UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A locational analysis of third sector housing : the case of co-operatives Phipps, Valerie Dale 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 P54.pdf [ 6.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100183.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100183-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100183-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100183-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100183-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100183-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100183-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100183-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100183.ris

Full Text

A LOCATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THIRD SECTOR HOUSING: THE CASE OF  CO-OPERATIVES by  V a l e r i e Dale Phipps B.A., McMaster U n i v e r s i t y ,  A THESIS SUBMITTED  1975  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Dept. o f Geography)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to t h e r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January, 1979  ©  V a l e r i e Dale P h i p p s , 1979  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y I  in p a r t i a l  the U n i v e r s i t y  s h a l l make i t  freely  f u l f i l m e n t o f the of B r i t i s h  available  for  requirements  Columbia,  I agree  for  that  reference and study.  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 copying o f t h i s  thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s of  representatives.  this  It  thesis for financial  i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n gain shall  written permission.  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date  J)-AJ  Ib/lJ  Columbia  not be allowed without my  ii  ABSTRACT  Events housing growth  the  i s to  be  to  faction  with  housing  has  housing the  field.  co-operative  housing  the A  to  away  of  met,  from  private  emergence  third  be  objective of  two  co-op  and  the  objective  was  to  identify  of  of  a  the  This  third  study  of  and  an  various  new  public  sector  sector'  emphasis  in on  organizations i s concerned  was  to  in  the  Canada.  describe  that  the --  co-operative.  spatial  factors  and  with  co-operative housing  continuing housing analyze  i f  i f  Dissatis-  sector housing  this  types  study  that  traditional"  'third  sector places  of  or  i s necessary.  forms  societies.  distribution  second  the  component  primary  building  a move  to  demonstrated  involves non-profit housing  co-operative  order  in  have  are  development  This  and  spatial  years  Canadians  traditional  resulted  housing  The  of  few  accommodated,  voluntarism,  the  past  requirements  approaches  the  of  distribution  have  led  to  in  this  distribution. The the  analysis  urban.  examined  At  the  including  institutions  as  encompassed national  scale,  government  they  relate  two  to  At  are  used  p a t t e r n of  in  the  analyze  Greater  Toronto.  the  Vancouver  the  the  c o n t i n u i n g co-ops.  Discriminant analysis  demographic  and  physical  scale,  the of  national  factors  District applied to  and  were  the  role  of  of  both  building  two  and to  support  methodologies  continuing housing  was  variables  and  location  urban  Regional  --  a variety  policies  and  to  scales  co-ops  Metropolitan a.number  distinguish  of  between  i i i  local Then  areas three  couver  with case  housing  s t u d i e s of  projects  community  co-op  were  attitude  the  examined  i n the  and  those  areas  development to  process  determine  spatial  without.  the  of  role  distribution  of  Van-  of  co-operative  housing. Although in  every  was  province  shown  their  co-operative housing  to  be  origins  quite  in  Canada  emphasis.  atives  are  Canada  factors  of  was  the  sponsor  from  the  significant been  movements.  to  be  District the  the  projects  have  urban  quite  and  are  housing these  identified  by  cases  For  1950's, More  provincial  always  scale,  new  version  as  both  identified  and  by  located  been  i n the  are in  divergent  co-ops,  as  with  the  the  each  the  sponsoring  p a t t e r n s , the  discriminant analysis,  co-ops  Catholic  Church  the  role  of  agencies.  by  the  co-operative  co-operatives  Vancouver  Regional  Vancouver  most  developments  central  co-oper-  determining  housing  In  have  eastern  recently,  Greater  type  central-to-  building  sponsored  principally  a  the  located  which  definite  continuing housing  townhouse  they  a  but  i n Metropolitan Toronto.  i n Toronto  of  In  is  p a t t e r n of  coast,  support.  different  whereas  result  to  form  continuing housing  sponsor.  assumed  and  seen  were  1940's  co-ops  At  coast  financial  Continuing labour  exhibit  Alternatively,  during  has  spatial Building  Maritimes,  orientation.  and  most  the  distinct.  development  institution developed  the  found  western  i n Canada,  in either  in  the  region.  of  periphery  rehabilitation city  were  As  or  con-  a  locational  determinants,  were  different.  quite  iv  In  Vancouver  five  variables  were  percentage  of houses  which  population  with  university  the  employed  some  occupations,  residents  less  capita.  without data  p a t t e r n was Community  were  identified  housing not  co-ops  education,  percentage  areas  was  co-ops  when  attitude  t o be o f  and l o c a t i o n a l  i n Vancouver. generate  conflict.  with per  not able to and  the  those  Toronto resultant  significance. conflict  determinants  However,  of  and  units  Metro  to d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , too g e n e r a l  of  dwellings  housing  with  Furthermore,  as key l o c a t i o n a l  a l lp r o j e c t s  managerial  of occupied  and s o c i a l  between  were t h e  the percentage  discriminant function  Toronto.  subjected  these  the percentage  professional,  one y e a r ,  distinguish  i n Metro  were  spatial  than  The V a n c o u v e r  adequately  are detached,  population with  technical  selected;  i t was  resolution  of c o n t i n u i n g also  found  that  V  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS Page  A b s t r a c t , . . , , . . , , . , . , , . . , List  of Tables  List  of F i g u r e s  i i v i i  ,  ix  Acknowledgements  .  x  Chapter 1  INTRODUCTION  2,  AN IN  OVERVIEW CANADA  1  OF  CO-OPERATIVE  , ,  An I n t r o d u c t i o n Housing Building A Review  RESEARCH  i n Canada: ,  15  Co-operatives 21  26 to Methodology  The  Data  The  Statistical  Spatial  26 27  Analysis  34  Procedure  C O - O P E R A T I V E HOUSING The  10  DESIGN  Statistical  38  I N CANADA  and T e m p o r a l  43 Patterns  An A n a l y s i s o f t h e P a t t e r n s B u i l d i n g Co-op P r o j e c t s  of  An  of  Analysis  Continuing  10  Co-operative  Housing A Review  Introduction  4  to  Co-operatives  Continuing i n Canada:  3  HOUSING  of the Patterns Co-operative  Future D i r e c t i o n s Housing i n Canada  of  . . . .  43  52  Housing  . , . . ,  Co-operative , , , , , ,  64  77  vi  Chapter 5  Page CONTINUING SELECTED  C O - O P E R A T I V E HOUSING  URBAN  83  Spatial  The  Discriminant  and T e m p o r a l  Discussion  Components Future  Co-op  6  AREAS  The  A  IN  Analysis  of the  of Urban  , , , .  83  , , ,  93  Spatial Housing  D i r e c t i o n s of  Housing  Patterns  Co-ops  . . . .  113  Continuing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  128  CONCLUSIONS  132  SELECTED  139  BIBLIOGRAPHY  APPENDICES I II  III  Continuing Co-operatives i n Canada Variable C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Before Normalization . N o r m a l i z a t i o n and R e s u l t i n g Characteristics F l y e r D i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e Community Opposed t o P e n t a  148 . . . .  148  ,  152 15:4 155  vii  LIST  OF T A B L E S  Table I  Page Types  of  Operation  Adopted  by  Housing  Co-operatives  of  Quebec,  II  The  or  Classification  III  Co-operative  IV  Number  Confusion  of  Building  Completed V  Building  Housing  -  1937-1965  Units  Co-op  in  19  Matrix  ,  Canada  ,  45  1940-1977  Co-ops Co-op  in  49  Urban  Housing  Centres Units  .  .  .  .  VII  C o n t i n u i n g Co-ops i n M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a s , 1977 D i s t r i b u t i o n of H o u s i n g Co-operatives i n Q u e b e c by N u m b e r o f H o u s e s B u i l t by E a c h C o - o p B u i l d i n g C o - o p s i n Sydney and S a c k v i l l e ,  .  Completed  . .  . .  50 ,  XI XII  XIII  XIV  XV  Completion  51  53 59  1965-1973 X  41  Units  Continuing  IX  .  . . . . .  VI  VIII  .  63 Dates  of  1974  Funded  C o n t i n u i n g Co-ops i n Greater Regional D i s t r i c t C o n t i n u i n g Housing Co-ops i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto Type of C o n s t r u c t i o n i n M e t r o T o r o n t o and  i n Co-op GVRD  Projects  78  Vancouver .  .  .  ,  85 87  Projects 89  Discriminant Function Coefficients GVRD N o r m a l i z e d D a t a ( D F 1 ) P r e d i c t i o n R e s u l t s of Confusion Matrix . ,  . . .  DF1 - The . , , . . .  for ,  .  .  „  .  ,  ,  ,  .  100  101  v i i i  Table XVI  XVII  XVIII  XIX  XX  - Page Discriminant f o r GVRD Raw  Function Coefficients D a t a CDF2)  Prediction Results Confusion Matrix  o f DF2  105 DF2  to  Discriminant Function Coefficients f o r Metro Toronto (DF3)  Discriminant Means  104  - The  Prediction Results Applying M e t r o T o r o n t o Raw D a t a  Prediction Results  , , , ,  of  Function  107  , ,  110  Toronto (DF3)  XXI  Group  f o r Selected  Variables  XXII  C o m p a r i s o n o f Co-op A r e a Means w i t h O v e r a l l Means f o r S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s  I l l 115  117  ix  LIST  OF  FIGURES  Figure  Page  1  Local  Planning  Areas  i n t h e GVRD  2  Minor  Planning  Districts  35  i n Metro  Toronto  36  3  Co-operative  4  Growth in  Housing  i n Canada  of Co-operative  44  Projects  Canada  46  5  Number  6  Continuing  Housing  Co-ops  i n GVRD  7  Continuing  Housing  Co-ops  i n Metro  8  Skewness and K u r t o s i s Normalization Skewness and K u r t o s i s Normalization  9  «  of Projects  Completed  1972-1977  of Variables  . , . .  .. , Toronto  92 94  , .  95  Before 98  of V a r i a b l e s  After 99  10  DF1 P r e d i c t e d  Co-op  Locations  102  11  DF2 P r e d i c t e d  Co-op  Locations  106  12  DF2 P r e d i c t e d Metro Toronto  Co<-op L o c a t i o n s f o r  DF3 P r e d i c t e d  Co-op  13  109 Locations  112  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Many course  people  of study.  without  their  have  offered  I would  support  like  this  their  support  to thank  thesis  would  throughout  my  a l l o f them, f o r never  have  become  a  reality. In  particular,  I would  like  f o rh i s assistance,  t o thank  John  Mercer,  most  importantly, f o rh i spatience. Gratitude  with data. Lloyd  Special  and S h i r l e y  family,  ment  thanks  and moral  who  I would my  support.  f o r their like  to those  supplied  i s extended  Schmid  especially  constructive  expressed  co-operative housing  Finally, my  i s also  much  to David  a d v i s o r , Dr. c r i t i c i s m and,  people  involved  of the required Jackson,  Tony  assistance.  to express  husband,  my  my  for their  indebtedness constant  to  encourage-  CHAPTER  1  INTRODUCTION  The  "housing  has  repeatedly  and  reform  problem"  attracted  movements  i s one  of the major  the attention  since  the time  of p o l i t i c i a n s ,  of the problem  absolute  quality  of h o u s i n g ,  to relative  to  affordability  constraints  of housing  to  the market.  condition  particularly  difficult  housing  have  changed  service  whose  income  clearly  Federal the  reflected of Urban  circumstances, (Hansard,  right  attitude  that  independence, best,  public  home  ownership  therefore,  we  "in a rented  housing  ownership  housing,  attitudes  by  The p r e s e n t  Ron  access problem  towards  i s a good  regardless  with people  then that  the  of t h e i r  i n Ontario position  i ti s economic  cost" Economic i s the  are proud  of  their  regarded  as  second  i s generally  (Donnison  the  at reasonable  this  is  position is  p r i n c i p l e that  186, q u o t e d  whose  by  or  the usual  Basford,  as an o c c a s i o n a l l y  as t h e i d e a l " have  governed  shelter  Co-existing  country  of  of the  the housing  housing  the basic  adequate  1 1 , 1 9 7 3 , p.  1976, p. 5 ) .  makes  statement  of Canadians,  Council,  one  and a h o u s e h o l d ' s  that  Honourable  has "adopted  to enjoy  The  t o t h e p o s i t i o n where h o u s i n g  for a l l .  Affairs,  right  January  be  i n the f o l l o w i n g  Government  fundamental  should  from  shortages  Government  the b e l i e f  constraints,  as a b a s i c  Minister  from  changing  of f l u x  to solve.  consumption  or wealth  regarded  is continually  that  academics  of C o n f e d e r a t i o n .  emphasis  This  issues  necessary  1968, p.  a s i t u a t i o n of everyone  evil,  56).  supposedly  In  and Canada,  having  -  the  right  same  to  time  adequate  most  people  detached  dwellings  1972,  3).  p.  The  of  majority  the  of  problems  quality.  shortages the  a  in local  centres  and  In  of  1969  the In  Estate  Board  1977).  I t has  sector,  which  is  not  able  sectors going  to  of  to the  backwards  to  to  was  and  by  i n 1974,  that  housing  population i n making  at  (Marsh housing  of an  the  affordable  1976). more  In  Estate to  to in  the  existing  homes  1972,  increasingly most  of  1969  quoted  apparent  urban  residential  Real  from  increase  in  price  $28,945;  $40,605  to  land  acquire  doubled  population  soared  continue  the  are  temporary  and  Metropolitan Toronto,  developed  produce  price  becoming  s u p p l y rand  have  selling  vast  requirements  formation  to  the  absolute  restricted  S e r v i c e of  almost  are  of  serviced  average  preclude  consequently,  money  Listing  i t jumped  of  the  family-  for a  housing  prices  at  (Michelson  goals  those  and  single  living  for housing  borrowing The  of  housing  the  housing  selling  become has  less  increased cost  of  of  household  prices  new  of  urban  1972);  Due  cost,  ideal"  f o r measuring  due  Multiple  1973  day  and  Audain  1968).  average  ownership  incompatible  Metropolitan Toronto  $32,513. (Real  the  reasonable  Problems  occur.  cost  (Illing  through  Board  and  markets,  "the  the  to  present  methods  Eurthermore,  property" sold  of  demands  of  a  affordability  frequently  result  at  "unswerving  possibly  (Armitage  recently. as  of  increasing  changes  their  population.  Present  inadequate  as  these  -  aspiring  realities  realization  more  housing  2  i t  Michelson private  level  affordable.  was  $52,806  housing  fact,  1974.  for a l l  Canada A  stock,  may  recent  be  -  review  of Canadian  income  spent  highest year  f o rwhich  from  quintiles  from  data  available.  f o r the lowest  on/Social  housing away  ..  from  purchase tenants  .  requirements  their  The  sector's  towards  multiple  housing  starts  family  were  many,  even  the cost  Realizing  the  Housing  Assistance  In  1963. o n l y  Housing this p.  had r i s e n  14).  housing  Even  starts,  elsewhere. private  development  they  Programs  sector  for  traditional  f i l l  t h e needs  their  housing,  be  a r e becoming  reflect  housing  of people  i n this  However, f o r  sector  increased  i n the late starts  were  by F e d e r a l  i n federally  public  move  r e n t a l accommodation i s  activity  income  this  by 1976, t h e p r o p o r t i o n  the p u b l i c  are l e f t  income  housing.  sixties. funded  C.M.H.C. 1 9 7 7 , low income  t o seek enough  level  housing  to afford  i s too high  I n an a t t e m p t  gap, a ' t h i r d '  under  legislation;  assisted  i s not high  and y e t t h e i r  state-owned of those  will  are unable to  1977, p. 7 0 ) .  authorized  increase  the majority  F o r many,  the  I n 1962, 26% o f t h e t o t a l  sector  fact,  Programs  starts  dwellings;  C.M.H.C.  this  this  i f  a r e t o b e m e t , a move  t o 8.7% i n 1976 ( c a l c u l a t e d f r o m with  increased  of the population  1.6% o f t h e t o t a l  Assistance  were  Consequently,  to housing  housing  of p r i v a t e  great.  recent  dwellings.  multiple  too  1977 ) .  dwellings.  71% ( c a l c u l a t e d from  the  22.0% to 23.1% (Canadian  and as a r e s u l t ,  unit  private  the lowest  of Canadians  proportions  i n multiple  f o ra l l but  The i n c r e a s e s  from  approaches  own home,  t h e p r o p o r t i o n of  increased  two q u i n t i l e s ;  Development,  Larger  that  1969 t o 1 9 7 2 , t h e most  the second  traditional  necessary.  was  were  28.9% t o 29.9%;  Council  indicates  by f a m i l i e s on s h e l t e r  income  greatest  housing  3 -  sector  to  i n the  -  housing  a  field  has d e v e l o p e d  Since  the ' t h i r d '  recognizable  elements, active  in this  providing formed would for  outlook  have  are  f o r others,  owned  housing  differences Non-profit  are often  such  associations,  church  co-operative (Haire is  often  Although  an h i a t u s  s t i l l  club  have  their  housing  provides societies  and management and  sector  these  bases.  voluntary  clubs,  ethnic whereas the  and t r a d e  between take  in  groups,  or s e r v i c e  i n third  The  institutional base  —  providing  different  citizens'  groups  sector  Co-operative  out of the c r e d i t  exists  vary; f o r  that  are usually  i n their  the separation  as c i t i z e n s '  housing  societies.  are often  organizations grew  (an example  and f o r o t h e r s , i t  the o r g a n i z a t i o n  groups  reflected  who  as n e i g h b o u r h o o d  movement  1975).  narrowing  both,  two  a r e newly  also  i n the third  citizens.  b y members  organizations  associations,  goal  i s the service  Thus,  group  constructing  and c o - o p e r a t i v e  f o r themselves.  and a  goal.  e.g. s e n i o r  of t h e s e  groups  of the groups  elements  group  and o p e r a t e d  philosophies  other  a r e two m a j o r  non-profit  established  and p a r t i c i p a t o r y n a t u r e  t o some  inveterate  of t h e groups  be a c h u r c h  society  as  different  organization  Other  i s the primary  organizations  i n long  would  emerged  s o many  Some  a hierarchial  co-operative  non-profit  housing  basis  (an example  itself  a means  There  to d e f i n e .  The m o t i v a t i o n s  the housing  recently  i t includes  their  with  a democratic  a building  merely  has only  f o r the e l d e r l y ) .  themselves).  some is  be  sector  housing  with  sector  difficult  associations  paternalistic  i n Canada.  e n t i t y , and s i n c e  i t i s very  voluntary  4 -  these  two  on a s p e c t s housing.  unions groups of  -  This of  third  project  study  project  incorporated  NHA  Canada,  by  the  1973/74,  recognizes  two  with  i n Canada.  the  built  under  -  concerned  sector housing is defined  "housing  of  is  5  A  co-operative  co-operative  N a t i o n a l Housing  or  acquired  laws  Chapter types  the  of  of  by  Canada  18,  a  housing  (NHA)  as  co-operative  or  Section  Act  any  component  association  province"  ( 1 ) , p.  (S t a t u t e s  327).  co-operative housing,  a  as  The follows:  (a)  a co-operative a s s o c i a t i o n that i s c o n s t r u c t i n g , a c q u i r i n g or i m p r o v i n g h o u s i n g w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of s e l l i n g t h e h o u s e s t o t h e members of t h e association; and  (b)  a co-operative a s s o c i a t i o n that i s a n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n as d e f i n e d i n s u b - s e c t i o n 1 5 . 1 ( 3 ) , and i s c o n s t r u c t i n g , a c q u i r i n g or i m p r o v i n g a h o u s i n g project w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of p r o v i d i n g h o u s i n g t o p e r s o n s , t h e m a j o r i t y Of whom a r e members o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n , who will o c c u p y t h e h o u s i n g o t h e r w i s e t h a n as owners upon c o m p l e t i o n of t h e p r o j e c t . ( S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1973/74, C h a p t e r 18, Sub-section 34.18, pp. 343-344)  These  types  continuing  correspond housing  distinctions  will  Perhaps of  these  types  the  building  be a  d i s c u s s e d more result  housing,  of  the  in  co-op  housing  existing  knowledge,  there  are  the  history  Dineen Simpson  1975,  consists of  various  Laidlaw  1976).  of  None  a  series  projects  1975, of  four of  Canada.  (Arnold  are  of  of  2. and  scarcity  respect  works  Cochran  Schmid  analytical,  the  important  emphasis.  1940,  1976,  and  academic  With  descriptive  Pomperleau  these  newness  paucity  areas  these  i n Chapter  relative  is a  concerning  group  fully  there  research  first  co-operative  co-operative, respectively;  as of  with  but  to  The outlining 1968,  1974, they  provide  - 6 many  insights  from  an  into  co-operative housing  'insider's' The  second  analysis  and  and  1972,  Fish  point body  du  Quebec  1958).  Each  of  these  housing  is a viable  its fullest  for  this  (Clark  1986,  potential  Programs  i n Search  need  a  for  of  definitive  a  1975,  Le  expresses  form  as  concerned  that  The  federal  and  In  policy  policy  1970,  Dennis  Want  been  two  of  a  la  that  primary by  de  1974,  view  not  illustrated  Policy  Roach  the  has  with  Conseil  1962,  i n Canada.  underdevelopment,  is written  Constantinu  Midmore  authors  is  1975,  Haire  housing  each  view.  literature  1973,  Co-operation  to  of  performance Jordan  of  as  Scott co-op  utilized  reason  given  of  titles  the  Policy  --  is  --  a  statement  for  co-operative  economics  and  financing  housing. The  third  co-operative  group  housing  (Chen  These  s t u d i e s advance  costs  experienced  of  tenure,  of  labour  in  of  to  co-op  the  The  area  concerned  to  to  a  co-operative similar  the  long  the are  scale  term  savings not  of  Willcox  as  in  1953). housing  a result  of  enterprise,  financing.  i s seen  of  most  with  recent  the  The  the  form  substitution  chief  passing  apartments Sullivan  housing  structures,  and  project co-ops  1971).  i s not both  interest  residential  c o n t i n u i n g co-op  1976,  that  1953,  of  on  of  these  consumer.  last  condominiums,  Haar  housing  housing  is  Davidson  idea  from  and  housing move  the  the  1971,  co-op  rather  f o r money  advantage savings  but  examines  and  the  comparisons and  different  complexes  and  decision  between  Breslauer  s t u d i e s have  significantly  apartment  co-operative  satisfaction,  (Andrews  These  in  shown from  1976a-e,  that other  townhouses,  in  -  terms  of  residential  Most  r e s i d e n t s are  that  are  not  regarding some  principles project as  and  housing,  purpose The  emphasis. housing ation  the  have  co-ops,  although  indirectly  residential  co-operative An  at  the  for  this  order  an  add  of  the  of  such  co-op the  works  these  things  as  housing  ideology  merely and  the  and  spatial  the  and  four  above  decision  of  configurmentioned  aspects  Breslauer  housing  areas  co-operative  locational  co-op the  to  the  of  Andrews of  these  as to  a  of  are  concerned  determinant  move  to  a  project.  of  of  this  building  i n Canada.  scale.  history This  data  study  and To  is  to  continuing achieve  (1937 set  -  describe types  this,  1977)  data  for  i s described  the  of were  co-op  housing  graphically,  verbally.  objective identify  distribution.  of  None  with by  of  dimension  projects.  entire  and  new  each  examination  objective  housing  to  ignorant  a  location  housing  second  seen  those  Specifically,  implications  had  move.  information  tenure.  in  to  choices;  incomplete  the  overlaps  satisfaction  national  A in  the the  cartographically  ion  also  distribution  collected  of  or  concerned  initial  co-operative  aware  study  with  been  with  housing  co-operative  These-people  existing  studies  their  decision  co-operation.  It w i l l  the  with  the  required participation  present  research  of  spatial  not  of  ignoring  of  and  i n a c c u r a t e or  principles  management.  cheap  social  of  satisfied  r e s i d e n t s were  -  satisfaction  o f t e n had  the  7  The  i s to  the  analyze  various  analysis  this  factors  encompasses  spatial that two  have  distributled  scales;  to  the  - 8 national  and  Vancouver for  the  Regional  contrast.  examined  projects.  as  At  ologies.  and  between  local  three  they  national  relate  urban  As  areas  case  of  for  choice  of  a  study  of  decision-making  conflict; each  of  of  and  the  adopted. initial  of  other  Each  entails  of  confident  be  an  three. the  completion  other  of  of  that  approaches.  overview  an  the  and  approach  of  are  support  a number to  methodof  demo-  distinguish areas  in  without.  are  the  examined  spatial  housing. problem, In  the  a major  decision  case  co-operative  seemed  third,  overview I t was  the  the  study  involved.  of  study  locational aspects  of  which  In  have  been  the  was  relative  available. difficult  was  of  paucity  i n Canada  study  an  case  m a t e r i a l f o r any  the  This  were,  detailed  i n f o r m a t i o n was  sufficient  taken.  These  approach  co-operative housing was  of  involves  implied, in part,  i t would  i s because  a  involving  methods  little  study,  second,  latter  phenomena  very  of  possible.  a  study  three  t h e r e was It  discussed  two  process  attitudes  Greater  co-operative  those  development  analysis  this  to  attempt  housing  community  other  information concerning  general  in  process;  co-operative housing,  to  i s applied  innovation diffusion;  understanding  to  of  analysis  of  fourth,  Prior  the  the  a methodology.  first,  role  scale,  research  methods  the of  co-op  the  factors  location  of  four  and  of  the  with  housing,  is  a variety  policies,  co-operative any  examined  M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto  scale,  variables  role  area  of  s t u d i e s of  the  distribution  the  with  government  physical  determine  the  the  the  urban  Discriminant analysis  graphic  to  At  The  District,  including  institutions  Then,  urban.  seen  that to  a be  -  one  which  co-op  would  l a y the foundation  organization  Some b a s i c housing  movement  historical  co-operatives  chapter  overview  o f b u i l d i n g and  i n the  3 presents into  In  Chapter  results  discussed. case  four  of the  5,  Community  findings.  co-operative  In a d d i t i o n , a  continuing  housing  design  sections  for this  dealing  with  d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e  study. an  data  a n a l y s i s , and  procedure.  a d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s of both  the p a t t e r n s Regional  of the d i s c r i m i n a n t  studies  geography  follows:  chapter.  the research  patterns  Vancouver  b u i l d i n g and  6,concludes It also  and  of c o n t i n u i n g District  of the  continuing  analyses  process  the study  positions  i n the housing  this  c o - o p e r a t i v e s «•  are i n v e s t i g a t e d .  are presented  a t t i t u d e s a r e examined  of the development  Chapter the  in  i n Canada.  the Greater  The  4 contains  temporal  co-operatives  in  research  an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e s t a t i s t i c a l  Chapter and  2.  i n Chapter  d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t  spatial  i s as  and p r i n c i p l e s  to the methodology,  requirements,  of  are provided  i s divided  introduction  a  for further  of the t h e s i s  definitions  i s found  Chapter The  -  housing. The  brief  9  through  three  of c o n t i n u i n g  with study  literature.  a short i n both  and  co-operatives.  summary the  of  field  2  CHAPTER  AN  The variety  term  of  by  variety brief  An  The  purpose  review  of  Introduction  Canadians  the  Other  popular  wheat  pools,  comparison,  There as  of  of  care  sector i s no  the  concept  identified  populaires institutions  this  and  housing,  used  in  provide  and  to  is  clarify  provides  still  in  a  a  credit  unions,  i t s infancy,  ways  of  By is  not  co-operative  i n which  housing  Willcox  home  to  century.  insurance.  definition  for  1953),  i n Canada  unions.  financing for  a  known  movement.  Five  1971a,  been  over  automobile  simple  credit  for  include  financing, i s represented  ( i n Quebec)  and  to  Canada,  co-ops  in obtaining  (Laidlaw  e x p l a i n what  chapter  co-operative or  condominiums  e n t e r p r i s e has  i s complex.  are  i s to thesis,  activities  the  luxury  a  Housing  consumer  precise  have  this  housing  centres  of  methods  co-operative  in  Secondly,  co-operative day  from  co-operative  form  i s associated with  chapter  Co-operative  operative been  housing  co-operative  well-known  housing  to  notion in  this  co-operative  HOUSING  housing'  ranging  of  terminology.  The  a  types,  co-operative of  OF C O - O P E R A T I V E IN CANADA  'co-operative  housing  communes. meant  OVERVIEW  These  purchase  by  co-  consumers The the  first, caisses  co-operative or  improve-  ments . A  second  method  of  obtaining  -  10  -  housing  co-operatively is  -  through  co-operative  jointly  purchase  construction done  in a  common  of  unknown  third  type,  the  producers  form the  i n Canada,  of  families  structing  homes  individually.  as  an  Actual  ownership leasing  has  paid,  original the  form  with  homes  homes  adopted  co-ops  The of  the and  mortgages.  i n Nova  housing a  are  type,  after  fourth  are  the  the  for be  type,  the  group  group the  Scotia  be is  than  This  although  i t is  i t s housing  this  occurs  a  This  type  war,  and  of the  con-  members  Once  late  remains  amortized.  period, the  This  take  was  nineteen  over  the  co-operative recently this and  with  mortgage the thirties.  i s d i s s o l v e d when  fifth  structure being  is  this  owned.  adopted  i s the  of  building  mortgage  the  families  the  when  co-operative  co-op.  in  by  of  during  co-operative  co-operative  may  rather  purpose  owned  individually  the  the  types  S c o t i a have  co-operative  form,  two  the  from  i n Nova  i s completed,  in Ontario  building  example  their  the  individual  common  the  eventually  with  the  1971),  continuing  remains  terminat ing  struction  the  of  much  to  for  housing.  provided  there  This  housing,  and  organization until  families been  will  group  arrangements  provide  co-operative  Canada  In  intact  a  owned.  of  a  materials  these  to  form  co-operative,  Greve  building,  form  In  has  1970,  which  co-operatives.  In  builders'  Constantinu  of  co-operative  Sweden  Co-operative group  a  or  individually none  called  (see  be  but  the  been  to  may  supplies  ways,  In  has  building  People  of  Canada.  consumers,  way  homes  in  the  -  purchasing.  land,  number  11  con-  dwellings was  quite  formed arrangement. most  utilized  to  advanced produce  -  housing.  The  term  housing  12  -  co-operative  with  co-operative housing;  the  type  of  second  co-op,  co-operative members but  housing  never  have  whereas  assume  ownership  Thus  the  tenants  must  qualify  by  the  ownership  i n the  become being  tenants.  that  distinguish  Co-operative after ment  the  pioneer  started  Co-operative principles sally  principles  other  are  of  the are:  set  down  six principles International (Laidlaw  and  housing  landlords  usually  occurs  as  of  on  certain  the  English  1938).  Although  approved  that by  principles  Alliance.  open  membership;  (2)  democratic c o n t r o l v i a the of one member-one v o t e ;  (3)  limited  (4)  s u r p l u s e a r n i n g s ( p r o f i t ) b e l o n g to t h e m e m b e r s ( c u s t o m e r s ) on a p r o p o r t i o n a t e b a s i s a c c o r d i n g to p u r chase or b u s i n e s s done;  principle  capital;  move-  Interthese  is univer-  the  (.1)  on  businesses.  1955,  1971b)  interest  principles  consumers  Bailey  Co-operative  voluntary  multiple  arrange^  Rochdale  i n a manner  were  of  areas. co-operative  (see  units,  (owners)  form  the  Saunders  been  the  newest  called  C o u n c i l 1975, not  general  o r g a n i z a t i o n s or  often  co-operative  particular  co-operatives,  the  based  i n 1844  have  of  from  confused  i s the  types  are  be  i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  urban  in Lancashire  accepted,  Congress  production  principles  and  in large  different  them  and  a  the  of  shares  This  i n Canada,  these  f o r housing  of  landlords,  developments  merits  form  housing  not  to  to  individual  unit  of  refers  In  housing  Each  refers  movement.  co-operative housing  first  should  1966  World  These  -  Although housing will  (6)  co-operation  be d i s c u s s e d  persons  who  participate  other  forms  co-op  housing  apply  i n good  members  should  seek  take  as a c t i v e l y  part  Limited housing.  housing  co-op,  ownership,  to  are relevant.  Each  on t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  by  are w i l l i n g  a certain  are not allowed.  housing  hence  families  vote  units  in specific  principle  a member  i n the a f f a i r s  refers  of  racial  or  time  determines  of equity  Although  dollars  t h e co-op  of the  in  other held  group.  than  by  the  private How-  i s always and  alternatives  1975).  his initial  exist,  Foundation This  to  co-oper-:  the equity.  Housing  (Laidlaw  each  a l l members  i s important  several  of the Co-operative  areas.  to equity  c o - o p e r a t i v e s , ownership  leaves  degree  implies that  a r e a t some  system  the issue  policy  to  Furthermore,  In a l l co-operative procedures  involves constant  when  While  on c a p i t a l  clarification;  official  a n d who  i s open t o  i s required f o r success,  as p o s s i b l e  interest  i n the housing  requires  way'.  project  The aim i s t o e n c o u r a g e  and t h e market  collective,  that  principles  t o e l i m i n a t e t h e s e g r e g a t i o n and  o f low income  has one v o t e .  Canada  they  drawing  faith,  of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  household  the  apparent,  i n turn,  The one member-one  ever,  of these  i n a co-operative housing  among  concentration  ative  co-operatives.  of each  ' i n a reasonable  compatibility  (3)  among  (1971b).  Membership  (2)  education;  i s not immediately  Laidlaw  all  member  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  now  (1)  ( 5 ):  13 -  of  means  contribution  -  or  down  payment  increases  in  would  (4)  Monthly  be  adjusted  is returned,  the  member  market  then  pay  costs  proportionate  to  three  unit  bedroom  bedroom income  unit. in a  more  for  a  This  results  families  (5)  two  housing  to  involved unit.  give  members  important  in  the  social  goals,  (6)  The  members  care  centres, via  which  to  form  and  the  would  of  household with  high  with the  a  to  of  of  a l l the  two  will  pay  income  housing  factors  project  Another  project.  members  towards  participation  among such  other  about factors  facet  of  desirable  i n community  co-operatives as  This  and/or  knowledgeable  the  co-ops.  a  a  co-operative  and  consumer  with  income.  higher  requirements,  co-ops,  be  household  income low  may  families,  become  other  Co-operative  a  and  shall  related  a  a l l types  a  involved,  charges  also  with  incoming  payment,  household  with  income  to  a  families  co-operation  education  are  subsidy,  encourages  include  of  than  any  The  down  Therefore,  maintaining  management  a  monthly  understanding  member  program  as  These  than  lower  an  property.  families  maintenance  concept  ages  pursued  and  each  details,  education  the  reflect  a l l costs  more  is essential  financing  the  internal  i n owning  Ideally,  unit  to  cover  charges  manner;  subsidizing  Education  pay  bonus  amount  occupied.  bedroom  i n an  the  larger  monthly  similar  of  change.  would  The  a  should  space  -  plus  value  the  charges  as  14  affairs.  encour^  credit, unions,  principle  is  day-  often  program.  housing  is clearly  very  different  from  other  -  types  of  housing.  tenants. various  Occupants  Furthermore, forms  of  to  housing  satisfying  market  economy  housing prise  the  has  and  Building  a  an  supply  and  in  i n Reserve  but in  the  been  University economic be  Reverend study was  study Nova  the  nature;  the  a  1  complete  depression,  of  groups, Scotia,  A  and  known  through 1933,  through  to  his  and  a  Father  consisting turned  the  of  the  the  outline  broad  the  of  program  Father  education  of  Canada, program  story  at  the  had  program  and  common  of  a  is  Xavier  social  that  in  1940).  Francis  initiative  i n n o v a t i o n of  in  self-helf  Jimmy,  miners  started  community  first  One  grocery  Jimmy's  co-operative were  Arnold  St.  destinies.  eleven  enter-  i t s development  see  of  of  homes  mining  assumption  co-op  co-op  purpose.  form  first  account,  as  the  Thus  business  first  The  leaders  own  by  such  Review  present  the  in  co-op  not  met  and  part  see  social  of  on  take  housing  a  only  a  to  mainstream.  i s not  to  their  J . J . Tompkins,  I t was  brief  resting  are  impoverished  root  dedicated  masters  in  an  of  distinct  i n Canada,  the  (for a  progress  groups,  a  landlords  advocating  i t i s both  i n Canada:  project  States,  were  organized  1935.  as  here  During  should  seen  United  presented  consumption  outside  Mines,  this  Those  are  who  As  encouraged  needs  developed  Breton. has  and  c o - o p e r a t i v e s were  to  Cape  are  whose  Co-operatives  be  simultaneously  action.  organization with  housing 1938  are  those  dualistic  Building  -  members  collective  approaches as  15  people  leaders,  organized credit  was that  Reserve  co-operative  union  opened  in  one  his  of  Mines, housing  to  alleviate  ditions. United  time  Father  States  notions Since  their  of  the was  months  and  -  problems  of  high  were  and  cost  legal  of  government  Commission  Act  provided  75%  remaining limited Jimmy  was  labour  effort,  cost  being  provided  by  new  by  of  the  convince  the  government  Act, of  problems December in  with  their  members 25%  arose of  in  1938,  the the  Nova  the  rate  this  miners  allow  with  the  took new  and  Housing to  the As  provision,  to  six  Commission  with  of  up  few Father  co-operatives  any  construction  'Tompkinsville',  Scotia  involved.  As  of  the  c o n t r i b u t i n g "sweat  equity.  week,  philosophy,  house  group  the  topics:  through  Act,  utilized  the  period  interest  had  to  homes  3^2%  this  the  and  The  companies  lieu  many  however, their  in  a  A  a  construction  obtained 2  in  his  shifts  numerous  history  Under  finished  on  con-  problems.  three  planning,  at  with  housing or  housing  housing  combined  study  agency.  loans  poor  building.  was  the  able  under  housing  be  two  and  project  companies,  dividend  funding or  25%  only  and  self-help  their  organized  authorized  of  solve  co-operative  the  provincial  dividend  about  arrangements,  control,  Financing  to  studying  for  rents  i t could  working  for  required  heard  that  co-operatives  was  limited  had  felt  plentiful  design,  16  Jimmy  miners  financial  -  equity"  pioneering the  homes;  residence  suburb  of  in  Reserve  Mines. During housing  study  The  innovation  and  a  the  construction  groups of  continuing  were  of  formed  Tompkinsville, in other  building co-operatives organization  for  the  Nova with  term  of  co-operative  Scotian a  sweat  the  towns. equity  mortgage,  -  diffused groups and  had been  428  Co-op and  rapidly  to other financed  housing  groups  the f i r s t  1937.  were  t h e Nova homes  also  1953,  thirty-five  S c o t i a Housing  were  formed  Quebec's  15 h o u s e s  the  Extension  occupied  i n Prince  lique  adult  promoted  much  Commission,  (Roach  1974).  Edward  To  ordinator ment  unions,  to the Ligue  Island  also  movement often  played  was  being  provided  co-operatives  (Le C o n s e i l  1968).  I n many  they  cases  also  the i n i t i a t i v e  that  many  method  not only  f o r the p r o j e c t .  co-operative  of applying  de  housing  co-operative  Catho-  promotor  and c o -  i n Quebec,  Credit  t o members  provided  of  du  Quebec  the funding,  illustrates  projects utilize  move-  finance  l a Co-operation  techniques  i n Nova  of the c l e r g y ,  co-operative  This  i n Quebec  the co-operative  made  This  f o r use  Ouvriere  Department  role  by  University.  the support  60% o f a l l l o a n s  housing  published  co-operatives  However,  and o t h e r  followed  Catholique  the i n i t i a t o r ,  a supportive  consisted  I t had  Xavier  The L i q u e  added  co-op.  caisses populaires  institutions  i n 1941.  of housing  there i n  completed  Ouvriere  programs.  i n Quebec,  the i n c o r p o r a t i o n  t o be  as t h e E x t e n s i o n  of the housing  itself  co-op  of St, Francis  the development  parish priest  organized  beyond  i n Asbestos  education  this  was  groups  as s e t o u t i n a handbook  t h e same m a n n e r  Scotia. the  model  sent  inspired  proceeded  building  Department  had been  their  never  constructed  Tompkinsville  also  co-operative  first  the  booklet  success  building  I t , however,  stage.  in  by  By  Newfoundland.  and  in  -  communities.  co-operatively built  Tompkinsville's  of  17  more  the  than  to housing;  but fact  one  i n this  -  case, are  both  co-op  housing These  of  as  producer for  included  purchase  I  practices  seil  de  of  the  there  operation. tinguish taining  As  a  between to  projects  using  2 do the  not  completion the  of  co-operative as  merely and  result  the  of  data  of  and  housing  definition  the  co-operative  end  in  the  This  of  by  Quebec co-ops!,  the  the In  to  by  exclusive;  in  the  Con—  a l l  cases,  members.  the  mode  does  of  not  Data  dis-  per-  includes a l l  in Table  I.  As  types  b u i l d i n g co-ops  co-operative  title  used  was  utilized,  d i s s o l v e d upon  to  the  home was  reflects  the  fact  housing  itself,  as  sector  of  arranging houses  used  of  and  inflated.  project  and  of  1965.  behalf  other  co-ops  mutually  in  engage  members,  studied  complexity,  type(s)  an  not  uniformity  the  of  developers  are  on  of  factor  not  as  (C.C.Q)  are somewhat  member.  do  their  p r a c t i c e s noted  construction,  involvement.  of  combinations  land  this  the  co-op  construction  forms  co-operative the  act  the  b u i l d i n g co-ops  of  co-operative  which  co-operatives  absence  f i t into  individual  viewed  i s an  behalf  Quebec  purchases  any  Quebec  every  du  of  co-ops  various  housing  Quebec's  Regardless almost  41  on  These  the  l a Co-operation  Otherwise,  here,  land  contractors.  co-operative  and  which  the  types  of  building co-operatives,  contractors  of  of  purchasing  equity  demonstrates  evolution  not  finance  characteristics  variety  land  sweat  general  independent Table  i s the  co-operatives  the  to  co-operative  distinctive  i n Quebec  have  acting  1  the  construction,  the  b u i l d i n g and  -  used, One  in  18  but  project rather  was as  that  the  passed  on  the  incidental, a means  in  of  and prov  -  19  -  TABLE  I  T Y P E S OF O P E R A T I O N C O - O P E R A T I V E S OF  ADOPTED BY HOUSING QUEBEC 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 6 5 Number  Type  of Operation  1.  Construction  2.  C o n s t r u c t i o n by c o - o p , resident contractor  3.  4.  by  Co-operatives  independent then  1 then  Construction  next  then  by m e m b e r s h i p , by  independent  Construction  by m e m b e r s h i p  6.  Construction  by  co-op  7.  Construction co-op  by  membership,  10.  11.  by 1 by  contractor  5.  9.  6  by  C o n s t r u c t i o n by m e m b e r s h i p , independent contractor  co-op,  8.  contractor  1 3 11  then  by 9  C o n s t r u c t i o n b y m e m b e r s h i p , n e x t by i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r , t h e n by c o - o p  1  Land only (the i n d i v i d u a l the c o n t r a c t i n g )  5  looks  after  C o n s t r u c t i o n by m e m b e r s h i p t h e n by i n d i v i d u a l member  i n common,  C o n s t r u c t i o n by t h e c o - o p , i n d i v i d u a l member  then  1 by __2_ TOTAL  41  Notes: T h e w o r d ' c o - o p e r a t i v e ' o r 'co-op'' r e f e r s h e r e s p o n s o r i n g group, or the 'mother' s o c i e t y . The word actually society.  ' m e m b e r s h i p ' r e f e r s t o t h e p e o p l e who will occupy the completed u n i t s , or the 'daughter-  In a l l of t h e above c a s e s , the land f o r the p r o j e c t . Source:  Le  to the  Conseil  de  the c o - o p e r a t i v e  l a Co-operation  du  Quebec  purchases  1968,  p,  81,  -  viding  families  with  These  terminating  Table  I,  have  4,500 u n i t s  individual  been  quite  World  War  in Ontario.  developed  a  The  handbook  people  note  will  that  be  as  upon  financing  of  Housing  provide  1971).  In and  of  lower  the  More  sweat  by  the  800  under  been  rate  for  principle  of  the  Columbia.  location  i n Chapter  the  single  to  Catholic  through  to  family  Central  Although  here  Ontario, Mortgage  C.M.H.C, d i d  co-operative be  not  project  applied  building co-operative  Saskatchewan,  co-operative  in British  by  In  could  Ottawa  designed  i t is sufficient  recently, building co-operative  this  given  has  in  co-operatives,  sponsorship  come  were  houses  (Jordan were  mid-1950's.  in Manitoba,  be  program  building  4;  in  approximately  Patrick's College  (C.M.H.C.).  equity  listed  1958),  construction.  interest  developed  regarding  St.  a l l homes of  methods  1968),  building co-operatives  educational  b u i l d i n g co-ops  a  constructed  loped  few  (Scott  i n Chapter  completion  the  (C.C.Q,  i n Quebec, w i t h  repeated  discussed  Approximately  type  using  1957  1952, an  this  Corporation  for  mortgages,  II, a  i n Quebec,  ownership  and  by  ownership  interested in developing  significance  Church  home  popular  completed  developed  help  -  co-operatives,  being  After  20  4.  of  has  not  Data  yet and  projects  Alberta been  and  New  have  been  Brunswick;  s u c c e s s f u l l y deve-  further  information  building co-operatives  i n Canada  will  -  Continuing The  Housing first  Canadian  i n Winnipeg,  pools  credit  co-operative way  of  Manitoba housing Credit  In  staff  and  Society  of  When  of  satisfied  them  fall and  1959,  producer  operative  become  even  Sweden, they for  began  an  Canadians  ation  to  Housing 1960,  University  to  f o r use needs  knew  that  They  U.S.,  with  the  and  members  developed the  of  intent  develop of  went by New  the  New  of  low  u n a v a i l a b l e , many  of  and  York  local  experience,  consumer  of  applying  co-  and  moderate  income  interested  be  they  were  owned of  the  collectively  co-op  a  study  housing  winter  of  After  the  the  1959-60  organiz*Co-operative  i t s charter  in  co-operative  Foundation CHAM  in  co-operatives  provincial  received  Housing  the  but  housing.  to  in  had  aware  (CHAM)  However,  co-operatives  creating  such  United  York  Pomperleau  continuing housing  Manitoba to  1975,  methods  during  of  (Co—operative  leaders  of  Manitoba  co-operative  continued,  would  were  and  investigation  provide  individually.  Canada,  which  of  became  building  in eastern  the  with  study  of  a  group  was  wheat  i n the  Laidlaw  housing  housing  Association  investigating  the  built.  and  promote  two  housing  co-op  to  of  entrenched  university  together  to  group  i t was  Israel  the  housing  came  quite popular  after  methodology  1975,  co-operatives  developing  and  i n co-operative housing they  The  philosophy  intended  their  co-operative founding  become  near  Review  the  attempted  Manitoba land  A  Since  fifties,  faculty  techniques  families.  in  the  interest of  the  early  f o r themselves  1976).  their  Manitoba.  unions,  the  i n Canada;  continuing housing  e n t e r p r i s e s had  life.  -  Co-operatives  developed and  21  decided  (UHF), that  While the  UHF  -  model  could  projects members  easily  were  the  project.  980  housing  Winnipeg. for  t o CHAM  CHAM  proceeded  sisting houses would  approaches  to prepare  CMHC  not advance  unless  agreed  80% o f t h e u n i t s were  lack  of immediate  were  advanced  guaranteed  funds  other  co-operatives  years  to complete  housing 8,  co-operative  1966, w i t h  sale  of shares  unfamiliar was  fully  only  one-quarter  was s l o w ,  product occupied.  being  sold,  when  accepted. success^  11.6 a c r e s o f i n 1963, and  development  conr  town-  Willow  members.  Society  This dollars  of M a n i t o b a , and  the importance of  t h e c o n t r a c t o r two  Park,  the f i r s t  was o f f i c i a l l y of the p r o j e c t because  development  two m i l l i o n  again,  I t took  probably  land  con-  proved  o f 30 t o 35  by co-op  Credit  Co-operatives;  i n Canada,  this  t h e p r o j e c t was 5 0 %  was c i r c u m v e n t e d  the project.  i n northwest  t h e p r o j e c t ; however, i t  occupied  i s evident.  left  called for  was n o t  i t a co-operative  by t h e C o - o p e r a t i v e  by F e d e r a t e d  to lease  f o r a 200 u n i t  until  they  to develop  finally  of s i x complexes  consider  land  was s e r v i c e d  to finance  T h e UHF  unfamiliar with  council  The l a n d  when  project plan  proposal  agreed  plans  payment  proposals were  context.  h a d 2,600 u n i t s ) a n d  owned  CHAM's  to c i t y  any c a p i t a l  a n d would;.not  first  on c i t y  council  o f an a r r a n g e m e n t  occupied  CHAM's  down  b u t as they  f o r 60 y e a r s .  each,  initial  co-operatives,  1 9 6 2 when  land  project  had r e q u e s t e d  housing,  housing  in April  their  t o be b u i l t  The c i t y  Further ful  only  units  to the Canadian  (thei n i t i a l  As a r e s u l t ,  3  low income  tinuing  be a d a p t e d  large  received  22 -  opened  continuing on A u g u s t  occupied,  The  of t h e i n n o v a t i v e and  but s i xmonths  later  the project  -  Willow daughter a  city.  project cess  i n housing  organization,  The purpose  on b e h a l f  arranging  supervising society. over  includes  society  A  few have  help  from  a mother  many  more  months  Although continuing  such  who  been  those  Willow  Park  co-op  whose  was  able  developed was  with  support  of housing CMHC was  this  provisions  reluctant  to approve  to r e c e i v e  government  financing.  Other  were  made  housing number  i n t h e NHA  and i n a few c a s e s  co-operatives of p r o j e c t s  However,  t o make  rapidly.  f o r the pror  alternative was  arranged  important  f o r the financing  4) a n d s i n c e  of  financing for  financing  i n 1973, v e r y  provisions  (Chapter  has grown  f o rthe  c o - o p e r a t i v e s , and i n t h e a b s e n c e  jects  unions.  of help.  The  difficult  credit  taken  elsewhere.  i t was v e r y  through  without  of a  Therefore,  sought,  co-operatives  the concept  projects.  was  relationship  kind  these  financing  own a n d  has g e n e r a l l y  to develop  monetary  daughter  i s handed  projects  successful,  slow  pro-  supplies, the  society  but development  the  designing the  actually  to develop  be  a  This  the project  members  A c t (NHA) d i d n o t make  policy,  i t .  to organize  Housing  definite  occupy  and c o n t r a c t s and  i s complete,  may  i s to develop  s e c u r i n g the land,  National  a  society  o r one s e r v i n g  society  will  o f mother and  of the continuing housing  society,  than  housing  a s CHAM,  This mother-daughter  f o l l o w e d by many  Canada.  The mother  and h e l p i n g  construction  the project.  been  co-ops.  f o r financing  to the daughter  occupy  the concept  of the mother  construction,  Once  nicely  of the people  of development  project,  has  illustrates  societies  province-wide  large  in  Park  23 -  this  changes of  time, the  At the time  of  writing  -  (.1977), and  a l l provinces  Newfoundland From  as  a  complex  idea, a  based  variety  the  this and on  of  ment  i n Canada.  tinuing than  a  overview,  relatively  in  the  have  decade  ago  Columbia  is  not  uniform  of  these  forms for  Two and  they  were  since on  east  s i n c e many of  i t are  of  a  to  Nova  fully  quite  hand,  in  histories. ago  little  in  by  4.  to pattern  only and  Conmore  west  pattern  Chapter  have  Alberta.  the  of  move-  years  However,  The  through  that  housing  spread  dominated  housing. explored  to  started  since  Scotia. are  housing  distinct  forty  westwards  have  provinces  to  co-operative  co-operatives,  developed  other  The  co-operative had  Island  appears  arrangements,  housing  have  and  housing  applied  these  diffused  co-operative more  be  Edward  co-operatives.  phenomenon.  may  first  the  Prince  co-operative  the  i n Manitoba and  housing  c r e a t i o n of  However,  and  Brunswick,  novel  principles,  co-operatives,  British  reasons  brief  co-operatives  Breton  New  continuing  co-operative  important  -  have  five  been  Cape  except  arrangements.  building  Building  24  one the  -  Footnotes  25  -  -  Chapter  2  A l t h o u g h a few s e l f - h e l p h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s had started in P e n n s y l v a n i a i n 1937 , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l S e l f - ^ H e l p Housing A s s o c i a t i o n a t t r i b u t e s the p r e s e n t s e l f - h e l p program i n the U.S. to the r e d i s c o v e r y of the Nova S c o t i a p r o j e c t s . Bard M c A l l i s t e r imported the i d e a to C a l i f o r n i a , the s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f t h e p r e s e n t s e l f - h e l p a c t i v i t y i n t h e U.S. (.C. L, Cochran, 1968). 2  The Nova S c o t i a H o u s i n g C o m m i s s i o n i s a p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y , s e t up w i t h t h e p a s s i n g of the Nova S c o t i a H o u s i n g A c t i n 1932. T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s c o m m i s s i o n i s t o (1) study housing needs; ( 2 ) make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e improvement of h o u s i n g c o n d i t i o n s ; (3) e n c o u r a g e a n d p r o v i d e p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n i t i a t i v e i n h o u s i n g and n e i g h b o u r h o o d improvement matters.  3  T h i s was i n c o n t r a s t to o t h e r p r o j e c t s where d e p a r t i n g members c o u l d seek the f u l l market v a l u e f o r t h e i r u n i t from incoming members. T h e s e u n i t s s o o n b e c o m e p r i c e d so t h a t o n l y highi n c o m e f a m i l i e s c o u l d a f f o r d them ( P o m p e r l e a u 1976, p. 42).  CHAPTER  RESEARCH  Introduction This  study  examines  co-operative  scales,  the n a t i o n a l  attempt  i s made  t o answer  i s co-op  housing  pattern?  What  pattern?  To a n s w e r  are  taken.  cedures  the  locations  various two  located?  questions, discusses  i n these  questions  two  patterns.  it,  obviously  For  this  is  examined.  and t h e  Thus,  is utilized  scale.  i n answering  The mapping  of the  These  decision  to explain  of a housing  supportive  to develop  the a  on  Financing,  26  -  patterns, from —  primary  co-operative and  the e v o l u t i o n of o r the! l a c k o f o f any p r o j e c t .  f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l of enabling  and  project  of the i n i t i a t o r s  oh t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  the existence  -  stage,  motivations  are examined.  these  factors are derived  the motivations  of the  i n d i c a t e the s p a t i a l  In the planning  of these  pro-  approaches.  i n the development  h a s an e f f e c t  As  used  approaches  i n attempting  effect  reason,  different  for this  Then,  i s i n the i n i t i a l  housing  or account  time  interest  co-operative  identifiable  through  financing.  subsequent  questions:  units  and  project.  s c a l e s , an  p r o j e c t s , and g r a p h i n g  planning  the  two  different  housing  f a c t o r s a r e examined. stages  a t two  At both  an  the data  at the n a t i o n a l  of co-operative  critical  housing  Is there  factors explain  these  chapter  of completed  temporal  and t h e u r b a n .  p r i m a r i l y d e s c r i p t i v e approach  above  number  This  housing  the f o l l o w i n g research  locational  followed A  DESIGN  to Methodology  spatial  Where  3  legislation  legislation  does not  -  ensure  funding,  provincial At approach urban  urban  scale,  utilized  to  areas  selected  for  cities  District  are  the  housing  in  Canada,  percent  of  the  It location  is are  are  number  which  A  describe  subjected provides  to a  future  sites.  in of  The the  data  collection,  The  As  the the  a  requirements and  the  statistical  questions. Greater  The  Vancouver  Toronto,  for  the  why  do  These  two  co-operative  approximately  43  well  of  This  of  the  the  of  factors  statistical  between  are  is  areas  are  tool  areas  with  prediction factors could  examined  devoted  of  not  for location  be  through  to  in  a  discussion  used the  in  spatial  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  co-operative  data  analysis.  Data The  case  co-ops,  procedures  utilized  have  variables  statistical  which  study, tools  of  techniques  local  continuing  chapter this  the  determining  three  and  allowing  analysis  this of  as  factors  statistical  variables  distinguishing as  micro  some n e i g h b o u r h o o d s  not,  analysis.  development of  or  continuing  components  discriminant  remainder  that  explain  a l l of  few  the  for  demographic  for  not  are  Metropolitan  others  without,  quantifiable,  studies  of  those  research  accounting  physical  mechanism  and  included  and of  the  scale  To  discriminant  co-ops  are  the  and  units,  urban  analyzed. housing  CMHC p o l i c y  analytical  locales  together  co-operative used.  and  active  this  more  analysis  completed  at  a  answer  (GVRD)  most  are  attitudes.  is  Regional  -  c e n t r a l to the a n a l y s i s  government the  27  housing  was  -  described varying  and  analyzed  degrees  of  at  Consequently,  broken  three  into The  required The  In  first  to  establish  specific  some  ments  requirements  were  collection  procedure  spatial  items.were  as  collection  p a t t e r n of  of  primary  co-op  3.  Date  project.  4.  Number  5.  The t y p e o f b u i l d i n g , e . g . a p a r t m e n t , d e t a c h e d homes,  6.  The  7.  Household f amilies.  8.  The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f w i t h "sweat e q u i t y " .  completion of  details  available.  financing of  of  agencies,  of  i n each  bedrooms  structure;  of  the  that  Corporation (CHF).  i n each  those  and  supplemented such  as  the  by  or  source was  unit.  or  co-ops  other  of  of  financial funding,  arrange-  not  the  the  Central  Co-operative  i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by data  United  the  interest.  through  (CMHC) a n d The  housing.  townhouse, or c o t t a g e s ,  seniors  mortgages  I t was  data  project.  d a t a were o b t a i n e d  Canada was  of  details,  these  Housing  units  number  be  follows:  continuing  of  may  stages.  i n v o l v e d the the  with  Type of c o - o p e r a t i v e ; building.  agencies  mental  data  data  and  2.  Foundation two  the  scales  L o c a t i o n o f p r o j e c t by m u n i c i p a l i t y a n d by p r o v i n c e . For p r o j e c t s i n the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and M e t r o T o r o n t o , t h e s t r e e t a d d r e s s e s were r e q u i r e d .  were  and  the  spatial  1.  Most gage  data  cases  specific  hence  distinct stage  -  different  detail,  extensive.  28  from  Housing  other  MortHousing these  non^-govern-  Foundation,  and  29  -  the  Columbia  Toronto  Housing  Non-Profit  government the  Department  of  the  Province  Commission,  also  contacted Data  the be  above  the it  Saskatchewan,  missing  a l l cases  sources. When  The  were  accuracy  itself  were  with  the  most  One  assisted jects  by  have  included.  or  and  variables  this  to  Housing  some  projects  from  more  data  could,  the  be  cases, themselves  than  data  scale  would  have  of  supplied  itself,  spatial  one  therefore,  correct.  co-op  agency  reliance  only are  developed  resource this  stage  In data  were had  with  analysis  selected  for  resource  included  in:the  by  groups,  group number  of  on  p r o j e c t s which  data  small  by  cases from  used,  the  since  closest  i s probably collection which  co-operative  concerning inclusion  this  groups  have data  set.  not  Proeither  be  insignificant. was  directed  might  and  problem  being  analysis  at  discriminate  housing  i n the  and  been  without  a s s i s t a n c e , would  obtaining variables  communities of  of  i s that  been  second  identifying  local  Development  items.  the  the  localized  agencies  However,  The  of  In  such  project.  these  funding,  scale  the  agencies  that  between  that  limitation  government  housing  Provincial  Scotia  collection.  assumed  agency  the  Nova  discrepancies occurred,  f u r n i s h e d by  with  the  the  housing,  Co-operative  data  and  Federation,  obtained  not  assumed  and  co-operative  supply  Vancouver,  co-operative  and  i n data  were  was  CMHC  Co-operation  the  of  Housing  data  contact  The  to  both  involved with  assisted  co-operative  where  of  of  for  checked.  the  Co-operative  of  representatives were  Foundation,  departments  as  -  those  had  without,  urban, to  the  have  -  shown  some  cities. in  the  usefulness  In  various  Canadian  and  the  the  spatial  they  other,  which are  Murdie  words,  Nicholson  which  chosen  potential that  cities,  then  between  areas  these  repeatedly  were  might  within  factors  score  high  useful  cities.  be  performed  important  not  always  useful  These  these  based  were:  4.  P e r c e n t a g e of housing owner o c c u p i e d ;  units  which  are  5.  P e r c e n t a g e of h o u s i n g single detached;  units  which  are  6.  P e r c e n t a g e of apartments;  units  that  7.  Median units;  8.  Average  9.  P e r c e n t a g e o f p o p u l a t i o n w i t h , one or more u n i v e r s i t y ;  cash  older  than  three  participation  owner  were the within  differentiating  Female  of  on  areas  3.  value  same,  factors  P e r c e n t a g e of f a m i l i e s more c h i l d r e n ;  housing  the  The  2.  force  vari-  1971).  Percentage 65 y e a r s ;  labour  the  Peuker  1.  with  describing  1971,  variables  population  con—  Haynes  describing in  for  1973,  variables, for  in  Although  Davies  on  highly  being: f a m i l y s t a t u s  Patterson,1974,  also  of  are  scored  within  e c o l o g i e s have  one  as  1971,  have  been  cities.  discriminating  i f they they  factors,  (Bourne  1969,  have  status,  neighbourhoods  must  factorial  Canadian  similar  variables  argument  major  of  constitute  that  urban  socio-economic  broadly  as  two  similar  variables  analyses  structure  1969,  the  Various  identified  -  in grouping  factor  cities.  sistently  ables  other  30  occupied  or  rate;  are  housing ',  rent; year  -  10.  Median  11.  P e r c e n t a g e of p o p u l a t i o n employed i n p r o f e s s i o n a l , t e c h n i c a l , or managerial occupations (Census C a n a d a M a j o r G r o u p s 11, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33).  The  values  the  1971  istics  for  by  of  Census Two  Population  Series  additional  variables  These  B,  for  were  for  data  from  Character-  Toronto  selected  and  from  the  were:  including  these  units  two  con-  variables,  respectively,  follows: As  the  continuing  in  assume  they  that  Canada  established struction, of  slim.  structed  housing  since  would  construction  be  rates.  The  neighbourhoods particularly  the  co-ops  However, their  own  in  the  units,  would  housing  has,  however,  been  i t is  with  was  have  housing,  not the  apply,  hypothesized  high  more  new  con-  hence  the  possi-  for  have  route  of  than  co-op  construction  not  existing  rattier  that  to  to  that  This  exception  older,  approval  purchased  been  reasonable  opposed  community  only  relatively  that  co-operatives  but  have  i t seems  areas  multi-family  argument  Thus,  1960's,  generally  receiving for  co-operatives  argument  are  this  GVRD,  the  built  blocks,  the  arid  Housing  P e r c e n t a g e of r e s i d e n t s living in t h e a r e a f o r l e s s t h a n one year.  constructed  in  A  and  using  2.  as  are  Tracts,  calculated  P e r c e n t a g e of h o u s i n g structed after 1960;  was  bility  Canada,  were  1.  rationale  new  income;  variables  information.  The  (1)  household  these  Census  Vancouver. Census  31  conapartment obtaining  the  projects  rule would  -  more  likely  be  found  32  i n areas  -  with  a  high  percentage  of  new  construction,  (2)  It  housing  has  location the  has  been  generated  was  projects  often  Hence  the  would  be  rate,  as  these  areas  level  of  community  Thus,  i t was  that  resident  would  likely  to  have  the  co-op  resulting  be  for  less  that  cor-operative  neighbourhoods i n the  likely to  this  with  to  oppose  a  a high  for less  than  one  the  more  a  of  high  was  turnover  the  high  development.  with  than  which  variable  produce  areas  projects  in  abandonment  including  i n areas  necessary  area  cases,  those  established  spirit  in  in  argument  hypothesized  people  i n some  conflict  proposed,  project.  that  found  percentage  year  would  stable  of  be  more  neighbour-  hoods .  Two One as The  additional  variable, a  crude  the  index  inclusion  First,  credit  development start-up local credit  of  groups, unions  union  such,  this  included in  unions  this  was  often  housing,  As  would  p r o v i d i n g both  that  be  would  Second, felt  that  as  less  on  people  three  impetus  often of  and  area.  for  the  and  offered  to  numerous  are  of a  attracting type  neighbourhood  co-operative  antagonism  used  bases.  direction  unions  i n the  was  study  probability  credit  to  was  analysis.  capita,  presence  area's  accustomed be  the  the  i n each  s u p p l i e d the  i n c r e a s e an  i t was  per  justified  encouragement  assumed  housing.  there  credit  variable have  co-op  would  of  were  co-operative activity  i t was  co-operative,  As  of  funding.  co-operative  credit  number  unions  of  variables  of of  a  enterprise.  suspicion  regarding  -  the  co-op  housing  "co-operation housing the in  hypothesis areas  with  These listed The  in  counted, ation  and  units of  interest  by  from  further  rate  the  19 71  to  CMHC  i s some  "those  element  a s s i s t a n c e and  co-operative units  units  social  housing.  The  on  argument  that  housing stigma  i s accommodated"  the  is similar could  However,  lead  to to  assuming  housing  and  social  housing  could  ation  of  multiple  the  of  the  of  'pave  the  way' social  Thus,  of  was  then  The  popul-  Canada.  and  units  per  Social  housing  co-operative or  some  restriction  on  the  1976).  In  removed  from  to  stigma  of  area.  books.  subsidy  using  attached  the  to  total variable  co-op  in general.  o p p o s i t i o n to existed  This  projects. between  the  prior  existence  for a  co-op  housing  housing a need  may  form  this  include this  housing  relationship  acceptance  family housing.  a  found  unions  area  housing  public  been  social  credit  study  of  likely  telephone  the  Thus,  capita.  conflict.  rental  neighbourhood,  e x i s t e n c e of  neighbourhood  Census  unions.  per  of  co-operative  more  the  f o r each  decision the  be  appropriate  (Josey  stiffening  a positive  social  Furthermore,  that a  mapping  hence  have  new  credit  unions  locational  as  a  would  included, social  variable,  based  by  help  p o p u l a t i o n of  that  was  co-operative principle  with  credit  the  clientele  for  area  unions  the  variable  there  of  of  credit  d e f i n e d by  where  the  projects  obtained  Pages  taken  relates  been  of  i n an  co-op  were  divided  last  Third,  number  Yellow  was  The  has  high  number  data  capita,  i s that  data  -  c o - o p e r a t i v e s " may  establish  a  the  total  project,  among  project  33  be  an  present of  project. indic-  for subsidized  i t i s hypothesized  that  co-ops  - 34  would  be f o u n d  units  per capita. The  housing  location  projects  Commission Greater then  i n areas  third  search,  a review  public  from  of s o c i a l  and from These  area  housing  of the various  the Ontario  District,  per study  stage  of data  social  Housing  CMHC data  for  the  were mapped a n d  was d i v i d e d  by the p o p u l ^  at which  written  completely as a check  related  to the  co-operative housing  these  o f newspaper  i n t e r v i e w i n g people were  collection  involving  f o r securing  meetings  primarily  data  included a  articles  unstructured  literature  and e d i t o r i a l s ,  co-operative projects involved with  groups.  co-op  and open  were  being  housing. ended,  f o r information obtained  attending  The  debated, inter-  and were  used  through the  material. The  GVRD  urban  these  a r e Minor  These  areas  local  planning  The  Regional  conflicts  used  they  of units  obtained  of units  Methods  views  number  f o r the area.  locational  the  and number  were  Vancouver  The  and  a high  f o rM e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto  t h e number  ation  with  r  area  study  are called Planning  departments  i s the l o c a l  Local Areas,  Districts  are relatively  Statistical  unit  planning  and i n M e t r o p o l i t a n  ( F i g u r e s 1 a n d 2,  homogeneous, f o rplanning  area.  and have  Analysis  I t seems c l e a r t h a t g e o g r a p h i c a l i n v e s t ! ^ g a t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h d i s c o v e r i n g and describing areal v a r i a t i o n s i n the o c c u r r e n c e o f phenomena on t h e e a r t h ' s s u r f a c e , and a l s o w i t h t h e s e a r c h f o r  Toronto  respectively).  been  purposes.  In  d e f i n e d by  -  37  -  other a r e a l l y associated factors that may h e l p to e x p l a i n the o b s e r v e d d i s tributions. ( M c C a r t y e t a l , , 1956, p,  The 1  is  to  major  identify  spatial  leading  local  areas  without  to  variables  were  population,  each two  local groups.  with  and  discriminant  diverse and  which  to  cases. to  and  1949).  group  a  with  minimize Given  predict  were or  of to  were  One  in  Chapter  present  of  the  whether  different absence  two  the  out the  determine  of  groups,  a  discussed  first or  from  not  those  co-op number  of  in  pre-  the  characteristics  physical  of  attributes  of  d i f f e r e n t i a t e between  describing  without,  to  economic  expected  the  of  the  then  two  groups,  subjected  discriminant  anthropometric as  the  In  dating  between these  analysis,  concerned as  those  applications  topics  criminant  were  led  variables,  some  variables,  discrimination  Stater  describe  to  these  s o c i a l and  set  housing.  presence  between  as  to  the  those  a  step-wise  analysis.  Early biological  the  measure  that  that  housing  These  These  co-ops  in  was  selected.  and  area  factors  objective  than  inquiry  co-operative  distinguish  section,  this  co-operative  i t , other To  of  various  this  with  housing.  the  the  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  steps  ceding  objective  20)  1  certain  of  the  was  sample  and  early  belonged; among  discriminant membership  of  skulls  were  with  some  error  humans  the  groups when the  such 1935)  (Rao of  in  as  to  researcher such  a  researcher samples.  was  manner  classifying  unclassified  and  dis-  ambiguity  hence,  the  largely  (Barnard  applications  function, of  dealing  normal  generally  possibility  group  Egyptian  other  discrimination the  nature,  neurotic  and  there  in  analysis  new  was  able This,  -  then,  i s the p r e d i c t i v e Since  applied the  these  to a great  descriptive  dictive  ones  analysis  identifying than  with  Massey  capability  of other  in  future.  Statistical The  also  undergoing  435).  first  normality.  on  the p r e ^  with  groups  rather  1972, K i n g  1967,  discriminant the variables  which  c o - o p e r a t i v e s and  problem.  allows  on  of d i s c r i m i n a n t  between  study,  with  than  concerned  of s e l e c t i n g  communities  areas  theory  statistical variables  in practice,  normalized the  In t h i s  as a means  rather  (Barber  one  The  predictive  t o .comment  co-operative  on t h e  development  of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s ,  procedures,  are normally  assumes  need  the technique  n o t be  Consequently, data,  strongly two  analysis,  adhered  raw  (1974,  were  data.  t h e r e f o r e , was  Patterson  within  i s very  analyses  and one w i t h  that  distributed  variance-covariance matrices  assumptions p.  1974),  statistical  criminating equal  problem  been  Procedure  multivariate  However,  discriminators  of the techniques  the near  been  has  technique,  an emphasis  applications  i . e .the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  probability  are  Recent  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  without,  often with  s c i e n c e s have  between  statistical  of the technique  1970),  is utilized  of t h i s  discriminant analysis  of data,  the important  distinguish  those  range  1971, Woodyard  analysis best  studies,  i n the s o c i a l  -  capability  qualities  (King  38  p , 341  to  the  robust CNie  to check suggests  group. and  that  these  with  initial each  there  e t a l , 1975 ,  r u n , one The  most  disr  and t h a t each  like  stage  of  variable for skewness  -  (measuring  asymmetry)  best  tests  f o rnormality;  have  a skewness  the  skewness  the  variables  NORMAL  NORMAL  program's  of data  p. 45) f o u n d  before  the non-linear  kurtosis  values  only  transform  effect  as  log(x),  the scaling  will  calculated,  and where  Patterson's  the  variable necessary,  (1974, 1976)  t h e two g r o u p s .  has the h i g h e s t among  overall t h e group  the linear  deviation,  on e i t h e r t h e changes  data  i s sub-  transforms, result  data  such  of these  which  was  pro-  used  analysis.  DISCRIMINANT  begins  when  applied after the  The combined  The W i l k s '  than  but rather  The s c a l e d  t h e raw and n o r m a l i z e d  The p r o c e s s  differences  variable  any o f t h e u s u a l  discriminant  between  2  Essentially,  a s e t of normalized  subprogram  wider  h a s no e f f e c t  1974, p. 4 5 ) , using  of skewness and  became  transform  Patterson  was a p p l i e d  and s t a n d a r d  of the o r i g i n a l  to both  used.  transform.  x  SPSS  transform  the range  a new mean  p a r t due  transformation.  be r e m o v e d  /x~, a r c t a n ( x ) , e .  to the f i r s t  before  procedure  applied  of  distribution F o r each  i fa linear  of the non-linear  was t o c r e a t e  input  which  are  effectiveness i s i n large  could  the data  transformed  The  was  peakedness)  of 3 ,  transform,  which  (Patterson,  sequently  cedures  that  or kurtosis  scaling"  as  a normal  using  scaling  the non-linear gives  that  skewness the  were  normalized  (1974,  "Note  with  and a k u r t o s i s  and k u r t o s i s  a procedure  using  data  (measuring  program. The  to  and k u r t o s i s  of 0 ,  were  -  39  ( N i e e_t a l . 1 9 7 5 ) was data  lambda  by s e l e c t i n g  to distinguish selection the single  multivariate F ratio centroids.  criteria variable  f o rthe test  The v a r i a b l e  which  -  minimizes measure paired the  the F r a t i o  of group with  best  also  each  remaining This  remaining  variables,  variables  are selected,  a  level  have  weight  have  been  the groups  as p o s s i b l e .  function.  of  This  the  relative  function.  i n such  have  a mean  allows  = d.iZ. + i l 1  1  actually  function  d. Z„ 0  +  variables  analysis  i s to  i n some  discriminant  discriminant  function  the r e s u l t i n g  and a s t a n d a r d coefficients variable  dis-  deviation to  represent  to the  i s of the form:  ... +  x2 2  provide  d. Z ip p  (1)  D. = t h e s c o r e on d i s c r i m i n a n t function i ; l d . d . = the normalized weighting x l i p coefficients ; Z- , . . , ,Z  Once  of zero  a l l the  statistically  i s the  that  of the  consideration.  variables  of i t sassociated  The d i s c r i m i n a n t  where  assess  of t h i s  produces  variables  t o be a s  the standardized  contribution  D. l  to  for  selected  a.way  each  until  of discriminant  are forced  The r e s u l t  standardized scores  4  these  i s then  no a d d i t i o n a l  The c o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h e f i n a l  criminant one.  objective  combine  with  continues  high  a  which, p a i r  combined  or u n t i l  lambda, variable  no a d d i t i o n a l  sufficiently  mathematical  so t h a t  distinct  i s then  or u n t i l  initial  to s e l e c t  and t h e p r o c e s s  level  and l i n e a r l y  fashion  pair  the Wilks'  This  variable  of improvement,  a tolerance The  minimizes  discrimination.  F ratio.  minimum  40 -  p  =  the values of the p d i s . criminant v a r i a b l e s used i n the analysis.  the discriminant  the success distinguish  with  function  i s derived,  we  which, t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i n g  between  t h e two  groups.  To do  are  able  variables this,  a  -  critical a  D value  belongs to  value above  possible  the breakpoint,  matrix,  group.  the cases  sample  i s assigned  the matrix  manner  n o t have  (Table  the v a l i d i t y  housing  sample  matrix,  classified  i t i s assigned  called,  to a  tool  group  group t h e  p r e d i c t e d group  and t h e  cell i n the matrix.  i t would  a co-op  figures,  cases  be d e r i v e d .  f o r the location  to X  In  OR  CLASSIFICATION  ACTUAL  GROUP  Co-ops  Go-ops  Xi i  No  X  co-ops  2  1  this  of co-operative  MATRIX  PREDICTED  i  des-  assessed.  CONFUSION  2  the pro-  TABLE I I  THE  For  buti n  be a s s i g n e d  the t o t a l may  GROUP No  i s  com-  incorrectly  the actual  with  i t  confusion  o f t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n as a  and p r e d i c t i v e c a n be  From  sample  the efficiency  i s assigned  with,its  a co-op,  II).  This  those  then  to the appropriate  of correctly  criptive  with  i f A i s p r e d i c t e d t o be an a r e a i t does  portion  i s below,  as i t i s sometimes  on i t s d i s c r i m i n a n t s c o r e ; t o i s compared  (1), that  predicted classification,  classified each  i f a sample has  equation  a confusion  table  Specifically,  belongs  reality  this  through  correctly  sample  example,  using  that  t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n works.  classified.  in  Using  or c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  depending  such  and i f i t s D v a l u e s  to ascertain,  which  pares  i s determined,  t o one group,  the other  with  f o r D^  41 -  Co-ops Xl 2  X 2 2  -  Footnotes  42  -  -  Chapter  3  For a d i s c u s s i o n of the d e v e l o p m e n t of d i s c r i m i n a n t analysis, s e e D a v i d T. T i e d e m a n ( 1 9 5 1 ) , " T h e u t i l i t y of the discriminant f u n c t i o n i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l and G u i d a n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , " Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review 21, p p . 7 1 0 8 0 ; M.M, Tatsuoka and D,V. Tiedeman (1954), " D i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s " , Review of Educational Research 2 4 ( 5 ) , pp. 402^420, D u r i n g t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of t h e a n a l y s i s , a v a r i e t y of stepw i s e s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a were u s e d , i n c l u d i n g M a h a l a n o b i s d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n g r o u p s , l a r g e s t m i n i m u m b e t w e e n g r o u p s F, l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e i n a v e r a g e m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n , and t h e l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e i n R a o ' s V. As t h e r e s u l t i n g d i s c r i m i n a n t functions w e r e t h e same i n e a c h c a s e , f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s u t i l i z e d o n l y the W i l k s ' Lambda c r i t e r i o n . For a d i s c u s s i o n of the W i l k s ' . c r i t e r i o n , s e e W.W. C o o l e y and P.R. Lohnes (1971), M u l t i v a r i a t e Data A n a l y s i s . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , Ch. 8 and 9. This l a s t t e s t i s a c t u a l l y performed before a v a r i a b l e i s selected. T h i s t o l e r a n c e check i s needed to d e t e c t situations i n which r o u n d i n g e r r o r d u r i n g the i n v e r s i o n of the p o o l e d w i t h i n groups covariance m a t r i x would have a s e r i o u s e f f e c t upon the r e s u l t s . For a m a t h e m a t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n of the method of d e r i v i n g the d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s , see s u c h m u l t i v a r i a t e t e x t s as : W.W. C o o l e y and P.R. L o h n e s (19 6 2 ) . - M u l t i v a r i a t e P r o c e d u r e s f o r Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , pp. 116-120; the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . New W.W. C o o l e y and P.R. L o h n e s ( 1 9 7 1 ) , M u l t i v a r i a t e D a t a A n a l y s i s , 2 4 3 - 2 5 0 ; J . P . Van de G e e r New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , pp, (19 7 1 ) , I n t r o d u c t i o n to M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s f o r the S o c i a l Sc i e n c e s , Ch. 18 San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. F r e e m a n and Co,  CHAPTER  CO-OPERATIVE  The unique  two  forms  histories  development  of  of  and  the  chapter  describe  these  The  patterns  Spatial  at  and  given  a  every  of  b u i l d i n g co-ops  an  province  the  obvious  continuing  the  Temporal  in  across  in  emphasis housing  on  in  Canada  have  Overviews of' the ..concept  and  ;  2.  continuing  The  purpose  distributions  housing  of  and  this  to  analyze  scale.  in  either  100%  form,  ( F i g . 3).  continuing  from  housing  Patterns  Canada  to  nation,  spatial  housing,  of  CANADA  non-profit  Chapter  national  Co-operative  IN  co-operative  b u i l d i n g and  were  to  HOUSING  distributions.  co-operatives is  4  The  housing  has  been  relative  co-ops  to  0%  b u i l d i n g co-ops  in  eastern  dominating  proportion  varies  i n P.E.I,  co-ops  developed  i n B.C.  in Ontario,  greatly There  Canada, Manitoba  is  with and  B.C. In  terms  co-operatives Further  of  far  however,  3,500  continuing about  excluding of  the  been  500  Quebec  growth  co-operative  in  total  exceed  examination  have,  versus  the  of  continuing  Table  adopted  units  number  III at  a  in in  data.  4  the  housing  number have  of  43  that  the  at  -  co-ops  decade decade  fairly  two  over  (1966-1975) (1937-1946), in  types  consistent  III),  co-ops  rate, with  indicates that the  building  (Table  continuing  first  its first data  completed,  faster  projects,  grown  -  housing  much  building units Figure  units  shows  completed  1  of  terms  of  rates,  -  45 -  TABLE I I I  CO-OPERATIVE  Period  HOUSING  UNITS  Building (Units)  IN  CANADA  Continuing (Units)  1937-1940  49  0  1941-1950  517  0  1951-1960  2377  0  1961-1970  2796  530  1971-1972  1574  867  1973-1975  2298  1898  1976-1977  643  2 07 6  10264  5371  TOTAL  Quebec f i g u r e s have been e x c l u d e d from t h e s e totals. ( S e e f o o t n o t e f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n . )  -46-  FIGURE  4  Growth of C o - o p e r a t i v e P r o j e c t s  i n Canada  /  Time 0 = 1937 f o r B u i l d i n g Co-ops' Time 0 = 1965 f o r C o n t i n u i n g Co-ops  •  Building  °  C o n t i n u i n g Co-ops  Co-ops  J •<P~C>— O  Q  _  ^  4  6 Time  1  8 (Years)  10  12  -  This  similarity  i n growth  the  slight  War  I I , which  severely  The  that  the  fact  similarity  lying  For  co-ops  example, more  tinuing seldom  less  explained  constrained  by  This  the d i f f e r e n c e  than  tenfold  co-operatives,  sibilities  i n planning  and b u i l d i n g  is  important  individual and  they  together that  are usually  housing  struction,  and o f t e n  Furthermore,  scale  project  stable  co-op  co-ops,  (Chen  a large  group  for continuing  including  tend  i n scale i s  shares  may  t o be  have  been  Columbia.  The  respon-  members homes, i t often  e t a l . 1951)  groups  (James  quite  important  i s  con-  of  economies f o r the  Therefore,  i ti s  in scale.  attempted sole  In  contracted  of m a t e r i a l s  1953).  1951) \  small.  as t h e  advantage  large  inhibit  (Bales  t o be  take  As  groups  of the p r o j e c t ,  1953, W i l l c o x  co-operatives British  small  and p u r c h a s i n g  co-ops  members.and  co-operative  large  i s less  the planning  1971, Haar  Building  than  groups  this  i n the c o n t r a c t i n g  beneficial  vince,  less  building  continuing  of  well;  cases.  con-  of t h e i r  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s  consequently,  out.  get along  projects.  i n most  homes.  i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n  they  co-op  In contrast,  t h e group their  under-  that  200  of the  years.  recommends  difference  i n nature  In b u i l d i n g  work  one o f t h e  than  World  illustrate  20 m e m b e r s  more  projects.  actually  not  group.  when  f o r three  Commission  t o one  have  f o r by  and c o n t i n u i n g  Housing  often  does  demonstrates  belong  fifty.  i s accounted  of u n i t s  less  noticeable  construction  building  Scotia  co-ops  than  rates  to have  12 members  housing  is particularly  t h e number  t h e Nova  than  rates  between  tend  -  i n the curves  i n growth  differences  Building  no  difference  47  i n every  project  pro-  attempted  -  in  Squamish,  culties  that  technical 1976). other as  From  the  that  those  of  greater (This  in  is  the  in  siderable  (Table  figures  further  to  state  IV).  As  later that  in  each  Ontario,  ceased.  been  towns. in  the  1960's, the  of  the  half  major  in  first  centres  few  on,  co-op  unit  in  there  account  for  one  been  of  has  in  just  the  pilot  and a  the  (Table  first  project  was  and  growth  British  Canadian  in  building areas  V). the co-op.  developed (Table  this  and  are  building  Colombia,  total.  but  to  until  including Ontario  steady  pro-  beginning  developed  con-  1950's  metropolitan  the  event,  been  provinces,  not  after  any  maritime  were  years  somewhat  co-operatives.  there  the  large  are  Quebec.  co-ops  of  only  building co-operatives  Manitoba  90%  in  apparent  considerable  provinces  west  Ontario,  been  most  years,  has  Within  the  necessarily  c h a p t e r . ) .In  occurred are  of  Schmid  how-  they  of  thirty  provinces  1972  the  not  remaining  provinces  (S.  of  i n mind,  building  housing  the  keep  result  has  amount  immediately  are  provinces, of  the  costs  must  this  there  i n both  of  housing  almost  Since  together  developed  a  only  development  Western  Over  One  diffi-  i n each  are  Quebec  for  development in  financial  completed Quebec  for  other  Continuing  each  and  to  have  During  Scotia  true  to  underestimating  houses  building co-operatives.  located  late  of  due  building material  briefly  and  since  small  and  of  building co-operative  Turning  co-ops  result  field  discussed  activity  develop  however,  figures given  i s reasonable  has  Nova  -  building co-operatives. than  vinces,  a  number  the  the  as  required  provinces,  leaders  failed,  arose  help  ever,  it  B.C.  48  type  in VI). of  which  Quebec  and  Nova  TABLE IV  NUMBER  Year  Nf I d .  1940  0  OF  N . S .  BUILDING  CO-OP  P.E.I.  N.B.  COMPLETED  UNITS  Que.  1  49  0  0  0  Ont. 0  2  - 19401-1977  Man.  Sask,  0  0  Alt a .  3  0  Total 49  1950  30  335  0  0  2500  102  0  0  50  1960  365  974  14  0  2000  753  0  62  209  1970  153  2406  0  0  0  8953  0  0  0  0  1575  4  84  0  2298  0  643  1972  9  151  1398  93  86  1600  74  -  1975  28  1692  144  346  *•  0  1977  21  106  211  —  —  0  6960  623  506  TOTAL l  606  As d i s c u s s e d i n h o u s i n g u s e d by b u i l d ing co-ops Quebec d a t a a r e 1  2  6100  855  16  289  20  453  259  the t e x t , d u e t o t h e b r o a d e r d e f i n i t i o n o f c o -op Q u e b e c , t h i s d a t a i s somewhat g r e a t e r t h a n i f o n l y ' a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s t h e s i s were i n c l u d e d . Also, e s t imat es, whereas t h e o t h e r d a t a a r e a c t u a l count s.  available. However » As n o t e d , r e c e n t d a t a f o r O n t a r i o wexe n o t i n t e r v i e w s w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f b o t h t h e c o - o p m o v e m e n t a n d CMHC i n d i c a t e t h a t no b u i l d i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e s h a v e b e e n c o n s t r u c t e d i n the 1970's and few, i f any, i n t h e 1960's. Alberta Co-operative A c t i v i t i e s Branch of the p r o v i n c i a l government h i r e d a p r o v i n c i a l h o u s i n g o f f i c e r i n 1976 t o s t i m u l a t e t h e g r o w t h of b u i l d i n g co-operatives.  3017 4377  20951  -  50 -  TABLE  BUILDING  Province Ontar io  CO-OPS  V  I N URBAN  Selected (Leading) Urban Centres K i n g s t o n , Oshawa, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor  Quebec  Montreal,  Sask.  Regina,  N . B .  Moncton, St. John  Fredericton,  Halifax, Sydney  Sackville,  N. S  Quebec Saskatoon  CENTRES  Number of U n i t s  485 2000  Percentage of Provincial Total  51.8 30  293  78 . 5  291  84 .1  2315  39.1  -  51  TABLE  CONTINUING  CO-OP  -  VI  HOUSING  UNITS  COMPLETED  Que.  NYS .  Total  0  0  0  200  0  0  0  0  30  0  0  300  0  0  300  380  0  68  0  0  0  448  134  0  48  0  237  0  0  419  1973  95  0  0  174  128  0  0  397  1974  74  0  0  0  474  0  0  548  1975  677  0  0  0  195  56  25  953  1976  368  0  0  247  703  0  0  1318  1977  469  0  0  150  139  0  0  656  TOTAL  1847  380  48  839  2176  56  25  % of Cdn . Total  34.3  7. 1  0.9  15.6  40.5  1,0  0,5  Year  B.C.  Alta,  19 66  0  0  0  200  30  0  0  1970  0  0  1971  0  1969  1972  Sask,  Man.  Ont.  5371  -  Scotia of  have  also  writing  (1977),  operatives At  jects are  a smaller  under  listing  small  continuing  o f Canada  another  co-ops  (centres  VII).  centres.  of the continuing  provinces.  a  i n 13 o f  population  centres  have  pro-  a few o f t h e p r o j e c t s  (See Appendix  housing  co-  a r e found  with  Only  At the time  housing  maritime  two m e t r o p o l i t a n  (Table  urban  projects.  of continuing  i n the remaining  construction i n small  two  development  scale,  areas  100,000);  located  plete  no  developed  had o c c u r r e d  22 m e t r o p o l i t a n exceeding  each  52 -  I for a  co-operatives  com-  in  Canada.)  An  Analysis In  of  of the Patterns  attempting  to e x p l a i n  building co-operatives,  shortages housing not  shortage  a sufficient  shortages The  Scotia,  Patrick's  one i m m e d i a t e l y  turns  the primary  doubt,  programs  Quebec  as t h e c o u n t r y  to the  t h e war.  factor,  had  factor  sponsored  appears by  i n Ontario  co-operatives.  t o be t h e  describes  as f o l l o w s  The  experienced  the C a t h o l i c  Scott  housing  b u t i t was  the i n c e p t i o n of b u i l d i n g  and O n t a r i o .  program  Projects  f o r the development  w a s , no  without  College  the reasons  and f o l l o w i n g  and c a t a l y t i c  education  Co-op  the depression  condition  before  critical  adult Nova  during  of B u i l d i n g  extensive  Church i n the St,  (Scott  The c o u r s e s w e r e d e s i g n e d to focus a t t e n t i o n on m o d e r n s o c i a l p r o b l e m s and w a y s i n w h i c h t h e s e c a n be s o l v e d . Many family problems are p r e c i p i t a t e d or aggravated by i n a d e q u a t e accommodation and i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h i s f a c t , t h e S o c i a l A c t i o n Department d i r e c t e d i t s energies towards r e i n f o r c i n g f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s by ' s e l f — h e l p ' a n d co-operation.  1958, p, 2 ) :  -  53  TABLE  CONTINUING  CO-OPS  Metropolitan Area ( R a n k e d by 1971 s i z e )  IN  -  VII  METROPOLITAN  of  AREAS,  Number Co^op U n i t s Completed  Montreal Toronto Vancouver Ottawa-Hull Winnipeg Edmonton Hamilton  1977  ^  of  Number Projects  48 899 1403 236 839  256 0  2 17 13 2 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0  4809  54  —>—  Quebec  5 380 0 84 300 0 25 28 6 0 48 0 0  Calgary St. C a t h a r i n e s London Windsor Kitchener Halifax Victoria Sudbury Regina Chicoutimi S t. Johns Saskatoon Thunder Bay St. John TOTAL  l 2  3  S u n d a n c e C o - o p i n E d m o n t o n r e c e i v e d f u n d i n g i n 1974 from CMHC. A l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t i t has b e e n comp l e t e d , s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e was n o t o b t a i n a b l e . A l t h o u g h n e i t h e r CMHC n o r CHF h a d d a t a f o r h o u s i n g c o - o p s i n H a m i l t o n , t h e O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y f o r A g r i c u l t u r e and Food's O n t a r i o C o - o p e r a t i v e s 1 9 7 1 - 7 2 ( p . 6) s t a t e s t h a t "housing c o - o p s came i n t o p r o m i n e n c e a r o u n d 1 9 5 0 , particularly in H a m i l t o n a n d B u r l i n g t o n w h e r e many a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g s were c o n s t r u c t e d a n d l a t e r owned by t h e i r c o - o p e r a t i v e m e m b e r s . " The a u t h o r s u s p e c t s t h a t t h e s e were c o n d o m i n i u m s , h o w e v e r , r a t h e r than t r u e co-op h o u s i n g , Saskatoon in 1977.  started  construction  of  a  c o n t i n u i n g co-op  project  -  These  adult  individual the  education  -(1973,  co-op,  Church  a s a means  felt  the family;  distinguishing communism". sponsoring guidance  signs  during  was  helping  incidental  by t h e f i n a n c i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s Scotia,  co-operatives  under  this  ownership meant  that  mortgage, 1953,  As  and hence  government  funding  Act,  that  until  co-op  mortgages.  members  a below that  requested  itself  of the family  i s  by t h e N.S.  Limited  market  Dividend Act.  interest  the project  rate  remain  was a m o r t i z e d .  i nthe This  f o r paying the  with  members,  delinquent was r e a c h e d  75% o f t h e l o a n s  under  content  was r e s p o n s i b l e  agreement  provided  co-operative  was a p p r o v e d  t h e mortgage  had t o d e a l  was no l o n g e r  and p r o v i d i n g  e s t a b l i s h e d i n each  province's  as a whole  a federal-provincial  federal  funding  a c t , i t was r e q u i r e d  t h e co-op  of the  of s i n g l e  i n co-operation  received  o f t h e co-op  groups  t o t h e end r e s u l t  evidenced  Because  one o f t h e  the role  The c o - o p e r a t i v e  of i n t e r e s t  under  to under-  atheistic  concerned with  The l a c k  Commission  Jordan  that the  was  by  played  to organize  was  t o an end.  Housing  goal.  period.  the Church  I n Nova  this  was n e c e s s a r y  not ruled  housing.  province.  and c o - o p e r a t i o n ,  "private property  the C a t h o l i c Church  a s a means  development  home o w n e r s h i p  the study  encouraging  theme by s t a t i n g  of s o c i e t i e s  institution,  Obviously, housing  that  therefore,  of achieving  this  furthermore,  Thus,  were,  a n d saw s e l f - h e l p  p . 69) e l a b o r a t e s ^ o n  Catholic gird  programs  home o w n e r s h i p ,  building  54 -  the p r o v i n c i a l  that  they  I n 1970, t h e p r o v i n c e ' s  whereby t h e  under  t h e N.H.A.  Limited  be g r a n t e d  In  Dividend  individual  i n t r o d u c t i o n of the o p t i o n a l  55  -  individual his  mortgage  own m o r t g a g e ,  completion  content  proportion In  with  and s e c u r e  Housing  the loan.  their  Canada,  the b u i l d i n g  people  may  co-operatives confusion  introduced.  i n this  co-op  construction  on  instance, the has d e c l i n e d i n  participation. have  solely  always  been  held  to develop the  housing  efforts".  their  serves own  continuing  This  problem  housing  will  Thus,  their  home  This  2  homes  through  view of  ownership  co-operatives  be d i s c u s s e d  own  i n most o f  as a medium  homes.  to individual  when  as "an e x c e l l e n t  f a m i l i e s t o own  co-operative  as a means  occurs  In P.E.I. , f o r example, the  income  construct  ownership  development  existing  describes  f o r moderate own  home  Thus,  of the housing  t h e co-op  through  in  individual  t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  p r o v i n c i e s , mortgages  Corporation  opportunity  which  member  to the province's  the other  individually, houses  hence,  each  of the c o n s t r u c t i o n .  co-operative inverse  allowed  -  later  resulted  were  first  in this  chapter. In Francis also  Nova  Xavier  largely  building  many  booklets  Their  programs  groups.  providing  Commission  of b u i l d i n g  useful  became  t o make  even  funds  many  areas  co-ops  both  of  of the  was  discussed  also  published  t e c h n i c a l and  convinced  t h e Nova  a v a i l a b l e to co-ops,  e n t h u s i a s t i c once  of S t .  program, i s  diffusion  Department  information,  The Department  Commission  reached  The E x t e n s i o n  i n t h e form  education  f o r the widespread  and t h e i n n o v a t i o n  study  Church,  Department's  responsible  philosophical. Housing  the Catholic  Extension  co-ops.  province, at  Scotia,  a few p r o j e c t s  Scotia and t h e  had been  -  successful. Extension  Thus,  Department,  provincial Scotia.  recent  many  areas  Port  Hawkesbury) and  In  a  Nova  hence  College  Scotia  (Sackville,  made  have the in  Ottawa  educational  projects  projects  in  increased formed. which  to  the  other  of  provided  Builders ations,  areas a  these  once  their  movement expertise own.  was  Besides  the  that  the  saw  lack  themselves  withdrew lost, this  and lack  one  or  of  new  new a  education  a  years  few  spurred of  of  other  service. for  on  were Society  t e c h n i c a l support,  the  failure  in  the  owners,  interest  to  organiz-  their  home  Home  Midmore  content  Hence, had  were  Co-operative  and  lost  twelve  this  Building  the  years  to  organizations  individual  group  developed  year  result  reason  they  role  programs  handbook  these,  support.  each  two  co-operative as  St.  the  major  completed, their  of  at  for  As  co-op  supportive  Co-operative  few  of  Action  and  service  both  Sydney,  Institute  their  in  stimulus.  in a  s e r v i c e s , and  But,  homes w e r e  and  were  of  states  aforementioned Members  number  projects  the  Ontario.  a  in  gram.  of  only  p.  the  60)  region,  Nova  1952  from  the  a v a i l a b l e to  Social  program,  after  (1962,  In  In  Harbour,  added  Institute's  management  Federation. folded  the  Ottawa  activity, Two  Xavier.  of  assembly  Cole  lots  of  the  assistance  land  an  of  flourished  commenced  increased  Although  restricted  as  Institute  and  fifteen.  serviced  served  handbook  or  financial  provincial  Francis  of  t e c h n i c a l help  b u i l d i n g co-ops  St.  rate  the  the  to  the  -  years,  have  Ontario,  Patrick's similar  of  both  and  government,  In  projects  with  56  in  much  flounder building  lay  proand  the needed on co-  its  -  operatives Projects benefit not  i n Ontario  were  requests  mortgages  f o rfunding  benefit  denied  houses  payment. lay  groups  was  very  and  ready  Ontario. state  since  the early  that  Although greater  than  similar. the  Repeated  Dividend  ofthe  under  program  results Existing  equity  could  you could  help  financial  The o n l y each  other  i n lieu  o f a down-  d i dnot r e a l l y  approve  of untrained  (Jordan This  co-ops  1973, p. 6 3 ) ; hence lack  t h e demise  building  was no  be u s e d  no a c t u a l  of support  of building  data  n o t been  institutions  co-operatives  are available,  have  funding  C.M.H.C,  built  i n Ontario  1960's. t h e number  of units  (Table  important  IV),  completed  the overall  supportive  Ouvriere  role  Catholique's  was o n e o f t h e p i l l a r s  i n Quebec.  I t seducational  credit  o f numerous  unions  the co-operative  i s much  evolution i s was a g a i n adult  support  played  co-  action  showed  co-operatives  among  concrete  co-operatives.  of housing,  by  education  of housing  housing  and h o u s i n g sector  i n Quebec  and c o h e s i v e  and t h e c l e r g y ' s a c t i v e  i n the formation  stimulated  a co-operative.  houses  The L i g u e  local  forming  however,  Ontario  movements  Thus,  was t h a t  there  Scotia, but  Section  1973).  from  caused  f o rworkers  operatives  the Limited  to obtain.  The most  church.  union  as i n d i v i d u a l s .  Although  staff  co-ops d i d  basis  developing  funding  Furthermore,  the  o n t h e same  a n d sweat  difficult  own, w i t h o u t  as i n Nova  building  C.M.H.C,  funding.  rates  (Jordan  t o co-op  securing  lending  t o be d e r i v e d  advantage  time  on t h e i r  mediator.  preferential  N.H.A. w e r e  in  t o C.M.H.C,  of a p r o v i n c i a l  given  build  had a d i f f i c u l t  had to apply  receive  57 -  also  the former  -  advancing  the  assistance.  capital, Certain  support,  bodies  servants  and  the  198  de  Co-operation  the  units  that  co-ops.  do  in  not  This  in  difference  of  typical  of  Quebec.  It  operatives large  Scotia  has of  The  only  the  helps  and  system  data  not  having in  the  similar  however,  the  society  in  i t s own  right,  insight  into  the  According (1968,  pp.  result,  size to  65-67),  of  the there  the  is  Quebec,  a  same  employed  In  As  the  the  in  individual  Conseil has  owned  data  de  been  la a  of  with  this  includes  building 40  to  of  group  one Co-  594  that  (see-Chapter becomes  houses,  of  the  2), a  co-op  i n d i v i d u a l l y once Table  VIII  is  co-  Housing  to  houses  in  region,  and  The  which  small  850  never  60  units.  number  many  built  Manitoba  completed.  even  prevalent  have  s o c i e t i e s of  are  as  example,  are  Conseil  Quebec  small  Quebec  units  to  (Le  6,000  the  the  daughter  the  over by  and  as  for  how  than  daughter  3Q%  explain  Quebec  For  to  to  is  1937  Quebec  of  Clearly,  formed.  From  definition  VIII.  rather  civil  programs.  in  Ontario  of  their  However,  20  complete  construction  Montreal  64),  available  could  and  in  been  p.  co-ops  that  engaging  respectively. mother  Table  appears  co-op  operatives  in  Nova  2,  also  distribution  shown  1968,  in  technical  gave  Society,  incorporated  f i t precisely  housing  bodies  construction  Chapter  provided  associations  institutions,  co-operatives  is  local  were  incorporated  built  latter  Jean-Baptiste  engaged  noted  the  Quebec  support  actually As  du  -  intermediary  the  co-operatives  extensive  total  as  Saint  1965, la  while  other  such  58  they  provides  no  projects.  Co-operation  downward  trend  du  Quebec  in  the  annual  -  59 -  TABLE  VIII  D I S T R I B U T I O N OF HOUSING C O - O P E R A T I V E S QUEBEC BY NUMBER OF HOUSES B U I L T BY E A C H CO-OP  Numb e r Houses B u i l d Per Co-operative  IN  Number o f Co—ops  0-49  18  50-99  7  100-199  11  200-399  3  400-799  1  800  1  plus TOTAL  Source:  L e C o n s e i l de l a C o - o p e r a t i o n Quebec 1968, p. 78.  41  du  -  rate  of  being  co-operative  their  declines. marily  most As  Ontario,  the  movement's  In  the  early and  and  funding  few  years,  and  some  the  necessary  again the  years,  stopped  potential are  Only  the four  result  of to  funding,  support  the  completed  movement  in  government  the  1960.  decided  i n c r e a s i n g number  with  even  (Table  more  with in  of  only  the  promote  scheduled  P.E.I.,  (Table  information throughout more,  died  no  other  mid-1970's,  granted The  been  as  a  was  project  being  provincial Since  completed  next  other  start-up  the  co-ops.  completion  excellent  organization  one  building  provide  primarily  provide  past  realized  homes.  and  p r o j e c t s have for  to  were  their  i n the  been  an  in  year  this each  time year,  (1978)  IV). In  1960  groups  As  co-operatives  Then, to  has  construction started,  difficulties.  pri-  institutions  However,  provides  completed  further  attempted  departments  of  of  support  co-ops  twelve  dissolved before  willing  of  fifties,  (1963  motivation.  movement.  Saskatchewan  groups  financial  lack  building  1963  attributed  p r o j e c t s were  the  these  to  prediction  ongoing  pilot  of  1948  d e c l i n e was of  the  a  establishing  support.  During  charters.  lack  from  with  this  A l b e r t a , but  provinces  example.  an  data),  to  Saskatchewan  -  establishment  recent  in  60  the  junction  IV). and the  co-operative The  Department with  provincial  assistance study  the  housing  in  period, of  P.E.I.  Housing  forming and  Regional Housing  has  active  Corporation  the  financial Economic  been  co-op  provides  groups,  assistance. Expansion  Corporation  have  a  since  in  guidance Furthercon-  serviced  -  lot  subsidy  program, co-op  program,  and a low income  both  of which  housing  program.  surprising  that  61 -  a r e used With  t h e number  assisted  home  as a supplement  this  active  of co-ops  to the e x i s t i n g  support,  i n P.E.I,  ownership  i t i snot  i s steadily  increasing. Alberta stimulate as  hired  growth  a p r o v i n c i a l housing  in building  y e t has not undertaken  co-ops. in  As m e n t i o n e d  Squamish,  expertise  earlier,  B.C., f a i l e d  two p r i m a r y activity  a  institution  sponsoring  i s necessary  the  total  The  need  for financial  not  only  required  the  planning funding  Again,  this  funding  made  t o co-op  insufficient Having  Prior  was  groups,  ascertained across  sources  The  sponsoring  information also  aid in loan  required estimating  applications.  however,  Funding i s but also f o r  t o 1973, t h e l a c k obstacle  often  i n many  supplied  start-up  by  funding  of  start-  projects. support has been  b u t i n many  instances  i t  of funding  are s t i l l  necessary.  the reasons  Canada,  are, therefore,  i s self-explanatory.  1973, F e d e r a l  and o u t s i d e  co-ops  They  t o be a m a j o r  Since  of t e c h n i c a l  support.  and p r e p a r i n g  support  institutions.  building  homes.  of the p r o j e c t .  available  to province  for building materials,  start-up  attempted  of the v a r i a t i o n i n b u i l d i n g  technical  of the p r o j e c t  had proved  building  project  of a l a c k  and f i n a n c i a l  and b u i l d i n g  costs  province  to provide  planning  to support  B.C,  funding.  from  for  up  as a r e s u l t  i n 1976 t o  development,  t h e one p i l o t  determinants  co-operative  group  any program  and s u f f i c i e n t  The  co-operative  officer  i s  f o r the development of  the l o c a t i o n within  each  pro—  -  vince  will  now b e e x a m i n e d .  exclusively are  single  popularly  available  family  associated  a n d more  states  that  obtain  loans  into  62 -  rural  with  rural  (Table  where  Jordan that  municipalities,  projects  V),tends  i n Nova  i n the r u r a l  Dartmouth rapidly  area  part  14.7% o f t h e co-op by 1964.  a n d 3,871 u n i t s  Sackville  area.  This  due t o a p u b l i c  project  has o f f e r e d  sidized  rates.  As  a result  co-ops  Ontario,  where  of  the units  large and in  urban  land  reasonable  cost  assembly lots  regions programs,  roughly780% In these projects  to building  i tappears  area  of the  h a s grown  projects  land  substantially C.M.H.C.  by 1957 w e r e  homes  projects,  of urban Table  located IX),  directly,  over  i n some  of the  V).  This  at sub-  assembly  (see  located  (Table  i s i n large  in Sackville,  to co-op have  this  i n the Halifax-  emphasis  the proportion  was f r o m  of b u i l d i n g  i n the Halifax-Dartmouth^  project  also  60-61)  t  forced  eastern  were  i n locational  of the province  cities.  houses  built  pp  o f t h e co-op  1 9 6 5 , t h e movement  been  serviced  completed  assembly  Thus,  land  financing  Saskatchewan,  public  have  has increased  areas  t h e major  Since  change  Other  of these  building  were  i s readily  were  to i n v a l i d a t e  constructed  they  could not  of the l o c a t i o n s  (66.7%)  Only  (1973,  and hence  T r a d i t i o n a l l y , most  province.  land  co-ops  assertion.  Scotia  a r e almost  consequently,  areas  was s u c h  But a review  co-ops  homes;  attained,  policy  i n large  areas.  co-operative  detached  cheaply  C.M.H.C.  Building  I n New  In  half  Brunswick  o f t h e co-op  projects  are located  provinces,  as i n Nova  Scotia,  are helping  to provide  land at  co-ops.  t o be a f a l l a c y  that  building  co-oper-  TABLE  BUILDING  Year  Sydney (Units)  CO-OPS  IX  IN SYDNEY AND  Sackville (Units)  SACKVILLE,  1965-1973  Provincial Total (Units)  Sydney-Sackville Combined as Provincial  1965  46  —  83  1966  18  --  67  1967 '  35  8  213  25,29%  1968  66  126  541  35.50%  1969  116  175  578  50.34%  1970  79  351  642  66.98%  1971  68  320  637  60,91%  1972  74  414  761  64.13%  1973  37  140  349  5 0.71%  Source:  Roach  (1973,  p . 9)  -  atives  a r e found  originated urban  of  i n small  areas  building  only  co-ops.  means  provinces  except  the development  in  cities t h e Nova  reasonably operatives, course,  t h e movement  lots cost,  a  beyond the For this  will  i f other  assembly  available  and n a t u r e  much  h i s own home,  land  can f l o u r i s h .  of  a r e no l o n g e r  However,  where  major  the concept  co-operatives  future.  serviced lots  on t h e l e v e l s  high  into  t o be t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y  i n building  S c o t i a model,  priced  such  of b u i l d i n g  i n the near  t h e movement  i t h a s moved  appears  cities  interested  Although  supporting  a t an e x t r e m e l y  reason,  follow  centres,  I n many  of a person  many  areas.  The key f a c t o r  serviced lots.  available  i n rural  rural  of those  64 -  not occur areas  programs  make  to b u i l d i n g co-  This  i s dependent, of  of a v a i l a b l e  financial  assistance.  An  A n a l y s i s of the Patterns Co-operative Housing There  development Canada. was  a r e two p r i m a r y patterns  The f i r s t  a promotional  inhibitory related  of Continuing  factor.  factors  of c o n t i n u i n g  of these, factor;  account  housing  the second,  co-operatives i n  o f each  was, i n p a r t , Although  discussion  o f t h e e v o l u t i o n o f C.M.H.C. p o l i c y  continuing  co-ops  ation the  o f some  roles  ment.  of the points  of both  C.M.H.C.  (For a complete  t h e scope raised  movement,  C.M.H.C. p o l i c y ,  of the other.  i s beyond  f o rthe early  the co-operative/labour  The f o r c e s  to the a c t i v i t i e s  that  was a directly  an i n d e p t h  as r e l a t e d t o  of this  study,  an e l a b o r -  i n Chapter  2 will  illustrate  and t h e c o - o p e r a t i v e / l a b o u r  move-  d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e e v o l u t i o n o f C.M.H.C.  -  policy Haire  and c o - o p e r a t i v e h o u s i n g , (1975),  groups ized  chronologically  within  o f CHAM,  Canada,  Manitoba  and  impetus  were  Pool  Insurance  content,  content  studied  of Manitoba).  forms  co-op  However,  was  to secure  financing  for  funding  Office 1973).  Until  once  i n September  U.H.F. then  of housing  progressing.  Fire  went this  to Winnipeg  Furthermore,  were  a loan CMHC,  deciding  model their  the i n i t i a l  drawn, CHAM  Office  upon  members  before  c o - o p e r a t i v e s had been  the plans  because  CHAM  on t o d e s i g n  1960, b u t "Head  Branch,  was n o t  dissolved  housing  point,  Company  co-operative/  t h e co-op  f o r the project.  that  Co-operative  t h e group  co-op  co-op  (Co-operative  heavy  that  to a c o - o p e r a t i v e which  and s t a t e d  Ltd.,  and C a s u a l t y  Council  with  from  Co-operatives L t d . ,  Growers  this  came  continuing  As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d ,  CHAM  project.  the development  residents,  Labour  housing  of co-operative housing  i n New Y o r k .  lending  Grain  With  sponsored  i s organ-  S i x of the ten charter  of the f i r s t  co-ops  of the housing.  continuing  discussion  itself.  i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g building  o f t h e two  topically.  Co-operative  and D i s t r i c t  the labour  developed  United  (1972),  the roles  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of Federated  different  adopt  and F i s h  f o rcontinuing co-operative  to develop  completion  fathom  than  the developers  the Winnipeg  labour  Because  the following  rather  Company,  Society  in  (1973),)  Elevators,  Credit  to  see Dennis  t h e c o - o p e r a t i v e movement  members  Life  and J o r d a n  are inter-dependent,  The  in  65 -  first stages  steadily  the next  approached  step CMHC  could not  was n o t c o m p o s e d o f  could  n o t be made."  (Head  October  1960, c i t e d  i n Jordan  the Winnipeg  City  Council  d i d not  -  approve  their  proposal,  the  This  ment  c o n t i n u i n g co-op  the  Perhaps Union  of  Canada  co-operative lines  as  the  a  the  European The  continuing housing  that  the  low  incomes,  available  to  CHAM's  American  unit  development to  proposal,  from  CMHC  the  study  the  co-operatives  interest  rates  students  c o - o p e r a t i v e s whose  the  was  not  develop-  with  fall  1962)  out-  of m u l t i p l e and  provided  elderly  members  study  housing  i n Canada,  and  to  (Midmore  viability  then  Co-operative  i n 1961  experience  stresses  university  for  obstacle  completed  report  preferential  major  grant  The  and  chosen  movement.  of  received a  co-operatives.  of  first  result  housing.  -  site  available. of  was  66  recommends  for  people  persons  into  be  these  made  broad  classes. The  Co-operative  discussion  w i t h i n both  1963,  CHAM  when  project, provide first  the long  a  second  Credit  share  ments  30  for  with  mortgage  of  to  an  of  the  capital.  As  of  for  more in  form  was  came  However,  even  still  of  of  not  from  a  i t s Willow CMHC  agreed  an  fund  the  entire  from  In Park to  p,  amortization  the  project  Co—operative  43).  The  r e s i d e n t s i n the  receiving  experienced  provoke  conventional and  the  to  associations.  6%%  1976,  after  served  of  obtained  (Pomperleau  financing  CHAM  funding  rate  CMHC w o u l d  $225,000  report  receptive.  the  interest  Manitoba  financing,  Canada  co-operative  CMHC  financing  years.  Society  remainder of  term  of  CMHC a n d  C o r p o r a t i o n was  mortgage  periodof  applied  Union  many  these  form  committ-  problems  with  CMHC. First,  CMHC r e f u s e d  to  advance  the  funds  necessary  to  -  prepay  t h e 60 y e a r  Winnipeg. assessed  the lending  within The  involved on  many  most  when  A later  occupied  before  further  were  free  develop Taken  and  project  paid  than  were  would  of intent  too high.  to bring  the project  t o CHAM, that  p u t CMHC  n o t be p r o v i d e d  of units  of Manitoba  CMHC  then  occupied  made  but linked  roles  When CMHC h i n d e r e d  groups , a s s i s t e d  with  t o funds  f o rshares  impossible  in  the  that  the necessary  b y CMHC.  A two y e a r  obtained  from t h e  and g u a r a n t e e d advances  on t h e b a s i s  Park  and t h e  the project,  the required  by t h e  members.  of Willow o f CMHC  to  financing.  by c o - o p e r a t i v e  of the development  t o be 50%  substantially ina  d o l l a r s was, t h e r e f o r e , Society  com-  80% o f t h e u n i t s  interim  meant  CMHC  amount o f  were  Access  i tv i r t u a l l y without  from  pay t h e t o t a l  who h a d p a i d  requirements  Co-operatives.  movement.  labour  lower  b y CMHC  i n the development  b u t i t made  Credit  review  were  caused  i t would  requirements  the contrasting  labour  that  by members  o f two m i l l i o n  This  CMHC  received  The l e t t e r  by t h e r e q u i r e m e n t  these  financing  t h e number  well  any funds  a co-operative  Federated of  of funds.  stipulation required  position,  Co-operative  complication  of the u n i t s  These  together,  interim  the tenders  much  Then  h a d t o be c u t o u t o f t h e p l a n s  indicated  t o be o c c u p i e d  risk  that  by t h e c i t y o f  themselves.  of the development  significant  impeded  development.  loan  items  half  pleted.  was  CHAM  t h e advance  loan  as r e q u i r e d  CHMC s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .  the financing  the  value  and t o l d  a result,  them  on t h e l a n d  CHAM h a d t o p a y t h e $ 5 0 , 0 0 0  anticipated As  lease  67 r  the  funding,  illustrates co-operative/ co-operative As a  - 68 -  result  of this  operative co-op come  'grit  groups  housing  determination'  of the labour  to see the development  project  the obstacles  i n Canada,  created  and c o -  of the f i r s t  Willow  Park  by a c a u t i o u s  continuing  was a b l e  and  to  over-  conservative  bureaucracy. Before  discussing  co-operatives Willow  Park  Chapter  ments  CHAM  raised  and p o l i c e d  co-op  CMHC  which  who w o u l d  raise  for  the equity  a co-operative  support  housing  co-operative/labour  result  only  o f t h e few p r o j e c t s  Co-op  Villa,  of a d e c i s i o n  CMHC  housing  co-op.  Housing  Association,  union  drawn  provided  eligibility  require-  d i d not reside  mother  that  of the p r o j e c t  as  of the project  could  There-  obtain  Consequently,  received  a loan to  i n t h e co-op.  societies  the  groups  envisage  of residents  project.  in  funding  the i n i t i a l  funding  was f r o m t h e  movement. i n Abbotsford,  B . C . , was d e v e l o p e d  of the Abbotsford  A mother  from  the  only  shares  stressed.  as d e f i n e d i n  co-operative  could  a n d own  be  housing  and o p e r a t e d  the residents  $2,000 o f i t s ' s u r p l u s e a r n i n g s  directors  other  n o t be c o m p o s e d  i n the s i x t i e s ,  built  and o t h e r  when  d i d not include  I t could  fore,  Thus,  must  society'  B u t CHAM m e m b e r s  f o r funding,  members.  'mother  t h e income  themselves.  approached  by a  of continuing  a few p o i n t s  the equity,  of the occupants.  project  a  further,  was d e v e l o p e d  2.  project,  i n Canada  the development  towards  society,  was f o r m e d those  interim  C r e d i t Union  with  union.  and p u r c h a s e d  of a  Co-operative  the majority  of the c r e d i t  financing  to a l l o c a t e  the sponsorship  The A b b o t s f o r d  as a  of The  i t s credit  sufficient  land  -  to  provide  a small  land  Tower,  a high  result  of the United  developing  rise  mortgages  arranged  through  these that  projects  local  Director,  in  and F i s h  co-operative Section  the f i r s t  not In  denote  (NLCC).  T h e NLCC  co-ops  a  that  wanted  a true  series At  by t h e p e o p l e  of seminars t h e same  (CHF),  these  across  time,  that  under  ownership  t o be  completion,  completed this  innovative housing  Labour  Committee of c o n t i n u i n g  by a m o t h e r h a d t o be  would  does  form.  and t h e N a t i o n a l  Co-operative  than  these  rate,  Park's  co-operative project  of promoting  position,  to see the development rather  o f home  14, 1 9 6 6 , c i t e d  f o r home  of Canada  the N a t i o n a l Labour  and o p e r a t e d  a means  Canada  Union  felt  (A,D. W i l s o n ,  two p r o j e c t s  i n this  treated  received funding  interest  Willow  of i n t e r e s t  of t h i s  Park,  the only  was  they  a form  CMHC, J u n e  lending  any p r e f e r r e d  by f u t u r e o c c u p a n t s  felt  built As  a direct  1968 t h e C o - o p e r a t i v e formed  Willow  after  financing  since  represent  As a r e s u l t  were  projects  i n l e a s e h o l d form"  Office,  like  few y e a r s  Congress  It  Windsor  was t h e  The C o r p o r a t i o n  projects,  does  Ontario  of these  unions.  expressed  these  a lack  Both  Solidarity  444 ' s i n t e r e s t i n  CMHC, b u t t h e i n t e r i m  1972).  without  i n Windsor, Local  housing.  " i nfact  projects,  Although  Workers  ownership  58 o f t h e NHA,  provision,  co-op  credit  a s home  Executive  in  Auto  from  although  Dennis  f o r future buildings.  apartment  the co-operative  ownership,  bank  co-operative  received  69 -  live  society. designed,  i n the project.  c o - o p e r a t i v e s , t h e NLCC  sponsored  Canada.  the Co-operative  the implementing  Housing  arm o f t h e NLCC,  Foundation  was w o r k i n g  of to  -  obtain  a r e v i s i o n of section  eligible  15 o f t h e NHA m a k i n g  f o rthe p r e f e r e n t i a l lending  viously  agreed  be  made  to co-operative  of  residents  co-op  70 -  in principle  as e s s e n t i a l l y  sponsoring  institution  developers  of the project. statement  Memorandum,  limited  organizations  of the project.  project  following  that  rate,  In this  CMHC h a d p r e -  dividend  which  were  instance,  a rental project,  ( t h e mother This  society)  view  comes  of the government's  May 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , c i t e d  co-operatives  could  n o t composed CMHC v i e w e d t h e  with the  acting  as t h e  through  position  i n Dennis  loans  in  the  i n 1 9 6 3 (CMHC  and F i s h  1972) :  It i s d i f f i c u l t t o s e e how a c o - o p e r a t i v e could undertake to reserve occupancy f o r s p e c i a l groups of low income o r o t h e r w i s e d i s a d v a n t a g e d p e o p l e , and s t i l l r e m a i n a co-operative b u t i f i t c o u l d , t h e r e does n o t seem t o b e a n y r e a s o n why i t s h o u l d not q u a l i f y f o r t h e s p e c i a l l e n d i n g terms provided i n the A c t f o r such p r o j e c t s . In such a c o - o p e r a t i v e p r o j e c t , however, the tenants themselves c o u l d have very l i t t l e c o n t r o l over occupancy, e i t h e r t h e i r own o r t h a t o f o t h e r s , a n d t h i s d o e s n o t seem t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f what co-operative housing usually seeks. It  i s obvious  co-operative a  Calgary  the  Since  that  does  This  t h e committee  would  the tenant  evidenced  Council,  a group of t h e i r  a co-operative be e l i g i b l e  treatment  was i n t e r e s t e d  committee of  arising  from t h e  eligibility  housing  provided  t o members  with the  i n the case of  1968, t h e h o u s i n g  clarification  to develop  preferential  i s further  Trades  sought  they  not equate  In January  Building  15 l o a n  responded give  itself.  seminars,  Section  CMHC  project.  Calgary  NLCC  that  project.  they  did  of the b u i l d i n g  i n developing  for  a  CMHC  not trades,  a co-op as  -  proposed  by  the  NLCC,  steering  committee of  Association  consisted  this  Trades  will  recent  low  income  co-operative of  the  1972),  eligible  was  xvi) of  Minister,  amended  states  would  not  Section  15.  As  with  (e.g.  the  CHF  may  that  mentioned  concerned  citizens.  where  clearly  a  able  to  they  recommended  the  view  President Andras,  of  the  than  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  of  CMHC's  in  the  the  more  never  of  to  would  such  shares  in  becoming  under  owners  CHF  be  in  not  a  form  the  taken  NHA,  from to  quoted  the  of  whereas rental This  under  than  and  by  this  a type  CMHC h a d project  a Memorandum  i n Dennis  which  themselves.  becomes  Minister,  p.  CMHC  considered for  The  type  co-ops  rather  housing  15.  any  However,  residents  ownership  as  or  promoting  Fish  (1969,  forthcoming  was  develop  Section  person  that  the  and  Statistics  any  CMHC h a d  Hignett, 1969,  Housing  made  home  changes  NHA  i n Dennis  eventual  quotation,  24,  but  owning  co-operative".  developed  CMHC, H,W,  September  rather  cited  members  type  co-ops  following  that  1969,  above,  of  was  meant  (Memorandum,  loans  group  in  the  a  by  This  Housing  Park)"  be  developed  project  changes  members  Canadian  be  co-op  the  Willow  6,  would  of  discussion  possession  including  assure  The  p r e f e r e n t i a l loans  "loans  organization,  This  owner/tenants,  the  of  Co-operative  representatives.  Feb.  for  and  that  the  CMHC p r o p o s e d  individual units  be  future  after  having  to  when  incorporated.  co-operative and  representatives  policies.  1969,  President  Act  of  clear  current early  was  Council  become  and In  "A  Calgary  -  labour  resigned  Association  Building  the  71  been when  clearer  from  the  Honourable Fish  1972,  R,  -  p.  72  -  253 : We a r e p r e s e n t l y p r e p a r e d a n d a u t h o r i z e d t o p r o v i d e l o a n s t o t h e same l e v e l and c o v e r i n g t h e same a m e n i t i e s f o r c o o p e r a t i v e s as f o r any o t h e r f o r m o f housing ownership. We t o o k t h e v i e w when t h e b r i e f was o r i g i n a l l y p r e s e n t e d t o us t h a t S e c t i o n 15, h o w e v e r , p r o v i d e s f a v o u r a b l e i n t e r e s t r a t e s f o r low income t e n a n t s whose e n t i t l e m e n t to o c c u p y t h e h o u s i n g ceases when.they cease to r e q u i r e the subsidized interest rate. T h i s means, f o r p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , t h a t we w o u l d f i n a n c e a p r o j e c t s p o n s o r e d by a c o - o p e r a t i v e i n p r e c i s e l y t h e same m a n n e r as one sponsored by a n y p r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r , s u b j e c t t o t h e same p r o v i s i o n s f o r r e n t c o n t r o l a n d income eligibility limitation. The c o - o p e r a t i v e s , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h i l e r e l y i n g on t h e t e c h n i c a l i t y that the occupant i s a tenant, promote e n t i r e l y the concept of ownership r a t h e r t h a n t e n a n c y , and t h e y h a v e i n d e e d proposed that the t e n a n t s p r o v i d e the e q u i t i e s r e q u i r e d to f i n a n c e t h e i r units. We f e e l t h i s t o be i n c o n s i s t e n t t o . t h e b a s i c c o n c e p t of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n as i t i s presently written.  Thus,  although  bility  of  changes  had  co-operatives by  CHF  was  proposal  by  the  Co-operative  have  been  denied  given been  i t s experience funding  elsewhere, for  home  housing that  building  and  these  ownership. led  to  a l l co-ops  eligible.  on  with  to  Given  the  meant  co-ops.  Association  been that  this  First,  one  type  i t seemed  end.  accessi-  type  of  the  of  the  project  Manitoba  is  understandable  Corporation in Ontario  as  essentially  of  co-operative  reasonable  Secondly,  co-op  rates,  for years  described  the  that  co-operative housing  home " o w n e r s h i p , desired  funds,  S e c t i o n 15  co-operatives have  regarding  This  Housing  access  CMHC's p o s i t i o n  passed  S e c t i o n 15  promoted  would  not  to  been  CHF  and  to  had and  a  tool  assume  the  con-  -  tinuing of  co-op  for to  co-ops  housing  members. allow  been  to  surprising  15  duced.  This  had  Responsible  home  the  ownership,  Limited  CHF's  the  program,  the  of  low  was  low  to  Housing  Andras, cost  income  similarity  when  advertising  term  reluctance  i t should  not  have  denied, press  been  1970,  set  housing  sector  f o r access  Program  i n February  R.  the  long  Act,  continued  announced  i n n o v a t i v e forms within  have  Hon.  CMHC's  Dividend  request  out  particularly  and  Innovative  f o r Housing,  individuals  facts,  probably  not  -  frequently pointed  these  that  would  Section  fund  to  Given  access  CHF  to  themselves  73  of  by  aside for the  to  intro-  the  $200  Minister million  families  and  population.  T h e a i m was t o s u p p l y f a m i l i e s i n the-, $4,000 t o $6,000 i n c o m e g r o u p w i t h new h o u s i n g , as r i s i n g b u i l d i n g c o s t s had r e s t r i c t e d new h o m e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h i s group to p u b l i c h o u s i n g . The program was t o be f o c u s s e d on h o u s i n g n e e d s w i t h i n m a j o r urban a r e a s where c o n d i t i o n s o f t i g h t h o u s i n g and h i g h c o s t s were e x e r t i n g s e v e r e p r e s s u r e on low i n c o m e housing opportunities. (Canadian C o u n c i l f o r D e v e l o p m e n t 1971, p. This  program  housing. Scarcee to  The  could  not  Co-operative  Meadows  project  receive funding  expansion  of  Due  to  new  addition  East Board  the  the  of  form  Co-operative  Directors.  more  Housing  the  CHAM's W i l l o w  took  been  mentioned  under  requirements  Housing of  have  the  for  Association earlier,  Innovative  Park  of  timely  project  also  co-op  Limited, with  co-operative  of  Calgary's  one  Housing  Innovative a new  was  Social 7)  of  the  first  fund.  Planned  received  funding.  Housing called  i t s own  Program, Willow  the  Park  membership  and  -  A under  total  this  Only  under  Co-op  i n Regina,  the  units  Villa  co-operative dichotomy  access  group.  were  'kicked  co-operatives share  and g i v e  upper  limit.  Innovative out  with  bound This The  paid  funds  units  when  out'  Action  i t was s p o n s o r e d b y  ceased  was t h e Specifically,  f o rpeople i n this  Applying  However, whose  to low income subsidy  arose  exceeded the a  contrawhich the  under the  an a r r a n g e m e n t income  then  t h e upper  of h i s unit.  monthly  members.  aspect  was w o r k e d  exceeded  i n possession  were  range,  to s e l l h i s  ownership  also  of a higher  surcharge  level  ina  this to  was o b v i o u s l y  through  and remained  of the i n t e r n a l  rate  to f a l l  h i s income  problem  a member  by t h i s  concerning  o f members.  projects  clause  This  Program.  rates  the Joint  o f r e q u i r i n g a member  was i n t h e f o r m  produced  were n o t  as i t c o n s i s t e d o f  interest  positio.n  of tenure  promoted.  a t reduced  founding  'kick  a surcharge  surcharge  f o rfunding  of the p r o j e c t .  up h i s u n i t  CMHC w h e r e b y  4,  One was t h e s-econd  The o t h e r ,  to housing  had t h e e f f e c t  Housing  surge i n  one o f t h e p r o b l e m s  I f tenants  to the security  co-operatives  completed  Union.  loans  out'  This  were  period  Program,  to the preferred  narrow  this  new c o n s t r u c t i o n ;  of the tenant/owner  income  during  Housing  earlier,  these  diction  than  Credit  CMHC p r o v i d e d  they  completed  was n o t e l i g i b l e  mentioned  units  f o rthe great  i n Abbotsford,  rather  Saskatchewan As  accounts  the Innovative  o f Co-op  housing  i n 1971 and 1972 as i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e  projects  phase  existing  This  activity  two s m a l l  funded  o f 795 c o - o p e r a t i v e  program.  co-operative  74 -  payment.  used  to provide  This  was t h e  of continuing  co-ops  -  mentioned A  in  Chapter  major  co-operative  the  low  income  numbers This in  that  only  few  income  was  levels  of  an  A  order Public  to  qualify  ation:,, the  for  a  have  the  number  tried  in  Innovative  the  co-op  requiring the  the  public  of  the  NHA  of  that  supply  Co-operative The  municipal) units  housing  subsidies  income  each  projects.  ten  (Section  moderate  low  DeCosmos  that  surplus.  participate  possible  Housing  such  operating  could  requirement  to  sufficient  consisted of  rent  necessary  families  group  the  lower  If  three entered  were  made  assistance.  offered  40),  In  under  the  the  co-operative  Local  Housing  Authority.  With  this  design-  p r o v i n c i a l and  federal  governments  then  paid  the  difference the  with  as  required  by  by  the  ( f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and  section  designated  paid  the  families  Housing  equity  of  agreement  to  reduced  the  s o l u t i o n was  one  provide  i f the  Furthermore,  government  available  low  particularly  further  equity.  a  arrangement.  always  meant  Vancouver,  the  to  to  members  was  i t needed  this  offer  members  people.  into  members,  continually  income  income  in  to  with  high  scheme,  5%  were  existed  of  the  a  -  2.  difficulty  the  75  of  the  ten  families.  between  the  'break  low  income  members.  The  even This  governments  rent'  and  method  the  proved  also  paid  lower  rent  to  be  quite  successful. The and  the  co-operative  funding. to  CMHC  rates  of  Innovative  The to  Housing movement  Co-operative  allow  Section  Program was  was  left  Housing  terminated  unsure  Foundation  co-operative  access  to  15.  of  success  Because  the  the  of  in  continued  renewed  preferred of  1971,  the  its  request  interest  projects  -  funded  under  responsive the of  To  to these  changes  Housing  requests.  Program,  In June  the long  sought  i s given  below,  after  CMHC was  changes,  A  S e c t i o n 15.1 a l l o w s l o a n s t o c o n t i n u i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e s o f up t o 1 0 0 % o f t h e p r o ject's lending value,  2.  S e c t i o n 15.1 p r o v i d e s to 10% o f t h e c a p i t a l ject.  3.  S e c t i o n 15.1 a l l o w s f o r f i n a n c i a l assistance i n p r e p a r i n g l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n s to CMHC ( S e c t i o n 3 7 . 1 ) .  4.  Section 34.18 a l l o w s c o - o p members t h e same a s s i s t a n c e a s i n d i v i d u a l s f o r home ownership. This assistance includes f e d e r a l l o a n s f o r a s l o w a s 8% a n d a d d i t i o n a l f o r g i v e n e s s up t o $600 p e r y e a r i n i n t e r e s t c h a r g e s , d e p e n d i n g on i n c ome.  5.  S e c t i o n 44.1(b) p r o v i d e s a rent s u b s i d y f o r l o w i n c o m e f a m i l i e s on a r e n t - g e a r e d to-rincome f o r m u l a where p r o v i n c e s a r e w i l l i n g t o s h a r e t h e c o s t w i t h CMHC. ( T h i s d i d n o t come i n t o e f f e c t until 1975.)  6.  Co-operative groups which planned p u r c h a s e e x i s t i n g u n i t s w e r e now f o r a l l o f t h e above f u n d i n g .  be e l i g i b l e  f o r t h e above  of future  design  eligible  f o r these  With applied approval  and development  f o r a g r a n t o f up costs of the pro-  to eligible  with  process.  members Mother  had to  participating in societies  were n o t  programs.  t h e above  f o r funding. by J u l y  description  subsidies, a co-operative  owner/tenants  finally  o f 1 9 6 3 , amendments t o  1.  consist the  the Innovative  NHA p r o v i d e d these  76 -  changes Although  i n t h e NHA, many 21 g r o u p s  1, 1974 , t h e r e a l  ef feet  groups  had r e c e i v e d  immediate funding  of tHe changes i n  -  legislation 1975,  The  Housing number  of  in  and  otherwise approval  the  previous  units and  they  are  are,  have and  this  1974 time  cussed  completion  not  completed  feature  in  1974.  D i r e c t i o n s of factors  continuing and  directions  co-op  Thus,  the  the  as  may  be  1977.  Since and  of  dominated  support. housing  These Any  as  time, each  the  in  the  PENTA, be  the  a  Catholic  Church  played  the  did  dispurchase  development were  has  of  occupied co-op  escalated.  Canada of  both  sponsoring the  must  consider  role  of  building instit-  future both  of  factors . The  in  illustrates  number  year  example,  grants  will  development are  funding  housing  d i s c u s s i o n of  i n Canada  X  long  might  For  involving  Housing the  they  group,  (PENTA  existing  occupied  com-  start-up  Another  have  this  units Housing  as  Table  units pre-  large.  and  Projects  units  of  the  than  l a g between  1977.  not  Innovative  the  higher  number  very  until  affecting  although  impressive time  ;  the  Innovative  the  Co-operative  have  to  of  late  co-operatives.  financial of  548  completed  was  development.  did  groups  ution  of  naturally  by  Two  still  until  5.)  units  units  years  approval  i n Chapter  Consequently,  Future  funding  construction until  existing  housing  result  evident  First,  t h e r e f o r e , not  period.  and  a  not  twofold.  comparable  as  was  significantly  project  in detail  co-op  are  Secondly,  were  units  1972,  been.  lag  start  are  in  1974  projects receiving  early  of  1973  completed this  i n 1971-1972  Program,  not  of  of  -  for  completed  figures,  pleted  two  reasons  Program  completed 1970  i n terms  11  the  sponsoring  these  -  COMPLETION  DATES  -  TABLE  X  OF  1974  FUNDED  PROJECTS  Co-op Jan.  Project Receiving Fund A p p r o v a l 1, 1974-Ju-ly. 1, 1974  78  Comple t i o n Date  Location Toronto  1974  Victoria  1974  RIverdale  Toronto  1974  Haney  Maple  Bain Pioneer  (Rochdale)  Pioneer  DACHI Chadwick  Towers  Ridge  1975  Toronto  1975  Toronto  1976  Thunder  Lynn  Vancouver  1976  Denier s  Vancouver  1976  Spr i n g r i d g e  Victoria  1976  James  Victoria  1977  Winnipeg  1977  Valley  Bay  •Village  Canadien  Bay  1976  Castlegreen  Penta  Vancouver  Dome  Victoria  Coady  Ottawa  Sundance  E d m o n t on  1978 (estimate)  -  institution  i n the  More  recently,  ment  agencies.  distinct Nova  Department co-op  this  of  the  i n N.S.  higher The  programs  income  of  housing. the  government  of  switch  of  social  improvement  emphasis  housing  has  Federal  the of  Thus,  the  from as  co-operative  s p o n s o r e d by  to a  greater  the  number  building  only  the  prothe  afford.  social  of  affordable  co-ops  to  dissolve  effect  of  the  as  Church, of  Extension  can  result  housing  the  roots  which  concerned with  allowed  When  earlier  the program  end  two  extensive the  contractors  the  had  i n the  i t s grass  from  to  the  involvement i n the program  second major  been  an  funds  provincial  now  prepared  to  being  could  fund.  of  has  to  been  a  of  a method as  upon  govern-  a means  people,  provincial  in activity.  universally  exists.  housing  government  effect  increase  support  co-operative The  involve  University lost  govern-  development.  typical  merely has  provincial  of  sponsored  government. The  ment  but  the houses.  extensive  by  i s not  t h e N.S.H.C.  more  the  help  attracted  now  to  away  groups  ment's  by  a move  mutual  the program,  completion  Xavier  built  Thus,  providing  and  by  co-operatives.  i n v o l v e m e n t has  ceased  to housing  provincial  aspects  assumed  t h e movement  meant  building  co-operative  St. Francis  This  of  government  Commission  i n 1970,  organization.  jects  has.been  building  Housing  program  education  role  on  -  development  Provincial  effects  Scotia  early  79  As  received hardly  a  This  is a  available,  provincial  greater  promote  government  Furthermore, p r o v i n c i a l  result  of  particularly  responsibility,  monetary  housing  involve-  committment.  which  i t was  governments  not  are  when  80  -  trying  to  banks,  etc.,  projects second  make  at  the  more  workable  make  serviced  lots  available  necessary provinces  building  Maritimes,  expected. hope  programs  affordable rates.  In  supporting  their  to  factor  support.  a  for activity  support  does  British  Columbia.  movement  not  which  now  plays  information  local when or  local  difficult  for a  group  a  of  where  the  from  these the  to  wants  to  among to  the  co-op  resource N. H.. A.  co-operative  groups was  also  is  point  of  little  in  time,  or  Canada,  co-op  housing  providing  serving  national  Problems much  (Cull  with  the  as  the  body,  often a  1976),  arise  project,  but  i t is  technical  groups,  We  p r o j e c t s most  can  expect  likely  in  exist.  amended  building  be  Ontario  only  this  too  resource  can  and  support  of  not  without  housing  this  the  necessary.  succeed  the  financial  there  either  but  Besides  members  local  At  majority  'help'  i n with  co-ops  Foundation  co-ops,  co-op  labour/co-operative  f u n c t i o n by  also  occur  by  the  land  actively  support,  as  Housing  building  ties  is  up  A l b e r t a , Manitoba  in  the  necessary  are  continuing  Although within  be  and  project  provided  cities  to  movement.  groups  guidance  forthcoming  important  the  conflicts  growth  be  to  in building  co-operatives  about,  of  resource  when  to  government  provinces.  Co-operative  an  both  voice  the  seem  setting  activity,  government  other  by  obviously  Saskatchewan,  provincial i n the  The  the  growth  i n c l u d e s members  projects,  central  where  continue  institution.  This  co-operative  co-ops,  continuing  will  for  continued  Without  For  -  sector  in  1973 , many  feel  that  people  further  changes  -  are  necessary  regarding  unit,  and  interim  these  changes,  development focussing housing to  on  Chapter co-ops  we  within will  excepting  a  the be  note  However,  problem  facing  continuing  In  very  change  proved will  that  sector  general,  property  point  here  third  cost  1975).  d e v e l o p e d have  must  maximum  (Haire  owned  Although this  5,  attitude  be  payments,  attitude.  individually  should  growth.  largest  is public  -  monthly  financing  the  81  to  be  the  as  even  public a  per given  co-op attitudes  goal,around which  be  major  obstacles  discussed  in detail  e x p a n s i o n of  housing  without  a  change  in  in  public  difficult,  i f not  impossible.  i n government  policy  towards  Thus,  co-ops,  we  i  cannot  expect  to  see  Continuing  co-ops,  not  to  likely  However, growth  problems the  growth  co-op as  of  the  an  change  because  experience  in cities  and  a  which  escalation  affordability of  co-op  development  of  their  present  major  are  experiencing  of  housing.  economy  a  the  consequence,  continues  to  and  nature,  rapid  to housing  Edmonton,  trends.  i n the  both  prices,  access As  unit  development  housing  and  growth  multiple  any  i n Calgary,  Saskatchewan  i n the  we  population :o  encourage  would  possibly  show  Maritimes.  resultant will  are  expect  i n Regina  strength.  -  Footnotes  82 -  - Chapter  4  Due t o t h e u n p r e d i c t a b l e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f t h e Quebec d a t a , i t has been e x c l u d e d f o r purposes of comparison. Including Q u e b e c , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n number f o r c o n t i n u i n g v e r s u s b u i l d i n g co-ops, 5,000 v e r s u s 3,000 r e s p e c t i v e l y , i s s t i l l evident. 2  A l t h o u g h m o s t p r o v i n c e s h a v e made t h e i r own a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h CMHC, O n t a r i o b u i l d i n g c o - o p s n e v e r h a d t h e b e n e f i t o f a p r o v i n c i a l housing organization. As a r e s u l t o f a l l o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n t p r o v i n c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s , l o a n s were p r o c e s s e d under d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s c o f t h e NHA. O n t a r i o ' s l o a n s were o r i g i n a l l y u n d e r S e c t i o n 7 a n d 8; P . E . I . , N.S, a n d S a s k a t c h e w a n h a v e a g r e e m e n t s u n d e r S e c t i o n 35A; Q u e b e c d i d n o t r e c e i v e l o a n s f r o m CMHC. R e c e n t l y , a l l b u i l d i n g c o - o p l o a n s f r o m CMHC come under S e c t i o n 40. The c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e s e v a r i e d financial a g r e e m e n t s i s t h a t CMHC d o e s n o t h a v e a r e c o r d o f b u i l d i n g co-ops. I n O n t a r i o , t h i s means t h a t r e c e n t d a t a a r e n o t available. I n p r o v i n c e s where p r o v i n c i a l h o u s i n g authorities have h a n d l e d l o a n s , u n i t t o t a l s a r e u s u a l l y available.  CHAPTER  5  C O N T I N U I N G C O - O P E R A T I V E HOUSING S E L E C T E D URBAN AREAS  The housing  discussion  by p r o v i n c e  institution factors  of the s p a t i a l  emphasized  and f i n a n c i a l  are necessary  and  f o r development.  the  the s p a t i a l  urban  within  The  two u r b a n Regional  First, co-op  housing  significance. and of  was  ation  The  Secondly,  co-ops  of the d i s t a n c e  building  Spatial Two  co-op  unique  chapter  of  i s to  locations  are the Greater  and M e t r o p o l i t a n areas  Toronto,  are twofold.  and a r e o b v i o u s l y  to the author. because  No  continuing  of great  available  f o r both  such  of the lack  o f m o s t ,of t h e p r o j e c t s ,  separating the author  activity  and T e m p o r a l  of t h i s  for analysis  of these  performed date  are not  out, obtained,  the determinants  i n f o r m a t i o n was  accessible was  they  f o r 43% o f t h e c o m p l e t e d  i n Canada  due t o t h e e a r l y  because of  units  sought  these  of c o n t i n u i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e s at  (GVRD)  account  be  The p u r p o s e  selected  District  they  relatively  building  areas  f o r the s e l e c t i o n  together  the sponsoring  However, a l t h o u g h  must  and to examine  city.  reasons  location  distribution  the  Vancouver The  scale,  of c o - o p e r a t i v e  c o n d i t i o n s f o r development,  A precise  examine  distribution  factors,  support.  sufficient. approved  two  IN  from  areas  analysis of and  informalso  the centre  i n the Maritimes.  Patterns  patterns  of c o n t i n u i n g c o - o p e r a t i v e  -  83 -  develop-  -  merit  exist  project  completed  financed 4,  this  forward,  The  located  much  of i t i n townhouses.  similar  tenure  to other  holds  f o r most  newly  constructed  non-co-op of  this  co-op  for in  planning  this  reason  t h e GVRD.  funding  through  program  was  completed with  after  t h e NHA  necessary  none  this  Housing  i n 1 9 7 1 , many date  amendments  f o r planning,  (refer  occurring  back  a  housing This  signifistructure  situation  completed  i n GVRD;  where  other  (The' s i g n i f i c a n c e  chapter.)  of the p r o j e c t s  the Innovative  offered  i n areas  required  lag exists  prior  p o r t i o n of  f o r development,  were  to t h i s Program,  date  I ti s i n 1974  had r e c e i v e d  Although the  X),  i n 1973, t h e time  and c o n s t r u c t i o n  date.  completed  of the funded to Table  i n GVRD  between t h e  and t h e c o m p l e t i o n  completed  exhibit  110 u n i t s ,  A major  development  time  of the p r o j e c t  terminated  They  with  projects  construction  a considerable  initial  i n the area.  i n this  i n Chapter  completed i n  the actual  co-op  first  patterns.  planned  constructed.  later  o f t h e new  was  therefore,  while  type  are being  Projects  the  diverge.  been  DeCosmos,  townhouse  that  From  project  developments  be d i s c u s s e d  projects,  initial  recently  of the c o n t i n u i n g  a.:result  discussed  of Vancouver.  pattern  new  townhouses  will As  had o n l y  the  construction  DeCosmos,  i s a large  i n the K i l l a r n e y area  neighbourhood  was  Program  of development  DeCosmos  different  new  of s i m i l a r i t y .  i n GVRD,  this  cantly  Although  d i s t r i b u t i o n s and t e m p o r a l  project  XI).  involved  Housing  the paths  first  (Table  point  spatial  a n d t h e GVRD,  city  by t h e I n n o v a t i v e  differing  1972  Toronto  i n each  i s the only  project both  f o r Metro  84 -  projects Then,  were  even  period  o f t h e p r o j e c t s , and  TABLE  CONTINUING Year of Completion  CO-OPS  IN GREATER  XI  VANCOUVER  REGIONAL  Type of Construct ion  Number of Units  DISTRICT  P r o j ec t Name  Municipality  1972  110  new  construction  DeCosmos  Vancouver  1973  65  new  construction  Azalea  Coquitlam  1975  150  new  construction  Kanata  7  Strathcona  42  new  construction  New  84  new  construction  Haney  24 162  1977  TOTAL  Vancouver  rehabilitation  215  1976  Gardens  Wesminster Pioneer  rehabilitation/ conversion  Mountain  new  Norman  construction  mobile  home  pads  Co-op  Village  View  Bethune  Vancouver New  Westminster  Maple Port  Ridge Moody  Burnaby  Meadow H i g h l a n d s  Pitt North  Meadows  65  new  construction  Lynn  74  new  construction  Klahanie  Richmond  42  new  construction  Co-op  Vancouver  200  new  construction  Adanac  170  new  construction  False  1403  Valley  d'Habitation  Vancouver  Vancouver Creek  Vancouver  -  for  project  completed under  i n 1974.  t h e new  Depending cations, project  on t h e s i z e  Since  completed  this  each  In  through  emerges.  Park  existing  project  (Table  tinuing  co-op  exception The each  jointly living.  city  until  a  19.75.  compli-  co-op  years,  Thus,  approval  projects  XII).  they  Program  each f o r 677  have  been  f o r at least  a comparison  are significantly  projects  deciding  that  As p r i v a t e  the story  a portion  using  type  of a group  exceeded  their  t h e means  alternative.  was m o r e  of the of  con-  a chi-square (Table  test,  XIII).  o f development  o f t h e cor-op  t o improve  as t h e b e s t  projects  i n the other.  factor  wish  ownership  was s e e n  however,  they  funding  Furthermore,  of the type  f o r the d i f f e r e n t  are a result  received  different  i s the rule  i s the motivating  Park  as a l l o t h e r  i n t h e two c i t i e s  reason  of continuing  a s d i d De C o s m o s , i t  and a p a r t m e n t s .  units  Thus,  picture  Alexandra  i n Toronto,  housing  primary  housing  Toronto,  townhouses  i n one c i t y  GVRD, m o s t  co-op  two o r t h r e e  Although  projects  that  funding  other  to b u i l d  funding  were  i n 1975, a c c o u n t i n g  a different  i s unique  utilize  indicates  not completed  two o r t h r e e  completed only  Toronto,  of both  Alexandra  the  time,  received  and v a r i o u s  received  the Innovative Housing  consists  in  were  which  the decision  was u s u a l l y  no p r o j e c t s  year.  Metro  co-operatives  projects  of the project,  of p r o j e c t s  projects  that  o f t h e NHA w e r e  l a g between  a couple  seven  CMHC, m e a n t  The f i r s t  and c o m p l e t i o n  units.  The  from  sections  t h e time  although year,  approval  86 -  group.  In  of people standard of of these  people,  In Metro  one o f s u r v i v a l .  This i s  TABLE X I I  CONTINUING  Year of Complet i o n  Number of U n i t s  1973  103  1974  260 41 13 75  1975  8 36 51 40  1976  HOUSING  67 31  CO-OPS  IN M E T R O P O L I T A N  Type of Construct ion new  construction  TORONTO  Project Alexandra  Name  Park  x  Borough  Toronto  rehabilitation/ convers ion  Bain  rehabilitation/ conversion  Dufferin  rehabilitation/ conversion  Riverdale  rehabilitation/ conver sion  Forward  rehabilitation/ conversion  Riverdale  rehabilitation/ conversion  Don  rehabilitation/ convers ion  Main-Gerrard  Toronto  rehabilitation/ conversion  John  Toronto  Apartments  Area  Grove  Chadwick  new c o n s t r u c t i o n / rehabilitation  DACHI  Toronto Toronto  9  Community  Toronto Toronto  (DACHI)  Bruce  new c o n s t r u c t i o n / rehabilitation  Toronto  Towers  Toronto  East  York  Toronto  TABLE  XII  CCont i n u e d )  Type of Construction  Year of Completion  Number of U n i t s  1976  25  rehabilitation/ conver s ion  Riverdale  Toronto  47  rehabilitation/ convers ion  T h u r l e s tone  Scarborough  32  rehabilitation/ conversion  Grace  Toronto  7Q  exist ing  Wood  1977  Proj ect  Name  Maclnnis Tree  Borough  Toronto  TABLE  TYPE  XIII  OF CONSTRUCTION I N CO-OP P R O J E C T S IN METRO TORONTO AND GVRD  Metro  Type  of Construction  Number of Units  Rehabilitation/ Conversion  ^  New  109  Construction  =  924 w i t h  Toronto  Percent of T o t a l Number o f U n i t s  g  5  >  g  GVRD  x  Number of Units  2  5  ?  Percent of Total Number o f U n i t s  ±  8  3  I  1 degree of  14,2  freedom  1146  81,7  S  -  best  explained  1912,  some  Toronto Bain  by means  had  been  The  allowed  ations,  began  had  fifty  repairing  t o move,  gage  payments.  co-operative, Non-Profit  in  at Bain  1  end. aware  Housing  and s e l l  In February  The d e c i s i o n  be  the newly  1974, t h e  their  unit  tenants  expired.  at a very  Many years,  could  some  a n d money  Obviously,  they  they  not a f f o r d  were  given  able  a co-op  high  as  long  into d i dnot  the mortto form of  a  Toronto's  t o buy- t h e p r o -  of Canada, f o r most  when  of the  o f CMHC a n d t h e c i t y  to form  standard.  o f t h e Company's d e c i s i o n  Foundation  could  lip t o  the residents decided  the help  Toronto  i n 1 9 7 3 , t h e Company  units.  o f them  the  i n the  t o pay f o r r e n o v -  had put a l o t of time  Corporation,  accounts  to have  f o r t e n t o twenty  of t h e i r  tenants  and c a l l e d  venture  of buying  Consequently, and w i t h  Company  i n 1972, t h e  the housing  Late  the lease  and y e t most  (Co-operative  Toronto,  made  and they  Housing  Similar  to b r i n g  this  o u t when  the  apartments  Housing  of the i n s p e c t i o n ,  a profitable  were  as t h e built  low r e n t a l  of decay  .that i f i t was; going  the i n t e r i o r  want  ject  ordered  toward  lived  years,  the state  the choice  or moving  tenants  Late  as condominiums.  given  the c i t y ,  In  e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l , and t h e a p a r t m e n t s  a result  create  Apartments  were  price,  as  decided  renovations  Bain  they  As  was  units  quality,  to d e t e r i o r a t e .  i t would  renovated  of  entirely  inspectors.  Company  By  tolerate  Company  with  1964, t h e T o r o n t o  become a l m o s t  Housing  and t o g e t h e r  Apartments,  incorporated  class.  had  city  families  good  the working  longer  of Bain  to provide  for  no  wealthy  Company,  Apartments  could  of t h e example  of Toronto's  Housing  90 -  June  1976, p. 2 ) .  of the p r o j e c t s  originates  out of a  -  desire  to continue  decided  to s e l l .  in  or buying  Mountain  View  were  i n urban  (CMHC  official,  few  conversion  the  GVRD. This  reflected  owners  quoted  i n scale,  number  the  i n Haire  a mean time  The  patterns  cities  spatial are also  "buying  these  existing  planning  about  crisis"  exist  stage  projects  and In can  i f the tenant/  utilizing projects  f o r new  the tend  'sweat t o be  i n Metro  Toronto,  construction units  f o r the d i f f e r e n t time  in  mentioned  two y e a r s .  co-op  housing  Consequently,  city.  o f 58 u n i t s  through  curves  of the  (Fig, 5),  of c o - o p e r a t i v e housing  distinctive,  housing  As  o f 118 u n i t s  completed  co-ops  of e x i s t i n g  particularly  size  l a g accounts  circum-  o f each  themselves,  of p r o j e c t s  of other  Although  i s also  or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n  size  ownership,  of development  i s usually  a mean  remaining  co-operative projects  the i n i t i a l  Furthermore,  of  the higher  1 9 7 5 , p, 1 6 ) ,  patterns  project  with  method  of s i m i l a r  that  have  considerable  to a i d the housing  i n the type  of t h e work  smaller  This  little  as a few m o n t h s ,  principle.  with  where  paying  or c o n v e r s i o n  l a g between  conversion  equity'  GVRD.  i s a result  or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n  o f a new  do m o s t  compared  does  difference  as l i t t l e  without  on t h e a s s u m p t i o n  areas  the time  comparison,  t h e owners  i n areas  the applications  i n the temporal  completion  that  i s co-operative  i n GVRD  1976),  based  units  take  the unit,  in rehabilitation  denied  earlier,  are located  or building  Co-op  stances .(Simpson interested  i n housing  i s o c c u r r i n g , and t h e o n l y  the neighbourhood  rentals  in  to l i v e They  'white-painting'  91 -  A cursory  i n each  examination  of  of the  -92-  FIGURE  5  Number o f P r o j e c t s Completed  1972 - 1977  Number o f Projects Completed  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  Year of Completion  °  Metropolitan  Toronto  #  G r e a t e r Vancouver  R.D.  -  spatial  distribution  indicates cultural widely  a random areas  the city  have of  co-op  projects.  project.  York  the city  city  with, co-ops a r e  neither  Vancouver, areas  on  o f West  urbanized  have  side  Vancouver  municipalities  at least  of Surrey  closer  the western  nor the m u n i c i p a l i t y  one  and D e l t a  co-operative housing  of Toronto  planning  and c i t y  projects  i s the purpose  some  West  itself  (Fig. 7),  boroughs  co-op do n o t  districts  are clustered  which  Only  two  about  projects  projects are to both the  c o n t a i n i n g co-op pattern,  the central  of t h i s  determinants  these  are close  scattered  of the remainder  of the l o c a t i o n a l  even  districts  t o GVRD's  i s concentrated  o f t h e r e g i o n , one i n E a s t  However,  planning  In contrast  Toronto's  that  o f GVRD  f o r the a g r i -  However,  A l l of the highly  Toronto,  i n minor  projects.  It  evident  i n the other  itself,  areas  the region.  and one i n S c a r b o r o u g h .  located  Except  areas  housing.  Metro  located  the local  the local  The a g r i c u l t u r a l  In  are  except  any co-op  within  o f t h e GVRD,  i t becomes  within  (Fig, 6 ) ,  pattern  of Vancouver,  t h e GVRD,  have  of co-ops  d i s p e r s e d throughout  examination, of  93 -  chapter  of these  Metro city  region.  to discuss  spatial  dis-  tributions .  The  Discriminant  Analysis  Discriminant an  attempt  operative tinguish  analysis  was a p p l i e d  t o v a r i o u s GVRD  to define a pattern i n the s p a t i a l projects.  between  Specifically,  local  areas  with  pattern of co-  the technique co-ops  data i n  was u s e d  and those  to  without.  dis-  I I  FIGURE. 7 C o n t i n u i n g Housing Co-ops i n Metro Toronto  -  A  list  of the v a r i a b l e s  outlined  i n Chapter  In included  the early  only  were  First,  ence  third When  comparable  predictive  This  area  north  normalized  GVRD was  i n the f i n a l  areas  were  River  have c o -  were  results  the differ^-  areas  felt  that  areas of  l i v i n g , not o f GVRD.  The  of the i n i t i a l  analysis.  i n the discriminant analysis, the  much!less  successful  and western  i n results  tothe  the author  of urban  urban  areas.  added  as t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l type  included.  other  they  Secondly,  a different  i n this  than  Richmond  i s probably  forexclusion.  discussed  variable  to the actual  using  The most  scaling  II.  were  when  were  only the  included.  attributable  to the  As a c o n s e q u e n c e ,  a l l of-  t h e s i s a r e based .on. t h i s  restricted  o f GVRD. Prior  3).  as w e l l  GVRD was u s e d  two r e a s o n s  data  increased disproportionately  of the Fraser  analyses  although  to the remaining  results  However,  of the Fraser  involves the actual  difference  above  they  constituted  reason  south  Consequently,  areas,  the entire  areas  the entire  planning  o f t h e two g r o u p s .  southern  Richmond,  the  size,  i n sizes  really  of a n a l y s i s ,  f o r e x c l u s i o n of these  of the areas  sample  these  stages  reasons  housing.  of these  3.  44 o f t h e 63 l o c a l  three  none  operative total  and t h e d e r i v a t i o n s  i n the discriminant analysis.  analysis, There  96 -  Patterson's  o f t e n used  used  1976) NORMAL transform  The d e s c r i p t i v e  and a f t e r  The t r a n s f o r m  (.1974 ,  non^linear  was a r c s i n X u. before  discriminant analysis,  the data program  applied  statistics  transformation are given  i n each  case  i s also  of  were (Chapter  after each  i n Appendix  included.  The  -  NORMAL  program  kurtosis  of  skewness  and  formation, 99%  is primarily  each  kurtosis  confidence  Interval  each  i s making  detached  to  the  the  much.  areas  greater  were  co-ops.  This  co-ops  are  son  areas  as are  having quite  Mountain  local  would  more  itself  or  negative  co-ops  44  of  seem  to  few  the  fall  to  trans-  within  for  the  areas.  the  In  some  account of  DF1  than  areas that  cases areas  local  are are  two  of  without  comparipredicted  distributions  evident; not  used  with  A  DF1  about  was  areas  co-ops.  the  for  84.09%  areas  which  or  were  co-ops  with  of  contribution  Success  the  this  university,  XV).  that  vari-  managerial  same  the  dis-  the  (Table  and  local  the  of  areas  aberrant  to  total  indicate  best  the  percentage  three  A  the  Ignoring  contribution.  about  indicates  as  whether  coefficients  ( F i g . 6)  step—wise  represents  denotes  remaining  than  a  (Table XIV).  professional,  without  Hastings-Sunrise  and  after  selected  variables,  classified  ( F i g . 10) A  and  population with  local  areas  co-ops  similar. and  three  The  distinctive  with  were  coefficients  account  the  before  subjected  groups  unstandardized  of  illustrate  variables  variables  (DF1),  correctly  amongst  then  population with  The  9  skewness  transformation.  two  percentage  each  the  sign  positive  of  and  the  i t s associated variable  The  occupations,  classify  of  the  discriminant score.  as  of  were  Six  8  with  variable  Most  of  function  percentage  half to  a  houses,  technical  each  standardized  function.  discriminant  and  the  contribution  criminant able  of  Figures  data  between  -  concerned  after  analysis.  discriminators  relative  of  normalized  discriminant  sign,  variable;  respectively.  The  97  Burnaby  predicted  as  FIGURE  8  Skewness and K u r t o s i s of V a r i a b l e s Before N o r m a l i z i n g  12#  (GVRD Data)  7m  •ft  Kurtosis  NOTE;  Numbers r e f e r t o v a r i a b l e number as l i s t e d i n Appendix I I  9.9% Confidence I n t e r v a l  FIGURE Skewness and K u r t o s i s  9  of V a r i a b l e s A f t e r Normalizing  (GVRD Data)  3.  2.  1 « Skewness c ? :•14 5 • 0 .  8#  1 S« 2#  -1 3  4  5  6  Kurtosis NOTE:  Numbers r e f e r t o v a r i a b l e number as l i s t e d i n Appendix I I  99% Confidence  Interval  -  100 -  TABLE XIV  DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION FOR GVRD NORMALIZED  Standardized Coefficients  Variable %  Houses  %  Population with University  %  %  COEFFICIENTS DATA ( D F 1 )  - 0 . 95  Detached  1. 05  - 1 . 08  Dwellings with Residents l e s s than one y e a r  -0.068  Capita Credit (IO" )  Unions  Capita Units  Housing  8  Per  Social (lO^ ) 4  CENTR0IDS:  3 , 64  -0.53  *2 . 58  -0.56  -1.55  •0,53  - 1 , 61 12 ,86  CONSTANT  GROUP  •6,59  some  Population Professional, Managerial, Technical  Per  Unstandardized Coefficients  Co-op Non Co-op  = =  -0.922 0,430  -  101 -  TABLE  XV  P R E D I C T I O N R E S U L T S OF DF1 THE CONFUSION M A T R I X  Number of Cases Actual No  Predicted No Co-ops  Predicted Co-ops  Group  Co-ops  Co-ops  30  26  (86.7%)  4  (13.3%)  14  3  (21.4%)  11  (78,6%)  Percentage of Groups Correctly Classified  =  84.09%  -  areas  f o r co-ops.  Park,  and  housing  Port  areas,  Coquitlam  are  results  were  discriminant analysis.  centage  of  detached  function  (Table  who  lived  have  most  -  Capilano,  Edmonds—Cariboo,  p r e d i c t e d as  areas  for  Ranch  co-operative  development. Similar  the  Four  103  XVI). in  ations.  with  The  correctly  XV).  co-ops  are  are  added  and  Lynn  Mountain  building  (Table  different  the  are  still  of  local  as  (DF2),  of  that  selected  locations,  but  Hastings-Sunrise be  occup-  i . e . percentage  areas  locations  as and  of  cases  of  DF1  having Seymour  Ranch  and  next the  technical  to  per-  residents  i s the  percentage and  to  the  Renfrew-Collingwood  p r e d i c t e d to  input  the  to  year  is identical  housing  excluded.  one  the  capability, XVII),  data  dwellings with  than by  raw  important  managerial  actual  co-op  not  most  less  ( F i g . 11).  possible  Valley  this  closely  prediction  However,  are  function  professional,  DF2  as  For  percentage  followed  classified  (Table  using  i s the  The  the  significant,  population  houses  obtained  Park  Burnaby  for  co-operative  housing. To in  other  first each of  test  the  cities,  i t was  c o r r e c t e d by variable  DF2  Metro,  were and  Although  the  predicted.  used  minor  65,79% one  of  applied  adding  f o r both  then  XVIII) , only  applicability  to  Metro  The  calculate  planning cases  DF2  constant  cities. to  the  area  a  of  the  Toronto. give  equal  unstandardized  were  classified  correctly  with, c o - o p e r a t i v e  Furthermore,  classifying Raw  actual  locations  was  data  were  for  coefficients for  accordingly.  classified  housing  cases  means  discriminant scores  areas were  to  for  (.Table  accurately  predicted for  104  TABLE  -  XVI  DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION C O E F F I C I E N T S FOR GVRD RAW DATA CDF2)  Standardized Co e f f i c l e n t s  Dnstandardjzed Coefficients  1.83  0,07  -0,71  -0,07  -0.49  -0;06  0.62  0,11  Population Professional, Managerial, Technical  1.11  0,09  Dwellings with Residents l e s s t h a n one y e a r  1.38  0,18  0.79  0,27  Variable %  Detached  Houses  %  Population with University  some  M e d i a n V a l u e Owner Dwelling  Occupied  %  than  %  %  Population older 65 y e a r s  Per  (10~")  Capita Housing  Social  Units  CONSTANT  GROUP  CENTR0IDS:  EIGENVALUE: CANONICAL WILKS' CHI  -9.21  Co-op  =  1.003  Non  =  -0.468  0.926  CORRELATION:  LAMBDA:  SQUARE:  Co-op  0.693  0,519  25.228  DEGREES  OF  FREEDOM;  -  105 -  TABLE  PREDICTION THE  XVII  RESULTS' OF  CONFUSION  Number of Cases Actual No  DF2  -  MATRIX  Predicted No C o - o p s  Predicted Co—ops  Group  Co-ops  Co-ops  30  26  (86.7%)  4  (13.3%)  14  3  (21.4%)  11  (78.6%)  Percentage of Grouped Cases Correctly Classified: 84.09%  -  107 -  TABLE  XVIII  P R E D I C T I O N R E S U L T S A P P L Y I N G DF2 TO METRO TORONTO RAW DATA  Number o f Cases Actual No  Predicted Co-op  65  49  (75.4%)  16  (24.6%)  11  10  (90.9%)  1  (9.1%)  Group  Co-ops  Co-op  Predicted No: Co-op  P e r c e n t a g e of Grouped Cases Correctly Classified: 65,79%  -  co-ops.(Fig. that  the actual  surprising versus  determinants determine  discriminant  Metro  minor  discriminant  The  resulting  of  the f i f t e e n  and  However,  value,  to weight  correctly  classify  percentage  DF3  an e i g e n v a l u e  pattern actual  p r o p o r t i o n of detached  spread  isolated  statistically general  with  groups  co-op  with  locations housing  greater. co-ops  significant,  from  between  o n l y two housing  (TableXIX).  housing  towards  a  i n Metro  Although  Although  in  the  co-op  would  DF3 was a b l e t o  co-ops, was  the overall  75% ( T a b l e X X ) . of o n l y  the resultant  0.445,  spatial  ( F i g . 3) e n c o m p a s s e s t h e  i n Metro  Clearly, those  the s p a t i a l  t o be of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  discriminant  housing  of co-ops.  o f co-op  i s much  areas  score  the  without,  of detached  dwellings  i n  raw d a t a .  (DF3) c o n t a i n e d  had a c a n o n i c a l c c o r r e l a t i o n  of p r e d i c t e d locations  u s i n g Metro  occupied  classified  used  and t h o s e  the percentage  o f 0.247.  their  to d i s t i n u i s h  co-ops  90.9% of t h e areas  of c o r r e c t l y  Furthermore,  areal  with  the discriminant  the p o s s i b i l i t y  i s not completely  and hence  be used  function  —  pattern  different.  was p e r f o r m e d  o f owner  a high  be  a low p r o p o r t i o n o f detached  signify  and  value  This  or not the v a r i a b l e s  districts  variables  spatial  involved , ...existing-units  also  could  discriminant  whereas  GVRD h e l p e d  could  whether  analysis  the median  (Fig. 7).  are different,  analysis  planning  different  of housing  new c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  To GVRD  a totally  distribution  as t h e t y p e s  locational  a  12) e x h i b i t  108 -  Toronto,  i t s predicted  DF3 h a s n o t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y  without. results  Suggestions  Although  DF3 i s  a r e much t o o  f o r improving the  a n a l y s i s f o r Metro Toronto a r e d i s c u s s e d l a t e r  i n t h i s chapter.  FIGURE DF2 P r e d i c t e d L o c a t i o n s  12  f o r Co-op Housing i n Metro Toronto  -  110  TABLE  -  XIX  DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION C O E F F I C I E N T S FOR METRO TORONTO ( D F 3 )  Standardized Coe f f i c i e n t s  Unstandardized Coefficients  0.89  0,04  0.45  0.05  Variable %  Detached  Houses  M e d i a n V a l u e Owner Dwellings  Occupied  CONSTANT  GROUP  CENTROIDS:  -3.40  Co-op -op Non  EIGENVALUE: CANONICAL WILKS' CHI  -1.075 0.182  C  0,247  CORRELATION:  LAMBDA:  SQUARE:  = =  0.445  0.802  16.137  DEGREES  OF  FREEDOM:  2  - I l l-  TABLE  XX  P R E D I C T I O N R E S U L T S OF TORONTO DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION (DF3)  Number of Cases Actual No  Predicted Co-ops  65  47  (72.3%)  18  (27.7%)  11  1  (9.1%)  10  (90.9%)  Group  Co-op  Co-op  Predicted No Co-op  Percentage of Grouped Cases Correctly Classified: 75.00%  DF3 Predicted Locations for Co-op Housing  -  A  113  D i s c u s s i o n of t h e S p a t i a l Components of Urban Housing Co-ops Discriminant  analysis  has p r o v i d e d  tinguishing  between  local  local  without  i t i n GVRD.  is The  areas  necessary  t o be a b l e  discriminating  obvious  point  criminant  areas  with  t h e two  selected  some  of the v a r i a b l e s  functions are different,  apparent.  D F l a n d DF2  this  types  i n DF1  both  included  of  areas. provide  five  core  i n t h e two  variables  include the following  Percentage detached;  of houses  2.  Percentage university  of p o p u l a t i o n with education;  3.  P e r c e n t a g e of employed p o p u l a t i o n i n p r o f e s s i o n a l , m a n a g e r i a l and t e c h n i c a l o c c u p a t i o n s (Census Canada Groups 11,27,31,21,23,25,33);  4.  Percentage of the occupied dwellings w h i c h h a v e r e s i d e n t s who h a v e l i v e d i n t h e b u i l d i n g l e s s t h a n one y e a r ;  5.  Social  housing  In  examining  to  the d i s c r i m i n a n t score,  the i n d i v i d u a l  values  units  an  of the s e l e c t e d  any  one o f t h e v a r i a b l e s contribution  per  from  o f some  variables:  some  made  by  each  t o remember  the l i n e a r  Therefore,  i n these  are  capita.  i t i s important  variables.  dis-  which a r e  contributions  are derived  all  the j o i n t  and  stage, i t  a n d DF2  1.  coefficient  for dis-  co-operative housing  To go b e y o n d  to d e s c r i b e  variables  the tool  f o r departure.  Although  by  -  variable that  the  combinations  of  the c o n t r i b u t i o n  of  f u n c t i o n s may or a l l of the  be  overshadowed  remaining  var i a b l e s . The  effects  o f t h e two v a r i a b l e s ,  percentage  of p o p u l a t i o n  -  with  university  fessional, this  managerial  these  made  when  areas  than  many  example,  different  (a  =  0.05).  important. selected  f o r each  f o r each  tributions  sales  i s much  also  Again,  types  variables,  sense  In  both  and  managerial people.  greater f o r  i t i s not the  Co-operative  located  i n areas  managerial  and  with  technical  education ( f o r managers,  of a r e a s : i n  h a s some  nurses,  of the other Although  the  f o r seniors, are  XXI), their different  i t i s the combination areas  terms  complications.  except  (Table  of the co-op  some  dancers).  variable,  group  results.  for discrimination,  and p r o d u c t i o n  are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  None  t o be  of  of u n i v e r s i t y  Thus,  in professional,  t h e two  variables  scores  areas.  their  either  XXI).  technical  t h e two v a l u e s .  musicians,  Describing  mean  (Table  t h e two v a r i a b l e s  a tendency  i s a within  a r e compared,  the percentage  co-op  there  to erroneous  between  postmasters,  core  than  illustrates  Taking  do n o t r e q u i r e u n i v e r s i t y  physiotherapists,  three  lead  are s i g n i f i c a n t  employed that  could  pro-  two v a r i a b l e s ,  which  p r o j e c t s have  occupations  these  contradiction  f o r no  variables  people  Although  of p r o f e s s i o n a l ,  between  the d i f f e r e n c e  housing  occupations,  r e s p e c t i v e means  i s greater  population;in  are opposite.  in isolation  their  the range  individual but  signs  the percentage  occupations  co-op  of 0 . 8 3 between  of the apparent  groups,  But,  and t e c h n i c a l  coefficient  variables  However,  o f employed  in interpretation.  correlation  respective  is  and p e r c e n t a g e  difficulty  groups  114 -  respective using  n o r a r e any o f them  Chi-square  of v a r i a b l e s  a r e above  average  a l l below  dis-  which i s on a l l  average  115  -  TABLE XXI  GROUP  MEANS  FOR S E L E C T E D  Co-op Group  No C o - o p Group  58.38  69 . 04  10.70  17 . 68  Population Professional, Managerial, Technical  17 . 24  20.88  Dwellings with residents l e s s than one y e a r  22.30  19, 70  Variable %  Detached  %  Population with University  %  %  Per  Houses  Per  some  C a p i t a (IO *) S o c i a l Housing Units - 1  M e d i a n V a l u e Owner Dwellings  %  VARIABLES  Capita (10~ ) Unions 8  Population older 65 y e a r s  3.60  1.32  Occupied 26.8  31. 7  Credit 1.31  0. 56  10.87  10,97  than  -  (Table  XXII).  percentage most  unions  form  high  have  seem  a usual  value  more,  o f t h e most  of detached  of the areas  credit not  One  116 -  frequent  housing  but a low median  a low median  value.  t o be o f i m p o r t a n c e  combination.  f o r both  detached  i t has a low t u r n  when  F o r example, housing  over  combinations  rate  Social other  Killarney  of r e s i d e n t s  social  housing  and c r e d i t  a n d DF2  predict  i t t o be a c o - o p e r a t i v e h o u s i n g  of  detached  having can  single  Thus,  What  determines  then  enable most  View lived  them  has only  cases,  i t i s never  Since  land  (e.g.,  Kanata  find  an a v a i l a b l e  to only  factors  i n the b u i l d i n g  however,  site parcel  less  both  location. percentage  predicted  as  of the v a r i a b l e s location;  no  of co-operative  one t y p e  of  neighbourhood,  of i t sl o c a t i o n ?  of o p p o r t u n i t y . their  and t h e y  to l i v e  I n some  F o r example, t h e  site;  the people  had formed  i n the b u i l d i n g  a co-op  (.Simpson  one o f t h e key d e t e r m i n a n t s  most  Further-  and hence  a high  combinations  d i d not choose  to continue  availability.  survey  per capita  the location  a question  co-op  do  i s possible.  I f i t i s not unique  i t i s merely  already  many  and  Yet, i t i s high i n  to describe a co-operative housing description  Mountain  In  housing.  are the c o n t r o l l i n g  cases  hand,  and as a r e s u l t  'typical'  housing? what  housing,  co-op  be u s e d  on t h e o t h e r  fact,  has a  value.  both  unions  In  variables  one y e a r )  Hastings-Sunrise,  citizens.  high  housing  than  DF1  and few s e n i o r  value.  and median  (percent  is a  GVRD  co-ops  i s 10 a c r e s ) , of land  of c o - o p e r a t i v e and o t h e r  involve  many  i t i s often  a t an a f f o r d a b l e non-profit  groups  to 1976) .  i s land acres of  difficult price.  to  In a  i n Canada,  TABLE  COMPARISON  OF  CO-OP AREA MEANS WITH OVERALL FOR S E L E C T E D V A R I A B L E S  Detached Burnaby Mt. Burquitlam Fairview Hastings-Sunrise Killarney Lynn V a l l e y Maple Ridge New W e s t m i n s t e r North Vancouver P i t t Meadows P o r t Moody S o u t h Cambie Strathcona West R i c h m o n d  + + + + + + + +  XXII  Med . Value  Res, < I yr  + + +  MEANS  Social Housing  Credit Unions  + +  +  +  +  +  + h i g h e r t h a n o v e r a l l mean l e s s t h a n o v e r a l l mean e q u a l t o o v e r a l l mean  +  + +  + + + + +  % > 65 y r s  i  i—  1  + + +  + + +  +•  + +  i  -  difficulties  with  land  and  second  largest  problem  (Haire  1975).  Due  to  cost  afford  to  land  in  the  groups  seek  term may  buy  lease have  this  publicly at  a  parcels  not  ensure  does  are  a  the  final  outcome  private  land.  or  will  whole  be  series  Case  co-op  project  the  GVRD each  usually  (e.g. case,  only  by  means  projects  be  city  be  three  the  for  or  long  province  development,  which to  important  of  cannot  developed.  factors  application  problems  many  available  co-operative  more  in  projects  the  will  the  planning  Consequently,  may  project  the  in  receiving  play no  a  most  the  here.  of  project  determine  develop  of  case  There  these  studies  public factors of  GVRD.  as  that  a  group  developing  area.  the  co-operative  Kanata, itself  other  of  the  building  of  these  projects  community  community existed,  to the  a  co-op  the  had  are  the  was  two in  key a  such, form  factors  new  is  As  difficulty at  area,  project.  project  type,  its  little  in  Creek).  area.  project  project  oppose  same  in  co-op  There  developing  projects  was  Consequently,  by  fact,  False  the  First,  develop  i s , in  housing  developments  approval.  This  to  Bethune,  about  project  proposing  Norman  component  pre-existing if a  is  newly  DeCosmos,  unique  tenure.  even  the  for  and  many  Although  of  case  townhouses,  of  is  that  project's  below  in  s i t u a t i o n of  the  land  charge.  few  simplest  the  In  market.  formed  1 The  a  financing  inter-connected a  housing  acquisition  restrictions,  available  of  A  after  open  that  of  discussed  co-operative  area  nominal  -  building  owned  such  118  one  there  Secondly, of  a  -  series  of developments  119 -  a l l similar  arguments  against  to  on p h i l o s o p h i c a l g r o u n d s  object  the p r o j e c t  could  itself.  and  of a previously existing  is  relatively  Case  acre  parcel  case  Housing  detention  meetings  and e v e n t s ,  surrounding  duplex major  lots  housing urban  development  dilapidated south  style  project  approval  proposals  Action  proposals.  the city  community  antagonism,  appropriate  land  consequently,  t o newly  Adanac  o f an  land  by a  home,  The h o u s e s i n  renovated. light  former  f o r community  o l d bungalows,  Some  eleven  i nthe  i s bordered  to the s i t e  ranging  There a r e  industry,and  i n Burnaby.  new  A  the s i t e .  access  Council  had i n c l u d e d  route. was  t h e community  organized  group  use f o r the s i t e .  the Charles  Adanac  i n the neighbourhood  industrial  At the time, the  r e j e c t e d these  Many o f t h e m e m b e r s o f A d a n a c  accommodations  owned  citizens  f o r the s i t e  and a freeway  development  are small  adjacent  bounds  complicated.  i s c u r r e n t l y used  of the s i t e .  a r e found  When  more  The s i t e  and a s e n i o r  Hastings-Sunrise  1973.  building  community,  of Housing  o f GVRD.  home w h i c h  arterial  Earlier  and  o n e was  the co-operative  a similar  proposed  neighbourhood  c o n d i t i o n from vacant  Society  area  juvenile  many  is a little  o f B.C. D e p a r t m e n t  Hastings-Sunrise  an  both  unless  simple.  second  Co-operative  in  be s t a t e d ,  few  2 The  the  with  Consequently,  regarding  philosophy a lack  Thus,  i n style.  to protest  proposals  because of  was a s k e d  They  decided  Co-operative already  lived  and had h e l p e d  these  to  suggest  on  housing,  was  formed i n  i n rental to f i g h t the  -  earlier  development The  units were was  to  be  zoned  two as  application District) rezoning held At  was  access  The  (One  change  the  the  site  this  i t to  case,  needed.  five  was  was an  City  of  of  one  200  District),  the  buildings  the  a  area  rezoning  Development  Vancouver. a  family  The  Because  (Comprehensive  For a l l  p u b l i c meeting  must  application  Council,  objection  supported  there  to  by  the  exists  a  site,  industrial  acceptable  acceptable was  i t had  the  grown  land  two  not  for  bedrooms.  Dwelling  CD-I  the  Neither  unacceptable  factors  the  to  be  proposal  D i r e c t o r of  was  Planning  to  to  of  of  a  uses,  the  rendered  the  the  co-op certain  Another  part  of  aid  itself.  an  from  the  project's  in  group  organization,  a  highway  factor  neighbourhood  the  a  Co-operative  co-operative  was  expedient  nor  residents.  community  protect  an  development  alternative.  origin  out  the  but  community.  acceptance.  3 The  time  to  was  rezoned.  created  Case  Family  with  organization  These  Adanac  townhouses.  presentation  was  project  Because  one  by  story  p r o j e c t was  route  housing of  three  filed  to  In use  from  p u b l i c meeting,  the  forth  a p p l i c a t i o n s i n Vancouver,  raised. and  and  to  put  size  RS-1  was  prior  the  in  -  proposals.  proposal  ranging  120  of  Penta  writing  i s by  (1977),  resolved.  Early  children,  applied  land  the  near  case  i n 1973, for  a  far  i t had  the  still  Penta, rezoning  a of  U n i v e r s i t y Endowment  most not  been  group 1,3  complicated  of  44  acres  lands.  The  and  at  completely adults of  city  and  23  owned  selected  pro-;  the  -  perty but  had  already  Penta's  residences  proposed  Lands. ages on  site  The  and  development  the  of  rezoning  Camosun  from  between  Avenue  p e n s i o n who  of middle have a  class  lived  students  spending  few  populate  the  the  i s considered  neighbourhood.  the  area  However,  of  two-storey  CD—1,  and  West  University  consists  homes.  and  development,  to  20th  Both  of  highly  Endowment  senior  with  of  citizens  decades  basement  even  21st  a variety  for several  in illegal  stable  for  RS-1  West  and  i n the  years  city  six clusters  surrounding neighbourhood  styles  area  a  i s located  abutting  -  d e s i g n a t e d by  necessitated  The Avenues,  been  121  and  suites  this  desirable  range,  by  home  purchasers. The (hence  the  together The  name  to  Penta  Penta  group  families  group  consisted  who of  social  in  Dunbar-West they  of - Vancouver,-  design  into  a mixed  The  Penta  as  of  third  of  and  suitable  university. employed  when  five  housing  an  of  students, the  group  another site The  got  problems.  nearly  a B.C.  friends  five)  two  Society,  occupations,  people,  area,  the  housing  The  a  Grey  they  their  association  retired  close and  to  collection  As  1973  'pente' meaning  themselves  for a  to  Greek  an  registered  Point  in early  solution  searched  selected  the  Vnacouver.  the  a book-keeper.  Kitsilano,  was  a  workers,  and  above  find  expanded  logist the  orginated  Penta.from  t r y to  dozen  teachers,  group  a  including psycho-  already  third  The  lived  lived  in  i n t h e w e s t side area site  described  architectural  firm  to  project. Group  city's  submitted design  their  plan  panel approved  to the  the  City  project  of and  an  - 122 -  application of  their  Penta  for  rezoning  application  took  pamphlet  their  the  of  the  they  answered  a  to  contention  of  priority,  subsidy  of of  are  best  the  Penta's  change  on  proposal  by  the  House  where  have  the  to  Furthera  d i s p l a y , and to  com-  hand  site.  to  a  essential  the  seemed  (and of  could a  week  plans  not of  model  of  members  taken  community  every in  the  through  Camosun a  few  formed,  and  actions  the  of  These  Four  density,  Each  excerpts  that main  the  them-  and of  lastly, these  "the c o n s t r u c t i o n of co-op h o u s i n g ... w i l l mean p l a c i n g t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f two h o u s e s on e v e r y 33 f o o t l o t , r e s u l t i n g  could  be  areas in  order  the the  topics  community  papers.  wrote  government  informing  from  meeting,  calling  involved,  Penta's  from  immediately  III).  attitude), Bog.  farther  information  DAC  apparent.  Penta's  the  been  (DAC).  (Appendix  timing  have  been  in residential  p r o j e c t , the  described  was  Committee  its fruition  balance  of  Open  r e s i d e n t s had  Action  i t s plans  ecological  Within  q u i c k l y became the  an  hearing,  published  distributed  Penta  response  of  outlining  prevent  They  submission  a t t i t u d e s towards  radius  to  public  o u t l i n e d the was  block  their  the  the  support.  community  of  public  their  and  residences  explain  Dunbar  This  short,  of  Between  public.  also  public  In  committee  flyer  taken  the  expectations.  the  the  motives  square  townhouse  gain  protest  up  two  invited  The  selves  to  pamphlet  questions.  to  Penta's  notice  proposal.  p o s s i b l e to  order  a  The  in a  proposed  step  the  proposal  their  people  more,  submitted.  describing their  neighbourhood. ponents  and  was  news-  -  123 -  In a h i g h e r d e n s i t y t h a n a t p r e s e n t and a consequent lowering of r e s i d e n t i a l q u a l i t y ... l o c a l r e s i d e n t s s t r e s s t h a t t h e y B o u g h t t h e i r own homes a t ' t o p d o l l a r s ' i n t h e open market i n o r d e r t o live i n a single family area" (The  Western  News,  March  27,  " T h e i r a t t e m p t t o p u t 26 b u i l d i n g s [units] on 13 l o t s c r e a t e s a t h r e a t t o t h e r e s i d e n t i a l q u a l i t y of Dunbar, the l a s t stronghold o f RS-1 i n V a n c o u v e r , Clearly, t h i s q u a l i t y of l i f e i s under attack," (Steve Brewster, L e t t e r s to t E d i t o r , T h e W e s t e r n News, « May 1 5 , 1 9 7 5 ) " B r e w s t e r s a y s t h a t 300 names i n a l l h a v e b e e n c o l l e c t e d f r o m r e s i d e n t s who f e e l that the townhouses w i l l d e s t r o y the s i n g l e f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r of the area. Residents say a l s o t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t would s e t a precedent f o r others l i k e i t . " (The  Courier,  April  10, 1975)  "Three l e v e l s of taxpayers would, i n e f f e c t , be s u b s i d i z i n g a p r o p o s e d 'Penta' co-operative h o u s i n g p r o j e c t ... A i d , Mike H a r c o u r t e x p l a i n e d that the coo p e r a t i v e group would r e c e i v e mortgages from t h e F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l G o v e r n ment a t l o w i n t e r e s t r a t e s . The c i t y would then supply the land at one-third l e s s t h a n t h e g o i n g m a r k e t r a t e ... ' I t a k e t h i s as meaning t h a t t h r e e l e v e l s of t a x p a y e r s a r e s u p p o r t i n g a group w h i c h i s no d i f f e r e n t f r o m o t h e r resid e n t s o f t h e area.'" (The  Courier,  April  24, 1975)  "We're n o t a g a i n s t t h e s e p e o p l e , a l t h o u g h we f e e l t h a t t h e y a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o a c i t y s u b s i d y , many a r e w e l l o f f , m o r e s o than people already i n t h e a r e a , and they're getting into a choice l o c a t i o n on t h e b a c k s o f t h e n o t - s o - w e l l - o f f " , (John H i l l , The C o u r i e r , A u g u s t 4, 1 9 7 7 )  -  124  -  " I t was P e n t a who steered this issue i n t o an a d v e r s a r y one w i t h i t s s e c r e c y i n n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h the C i t y over a year and a h a l f . The p r o f e s s i o n a l l y p r o d u c e d b r o c h u r e P e n t a d i s t r i b u t e d was informa t i v e , not c o n s u l t i v e . We w e n t t o P e n t a ' s o p e n h o u s e as i n d i v i d u a l s i n d i s a r r a y f a c i n g a w e l l p l a n n e d P.R. event. Does P e n t a now t h i n k the time i s r i p e to a p p e a l to the c o n s i d e r a b l e p u b l i c sympathy t h a t e x i s t s f o r t h o s e who find single-family dwellings p r i c e d out of t h e i r r e a c h . And a r e we t o be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s t h e beastly ' h a v e s ' who deny the ' h a v e - n o t s ' even the courtesy of a p u b l i c exchange", (Steve B r e w s t e r , L e t t e r s to E d i t o r , The W e s t e r n NeVs, May 22 , 197 5) .  the  x  "... the r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n , which was p r e s e n t e d t o C i t y C o u n c i l a f t e r some many months of c o m m u n i c a t i o n between the Co-ope r a t i v e and C i t y C o u n c i l and t h e various d e p a r t m e n t s , w i t h o u t any i n p u t f r o m the r e s i d e n t s of the a r e a ... t h e m a c h i n e r y o f d e c i s i o n m a k i n g was w e l l u n d e r way far b e f o r e t h e r e s i d e n t s became aware t h a t the m a c h i n e r y had e v e n become a p p l i c a b l e t o their area". (Robert Wicks, L e t t e r s to the E d i t o r , The W e s t e r n News, May 22, 1975) "Some c o n c e r n was v o i c e d over the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the h o u s i n g p r o j e c t would somehow i m p i n g e on t h e C a m o s u n B o g , and would g e n e r a l l y impair the l o c a l e c o l o g y " , (The Clearly, The  the  community  opposition  was  proximity  to  as  twenty  far  as  set  for  this  was  located  the  not  blocks  this  not  only  proposed  western in  was  part  those  project,  of of  News, A p r i l  supportive  from  away.  area  Western  but  People the  the  people also did  city.  Dunbar,  of  then  not  If  Penta  living  from  24,  in  people  want  a  project. close living  precedent  co-operative  i t might  1975)  housing  'spread'  to  -  other see  nearby  neighbourhoods.  co-operative In  many  housing cases  project  stemmed  from  housing  was  to  new  community? other  less  the  co-op  out  of  a  What  type  had  of  a  old and  resentment  made  a  of  mask  a man  at  As  of  the  of  outcry  able.  The  reach  buying  having  a  had  they  receive  also  stance.  reasons  for  5-5  the  became  The  Electors Action  had  been  on  vote  this  over  issue  the  community by  was  not  rejection a very  Movement  their  city  vote.  he  1958),  were the  o p p o s i t i o n , the (one  end  to  of  the  proposal  was  matter,  as  Many  the  the  Penta  dominant  TEAM m e m b e r s  having would  be  early have  this  made  to  proposal. proposal  case.  was The  considermembers  civic and  on  of  alderperson  the  (TEAM),  taken  likely,  bog,  for  i t may  this  in  part  fend  or  for  live  in  had  not  rejecting  political  hard  regardless  than  council  arose  to  should  about  the  Would  because  been  whether  More  passionate  subsidy  help,  argued  values?  worked  until  (Rose  of  a  had  man  manhood  the  their  occur  have  each  similar  of  complaints  a  i t is doubtful  their  of  property  Other  house  to  Co-operative  developments  ecology  result  split  their  where  wanted  i t destroy  b i t t e r n e s s may  not  of  would  community  others  one  area.  unknown.  the  However,  public  The  no  disparagement  precedent?  project,  that  r e j e c t e d by  absent).  the  to  values  did  not  more a  a  Although  like  their  happen  This  d i f f e r e n c e to  argument,  of  community;  should  scale  need.  knowledge  was  why  responsibility  relative  Dunbar  opponents'  jealousy.  neighbourhood.  the  Consequently, the  fear  set  their  himself,  -  desirable residential group  an  a  would  housing;  to  in  the  the  their  due  125  of  party,  others  -  including Phillips  TEAM  Alderperson  126 -  Marzari,  and A i d . V o l r i c h , both  TEAM  unaccountable  t o TEAM  by v o t i n g  Sun,  1975).  Editorials  June  20,  Split  Personality"  Co-op  a Sorry  Spectacle"  typical  reactions  Shirley  Schmid,  movement  (Province,  also  i n B.C.,  reacted  both  Mayor  members,  were  being  the project  entitled  "City  (Vancouver  Hall  Houses  23, 1975) and " R e j e c t i o n  (Vancouver  a leader  that  against  June  to Council's  felt  Sun, June  decision.  One  of  23, 1975) were TEAM  i n the co-operative  i n the.^following  a  member, housing  manner:  "[she] asked t h a t t h e b o a r d of d i r e c t o r s now e x e r c i s e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and r e q u i r e Mayor P h i l l i p s and Aid. V o l r i c h to j u s t i f y t h e i r decision a n d t o g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i r f u t u r e p o s i t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o TEAM policy ... t h e i r v o t e was a d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f TEAM's h o u s i n g p o l i c y t h a t a v a r i e t y of housing s t y l e s s e r v i n g a v a r i e t y o f i n c o m e l e v e l s be a v a i l a b l e i n a l l areas of the c i t y " (Vancouver The  Penta  incident; In looking  r e j e c t i o n was  the meantime, f o r another A new  Wallace  adjacent  as and  zone  site  a senior Penta's  twelve  site, was  citizens  civic  Housing  way  part  issue.  Penta  to approach  This  site  was  located  of a j o i n t  Corporation  were  t h e com-  also  and a  single  establishments  and t h e J e r i c h o were  group  a t 2nd Avenue  recreational Club  26, 1975)  neighbourhood  political  i n October,  development was  a  of the o r i g i n a l  Beach.  Yacht  proposal  GVRD N o n - P r o f i t  found  but major  Vancouver  merely  a n d a new  to J e r i c h o  (RS-1),  the Royal  more,  longer  i t h a d become a m a j o r  munity.  family  no  Sun, June  nearby.  venture  and a n o t h e r  Tennis  with  such Club Furtherthe  co-op, the  -  Dunbar this  Community  site  ation  themselves,  centres  involvement turmoil the  Co-op,  and  with  over  they  unanimous must  complaints  and  objectives  little  still  choice  blems and  was  property the  some to  1950's  such  not  resolved  the  project  used for  to  a  such  problem  Clearly, were of  when  that  not  a l l new  side  west the  public  political  together  1976  to  to  ensure  allow  the  community had  proposal, however,  and  similar  the  Council  public  had  underground  parking,  financing,  land the  still  arose.  legality i t had  Although  of  been these  satisfaction,  initial  antagonism.  but  be  in  form  for also  east  side  rejection  cannot the  co-operative  versus  manoeuvres,  government,  the  the  other  purposes.  of  stand  city's  numerous  when  residents'  the  approved,  the  housing  and  inform-  pro-  Lastly, allowing  the  expropriated issues  were  construction  of  begun.  community  confirmed  for  community  political  the  for  extreme  both  was as  public  rezoning.  considering  park  Obviously, face  explosive,  things  local  has  worked  the  develop  Thus,  rezoning,  i n August  the  to  the  relations.  regarding  rezoning  debate  be  wanted  a l l of  proposal  approve  l e a s i n g arrangements  there  in  to the  concerning  city  remember that the. surrounding  decidedly  but  Although  public  decision  One  was  the  organized  earlier  rezoning.  meeting  -  application for  Penta's  Council's  Since  handled the  127  the  and  of  co-operative hesitates.  Why  by  did  the  ultimate hatred  has  not  on  approval the  part  However, yet  housing,  i t i s not  When  community  one  Is i t  Perhaps,  politics.  Council,  projects  Penta?  politics?  intense  explained  housing  taken  a  surprising is  success-  - 128 -  ful  at  stopping  should  also  be  successful, to  try  this The  to  g i v e n the  feelings 'save  arises nature  very  a project,  hard  out of  to  understand  of  same  are  their  another  opportunity.  intensified  both  their  opposition  is  intangible  combat.  Perhaps  with  housing,  enemy',  and  this  intense  locational conflict  A few above  case  chance  of  munity.  key  In  this  Clearly, i n an  such  the  that  has  use. like  the been  At t h i s to  solve  suggest  best  as  group  previously existing  possible,  will  a  a  not  i n the is  option  is  to  begin  that  it  to is  not  supportive  stance,  occur,  co-op  can  and  be  drawn  group  from  has  the  a pre-existing  the best  com-  choose  a location  case  of  Kanata  and DeCosmos.  to  gain  In  cases  propose  is  support where  least not  development  of  a  a more  clear  that  in  their  housing problem q u i c k l y , single  noxious if  they  family  site  land  a group are  close  from  is  for  in a predominantly  at  this  point  location  it  people  to  previously considered time,  consequently,  be  sure  co-op.  earlier,  neighbourhoods.  without  would  not  jealousy,  and,  co-operative  area  and  realize  takes  i n many m o r e  alternative  co-op,  manner,  to  as  l o c a t i o n a l determinants  studies.  Another  another  to  located  development  to  the  be  time,  and  government  unknown,  it  continues  As s u g g e s t e d  the  that  is  community  of  local  a  feel  When i t  fear  co-operative  will  and  neighbourhood'.  'the  housing  community w i l l  would  best  not  neighbour-  hood .  Future  D i r e c t i o n s of Through  the  C o n t i n u i n g Co-op Housing use  of  discriminant  analysis,  it  has  been  -  possible those  to  distinguish  without  was  not  for  further  criptive  of  variables.  projects,  i t might  percentage  of  be  housing.  further  Improvement  would  help  unlikely  to  such  similar  1975).  For  as  criminant  community  possibly  control  quantify  Most  of  w i t h more  be  area.  been  A  Each  of  of  areas  predicted  the or  pre-war of  Neighbour-  these from  by  variables the  the  discriminant  York. conflict  antagonism the  was  exists  addition and  help  of  discussed  (Dineen  to  improve involved  these v a r i a b l e s , that,  the  ties  their  co-op  housing  the dis-  such  i f i t were  inclusion  although appear  accept  of  predictive  using  However,  Hunter  i n the  tools  with  for  1974,  some m e a s u r e  neighbourhood  is quantification,  never  not  could  typical  of  because  the  milieu.  the  locational  factors  i d e n t i f i e d above  be  applicable  i n other  cities.  One  q u a l i f i c a t i o n of  be  that  one  identify  the  type  first  of  surrogate,  presence  co-op  need  des-  a variable  the  area.  obvious  i t  are r e h a b i l i t a t i o n  percentage  downtown  difficulty  could  social  scene  co-ops  and  variables,  i s an  i n the  might  housing  selected  include  the  have  f o r areas  locations,  prevailing  would  variables  to  be  of p l a c e  A major  possible  co-op  cities,  analysis  intangible  to  co-op  There  Metro  i n the  that  North  sense  capability.  might  locational  both  communities'  most  variable  areas  the  Toronto  sensible  Projects  Although Metro,  the  s e p a r a t e the  co-op  functions,  With  renovated buildings  variable,  hood  areas with  Toronto.  Since  alternative A  GVRD,  i n Metro  analysis  -  between  i t i n the  possible  129  must  of  will  this  construction  would  - 130 -  involved  i n the majority  struction,  then  applicable.  with  could  Toronto,  p o s t u l a t e that  rehabilitation Toronto,  problem  for  Metro  chap t e r .  i t would  them  con-  GVRD w o u l d  to conform  be n e c e s s a r y  to the variable  be a r e new,  t o t h e GVRD  to control values  of the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n further cities  for city  before  applying  t h e same  Some  co-operatives,  such  i s necessary.  One  investigation such  as V i c t o r i a ,  locational  i s to adequately  Toronto.  from  new  Ontario projects  co-operative projects,  and t h a t  The  drawn  I f i t were  function.  the case  i n Metro  expect  respect  discriminant In  as  we w o u l d  However,  differences the  generalizations  F o r example, M i s s l s s a u g a  consequently, patterns.  of projects.  define  suggestions  would  with  existing  be s i m i l a r  determinants  the locational a r e made  to  would  apply.  determinants  i n the concluding  -  Footnotes  For see  a complete account J . Dineen (1974).  of  131  -  -  Chapter  one  5  interesting  project,  DACHI,  CHAPTER  6  CONCLUSIONS  Although with of  the  q u e s t i o n of  housing  research  concerned  with  geography  of  a  "geography  housing" can  general  the  city.  s e g r e g a t i o n of  areas  characteristics 1965) and  or  by  a  or  1970,  Boyce A  by  (Kirby  1977,  mobility 1969,  1975,  patterns  have  among  Muth  particular  types  of  concerning public and  housing  Hultquist  1976).  the  is  social  or  such  1973,  focuses  are  on  by  either  physical  1973, as  Morrill  industrial  1976,  Brown  urban  Johnston  and  Moore  housing  reviews  the  1964,  has To  and  location  It  these  identified  (Murdie  identified  area  housing.  in Britain  of  Davies  uses  uses  these  attention  apartment  first  areas  of  numerous  areas  economic Bourne  this  field of  spatial  1976,  Brown  1969).  research  much  land  (Alonso  third  too  1971,  (Barrett  concern  markets  1976,  general  1973).  The  received  are  deeply  three  demographic  Bourne  residential  Sharpell977)  housing  Davies  to  of  itself  p a t t e r n s and  patterns  according 1970,  The  geographical literature  Prominent  of  These  of  1976),  identified.  Herbert  area  Recent  research. models  versus  concerned  (Kirby  differentiation  second  markets.  be  never  residential  (Adams  commercial  1971)  has  date  the  area  is restricted  1974)  is in this  132  at  this  i n Toronto  (Cox  -  looked  -  locations has  to  a  (Bourne  and  i n the  third  area  not few  1968, U.S.  of  of  works 1973)  and  (Mercer  research  that  -  this  study  methods  the  of  building  co-operative, co-operative  have  housing  to  be  quite distinct.  in  the  Alternatively, to  ation. have  In  support. 1950's,  Church in  the  the are  lower  sweat now  built  developing.  has  always  vincial  been  co-operatives movements,  the  to  eastern  of  was  housing  i n every has  have Canada  sponsor  been  the  has  are  been  the  cases  which  many  support  i n a l l cases been  point  of  been with of  program.  of  no the  federal except  development and  financial  1940's  by  proaway  their  the  from  content  own  higher  housing income  Furthermore, afford groups  the are  co-operatives  government,  by  and  sponsor.  shift  co-op  Ontario,  sponsored  the  longer  for building  from  orient-  co-operative  building  can  origins  found  assumed this  shown  emphasis.  significant  consequently,  to  i n many  the  during  decline  groups  of  institution  most  Concurrent  houses  factors  pro-  their  co-operatives are  the  to  Although  type  which  developed  attracted  the  study.  each  co-ops,  sponsoring  co-ops  always  of  determining  s u p p l i e d by  have  even  the  Financial  mediation  continuing  c e n t r a l - t o - w e s t e r n Canada  Fewer  groups  techniques  is located  pattern  equity principle,  income  the  this  definite  Church  has  being  now  a  agencies.  co-ops.  contractually  as  role  involvement  groups the  Catholic  housing  building  using  cases,  building  recently,  vincial  a  in  form  Building  with  identified  the  spatial  exhibit  but  both  For  examined  continuing housing  coast,  been  More  the  co-operative  c o - o p e r a t i v e and  in either  i n Canada,  Maritimes,  applying  been  vince  coast  -  lies.  Two housing,  133  with  pro-  Continuing co-op  providing financial  and  labour  support  -  when  CMHC was u n w i l l i n g  usually  provided A  third  increasingly  by  assembly  projects,  In operatives this  were  this  Since  1973, f i n a n c i n g i s  CMHC,  important  lots  operative  t o do s o ,  f a c t o r , land  serviced  alleviating  134 -  availability,  i n recent  becoming both  a scarce  public  problem  years.  h a s become  Reasonably  item  i n most  and c o - o p e r a t i v e ,  and making  property  priced  cities,  Land  a r e now  a v a i l a b l e to co-  groups. actual  number  f a r exceed  has been  related  of completed  continuing  units,  housing  to the d i f f e r e n c e  building co-  co-operatives, i n average  However,  size  of  pro—  e jects  as t h e growth  fairly  consistent  different  Metropolitan townhouse areas  Toronto.  often  regions  housing  of these  located  divergent  by d i s c r i m i n a n t  GVRD,  v a r i a b l e s were  criminant These  functions  variables  were  using  has been  Regional  most  has been  of the c i t y .  District  selected both  and  a r e new  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Metro rehabilitation  i n the c e n t r a l c i t y  analysis  t o be  i n the p e r i p h e r a l  are principally  patterns,  seen  of the projects  constructed  projects  identified five  of projects  housing  Vancouver  I n GVRD,  developments,  co-operative  conversion result  co-operative  i n Greater  of built-up  Toronto  i n t h e number  f o r both.  Continuing quite  rate  region.  the locational were  quite  As a  determinants  different.  for inclusion  percentage  of the population  with  percentage  of t h e employed  managerial  or t e c h n i c a l occupations,  of houses  some  population  which  university with  In  i n the d i s -  t h e raw a n d t h e n o r m a l i z e d  the percentage  data,  are-.detached, education,  professional,  percentage  or  of  occupied  -  dwellings units and  with  per capita.  normalized  capabilities the  residents  GVRD  were  f o r GVRD  distinguish  when  Toronto  pattern  equal.  areas  their  Toronto,  raw  however,  was n o t a b l e  to  Furthermore,  set of variables  the resultant  f o r co-ops  for  predictive  t h e two g r o u p s .  analysis,  housing  functions  F o r Metro  f o r the entire  to discriminant  and s o c i a l  f o r raw d a t a  between  data  of p r e d i c t e d  one y e a r  the discriminant  function  adequately  subjected  than  n o t t h e same,  were  discriminant  Metro  less  Although  data  135 -  were  spatial  was t o o g e n e r a l  t o be o f  significance. Community were  and l o c a t i o n a l  i d e n t i f i e d as key l o c a t i o n a l  co-operatives would  have  i n GVRD.  the best  pre-existing  drawn  from  generate  the three  Four  sense  studies  a more  housing.  detailed  continuing  a co-operative i n an a r e a that  may  seem  finding  projects  be a t y p i c a l .  t o be  analysis  a  was n o t  not a l l  conflict  group  without  One i m p o r t a n t  was t h a t  research  resolution  of  i n an a r e a  residential.  of f u r t h e r  to the analysis  housing,  family  indicated.  of Metro  Toronto's  Further  investigation  and t h e i d e n t i f i -  variables  forinclusion  i n the  i s necessary.  percentage  or at least  case  that  of development  and i n g e n e r a l ,  of a d d i t i o n a l  analysis added  areas  involves  co-operative cation  single  conflict,  first  chance  conflict  determinants  I t was f o u n d  community,  predominantly  The  attitude  A few o f t h e p o s s i b l e were  of renovated  mentioned  buildings,  earlier.  percentage  index  of Neighbourhood  Improvement  of place  or neighbourhood  cohesion.  discriminant  variables These  t o be  include  of pre-1940's  Projects, The data  index of  for  the  -  first The  three  latter  with  variables two,  respect  could  and  without A  and  help  whether the  these  to  co-ops  If this  of  to  would  were  r e s e a r c h would  rehabilitation  that  they  cities)  units  study  intangible,  are  or  versus  and  two  i t is difficult  existing  simple  obtain.  pose  a  problem  overcome, areas  these  with  co-ops  Toronto.  are d i f f e r e n c e s  different  relatively  somewhat  area  of  indicates  co-operatives,  be  to d i s c r i m i n a t e between  in  second  differences  thesis  -  quantification.  variables those  would  being  to  136  new  atethis due  to  each  type  third  body  of  to  within  one  of  continuing  context ( i . e .  i n nature ( i . e .  I t would city  this  ascertain  locational  differences  similarities  Although  types  point  construction).  of  the  co-ops.  distinct  inherent  new  examine  to  be  necessary  further  compare  them. The diffusion  mechanism  particularly steady  of  for building  have  a  More  information regarding  Ontario,  and A  the  fourth  tional  conflict  of  actors  the  would  help  policies  to  needed  rate  nor  a  the  demise  surge  i n the  study  would  involve  generated  by  i n v o l v e d i n the establish this  both type  co-op  of  ways of  as  and  A  avoiding  housing.  be  neither  co-ops  of  be the  detailed  their  the  pattern.  would  analysis  housing.  of  they  building  an  would  spatial  prairies,  conflict,  consider  This  co-ops  consistent  sudden  for aiding  would  co-operative housing.  interesting growth  research  in necessary. leca  study  motives,  conflict  -  and  -137-  The  Prospect  f o r Co-operative  Co-operative data of  presented  both  housing  i n this  building  i n Canada  thesis  a complete  halt  is  to debate,  but recent  indicate  that  The limited Home  further  impact  Ownership  with  competitors attracted  relatively  equity,  an i d e a l  Chapter  1.  is  Government  o f AHOP  those co-op  co-ops  seriously  that  while  were  t o be o b t a i n e d  insure be  such  obtained  start-up  loans from  their  likely  Assisted  a.re:potentially might  reasons  by C a n a d i a n s ,  been  could  have  been  biased i n  Payment  f o r co-ops  alternative.  lending  and o n l y  provide  direct  a private  lender.  This  This  1 9 7 8 , CMHC  would  continue  would  where  assuming  viability  announced mortgages  institutions. loans  Mort-  of the co-operative  alternative. I n May  up  as n o t e d i n  the Graduated  ideology  have  and b u i l d  certainly  co-operative  co-op  priced  b e p r e f e r r e d t o AHOP,  viable  approved  who  own home  successor,  threatened.  from  policy  and Non-Prof i t  they  People  by t h e s o c i a l  funding  occur  and even t h e  of moderately  a p p r o p r i a t i o n s have  would  AHOP  for financial  t o own  are a financially  now b e i n g  both  group.  to the " r a d i c a l "  housing  housing  payments,  strongly held  attracted  will  housing  to the f e d e r a l  the creation  and i t s r e c e n t  (GPM) c o m p a r e d For  that  still  passed.  or a resurgence  of co-op  i n part  housing  an o p p o r t u n i t y  The  i n the production  has been  i n federal  Since  client  to co-operative  i n AHOP  concept,  activity  low monthly  f o r t h e same  a peak  future.  i s likely.  (AHOP).  towards  that  housing  changes  decline  Program  housing  gage  i n co-op  may b e a t t r i b u t e d  are directed  favour  co-op  d e c l i n e i n the development  housing  seen  h a s an u n c e r t a i n  indicate  and c o n t i n u i n g  Whether open  Housing.  CMHC  they  not only  would  could hot  raise  -138-  administration agency,  the lender  it  means  no  longer  of  co-op  such in  as  been  projects  and  spending.  As  shown  condition  ownership  co-operative  housing  themselves  the  financial  more  losses  and  and  financial  support  activity.  to r e d u c e salvation.  and  by  on  and  other sub-  terminated,  government  has  development.  assistance for  well  spell  governments  credit  cut-backs  only  a r e t o be  housing  Provincial  spending)  receive  from  very  would  feasibility  co-operatives  a l lloans  could  the  affected  the emphasis  housing  grant  in alternatives  will  for-co-operative and  reduce  been  1978,  importantly,  t h e 10%  interest  Program  an a d d i t i o n a l  b u t more  costs  has a l s o  Housing  support  of market  pressure  mean  of September  previously,  of t h i s  rate  increased  housing  operating  since  the process,  lending  The  of the N o n - P r o f i t  reduction  only  into  could  Co-op  a necessary  private  enters  available.  to o f f s e t As  of  be  f o r the co-operative  a preferential  t h e GPM.  elements  The  that  federal  sidies  costs  unions  the  demise  (under may  be  SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Adams,  J.S. (1970) " R e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e of midwestern c i t i e s , " A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, A n n a l s , 60(1) : 37-62.  Alonso,  W. (1964) Location Theory of Land Rent. sity Press.  and Land Use: Towards a G e n e r a l Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r -  A n d r e w s , H.F. and H . J . B r e s l a u e r . (1976a) R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e Housing P r o c e s s : I m p l i c a t i o n s from a Case Study of Co-operative Housing. U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o : C e n t r e f o r U r b a n a n d C o m m u n i t y S t u d i e s , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 74. A n d r e w s , H.F. and H . J . B r e s l a u e r . (1976b). R e s i d e n t i a l Movement: C h o i c e o f a C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g P r o j e c t . Univers i t y o f T o r o n t o : C e n t r e f o r U r b a n and Community S t u d i e s , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 75. A n d r e w s , H.F. and H . J . B r e s l a u e r . ( 1976c) . C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Study: A P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s of A c t i v i t y Diary Data. U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto: Centre f o r Urban and C o m m u n i t y S t u d i e s , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 77. A n d r e w s , H.F. and H.J. B r e s l a u e r . (1976d) Moving from a Co-operative Housing P r o j e c t : Residents E x p e c t a t i o n s and F o r m e r Members P e r s p e c t i v e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto: C e n t r e f o r U r b a n and Community S t u d i e s , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 76. A n d r e w s , H.F. and H . J . B r e s l a u e r . (1976e) User Satisfaction and P a r t i c i p a t i o n : P r e l i m i n a r y F i n d i n g s from a Case Study of C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing. U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto: C e n t r e f o r U r b a n a n d C o m m u n i t y S t u d i e s , Maj o r . R e p o r t . No . 6 . A r m i t a g e , A. a n d M. A u d a i n . (1972) Housing Requirements: A Review of Recent Canadian R e s e a r c h . Ottawa: Canadian C o u n c i l on S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t . Arnold,  M.E. (1940) The S t o r y o f T o m p k i n s v i l l e . C o - o p e r a t i v e L e a g u e o f U.S.A.  Audain,  M. Plan  (1973). Canada,  "Transforming housing 13(1) : 91-111.  -  13 9 -  into  a  New  social  York:  Th  science  -  140  -  Bailey,  J. (1955) Hutchinson's  The B r i t i s h C o - o p e r a t i v e University Library.  Movement.  Bales,  R . F . e_t a _ l . ( 1 9 5 1 ) "Channels of communication i n s m a l l g r o u p s , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 16 : 461-468.  Barber,  G.M. (1972) "Growth d e t e r m i n a n t s i n the c e n t r a l Canada u r b a n s y s t e m , " i n B o u r n e and M a c K i n n o n (eds.), Urban Systems Development i n C e n t r a l Canada. University o f T o r o n t o : D e p a r t m e n t o f G e o g r a p h y R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 9, pp. 147-161.  B a r n a r d , M.M. (1935) "The s e c u l a r v a r i a t i o n s o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n f o u r s e r i e s of E g y p t i a n A n n a l s o f E u g e n i c s , VI : 352-371.  London:  skull skulls,"  B a r r e t t , F.A. (1973) R e s i d e n t i a l Search B e h a v i o u r : A Study Intra-Urban Relocation i n Toronto. Atkinson College; Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y , G e o g r a p h i c a l M o n o g r a p h No. I .  of  Bourne,  L.S. (1976) " H o u s i n g s u p p l y and h o u s i n g m a r k e t b e h a v i o u r i n r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t , " i n D.T. Herbert a n d R . J . J o h n s t o n ( e d s . ) , S o c i a l A r e a s i n C i t i e s , V o l . 1, S p a t i a l P r o c e s s e s and Form. T o r o n t o : J o h n W i l e y and Sons, I n c . , pp. 111-158.  Bourne,  L.S. (1973) " A p a r t m e n t l o c a t i o n and d e v e l o p m e n t behaviour: A r e - a p p r a i s a l , " Canadian Geographer, 17(4) : 403-411.  Bourne,  L.S. (ed.) (1971) Internal Structure R e a d i n g s on S p a c e and E n v i r o n m e n t . New University Press.  Bourne,  L.S. (1968) " M a r k e t , l o c a t i o n and s i t e s e l e c t i o n apartment c o n s t r u c t i o n , " C a n a d i a n G e o g r a p h e r , 12 : 211-2 2 6 .  Boyce,  R. (1969) " R e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r urban s p a t i a l change," P r o c e e d i n g s , A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h e r s , 1 : 22-25.  Brown,  P.W. (1977) Some P e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e T o r o n t o H o u s i n g Market: A Review of Recent S t r u c t u r e s . U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o : C e n t r e f o r U r b a n and Community S t u d i e s , Major R e p o r t No. 8.  of the C i t y : York: Oxford  in  -  Brown,  14 J  -  L.A. and E.G. Moore (1970) process: a perspective," 52 : 1 - 1 3 .  "The i n t r a - u r b a n m o b i l i t y G e o g r a f i s k a A n n a l e r B,  C a n a d i a n C o u n c i l on S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t . ( 1 9 7 7 ) A Review of Canadian S o c i a l Housing P o l i c y , Ottawa. C a n a d i a n C o u n c i l on S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t ( 1 9 7 1 ) Where t h e $200 M i l l i o n Went. A C o m m e n t a r y o n t h e 1 9 7 0 CMHC $200 M i l l i o n " I n n o v a t i o n s " P r o g r a m , Ottawa. Chen,  P. ( 1 9 7 1 ) The Economics o f a C o n t i n u i n g H o u s i n g Cooperative , u n p u b l i s h e d M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f O t t a w a .  Clark,  L. (1975) T w e l v e Community H o u s i n g Group P r o f i l e s o r the F i l t e r - F a c i l i t a t o r C h r o n i c l e . Unpublished Report p r e p a r e d f o r C o m m u n i t y H o u s i n g D i v i s i o n , CMHC, O t t a w a .  C.M.H.C. ( 1 9 7 7 ) Canadian Housing Data and Systems.  Statistics  1976.  Ottawa:  C o c h r a n , C.L. (1968) C o - o p e r a t i v e S e l f - H e l p H o u s i n g i n Nova Scotia. Washington: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Self-Help Housing Association. C o n s t a n t i n u , M. ( 1 9 7 0 ) H o u s i n g C o - o p e r a t i v e s i n B.C. M.A. T h e s i s , 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 .  Unpublished  Cooley,  W-W. a n d P.R. L o h n e s = ( 1 9 7 1 ) Multivariate New Y o r k : John W i l e y and Sons, I n c .  Analysis.  Cooley,  W.W. a n d P.R. L o h n e s ( 1 9 6 2 ) M u l t i v a r i a t e Procedures for the Social Sciences. New Y o r k : John W i l e y and Sons, I n c .  Data  C o - o p e r a t i v e C r e d i t S o c i e t y o f M a n i t o b a (1975) Willow A C o - o p e r a t i v e Community. Winnipeg: C.C.S.M. Co-operative Housing Foundation The R o o f t o p s . Ottawa  of Canada.  C ox , K. R. ( 1 9 7 4) The L o c a t i o n of P u b l i c Comparative A n a l y s i s . Ohio State of Geography, D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r .  (1976-1977)  Park.:  From  Housing: Towards a U n i v e r s i t y Department  - 142? -  Cull,  E. (1976) The R i s e and F a l l of The U n i t e d H o u s i n g Federation: A Case Study of a C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g Resource Group. U n p u b l i s h e d M.A. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia.  D a v i d s o n , J . (1976) C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing; A Study i n User Sat i s f a c t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d M.A. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Davies,  G.W. (1976) "A m o d e l and h o u s i n g m a r k e t s , "  Davies,  W.K.D. a n d G.T. Barrow. (1973) "A c o m p a r a t i v e factorial e c o l o g y of t h r e e C a n a d i a n p r a i r i e c i t i e s , " Canadian Geographer, 17 ( 4 ) : 3 2 7 - 3 5 3 .  Dennis,  M. Low  Dineen,  J . (1975) The Tree P u b l i s h i n g  a n d S. Income  of the urban Urban Forum,  residential 2(l):36-44.  Fish. (1972) Programs i n Search of a Housing i n Canada. Toronto: Hakkert. Trouble with Co. L t d .  Co-ops.  Toronto:  D o n n i s o n , D.V. (1968) " H o u s i n g p r o b l e m s and p o l i c i e s : introduction" i n M. W h e e l e r ( e d . ) , The R i g h t t o Montreal: H a r v e s t House L t d . D r e y f u s s , A.E. Quest.  land  (ed.) (1975) Toronto: New  City Villages: Press..: .  The  Policy:  Green  an Housing.  Co-operative  Frank,  R.E. ejt. a _ l . ( 1 9 6 5 ) analysis," Journal  Graham,  J . (1974) " R e f l e c t i o n s on n o n - p r o f i t h o u s i n g : will t h e p o t e n t i a l be r e a l i z e d ? " , H o u s i n g and P e o p l e , 5 ( 2 ) :13-18.  Greve,  J. of  Haar,  Haire,  "Bias in multiple discriminant of M a r k e t i n g R e s e a r c h , 2:250-258.  (1971) Voluntary Housing i n Scandanavia, University Birmingham,Centre f o r U r b a n and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s .  C.M. (1953) " M i d d l e income h o u s i n g : the c o - o p e r a t i v e snare?", Land E c o n o m i c s , 2 9 ( 4 ) : 289-294 CP. (1975) I n Want o f a P o l i c y : A Survey, of the Needs of N o n - P r o f i t H o u s i n g C o m p a n i e s and C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g Societies. Ottawa: C a n a d i a n C o u n c i l on S o c i a l Developmen t .  -  Haynes,  14? _  K.E. (1971) " S p a t i a l change i n urban s t r u c t u r e : a l t e r n a t i v e approaches to e c o l o g i c a l dynamics," Economic Geography, 47(2) : 324-335.  H e r b e r t , D.T. (1973) "The r e s i d e n t i a l empirical observations," Area,  mobility process: 5 : 44-48.  Hunter,  D. (1975) "DACHI: p r o b l e m s Living Places, 2 : 2-8.  Illing,  W.M. (1968) The R i s i n g C o s t o f H o u s i n g and P r o b l e m s of F i n a n c i n g . C a n a d i a n C o n f e r e n c e on H o u s i n g , B a c k g r o u n d P a p e r No. 3.  Inter  of a s t r u g g l i n g  some  co-op,"  Co-operative Council. (1975) "The R o c h d a l e p r i n c i p l e s : a brief discussion," i n Dreyfuss (ed.), City Villages : the C o - o p e r a t i v e Quest. T o r o n t o : New P r e s s .  James,  J. (1951) "A p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y o f t h e s i z e d e t e r minants i n s m a l l group i n t e r a c t i o n , " American Sociol o g i c a l Review, 16 : 4 7 4 - 4 7 7 .  Jerome,  C.R.L. (1969), S t a t i s t i c a l Inference, A r b o r , M i c h i g a n : Edward B r o t h e r s I n c .  Johnston, R.J. Praeger.  (1971)  Urban  Residential  Volume  Patterns.  1.  New  Ann  York:  Johnston, R.J. (1970) "On s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s i n t h e r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e of c i t i e s , " T h e C a n a d i a n G e o g r a p h e r , 14. Jordan,  J.E. (1973) C a n a d i a n P o l i c y Towards C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing: A Study of Values i n C o n f l i c t , u n p u b l i s h e d M.A. T h e s i s , Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y .  Josey,  D.  (1976)  Personal  communication.  King,  L . J . (1970) " D i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s : a review of r e c e n t t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s and a p p l i c a t i o n s , " Economic Geography, 46(2) : 366-378.  King,  L.J. wood  King,  L . J . (1967) " D i s c r i m i n a t o r y a n a l y s i s of urban growth p a t t e r n s i n O n t a r i o and Quebec, 1951-1961," A s s o c i a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h e r s , A n n a l s , ' . 5 7 : 5 6 6-578.  (1969) Cliffs,  Statistical New J e r s e y :  A n a l y s i s i n Geography. Prentice-Hall, Inc.  Engle-  -  Kirby,  144 -  A.M. (1976) "Housing market s t u d i e s : a c r i t i c a l review," Transactions I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Geographers, 1 : 2-9.  Laidlaw, A.F. (1977) H o u s i n g You Can A f f o r d . T r e e P u b l i s h i n g Co. L t d .  Toronto:  Green  Laidlaw, A.F. (1975) A Roof Over Your Head. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Department of C o - o p e r a t i v e Development. Laidlaw, A.F. 4.  (1974)  "Pare  Beausoleil,  Ottawa,"  Living  Places,  Laidlaw, A.F. (1971a) "The c o - o p e r a t i v e i d e a a p p l i e d t o h o u s i n g , " C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g Commentary, 1 ( 2 ) . Laidlaw, A.F. (1971b) "Applying co-operative principles h o u s i n g " , C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g Commentary, 1 ( 6 ) . Le  to  C o n s e i l de l a C o - o p e r a t i o n d u Q u e b e c . (1968), Housing C o - o p e r a t i v e s i n Quebec. Report of the Housing C o m m i s s i o n o f t h e C o n s e i l de l a C o - o p e r a t i o n d u Q u e b e c .  Liblit,  J. ( e d . ) (1964) Selected Readings.  H o u s i n g - T h e C o - o p e r a t i v e Way, New Y o r k : T w a y n e P u b l i s h e r , I n c .  Marsh,  L. (1976) "On h o u s i n g p o l i c y a n d c o m m u n i t y p l a n n i n g , " i n H.P. O b e r l a n d e r ( e d . ) , C a n a d a : An U r b a n A g e n d a . O t t a w a : Community P l a n n i n g P r e s s , p p . 147-185.  Massey,  W.F. (1971) "Discriminant a n a l y s i s of audience c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , " i n D.A. A a k e r ( e d . ) , M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s i n .Marketing: Theory and A p p l i c a t i o n . Calif o r n i a : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Co., pp. 117-127.  '  M c C a r t y , H.H. ejt a _ l . ( 1956) The .Measurement o f A s s o c i a t i o n in I n d u s t r i a l Geography. Iowa C i t y : S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa . Mercer,  J . and.J.F. H u l t q u i s t . (1976) " N a t i o n a l p r o g r e s s towards h o u s i n g and urban renewal g o a l s , " i n J . S . Adams ( e d . ) , U r b a n P o l i c y M a k i n g a n d M e t r o p o l i t a n Dynamics: A Comparative Geographical Analysis. Camb r i d g e , Mass: B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g .  Environmental M i c h e l s o n , W. (1977) and Residential Satisfaction. sity Press.  C h o i c e , Human B e h a v i o u r New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r -  -  1 45 -  M i c h e l s o n , W. (1972) Environmental Choice: A Draft Report on t h e S o c i a l B a s i s o f F a m i l y D e c i s i o n s on H o u s i n g Type and L o c a t i o n i n G r e a t e r T o r o n t o . Ottawa: M i n i s t r y of S t a t e f o r Urban A f f a i r s , D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r B.72.9. Midmore, J . F . (1962) R e p o r t on C o - o p e r a t i v e C o - o p e r a t i v e Union of Canada.  Housing.  M o r r i l l , R.L. (1965) "The n e g r o g h e t t o : p r o b l e m s and n a t i v e s , " G e o g r a p h i c a l R e v i e w , 55 : 3 3 9 - 3 6 1 .  Ottawa:  alter-  M o r r i s o n , D.G. (1971) "On t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , " i n D.A. A a k e r ( e d . ) , M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s i n M a r k e t i n g : T h e o r y and A p p l i c a t i o n . California: Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Co., I n c . , pp. 127-142. Murdie,  R.A. (1976) " S p a t i a l form i n t h e r e s i d e n t i a l m o s a i c , " i n D.T. H e r b e r t a n d R . J . J o h n s t o n ( e d s . ) , S o c i a l A r e a s i n C i t i e s , V o l . 1, S p a t i a l P r o c e s s a n d F o r m . Toronto: J o h n W i l e y and Sons, I n c .  Murdie,  R.A. (1969) F a c t o r i a l Ecology of M e t r o p o l i t a n T o r o n t o , 1951-1961. U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Department o f G e o g r a p h y , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 116.  Muth,  R.F. (1969) H o u s i n g and C i t i e s : The S p a t i a l P a t t e r n of Urban R e s i d e n t i a l Land Use. Chicago: University of Chicago P r e s s .  N i c h o l s o n , T.G. (1969) "The e c o l o g i c a l and s p a t i a l structure of t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of W i n n i p e g , 1961," C a n a d i a n R e v i e w o f S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y , 6 : 162-178 Nie,  N.H. e_t a l . ( 1 9 7 5 ) McGraw H i l l , I n c .  P a t t e r s o n , J.M. Vancouver  S ,P . S . S . ( S e c o n d E d i t i o n ) .  (1976) How t o U s e NORMAL. Regional D i s t r i c t (mimeo).  Vancouver:  P a t t e r s o n , J.M. (1974) The F a c t o r i a l U r b a n E c o l o g y Vancouver: C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Data Base. M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Colombia. Peuker,  U.S.A.:  Greater  of G r e a t e r Unpublished  T.K. (1971) "A f a c t o r i a l e c o l o g y o f G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r , " i n R.E. L e i g h ( e d . ) , C o n t e m p o r a r y G e o g r a p h y : W e s t e r n Viewpo i n t s . B.C. G e o g r a p h i c a l Series.  -  14  6  -  P o m p e r l e a u , L. (1976) "Willow Park: a beginning," a t i v e H o u s i n g J o u r n a l , X I I I ( 2 ) : 40-44. Rao,  CR. to of  Co-oper-  a n d P. S t a t e r (1949) "Multivariate analysis d i f f e r e n c e s between n e u r o t i c groups," B r i t i s h P s y c h o l o g y I I : 17-29.  applied Journal  Reach,  B. (1968) S o c i a l A s p e c t s o f C o - o p e r a t i v e and Nonp r o f i t Housing — New and R e h a b i l i t a t e d . New York: Department o f H o u s i n g and U r b a n Development.  Roach,  W.H. 19 7 3.  (1974) C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g i n Nova Nova S c o t i a H o u s i n g Commission.  Rose,  A. (1968) Conference  Rose,  A. (1958) Regent P a r k : A Study i n Slum T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s .  Scotia,  Canadian Housing P o l i c i e s . Toronto: on H o u s i n g , B a c k g r o u n d P a p e r No. 2.  1938-  Canadian  Clearance.  S a u n d e r s , A.M.C. (1938) Consumers C o - o p e r a t i o n i n G r e a t Britain. G r e a t B r i t a i n : Unwin B r o t h e r s L t d . Schmid,  S.  (1976)  Personal  communication.  Schmid,  S. (1974) " D e C o s m o s V i l l a g e ' , V a n c o u v e r , B.C.: i n g r e d i e n t s o f one s u c c e s s f u l v o l u n t a r y h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t , " H o u s i n g and P e o p l e , 5(2) : 12-13.  Scott,  W.W. (1958) A R e p o r t on C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g Ontario. O n t a r i o : Department o f P l a n n i n g and Housing Branch.  Sharpe,  C.A. (1977) "Urban h o u s i n g m a r k e t s and p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n s : a Canadian p e r s p e c t i v e , " paper p r e s e n t e d Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of Geographers Annual Meetings, Regina.  S i m p s o n , T. (1976) success story 1. Smith,  the  in Development,  at  "Mountain View Housing C o - o p e r a t i v e , the of a t e n a n t s o r g a n i z a t i o n , " Living Places,  L.B. (1977) Anatomy o f a C r i s i s : C a n a d i a n H o u s i n g i n the S e v e n t i e s . Vancouver: Fraser Institute.  Policy  -  147  -  Smith,  L.B. (1974) The P o s t - W a r C a n a d i a n H o u s i n g and R e s i d e n t i a l M o r t g a g e M a r k e t s and t h e R o l e o f Management. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press.  Smith,  L.B. (1971) H o u s i n g i n Canada: M a r k e t S t r u c t u r e and Policy Performance. Ottawa: Urban Canada, Problems a n d P r o s p e c t s S e r i e s , R e s e a r c h M o n o g r a p h No. 2.  S u l l i v a n , D.G. (1971) C o - o p e r a t i v e H o u s i n g and Community Development: A Comparative E v a l u a t i o n of Three Housing P r o j e c t s i n East Harlem. New Y o r k : P r a e g e r P u b l i s h e r s . Tate,  J. in  (1974) "Rochdale Place - f i r s t Victoria," Living Places, 4 :  Tate,  J.V. (1973) Towards Housing, unpublished  housing 6-10.  co-operative  an U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f C o - o p e r a t i v e M.A. T h e s i s , Queen's University.  T e s s i e r , L. (1975) "How low c o - o p e r a t i v e i n Quebec Places, 3 : 32-36.  income City's  f a m i l i e s formed a housing l o w e r town," L i v i n g  W i l l c o x , R. (1953) " C o - o p e r a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s and e f f e c t i v e r e d u c t i o n i n h o u s i n g c o s t s , " Land Economics, 29(4) : 295-301. W o o d y a r d , M. (1974) "The components o f i n t e r u r b a n m i g r a t i o n s t r e a m s , " i n L . B o u r n e e_t aJL. ( e d s . ) , U r b a n F u t u r e s f o r C e n t r a l Canada. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , pp. 116-132.  APPENDIX  CONTINUING  I  CO-OPERATIVES  -  148 -  IN  CANADA  Year of Completion  P r o.i e c t Name Park  Location  Province  Winnipeg  Manitoba  Abbotsford  B.C.  Number Units 200  1966  Willow  1969  Co-op  1970  Solidarity  Windsor  Ontario  300  19 71  Scarcee  Calgary  Alberta  380  Winnipeg  M a n i t oba  68  Villa  Willow 1972  Meadows Park  Co-op  Villa  Abbotsford  B.C.  24  Joint  Action  Regina  Sask.  48  DeCosmos  Vancouver  B.C.  Twin  London  Ontario  84  Mississauga  Ontario  153  Coquitlam  B.C.  65  Abbotsford  B.C.  30  Toronto  Ontario  72  Ottawa  Ontario  56  Winnipeg  Man!t o b a  Toronto  Ontario  75  Victoria  B.C.  74  Toronto  Ontario  260  Toronto  Ontario  41  Riverdale  Toronto  Ontar i o  13  Brooks  Mississauga  Ontario  85  John  Toronto  Ontar i o  40  Main-Gerrard  Toronto  Ontario  51  U.A.W.  Essex  Ontario  60  Vancouver  B.C.  Pine  Ashworth 1973  Azalea Co-op  Square Gardens  Villa  Alexandra Pare 1974  Willow  Park  East  9  Rochdale Bain  Park  Beausoleil  Forward  Place  Apartments  Dufferin  1975  East  30  Grove  Bruce  Strathcona  Co-op  110  174  7  Year of Complet i o n 1975  Pro v i n c e  Bauer S t .  Halifax  N. S .  0V0  Halifax  N.S.  19  Montreal  Quebec  23  Le  Village Ne i g e s  Name  6  de C o t e d e s  Chez  Nous  de Q u e b e c  Quebec  Quebec  5  Chez  Nous  de Quebec  St.  Quebec  3  Sherbrooke  Quebec  25  Kanata  Vancouver  B.C.  150  New  New  W e s t m i n s t e r B.C.  42  Ridge  B.C.  84  Moody;  B.C.  215  Burnaby  B.C.  24  Meadow H i g h l a n d s  Pitt  B.C.  162  DACHI  Toronto  Ontario  36  Riverdale  Toronto  Ontario  8  Winnipeg  Manitoba  DACHI  Toronto  Ontario  31  Riverdale  Toronto  Ontario  25  Thurlestone  Toronto  Ontario  47  Castle  Thunder  Ontario  256  Cantons  de  l'Est  Westminster  Haney  Pioneer  Mountain Norman  Village  View Bethune  Carpathia 1976  Number o f Units  Location  Project  Housing  Green  S auveur  Maple Port  Meadows  Bay  152  Quarry  Ot t a w a  Ontario  180  Cordova  Oshawa  Ontario  97  Toronto  Ontario  67  Chadwick Lynn  Towers  Valley  Klahanie  North  V a n c o u v e r B.C.  Richmond  B.C.  '-65 74  Year of Completion 1976  1977  Number Units  Location  Province  Co-op.. D e m e r s  Vancouver  B.C.  42  Wilderness  Victoria  B.C.  38  Washington  Victoria  B.C.  59  Springridge  Victoria  B.C.  4  Mar i g o I d  Saanich  B.C,  86  Carpathia  Winnipeg  Manitoba  95  James  Victoria  B.C.  25  Adanac  Vancouver  B.C.  200  Mission  Miss ion  B.C.  74  Winnipeg  Manitoba  150  Vancouver  B.C.  170  Genesis  T immins  Ontario  37  Grace  Toronto  Ontario  32  Toronto  Ontario  70  Project  Wood  Park  Bay  Village False  Name  Canadien  Creek  Maclnnis Tree  APPENDIX  VANCOUVER  VARIABLE  -  152  II  CHARACTERISTICS  -  V A R I A B L E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S BEFORE NORMALIZATION ( G R E A T E R ' V A N C O U V E R REGIONAL D I S T R I C T DATA)  Variable  Name  % Owner O c c u p i e d % Single Detached % Apartments % Some U n i v e r s i t y Median V a l u e ($) A v e r a g e Rent ($) Median Household Income ($10~ ) 8. % P o p u l a t i o n o v e r 65 y e a r s 9. % F a m i l i e s w i t h m o r e t h a n two children 10. F e m a l e Participa t i o n Rate 11. % P r o f e s s i o n a l , Technical, Manager i a l 12. % Homes C o n s t r u c t e d after 1960 13 . % R e s i d e n t l e s s than o n e j y e a r 14. C r e d i t U n i o n s P e r Capita (10 *) 15 . S o c i a l H o u s i n g P e r Capita (10 ) 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7.  3  _ i  2  St andard Deviat ion  Minimum  60.857 64 . 373 27.504 15.438 30.209 135.613  23.587 25.064 24.508 10.455 7 . 940 32 . 133  3 , 600 2.000 1.699 5.399 21.699 70.000  94 . 699 95 .000 96.800 44.100 57,899 237.000  -0,989 -0.941 1.164 1.205 1, 654 1. 117  3 , 112 3,061 3 , 685 3.434 5. 842 4.987  9.560  2 . 582  4.040  15.920  0,293  3 .331  10.713  5.857  2.300  29.600  1,016  4 .078  18.697  8 . 110  1.399  34.399  -0.262  2 . 381  43.063  6.539  28.199  62.000  0. 953  4 .204  19.777  11.280  1. 300  54.699  0.936  3 .565  32.113  15.581  6. 000  68,100  0. 228  2 .511  20.540  7 . 552  9. 800  40.399  0. 585  2.719  0.800  1.439  0. 000  6.069  2.535  9.129  2.077  2 . 934  0. 000  14.850  2.586  10.506  Mean  Maximum  v  Skewnes s  Kurtos  NORMALIZATION (GREATER  Var i a b l e  AND  RESULTING CHARACTERISTICS  VANCOUVER  Transform  REGIONAL  D I S T R I C T DATA)  Mean  Standard Deviation  Skewness  Kurtosis  1  ARCSIN  (X )  1.237  0.141  -0.435  3 , 002  2  ARCSIN  (X^)  1.289  0.143  -0,297  2,541  3  ARCSIN  (tS)  0.730  0.320  0.056  3.344  4  ARCSIN  (X^)  0.699  0. 289  0, 303  2.876  5  LOG  (X)  1.006  0. 584  0.228  2 , 517  6  ARC  TAN  0.397  0,276  0.091  3 . 304  7  NONE  9.560  2. 582  0,243  3,331  8  LOG  0.671  0.346  0.155  2,560  9  ARCSIN  0.481  0, 243  0. 047  2 . 602  0.350  0. 386  -0.Oil  3,193  6.441  2. 038  0,065  3.151  l<  (X)  (X)  TAN  (X)  10  ARC  (X)  11  SQUARE  ROOT  12  ARCSIN  (X^)  0.937  0. 236  0.020  3 . 305  13  ARCSIN  (X*)  0.846  0.263  0. 046  3 .351  14  ARCSIN  (X^)  0.348  0. 362  0,535  2. 143  15  ARCSIN  (X^)  0.475  0.327  -0.013  2.521  (X)  APPENDIX I I I  FLYER  D I S T R I B U T E D BY THE COMMUNITY OPPOSED TO P E N T A  -  155 _  -  FLYER  156  -  FLYER  RESIST  REZONING  FLYER  IN  THE  CAMOSUN  BOG  FLYER  AREA  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n s h e e t i s p r o d u c e d on b e h a l f o f t h e homeo w n e r s and r e s i d e n t s o f t h e 3900 and 4000 b l o c k s West 19th, 2 0 t h a n d 2 1 s t who w i s h t o p r e s e r v e t h e q u a l i t y and character of the n e i g h b o u r h o o d . The names o f f i v e a r e a o w n e r s a p p e a r below. I f y o u w i s h t o d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e a t t e m p t s of the Penta h o u s i n g C o - o p t o p u t 26 d w e l l i n g s o n 13 s m a l l (33 f o o t ) l o t s , p l e a s e p h o n e t h e named p e r s o n s . (We request that y o u p h o n e t h e n u m b e r t i c k e d on y o u r f l y e r , first.) The s t a t u s o f t h i s i s s u e a t t h i s t i m e ( 2 5 t h o f M a r c h ) i s a s follows. P e n t a , a C o - o p f o r m e d u n d e r t h e B.C. S o c i e t i e s Act, c o m p r i s e s 44 a d u l t s a n d t h e i r 23 c h i l d r e n o r d e p e n d e n t s . In a c o l l e c t i v e a t t e m p t to p r o v i d e t h e m s e l v e s w i t h s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s at low c o s t t h i s g r o u p b a n d e d t o g e t h e r , e n g a g e d ;the a r c h i t e c t u r a l f i r m of Walkey/Olsen to d e s i g n t h e i r houses, c h o s e Camosum Bog a s a s i t e , a p p r o a c h e d V a n c o u v e r C i t y Council t o c o n s i d e r b o t h t h e r e z o n i n g and s a l e o f t h i s l a n d t o P e n t a . C o u n c i l p a s s e d a m o t i o n to the e f f e c t of l o o k i n g i n t o the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e z o n i n g and s a l e of t h i s l a n d . I t was, at the time of the P e n t a o f f e r , b e i n g p r e p a r e d f o r s a l e , on a l o t by l o t b a s i s , t o any d e v e l o p e r . C o u n c i l w i l l be c o n s i d e r i n g the rezoning a p p l i c a t i o n soon. The D e s i g n P a n e l and Planning D e p a r t m e n t s o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l h a v e , we u n d e r s t a n d , a p p r o v e d t h e p r e l i m i n a r y p l a n s of P e n t a . I t was at t h i s s t a g e , i n the l i g h t o f t h e k n o w l e d g e o f a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and t h a t an article w o u l d a p p e a r i n t h e W e s t e r n News, t h a t t h e P e n t a g r o u p decided to "consult" the r e s i d e n t s of t h i s s i n g l e f a m i l y a r e a . This b o m b s h e l l took the form of a s l i c k b r o c h u r e which i m p l i e d t h a t t h i s ' d e v e l o p m e n t ' was an a c c o m p l i s h e d f a c t . lt_ i_s no t . With the a c t i v e support of the n e i g h b o u r h o o d , t h i s 'development' w i l l not occur.  The f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n has b e e n t a k e n . A p e t i t i o n has been c i r c u l a t e d which r e q u e s t s C o u n c i l to r e j e c t t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rezoning. T h e C i t y C l e r k h a s b e e n v i s i t e d by a d e l e g a t i o n o f r e s i d e n t s who are p r o t e s t i n g the p r o p o s a l . A l d e r m e n ( a n d women). H a r c o u r t , M a r z a r i , Kennedy, Sweeney, and t h e Mayor have h e a r d personal complaints from area r e s i d e n t s . We e n c o u r a g e a r e a r e s i d e n t s t o c o n t a c t m e m b e r s o f t h e C o u n c i l a n d make t h e i r complaints VOCAL. I f y o u h a v e f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s who would c o n t a c t C o u n c i l m e m b e r s , p l e a s e u r g e t h e m t o do s o . They would be p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e i f t h e y c o m p l a i n e d a s r e s i d e n t s o f D u n b a r o r P o i n t G r e y who w i s h t o r e t a i n some area., o f . t h e city as a s i n g l e f a m i l y a r e a . I f y o u h a v e made a c o n t a c t w i t h Council Members o t h e r t h a n t h o s e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , p l e a s e a d v i s e one of  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100183/manifest

Comment

Related Items