a t i o f e l l to 26.3%. The o r d e r of o w n e r - g r o u p s by p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p has v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y o v e r 1951 - 1971. R e a l estate owned by i n d i v i d u a l s has d e c l i n e d o v e r a l l , f r o m 29.4% i n 1951 to 2 6 . 3 % i n 1971. The p r o p o r t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s owned by c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use has d e c l i n e d , f r o m 15.4% i n 1951, to 7.3% i n I960, and then to 6.5% i n 1971. G o v e r n -ment-owned r e a l estate as a p e r c e n t of a l l C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s has v a r i e d . In 1951, these p r o p e r t i e s r e p r e s e n t e d 7 . 1% of the C.B.D., d e c l i n i n g to 4.2% i n 1960, and then r i s i n g to 8.8% i n 1971. R e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s have s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s e d t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n of C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s , i n r e a l n u m b e r s and i n p e r c e n t a g e amounts. L a s t l y , the p r o p e r t i e s owned b y f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r u s e s other than t h e i r own, has a l s o s t e a d i l y grown - f r o m 5.. 3% of the 1951 64 C.B.D. t o t a l , to 6. 9% i n I960 and then to 7. 1 % i n 1971. The m a j o r i t y of p r o p e r t i e s under t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a r e those r e g i s t e r e d i n the name of a t r u s t company but a c t u a l l y owned b y another p a r t y . T h e r e a r e v e r y few p r o p e r t i e s a c t u a l l y owned b y a f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n as an i n v e s t m e n t o r f o r future e xpansion. It s h o u l d be poi n t e d out that e s t a t e s have s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s e d t h e i r s m a l l h o l d i n g s , up to 1971. F o r example, they owned 3. 5 % of the 1951 C.B.D. Then the r a t i o r o s e to 5. 6% i n I960 and by 1971 r o s e to 7. 0% of the t o t a l . O b v i o u s l y , the i m p o r t a n c e of es t a t e s as b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s of Vanc o u v e r ' s C.B.D. i s i n c r e a s i n g , although p r e s e n t l y i t i s s t i l l at a r a t h e r m i n i m a l l e v e l . W h i l e government i n v o l v e m e n t i n the C.B.D. v i a b e n e f i c i a l p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p has been s l i g h t , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note w h i c h l e v e l of g o vernment has been m o s t a c t i v e . G o v e r n m e n t o w n e r s h i p i n the C.B.D. has been v a r i e d , r a n g i n g f r o m 7. 1 % i n 1951, to 4. 2 % i n I960 and then r i s i n g a g a i n to 8.8% i n 1971. T h e s e p r o p e r t i e s have been s m a l l i n number - on l y 75 i n 1971. C i t y government has alw a y s owned at l e a s t 2 5 % o r m o r e of the government p r o p e r t i e s , i n each of the three study p e r i o d s . In 1951, the C i t y owned 6 4 . 3 % of the government p r o p e r t i e s . T h i s d e c r e a s e d to 3 0 % i n i 9 6 0 , and d e c r e a s e d a g a i n to 2 5 . 3 % i n 1971. The l a r g e d e c l i n e between 1951 and I960 i s somewhat m i s l e a d i n g , due to the means b y w h i c h the p r o p e r t i e s a r e r e c o r d e d . A c t u a l l y , the number of p r o p e r t i e s i n c r e a s e d - that i s , p r o p e r t i e s c o m p r i s i n g a c o n s o l i d a t e d number of l o t s . In 1951, the c i t y - o w n e d p r o p e r t i e s w e r e r e c o r d e d on the a s s e s s -ment r o l l by i n d i v i d u a l l o t s - i n I960, some p a r c e l s had been c o n s o l i -dated, so that i t would appear that the number of p r o p e r t i e s d e c r e a s e d . M o s t of these h o l d i n g s a r e p a r k i n g l o t s and p a r k i n g g a r a g e s pl u s the c i t y l i b r a r y and a r t g a l l e r y . The f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t s have i n c r e a s e d t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s owned si n c e 1951, f r o m 3 5 . 7 % to 7 4 . 7 % i n 1971. T h e i r p r o p e r t i e s g e n e r a l l y a r e m u c h m o r e v a l u a b l e , often c o m p r i s i n g a c i t y b l o c k , s t r a t e g i c a l l y l o c a t e d . A n ex a m p l e w o u l d be the C o u r t House on B l o c k 51, o r the f e d e r a l government's P o s t O f f i c e B u i l d i n g and the Income T a x B u i l d i n g . W h i l e the i m p o r t a n c e of the v a r i o u s g o v e rnments i s some-what hidden by the number of p r o p e r t i e s they own, the p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r value to the t o t a l value of a l l C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s i n d i c a t e s the tr u e r o l e of the government i n downtown V a n c o u v e r . F o r example, the f e d e r a l government owns the m o s t v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t y i n the C.B.D., w h i c h i s the H o t e l V a n c o u v e r a s s e s s e d at $17, 036, 621. Secondly, the value of government-owned r e a l estate has c o n s i s t e n t l y r a n k e d second or t h i r d , of the p e r c e n t of value to t o t a l C.B.D. va l u e . When owner-ship of p r o p e r t y a c c o r d i n g to value i s c o n s i d e r e d , the government p l a y s a v e r y i m p o r t a n t r o l e . Of the three l e v e l s of government - n a t i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l - the f e d e r a l government i s p e r h a p s m o s t i m p o r t a n t . A s d e s c r i b e d above, i t owns the m o r e va l u a b l e government p r o p e r t y and thus c o n t r i b u t e s m o s t to the h i g h standing of government, by value of p r o p e r t y owned. 66 O v e r the three study p e r i o d s , there has been a s i g n i f i c a n t change amongst the groups w h i c h own the m o r e v a l u a b l e C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s . In 1951, the m o s t v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t y was that h e l d by c o r -p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use - w o r t h 25. 8% of the C. B. D. 's t o t a l a s s e s s e d va l u e . Two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s p l a c e d second, w i t h p r o p e r t y v a l u e d at 1 7 . 9 % of the t o t a l . B y I960, the two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s group had i n c r e a s e d the value of i t s h o l d i n g s , so that i t was by f a r the owner of the m o s t v a l u a b l e of the C. B.D. 's r e a l p r o p e r t y . W h i l e owning 25. 7% of the t o t a l p r o p e r t i e s , the value of the r e a l estate amounted to 2 8 . 3 % of the t o t a l C.B.D. value. Thus, o v e r 1951-1960, t h i s group's p r o p e r t i e s i n c r e a s e d i n value f r o m $10.7 m i l l i o n to $31.6 m i l l i o n and f r o m 1 7 . 9 % to 28. 3 % of the C.B.D. 's t o t a l a s s e s s e d v a l u e . The g r e a t e r p a r t of the percentage i n c r e a s e r e a l i z e d by two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s a p p e a r s to have been at the expense of c o r p o r a t i o n s . In 1951, r e a l p r o p e r t y owned by c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use had a value of $1 5. 4 m i l l i o n o r 25. 8 % of the C.B.D. total'. T h i s s h r a n k b y o v e r 7% by I960. A l t h o u g h the absolute value of the r e a l p r o p e r t y r o s e to $20.5 m i l l i o n , the value of t h i s i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l C.B.D. value d ropped f r o m 2 5 . 8 % to 18.3%. O v e r t h i s p e r i o d , the groups other than two or m o r e i n d i v i -d u a l s and c o r p o r a t i o n s (for own use) e x p e r i e n c e d c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l changes i n t h e i r p e r c e n t standings. The absolute value of t h e i r p r o p e r t y d i d i n c r e a s e (except f o r p r o p e r t y owned by c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r i n v e s t m e n t , w h i c h d e c l i n e d ) , but the t o t a l amount s t i l l was l e s s than 1 0 % i n m o s t 67 c a s e s . I n d i v i d u a l - o w n e d and government-owned p r o p e r t y r e p r e s e n t e d a s l i g h t l y l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n but t h i s r e m a i n e d f a i r l y s table o v e r 1951-1960. It was o v e r the p e r i o d I960 to 1971 that g r e a t changes took p l a c e i n the C.B.D. The tremendous amount of new c o n s t r u c t i o n p l u s the p h y s i c a l e x p a n s i o n of the C.B.D. a l m o s t q u a d r u p l e d the t o t a l value of C.B.D. r e a l estate f r o m $111. 6 m i l l i o n to $432. 0 m i l l i o n . 3 2 The absolute value of some of owner-group's p r o p e r t y i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y a l s o . That of r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s r o s e f r o m $5. 3 m i l l i o n to $58.0 m i l l i o n ; p r o p e r t y owned by c o r p o r a t i o n s as i n v e s t m e n t r o s e f r o m $2. 7 m i l l i o n to $20.3 m i l l i o n . The t h i r d l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e was i n p r o p e r t y owned by f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r other than t h e i r own use - i t i n c r e a s e d f r o m $6. 2 m i l l i o n to $43. 6 m i l l i o n . T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l m a r k e d changes i n the group standings by p e r c e n t of t o t a l C.B.D. value. That of two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s , w h i c h r o s e to 28. 3 % i n I960, f e l l by h a l f to 14. 2 % by 1971. R e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s , w h i c h had i n c r e a s e d d u r i n g 1951-1960 but r e m a i n e d below 5% of the t o t a l , r o s e to 13. 8% of the t o t a l C.B.D. value by 1971. A s stated above, t h i s a c c o m p a n i e d an i n c r e a s e i n the number of p r o p e r t i e s owned f r o m 40 to 65, and an i n c r e a s e i n absolute value f r o m $5. 3 m i l l i o n to $58. 0 m i l l i o n . The r e l a t i v e value of r e a l p r o p e r t y owned by i n d i v i d u a l s , _ A s a r e s u l t of s t a t u t o r y r e s t r i c t i o n s on i n c r e a s e s i n p r o p e r t y a s s e s s -ments f r o m y e a r to y e a r , the i n c r e a s e i n the C.B.D. 's t o t a l a s s e s s e d value l i k e l y u n d e r s t a t e s the a c t u a l i n c r e a s e i n p r o p e r t y v a l u e . 68 w h i c h had r e m a i n e d stable at a p p r o x i m a t e l y 14. 5% p r e v i o u s l y , f e l l i n 1971 to 9. 7%. Thus even though the absolute value of these p r o p e r t i e s r o s e , the i n c r e a s e was f a i r l y s m a l l i n c o m p a r i s o n . It has been noted p r e v i o u s l y that the m e d i a n value of r e a l estate owned by i n d i v i d u a l s g e n e r a l l y i s the low e s t of a l l the o w n e r - g r o u p s . R e a l p r o p e r t y owned by f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r other than t h e i r own use a l s o r o s e f a i r l y s u b s t a n t i a l l y , f r o m 5. 3 % i n 1951, to 1 0 . 1 % of the 1971 C.B.D. t o t a l a s s e s s e d valu e . A s was d e s c r i b e d i n a p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , t h i s owner c a t e g o r y c o u l d m o r e a c c u r a t e l y be d e s c r i b e d as p r o p e r t y r e g i s t e r e d i n the name of f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s on b e h a l f of another e n t i t y . Due to the r e l u c t a n c e of t r u s t c o m p a n i e s to r e v e a l the true owner, there i s e x t r e m e d i f f i c u l t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g a c c u r a t e l y j u s t who or what r e a l l y owns the r e a l e s t a t e . - A n i n f o r m a l a n a l y s i s has i n d i c a t e d the p o s s i b i l i t y that many of these p r o p e r t i e s r e g i s t e r e d i n the name of t r u s t c o m p a n i e s a r e i n fact b e n e f i c i a l l y owned by a v a r i e t y of owner groups - i n d i v i d u a l s , c o r p o r a t i o n s and estat e s p r i m a r i l y . W h i l e the s a m p l e taken was not able to be conducted under r i g o r o u s c o n d i t i o n s , i t d i d r e v e a l that s e v e r a l of the p r o p e r t i e s i n q u e s t i o n w e r e a c t u a l l y owned by e s t a t e s , of w h i c h a number w e r e B r i t i s h and A m e r i c a n . O t h e r s w e r e owned by i n d i v i d u a l s , c o r p o r a t i o n s and f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . In any event, the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s segment of C.B.D. p r o p e r t y o w n e rs has been m i n o r up to 1971. It has been i n c r e a s i n g however, and may continue i n the f u t u r e . C O N C L U S I O N S 69 The f i r s t and m o s t obvious c o n c l u s i o n to be a r r i v e d at, i s that c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p by l e g a l r e c o r d does not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y d e s c r i b e the p r o p e r t y o w ners. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , m o s t i n -v e s t i g a t i o n s into p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p r e l y on i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d f r o m l e g a l r e c o r d s s u c h as a s s e s s m e n t r o l l s . B e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p i s a m o r e a c c u r a t e means of c l a s s i f y i n g p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h i p . It i s a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n than l e g a l o w n e r s h i p , f o r an a r e a the s i z e of Vancouver's C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . In ef f e c t , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p r e m o v e s the " c o r p o r a t e s h i e l d " of l e g a l o w n e r s h i p , w h i c h often hides the owner's t r u e i d e n t i t y . When, as i n 1971, r e a l t y and b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s p l u s f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s l e g a l l y owned 6 4 . 2 % of a l l C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s , w o r t h 8 0 . 8 % of the t o t a l C.B.D. value, the " c o r p o r a t e s h i e l d " e f f e c t i v e l y b l u n t s the u s e f u l n e s s of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by l e g a l r e c o r d . In fact , f o r each of the study y e a r s the dominant l e g a l o wners a r e i n d i v i d u a l s , r e a l t y c o r -p o r a t i o n s and b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p shows that the m a j o r i t y of p r o p e r t i e s i n the C. B. D. a r e owned by an i n d i v i d u a l o r by two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s , i n e ach of the three study p e r i o d s . T hese two groups owned at l e a s t 5 2 % and up to 61 % of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s f r o m 1951 to 1971. B e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p a c c o r d i n g to p r o p e r t y value, a l s o shows a domina-t i o n b y two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s , c o r p o r a t i o n s and go v e r n m e n t s . 70 The p r o m i n e n c e of the r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s as l e g a l o w n e r s r e s u l t s f r o m the e x i s t e n c e of a l a r g e number of h o l d i n g c o m p a n i e s w h i c h a r e the l e g a l o w n e r s of m u c h of the C.B.D. These h o l d i n g com-pani e s i n many ca s e s a r e b e n e f i c i a l l y owned by an i n d i v i d u a l , o r husband and w i f e , o r s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s . To a l e s s e r extent, the same a p p l i e s to many l e g a l l y - c l a s s i f i e d b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n s . S e v e r a l of the f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e b e n e f i c i a l l y owned by many s m a l l s h a r e h o l d e r s w h i c h r e p o r t e d l y w e r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y i n d i v i d u a l s (as c o m p a r e d to c o r -p o r a t i o n s ) . T h i s t r e n d i n b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p r e s u l t s i n the high stand-i n g of the " i n d i v i d u a l s " and "two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s " o w n e r - g r o u p s . B e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p , a c c o r d i n g to value of p r o p e r t y owned, d i s p l a y s a l e s s s t a b l e , a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n than o w n e r s h i p a c c o r d i n g to number of p r o p e r t i e s owned. In a g e n e r a l sense, the m o r e v a l u a b l e r e a l t y i n each of the study p e r i o d s i s owned by two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s , c o r p o r a t i o n s (for t h e i r own use), and g o v e r n m e n t s . T o g e t h e r , these three groups owned p r o p e r t y w o r t h 6 1 . 3 % of the 1951 C.B.D. t o t a l v a lue, 6 2 . 6 % of that f o r 1950, and 5 1 . 6 % of the 1971 t o t a l . The m a r k e d d e c l i n e f r o m I960 to 1971 r e s u l t s f r o m the c o n s i d e r a b l e f a l l i n r e l a t i v e value, of r e a l estate owned by the "two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s " group. T h i s group, as d i s c u s s e d i n p r e v i o u s pages, s u f f e r e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e d r o p i n r e l a t i v e value o v e r 1960-1971. The p o s i t i o n of the four l a r g e s t o w n e r - g r o u p s v a r i e d amongst the study p e r i o d s . The owner of the m o s t v a l u a b l e r e a l estate was c o r -p o r a t i o n s (for own use) i n 1951 at 2 5 . 8 % of the C.B.D. t o t a l , then two o r 71 m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s i n I960 w i t h 28. 3 % and then c o r p o r a t i o n s (for own use) plus g o v e rnments ag a i n i n 1971 each w i t h 18. 9% of the t o t a l C.B.D. va l u e . T h e r e does seem to be a d e c l i n e i n the d o m i n a t i o n of non-c o r p o r a t e o w n e rs at p r e s e n t though and i t m a y be, i n the near f u t u r e , that c o r p o r a t e o w n e r s h i p c o u l d become the p r e - e m i n e n t owner-group. A n o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t of the C.B.D. w h i c h i s r e v e a l e d by b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p a n a l y s i s i s the i n f l u e n t i a l r o l e of governments, p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o p e r t y owned by Crown. C o r p o r a t i o n s . The r e a l p r o p e r t y l e g a l l y owned by governments p l a y s a m i n o r r o l e i n the C.B.D. The nu m b e r of p r o p e r t i e s owned, and the r e l a t i v e value i s i n the a r e a of 5 % to 1 0 % of the C.B.D. t o t a l o v e r 1951-1971. A c c o r d i n g to b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p , when the r e a l estate owned by C r o w n C o r p o r a t i o n s i s i n c l u d e d , the number of government-owned p r o p e r t i e s r e m a i n s r e l a t i v e l y low, but the value as a p e r c e n t of the C.B.D. t o t a l i s c o m p a r a t i v e l y l a r g e . In a l l t h r e e study p e r i o d s , the government group r a n k s second o r t h i r d i n r e l a t i v e p r o p e r t y v a l u e . It has been noted that the c i t y and f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t s p l a y the l a r g e s t r o l e s , of the three l e v e l s of government. None of the l e v e l s of government c o n s i s t e n t l y owned the g r e a t e s t number of p r o p e r t i e s , but the f e d e r a l government owned the m o r e v a l u a b l e r e a l p r o p e r t y . A t any r a t e , the effect of government o w n e r s h i p of r e a l estate i n V a n c o u v e r ' s C.B.D. i s and has been c o n s i d e r a b l e . T h i s t r e n d w i l l be g r e a t l y r e i n f o r c e d i n the near f u t u r e . In the past, many f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l government bodies and de p a r t m e n t s have r e n t e d o f f i c e space i n V ancouver's C.B.D. W i t h i n the next decade however, these g o v e r n -ment a g e n c i e s w i l l r e l o c a t e to a m i l l i o n s q u are f o o t - p l u s f e d e r a l o f f i c e c o m p l e x i n B l o c k 56, w h i l e the p r o v i n c i a l g o vernment w i l l c o n s o l i d a t e m any of i t s o f f i c e s into a new c o m p l e x i n B l o c k 61. In c o m p a r i s o n to the r e s u l t s of s i m i l a r a n a l y s e s upon the C.B.D. of Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o , i t i s apparent that V a n c o u v e r i s s o m e w h a t unique. T a b l e X I V s u m m a r i z e s the r e s u l t s of the r e s e a r c h on a l l three c i t i e s , as of I960. O v e r a l l , the s i t u a t i o n i n V a n c o u v e r does not r e s e m b l e that of the A m e r i c a n c i t i e s too c l o s e l y . In the U.S. c i t i e s , c o r p o r a t i o n s and es t a t e s own a l a r g e n u mber of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s ; i n V a n c o u v e r it i s the one and two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s w h i c h own m o s t of the p r o p e r t i e s . In San F r a n c i s c o though, i n d i v i d u a l s do own 29% of the C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s and a r e s econd-ranked. E s t a t e s r e p r e s e n t o n l y a m i n o r p a r t of Vancouver's C.B.D., c o m p a r e d to b e i n g the l a r g e s t p r o p e r t y - o w n e r i n . S e a t t l e , and t h i r d - l a r g e s t i n San F r a n c i s c o . Two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s own a c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l r a t i o of C.B.D. p r o p e r t i e s i n Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o , but own 25. 7% of that of V a n c o u v e r . L a s t l y the government s e c t o r owns a l a r g e r p r o p e r t y r a t i o i n V a n c o u v e r than i n the U.S. c i t i e s . . C o m p a r i n g r e l a t i v e v a l u e of the r e a l estate h o l d i n g s of the v a r i o u s b e n e f i c i a l o w n e rs between V a n c o u v e r and Seat t l e , i n d i c a t e s l i t t l e s i m i l a r i t y . T h e r e i s one s i m i l a r i t y though, i n that c o r p o r a t i o n s own T A B L E X I V B E N E F I C I A L O W N E R S H I P V A N C O U V E R - S E A T T L E - S A N F R A N C I S C O V A N C O U V E R S E A T T L E S A N F R A N C I S C O % % % % A s s e s s m e n t s P r o p e r t i e s A s s e s s m e n t s P r o p e r t i e s % P r o p e r t i e s C o r p o r a t i o n s 35.1 23.8 33.0 29.0 33.0 E s t a t e s 2.4 5.6 23.5 35.9 19.0 Other I n s t i t u t i o n s 2.3 2.8 23.3 6.3 6.0 G o v e r n m e n t s 16.0 4.2 8.0 2.1 0.0 I n d i v i d u a l s 14.2 34.9 7.6 17.2 29.0 Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s 28.3 25.7 4.6 8.6 11.0 So u r c e : A u t h o r , Monsen, S e y f r i e d and Appelo. Note: V a n c o u v e r and Seattle s t a t i s t i c s r e f e r to I960; San F r a n c i s c o ' s i s dated 1958. Due to an i n c o m p a t i b l e method of c l a s s i f y i n g San F r a n c i s c o ' s r e a l t y - a s s e s s m e n t s , those s t a t i s t i c s a r e not a v a i l a b l e i n thi s table. 74 p r o p e r t y w o r t h 3 3 . 0 % of Seattle's t o t a l C.B.D. a s s e s s m e n t , w h i l e i n V a n c o u v e r , c o r p o r a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t 3 5 . 1 % of the t o t a l . In V a n c o u v e r , however, two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s own 28. 3 % of the C. B.D.'s va l u e , w h i l e i n Seattle i t i s o n l y 4.6%. E s t a t e s and "other i n s t i t u t i o n s " e a ch own a p p r o x i m a t e l y 23. 5 % of Seattle's t o t a l a s s e s s m e n t - i n V a n c o u v e r these groups each own l e s s than 2. 5 % of the t o t a l C.B.D. a s s e s s m e n t . U s i n g the same s t r u c t u r e as u s e d i n T a b l e X I V and updating the V a n c o u v e r data to 1971, the dominance of c o r p o r a t i o n s i s r e v e a l e d . T h i s group owns p r o p e r t y w o r t h 5 0 . 9 % of the 1971 C.B. D. t o t a l v a lue, by f a r the g r e a t e s t of the owner groups. I n d i v i d u a l s dominate by number of p r o p e r t i e s owned (26. 3 % ) , f o l l o w e d by two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s (25.5%). - What r o l e has the s t r u c t u r e of b e n e f i c i a l o w n e rs of Vanc o u v e r ' s C.B.D. p l a y e d i n the development of t h i s u r b a n a r e a ? C e r t a i n l y some i n f e r e n c e s can be drawn f r o m the d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s ex-h i b i t e d by V a n c o u v e r i n r e l a t i o n to Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o . T h e r e a r e however many d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s between the c i t i e s that c o u l d l e a d to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s . The e c o n o m i c r e a s o n s f o r w h i c h an en t i t y a c q u i r e s r e a l p r o p e r t y a r e v e r y s i m i l a r , though, whether the p r o p e r t y i s i n Canada or i n the U.S. , on the east c o a s t o r on the west c o a s t . . The fa c t r e m a i n s that V a n c o u v e r i s l e s s d o m i n a t e d b y c o r -p o r a t i o n s and the i n f l u e n c e of e s t a t e s i s m i n i m a l . P e r h a p s one r e a s o n i s that V a n c o u v e r ' s C.B.D, has been able to expand o u t w a r d r e l a t i v e l y 75 e a s i l y . . It i s not r e s t r i c t e d to b u i l d i n g w i t h i n a f i x e d a r e a . . T h i s p a r t l y accounts f o r the high r a n k i n g of the i n d i v i d u a l , n o n - c o r p o r a t e c l a s s e s . T h e s e groups owned the m a j o r i t y of the r e a l estate l o c a t e d on the outer edge of the C.B.D., when the C. B. D. e x p e r i e n c e d i t s great e x p a n s i o n . T h i s p r e d o m i n a t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l o w n e r s m o s t l i k e l y r e s u l t s f r o m the hi g h r a t e of new development, m o s t p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the " G o l d e n T r i a n g l e " . It w o u l d s e e m that, where the C.B.D. i s newly-expanded into an a r e a , i n d i v i d u a l o w n e r s p r e d o m i n a t e . Then, when development s t a b i l i z e s , c o r p o r a t e o w n e r s h i p i n c r e a s e s . Once again, these i m p r e s s i o n s a r e dra w n l a r g e l y f r o m the e x p e r i e n c e of the C.B.D. 's f l o w west of B u r r a r d S t r e e t , a f t e r the 1951 study p e r i o d . It a l s o a p p l i e s somewhat to the ex-p a n s i o n east of Abbott S t r e e t . It was o b s e r v e d that c o r p o r a t e o w n e r s h i p i n c r e a s e d o v e r 1960-1971. In t h i s p e r i o d the C.B.D. d i d not expand g r e a t l y i n a r e a , and new development took p l a c e l a r g e l y w i t h i n e s t a b l i s h e d b o u n d a r i e s . If there i s continued r e d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n a f a i r l y s t a b l e C.B.D. a r e a , p e r h a p s the i m p o r t a n c e of c o r p o r a t i o n s w i l l i n c r e a s e . It c o u l d be that V a n c o u v e r ' s C.B.D. e x h i b i t s a d i f f e r e n t o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n f r o m the two U.S. c i t i e s , b e c a use i t i s i n a d i f f e r e n t state of t r a n s i t i o n . A s the C.B.D. s t a b i l i z e s , i t s o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n c o u l d m o r e c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e that of Seattle and San F r a n c i s c o . How m u c h one c a n r e l y upon c o m p a r i s o n s of C.B.D. owner-s h i p p a t t e r n s of V a n c o u v e r and the two A m e r i c a n c i t i e s i s debatable. It 76 m a y be true that at the t i m e the U.S. r e s e a r c h was conducted, the C.B.D. o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n d i d i n f l u e n c e development, o r p e r h a p s the owner s t r u c t u r e c o i n c i d e d w i t h a s l u m p i n C.B.D. a c t i v i t y . . The evid e n c e i n d i c a t e s that i n the y e a r s subsequent to the U.S. r e s e a r c h , the C.B.D. has not d e c l i n e d i n Seattle o r San. F r a n c i s c o . The i m p l i c a t i o n that a r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between a l a c k of C.B.D. development and a n e a r - m o n o p o l y i n b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p by e n t i t i e s of i n d e f i n i t e l i f e , 33 does not appear to be e n t i r e l y s u p p o r t a b l e . The a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h into C.B.D. o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s , that of Se a t t l e , San F r a n c i s c o and V a n c o u v e r , a r e l a r g e l y d e s c r i p t i v e . L i t t l e i s known of c a u s a l f a c t o r s u n d e r l y i n g the o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s that have been d i s c o v e r e d . It seems that b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p s t r u c t u r e s do i n f l u e n c e the development of the C.B.D., but to what extent i s unknown. P e r h a p s the i n f l u e n c e v a r i e s w i t h the age and state of t r a n s i -t i o n of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . C e r t a i n l y o t h e r f a c t o r s as income tax c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and zoning r e g u l a t i o n s have an ef f e c t on the r a t e and type of C.B.D. development. What i s now r e q u i r e d i s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h to be conducted into the v a r i o u s f a c t o r s , of w h i c h the b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n i s one, that i n f l u e n c e the development of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . 33 S e y f r i e d and App e l o , p. 178. 77 P O L I C Y I M P L I C A T I O N S The f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s the p o s s i b i l i t y that k n o w l -edge of the p a t t e r n s of b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d into a c i t y - l e v e l g overnment p o l i c y . B y s t r e n g t h e n i n g o r r e d u c i n g the p o s i t i o n of c e r t a i n o w n e r - c l a s s e s , the government m a y be able to m a i n t a i n the C.B.D. 's p o s i t i o n as the m a j o r p r o p e r t y tax s o u r c e , by p r o m o t i n g expansion, new development and r e d e v e l o p m e n t of the C.B.D. In the case of V a n c o u v e r , one of the m o s t fundamental p o s i t i o n s of the c i t y g o v ernment i s to p r e s e r v e and i n t e n s i f y the r o l e of the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t as the c o m m e r c i a l , o f f i c e and hote l c e n t r e of the L o w e r M a i n -land. If there i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c t i v e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s and the p r e d o m i n a t i n g b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r - c l a s s e s , there e x i s t s the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r c i t y g o v e r n m e n t to develop an e f f e c t i v e p o l i c y to p r o m o t e a d e s i r e d g r o w t h of a gi v e n u r b a n a r e a . The t e r m " a c t i v e o w n e r" i n t h i s sense r e f e r s to those p r o p e r t y owners w h i c h a c q u i r e r e a l estate f o r a s h o r t - r u n r e t u r n , at a p r o f i t r e f l e c t i n g e n t r e p r e n e u r e a l t a l e n t . Such a c t i v e owners, i n the context of t h i s r e s e a r c h , w o u l d be r e p r e s e n t e d b y i n d i v i d u a l s , r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s , p l u s f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and c o r p o r a t i o n s owning r e a l estate for i n v e s t m e n t p u r p o s e s . The opposite s i t u a t i o n would be r e p r e s e n t e d by p a s s i v e o w n e r s of r e a l estate such as e s t a t e s , governments, f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , 78 and c o r p o r a t i o n s . T hese o w n e r - c l a s s e s a c q u i r e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e i r own use and as a l o n g - t e r m h o l d i n g . E c o n o m i c r e a l estate r e t u r n s a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y a p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n . In o r d e r to d i s c o v e r whether o r not a c t i v e b e n e f i c i a l o w n e rs w e r e i n a p o s i t i o n to i n f l u e n c e the growth and development of Vancouver's C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t , an a n a l y s i s of r e s a l e and r e d e v e l o p m e n t of C.B.D. r e a l estate was undertaken. T h o s e p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d i n the 1951 C.B.D. were c o n s i d e r e d to r e p r e s e n t the c e n t r a l a r e a of the 197P C.B.D. T h e r e f o r e , the bene-f i c i a l owner of e a c h p r o p e r t y i n the 1951 C.B.D. was c o m p a r e d to that of the same p r o p e r t y i n 1971, to d e t e r m i n e whether the p r o p e r t y had changed hands. To account f o r the c o n s i d e r a b l e w e s t w a r d e x p a n s i o n of the C.B.D. si n c e 1951, those p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d i n the I960 C.B.D., west of B u r r a r d S t r e e t , w e r e a n a l y z e d f o r change of b e n e f i c i a l owner, d u r i n g 1960-1971. The g e n e r a l p a t t e r n of s a l e s a c t i v i t y by b e n e f i c i a l owner-group d u r i n g 1951-1971 and 1960-1971 was s i m i l a r , f o r those p r o p e r t i e s d e s c r i b e d above. T h e r e f o r e , the data was combined. W h i l e the t o t a l n umber of C.B.D. p r o p e r t y s a l e s was not a v a i l a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s , i t i s f e l t that a r e a s o n a b l e a p p r o x i m a t i o n i s a t t a i n e d by c o m p a r i n g the p r o p e r t y owner i n one p e r i o d to that of another. R e d e v e l o p m e n t of p r o p e r t y was deemed to have o c c u r r e d when the owner r e m a i n e d the same but the pr o p e r t y ' s a s s e s s e d val u e i n c r e a s e d at a r a t e n o t i c e a b l y h i g h e r than the av e r a g e i n c r e a s e . T h i s c r i t e r i a i s somewhat s u b j e c t i v e , but the number 79 of p r o p e r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . L a c k of m o r e a c c u r a t e data n e c e s s i t a t e d t h i s s o l u t i o n . T a b l e X V r e p o r t s the r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s . A t o t a l of 607 p r o p e r t i e s w e re examined; of these, 376 had changed hands by 1971, p l u s 54 were owned by the o r i g i n a l owner (as of 1951 o r , I960) but had been r e n o v a t e d or r e d e v e l o p e d . Of the 376 s a l e s , 42. 6% w e r e p r o p e r t i e s owned by i n d i v i d u a l s and 25. 0% were p r o p e r t i e s owned by the two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s group. The r e m a i n i n g o w n e r - g r o u p s r e p r e s e n t e d a s m a l l l e v e l of p r o p e r t y s a l e s as c o r p o r a t i o n s (for own use) r a n k s t h i r d , at 8. 0% of a l l p r o p e r t y s a l e s . C o n s i d e r i n g the r a t i o of s a l e s to p r o p e r t i e s owned by owner-group ( t u r n o v e r r a t e ) , the p a t t e r n i s l e s s c l e a r . G o v e r n m e n t s had the l o w e s t t u r n o v e r r a t e , s e l l i n g o n l y 1 5 . 8 % of t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s . The three h i g h e s t t u r n o v e r r a t e s w e r e of p r o p e r t y owned by r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s ( 7 9 . 2 % ) , i n d i v i d u a l s ( 7 5 . 8 % ) , and two or m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s ( 6 2 . 3 % ) . The r e m a i n i n g o w n e r - g r o u p s show t u r n o v e r r a t e s r a n g i n g between 40. 0% and 55. 6%. W h i l e C o r p o r a t i o n s owning p r o p e r t y f o r t h e i r own use had a low t u r n o v e r r a t e of 44. 1%, they r e d e v e l o p e d 19 of the 38 p r o p e r t i e s they d i d not s e l l . I n d i v i d u a l s r e n o v a t e d 10 p r o p e r t i e s and two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s r e n o v a t e d 8. The data c o n t a i n e d i n T a b l e X V has been condensed, i n o r d e r to b r i n g out the r o l e p l a y e d by a c t i v e and p a s s i v e i n v e s t o r s . The p a s s i v e T A B L E X V C. B. D. P R O P E R T Y S A L E S T o t a l P r o p e r t i e s P r o p e r t i e s S o l d I n d i v i d u a l s Z l l 160 Two o r M o r e I n d i v i d u a l s 151 94 E s t a t e s 22 12 - R e a l t y C o r p . 24 19 F i n a n c i a l Inst: Own Use 10 4 Other Use 36 20 Ot h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s 12 6 C o r p o r a t i o n s : Own Use 68 30 Other U s e 15 8 G o v e r n m e n t s 38 6 Unknown 20 17 607 376 S a l e s / S a l e s / P r o p e r t i e s T o t a l P r o p e r t i e s T o t a l S a l e s R e n o v a t e d 7 5 . 8 % 4 2 . 6 % 10 62.3 25.0 8 54.5 3. 2 2 79.2 5.1 0 40.0 1.1 2 55.6 5.3 0 50.0 1.6 2 44.1 8.0 19 53.3 2.1 2 15.8 1.6 9 54 81 i n v e s t o r s a r e p r e s u m e d to be r e p r e s e n t e d by e s t a t e s , government, other i n s t i t u t i o n s p l u s f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and c o r p o r a t i o n s owning p r o p e r t y f o r t h e i r own use. A c t i v e r e a l estate i n v e s t o r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d to i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l s , two o r m o r e i n d i v i d u a l s , r e a l t y c o r p o r a t i o n s , p l u s f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and c o r p o r a t i o n s owning p r o p e r t y as i n v e s t -m ents. On this b a s i s , the s a l e s a c t i v i t y i n the C.B.D. i s condensed to: T A B L E X V I S U M M A R Y O F S A L E S A C T I V I T Y A c t i v e O w n e r s P a s s i v e O w n e rs (Unknown) P r o p e r t i e s M e a n R a t i o of Owned T u r n o v e r Rate T o t a l S a l e s 437 150 20 607 65. 2 4 % 40. 88 80. 1 % 15. 5 4. 5 T a b l e X V I i n d i c a t e s that the a c t i v e i n v e s t o r s p l a y a s i g n i f i -cant r o l e i n the exchange of C.B.D. r e a l e s t a t e . T h e s e owners owned 7 2 % of the t o t a l 607 p r o p e r t i e s i n the a n a l y s i s ; p r o p e r t i e s s o l d by a c t i v e i n v e s t o r s r e p r e s e n t e d 8 0 % of a l l p r o p e r t i e s s o l d ; the mean t u r n o v e r r a t e amongst p r o p e r t i e s owned by a c t i v e i n v e s t o r s was 6 5 % . A c t i v e i n v e s t o r s owned 65. 3 % of the p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n the t o t a l 1951 C.B.D., 75. 8% of those i n the e n t i r e I960 C. B. D. and 79. 1% of those i n the t o t a l 1971 C.B.D. A c t i v e i n v e s t o r s h e l d r e a l estate r e p r e s e n t i n g 82 4 5 . 0 % of the 1951 C.B.D. t o t a l a s s e s s e d value, 55. 2 % of that f o r I960, and 51. 7% of the 1971 C.B.D. t o t a l a s s e s s e d v a l u e . It m u s t be con c l u d e d f r o m the above that the a c t i v e o w n e rs a r e d e c i d e d l y i n a p o s i t i o n to i n f l u e n c e the f u t u r e of Vancouver's C.B.D. T h i s a p p l i e s p a r t i c u l a r l y , on the b a s i s of p r o p e r t i e s owned, and to a l e s s e r extent i n t e r m s of the p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l C.B.D. va l u e . It i s n o r m a l l y the l e s s v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t i e s that a r e a c q u i r e d f o r r e d e v e l o p -ment and t h e r e f o r e , the fact that a c t i v e i n v e s t o r s do not own a g r e a t p r o p o r t i o n of the C.B.D. 's m o r e v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t i e s , i s not a d e t r a c t i n g f a c t o r . Of the p a s s i v e i n v e s t o r s , p r o p e r t y owned by c o r p o r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r own use and by governments r e p r e s e n t the m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t h o l d i n g s . A s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r , however, w h i l e c o r p o r a t i o n s tended not to s e l l p r o p e r t y owned f o r t h e i r own use, they d i d r e d e v e l o p o r re n o v a t e m u c h of t h i s r e a l e s t a t e . Thus, government-owned r e a l estate i s the m o s t s i z e a b l e i n a c t i v e group of p r o p e r t i e s owned by a p a s s i v e i n v e s t o r . T h e s e p r o p e r t i e s , w h i l e often r e p r e s e n t i n g a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h r a t i o of the C.B. D.'s a s s e s s e d v a l u e , r e a l i z e d the v e r y l ow t u r n o v e r r a t e of 15.8%. M a n y of these p r o p e r t i e s a r e unique o r devoted to s e r v i n g p u b l i c needs - the l i b r a r y , post o f f i c e and p a r k s . Thus, they w o u l d not be a t t r a c t i v e to p r i v a t e s e c t o r o w n e r s and have l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d of having other than a low t u r n o v e r o r r e s a l e r a t e . T he p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s that i t w o u l d be p o s s i b l e f o r l o c a l government to d i r e c t the f u t u r e o f V a n c o u v e r ' s C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s 83 D i s t r i c t . In s u m m a r y , the m a j o r i t y of the r e a l p r o p e r t y i n the C.B.D. i s b e n e f i c i a l l y owned by a c t i v e i n v e s t o r s . A t p r e s e n t , the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r does not have a p o l i c y f o r g u i d i n g the C.B.D. 's growth v i a i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s . Such c o n t r o l s as p r e s e n t l y e x i s t a r e those of the t r a d i t i o n a l n a t u r e - zoning r e g u l a t i o n s , f i r e r e g u l a t i o n s , b u i l d i n g codes and the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s . It i s suggested that a knowledge and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the C.B.D. 's b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s w o u l d i m p r o v e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of any government p o l i c y d i r e c t e d at m a i n t a i n i n g the v i a b i l i t y of an u r b a n a r e a such as the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . In the case of V a n c o u v e r , i n c e n t i v e s c o u l d be o f f e r e d to a c t i v e i n v e s t o r s to continue a c q u i r i n g and de v e l o p i n g r e a l e s t a t e . It w o u l d a l s o be a d v i s a b l e to make i t m o r e d e s i r a b l e f o r p a s s i v e i n v e s t o r s to r e n o v a t e o r r e d e v e l o p t h e i r h o l d i n g s , to m a i n t a i n the e c o n o m i c val u e of the r e a l e s t a t e . In v i e w of the s i g n i f i c -ance of the C.B.D. to V a n c o u v e r , i n t e r m s of p r o p e r t y tax revenue alone, any means of r e i n f o r c i n g the i m p o r t a n c e of this a r e a s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d . T o that end, the p o s s i b i l i t y of p r o m o t i n g a f o r m a l p o l i c y i n c o r p o r a t i n g b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s of C.B.D. p r o p e r t y s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d . 84 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Boh n e r t , John E. , and M a t t i n g l y , P a u l . " D e l i m i t a t i o n of the C. B. D. T h r o u g h T i m e " . E c o n o m i c G e o g r a p h y 40 (October 1964): 337-47. B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s L t d . The V a n c o u v e r and New W e s t m i n s t e r C i t y  D i r e c t o r y . V a n c o u v e r : B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s L t d . , 1952. . The V a n c o u v e r C i t y D i r e c t o r y . V a n c o u v e r : B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s L t d . , 1961. . The V a n c o u v e r C i t y D i r e c t o r y . V a n c o u v e r : B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s L t d . , 1972. Canada, D o m i n i o n B u r e a u of S t a t i s t i c s . I n t e r - c o r p o r a t e O w n e r s h i p  1967. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , D e c e m b e r 1967. G r e b l e r , L e o . H o u s i n g M a r k e t B e h a v i o u r i n a D e c l i n i n g A r e a . New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1952. J a m i e s o n , W i l l i a m S. " A n a l y s i s of G r o w t h of V a n c o u v e r ' s C . B. D. " V a n c o u v e r : U n i v e r s i t y of B. C. , u n p u b l i s h e d M. B. A. t h e s i s , 1972. - M a t t i n g l y , P a u l F. " D e l i m i t a t i o n and Mo v e m e n t of C.B.D. B o u n d a r i e s T h r o u g h T i m e : The H a r r i s b u r g E x a m p l e " . P r o f e s s i o n a l  G e o g r a p h e r 16-17 (November 1964): 9-13. Monsen, R. Joseph. "Who Owns the C i t y ? " L a n d E c o n o m i c s 37 (May 1961): 174-78. M u r p h y , R a y m o n d E. The C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e A t h e r t o n , 1972. , .Vance, J . E . , and E p s t e i n , B . J . C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t S t u d i e s . W o r c e s t e r , M a s s . : C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y , 1955. N i e , N o r m a n and Dent, D.H. S. P. S. S. New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1970. R a n n e l l s , J . The C o r e of the C i t y . New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1956. Rowlands, D.T. U r b a n R e a l E s t a t e R e s e a r c h . Washington: U r b a n L a n d I n s t i t u t e , 1969. 85 S e y f r i e d , W a r r e n R. and Appelo, B. A. " L a n d T e n u r e i n the C e n t r a l B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t . " L a n d E c o n o m i c s 42 (May 1966): 171-78. T a k a h a s h i , D.L. "C.B.D. O f f i c e L o c a t i o n P a t t e r n s " . V a n c o u v e r : U n i v e r s i t y of B. C. , u n p u b l i s h e d M. A. t h e s i s , 1972. Va n c o u v e r , T o w n P l a n n i n g B o a r d . Downtown V a n c o u v e r 1955-1976. August 1956. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099897/manifest

Comment

Related Items