Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A survey of townhouse owners' preferences for private outdoor space Greig, Barbara Jean 1980

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A6_7 G74.pdf [ 13.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100185.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100185-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100185-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100185-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100185-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100185-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100185-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100185-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100185.ris

Full Text

cl A SURVEY OF TOWNHOUSE OWNERS' PREFERENCES FOR PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE B.Sc. (Hons), University of Oregon, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE 'STUDIES (Department of Plant Science) We accept t h i s thesis are conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA i by BARBARA JEAN GREIG September 1980 Barbara Greig, 1980 In presenting this thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Plant Science The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 - i i -Abstract Due to a v a r i e t y of economic pressures, medium-density housing forms, p a r t i c u l a r l y the townhouse, have become increasingly popular alte r n a t i v e s to detached housing. The design of the communal and private outdoor space i n townhouse projects has been c r i t i c i z e d for a lack of space and privacy. The objectives of this study were to describe townhouse owners, determine t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with the project and the s i z e , privacy, and design of back yards, and test whether t h e i r evaluations could be predicted from t h e i r demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , housing background, or t h e i r attitudes about housing and the use and design of outdoor space. To s a t i s f y these objectives, interviews were conducted with ninety owners in nine townhouse projects located i n the Greater Vancouver area of B.C. The projects were randomly selected from e l i g i b l e projects i n four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and respondents were selected by interviewing residents found at home during the week or on weekends. Factor analysis, c l u s t e r analysis, and regression analysis were used to test for predictors of s a t i s f a c t i o n . The townhouse owners represented a broad range of ages, incomes, family sizes, and housing backgrounds. Overall s a t i s f a c t i o n with the projects and yards was high, and the majority rated privacy as adequate. Regression analysis predicted 25% of the variance i n general ratings, 20% of the variance i n privacy ratings, and 20% of the variance i n ratings of s o c i a l problems i n the projects. A l l three rating measures were predicted by regressions s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.10. The most useful predictors included the reasons people were l i v i n g i n townhouses, t h e i r attitudes about family use of the back yard, and what kind of housing they had l i v e d i n . Based on the findings, recommendations were made for the size of yards and patios, privacy fencing, paving materials, lawns, plantings, general s i t e design, and management. - i i i -Table of Contents Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i LIST OF PLATES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 8 2.1 Theory of Privacy and Outdoor Space Design in Multiple Housing Outdoor Space Design i n Mul t i p l e Housing 8 A Hierarchy of Open Space 9 Privacy 11 2.2 User Research The Need for User Research 12 Problems i n the Measurement of User Needs 14 2.3 Results from User Studies Who are Townhouse Owners? 15 The Desire for Private Outdoor Space 19 The Privacy of Outdoor Space 19 A View vs Privacy 20 Fences for Privacy and Control 21 Use of Private Outdoor Space 21 Size of Private Outdoor Space 22 Front Yards i n Townhouses 22 Problems i n Townhouse Projects 23 Noise 23 Parking 23 Children's Play 24 Suggestions for Site Design 24 Landscaping 25 Site Layout and Size 25 Recommendations for Private Outdoor Space 26 3.0 METHODOLOGY 28 3.1 Questionnaire 28 Introduction 28 The Interview 29 Pretesting 30 - i v -Page 3 .2 Samp l i n g 31 Sampling Frame 31 Sample Selection 33 3.3 The Interviews 33 Selection of Respondents 33 Securing the Interviews 38 Conducting the Interview 38 3.4 Data Analysis 39 Program Package Used 39 Analysis Procedures 39 4.0 RESULTS 41 4.1 Interview Results 41 4.2 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Housing Background 42 Who i s the Ty p i c a l Respondent and What i s His Housing Background? 42 Demographics 42 Family s i z e 44 Residence time and plans to stay 45 Last residence 45 Last house type 45 Houses since childhood 45 Reasons people moved from t h e i r l a s t house 46 Reasons people chose the project 47 Reasons people chose the unit 51 Ideal housing type 51 Reasons people w i l l move 52 Features of next house 52 Ideal tenure 53 4.3 Ratings, Attitudes, Use, and Preferences for Private Outdoor Space 53 Ratings and Attitudes 53 Project and outdoor space r a t i n g 53 House rating 55 Back yard r a t i n g 55 Privacy of back yard 55 Back fence r a t i n g 56 Function of back fence 56 V i s u a l privacy of back yard 59 "People seeing i n bothers me" 59 Concern about noise 59 Problems i n the back yard 60 - v -Page Features, Use and Preferences for the Back yard 62 Back yard size r a t i n g 62 Patio size rating 63 Patio features 66 Patio surface material 66 Connection between patio and house 67 Treatment of yard beyond patio 67 Use of back yard and or i e n t a t i o n preferred 68 Gardening and growing vegetables 68 Changes to the back yard 69 Features of i d e a l back yard 69 Importance of outdoor space 69 Front Yards and Balconies 70 General Site Information 72 4.4 Can Ratings be Predicted by Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Housing 73 Background, and Preferences? Introduction 73 Demographic Scales 75 Housing Background Scales 78 Rating Scales 83 Preference Scales 89 Results of Regressions Using Scales 95 Introduction 95 Predictors of General Ratings 97 Predictors of Privacy Ratings 103 Predictors of "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" 107 Summary 110 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN 111 5.1 Private Outdoor Space Design 111 Size of Yards and Patios 111 Fencing 112 Lawns 113 Trees and Shrubs 115 Connection to the Unit 115 Front Yards 115 Balconies 117 Roof Decks 117 5.2 Site Design 120 Children's Play 120 Parking 120 Swimming Pools 120 5.3 Management 121 - v i -Page 6.0 SUMMARY 122 6.1 Who are Townhouse Owners? 6.2 Are There Any Differences Between Townhouse Projects Which 122 Affect Owners' Sa t i s f a c t i o n ? 6.3 Can a Person's Ratings of His Yard and Townhouse Project be 123 Predicted from His Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Housing Background, or Preferences? 6.4 U t i l i t y of Findings 123 Landscape Architects 124 Planners 125 Management 125 Prospective Townhouse Owners 126 6.5 Further Research 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY 128 APPENDICES 133 1. Questionnaire and Responses 133 2. Letter and Summary of Results Sent to Respondents 154 3. Townhouses i n Four M u n i c i p a l i t i e s 157 4. Plans of Private Outdoor Space i n Sample Projects 170 5. Equations Used to Compute Scale Scores 180 - v i i -L i s t of Tables Page Table 1. Description of Sample Townhouse Projects 34 Table 2. Comparison of Sample and Sampling Frame by Price 35 Table 3. Comparison of Sample and Sampling Frame by Location 36 Table 4. Comparison of Sample and Sampling Frame by Project Size 37 Table 5. Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Housing Background of 90 43 Residents of Nine Townhouse Projects Table 6. Ratings and Preferences of 90 Residents of Nine Townhouse 54 Projects Table 7. Demographic Factor Loadings 76 Table 8. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Demographic Scales 77 Table 9. R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s of Scales 79 Table 10. Housing Background Factor Loadings 80 Table 11. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Housing Background Scales 81 Table 12. Rating Factor Loadings 84 Table 13. F i n a l Rating Scales 86 Table 14. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Rating Scales 87 Table 15. Preference Cluster Results 90 Table 16. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Preference Scales 92 Table 17. Pearson Correlations Between the Three Rating Scales 96 Table 18. Results of Separate Regressions on General Ratings with 98 Demographic, Housing Background, and Preference Scales Table 19. Results of the Regression on General Ratings with A l l Scales 102 Table 20. Results of Separate Regressions on Privacy Ratings with 104 Demographic, Housing Background, and Preference Scales Table 21. Results of the Regression on Privacy Ratings by A l l Scales 105 Table 22. Results of Separate Regressions on "Good Fences Made Good 108 Neighbors" with Demographic, Housing Background, and Preference Scales Table 23. Results of the Regression on "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" 109 with A l l Scales - v i i i -L i s t of Figures Page Figure 1. Travel Time to Selected M u n i c i p a l i t i e s From Vancouver 4 City Center Figure 2. Townhouses i n Four M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Including Sampled Projects 5 Figure 3. Recommended Yard Treatment 114 - ix -L i s t of Plates Page Plate 1. The unusual architecture i n Greentree V i l l a g e 50 Plate 2. The stacked form of Forest Meadows allowed low land 50 coverage Plates 3 and 4. The f e e l i n g of density inside the False Creek enclave 58 Plate 5. Lower units at Greentree had patios facing out onto 61 an open lawn Plate 6. The upper unit patios at Greentree were considered too 64 small by most residents Plate 7. Patios at Kingswood Downs were small and were surrounded 64 by bu i l d i n g walls and fences Plates 8 and 9. The back yards at Forest Meadows lack cle a r boundaries 65 Plate 10. The large front patios at Greentree V i l l a g e 71 Plate 11. The more t y p i c a l front treatment at Country Club 71 Plate 12. The benefit of generous landscaping at L i l l o o e t 116 Plate 13. Landscaping enhances privacy at Springmont 116 Plate 14. Small, private front patios at Mariners V i l l a g e 118 Plate 15. Front patios at Greentree are removed from the street 118 Plate 16. Some False Creek roof decks were l i t t l e used because 119 of exposure to sun and wind - x -Acknow 1 e dgemen t s I would l i k e to thank my advisor, Dr. John N e i l l , for his suggestions at the beginning of the study and h i s patience throughout, and Dr. John C o l l i n s for his unending support and advice. Staff i n the Planning Departments of Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, the City of North Vancouver, and the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver a l l spent considerable time helping me locate the information I needed. I would also l i k e to thank Sandra Sturgeon for her s k i l l and imperturbable good nature, and Russell Greig for trying to keep me on schedule. Last, I must thank the ninety people who took the time to answer my questions. - 1 -1.0 INTRODUCTION With the price of detached single family housing continually r i s i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n the Vancouver area, from a combination of increasing land p r i c e s , housing costs, and int e r e s t rates, many people can no longer afford the t r a d i t i o n a l single family house (see GVRD, 1974; Koenig, 1975). Housing forms b u i l t at higher densities claim savings from land costs because less land is required for each house, from construction costs because multiple units can be b u i l t more e f f i c i e n t l y , and from s e r v i c i n g costs because higher density housing can be designed so the length of sewers, storm drainage systems, and roadways are much shorter than those required for t r a d i t i o n a l single family houses (Whyte, 1964; GVRD, 1974). Denser forms of housing have also begun to receive attention as housing alter n a t i v e s as expanding urban centers seek to a t t r a c t more residents to central locations and also to encourage more e f f i c i e n t use of the limited supply of available r e s i d e n t i a l land (Whyte, 1964; Koenig, 1975). Advocates of higher density housing also c i t e the advantages of improved access to schools, stores, recreation f a c i l i t i e s , and t r a n s i t , and the more stable communities created by a greater range of house types (GVRD, 1974). As an a l t e r n a t i v e to single family housing, the townhouse has several advantages over other denser forms of housing. Accepting for the moment that the suburban si n g l e family house is the housing form preferred by the majority of North Americans, the townhouse has more of the q u a l i t i e s that make single family housing the fa v o r i t e than any other medium density housing form available on the market i n North America today. The townhouse has a separate front entrance, i s not attached to other houses above or below, and has a back - 2 -yard or patio set aside for the private use of the residents. In t y p i c a l suburban (non-street-oriented) townhouses, each unit also has a carport or at least a parking space d i r e c t l y i n front of the uni t , and many have basements. Problems i n townhouse projects that deserve design attention include a lack of privacy i n yards, a lack of d e f i n i t i o n between common areas and pri v a t e yards, noise, problems with children's play, pets, and inadequate parking. A number of these problems are within the province of the landscape a r c h i t e c t . Of p a r t i c u l a r interest i n th i s study is the private outdoor space provided with most townhouse u n i t s . T y p i c a l l y t h i s is an 8' by 10' concrete slab patio reached from inside the house through s l i d i n g glass doors and fenced for privacy by f i n walls or short screens between the u n i t s . Any fencing that completely encloses the yard is not usually high enough for v i s u a l privacy. More commonly the patio is surrounded by grass which merges uninterrupted into a common lawn area. The lawn areas are maintained by a landscaping firm and ambiguity of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the planted areas close to the un i t causes problems i n some developments. From this d e s c r i p t i o n i t should be apparent that the boundaries of these back yards are usually not very well defined; there i s v i s u a l privacy only from neighbors to the sides i n the areas immediately next to the house, and there is no way to control access to the yard. Depending on the use of adjacent areas, the privacy can be excellent or non-existent. The l a t t e r , unfortunately, seems more common; "p r i v a t e " back yards and patios i n Vancouver look out onto busy streets, sidewalks, schools, parks, and other townhouse yards with l i t t l e or no screening by fences or planting. One goal of t h i s study was to see whether townhouse owners were s a t i s f i e d with the privacy provided i n t h e i r yards and what improvements were suggested. - 3 -The objectives of the study were as follows: 1) to i d e n t i f y the demographic and socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , housing background, and housing preferences of townhouse owners; 2) to find out how these townhouse owners evaluate t h e i r projects, p a r t i c u l a r l y the size and privacy of t h e i r yards; 3) to i d e n t i f y what the yards are used for and what preferences people have for gardening, yard features, and plantings and paving materials; and 4) to test whether t h e i r evaluations can be predicted from any of the other information c o l l e c t e d (demographics, housing background, and preferences). Thus the scope of the study includes such design aspects as the size of patios and yards, preferences for screening (material, height, and density), paving materials, lawn, garden space and various other features (fountains, benches, e t c . ) , as well as the use of the yard and s a t i s f a c t i o n with privacy and more general aspects of the projects. Three basic questions were asked: 1) Who are townhouse owners and how do t h e i r housing backgrounds a f f e c t  t h e i r expectations of townhouse l i v i n g ? It i s hypothesized that people who have l i v e d i n single family housing w i l l want more privacy that most townhouse yards o f f e r , while people who have l i v e d i n apartments w i l l be less c r i t i c a l of townhouse privacy. 2) Are there are differences i n the ratings projects receive which allow  design recommendations to be made? A v a r i e t y of provisions and treatments are represented i n the sample. It i s expected that some projects w i l l receive higher ratings on some features than other projects, and conclusions can be drawn about preferred design solutions. 3) Can a person's ratings be predicted from his demographic, housing  background, and preference information? Information to answer these questions was c o l l e c t e d by personal interviews conducted at nine townhouse pro j e c t s . These projects were selected i n a random sampling of projects from the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, and the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver (see Figures 1 and 2). - 4 -Figure 1. Travel Time to Selected M u n i c i p a l i t i e s from Vancouver City Center (Selected M u n i c i p a l i t i e s are Shaded) _ 5 _ Legend * owned or rented townhouse project • sampled project Figure 2 . Townhouses i n Four M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Including Sampled Projects - 6 -There are several terms used throughout the thesis which need to be defined. The term townhouse i s used to describe those single family dwelling u n i t s having one or more storeys (most commonly two) which are joined at the side walls to other s i m i l a r units to form a row. The r e l a t e d terms row house, link house, and terrace house are also used to describe s i m i l a r housing forms. For the purposes of this study, the term townhouse w i l l be used to include a l l houses which s a t i s f y the d e f i n i t i o n given above. Detached single family housing w i l l be referred to simply as "single family". Townhouses are also referred to as condominiums; there i s considerable confusion about the precise meaning of t h i s term. A condominium is any dwelling unit owned by the st r a t a t i t l e form of ownership; the unit may be an apartment, a townhouse, a duplex, or even a single family detached home. This form of ownership, i n contrast to the more f a m i l i a r t i t l e i n fee simple, is f a i r l y new i n North America and means that an owner holds t i t l e i n fee simple to h i s dwelling unit as well as t i t l e with a l l other owners to any common grounds or areas (see Pavlich, 1978). For example, the owner of a condominium in a h i g h - r i s e apartment b u i l d i n g owns h i s apartment (from the center of the space between the walls) and owns his share of the grounds outside, the parking l o t , foyer, elevator, laundry room, and c o r r i d o r s . The owners of a condominium structure automatically belong to t h e i r s t r a t a corporation and a council of owners i s elected to represent the owners and administer the business of the condominium development. This aspect of condominium l i f e is one of the least understood by prospective owners. The st r a t a council sets and c o l l e c t s a monthly maintenance fee from each owner to pay. for maintenance of the bui l d i n g e x t e r i o r s , common f a c i l i t i e s such as pools and recreation b u i l d i n g s , f i r e insurance, and the maintenance of a l l common landscaped - 7 -areas. The str a t a council h i r e s a management company to advise the c o u n c i l , and the landscaping i s usually contracted to a maintenance firm. Townhouses can be rented, owned by cooperative ownership, or, more commonly, owned as condominiums. The l a t t e r may also be known as "s t r a t a t i t l e " townhouses. Townhouses can be stacked on top of each other to form a four-storey bu i l d i n g , combined with apartments on the bottom or top to form a three-storey b u i l d i n g , or mixed with single-storey attached houses. A l l of these forms are much less common i n North America than the t r a d i t i o n a l two-storey row of townhouses. - 8 -2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW In order to provide the reader with the necessary background, i t i s important to review the current research on multiple housing occurring i n architecture, sociology, and psychology. The overview begins with l i t e r a t u r e describing the need for better outdoor space design i n multiple housing, the system of open space design founded on graduations of privacy, and current concepts of privacy relevant to outdoor space and housing. Section 2.2 discusses the importance of user studies to successful housing design and reviews the most important f a i l i n g s of current user research. The f i n a l section summarizes the information available about townhouse owners and t h e i r preferences for the privacy, use, and design of private outdoor space. 2.1 THEORY OF PRIVACY AND OUTDOOR SPACE DESIGN IN MULTIPLE HOUSING  Outdoor Space Design i n Mu l t i p l e Housing The q u a l i t y of outdoor space design i n multiple housing projects has con-cerned several authors. Katz (1963, 1966) stated that increasing the density of housing adversely a f f e c t s three aspects of " l i v e a b i l i t y " i n housing: privacy, i n d i v i d u a l i t y , and usable open space. He c r i t i c i s e d the general open space planning as poor and a useless waste of land, and said that usable private outdoor space i s u s u a l l y not provided at a l l . The p r i n c i p a l preoccupation of designers seems to be with buildings -the s o l i d s of a s i t e . Once the bu i l d i n g s have been placed on a s i t e and the c i r c u l a t i o n routes have been added, what remains is l e f t o v e r space. Yet these voids - areas framed by bui l d i n g s , walls, planting, etc. - play a fundamental part i n the creation of superior environments (Katz, 1966). - 9 -Murray and F l i e s s (1970) confirmed that i n Canada: ... Many housing projects provide vast open spaces which are frequently poorly maintained and serve no p a r t i c u l a r use ... Generally there is a lack of private garden or s i t t i n g spaces at no gain to the general use of the open spaces. Many housing projects exhibit a lack of d e f i n i t i o n between the small private outside space and the c l u s t e r spaces. A Hierarchy of Open Space This issue of the d e f i n i t i o n of private outdoor space has been studied by Walkey/Olson (1976), who said that residents' expectations of privacy and l i v e a b i l i t y have been formed by experience with t r a d i t i o n a l single family houses where the function and separation of areas of outdoor space are c l e a r e r than i n multiple housing. In s i n g l e family areas the majority of the land with the exception of the streets and lanes i s i n the private or the semi-private domain. The back yards and side yards o f f e r the greatest privacy while the front yard i n most areas i s a semi-private domain under the control of the resident, but developed and maintained i n a manner acceptable to the neighborhood. In contrast, the space around medium density developments i s almost e n t i r e l y dedicated to the semi-public realm. The majority of outside space i s merely decorative, setting an image to the public world. Balconies and p r i v a t e gardens are minimal and usually are under the control of the c o l l e c t i v e opinion of the neighbors i n the c l u s t e r . Often the maintenance and the type of use of outdoor space is regulated by management firms or by r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, set down by the o r i g i n a l owner. Very l i t t l e space i s i n the p r i v a t e domain of the residents. This i s one of the new concepts i n l i v i n g which is t o t a l l y unfamiliar to residents accustomed to single family neighborhoods. Whyte (1964) stated that " ... i t has long been evident that the small, intimate space i s the most precious of a l l to people" and that the t r a n s i t i o n from the private space to the common is the t r i c k i e s t problem for the designer. Chermayeff and Alexander (1963) stressed that privacy is needed most urgently i n the home. To b u i l d c i t i e s which are properly balanced between community and privacy, they recommended a "hierarchy of c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d - 10 -domains", which includes: the urban pu b l i c , urban semi-publie, group p u b l i c , group semi-publie, family p r i v a t e , and i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a t e . Many cultures have developed clear physical expressions of the need for varying degrees of privacy (Rapoport, 1969), such as the walled homes i n some cultures which e s t a b l i s h a clear separation between the public streets and the private home. The t r a d i t i o n a l single family home i n North America uses three mechanisms to define privacy and t e r r i t o r y : the s p a t i a l separation of i n d i v i d u a l houses on large l o t s ; the separation of spaces inside and outside the home using b u i l d i n g form (walls, screens, doorways); and the separation ensured by a s o c i a l system which dictates the recognition of property boundaries and acceptable behavior i n pub l i c , semi-public, and private spaces (Walkey, 1976). Walkey compared compact housing being b u i l t today with the single family house and concluded that compact housing does not s a t i s f y the needs of people accustomed to single family housing for privacy, t e r r i t o r -i a l i t y , or i n d i v i d u a l i t y , although thoughtful design could make compact housing an acceptable a l t e r n a t i v e to single family housing. Gauchat (1978) urged the use of th i s "suburban metaphor" i n the design of outdoor space i n higher density housing. He stated that the e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t i e s of the suburban yard are the multiple-use nature of the space, the clear privacy t r a n s i t i o n from front yard to back, and the a b i l i t y of residents to personalize t h e i r back yards. Halkett (1978) also stressed the multiple use and inf o r m a l i t y of the surburban yard as important aspects of i t s popularity. Newman (1972) studied higher density housing and concluded that the boundaries defining t e r r i t o r y that are so cl e a r i n single family housing are much more d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h i n denser forms of housing. He suggestd that - 11 -both r e a l and symbolic boundary mechanisms can be used to define the privacy hierarchy i n housing. Real mechanisms include b u i l d i n g form, high walls and fences, and locked gates and doors, and the symbolic mechanisms suggested were open gateways, l i g h t standards, short runs of steps, plantings, and changes i n the texture of walkway surfaces. This issue of privacy i s important enough to merit a b r i e f review of the d e f i n i t i o n s i n the l i t e r a t u r e which are relevant to housing. Privacy Privacy i s defined by most authors as freedom of choice i n a person's dealings with people or the control of unwanted contacts with other people. Proshansky et a l . (1970) stated that the psychological function of privacy is "to increase the i n d i v i d u a l ' s freedom of choice i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n by giving him con t r o l over what, how and to whom he communicates information about himself". Marshall (1970) defined privacy as the " a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l the degree to which others have access to the s e l f , through behavior oriented away from others and the presentation of b a r r i e r s to the behavior of others oriented toward the s e l f " . The perception of privacy is founded on c u l t u r a l systems which define the use of space by people. A pioneer i n the study of human use of space is Edward H a l l (1966), who defined four zones of human i n t e r a c t i o n defined by distance (intimate, personal, s o c i a l , and public) and observed the behavioral language used by d i f f e r e n t cultures to s i g n a l when these boundaries were being crossed. Sommer (1969) has studied what he c a l l s the "defense of personal space", the reaction to the v i o l a t i o n of privacy by another person, which uses gestures and behaviors such as the avoidance of eye contact and f l i g h t , and contrasts this behavior to the human defense of t e r r i t o r y , which i s accomplished by v i s i b l e boundaries or markers. - 1 2 -In an e f f o r t to understand privacy, several authors have divided the con-cept into a number of states and components. Proshansky et a l . (1970) sum-marized research which has defined four privacy states: solitude; intimacy; anonymity; and reserve. Marshall (1970) was able to define a person's attitudes toward privacy by means of six components: non-involvement with neighbors; seclusion at home ( v i s u a l and auditory); s o l i t u d e ; privacy with intimates; anonymity; and reserve. The complexity of the concept of privacy, as shown by these two authors, leads to the r e a l i z a t i o n that privacy i n the home environment i s a concept not e a s i l y defined or measured. 2.2 THE NEED FOR USER RESEARCH  User Research The value of knowing what people want i n t h e i r housing has been amply demonstrated by the f a i l u r e of some high density housing projects erected i n the last two decades i n North America and B r i t a i n (Newman, 1972). Newman stated that the f a i l u r e of these r e l a t i v e l y new housing forms, p a r t i c u l a r l y spectacular i n the case of St. Louis' Pruitt-Igoe project which had to be destroyed because vandalism had rendered i t completely uninhabitable, i s pa r t l y due to a lack of the t r a d i t i o n and prac t i c e which ex i s t for the more f a m i l i a r housing forms. In the absence of t r a d i t i o n , designers have e i t h e r been w i l l i n g or compelled to depend on t h e i r own i n t u i t i o n and assumptions about the way people l i v e . Z e i s e l (1975) and Cooper (1970) have both discussed why purely i n t u i t i v e design often f a i l s to produce good multiple housing. One of the primary p i t f a l l s i n the design of housing i s that the a r c h i t e c t r a r e l y belongs to the group involved ( Z e i s e l , 1975). Lacking information - 1 3 -about the users, who can r a r e l y be i d e n t i f i e d i n advance, the designer must proceed on the basis of h i s assumptions about how the b u i l d i n g w i l l be used by the residents (Cooper, 1970). The only way to test these assumptions i s to return when the housing i s occupied and see i f i t works the way the designer intended. Information gained from these "post-occupancy evaluations" can then be used i n future designs (see Z e i s e l and G r i f f i n , 1975), but unfortunately t h i s type of evaluation is r a r e l y done. In f a c t , many buildings are evaluated by a r c h i t e c t s based only on t h e i r appearance, often before the residents even move i n . Cooper found that i f the a r c h i t e c t decides to resort to designing the housing so i t f u l f i l l s purely functional c r i t e r i a (such as a room must be large enough to accommodate c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s ) there are s t i l l problems. The designer may make inaccurate assumptions about the way people use space inside -and outside the home (Cooper, 1970), and, also, the functional approach tends to ignore the multiple use of space, which i s e s p e c i a l l y c r i t i c a l i n denser forms of housing ( Z e i s e l , 1975). Designers also tend to apply t h e i r own value systems and aesthetic judgements without r e a l i z i n g that lay people see things d i f f e r e n t l y . Designers often f a i l to r e a l i z e how much difference i t makes to t h e i r view of the world that they respond to buildings and townscapes with eyes more discr i m i n a t i n g and i n t e l l e c t s more se n s i t i v e to design than those of the average layman. Their f a i l u r e to appreciate t h i s point leads them to make the f a l l a c i o u s assumption that the users of buildings w i l l react to them as they do themselves (Broady, 1966). Kaiser et a l . (1970) and Cooper (1975) found that people do not evaluate t h e i r housing by the same c r i t e r i a that professionals may use. This i s one of the best arguments for designers becoming f a m i l i a r with user research; i t helps designers r e a l i z e that people's opinions about t h e i r environments are worth l i s t e n i n g to. - 14 -S o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s (psychologists, s o c i o l o g i s t s , and anthropologists) c o l l e c t information on user needs and values, but the ap p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r findings to design problems i s often d i f f i c u l t . The studies are not us u a l l y intended to produce recommendations for designers, for which few s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s are q u a l i f i e d to do anyway, and designers are r a r e l y trained to interpret and evaluate the data reported by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s (Sommer, 1972). Even without these professional d i f f i c u l t i e s , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of user data involves a number of problems. Problems i n the Measurement of User Needs A number of methods e x i s t for c o l l e c t i n g information about people's needs, values, and atti t u d e s , including cognitive mapping, game playing, and open and closed interviews and questionnaires. A l l of these methods have the same basic problem: how us e f u l is the information received? Researchers admit that user data have the following discomfiting properties: 1. Responses can be strongly influenced by an interviewer's statements, att i t u d e s , or gestures (University of Michigan, 1970). 2. Responses suffe r from the "halo e f f e c t " - immediate events may temporarily influence a person's opinions and attitudes (Proshansky, 1974). 3. People's needs change with time, with the s o c i a l context, and with technology (Mann, 1972). 4. The d i s t i n c t i o n must be made between a person's needs and his as p i r a t i o n s . 5. People's responses d i f f e r depending on experience, r e s i d e n t i a l h i s t o r y , r e l a t i v e deprivation, advertising, a s p i r a t i o n s , and environmental awareness ( Z e i s e l , 1975). Other problems include the o v e r - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of research models by the elimination of variables which are too d i f f i c u l t to measure, and the eventual problem of deciding where to set standards based on the data c o l l e c t e d (Mann, 1972). P a r t l y because of the problems l i s t e d above, and p a r t l y because people d i f f e r , user data r a r e l y provide a clear concensus the designer can use to j u s t i f y the i n c l u s i o n or el i m i n a t i o n of a design feature. The data are almost always d i s t r i b u t e d over a range of possible responses; the designer s t i l l has to make value judgements i n order to decide what goes i n the design. A l l of these problems argue for the c a r e f u l c o l l e c t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s from user studies. These r e s u l t s are by no means useless. With the proper q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , information about what people want and think i s invaluable i n the design of the housing environment. 2.3 RESULTS FROM USER STUDIES Who are Townhouse Owners? Most housing studies contain a description of the residents surveyed, but older studies and those conducted i n other countries (e.g. B r i t a i n ) are of limited use for comparisons with the data that w i l l be presented i n t h i s study. Two studies have sampled Vancouver condominium owners (Condominium Research Associates, 1970 and Eadie, 1978). These studies are discussed below with the understanding that they both include owners of apartments and duplexes, as well as townhouses. The r e s u l t s of a large study of American townhouse projects by Norcross (1973) are also reported; t h i s study also included a small number of duplexes, "four-plexes", and apartments. Most townhouse owners are married people i n t h e i r 20's and 30's with one c h i l d (Norcross, 1973) and an average family size of 2.8-3.1 people/household. This information was confirmed by l o c a l surveys reporting family sizes of 2.7-3.4 people/household i n Vancouver area townhouses (GVRD, 1977a,b). The substantial number of people over 35 i n the townhouses sampled by Eadie and Norcross contradicts the common impression that townhouses and condominiums - 16 -serve only as " t r a n s i t i o n " housing for young fam i l i e s e s t a b l i s h i n g equity and as a " l a s t stop" for older couples with grown children whose large single family homes have become "empty nests" (Perin, 1977). The existence of a s i z a b l e group of s a t i s f i e d middle-aged townhouse owners should d i s p e l the image of townhouses as makeshift housing. The majority of condominium owners i n Eadie's sample had several years of education a f t e r high school and reported incomes above average (Eadie, 1978). Lansing and Hendricks (1967) and Michelson (1969) both found that residents of townhouse and condominium projects had education le v e l s well above average. This picture of townhouse owners as young and middle-aged people with higher than average incomes and education can be contrasted with the findings reported by Battles (1976) i n his survey of single family homeowners' attitudes toward townhouses. He found that people thought townhouse owners were a l l kinds of people except young singles and people i n upper income brackets. Both of these groups were found i n the townhouses sampled by Norcross (1973) and Eadie (1978). Most townhouse and condominium owners rented t h e i r l a s t residence, which was most often an apartment or a single family house (Condominium Research Associates, 1970; Norcross, 1973; GVRD, 1977 and 1978). Most of the people who had owned homes were older and had moved from single family homes (Eadie, 1978). The most common reasons c i t e d by former owners for moving to a town-house or condominium were the low maintenance r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of townhouse l i v i n g and a decrease i n family s i z e . Renters usually moved i n order to e s t a b l i s h equity rather than continue to pay rent, and to get more space (Eadie, 1978). Condominiums are chosen over single family for reasons of p r i c e , lower maintenance, the location convenient to work, project recreation f a c i l i t i e s , and the well-maintained neighborhoods and good environment (Norcross, 1973; Eadie, 1978; GVRD, 1977a-c, 1978). Lansing and Hendricks (1967) found that people l i v i n g i n urban townhouses most often c i t e the convenience and l o c a t i o n as t h e i r reason for buying, where suburban residents tend to mention features of the house and l o t . Eadie (1978) reported that units were chosen for i n t e r i o r features ( q u a l i t y of construction, large rooms, and f i r e p l a c e s ) and for the size of the patio or balcony, and projects were chosen for the land-scaping of common areas, children's play f a c i l i t i e s , the maintenance of common areas, and the swimming pool. When townhouse and condominium owners were asked how long they intended to stay, about h a l f (and p a r t i c u l a r l y those over 30) said f i v e years or more (Norcross, 1973; GVRD, 1977a,b). The majority of people moving would look for a single family house; t h i s strong preference for single family houses has been reported by numerous authors (Michelson, 1968 and 1969; Hinshaw and A l l o t , 1972; Sanoff and Sawhney, 1972; Knight and Menchik, 1974; Cooper, 1975; Bat t l e s , 1976; Eadie, 1978). In contrast, there are several reports that residents of townhouses and other multiple housing show more preference for the i r present kinds of housing than people who have never l i v e d i n multiple housing (Lansing and Hendricks, 1967; Condominium Research Associates, 1970; Cooper, 1970; Lansing et a l . , 1970; Burnaby Planning Department, 1974). This is good evidence for s a t i s f a c t i o n with townhouse l i v i n g ; as many as a t h i r d of the townhouse owners sampled by these authors no longer saw the sing l e family house as t h e i r i d e a l . One shortcoming of surveys of housing preference is the confusion of a person's i d e a l housing with h i s more r e a l i s t i c expectations for housing. Most - 18 -reports seem to concern people's preferences with no reference to economic constraints, but B e l l and Constantinescu (1974) c o l l e c t e d both kinds of information from multiple housing residents i n Vancouver. As t h e i r i d e a l house, 71% chose single family, but i f they were unable to afford single family housing, 69% would choose a townhouse and 23% an apartment. This i l l u s t r a t e s the need to d i s t i n g u i s h between ideals and r e a l i s t i c expectations for housing. Michelson (1969) and Cooper (1975) have both c o l l e c t e d information on housing preference by presenting respondents photographs or drawings of d i f f e r e n t types of housing and asking them to choose t h e i r preferred house type. Michelson showed people drawings of a single family house, a townhouse, an apartment b u i l d i n g , and a " f u t u r i s t i c " single family home. The majority of people (83%) chose the t r a d i t i o n a l single family house and the rest (17%) chose the townhouse. The reasons given for choosing the sin g l e family house were the privacy inside the house, the yard making single family housing the best for r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n , and the freedom for family a c t i v i t i e s with less fear of di s t u r b i n g neighbors with noise. Cooper showed residents of a p u b l i c townhouse project near San Francisco photographs of a suburban single family neighborhood, an older single family area with the houses divided into apartments, t h e i r own townhouses, and 3-storey urban townhouses. Almost a l l the respondents (92%) gave the suburban single family area as t h e i r f i r s t choice, and the older single family houses were second choice, t h e i r townhouse project t h i r d , and the urban townhouses fourth. S o c i a l and environmental reasons (nice neighbors and the appearance and good maintenance of the neighborhood) were given for the choice of the single family suburban house, but the importance of the space between houses was demonstrated by the preference for apartments i n separate houses over townhouses. - 19 -The Desire for Private Outdoor Space The desire for private outdoor space on the part of residents of multiple housing has been demonstrated by a number of authors. In several studies, at least two-thirds of the people surveyed thought i t was "very important" or "very valuable" to have some private outdoor space (Lansing et a l . , 1970; Cooper, 1971, S a i l e et a l . , 1971; Norcross, 1973; Sandvik et a l . , 1973; Harding et a l . , 1975; Vischer Skaburskis, 1980b). When Cooper (1970) asked people whether they would trade some of t h e i r private yard for more space inside the uni t , over two-thirds said no, and B e l l and Constantinescu (1974) found that people's commitment to private yards d i d not diminish when economic constraints were included i n the housing decisions. Townhouse residents surveyed by Cooper (1967) considered t h e i r back yards t h e i r most valued possession, and a quarter of the people i n the study by Gilmour et a l . (1970) reported that t h e i r private outdoor space was the feature they liked best about t h e i r housing. The Privacy of Outdoor Space The privacy of these small yards i s also important to people. Given the choice of a small private yard or a share of a larger communal yard, G r i f f i n (1974) found that people chose the smaller, private one. Michelson (1969) reported that people who have communal outdoor space would move i n order to get private space, primarily so they could do more things i n the private yard. Willmott (1962) asked people to choose between t h e i r present yard, one that was smaller and more priv a t e , and one that was larger and less p r i v a t e . A t h i r d (33%) chose the smaller, more private yard, 43% chose to keep t h e i r yard as i t was, and the rest preferred the larger, less private yard. Many studies of multiple housing report that the degree of privacy provided i n the outdoor spaces i s not s u f f i c i e n t for most residents. Up to a - 20 -t h i r d of the residents of townhouse projects were d i s s a t i s f i e d with the privacy of t h e i r yards (Willmott, 1962; Department of the Environment, 1971; Sandvik et a l . , 1973) i n comparison to only 10% of residents i n a courtyard housing project (CMHC, 1974). Kuper (1968) found i n a study of B r i t i s h townhouse and apartment owners, that " f o r an appreciable number of people the i d e a l would be complete physical i s o l a t i o n " i n the back yard. She also found that many people said t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s i n the back yard were r e s t r i c t e d by the lack of privacy. W i l l i s (1963) found that privacy inside the house and outside could be divided into three categories of privacy: privacy i n the home; privacy i n s o c i a l contact with neighbors; and privacy from overlooking (being seen from upper-storey windows). She discovered that overlooking bothers some people more than others, and also depends on what people are doing; for example, people relax i n g i n t h e i r yards mind being overlooked more than people who are gardening. Gatt (1978) found that the only a c t i v i t y for which people wanted privacy was rest and r e l a x a t i o n . A View vs. Privacy The courtyard house surrounds i t s yard or at least three sides and courtyard gardens serve to i l l u s t r a t e one of the c o n f l i c t s i n the design of private outdoor space: which i s more important, view or privacy? A t r u l y p rivate garden i s completely surrounded by fencing to at least eye l e v e l , and there are few views from such gardens. This c o n f l i c t between view and privacy is usually resolved by a r c h i t e c t s and builders i n favor of the view by providing p a r t i a l l y - s c r e e n e d patios and yards. What do the residents prefer? Results from one courtyard housing survey show that the majority of people (72%) chose t h e i r houses because of the private courts and that most had - 21 -accepted the limited view i n return for the increased privacy (Byrom, 1970). From several studies i t i s cl e a r that some people d i s l i k e a completely enclosed yard and prefer to see people and s o c i a l i z e (Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 1967; CMHC, 1974; Cooper, 1975; Gatt, 1978), but at the same time the evidence of a general preference for enclosed p r i v a t e yards i s overwhelming (Cooper, 1970 and 1975; Gilmour, 1970; S a i l e , 1971; Byrom, 1972; Sandvik et a l . , 1973; CMHC, 1974; GVRD, 1977a and b). Fences for Privacy and Control Various studies indicate that there are two basic reasons for the preference for fences: privacy and control (Norcross, 1973; Cooper, 1975; Z e i s e l and G r i f f i n , 1975; Vischer Skaburskis, 1980b). Fences are desired for privacy from people seeing i n from sidewalks and adjacent yards, to prevent unwanted views out of the yard, and to r e l i e v e the f e e l i n g of crowding and density i n the neighborhood. Many people also want fences i n order to have more control over t h e i r yard, ,to define the area that i s set aside for t h e i r use only, to keep children, other residents, and pets from coming i n the yard and damaging plants and lawn, and to create an enclosed play area for small c h i l d r e n . The desire for privacy tends to depend on the a c t i v i t y occurring; several authors report that people want privacy for s i t t i n g and rela x i n g , but that they are not concerned about privacy for gardening and other more active pursuits ( W i l l i s , 1963; Gilmour, 1970; Gatt, 1978). Use of Private Outdoor Space Z e i s e l and G r i f f i n (1975) reported that unenclosed back or front yards were r a r e l y used by residents, and Cooper (1967) found that the back yards at Easter H i l l were r a r e l y used when company v i s i t e d because of the almost com-- 22 -plete lack of privacy. A number of studies of North American multiple housing have reported the following uses of private outdoor space: barbequeing and eating outside; s i t t i n g and sunbathing; growing flowers and some vegetables; children's play; drying laundry; having company over; storage; and messy chores (Cooper, 1967 and 1970; S a i l e , 1971; Sandvik et a l . , 1973; CMHC, 1974; Becker, 1974; Z e i s e l and G r i f f i n , 1975; Beck and Teasdale, 1977; GVRD, 1978; Vischer Skaburskis, 1980b). Size of Private Outdoor Space A number of studies have asked residents to evaluate the siz e of t h e i r private yards and the r e s u l t s indicate that a majority of residents are s a t i s -f i e d with a yard of approximately 400 square feet (Willmott, 1962; Department of the Environment, 1971; M i n i s t r y of Housing and Local Government, 1969a,b; Sandvik et a l . , 1973; CMHC, 1974; Cooper, 1967; Gatt, 1978). K i f f (1974) recommended that the size of the private outdoor space should equal the com-bined area of the unit's l i v i n g room, dining room, and kitchen, or a minimum of 400 to 800 square fee t . Sandvik et a l . (1973) suggested that p r i v a t e yards should be large enough for a range of a c t i v i t i e s , and be sunny and w e l l - v e n t i l a t e d . Front Yards i n Townhouses Most townhouses are b u i l t with some open space at the front of the units and a patio or yard at the back. A number of authors have concluded that a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n should be made between the public front and the private back yard (Cooper, 1967; Shankland and Cox, 1967; S a i l e , 1971; K i f f , 1974; Cooper, 1967; Beck and Teasdale, 1977; Gatt, 1978). Front yards are used for s o c i a l i z i n g and to separate the house from the street, and back yards are used for more private family a c t i v i t i e s , such as eating and r e l a x i n g . Some people - 23 -would l i k e t h e i r open front yards fenced to keep people and pets out and to define t h e i r property, but few people want the front yards to be private (Byrom, 1972; Cooper, 1967). Problems i n Townhouse Projects  Noise One of the most frequently mentioned problems i n townhouse studies i s noise: noise inside from a lack of adequate soundproofing and noise outside from ch i l d r e n playing, neighbors, and t r a f f i c (Lansing and Hendricks, 1967; Lansing et a l . , 1970; Department of the Environment, 1971; Norcross, 1973; Sandvik et a l . , 1973). Eadie (1978), Gatt (1978), and B e l l and Constantinescu (1974) found that residents of multiple housing i n the Vancouver area consider the lack of i n t e r i o r soundproofing a very important problem. B e l l and Gatt both reported that d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with inside noise was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to a person's s a t i s f a c t i o n with the development, and Eadie found that lack of soundproofing was the number one complaint of the townhouse owners he surveyed. On the other hand, some authors mention that some people are not concerned about noise and seem to accept i t as part of l i f e i n multiple housing (Becker, 1974; Gatt, 1978). Parking A challenge i n designing multiple housing i n North America i s to provide s u f f i c i e n t parking close to the units without making the development look l i k e a parking l o t . From reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e i t i s c l e a r that i t i s impossible to s a t i s f y everyone unless carports i n front of every unit could be provided ( B e l l and Constantinescu, 1974). Otherwise, many residents complained that too l i t t l e parking i s available for them and t h e i r guests, that spaces should be assigned, that rules against parking i n project streets should be - 24 -enforced, and that streets should be wider (Condominium Research Associates, 1970; Sandvik et a l . , 1973; Norcross, 1973), while at the same time Norcross (1973) pointed out that too many parked cars can create a f e e l i n g of density. Children's Play Children's play i s another common problem i n multiple housing developments. A c r i t i c a l problem i n some projects was c h i l d r e n playing i n parking l o t s and streets (Norcross, 1973; Cooper, 1975; Beck and Teasdale, 1977). There were high numbers of c h i l d r e n i n many developments and they tended to play almost everywhere but the planned play areas, i f there were any (Condominium Research Associates, 1970; Norcross, 1973; Cooper, 1975; Eadie, 1978). Other problems included pets getting into yards, and i n s u f f i c i e n t outside storage for gardening tools, lawn f u r n i t u r e , and bikes ( S a i l e , 1971; Norcross, 1973; Z e i s e l and G r i f f i n , 1975; Beck and Teasdale, 1977). Suggestions for Site Design There are several aspects of townhouse design that concern residents and researchers, including landscaping, children's play areas, recreation f a c i l i t i e s , and the appearance and s i t i n g of b u i l d i n g s . Norcross (1973) recommended that developments should have good landscaping that varies from one part of the project to the other, that yards should be bigger and more pr i v a t e , that the houses should be i n shorter rows and i n c l u s t e r s , and that the unit facades should vary. Battles (1976) reported that residents of single family neighborhoods think that townhouses should have mature trees and good landscaping to soften the impact of the buildings, that there should be some v a r i e t y i n unit design, play areas should be provided, more wood and b r i c k should be used on house ex t e r i o r s , that units should have t h e i r own fenced yards, developments should - 25 -look more l i k e single family houses, long rows should be broken up, and that the general appearance of the development i s very important. Townhouse owners surveyed by Eadie (1978) said that the most important project features were well-landscaped common open space, adequate play f a c i l i t i e s , well-maintained common areas, a large woods or open area i n the project, a pool, and covered parking. Cooper (1970) found that the development's landscaping, general appearance, private outdoor spaces, safe play areas, and project layout were important factors i n resident's general s a t i s f a c t i o n . Landscaping Several authors confirmed the importance of good landscaping i n multiple housing p r o j e c t s . Sandvik et a l . (1973) stated that 40% of the residents of one project c i t e d the project's s e t t i n g , trees, and landscaping as t h e i r main reason for giving the project high ratings. Becker (1974) found that land-scaping was e s p e c i a l l y important for s a t i s f a c t i o n i f a wooded area was preserved on the s i t e , or i f good landscaping was i n contrast to a barracks-l i k e appearance of the b u i l d i n g s . Cooper (1975) concluded that landscaping was important not just to make the project a t t r a c t i v e , but also because residents saw i t as a necessary and important feature of an otherwise drab environment. Si t e Layout and Size The importance of s i t e layout and b u i l d i n g arrangement to resident s a t i s -f a c t i o n has been mentioned by Cooper (1970) and Beck and Teasdale (1977). Cooper found that i t was important to residents that the s i t e have no through t r a f f i c , s e c u r i t y , as l i t t l e noise as possible, and nice views. Beck and Teasdale reported that buildings should be i n shorter rows, not d i r e c t l y opposite each other, and not closer than 35 feet, and that residents preferred an arrangement with the buildings around a court because of the safety for chi l d r e n p l a y i n g . Resident evaluation of project s i z e i s found to have less to do with actual size than the appearance of s i z e . Norcross (1973) stated that people generally preferred smaller projects, but that larger developments were quite acceptable i f the density i s f a i r l y low and the houses are divided into neighborhoods. B e l l and Constantinescu (1974) also found that people's perception of the size of t h e i r project was not based d i r e c t l y on the actual s i z e and that c l u s t e r arrangements and v a r i a t i o n i n facades can make develop-ments seem smaller. Becker (1974) concluded that people's s a t i s f a c t i o n with the s i z e of t h e i r housing developments was dependent more on the distance between buildings than on the actual size of the development. Recommendations for Private Outdoor Space A small sampling was done of recommendations and p o l i c i e s for the design and provision of private outdoor space i n multiple housing. This survey i s by no means exhaustive but does serve to i l l u s t r a t e the information and guidelines a v a i l a b l e to arc h i t e c t s and developers who are designing multiple housing. The need for privacy i n the outdoor space provided with each unit was recognized by most of the authors (Murray and F l i e s s , 1970; K i f f , 1974; GVRD, 1975; North Vancouver, 1976; Ottawa, 1977; Surrey, 1977), and several explained the need to e s t a b l i s h a hierarchy from public spaces to the private (Calgary, 1970; Murray and F l i e s s , 1970; GVRD, 1975; Cooper, 1975; Vischer Skaburskis, 1980a), but only one (Cooper, 1975) s p e c i f i e d that fencing should be s o l i d enough to ensure r e a l privacy. Most authors stated a minimum height for privacy screens (usually 5 to 6 f e e t ) , but there was l i t t l e or no detai l e d advice about the degrees of privacy that fencing can provide. - 27 -Recommendations for the size of pri v a t e yards ranged from 150 square feet for a bachelor unit (CMHC, 1977) to 300 or 400 square feet for 3 or 4 bedroom units (Murray and F l i e s s , 1970; Cooper, 1975; Ottawa, 1977). Calgary (1970) recommended 100 square feet of space per person, K i f f (1975) stated that the size of the yard should be equal to the unit l i v i n g room, dining room, and kitchen combined, and North Vancouver (1976) st i p u l a t e d a size equal to 20% of the unit's area. - 28 -3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE  Introduction A host of methods have been used to c o l l e c t information about people's use of t h e i r environment and th e i r attitudes toward i t . Techniques such as observation and time-lapse photography do not involve d i r e c t contact with people and so information can be co l l e c t e d which i s not biased by any i n t e r -action between the researcher and the subject. Certain kinds of studies must obtain data d i r e c t l y from the people being sampled; any research of att i t u d e s , preferences, or s a t i s f a c t i o n must c o l l e c t this information from users. How c a r e f u l l y t h i s kind of information i s c o l l e c t e d can determine the u t i l i t y of the study's findings. Methods for c o l l e c t i n g information from people include cognitive mapping (Lynch, 1960), game playing (see B e l l , 1974), and questionnaires and i n t e r -views. A questionnaire i s usually completed by a respondent with l i t t l e or no in t e r a c t i o n with the researcher; the responses to questions can a l l be predetermined (closed questions) or spontaneous responses can be s o l i c i t e d (open questions). Questionnaires can be sent by mail or hand-delivered, and responses can be mailed or picked up by researchers. Mail-back questionnaires require fewer personnel for d i s t r i b u t i o n but suffer from poor response; often as few as 30% of the questionnaires are mailed back. Questionnaires delivered and picked up by researchers tend to have higher rates of response and may be worth the extra time and expense. Interviews allow i n t e r a c t i o n between the interviewer and the respondent and can eliminate confusion about ambiguous questions, allow the interviewer to pursue topics of i n t e r e s t , and provide useful information about the - 29 -respondent that the more impersonal methods miss. Interviews can be structured or unstructured; the questions can be determined i n advance and discussion encouraged only to c l a r i f y answers, or the interviewer may simply have a l i s t of issues that need to be covered and the sequence and length of discussion are determined by the interviewer as the interview proceeds. The Interview The structured interview was chosen as the method of data c o l l e c t i o n for t h i s study. Information was desired on a number of s p e c i f i c topics, such as ratings, uses, and preferences, and could have been c o l l e c t e d equally well by a closed questionnaire. The interview was chosen for i t s higher response rate and the opportunity i t provides for c o l l e c t i n g comments and explanations useful i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s . A number of accepted guidelines for the design of interviews and question-naires were followed: 1. The questionnaire should be as short as possible and s t i l l c o l l e c t  a l l the necessary information. People granting an interview lose i n t e r e s t a f t e r a f a i r l y short time and should not be asked i r r e l e v a n t questions. At the same time, complete information must be c o l l e c t e d to make the study worthwhile. 2. Common sense should d i c t a t e the order of the questions. Once the topics to be included are selected, the questions are written so that issues follow i n a l o g i c a l sequence, general questions precede more s p e c i f i c ones, and any personal questions are l e f t u n t i l near the end of the interview so that rapport with the respondent w i l l permit these questions to be asked without offense. 3. Respondents should be given a copy of the questions and the possible  responses. There are three advantages to this method: having a copy allows people to read the question as i t i s asked and eliminates repeating questions; the respondent can choose a response from the a l t e r n a t i v e s printed on the page rather than from a series read by the interviewer; and the copy tends to keep the respondent's attention fixed on the interview. 4. Questions should have options for unanticipated responses and  respondents should always be allowed to say "no answer". The l a t t e r i s important e s p e c i a l l y when personal information i s requested, such as age or income. - 30 -5. Writing down responses may be better than tape recording the  interview. Tape recording the interview tends to make people nervous, at least at the beginning, and i s less necessary i n a structured interview. The time i t takes to write down respondents' comments often encourages them to c l a r i f y t h e i r answers, and t h i s produces useful information and helps to establish rapport. A copy of the interview with the responses to each question i s contained i n Appendix 1. The interview began with general questions asking people to rate their project, i t s outdoor space i n general, and th e i r backyard, including i t s s i z e , privacy, and fencing. The interview continued with questions about problems i n the project, noise, the size, material, and features of the patio, and use of the backyard. Respondents were asked about their evaluation and use of front yards and balconies, and about a number of general project issues, such as maintenance, s i t e design, play f a c i l i t i e s , and management. The f i n a l questions i n the interview collected information about the respondent's housing preferences and housing background and his demographic and socioeconomic cha r a c t e r i s t i c s . Pretesting A c r i t i c a l step i n designing a questionnaire is pretesting. A few t r i a l interviews with e l i g i b l e respondents can indicate the amount of information required i n the introduction at the door, whether any questions are ambiguous, awkwardly worded, or out of sequence, where the l i s t of possible responses is inadequate, and where probes and explanations w i l l be needed to direct the responses. This questionnaire was pretested with six respondents at a Vancouver townhouse project which would have been e l i g i b l e for the study. The pretest established the amount of time needed to obtain and conduct the interview, the number of people home at different times of the day and on different days of the week, the willingness of people to grant an interview or - 31 -make an appointment, and the minimum number of units needed to c o l l e c t the interviews e f f i c i e n t l y . Several changes were made i n the questionnaire as a r e s u l t of the pretest. Several questions were reworded for c l a r i t y , the possible responses on a number of questions were changed, and new questions were added to improve the flow of the questions. 3.2 SAMPLING Sampling Frame Before a sample of projects could be chosen, the sampling frame made up of a l l e l i g i b l e projects had to be defined The decision to include the munici-p a l i t i e s of Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, and the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver was based on two c r i t e r i a : reasonable t r a v e l time from Vancouver, which was the base for the interviewer, and a s u f f i c i e n t number of townhouses av a i l a b l e for sampling (see Figures 1 and 2). Compiling l i s t s of townhouses i n each municipality depended on the systems used i n the various planning departments. The Richmond, Burnaby, and North Vancover D i s t r i c t planning departments had l i s t s of townhouses and other multiple housing units i n t h e i r areas which were used with few changes. In Vancouver, however, no such l i s t existed i n the c i t y planning department, so the information had to be gathered from land use maps and development permit a p p l i c a t i o n s . Tenure and price information for a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s was obtained from 1979 B.C. Assessment Authority records, taking as rentals those units with mailing addresses for tax assessments d i f f e r e n t from the street addresses of the u n i t s . - 32 -Once l i s t s had been obtained of the l o c a t i o n , s i z e , age, tenure, and unit p r i c e of townhouse projects i n each municipality (see Appendix 3), the sampling frame of e l i g i b l e projects could be defined based on the following c r i t e r i a : 1. Units must be townhouses. The d e f i n i t i o n of a townhouse was expanded to include single-storey attached units and stacked townhouses, but units without access at grade (on ground le v e l ) were excluded. 2. Units must be i n d i v i d u a l l y owned, not rented or cooperatively owned. This decision was based on the assumption that owners were more l i k e l y to be interested and concerned about most of the issues raised i n the study. (Whether or not this is true was not tested; for a discussion of the attitudes toward owning and renting, see Perin (1977).) Many projects allow r e n t a l of i n d i v i d u a l units by t h e i r owners, and since these rented units were i n e l i g i b l e , the projects had to have a minimum number of owner-occupied u n i t s . 3. The project must have at least 30 owner-occupied u n i t s . This estimate was based on experience from pretesting, and took into account the e f f i c i e n c y of c o l l e c t i n g the interviews and the number of units that might turn out to be i n e l i g i b l e . No maximum size was set. Cooperatives were eliminated from the sample because i t seemed l i k e l y that the communal system of management might improve resident s a t i s -f a c t i o n with some aspects of t h e i r townhouses, and so the cooperative residents would not be comparable to owners of condominium townhouses. 4. The project must have been occupied for at least 3 months. Setting a three month minimum for residence time ensured that respondents had l i v e d i n t h e i r house long enough to be able to evaluate t h e i r p r o j e c t s . 5. The 1979 B.C. Assessment Authority valuation of the majority of units  i n each project must be less than $100,000.A maximum pri c e was selected to eliminate from the sample those units most l i k e l y to be occupied by wealthy owners. These "luxury" units were determined with the help of a Vancouver r e a l estate expert and i t was thought that making them i n e l i g i b l e would help r e s t r i c t the study to home owners with more t y p i c a l economic constraints on t h e i r housing choices. 6. The majority of units i n the project must have private outdoor space  at grade d i r e c t l y accessible from inside the u n i t . A number of other p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t : a yard on grade reached by s t a i r s from an upstairs u n i t ; or space not on grade, such as decks, balconies, and roof decks. Since the study was concerned with gardening and plants as well as other issues, contact with the ground was considered important. - 33 -7. The units must belong to a single s t r a t a corporation. Many large townhouse developments are b u i l t i n sections or phases, and each phase becomes a separate s t r a t a corporation. Units within one corporation were a l l b u i l t at the same time and are more l i k e l y to have the same type of yards, fences, etc. Sample Selection The projects which s a t i s f i e d the above c r i t e r i a comprised the sampling frame (see Appendix 3). The sample of projects was chosen by a r b i t r a r i l y numbering a l l the e l i g i b l e projects (for a t o t a l of 73), and using a table of random numbers to select nine project numbers (see Figure 2). A t o t a l sample size of 90 (ten interviews i n each project) was selected to ensure that the sample was large enough to have s t a t i s t i c a l v a l i d i t y . The sample projects and b r i e f descriptions are presented i n Table 1. Site v i s i t s were made to each project to confirm e l i g i b i l i t y ; the housing form, the number of u n i t s , and the private outdoor space were checked to make sure the projects f i t the c r i t e r i a for s e l e c t i o n . One project did not s a t i s f y the c r i t e r i o n that the private outdoor space be on grade, so an adjacent project (Champlain V i l l a ) was substituted. I t can be seen i n Tables 2, 3 and 4 that the sampled townhouses are representative of the sampling frame by p r i c e , l o c a t i o n , and project s i z e . 3.3 THE INTERVIEWS Selection of Respondents Respondents were not selected i n advance. I f respondent addresses or sex were predetermined, the interviews would have been much more time-consuming to c o l l e c t because many respondents would not always be home. The sample was selected by interviewing the person who answered the door, as long as they Table 1. Description of Sample Townhouse Projects Name 1) Greentree V i l l a g e (Phase V) 2) Forest Meadows 3) Kingswood Downs 4) Richmond Country Club Estates 5) Springmont 6) Mariners V i l l a g e 7) L i l l o o e t 8) Champlain V i l l a 9) False Creek-Spruce Neighborhood Number from Sampling Frame3 47 60 19 25 34 37 74 Address 4102-4396 Garden Grove Drive Burnaby, B.C. (North of Loughheed Highway at Underhill Avenue) Burnaby, B.C. 1-26/9331 No. 5 Road and 27-62/11751 King Road Richmond, B.C. 10680-10980 Ryan Road and 1-32/9030 Ryan Crescent Richmond, B.C. 10800-10840 Springmont Drive Richmond, B.C. 1-50/11391 7th Avenue Richmond, B.C. 960-1008 L i l l o o e t Road North Vancouver, B.C. 3550-3580 E. 49th Avenue and 6600-6900 Arlington St. Vancouver, B.C. Ferryrow, Greenchain, Millbank, and Sawcut Streets Vancouver, B.C. Number of U n i t s b Date Bu i l t Builder or Developer 0 1979 BCAA Valuation 56(76)* 1975 76(134) 1977 62 56 32 50 65 36(48) 1973 1969 43(110) 1972 1978 Daon $39-44,000 (Architect: Werner Forster) (L.A.: Dan Matushita) HCBC $38-46,900 (Architect: Bain, Burroughs Hanson, Raimet) (L.A.: John Lantzius) Ad era Dunhill 1977 Adera $50,000 $38-41,500 $43,700 Descript ion 2-storey townhouse b u i l t over park-ing with back at grade and 1-2-storey attached units b u i l t at grade Stacked 2-storey townhouses with a l l entries at grade. Lower ( e l i g i b l e ) units have back on grade upper ( i n e l i g i b l e ) units have decks 2*5-storey townhouses 2-storey townhouses and 2-storey 6- and 8-plexes with front entries on corridors and backs around perimeter 2-storey townhouses 1973 (L.A.: Ekios) $52-55,000 2-storey townhouses 1972 Dunhill $53-58,000 $40,000 Stanzl $31-92,000 (Architect: Thomas, Berwick and Pratt) 2- and 3-storey townhouses with entries on grade and backs o f f l i v i n g rooms or basements, depending on lo c a t i o n on sloping s i t e 2-storey townhouses 1-3-storey townhouses with back decks ^r e f e r to Appendix 3 number sampled for interviews ^number i n parentheses i s t o t a l number of units in project including i n e l i g i b l e units d A r c h i t e c t and Landscape Architect (L.A.) are l i s t e d where known not included in o r i g i n a l sample - 35 -Table 2. Comparison of Sample and Sampling Frame by Price $30-39 $40-49 $50-59 $60-69 $70-79 $80-89 $90-99 Total Vancouver Sampling Frame 0 181 Sample 110 Richmond Sampling Frame 110 837 Sample 88 Burnaby Sampling Frame 243 1127 Sample 210 North Vancouver D i s t r i c t Sampling Frame 0 323 Sample 52 72 96 48 927 112 214 96 267 0 0 302 65 86 22 108 20 529 158 0 0 2184 200 0 0 1637 210 82 0 815 65 - 36 -Table 3. Comparison of Sample and Sampling Frame by Location Sampling Frame Sampl e Number of units % of sampling frame Number of units % of sample Vancouver 529 10.2 158 24.9 Richmond 2184 42.3 200 31.6 Burnaby 1637 31.7 210 33.2 North Vancouver D i s t r i c t 815 15.8 65 10.3 Total 5165 100.0 633* 100.0 Sample represents 12.2% of sampling frame - 37 -Table 4. Comparison of Sample and Sampling Frame by Project Size 20-50 units 50-100 units Over 100 units Total Vancouver Sampling Frame 269(8)* 0 260(2) 529(10) Sample 48(1) 0 110(1) 158(2) Richmond Sampling Frame 230(8) 803(20) 469(3) 2184(31) Sample 82(2) 118(2) 0 200(4) Burnaby Sampling Frame 238(7) 840(14) 559(4) 1637(25) Sample 0 76(1) 134(1) 200(2) North Vancouver D i s t r i c t Sampling Frame 75(3) 617(8) 123(1) 815(11) Sample 0 65(1) 65(1) *Number of units with number of projects i n parenthesis - 38 -owned the unit and had l i v e d there for at least three months. In order to avoid s e l e c t i n g only people who are at home during the week (most l i k e l y women with c h i l d r e n ) , h a l f of the interviews from each project were obtained on the weekend. On each v i s i t to the s i t e , interviewing was started at a d i f f e r e n t part of the project to avoid s e l e c t i n g people from only one part of the project. Securing the Interviews A standard introduction was used (see Appendix 1 ) , explaining that the interviewer was a student at UBC, what the study was about, and what kinds of questions would be asked. People were assured of the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e i r r e p l i e s and told how long the interview would take. I f the person was e l i g i b l e and w i l l i n g , the interview usually took place immediately, e i t h e r i n the l i v i n g room or at the kitchen table. I f i t was not convenient to do the interview at the time, an appointment l a t e r i n the day was suggested. I f that was not possible, people on the week days were asked i f they would mind the i n t e r -viewer t r y i n g again on the weekend. Most people said they didn't mind, and the majority who were home on the weekend did give interviews. Conducting the Interview Once the interview was granted, the respondent was given a modified copy of the questions and told that they could read along i f they wished, and that the interviewer would write down t h e i r answers. People were urged to add any comments as the interview proceeded and reminded that the questions about the use of t h e i r yard referred to summertime use. The interviewer made c e r t a i n to be consistent i n the i n f l e c t i o n and wording of explanations and probes, and to give neutral encouragement to responses and comments. At the end of the i n t e r -view people were thanked and, i n the f i r s t few projects, asked i f they would - 39 -l i k e to receive a summary of the study r e s u l t s . Almost a l l said they were interested and wrote down t h e i r names and addresses to have the summary mailed. Since the requests were nearly unanimous i n the f i r s t p rojects, i t was decided to mail a l l respondents a summary when the study was concluded. 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS Program Package Used The data was coded, keypunched, and analyzed with the program package SPSS ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the S o c i a l Sciences). This package was selected because i t i s v e r s a t i l e , r e l a t i v e l y easy to learn to use, and well-suited for analyzing data with large numbers of v a r i a b l e s . Analysis Procedures The method of analysis depended on the nature of the question being asked. When a d e s c r i p t i o n of the t y p i c a l townhouse owner and h i s housing background, ratings, preferences, and uses of h i s outdoor space was needed, means, stan-dard deviations, and frequency tables were obtained for the relevant variables (see Tables 5 and 6 and Appendix 1). Some of the variables i n the analysis were i n t e r v a l or r a t i o variables (such as age, income, residence time, number i n household), but many were nominal v a r i a b l e s . Nominal variables have categories of equal rank or value (such as sex and l a s t place l i v e d ) , where the mean s t a t i s t i c i s obviously of no use. In these cases proportions are reported for each response. Some variables were o r d i n a l ; ranking of the responses i s possible but the rankings are not equidistant. For example, l a s t tenure and l a s t housing type can be assigned rankings for the purpose of the study, but using the numerical rankings as i n t e r v a l data can only be done with q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . - 40 -The comparison of responses between projects was done by a series of contingency tables, using the project number as one v a r i a b l e and the response of i n t e r e s t as the other variable i n the table. S t a t i s t i c a l tests were used to determine the p r o b a b i l i t y that differences obtained could be due to normal v a r i a b i l i t y among respondents, and a 5% l e v e l of error was accepted. The s t a t i s t i c used depended on the type of v a r i a b l e being tested for differences among proj e c t s . For example, the chi-squared test was used for nominal v a r i a b l e s . When s i g n i f i c a n t differences between projects were found, the next question was: which projects are d i f f e r e n t ? Because most of the variables that show differences between projects were nominal v a r i a b l e s , nonparametric s t a t i s t i c s were used to find these project d i f f e r e n c e s . The Mann-Whitney U Test and the Kruskal-Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance were both a v a i l a b l e i n the SPSS package. The second s t a t i s t i c was used because i t made fewer Type I errors ( f i n d i n g differences where none existed). Most of the variables used i n the p r e d i c t i o n of ratings from demographic, housing background, and preference information were i n t e r v a l v a r i a b l e s . The parametric techniques of factor analysis, c l u s t e r analysis, regression analysis, and Pearson's c o r r e l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c were used. In order to use the r e s u l t s obtained from factor analysis and c l u s t e r analysis, these new composite variables produced by these procedures must be converted into scales. A scale i s simply an arithmetic expression which allows the raw data to be converted into scale scores. There are several methods that can be used to construct scales from the component v a r i a b l e s . The most straightforward method i s used i n this study: the variables are weighted and e i t h e r added or subtracted from the score, depending on t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n with the factor from which the scale i s derived. - 41 -4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The presentation of r e s u l t s and the discussion of findings have been combined to allow the reader to assess and interpret the information with as l i t t l e redundancy as possible. The f i r s t section (4.1) reports the general response to the interviews. The data c o l l e c t e d on the demographic character-i s t i c s and housing background of respondents are presented and discussed i n section 4.2. Residents' ratings, a t t i t u d e s , and preferences regarding t h e i r projects, backyards, patios, fencing, and privacy are described and interpreted i n section 4.3. In the f i n a l section (4.4) the construction of scale variables i s reported and the r e s u l t s of regression analysis using the scales are presented and discussed. 4.1 INTERVIEW RESULTS The o v e r a l l response to the survey was good. Of a l l addresses contacted, only 17 of 466 (3.6%) refused to be interviewed. In three of the projects (Forest Meadows, Champlain V i l l a , and False Creek) there were no refusals at a l l . The majority of people granted the interview the f i r s t time they were contacted; only 71 people said i t was inconvenient. The favorable response most l i k e l y was due to a general desire to help students; many people mentioned this i n passing. The average interview took about 30 minutes; the shortest interview was 15 minutes and the longest was 95. Most people added comments as they answered the questions and this tended to lengthen the interview. This discussion was necessary for c l a r i f i c a t i o n and to e s t a b l i s h rapport with the respondent, and could not be completely eliminated. - 42 -4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND HOUSING BACKGROUND Who i s the Ty p i c a l Townhouse Owner and What i s his Housing Background? The t y p i c a l respondent (see Table 5) was a 41-year old woman with a household income of $29,600 per year. She and her husband had some college or technical t r a i n i n g (she had one year less than her husband), and they had an 11 year old c h i l d . They had li v e d i n the townhouse for three years and planned to stay another three or four years. They had moved from a rented apartment i n Vancouver, and had never l i v e d i n a townhouse before. The t y p i c a l respondent had grown up i n single family houses and had rented houses and apartments since then, and eventually wanted to own a single family house on a large l o t i n the suburbs. Comparing this t y p i c a l respondent with reports i n the North American l i t e r a t u r e (Norcross, 1973; Eadie, 1978) shows some differences and some s i m i l a r i t i e s . People sampled i n this study are s l i g h t l y older than townhouse and condominium owners surveyed by Norcross and Eadie, but the incomes and education le v e l s are comparable. The housing backgrounds and ideals reported here confirm the res u l t s of Condominium Research Associates (1970), Norcross (1973), GVRD (1977, 1978), and Eadie (1978), who found that townhouse owners were mostly former apartment renters whose housing i d e a l was single family. Does this t y p i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n f i t respondents from a l l projects or are some projects d i f f e r e n t ? Demographics The demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , age, sex, education, and income, were the same for a l l projects (for summary s t a t i s t i c s , see Table 5). This means that a l l projects attracted the same range of people. The more expensive projects (Mariners V i l l a g e and False Creek) did not have respondents with s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher incomes. This finding i s probably due to the elimination of more - 43 -TABLE 5. Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Housing Background for 90 Residents of Nine Townhouse Projects Mean (or % % Standard Observed C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Respondents) Responses Deviation Number Range Age (years) 41.2 12.9 90 20-78 Sex Male 35.0% 90 Female 65.0% Annual Household Income ( i n $1,000) 29.6 14.3 87 10-80 Education (years) Males 14.1 3.3 84 8-20 Females 13.6 2.8 87 8-20 Have chi l d r e n 90 Yes 57.7% No 42.3% Age of Oldest Child (years) 11.8 7.4 52 1-24 Age of Youngest Child 7.8 5.7 23 1-20 Number i n Household 2.8 1.1 90 1-6 Residence Time (months) 37.0 26.1 90 3-99 Last Place Lived 90 Vancouver 40.0% Burnaby 14.4% Richmond 13.5% North Vancouver, West Vancouver 10.0% Other 22.1% 100.0% Last House Type 90 Single family 36.7% Duplex 8.9% Townhouse 5.6% Apartment Low-rise 34.4% High-rise 11.1% Other 3.3% 100.0% Last Tenure 90 Owned 31.1% Rented 68.9% 100.0% 4 3 a TABLE 5 (continued) Mean (or % C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Respondents) Last Private Outdoor Space None 10.0% Small balcony 13.3% Medium balcony 8.9% Large balcony 7.8% Small yard 10.0% Medium yard 14.4% Large yard 35.6% 100.0% Lived i n Townhouse Before Yes 24.4% No 75.6% 100.0% Childhood House Types Single family 83.2% Single family and townhouse 5.6% Single family and rented house or apartment 5.6% Rented apartment and/or house 5.6% 100.0% Other Houses Since Childhood Single family 11.2% Single family and townhouse 3.3% Single family and rented house or apartment 41.1% Rented apartment and/or house 40.0% None 1.1% Other 3.3% 100.0% Ideal House Type Single family 69.0% Duplex 2.2% Townhouse 22.2% Apartment 3.3% Other 3.3% 100.0% Ideal Tenure Own 93.3% Rent 6.7% 100.0% How Long Plan to Stay (years) 3.5 Reasons Moved from Last House Job change 7.8% Change i n family size 22.2% Wanted to own 51.1% Wanted better neighborhood 14.4% % Standard Observed Responses Deviation Number Range 90 90 90 90 90 90 1.5 90 1-5 90 3.7% 10.6% 24.5% 6.9% 43 b TABLE 5 (continued) C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Wanted better location Wanted house with yard Wanter bigger house Wanter smaller house Wanted less expensive house Other Mean (or % % Standard Observed Respondents) Responses Deviation Number Range 14.4% 15.6% 30.0% 17.8% 4.4% 31.1% 157.8% 6.9% 7.5% 14.4% 8.5% 2.2% 14.8% 100.0% Reasons Chose Project 90 General appearance 63.3% 25.2% Size of project 15.6% 6.3% Location 54.4% 21.7% Good neighborhood 40.0% 15.9% Project features 35.6% 14.1% Wanted a townhouse 36.7% 14.6% Other 5.6% 2.2% 251.2% 100.0% Reasons Chose Unit 90 Available 40.0% 12.8% Price 68.9% 22.1% Investment p o t e n t i a l 28.9% 9.3% Inside of house 70.0% 22.4% Outdoor space 40.0% 12.8% Good location i n project 63.3% 20.3% Other 1.1% 0.3% 312.2% 100.0% Reasons W i l l Move 90 Change i n job or retirement 23.3% 12.9% Change i n family size 22.2% 12.3% Want better neighborhood 7.8% 4.3% Want better neighbors 5.6% 3.1% Want better location 8.9% 4.9% Want bigger yard 33.3% 18.4% Want bigger house 47.8% 26.4% Want smaller house 7.8% 4.3% Want less expensive house 2.2% 1.1% Other 22.2% 12.3% 147.8% 100.0% Features of Next House 90 House type 94.4% 19.6% Price 60.0% 12.4% Investment p o t e n t i a l 35.6% 7.4% A v a i l a b i l i t y 17.8% 3.7% Good neighborhood 67.8% 14.1% Good lo c a t i o n 53.3% 11.0% Inside of house 76.7% 15.9% Outdoor space 68.9% 14.3% Other 7.8% 1.6% 482.3% 100.0% - 44 -Income Means by Project House Prices by Project Greentree $28,500 $41,000 Forest Meadows 24,167 45,000 Kingswood Downs 29,722 37,000 Country Club 33,750 39,000 Springmont 26,750 43,000 Mariners V i l l a g e 31,875 67,000 L i l l o o e t 30,000 55,000 Champlain V i l l a 35,000 55,000 False Creek 40,000 82,000 expensive units (over $100,000); i f more expensive units had been included, differences i n incomes would l i k e l y have been found. Family size There were differences i n whether respondents had children (p=.0l6, sig.) and i n the related measure of family s i z e . Greentree V i l l a g e and L i l l o o e t respondents had the lowest number of families with ch i l d r e n (only 20% of respondents) and family sizes ranged from 1.7 to 2.7 people/household. % of Respondents with Children Greentree 20 Forest Meadows 70 Kingswood Downs 80 Country Club 60 Springmont 80 Mariners V i l l a g e 70 L i l l o o e t 20 Champlain V i l l a 70 False Creek 40 Kingswood Downs and Springmont residents had the highest number of families with children (80% of respondents had children) and family sizes ranged from 2.9-3.3 people/household. Knowing that the projects have d i f f e r e n t family types and d i f f e r e n t numbers of children may be u s e f u l , given the reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e which r e l a t e s a t i s f a c t i o n i n townhouses to problems with children (Becker, 1974; B e l l , 1974). - 45 -Residence time and plans to stay How long people have l i v e d i n t h e i r house and how much longer they plan to stay are useful measures of t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r townhouse. There were no differences between projects on how long people planned to stay (3.5 years on average), or on how long they had l i v e d there (3 years average). Any differences i n residence time were due only to project age. Last residence The housing backgrounds of respondents showed a number of differences depending on which project they l i v e d i n . It was found that people's l a s t place of residence depended on the location of t h e i r townhouse project; more than h a l f of the residents i n each project had moved from within the same muni c i p a l i t y . A number of respondents commented that they also preferred to stay i n the same area when they moved the next time. Last house type There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the projects i n the kind of housing people had l a s t l i v e d i n (p=.051, s i g . ) . Greentree V i l l a g e respondents had a l l moved from rented apartments, as compared to respondents from Mariners V i l l a g e , L i l l o o e t , and False Creek, 50 to 70% of whom had moved from t h e i r own sing l e family house. The other projects form an intermediate group with people having moved from apartments and rented houses. Houses l i v e d i n since childhood There were also differences between the projects on the related question of what types of housing people had l i v e d i n since leaving home (p=.002, s i g . ) . Although a majority of a l l respondents had grown up i n single family houses, respondents from False Creek were most l i k e l y to have owned or rented only si n g l e family houses since childhood, while people from Greentree V i l l a g e had l i v e d p r i m a r i l y i n rented apartments. - 46 -These findings w i l l be used to test the hypothesis that a person's housing background w i l l a f f e c t h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with some aspects of townhouse l i v i n g . It is hypothesized that people who have l i v e d i n single family houses w i l l be more c r i t i c a l of the si z e and privacy of the private outdoor space provided i n the townhouse projects compared to people who have l i v e d i n apartments, for whom the townhouse should represent a substantial improvement i n private outdoor space. Reasons people moved from t h e i r last house When people were asked why they moved from t h e i r l a s t house, the most common reasons were wanting to own t h e i r home, wanting a bigger or better home, and a change i n family size (see Table 5). People who moved i n order to own t h e i r house were more l i k e l y to be l i v i n g i n Greentree V i l l a g e , Forest Meadows, Country Club, or Springmont (p=.011, s i g . ) . False Creek residents % of Residents Who Moved i n Order to Own were least l i k e l y to c i t e ownership as t h e i r reason for leaving t h e i r l a s t house, probably because the majority owned t h e i r l a s t house. The finding that Greentree V i l l a g e and other projects seem to a t t r a c t people who are buying t h e i r f i r s t house is probably due to lower prices and, i n the case of Forest Meadows, federal assistance to f i r s t homeowners (Assisted Home Ownership Program). One other project, Champlain V i l l a , was within the AHOP c e i l i n g when i t was b u i l t i n 1971, but enough of the o r i g i n a l residents had moved that this was not a reason given by people for moving there. Greentree Forest Meadows Kingswood Downs Country Club Springmont Mariners V i l l a g e L i l l o o e t Champlain V i l l a False Creek 80 70 30 70 70 40 30 60 10 - 47 -In a s i m i l a r vein, False Creek was the only project where people said that one of the reasons they moved was to get a smaller house with less maintenance (p=.0l6, s i g . ) . This is a common reason for people to prefer townhouse % of Residents Who Moved to Get a Smaller House with Less Maintenance Greentree 0 Forest Meadows 0 Kingswood Downs 20 Country Club 10 Springmont 10 Mariners V i l l a g e 20 ' L i l l o o e t 30 Champlain V i l l a 10 False Creek 60 l i v i n g . These r e s u l t s , with False Creek residents moving to get a house with less maintenance, i n contrast to respondents from Greentree V i l l a g e , Forest Meadows, Country Club, and Springmont, who moved i n order to own t h e i r home, confirm a s i m i l a r finding by Norcross (1973). He found that former owners moved to townhouses because of the low maintenance while renters c i t e d reasons of p r i c e and ownership. The other reasons people moved showed no differences among projects (p=.223-.733, not s i g . ) . Reasons for choosing the project People were also asked why they chose the projects and units they were l i v i n g i n . Knowing something about a person's expectations can be valuable i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n and c r i t i c i s m s of the townhouse. The most frequently mentioned reason for choosing a townhouse project was the project's general appearance and there were differences between projects on whether people gave t h i s reason (p=.015, s i g . ) ; Greentree V i l l a g e respondents a l l said the general appearance was a reason they chose the project, and people from Champlain V i l l a were the least l i k e l y to c i t e t h i s reason. This finding may - 48 -% of Residents Saying They Choose Their Project for i t s General Appearance Greentree Forest Meadows Kingswood Downs Country Club Springmont Mariners V i l l a g e L i l l o o e t Champlain V i l l a False Creek 100 80 60 40 90 70 50 30 50 be due to the unusual architecture of the section of Greentree that was sampled (see Plate 1) and people mentioned that t h e i r part of Greentree was the most a t t r a c t i v e . This f i n d i n g may be sim i l a r to a report by Becker (1974) that people's s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r projects depended strongly on the general appearance and upkeep of the proj e c t s . Two other common reasons for choosing the project, location close to job or transportation and s p e c i f i c a l l y wanting a townhouse, were given equally by a l l project residents (p=.677 and .376, not s i g . ) , but the size of the project and the project features were l i s t e d more by residents of some projects than others (p=.052 and .004, s i g . ) . People preferred smaller projects (see Norcross, 1973; B e l l , 1974) and residents of Forest Meadows and Country Club were the most l i k e l y to give the project s i z e as a reason for t h e i r choice of proje c t s . Country Club was the smallest project sampled with only 56 u n i t s , % of Residents Saying They Chose Their Project for Its Size Project Size i n Units Greentree Forest Meadows Kingswood Downs Country Club Springmont Mariners V i l l a g e L i l l o o e t Champlain V i l l a False Creek 0 40 10 40 10 20 20 0 0 76 134 62 56 32 50 65 43 48 - 49 -and Forest Meadows was one of the larger projects (136 u n i t s ) , but the land coverage was comparatively low because of the stacked form (see Plate 2) and there is no other development i n the immediate area. Greentree V i l l a g e , Champlain V i l l a , and False Creek are projects within large developments of several hundred units, and few residents of these projects said they chose them because of project s i z e . These r e s u l t s confirm that people's perception of project size is not d i r e c t l y related to the actual number of u n i t s , but i s influenced by s i t e design, coverage, and the d i v i s i o n of the larger projects into "neighborhoods" (Norcross, 1973; B e l l and Constantinescu, 1974; Becker, 1974). The other reason for choosing a townhouse project that was mentioned by residents i n some projects more than others (p=.004, sig.) was the features i n the project (such as pool, common areas, e t c . ) . The people most l i k e l y to % of Residents Saying They Chose Their Project for Its Features  Greentree 60 Forest Meadows 50 Kingswood Downs 30 Country Club 10 Springmont 10 Mariners V i l l a g e 50 L i l l o o e t 20 Champlain V i l l a 10 False Creek 80 give t h i s as a reason were from Greentree V i l l a g e , Forest Meadows, Mariners V i l l a g e , and False Creek. Features referred to include swimming pools and other r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , landscaping, and the project s e t t i n g or l o c a t i o n . This finding may be the same as findings reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e that the general q u a l i t y of the project "environment" i s important to residents (see Norcross, 1973; Lansing, 1970). - 50 -Plate 2 . The stacked form of Forest Meadows allowed low land coverage. - 51 -Reasons for choosing the unit The most common reasons given for choosing the townhouse uni t , the inside features, the p r i c e , and the l o c a t i o n within the project, were given equally by the residents of a l l projects (p=.135, .129, and .549, not s i g . ) . The finding that private outdoor space i s a less important reason for choosing a house has been reported before (Eadie, 1978), but i t i s important to keep i n mind that many of these respondents would find an apartment with si m i l a r inside features unacceptable because of the lack of the private outdoor space provided i n a townhouse. Ideal housing type Another measure of housing attitude that may a f f e c t a person's s a t i s f a c t i o n with townhouse l i v i n g i s that person's i d e a l housing type. The resident who prefers l i v i n g i n a townhouse is more l i k e l y to be s a t i s f i e d than the resident who wants to move to a single family house. The strong preference for single family housing reported by various authors (Michelson, 1968, 1969; Hinshaw and A l l o t , 1972; Sanoff and Sawhney, 1972; Cooper, 1975; Eadie, 1978) i s confirmed i n t h i s study. A majority of the respondents (69.0%) said t h e i r i d e a l form of housing is the single family house on medium or large l o t (see Appendix 1), but s u b s t a n t i a l preference for townhouses was also found; 22.2% of respondents said t h e i r i d e a l house was a townhouse. This finding confirms reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Lansing and Hendricks, 1967; Lansing et a l . , 1970; Condominium Research Associates, 1970; Cooper, 1970; Burnaby Planning Department, 1974) which indicate that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of townhouse residents are completely s a t i s f i e d with townhouse l i v i n g , and would only move to another townhouse. There were no differences among projects i n residents' i d e a l housing type (p=.068, not s i g . ) . - 52 -Reasons people w i l l move from t h e i r townhouse Respondents were asked why they might move from t h e i r townhouse. The most common reasons were to get a bigger or better house and to get a bigger yard. Respondents from a l l projects gave s i m i l a r reasons (p=.063-.994, not s i g . ) , so there were no p a r t i c u l a r aspects of any one project (such as bad neighbors or neighborhood, inconvenient lo c a t i o n , small houses or yards) that made residents of that project want to leave. The o v e r a l l response to the question was quite low, i . e . there were few reasons people wanted to move, and six respondents said nothing would make them move. Results of this type should always be q u a l i f i e d by the reminder that the most d i s s a t i s f i e d residents may have already moved. Features of next house When respondents were asked what they would look for i n t h e i r next house, almost a l l (94.4%) said they would look for a p a r t i c u l a r type of house. Over h a l f of these people (56.8%) said they would look for a single family house, almost a t h i r d (30.7%) would look for another townhouse, and the rest e i t h e r for apartments or duplexes. The number of people who would prefer s i n g l e family housing is s t i l l high, but is s l i g h t l y lower than those who said i t was t h e i r i d e a l type of housing. Some people explained that they r e a l l y prefer single family, but i n t h e i r next house they would have to be looking for something e l s e . Other than looking for a p a r t i c u l a r type of house, most people would look for the inside features of the house, the design or size of the yard, the neighborhood, the p r i c e , and the convenience of the l o c a t i o n . There were no differences among projects on what features people would look for i n t h e i r next house (p=.100-.844, not s i g . ) . - 53 -Ideal tenure The preference for ownership reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Eadie, 1978) was also confirmed; 93.3% of respondents preferred to own t h e i r housing rather than rent and there were no differences among projects (p=.599, not s i g . ) . Other studies report that older residents express a preference for renting ( B e l l , 1974), but this was not found (p=.670, not s i g . ) . The i n f l a t i o n i n housing and land costs i n the Vancouver area may be responsible for the difference i n findings. 4.3 RATINGS, ATTITUDES, USE AND PREFERENCES FOR PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE Ratings and Attitudes Project and Outdoor Space Rating Four general measures of s a t i s f a c t i o n were c o l l e c t e d : project r a t i n g , house r a t i n g , o v e r a l l outdoor space r a t i n g , and back yard rating (see Table 6). On one of these measures, the o v e r a l l outdoor space r a t i n g , responses were d i f f e r e n t depending on which project people l i v e d i n (p=.010, s i g . ) . Country Club received the lowest outdoor space r a t i n g ("so-so" to " f a i r " ) . The p r o j e c t s ' r e c e i v i n g high outdoor space ratings were Greentree, Springmont, Mariners V i l l a g e , and L i l l o o e t . This r a t i n g measure i s very general and Mean Outdoor Space Ratings (3=so-so, 4=fair, 5=good, 6=excellent) Greentree Forest Meadows Kingswood Downs Country Club Springmont Mariners V i l l a g e L i l l o o e t Champlain V i l l a False Creek 4.70 4.44 4.38 3.33 5.00 4.88 4.78 4.00 4.40 - 54 -TABLE 6. Ratings and preferences of 90 Residents of Nine Townhouse Projects Rating or Preference Project Rating House Rating Outdoor Space Rating Back Yard Rating Privacy of Back Yard Fence Rating Function of Back Fence Mark edges of property Keep intruders out Give privacy on sides Give complete privacy Other Back Yard Size Rating Patio Size Rating Patio Features Water Gas E l e c t r i c outlet Roof Fence or screen Planter boxes Laundry line Storage shed Mean (or % Respondents) 5.11 4.79 4.69 4.63 2.56 5.01 0.0% 15.6% 46.7% 36.6% 1.1% Responses Standard Deviati on Numb e r Observed Possible Range Range 100.0% 2.49 3.59 77.8% 0.0% 72.2% 22.2% 91.1% 16.7% 2.2% 18.9% 301.1% 0.71 0.87 1.02 1.05 0.58 0.78 0.66 0.70 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 3.0-6.0 3.0-6.0 2.0-6.0 2.0-6.0 1.0-3.0 3.0-6.0 1.0-3.0 3.0-5.0 1.0-6.0 1.0-6.0 1.0-6.0 1.0-6.0 1.0-5.0 1.0-6.0 1.0-5.0 1.0-5.0 Can Do Without Some features Yes No 2.2% 97.8% 100.0% 90 Want to Add Some Features Yes No 57.8% 42.2% 100.0% 90 Which Features to Add Water Gas E l e c t r i c outlet Roof Fence or screen Planter boxes Laundry line Storage shed S a t i s f i e d with Patio Surface Yes No 25.8% 1.7% 27.6% 18.9% 13.8% 24.1% 18.9% 17.2% 148.0% 81.1% 18.9% 100.0% 58 17.4% 1.2% 18.6% 12.8% 9.3% 16.3% 12.8% 11.6% 100.0% 90 Present Connection from Unit to Patio Kitchen 2.2% Dining Room 10.0% Living Room 80.0% Other 7.8% 100.0% 90 54 a TABLE 6 (continued) Rating or Preference Want to Change Connection Yes No Mean (or % Respondents) 41.1% 58.9% 100.0% % Standard Observed Possible Responses Deviation Number Range Range 90 Perferred Connection Kitchen Dining room Living room Other 31.1% 6.7% 46.7% 15.6% 100.0% 90 Back Yard Treatment Beyond Patio Mostly grass Some grass, some flower beds A l i t t l e grass, mostly flower bed 8 No grass More paving and some grass 90 42.2% 21.1% 6.7% 13.3% 16.7% 100.0% Use of Back Yard Eating, cooking 85.6% Sunbathing, s i t t i n g 94.4% Growing flowers and vegetables 78.9% Having friends over 78.9% Children's play 34.4% Working on messy projects 45.6% Storage 30.0% Drying laundry 15.6% Other 4.4% 468.1% 90 18.3% 20.2% 16.9% 16.9% 7.4% 9.7% 6.3% 3.3% 0.1% 100.0% Present Orientation East South West North 90 37.8% 27.8% 23.3% 11.1% 100.1% Want to Change Orientation Yes No 28.9% 71.1% 100.0% 90 Preferred Orientation East South West North Other 90 32.3% 43.3% 18.9% 2.2% 3.3% 100.0% Like to Garden Yes No 79.0% 21.0% 100.0% 90 Have Grown Vegetables i n Yard Yes No 48.0% 52.0% 100.0% 90 Changes Made i n Back Yard Yes No 65.6% 34.4% 100.0% 90 5 4 b TABLE 6 (continued) Rating or Preference Features of Ideal Back Yard Play equipment Vegetable garden Pond or fountain F r u i t trees Benches Small greenhouse Other Mean (or % Respondents) 27.82 62.2% 17.8% 52.22 31.1% 42.2% 7.8% 241.1% % Standard Observed Possible Responses Deviation Number Range Range 11.5% 25.8% 7.4% 21.7% 12.9% 17.5% 3.2% 100.0% 90 Importance of Outdoor Space Children's play Other family a c t i v i t i e s For a nice view To go outside and s i t For a private or quiet place To grow flowers and vegetables For a piece of land For extra storage Other 90 38.9% 75.6% 56.7% 81.1% 81.1% 70.0% 37.8% 24.4% 5.6% 471.2% 8.1% 15.7% 11.7% 16.8% 16.8% 14.5% 7.8% 5.1% 3.5% 100.0% Have a Front Yard Yes No Front Yard Rating Front Yard Size Rating Front Yard Privacy Have a Front Fence Yes No Want to Change the Front Fence Yes No Function of Front Yard A t t r a c t i v e entrance To separate house from street For another private space to use For extra storage Other 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 4.4 2.5 3.3 45.8% 54.2% 100.0% 29.3% 70.7% 100.0% 46.0% 31.8% 16.8% 2.7% 2.7% 100.0% 0.9 0.7 0.6 90 59 59 59 59 58 59 2.0-6.0 1.0-6.0 1.0-3.0 1.0-5.0 3.0-5.0 1.0-5.0 Have a Balcony Yes No Balcony Rating Balcony Size Rating Want to Change Balcony Screen Yes No 31.0% 69.0% 100.0% 4.6 2.7 38.5% 61.5% 100.0% 1.1 0.5 90 26 26 26 2.0-6.0 1.0-6.0 1.0-3.0 1.0-5.0 54 c TABLE 6 (continued) Rating or Preference Use of the Balcony Children's play Storage Eating, cooking Sunbathing, s i t t i n g Having friends over Working on messy projects Growing flowers & vegetables Other Mean (or % Respondents) 3.8% 23.1% 7.7% 50.0% 3.8% 7.7% 42.3% 3.8% 142.2% Does Proiect have Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Yes 55.6% No J*41 100.0% % Standard Observed Possible Responses Deviation Number Range . Range 2.7% 16.2% 5.5% 35.1% 2.7% 5.4% 29.7% 2.7% 100.0% 26 90 Use of Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Proiect has Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Yes 7 0 - 0 % No 30.0% 100.0% Proiect does not have Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Yes No Children's Noise a Problem Yes No Occasionally Monthly Maintenance Fee ($) What Included i n Fee (# items mentioned) Sa t i s f i e d with Maintenance Work Yes No Ambivalent S a t i s f i e d with Project Rules Yes No Ambivalent Suggested Changes to Site Plan Yes No 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% 14.6% 77.5% 7.9% 100.0% 44.17 5.7 71.1% 5.6% 23.3% 100.0% 84.4% 2.2% 13.3% 100.0% 31.1% 68.9% 100.0% 50 40 89 13.91 90 1.8 90 90 90 90 30-75 0-9 - 55 -probably includes project appearance, landscaping, "streetscape", and the private outdoor space. The other general r a t i n g measure (project rating) showed no differences among projects (p=.072, not s i g . ) . House Rating The topic of townhouse i n t e r i o r s i s beyond the scope of this study but t h i s rating was c o l l e c t e d because i t is assumed to be a strong component of general s a t i s f a c t i o n . The mean ra t i n g was " f a i r " to "good" and there were no differences among projects (p=.511, not s i g . ) . Back Yard Rating The fourth general r a t i n g , the back yard r a t i n g , probably involves a number of issues, including s i z e , o r i e n t a t i o n , fencing, plantings, privacy, and use. There were no differences among projects i n the ratings given to the back yards (p=.599, not s i g . ) , even though a substantial range of provisions and degrees of privacy was represented i n the sample. This f i n d i n g can be explained by the general nature of the r a t i n g ; such a v a r i e t y of issues were involved i n people's ratings that any differences between projects could not be seen. The other possible explanation for the lack of project differences i s the fact that people d i f f e r - even i f everyone had the same house and yard, a consensus of preferences and attitudes would not be found. Privacy of back yard The f i r s t question on more s p e c i f i c aspects of the backyard asked people to rate the privacy of t h e i r back yards. Most people said the back yard was "about r i g h t " or that i t "should be a l i t t l e more pr i v a t e " , although most people q u a l i f i e d t h e i r responses by saying things l i k e "Since t h i s is a townhouse ..." or "You can't get r e a l privacy i n a townhouse, but I f the ratings had been i n reference to some standard, the mean would have been - 56 -lower. There were no differences among projects i n the ratings given to backyard privacy (p=.076). Fence rating Fencing i n the projects varied from s o l i d side screens that extended only six to ten feet from the unit (Greentree V i l l a g e and Forest Meadows) and side hedges ( L i l l o o e t ) , to complete low fences (Kingswood Downs and Springmont), and t a l l s o l i d fences and hedges i n the remaining projects (see plans i n Appendix 4). Country Club had 8' s o l i d hedging with a gate, False Creek had a combination of 4 to 6' sections of s o l i d fence and l a t t i c e , Champlain V i l l a had a 6' s o l i d fence on a l l three sides, and Mariners V i l l a g e had 8 to 10' s o l i d fences on the sides and t a l l l a t t i c e screens across the end. When people were asked to rate t h e i r fences, people with t a l l , s o l i d fences or hedges gave them s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher ratings than those with low fences or side screens (p=.011, s i g . ) . This finding seems to indicate that people prefer the more private fences. Another approach i s to ask people what they think a back fence should do, just mark the edges of the property, keep intruders and pets out and ch i l d r e n i n , provide some privacy from neighbors on the sides but be open at the end, or be a s o l i d wall to create a completely private space. Almost h a l f the Mean Fence Ratings (4=fair, 5=good) Greentree Kingswood Downs Springmont Country Club Mariners V i l l a g e L i l l o o e t Champlain V i l l a False Creek 4.00 4.33 4.83 4.70 4.83 4.67 4.71 4.80 Function of back fence and privacy of back yard respondents (46.7%) wanted privacy on the sides, and more than a t h i r d (36.6%) wanted complete privacy. This finding shows that many people prefer a degree of privacy not found i n many townhouse projects and confirms reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Willmott, 1962; Kuper, 1968; Sandvik et a l . , 1973). There were no differences among projects (p=.247, not s i g . ) . The privacy ratings given i n projects with p a r t i a l screening of back yards should be lower than ratings i n projects with s o l i d high fences. This r e s u l t was found; Greentree V i l l a g e received the lowest privacy ratings for the back yards, and the projects receiving the highest ratings were Country Club ( s o l i d hedges), Mariners V i l l a g e ( t a l l s o l i d fences and l a t t i c e ) , L i l l o o e t (side hedges), and Champlain V i l l a ( t a l l s o l i d fences). The presence of L i l l o o e t i n the most private group i s most l i k e l y due to the s i t e design, which has many of the back yards on the perimeter of the project, so there is privacy from a c t i v i t y and noise. From the d e s c r i p t i o n of fencing at False Creek i t might be expected that i t would be rated as p r i v a t e . The fact that False Creek i s not i n the group of projects receiving high back yard privacy ratings i s probably due to the use of l a t t i c e sections and open sections as screen across the end of the yard and also the impression of high density and a c t i v i t y i n most areas of the project (see Plates 3 and 4). Privacy i n the back yard may be a combination of freedom from seeing other people i n t h e i r yards and from them seeing i n , the a b i l i t y to r e s t r i c t c h i l d r e n , animals, and other people from coming to the yard, and quiet from the noise of ch i l d r e n playing and other people's a c t i v i t i e s . People were asked s p e c i f i c questions about several aspects of privacy i n the back yard. Plates 3 and 4 . The feeling of density inside the False Creek enclave. - 59 -V i s u a l privacy of back yard People were asked how private t h e i r back yard was to people seeing i n . Most people said "not very p r i v a t e " or "somewhat p r i v a t e " , and people i n Greentree V i l l a g e and Springmont were more l i k e l y than anyone else to say the backyards were "not private at a l l " . People more l i k e l y to say t h e i r yards were "very p r i v a t e " l i v e d i n Mariners V i l l a g e , L i l l o o e t , and Champlain V i l l a , where the fences were t a l l and s o l i d . "People seeing i n bothers me" When asked how much they mind people being able to see into t h e i r back yards, people i n a l l projects said "not much" or "not at a l l " (p=.211, not s i g . ) . There was some f e e l i n g on the part of the interviewer that people were embarassed about sounding a n t i s o c i a l , and that because of t h i s , some people said people seeing them bothered them less than i t a c t u a l l y d i d . People who do mind being seen are l i k e l y to rate the general back yard as poor (r=.284), as not private enough (r=.523), and the v i s u a l privacy of the back yard as poor (r=.260). Concern about noise There i s some evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e ( W i l l i s , 1963) that some people are discouraged i n the use of less p r i v a t e yards for fear of disturbing t h e i r neighbors with noise. On the other hand, Becker (1974) states that many people are not disturbed by noise and accept i t as part of l i v i n g i n multiple housing. People i n the study were "somewhat concerned" or "not very concerned" a f t e r quickly reassuring the interviewer that they didn't make any noise outside. - 60 -Problems i n the back yard People were also asked whether a number of problems existed i n t h e i r back yards: noise from neighbors; t r a f f i c noise; people walking by too close; people seeing i n from t h e i r houses and yards; and children and pets wandering i n . The o v e r a l l response was that there were few, i f any, problems i n the projects. Some of the suggested problems may have bothered people occasionally, but people were hesitant to attach the l a b e l of "problem" to something that may have been only a minor annoyance. The only problem that was mentioned with any frequency was pets wandering i n . The high number of cats i n the projects bothered many people because there was no way to keep them out of the yards. A l l the projects had these problems at about the same frequency (about 10% of respondents). One i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e that was found was that s i g n i f i c a n t l y more Greentree V i l l a g e and Springmont respondents said people seeing i n t h e i r back yards was a problem (p=.021, s i g . ) . These two projects also received low ratings on the v i s u a l privacy of the back yard. Greentree V i l l a g e had only short side screens and h a l f the units interviewed faced an open lawn (see Plate 5) which people used as a shortcut. Springmont was one of the projects where the buildings faced d i r e c t l y onto more townhouses across the back yards, which a l l had balconies and the f e e l i n g was that people could look down into the Springmont yards. People who thought people seeing into t h e i r back yard was a problem were more l i k e l y to rate the general privacy as poor (r=-.339) and the privacy to people seeing i n as poor (r=-.349). They were also more l i k e l y to say that people seeing into the yard bothered them (r=-.379), although they were no more l i k e l y to want a s o l i d fence than other residents. This l a s t f i n d i n g may seem to be contradictory, but there are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a completely - 61 -Plate 5. Lower units at Greentree had patios facing out onto an open lawn. - 62 -enclosed back yard other than v i s u a l privacy. There i s a strong sense of enclosure is a small private yard which some people may not l i k e and the opportunities for looking out of the yard are v i r t u a l l y eliminated. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s might cause a person who d i s l i k e s being seen to s t i l l prefer more open fencing i n the back yard, although i t has been found that most people w i l l trade the view for privacy (Byrom, 1970). Features, Use and Preferences for the Back Yard The interviewer asked people t h e i r preferences on a number of s p e c i f i c aspects of the back yard: size of patio and back yard; patio features and surface material; patio connection to the house; whether grass or paving was preferred i n the back yard; and what the back yard was used f o r . Respondents were also asked what features would be i n t h e i r i d e a l back yards, why i t was important to have some priv a t e outdoor space, whether they liked to garden and what they had grown, whether they had made any changes i n the back yard, and which d i r e c t i o n they wanted t h e i r yard to face. Back yard size r a t i n g Most people said t h e i r back yards were "about r i g h t " or "a l i t t l e too small" (p=.152, not s i g . ) . Back yards ranged from about 200 sq. f t . to 500 sq. f t . , with Greentree V i l l a g e residents having the smallest and Springmont the largest (see Appendix 4). When these r e s u l t s are compared to recommendations for the size of private outdoor space (Murray and F l i e s , 1970; Cooper, 1975; Ottawa, 1977), there is general agreement. The authors c i t e d recommended yards of 200 to 400 square feet for f a m i l i e s , and other studies report resident s a t i s f a c t i o n with yards of about 400 square feet. Most people i n this study were s a t i s f i e d with the size of t h e i r yards i f larger than 300 square feet. - 63 -Patio size rating Patios i n the nine projects ranged from no hard surface provided at a l l i n Champlain V i l l a , to the back yards i n False Creek and Mariners V i l l a g e which were completely paved except for small planting areas. Patios i n Greentree, Forest Meadows, and Kingswood Downs were rated as the smallest ("much too small" or "a l i t t l e too small"), and False Creek patios were rated as the largest ("about r i g h t " ) (p=.011, s i g . ) . When these ratings are compared to Mean Patio Size Ratings (3=about r i g h t , 4=a l i t t l e too small, 5=much too small) Greentree 3.70 Forest Meadows 3.70 Kingswood Downs 4.50 Country Club 3.50 Springmont 3.50 Mariners V i l l a g e 3.40 L i l l o o e t 3.40 Champlain V i l l a 3.40 False Creek 3.20 actual patio sizes (r=.288), Greentree and Kingswood Downs are among the smallest patios and are also enclosed by b u i l d i n g walls and fences, which makes them more d i f f i c u l t to use (see Plates 6 and 7). Other patios of about the same size i n Country Club and Springmont, the design allows a c t i v i t i e s to " s p i l l o f f " the patio on several sides, and these patios are rated as larger than the enclosed ones of the same s i z e . Forest Meadows patios were rated as too small, although the actual s i z e was quite generous. This finding may be explained by the fact that since the back yards i n Forest Meadows had no fencing except side screens, the patio was the only part of the yard which c l e a r l y belonged to the unit, and therefore, people tended to use the patio more than the rest of the yard (see Plates 8 and 9). This much use could make the patio seem too small. The False Creek patios, which were a c t u a l l y paved - 64 -Plate 7. Patios at Kingswood Downs were small and were surrounded by building walls and fences. - 6 5 -Plate 9 Plates 8 and 9 . The back yards at Forest Meadows lack clear boundaries. / - 66 -back yards, were the largest i n the sample and residents said they were the r i g h t s i z e ("about r i g h t " ) . These r e s u l t s seem to indicate that people prefer the patio to be as large as possible, or at least 10 x 10 feet, and that the patio should not be enclosed by walls and fences. Patio features Most projects had a water tap, an e l e c t r i c o u t l e t , and some privacy screen on the back p a t i o . The majority of people not only said they didn't have any-thing they could do without, over h a l f wanted to add something to t h e i r patio (see Table 6). Popular requests were for e l e c t r i c outlets and water taps from those who didn't have them, and for planter boxes or more planting areas. Only a few people wanted t h e i r patios covered, which would make them much more use f u l i n the rainy climate. In fact, most of the patios were protected for the f i r s t three or four feet by a roof overhang and the few units missing t h i s overhang wanted some form of roof. This amount of cover, which allows people to step outside for a few minutes and also store some a r t i c l e s out of the r a i n , i s evidently adequate for most respondents. Patio surface material Most projects had poured concrete patios and the majority of people were pleased with the concrete, saying i t was easy to clean and looked good. A few people preferred b r i c k or wood, but most people thought concrete was better for maintenance and rot resistance. Two projects had paving i n a large part of the back yard; Mariners V i l l a g e had an exposed aggregate paving i n 4' modules, and False Creek had 6" square t i l e s l a i d i n concrete. ^Several people in Mariners V i l l a g e complained about the rough surface of the aggregate, saying i t hurt t h e i r bare feet and was d i f f i c u l t for older people to walk on. - 67 -None of the False Creek residents wanted a d i f f e r e n t patio material and a l l ten said they were glad they didn't have concrete. The t i l e was praised as easy to clean and a t t r a c t i v e . The conclusion from these findings i s that most people find concrete acceptable, but once they have a d i f f e r e n t surface that i s just as easy to clean and as smooth to walk on, they no longer want concrete. Concrete is d e f i n i t e l y less expensive than exposed aggregate or t i l e , and i f respondents were given the choice of having concrete or paying extra for a d i f f e r e n t surface, the majority would probably chose concrete. Connection between patio and house The most common connection to the patio was through the l i v i n g room of the unit, although some were through the dining area, the kitchen, or the second bedroom. Almost h a l f of the respondents wanted to change t h e i r arrangement. Overa l l , the favored connection is through the l i v i n g room, but a substantial number (almost a t h i r d ) wanted the patio o f f the kitchen, which was r a r e l y provided i n the sampled townhouses. This preference for a connection through the kitchen has been reported before (Cooper, 1975a; Beck and Teasdale, 1977), and people said i t would be more convenient for cooking outside, and cleaner, e s p e c i a l l y i f the family had ch i l d r e n . The most common reason people preferred to have the patio o f f the l i v i n g room was to have more natural l i g h t i n that room, and to have a view from the l i v i n g room. Treatment of back yard beyond patio Most back yards had a 10 x 12 foot poured concrete patio next to the house and the rest of the space was grass with the borders i n flower beds (see Appendix 4). This arrangement, or one with less grass and more planting area, was preferred by most people (87%) who had th i s kind of yard, and the rest - 68 -wanted no grass at a l l . Two projects, Mariners V i l l a g e and False Creek, had paving i n the back yards rather than grass, and these residents were the only ones who said they preferred not to have much grass (p=.000, s i g . ) . No one wanted a yard with very much grass; 40% wanted no grass at a l l , 50% wanted paving and a l i t t l e grass, and the rest wanted some paving with some grass, and some flower beds. These r e s u l t s indicate that many people might prefer a paved townhouse yard to one with a small lawn. The advantages of a hard surface include c l e a n l i n e s s , fast drainage, ease of maintenance, and year-round use. Use of back yard and or i e n t a t i o n Townhouse residents use t h e i r back yards for sunbathing and just s i t t i n g , eating and cooking, growing flowers and vegetables, and when friends come over. These r e s u l t s confirm reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Beck and Teasdale, 1977; GVRD, 1978; Vischer Skaburskis, 1980). A l l the projects reported the same use of back yards (p=.175-.733, not s i g . ) , although yards which faced north were not used as much because of the lack of sunshine. Of the townhouses sampled, 38% faced east, 28% faced south, 23% faced west, and 11% faced north. Some people would l i k e to change t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n and the o v e r a l l preference was for south (43.3%), east (32.3%) or west (18.9%) facing back yards. Gardening and growing vegetables The majority of respondents said they l i k e to garden (or "putter" i n the yard) and almost h a l f had grown vegetables i n t h e i r yard at least one season. The most common vegetables grown were tomatoes, le t t u c e , and chives, but everything from strawberries to potatoes had been t r i e d . Most residents also grew flowers, e s p e c i a l l y i n the front yard. - 69 -Changes to the back yard Almost two-thirds of the respondents had made some changes i n t h e i r yards. Most had added shrubs, flowers, or bulbs, but a number had reseeded grass, b u i l t fences and wood decks, poured larger concrete patios, put up storage sheds, and made other a l t e r a t i o n s . Features of i d e a l back yard When people were asked what features they wanted i n t h e i r i d e a l back yard, most people were thinking of a much larger yard than the one with t h e i r town-house and there was no attempt made to have people be p r a c t i c a l . The most popular features were space for a vegetable garden (62.2%), f r u i t trees (52.5%), a small greenhouse (42.2%), and benches (31.1%). Eleven people said they wanted none of these things and were p e r f e c t l y content with t h e i r town-house yard as i t was (see Table 6). The finding that most people want space for a vegetable garden does not necessarily mean townhouse projects should provide more garden space. Most of the people growing flowers and vegetables i n containers or small plots were accepting t h i s limited arrangement as part of townhouse l i v i n g . The impression gained was that the majority were doing just as much gardening as they wanted to. Importance of outdoor space People were asked why i t was important to them that they have some outdoor space of t h e i r own. Most people thought outdoor space was important for a private and quiet place outside the house (81.1%), for a place to go outside and s i t for a few minutes (81.1%), for family a c t i v i t i e s l i k e eating and cooking (75.6%), for growing flowers and vegetables (70.0%), and for a nice view from inside the house (56.7%). - 70 -Front Yards and Balconies  Front yards Two-thirds of the respondents also had a space at the front of t h e i r unit that they could use. These front areas ranged from the large fenced yards of some Greentree units and the smaller private spaces i n Mariners V i l l a g e , to the more t y p i c a l grass areas between carports i n Kingswood Downs, Country Club, Springmont, L i l l o o e t , and Champlain V i l l a (see Plates 10 and 11). People who were asked to rate t h e i r front yards gave them ratings of " f a i r " or "good". The fact that the larger, more private front yards did not receive s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher ratings (p=.821, not sig.) is probably due to the lack of a reference standard. Each person evaluates h i s yard by h i s own c r i t e r i a , so that ratings can only be used as the respondent's s a t i s f a c t i o n with h i s yard, and not as a comparison between pro j e c t s . The size of the front yards was rated as "a l i t t l e too small" or "about r i g h t " , again with no differences between the types of yards (p=.192, not s i g . ) . The privacy of front yards was rated " f a i r " . Only h a l f of the front yards had any fencing, and other than the screens i n the larger private yards, most fences were low border hedges or fences. Most people with the l a t t e r type of fencing saw no need for any d i f f e r e n t type, or for any fence at a l l . The fact that most people are s a t i s f i e d with the si z e and privacy of the front yard implies that few people want to use these spaces as another yard. Even with the small size of t h e i r back yards, tonwhouse owners are content to l e t the front space, which i s quite substantial i n most projects, be public or semi-publie space s i m i l a r to front yards i n conventional suburban r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods. Most people used the front yard for growing flowers and occasional s i t t i n g out. Plate 11. The more t y p i c a l front treatment at Country Club. - 72 -When people were asked what they thought a townhouse front yard should be for, the majority thought i t was to provide an a t t r a c t i v e entrance and to separate the house from the sidewalk or street, and less than a f i f t h thought the front should be another private outdoor space for the resident's use. This finding confirms reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Cooper, 1967; Byrom, 1972). Balconies Twenty-six units had balconies, most of which were three or four feet deep and 10 to 15 feet long. The balconies were rated " f a i r " or "good", and "a l i t t l e too small" or "about r i g h t " . The screening on the balconies was acceptable to most people, unless the top r a i l i n g blocked the view from ins i d e , as at False Creek. In general, the balconies were used very l i t t l e ; only for occasional s i t t i n g , growing flowers, and storage. Most balconies were located o f f the master bedroom and were not as convenient to use as the yard below. Many people commented that the balconies were used so l i t t l e that they were completely unnecessary. General Site Information Five of the nine projects had swimming pools and some also had saunas and meeting rooms. Most of the residents used the pools i n t h e i r projects, and most people who didn't have pools said they would use them. Most projects also had areas set aside for children's play and most respondents with c h i l d r e n said that t h e i r c h i l d r e n played there often. Children's noise was not a major problem i n any of the projects; only about one-fourth of the residents said the noise of chi l d r e n playing ever bothered them. This f i n d i n g , i n contrast to reports i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Norcross, 1973; Sandvik et a l . , 1973), may be due to the r e l a t i v e l y low numbers of chi l d r e n i n most of the sampled projects. - 73 -Monthly fees for maintenance averaged $44 and people were f a i r l y well-informed when asked what the fee paid for. Most people knew i t included maintenance of the bu i l d i n g e x t e r i o r , l i g h t i n g and heating of common areas, and a fee to the management company, as well as landscape maintenance, f i r e insurance, and cleaning of common areas. When asked i f they were s a t i s f i e d with the work and how much i t cost, the majority said yes, some were ambivalent, and only a few said no. Most people were evaluating the land-scaping and general cleaning; ambivalent r e p l i e s came from people who thought the work was probably acceptable, but they thought i t cost too much. Respondents were asked about the rules i n t h e i r projects regarding changes to the houses and yards. The majority were s a t i s f i e d having r u l e s ; commenting that this kept up the appearance of the development. Only a few people were d i s s a t i s f i e d or ambivalent, and some mentioned that the enforcement of the rules was inconsistent. The majority of people had no c r i t i c i s m of t h e i r project s i t e plan. Half of the suggested improvements were concerned with parking arrangements (amount, access, or wanted covered parking) and the others had to do with the safety of project streets, or v i s i t o r s having d i f f i c u l t y finding t h e i r address. These are common complaints from townhouse owners (Norcross, 1973; Cooper, 1975; Beck and Teasdale, 1977). 4.4 CAN RATINGS BE PREDICTED BY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, HOUSING BACKGROUND, AND PREFERENCES? Introduction The purpose of techniques l i k e factor analysis and c l u s t e r analysis is to allow the researcher to condense a large number of variables into groups of - 74 -c l o s e l y related v a r i a b l e s . These groups of variables can be combined into composite v a r i a b l e s , or scales, which are then used i n procedures such as regression analysis to gain some insig h t into the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i a b l e groups. In t h i s study, the variables were f i r s t divided into four groups based on the type of information they represented: demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; housing background; ra t i n g s ; or preferences. These groups were formed a p r i o r i before any factor analysis was done because one of the major goals of the study is to predict a person's ratings from his demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , housing background, and preferences. The four v a r i a b l e groups are: Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - age, sex, income, education, have child r e n , ages of children, family size Housing background - l a s t house type, l a s t tenure, l a s t private outdoor space, have l i v e d i n townhouse before, childhood house types, other houses since childhood, i d e a l house type, i d e a l tenure, residence time, plans to stay Ratings - project r a t i n g , general outdoor space r a t i n g , back yard size r a t i n g , v i s u a l privacy of back yard, fence r a t i n g , function of back fence, patio si z e r a t i n g , back yard problems, s a t i s f a c t i o n with maintenance work. Preferences - gardening, o r i e n t a t i o n , a t t i t u d e toward v i s u a l privacy, patio features, patio surface, patio connection, use of back yard, i d e a l back yard features, reasons outdoor space i s important, reasons moved from l a s t house, reasons chose project, reasons chose u n i t , reasons w i l l move, features of next house, changes made to back yard, suggested changes to s i t e plan, s a t i s f a c t i o n with s t r a t a r u l e s . Of the o r i g i n a l 199 v a r i a b l e s , 100 were factored. The 99 variables omitted from the fa c t o r i n g were eit h e r i r r e l e v a n t (general project information such as p r i c e , age, and patio s i z e s ) , issues which were eliminated for the sake of s i m p l i c i t y (front and balcony information), or the "other" options on a number of v a r i a b l e s . - 75 -Demographic Scales Factor analysis performed on the nine demographic variables produced three factors which account for 65% of the variance (see Table 7). Since each factor is defined by cor r e l a t i o n s (or loadings) with a l l the variables factored, the f i r s t step i n constructing scales was to sort the variables so that each v a r i a b l e appeared i n only one grouping. When the variables have been sorted into groups based on the factor loadings, the scale is constructed by a weighted l i n e a r combination of the variables i n the group. For example, grouping 1, which w i l l be c a l l e d "Family Size", consists of four v a r i a b l e s , have children, family s i z e , age of oldest c h i l d , and age of youngest c h i l d . (For the equations used to ca l c u l a t e the scale scores, see Appendix 5.) The scores on Family Size (see Table 8) range from 1.0 to a high score of 14.4, which is a respondent with a family of four and children 20 and 24 years o l d . The mean score of 5.9 probably represents a family of 3 with a c h i l d 3.6 years o l d . The second grouping of demographic variables includes the variables income, age, education-males, and education-females, and w i l l be c a l l e d "Young, Well-educated Respondents with High Incomes - Yes or No". The mean score i s 13.8, which might describe a 40 year old respondent earning $30,000 a year with both adults having some college or technical school. The t h i r d grouping of demographic variables i s reduced to a single v a r i a b l e , Sex. These three scales, Family Size, Young, Well-educated Respondents with High Income - Yes or No, and Sex w i l l be used i n the analysis as predictors of the ratings given on a number of aspects of townhouse l i v i n g . By using these - 76 -TABLE 7. Demographic Factor Loadings FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 Have children 0.878 0.005 -0.058 Oldest c h i l d 0.708 -0.447 -0.090 Youngest c h i l d 0.714 0.126 0.101 Family size 0.860 0.223 -0.028 Age -0.060 -0.658 -0.028 Income 0.030 0.649 -0.371 Education-females -0.007 0.738 0.060 Sex 0.090 0.044 0.911 Education-males 0.305 0.527 -0.530 % of variance 30.2% 22.4% 12.9% explained Notes: Loadings are the Pearson's c o r r e l a t i o n between the variables and each factor. Major loadings are underlined. - 77 -TABLE 8. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Demographic Scales Scale Name Family Size Young, We 11-Educated Respondents with High Incomes Mean 5.85 13.76 Standard Deviation 3.98 26.44 Range 1.0-14.37 -58.0-88.0 Sex 1.64 0.48 1.0-2.0 - 78 -scales instead of the o r i g i n a l nine v a r i a b l e s , the analysis i s s i m p l i f i e d and made more e f f i c i e n t . Evidence that these combinations of variables are meaningful comes from the r e s u l t s of R e l i a b i l i t y tests on the f i r s t two scales (the Sex scale consists of only one v a r i a b l e and so i s not tested). The re s u l t s (see Table 9) indicate that the scales are composed of variables with high i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . Housing Background Scales When the 10 housing background variables were factored, f i v e factors resulted which account for 70% of the variance of the variables (see Table 10). The f i r s t housing background scale c a l l e d "Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay - Yes or No", consists of the three v a r i a b l e s : l a s t housing type, l a s t tenure, and plans to stay. The scale l a b e l "Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay", describes the hypothetical respondent with the highest score on the scale, 11.0 (respondent rented an "other" house and plans to stay i n the townhouse f i v e years or more). The opposite end of the scale i s a respondent with a score of 1.2, which means he l a s t owned a single family house and plans to stay i n the townhouse a year or less (see Table 11). The mean score of 4.7 probably represents the respondent who l a s t rented an apartment i n a low-rise b u i l d i n g and plans to stay i n h i s townhouse for about 3 years. The second housing background scale is c a l l e d "Wide Experience in Childhood Housing, Lived i n Townhouse Before - Yes or No", and consists of the two v a r i a b l e s , childhood housing type and l i v e d i n townhouse before. The scale l a b e l describes the hypothetical respondent with the maximum score of 2.0, who grew up i n rented apartments or houses and who has l i v e d i n a townhouse before. The minimum score i s 0.2, which describes the respondent who grew up i n single family housing and has never l i v e d i n a townhouse before - 79 -TABLE 9. R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s of Scales Scale Std. Alpha Family Size 0.855 Young Well-educated Respondents with High Incomes 0.612 Sex SVS Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay 0.622 Wide Experience i n Childhood Housing, Lived i n Townhouse Before 0.540 Had Large Yard, Now Want to Rent Non-single Family 0.359 Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood SVS Long-time Residents SVS General Ratings 0.837 Privacy Ratings 0.604 Good Fences Make Good Neighbors 0.359 Investment Value of Housing is Important 0.443 Outdoor Space i s Important for Children's Play 0.689 Gardeners 0.661 Moving Down to a Townhouse 0.534 Seeking a Better House 0.637 Want Better Neighbors and Neighborhood 0.642 Outdoor Space is Important for Storage and as Land 0.528 Family Use of the Back Yard 0.600 Use Patio and Want to Change Connection 0.337 SVS - Single variable scale - 80 -TABLE 10. Housing Background Factor Loadings FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 Last house type Last tenure 0.855 -0.864 -0.098 0.026 -0.006 0.022 -0.072 0.123 -0.139 -0.223 Childhood housing type Lived i n townhouse before -0.010 -0.219 0.914 0.602 0.029 0.030 -0.075 0.502 0.140 -0.301 Last private outdoor space Ideal housing type 0.206 -0.158 0.222 -0.000 0.666 0.707 -0.385 0.214 -0.141 0.145 Other houses since childhood -0.092 0.022 0.055 0.838 0.070 Residence time Plans to stay 0.023 0.392 0.025 0.285 0.052 -0.397 0.052 0.047 0.919 -0.139 Ideal tenure -0.053 0.076 -0.483 -0.390 0.374 % of variance explained 21.3% 13.8% 13.0% 11.9% 10.0% Notes: Loadings are the Pearson's c o r r e l a t i o n between the variables and each fa c t o r . Major loadings are underlined. - 81 -TABLE 11. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Housing Background Scales Standard Observed Possible Scale Name Mean Deviation Range Range Past Apartment Renters, Plan 4.71 1.51 1.2-7.2 1.2-11.0 to Stay Wide Experience i n Childhood 0.51 0.52 0.2-1.8 0.2-2.0 Housing, Lived i n Townhouse Before Had Large Yard, Now Want to Rent -0.02 0.53 -0.8-1.8 -0.8-2.2 Non-single Family Housing Non-single Family Housing Since 3.07 1.11 0.0-5.0 0.0-5.0 Childhood Long-time Residents 3.70 2.61 0.3-9.9 0.3-9.9 - 82 -th i s one. The mean scale score of 0.5 represents respondents who grew up i n single family houses and rented houses and apartments, and who have never li v e d i n a townhouse before. The t h i r d housing background scale is c a l l e d "Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non-single Family Housing - Yes or No". It i s composed of the three v a r i a b l e s , l a s t private outdoor space, i d e a l housing type, and i d e a l tenure. As i n the previous two scales, the l a b e l "Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non-single Family Housing - Yes or No" describes the hypothetical respondent with a maximum score of 2.2 (had a large yard and now wants to rent an apartment or some other kind of housing). The opposite end of the scale i s the respondent with the score -0.8, who la s t had a small balcony and wants to own a single family house. The mean score was 0.0, which probably represents someone who la s t had a small balcony and now wants to own a townhouse or a single family house. The fourth housing background scale is c a l l e d "Non-Single Family Housing Since Childhood - Yes or No" and consists of one v a r i a b l e , housing since childhood. The scale l a b e l describes the respondent who has l i v e d i n rented apartments or houses, or some other kind of housing since leaving home (a score of 4.0 or 5.0), and the respondent who has moved from hi s parents' home to the townhouse is at the opposite end of the scale (a score of 0.0). The mean score is 3.1, which means that most people l i v e d i n single family houses and rented apart-ments before moving to the townhouse. The l a s t housing background scale consists of the single v a r i a b l e , residence time, and i s c a l l e d "Long-time Residents - Yes or No". - 83 -Residence time ranges from a minimum of 3 months (score 0.3) to over 8 years (score 9.9), and the mean score is 3.7, which represents 37 months or just over 3 years. These f i v e scales w i l l now take the place of the ten housing background variables i n attempts to predict a respondent's ratings on townhouse l i f e . Results of R e l i a b i l i t y tests (see Table 9) show that the f i r s t two scales, "Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay" and "Wide Experience i n Childhood Housing, Lived i n Townhouse Before" are f a i r l y strong groupings, but the t h i r d "Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non-single Family Housing" i s not as strong. The weaker scale and the s i n g l e - v a r i a b l e scales are included in the analysis, and the r e s u l t s obtained with these scales w i l l be interpreted with care. A number of hypotheses can be tested by using the f i v e housing background scales as predictors of the ratings and preferences received on various aspects of townhouse l i v i n g . The general assumption that a person's housing background w i l l a f f e c t h i s expectations and evaluation of the townhouse can be examined by posing several questions: Do f i r s t owners (or past apartment renters) rate the townhouse open space and privacy more generously than people who have owned t h e i r own single family house? Do people who have l i v e d i n townhouses before rate t h e i r projects and units higher than people who are i n t h e i r f i r s t townhouse? Are long-time residents more s a t i s f i e d than new residents? Rating Scales The f i f t e e n r a t i n g variables were factored to produce six factors which account for 68% of the variance of the f i f t e e n variables (see Table 12). The - 84 -TABLE 12. Rating Factor Loadings Variable FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6 Project rating 0. 567 -0.166 -0.471 0.009 -0.137 -0.130 Outdoor space r a t i n g 0. 913 0.045 -0.086 -0.010 -0.132 -0.006 Back yard rating 0. 902 0.190 0.059 0.049 -0.096 0.053 Back yard si z e r a t i n g 0. 762 0.250 -0.181 0.051 -0.074 0.056 Privacy of back yard 0. 180 0.690 -0.286 0.149 0.061 0.036 V i s u a l privacy of back 0. 069 0.717 -0.097 -0.038 -0.273 0.251 yard People seeing i n the -0. 117 -0.706 -0.007 0.225 0.051 0.274 yard a problem Neighbor's noise a -0. 159 -0.155 0.806 0.179 0.097 0.201 problem Back fence r a t i n g 0.059 0.235 -0.645 0.368 -0.021 0.147 S a t i s f i e d with 0. 097 -0.026 0.028 0.872 -0.140 -0.129 maintenance work T r a f f i c noise a problem -0. 110 -0.163 -0.014 0.098 0.799 0.177 Patio size rating -0. 206 0.043 0.224 -0.220 0.687 -0.181 Back fence function Children and pets coming i n a problem People walking by too close a problem 0.067 -0.034 0.094 -0.069 0.042 -0.518 0.117 -0.080 0.028 -0.030 -0.416 -0.063 0.857 0.160 -0.421 -0.300 -0.306 0.305 % of variance explained 24.8% 11.2% 9.7% 8.1% 7.2% 9.0% Notes: Loadings are the Pearson's c o r r e l a t i o n between the variables and each fa c t o r . Major loadings are underlined. - 85 -f i r s t three factors were strong factors (two or more variables with r=.7) but the l a s t three were weaker and some of the v a r i a b l e groupings made l i t t l e sense, e.g. t r a f f i c noise i s a problem and the patio i s too small ( f a c t o r 5). Cluster Analysis was performed on the same variables to attempt to c l a r i f y the vari a b l e groups. The res u l t s from c l u s t e r i n g confirmed factor groupings 1, removed one v a r i a b l e (people seeing in) from grouping 2 and put i t i n a new grouping with variables from factor groupings 3, 4, and 5. Two variables were not combined u n t i l the la s t step (back fence r a t i n g and s a t i s f a c t i o n with maintenance work) and were omitted from subsequent a n a l y s i s . As a r e s u l t of combining the r e s u l t s from factor analysis and c l u s t e r analysis, three rating scales were produced from t h i r t e e n of the o r i g i n a l f i f t e e n variables (see Table 13). R e l i a b i l i t y tests confirm that the f i r s t two scales are strong v a r i a b l e combinations, but that the t h i r d should be used with q u a l i f i c a t i o n (see Table 9). The f i r s t r a t i n g scale consists of the four v a r i a b l e s , project r a t i n g , outdoor space r a t i n g , back yard r a t i n g , and back yard si z e r a t i n g , and i s c a l l e d "General Ratings". General Rating scores range from 0.8, which represents the hypothetical respondent who rates everything as "very poor" or "much too small", to 4.8, which represents someone giving the highest possible ratings to a l l four questions (see Table 14). The mean score i s 3.4, which could describe the respondent who gives one " f a i r " r a t i n g , two "good" ra t i n g s , and says the back yard is "about r i g h t " . The second r a t i n g scale is c a l l e d "Privacy Ratings" and includes the va r i a b l e s , back yard privacy rating and back yard v i s u a l privacy r a t i n g . The lowest score possible i s 0.4, which i s a respondent who says the back yard - 86 TABLE 13. F i n a l Rating Scales Scale Label General Ratings Privacy Ratings Good Fences Make Good Neighbors Variables i n Scale Project rating Outdoor space r a t i n g Back yard rating Back yard si z e rating Privacy of back yard V i s u a l privacy of back yard Back yard problems (5) Patio s i z e r a t i n g Back fence function - 87 -TABLE 14. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Rating Scales Scale Name General Ratings Privacy Ratings Good Fences Make Good Neighbors Mean 3.38 1.06 2.69 Standard Deviation 0.58 0.25 1.38 Observed Range 1.8-4.2 0.4-1.4 -1.6-7.2 Possible Range 0.8-4.6 0.4-2.0 -2.0-7.8 - 88 -"should be much more p r i v a t e " and is "not pri v a t e at a l l " to people seeing i n , and the highest score is 1.8, which would be a respondent who thinks the back yard "should be much less p r i v a t e " and i s "very p r i v a t e " to people seeing i n . The mean score is 1.1, which probably represents the respondent who says the back yard privacy is "about r i g h t " and that i t i s "not very p r i v a t e " to people seeing i n . The l a s t r a t i n g scale i s c a l l e d "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors - Yes or No" and consists of the following v a r i a b l e s : function of back fence, patio s i z e r a t i n g , and the f i v e back yard problems, noise from neighbors, noise from t r a f f i c , people walking by too close, people seeing i n the back yard, and chi l d r e n and pets coming i n . The scale l a b e l , "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" describes the hypo-t h e t i c a l respondent with the highest possible score of 7.8, who thinks a fence should be a s o l i d w a l l , the patio is much too b i g , and noise from neighbors and t r a f f i c , and people walking by and seeing i n bothers him, but chi l d r e n and pets coming i n don't. The other end of the scale i s the hypothetical respon-dent with a score of -2.0, who wants a fence only to mark the edges of h i s property, thinks the patio i s too small, and has no problems except c h i l d r e n and pets coming i n . The mean score i s 2.7, which probably describes the respondent who wants h i s fence to give privacy on the sides, thinks the patio is a l i t t l e too small, and says there are no problems. This l a s t r a t i n g scale describes s a t i s f a c t i o n with the s o c i a l aspects of townhouse l i v i n g : neighbors noise, privacy from i n t r u s i o n both physical and v i s u a l , and problems with c h i l d r e n and pets. These three rating scales, General Ratings, Privacy Ratings, and Good Fences Make Good Neighbors, represent the information that the analysis w i l l - 89 -attempt to predict from the demographic, housing background, and preference scales. For example, are small families and single people more s a t i s f i e d with townhouse l i v i n g than people with large f a m i l i e s , as measured by t h e i r General Rating scores and Good Fences-Good Neighbors scores? This kind of information can help designers understand what kinds of people are l i v i n g i n townhouses and what people expect from the private outdoor space provided with t h e i r townhouses. Preference Scales The l a s t v a r i a b l e s factored were the 66 preference v a r i a b l e s . Factor analysis produced 23 factors which accounted for 75% of the variance, but, as with the factoring of the ratings, many of the factor groupings were unclear or groups with only one strong v a r i a b l e . Cluster Analysis was performed on the 66 variables plus seven variables (reasons projects were chosen were inadvertantly omitted from the factoring) i n an attempt to c l a r i f y and reduce the number of groupings. Cluster analysis (see Table 15) confirmed or c l a r i f i e d nine factors as major va r i a b l e c l u s t e r s and the other factors were e i t h e r confirmed as minor, s i n g l e - v a r i a b l e c l u s t e r s or s p l i t up between more l o g i c a l c l u s t e r s of v a r i a b l e s . Of the 73 variables included i n the i n i t i a l factor analysis and c l u s t e r analysis, 41 variables are included i n the f i n a l c l u s t e r s , and 32 have been omitted from subsequent a n a l y s i s . The nine cl u s t e r s that r e s u l t from the combination of factor analysis and c l u s t e r analysis are confirmed as well-related groups of variables by the r e s u l t s of R e l i a b i l i t y tests (see Table 9). The f i r s t preference scale i s c a l l e d "Investment Value of Housing i s Important - Yes or No" and consists of the following s i x v a r i a b l e s : the unit was chosen because i t was a v a i l a b l e and because of i t s investment p o t e n t i a l ; - 90 -TABLE 15. Preference Cluster Results Steps before Cluster l a b e l Variables i n c l u s t e r c l u s t e r formed Factor number Importance of Housing Value Unit chosen because available 5 2 Next house should be available 2 Unit chosen for investment 2 The next house should be a good investment 2 The next house should have a good price 2 The next house should be i n a good neighborhood 2 Outdoor Space Important Back yard used for children's play 7 3 for Children's Play Outdoor space important for children's play 3 Ideal back yard should have play equipment 3 Unit was chosen for i t s outdoor space 9 Project was chosen for general appearance Not factored Project was chosen for good neighborhood Not factored Back yard used for messy projects 19 Gardeners Like to garden 4 4 Back yard used for flowers and vegetables 4 Outdoor space is important for growing flowers and 4 vegetables Ideal back yard should have vegetable garden 4 Ideal back yard should have f r u i t trees 4 Moving Down to a Townhouse Moved to get smaller house 4 5 Moved to get less expensive house 5 Project chosen because wanted a townhouse Not factored W i l l move to get smaller house 15 Seeking a Better House W i l l move to get bigger yard 5 6 W i l l move to get bigger house 7 Outdoor space is important for a view from the house 1 Next house should have certain inside features 2 Next house should have certain outdoor space features 2 Want Better Neighbors, Criticisms of project s i t e plan 3 22 Neighborhood W i l l move to get better neighbors 10 W i l l move to get better neighborhood 10 Outdoor Space Important Use back yard for storage 2 9 for Storage and as Land Outdoor space important for extra storage 9 Outdoor space important as land to own 4 Family Use of Back Yard Outdoor space important for family a c t i v i t i e s 1 6 Back yard used for eating, cooking 6 Use Patio and Want to Back yard used for sunbathing, s i t t i n g 1 16 Change Connection Want to change patio connection Not factored - 91 -features of the next house should include p r i c e ; investment p o t e n t i a l and a v a i l a b i l i t y ; but not good neighborhood. The scale l a b e l describes someone with a maximum score of 4.0; the minimum is -1.0, and the mean score, 1.1, probably describes a respondent who chose h i s unit for i t s investment p o t e n t i a l rather than a v a i l a b i l i t y and whose next house must have the r i g h t p r i c e and a good neighborhood, but investment value is going to be less important (see Table 16). The second preference scale, c a l l e d "Outdoor Space i s Important for Children's Play - Yes or No", i s constructed from f i v e v a r i a b l e s : outdoor space i s important for safe children's play; the i d e a l back yard would have space for play equipment; the back yard i s used for children's play; the project was chosen for i t s general appearance; and the unit because of i t s private outdoor space. The scale l a b e l describes the respondent with the maximum score of 5.0 and the minimum score is 0.0. The mean score, 2.0, describes respondents who said "yes" to two questions and "no" to the other three. The t h i r d scale, "Gardeners - Yes or No", consists of the following f i v e v a r i a b l e s : the back yard i s used for flowers and vegetables; outdoor space is important for growing flowers and vegetables; the respondent l i k e s to garden; and the i d e a l yard should have a vegetable garden and f r u i t trees. Gardeners are people with a maximum score of 5.0 and the opposite end of the scale i s a score of 0.0. The mean score is 3.4, which means most people answered "yes" to between three and four items on the s c a l e . The fourth preference scale i s c a l l e d "Moving Down to a Townhouse - Yes or No" and consists of the four v a r i a b l e s : moved to get a less expensive house and a smaller house with less maintenance, the project was chosen because - 92 -TABLE 16. Summary S t a t i s t i c s for Reference Scales Scale Name Mean Standard Deviation Observed Range Possible Range Importance of Housing Value 1.13 1.42 -1.0-4.0 -1.0-4.0 Outdoor Space Important for Children's Play 2.04 1.60 0.0-5.0 0.0-5.0 Gardeners 3.42 1.47 0.0-5.0 0.0-5.0 Moving Down to a Townhouse 0.67 0.89 0.0-4.0 0.0-4.0 Seeking a Better House 2.81 1.52 0.0-5.0 0.0-5.0 Want Better Neighbors, Neighborhood 0.13 0.43 0.0-2.0 0.0-2.0 Outdoor Space Important for Storage and as Land 0.92 0.99 0.0-3.0 0.0-3.0 Family Use of Back Yard 1.61 0.66 0.0-2.0 0.0-2.0 Use Patio and Want to Change 1.36 0.59 0.0-2.0 0.0-2.0 Connection respondent was looking s p e c i f i c a l l y for a townhouse, and w i l l move again to get a smaller house. A respondent who is "Moving Down to a Townhouse" has the maximum score of 4.0, and h i s opposite, a score of 0.0. The mean score, 0.7, represents the t y p i c a l respondent who said "yes" to only one question (or l e s s ) . The f i f t h preference scale, "Seeking a Better House - Yes or No", i s composed of fi v e v a r i a b l e s : w i l l move to get a bigger yard and a bigger or better house; important features of the next house are the inside and the design or size of the yard; and outdoor space i s important for a nice view from inside the house. The maximum score (someone seeking a better house) i s 5.0 and the minimum i s 0.0. The mean score, 2.8, probably represents the respondent who w i l l move to get a bigger house but not a bigger yard, and who w i l l look at both the inside of the next house and i t s yard. The sixth preference scale i s c a l l e d "Want Better Neighbors and Neighborhood - Yes or No", and consists of the two va r i a b l e s , w i l l move to get better neighbors and to get better neighborhood. The scale l a b e l describes the respondent with the maximum score of 2.0, and the minimum score is 0.0. The mean score, 0.1, describes the t y p i c a l respondent who would not move for e i t h e r of those reasons. The seventh scale, "Outdoor Space is Important for Storage and as Land -Yes or No", i s constructed from three v a r i a b l e s : the back yard i s used for storage, and outdoor space is important for extra storage and as a piece of land to own. The maximum score on t h i s scale i s 2.0, the minimum i s 0.0, and the mean score, 0.9, describes the respondent who probably thinks outdoor space i s important as a piece of land, but who doesn't use the back yard for storage or think storage is an important aspect of having outdoor space. The eighth preference scale i s c a l l e d "Family Use of the Back Yard" and consists of two v a r i a b l e s , the back yard i s used for eating and cooking, and outdoor space i s important for family a c t i v i t i e s . Scores range from a maximum of 2.0 to a minimum of 0.0, with mean score of 1.6 i n d i c a t i n g that most respondents said "yes" to at least one question. The l a s t preference scale "Use Patio and Want to Change Connection - Yes or No", i s constructed from the two va r i a b l e s , use the back yard (and patio) for sunbathing and s i t t i n g , and want to change the connection between the patio and the house. The maximum score i s 2.0, the minimum i s 0.0, and the mean score i s 1.4, which indicates that most people said "yes" to at least one question. These nine preference scales describe residents' preferences for most aspects of townhouse l i v i n g , from gardening and children's play, to the importance of housing values and the townhouse as a low-maintenance housing choice. One goal of the analysis i s to use th i s preference information to predict a person's s a t i s f a c t i o n with townhouses. For instance, do gardeners rate townhouse outdoor space any higher or lower than non-gardeners? Do people who think outdoor space i s important for children's play rate townhouses d i f f e r e n t l y than other people? - 95 -Results of Regressions Using Scales One of the major hypotheses of this study was that a person's demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , housing background, and preferences for private outdoor space would a f f e c t h i s ratings on various aspects of townhouse l i v i n g i n a predictable fashion. Scale construction has produced three r a t i n g scales, General Ratings, Privacy Ratings, and Good Fences Make Good Neighbors. The f i r s t scale, General Ratings, represents a respondent's evaluation of the project, the project outdoor space, and his back yard. These general ratings r e f l e c t a person's o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n with h i s project and i t s appearance and maintenance, as well as the adequacy of h i s private outdoor space. The Privacy Ratings scale represents a resident's evaluation of the privacy of h i s back yard and includes a general privacy r a t i n g and a more s p e c i f i c r a ting of v i s u a l privacy. This separation of general s a t i s f a c t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n with privacy into two d i s t i n c t scales by the factor analysis and c l u s t e r analysis confirms that d i f f e r e n t issues are involved i n the two sets of r a t i n g s . There i s some overlap between the two scales as measured by the Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n between them (see Table 17), and the d i r e c t i o n of the association i s p o s i t i v e . The resident who i s s a t i s f i e d with h i s project i n general i s also l i k e l y to be s a t i s f i e d with the privacy of h i s yard. The t h i r d scale, Good Fences Make Good Neighbors, r e f l e c t s a person's evaluation of h i s project on a number of s o c i a l problems that may e x i s t : problems of noise from t r a f f i c and people, and problems of adults, c h i l d r e n , and pets intruding on private space either by seeing i n or by intruding p h y s i c a l l y . The r a t i n g also includes a person's desire for a completely unfenced yard or one with a s o l i d wall a l l the way around. The person who has TABLE 17. Pearson Correlations Between the Three Rating Scales General Ratings General Ratings 1.000 Privacy Ratings 0.278 Good Fences Make Good -0.204 Neighbors Privacy Good Fences Make Ratings Good Neighbors 0.278 -0.204 1.000 -0.259 -0.259 1.000 - 97 -the highest p o s s i b l e score on t h i s scale sees many of these s o c i a l problems i n h i s project and wants a s o l i d w a l l around h i s yard also tends to rate the project i n general and the privacy of h i s back yard lower than other residents (r=-.259 and -.204). Relating a respondent's scores on these three r a t i n g scales to h i s demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , housing background, and preferences i s done with regression a n a l y s i s . In order to test which type of information i s most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to a person's ratings, separate regressions are performed. For example, general ratings'are regressed on the demographic scales, general ratings are also regressed on the housing background scales, and f i n a l l y , general ratings.are regressed on the preference scales. To determine which i n d i v i d u a l scales (regardless of whether demographic, housing background, or preference) best p r e d i c t general r a t i n g s , another regression i s performed using a l l the scales at once. These regressions are performed f o r the three r a t i n g scales beginning with General Ratings. Fredictors of General Ratings Results of Separate Regressions with Demographic, Housing Background, and  Preference Scales The r e s u l t s i n Table 18 show that the preference scales accounted for 22% 2 of the variance i n General Ratings (R =.218) and that the regression is s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 with six scales i n the equation and at p=.10 with a l l scales entered. The regressions with the demographic and housing background scales were not s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 or .10 and accounted for only 1.5% 2 (R=.0l5) and 7.3% (R =.073) of the variance i n General Ratings, r e s p e c t i v e l y . - 98 -TABLE 18. Results of Separate Regressions on General Ratings with Demographic, Housing Background, and Preference Scales Regression with Demographic Scales r* R 2 F b FCRIT C Family Size -0.088 0.008 0.686 253.00 Young, Well-educated Respondents with -0.083 0.013 0.578 19.48 High Incomes Sex -0.036 0.015 0.440 8.57 TOTAL 0.015 Regression with Housing Background Scales Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent 0.163 0.027 2.408 253.00 Non-single Family Housing Long-time Residents -0.128 0.040 1.827 19.48 Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay 0.127 0.058 1.762 8.57 Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood -0.125 0.070 1.591 5.68 Wide Experience in Childhood Housing, 0.123 0.073 1.320 4.42 Lived in Townhouse Before TOTAL 0.073 Regression with Preference Scales Outdoor Space Important for Chidren's Play 0.274 0.075 7.132 253.00 Seeking a Better House -0.175 0.162 8.411 19.48 Use Patio and Want to Change Connection -0.170 0.190 6.710 8.57 Moving Down to a Townhouse 0.126 0.202 5.392 5.68 Family Use of Back Yard -0.086 0.216 4.618 4.42 Importance of Housing Value -0.052 0.217 3.841 3.72 Outdoor Space Important for Storage and 0.026 0.218 3.257 3.29 as Land Want Better Neighbors, Neighborhood -0.082 0.218 2.818 3.00 Gardeners -0.122 0.218 d 2.77 TOTAL 0.218 aSimple r (Pearson's r) ^F value for regression equation C F value which is s i g n i f i c a n t at a prob. of 0.05 and for the correct d.f. d F value not computed because increase in F is less than 0.01 eRegression equation including the scales above the line is s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 - 99 -The preference scales which were s i g n i f i c a n t predictors of General Ratings (at p=.05) are scales which describe a resident's attitudes toward his housing and h i s family's use of the back yard. I f he thought outdoor space is important for children's play, i f he has moved to the townhouse to get a smaller or less expensive house and i s not looking for a bigger house, h i s general ratings tended to be higher than other residents'. The importance of parents' s a t i s f a c t i o n with housing projects as good places for t h e i r c h i l d r e n to play has been reported by Becker (1974) and B e l l and Constantinescu (1974). People who were "moving down to a townhouse" may tend to be more s a t i s f i e d than people l i v i n g i n townhouses for other reasons because they chose a townhouse over other forms of housing. Why were preferences better predictors of General Ratings than demographics and housing background? One explanation for t h i s finding could be that a person's stated preferences were a more precise type of information than the more general demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and housing background. The finding indicates that a range of degrees of s a t i s f a c t i o n would be found on any aspect of townhouse outdoor space which could not be accounted for by demographic and housing background information, but that a person's preferences for outdoor space were the best clues to how he would evaluate h i s townhouse. Most authors who have done these comparisons reported the same fin d i n g ; that there were no systematic relationships between demographic and socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and general s a t i s f a c t i o n ratings (Condominium Research Associates, 1970; B e l l , 1974; CMHC, 1974; Gatt, 1978), although Sandvik (1973) found that a person's s a t i s f a c t i o n with h i s housing tended to increase with higher income and job status. - 1 0 0 -Although the housing background scales have l i t t l e value for p r e d i c t i n g General Ratings, information can s t i l l be gained from an examination of the regression of the housing background scales against General Ratings. Although the associations are weak, the best predictor was the scale "Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non-single Family Housing". People who had high scores on this scale were somewhat more l i k e l y to give high ratings to the project and i t s outdoor space. Long-time residents, on the other hand, were less l i k e l y to have high General Ratings scores, which indicates that new residents gave higher ratings than people who have l i v e d i n the projects longer. People who have moved from rented apartments and planned to stay i n t h e i r townhouses were also somewhat more l i k e l y to give the projects higher ratings than people who have come from single family homes of t h e i r own and did not plan to stay very long. The two weakest housing background scales are "Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood" and "Wide Experience i n Childhood Housing and Lived i n Townhouses Before". People who have l i v e d i n a v a r i e t y of houses since leaving home are only s l i g h t l y more l i k e l y to give lower General Ratings, and people who have l i v e d only i n single family houses tend to rate the project and outdoor space s l i g h t l y higher. People who have l i v e d i n townhouses before, and grew up i n d i f f e r e n t kinds of houses, are somewhat more l i k e l y to give the projects high General Ratings than the people who grew up i n single family housing and have never l i v e d i n a townhouse. Some authors have reported that housing background has some influence on the evaluation of present housing and others report finding no r e l a t i o n s h i p . Condominium Research Associates (1970) and CMHC (1974) found that past housing type and tenure had l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on the evaluation of the unit or the - 1 0 1 -project, while Willmott (1964), Department of the Environment (1971), Sanoff (1975), and Gatt (1978) reported that s a t i s f a c t i o n was affected by housing experience. This contradiction may be explained by the purely q u a l i t a t i v e nature of the l a t t e r group of findings; many authors expected that housing background a f f e c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n with housing, but when the analysis was done by Condominium Research Associates (1970) and CMHC (1974) no systematic relationships were found. Results from Regression on General Ratings with A l l Scales Table 19 shows the res u l t s of the regression of General Ratings on a l l scales. This regression allows us to see which scales, regardless of which group, can be entered to create a s i g n i f i c a n t equation to predict General Ratings. The combined scales accounted for 26% of the variance i n General 2 Ratings (R =.263) and the equation with 11 scales entered was s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 and with 14 scales at p=.10. The regression equation s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 contained a l l the preference scales found to be s i g n i f i c a n t predictors of General Ratings when the scale groups were regressed separately, and added four housing background scales and one demographic scale, which were not s i g n i f i c a n t predictors before. Taken as a group, the scales which best predicted General Ratings describe a resident's expectations and attitudes concerning h i s townhouse. People who had higher General Ratings wanted a townhouse because of the low maintenance, they had l i v e d i n houses with large l o t s and now prefer some other type of housing, they had l i v e d i n townhouses before, and, although they hadn't l i v e d i n th i s townhouse very long, they planned to stay for a long time. People with high General Ratings also thought children's play was an important function of outdoor space although they had smaller families than other residents, and they were less concerned about t h e i r housing being an investment. TABLE 19. Results of the Regression on General Ratings with A l l Scales r a R2 Fb FCRIT° Outdoor Space Important for Children's Play 0.274 0.075 7.132 253.00 Seeking a Better House -0.175 0.162 8.411 19.48 Use Patio and Want to Change Connection -0.170 0.190 6.710 8.57 Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent 0.163 0.202 5.500 5.68 Non-single Family Housing Moving Down to a Townhouse 0.126 0.216 4.731 4.42 Family Use of Back Yard -0.086 0.217 4.182 3.72 Long-time Residents -0.123 0.218 3.724 3.29 Wide Experience i n Childhood Housing, Lived 0.103 0.218 3.291 3.00 i n Townhouse Before Family Size -0.088 0.237 3.032 2.77 Importance of Housing Value -0.052 0.237 2.766 2.61 Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay 0.127 0.245 2.500 2.47 e Young, Well-educated Respondents with High -0.083 0.250 2 .273 2.36 Incomes Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood -0.125 0.252 2 .080 2.28 Outdoor Space Important for Storage and as Land 0.026 0.261 1 .913 2.21 Want Better Neighbors, Neighborhood -0.082 0.262 1 .764 2.15 Sex -0.036 0.263 d 2.09 Gardeners -0.122 0.263 d 2.04 aSimple r (Pearson's r) ^F value for regression equation C F value which i s s i g n i f i c a n t at a prob. of 0.05 and for the correct d.f. ^F value not computed because increase i n F i s less than 0.01 eRegression equation including the scales above the l i n e is s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 - 103 -Predictors of Privacy Ratings Results of Separate Regressions on Privacy Ratings with Demographic,  Housing Background, and Preference Scales The r e s u l t s i n Table 20 show that the demographic scales accounted for . 2 only 2% of the variance i n Privacy Ratings (R =.002), the housing background 2 scales accounted for 9% (R =.090), and the preference scales accounted for 2 " , 16% (R =.160). None of these regressions were s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 or .10. It was not hypothesized that demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s would rel a t e to Privacy Ratings, but i t was expected that a person's housing background would influence h i s ratings of townhouse privacy. People who had l i v e d only i n singl e family housing were expected to be much more c r i t i c a l of the privacy i n the townhouse yards than people who had been renting apartments. The association of the two scales "Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non-Single Family Housing" and "Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay" with Privacy Ratings are very weak (r=-.141 and .135), although the d i r e c t i o n of association confirms the expected r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The conclusion from these findings i s that privacy preferences are not dependent on a person's housing background, demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , or preferences, and that other factors such as personality and temperament are probably involved. Results from Regression on Privacy Ratings with A l l Scales In Table 21 the res u l t s from the regression of a l l scales on Privacy Ratings show that combining demographic and housing background scales with the preference scales, a regression equation of 10 scales i s s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 and an equation of 13 scales i s s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.10. The scales which are s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 concern a resident's attitudes toward housing as well as - 104 -TABLE 20. Results of Separate Regressions on Privacy Ratings with Demographic, Housing Background, and Preference Scales ression with Demographic Scales R2 r a F b FCRIT C Sex -0.008 0.001 0. 061 253.00 Family Size 0.026 0.001 0. 056 19.48 Young, Well-educated Respondents with -0.022 0.002 0. 042 8.57 High Incomes TOTAL 0.002 ression with Housing Background Scales Long-time Residents 0.197 0.039 3. 563 253.00 Had Large Yard, Now Want to Rent Non- -0.141 0.055 2. ,550 19.48 single Family Housing Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood -0.136 0.074 2.305 8.57 Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay 0.135 0.087 2. .029 5.56 Wide Experience in Childhood Housing, -0.063 0.090 1. .656 4.42 Lived in Townhouse Before TOTAL 0.090 ression with Preference Scales Importance of Housing Value -0.231 0.054 4 .970 253.00 Moving Down to a Townhouse 0.203 0.080 3 .775 19.48 Use Patio and Want to Change Connection -0.163 0.102 3 .246 8.57 Outdoor Space Important for Children'6 Play 0.044 0.121 2 .930 5.56 Family Use of Back Yard -0.156 0.141 2 .757 4.42 Outdoor Space Important for Storage and -0.136 0.151 2.467 3.72 as Land Seeking Better House -0.189 0.159 2 .221 3.29 Want Better Neighbors, Neighborhood -0.055 0.160 1 .927 3.00 Gardeners -0.168 0.160 1 .695 2.77 TOTAL 0.160 aSimple r (Pearson's r) ^F value for regression equation C F value which is s i g n i f i c a n t at a prob. of 0.05 and for the correct d.f. TABLE 21. Results of the Regression on Privacy Ratings with A l l Scales r a R2 Fb _ c FCRIT Importance of Housing Value -0.231 0.054 4.970 253.00 Long-time Residents 0.197 0.080 3.975 19.48 Moving Down to a Townhouse 0.203 0.102 3.823 8.57 Use Patio and Want to Change Connection -0.163 0.121 3.772 5.68 Outdoor Space Important f o r Children's Play 0.044 0.141 3.744 4.42 Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent -0.142 0.151 3.313 3.72 Non-single Family Housing Seeking a Better House -0.189 0.160 3.109 3.29 Young, Well-educated Respondents with High -0.021 0.160 3.057 3.00 Incomes Family Use of Back Yard -0.156 0.160 2.882 2.77 Sex -0.007 0.203 2.620 2.61 Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay 0.135 0.223 2.384 2.47 Non-single Family Housing since Childhood -0.136 0.224 2.192 2.36 Outdoor Space Important for Storage and as -0.136 0.225 2.019 2.28 Land Family Size 0.026 0.251 1.853 2.21 Want Better Neighbors, Neighborhood 0.005 0.254 1.709 2.15 Wide Experience i n Childhood Housing, Lived -0.006 0.257 1.582 2.09 i n Townhouse Before Gardeners -0.168 0.258 d 2.04 aSimple r (Pearson's r) ^F value for regression equation C F value which i s s i g n i f i c a n t at a prob. of 0.05 and for the correct d.f. ^F value not computed because increase i n F i s less than 0.01 eRegression equation including the scales above the line is s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 - 106 -how long he had li v e d i n the townhouse, whether he had l i v e d i n a house with a large yard before the townhouse, and information about h i s age, income, education, and sex. There are two possible reasons why residents who had l i v e d i n the townhouse longer gave the privacy of t h e i r yards higher r a t i n g s . People who have stayed i n t h e i r townhouses longer are people who have chosen to stay and may be more s a t i s f i e d with privacy than newer residents, some of whom may not stay very long. Even though none of the housing background scales were s i g n i f i c a n t when regressed on Privacy Ratings as a group, the scale "Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non-single Family Housing" was i n the s i g n i f i c a n t regression equation when a l l scales were combined. The finding that people who had moved from a house with a large yard rated the privacy of the i r townhoue back yards lower than people who had moved from apartments or other housing with l i t t l e or no private outdoor space i s evidence that people's housing backgrounds do influence t h e i r expectations for private outdoor space. The i n c l u s i o n of the two demograhic scales i n the s i g n i f i c a n t equation indicates that younger people with high educational l e v e l s and high incomes tend to be more c r i t i c a l of townhouse privacy, and that women are s l i g h t l y more c r i t i c a l than men. The preferences of residents which contributed to the regression equation were attitudes toward housing value, whether respondents were "moving down" to the townhouse or were "seeking a better house", and whether they considered the family's and children's use of the back yard important. As i n the predi c t i o n of General Ratings, people who thought the investment value of housing was important were l i k e l y to give lower Privacy Ratings than other residents, and people who were moving to a townhouse because of the low - 107 -maintenance were also more l i k e l y to give t h e i r back yards high Privacy Ratings. People moving to townhouses for this reason were making a f a i r l y informed decision about some of the advantages of townhouse l i v i n g and were also probably aware of the r e l a t i v e lack of privacy they could expect i n t h e i r townhouse yards. Predictors of "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" Results from Separate Regressions with Demographic, Housing Background,  and Preference Scales Table 22 shows that the demographic scales only explained 4% of the 2 variance in Good Fences Make Good Neighbors (R =.041), the housing 2 background scales explained 5% (R =.051), and the preference scales 2 accounted for 19% (R =.191). None of these regression equations were s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05, although at p=.10, the preference equation with eight scales was s i g n i f i c a n t . Results from Regression on "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" with A l l  Scales The r e s u l t s of the regression on "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" with a l l scales are shown i n Table 23. None of these equations were s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05, although at p=.10, the equation with ten scales was s i g n i f i c a n t . Three scales appear i n t h i s equation which have not had any value i n p r e d i c t i n g the other r a t i n g scales, "Want Better Neighbors and Neighborhood", "Gardeners", and "Outdoor Space is Important as Storage and as Land". The other scales i n the equation have appeared i n one or both of the other combined regression equations and describe a respondent's attitude toward h i s housing. The fact that three new scales appeared i n the equation which predicted Good Fences Make Good Neighbors emphasized the d i s t i n c t differences between - 108 -TABLE 22. Results of Separate Regressions on "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" with Demographic, Housing Background, and Preference Scales Regression with Demographic Scales r a R2 F b FCRIT C Young, Well--educated Respondents with High 0.200 0.040 3.646 253.00 Incomes Sex 0.000 0.041 1.849 19.48 Family Size 0.023 0.041 d 8.57 TOTAL 0.041 Regression with Housing Background Scales Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non- -0.157 0.025 2.228 253.00 single Family Housing Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood 0.153 0.042 1.918 19.48 Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay -0.109 0.050 1.502 8.57 Long-time Residents 0.016 0.051 1.136 5.68 Wide Experience in Childhood Housing, -0.037 0.051 d 4.42 Lived in Townhouse Before Regression with Preference Scales Want Better Neighbors, Neighborhood 0.203 0.041 3.775 253.00 Gardeners -0.149 0.073 3.433 19.48 Seeking Better House 0.190 0.118 3.823 8.57 Outdoor Space Important for Children's Play -0.098 0.142 3.509 5.68 Use Patio and Want to Change Connection 0.117 0.162 3.242 4.42 Outdoor Space Important for Storage and 0.058 0.175 2.930 3.72 as Land Moving Down to a Townhouse -0.064 0.182 2.609 3.29 Family Use of Back Yard 0.074 0.190 2.358 3.00 Importance of Housing Value -0.024 0.191 2.098 2.77 sSimple r (Pearson's r) 1>F value for regression equation C F value which is s i g n i f i c a n t at a prob. of 0.05 and for the correct d.f. ^F value not computed because increase in F i s less than 0.01 TABLE 23. Results of the Regression on "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" with A l l Scales r a R2 Fb FCRIT C Want Better Neighbors, Neighborhood 0.203 0.041 3.775 253.00 Young, Well-educated Respondents with High 0.199 0.073 3.830 19.48 Incomes Gardeners -0.149 0.118 3.935 8.57 Outdoor Space Important for Storage and as Land 0.058 0.142 3.559 5.68 Outdoor Space Important for Children's Play -0.098 0.162 3.685 4.42 Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non- -0.157 0.175 3.374 3.72 single Family Housing Seeking a Better House 0.190 0.182 3.008 3.29 Use Patio and Want to Change Connection 0.117 0.189 2.745 3.00 Moving Down to a Townhouse -0.064 0.191 2.484 2.77 Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay -0.109 0.196 2.241 2.61 Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood 0.153 0.201 2.027 2.47 Long-time Residents 0.016 0.203 1.847 2.36 Importance of Housing Value -0.024 0.203 1.689 2.28 Family Use of Back Yard 0.074 0.223 1.554 2.21 Family Size 0.023 0.225 1.436 2.15 Sex 0.000 0.226 1.331 2.09 Wide Experience i n Childhood Housing, Lived -0.037 0.226 1.236 2.04 i n Townhouse Before TOTAL 0.226 aSimple r (Pearson's r) D F value for regression equation C F value which i s s i g n i f i c a n t at a prob. of 0.05 and for the correct d.f. - 110 -the three rating scales. Good Fences Make Good Neighbors r e f l e c t e d a resident's attitudes toward his neighbors and intrusions on his privacy, while the other two rating scales were more general measures of h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the project and the privacy i n his back yard. The scale "Want Better Neighbors and Neighborhood" r e f l e c t e d a resident's s a t i s f a c t i o n with the s o c i a l aspects of his project. The people who said they would move to get better neighbors or a better neighborhood also have high scores on "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors". People who are gardeners tended to have low scores on the l a s t rating scale which may confirm reports that people using t h e i r yards for more active hobbies are more s a t i s f i e d with townhouse yards ( W i l l i s , 1963; Gatt, 1979). SUMMARY Each of the three r a t i n g scales, General Ratings, Privacy Ratings, and "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors", was predicted by a regression equation s i g n i f i c a n t at p=.05 made up of preference, housing background, and demo-graphic scales. General Ratings was the only scale which could be predicted from one of the scale groups alone (preferences). The scales included i n the three s i g n i f i c a n t regression equations were d i f f e r e n t , e s p e c i a l l y the scales p r e d i c t i n g "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors". In general, information useful for p r e d i c t i n g a resident's ratings included why he was l i v i n g i n h i s town-house, his attitudes toward his house's investment value, whether he thought outdoor space was important for family use and children's play, what kind of housing he had l i v e d i n , and h i s age, income, education, and length of residence. - I l l -5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN The value of a designer conducting a survey of this type i s that the data can be translated into recommendations and suggestions for other designers. This c r u c i a l step has to be l e f t out i n studies conducted by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , and designers are r a r e l y q u a l i f i e d to i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s of these s o c i a l science studies themselves. A number of recommendations for townhouse private outdoor space design, s i t e design, and management are presented here. This information should be of int e r e s t to landscape a r c h i t e c t s , planners, and builders or developers working i n multiple housing. 5.1 PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE DESIGN  Size of Yards and Patios The majority of people seemed to be s a t i s f i e d with yards over 300 square fee t . With unit frontages ranging from 16 to 20 feet, t h i s means the yards should have a depth of 15 or 20 feet. Patios should be at least 10 by 10 feet and should not be tucked into a b u i l d i n g setback which l i m i t s the use of the space. People i n townhouses used the patios for a wide range of a c t i v i t i e s and there is some support for laying paving i n a large portion of the yard. People who had a paved yard are content to be without lawn, although those with conventional yards said they want grass. One issue concerning many of the features studied i s how to provide for the range of preferences found among residents. Proposing that a v a r i e t y of treatments be i n s t a l l e d by the developer i s no s o l u t i o n ; people buy houses for reasons of p r i c e and inside features, and the design of the yard i s not usually a factor i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n . - 112 -The best system may be one where a basic yard i s provided and owners are informed about possible improvements and recommended materials. For example, the patio should be constructed of two foot square pavers set i n concrete, which people could extend by laying more of the same pavers m sand. The paver system is recommended because i t i s inexpensive and can e a s i l y be added to by the home owner. Fencing The same type of modular system should be used for fencing. The wide range of privacy preferences found i n t h i s study make i t obvious that a more f l e x i b l e fencing system would probably please many residents. Yards should be fenced on a l l three sides. People want fencing to keep people o f f t h e i r grass and to make boundaries c l e a r even i f they don't want i t for privacy. The t a l l (6') s o l i d screens usually provided between units should be b u i l t ; these screens make the patios private from the neighbors next door. Instead of stopping there, as many builders do, the fencing should be continued. Fencing si x feet high on the sides and three feet high across the end i s recommended. The best solution to providing a s a t i s f a c t o r y fencing system i s to b u i l d the fences so they can e a s i l y be altered by the residents. I f the frame of the fences (posts and r a i l s ) i s designed to accept changeable panels b u i l t i n si x or eight foot modules, residents could substitute s o l i d sections for sections of l a t t i c e , for instance. The higher side fence should be mostly s o l i d sections with one l a t t i c e section toward the end, and the three foot high end fence should be a l l l a t t i c e sections. People could then substitute s o l i d sections to make a s o l i d three-foot-high fence, or add sections to make the end fence s i x feet high. These modules could be traded among the residents from a stock provided by the b u i l d e r when the fences are constructed, or simple plans could be provided so residents could construct t h e i r own. - 113 -The main v i r t u e of f l e x i b l e paving and fencing systems l i k e the ones described i s that residents can change them to s u i t t h e i r needs. The i n f l e x i b i l i t y of condominium rules regarding changes to fencing i s i n contrast to the rules about i n t e r i o r a l t e r a t i o n s , where owners can do anything they want unless s t r u c t u r a l changes are involved. People should have the same freedom to change t h e i r outdoor l i v i n g spaces as long as the general appearance of the project i s safeguarded. The simplest way to insure that there i s a common design element underlying the v a r i e t y of fences, for example, is to b u i l d i t i n : provide the basic framework of the fences and b u i l d the panels so that they a l l look the same. Lawns Recommending that a l l yards be fenced w i l l also make maintenance of the common areas easier. In the sample projects which had open yards, the maintenance crews cut the lawns. Mowing these innumerable small lawns i s time-consuming and i n e f f i c i e n t and some residents were uncertain about t h e i r freedom to plant shrubs and flowers i n the back yards. In the projects with enclosed yards, the residents maintained a lawn i f they wanted one, and quite a few had e i t h e r reduced the area of lawn or had done away with i t altogether. The recommendation for yard treatment is that a l l yards should be provided with small areas of lawn and sizeable planting areas (see Figure 3). The lawn can be expanded or eliminated and replaced by a vegetable garden, shrubs, or paving, according to the preference of the residents. The small lawn would also reduce the aggravation of people with north-facing yards trying to main-t a i n lawn i n an unending competition with the moss. There should also be room for owners to i n s t a l l small storage sheds i f the builders have not provided them. Figure 3. Recommended Yard Treatment. - 115 -Trees and Shrubs A basic structure of trees and shrubs should also be provided. The p o s i t i v e e f f e c t of generous landscaping on the general appearance and privacy of townhouse projects i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Plates 12 and 13. Even small yards should have at least one tree and i f the r i g h t species are chosen and planted far enough from the buildings there w i l l be no problems with trees growing too large. Enough evergreen and deciduous shrubs should be planted to insure that the person who doesn't want to garden can s t i l l have an a t t r a c t i v e yard. Connection to the Unit The p r a c t i c e of placing the l i v i n g room of townhouses along the f u l l length of the back wall created some cleaning problems with t r a f f i c from the back yards, e s p e c i a l l y for families with c h i l d r e n . One solution would be to create a covered area on the patio which could function as a back porch. A number of residents would have preferred that t h e i r kitchen was adjacent to the patio rather than t h e i r l i v i n g room to make cleaning easier and to make cooking outside more convenient. Front Yards In most townhouse projects the space at the front of units was semi-public and more for looking at than using; t h i s was acceptable to most residents. Better landscaping with shrubs as well as trees would do much to improve the general appearance of some proj e c t s . The e f f o r t people spent growing flowers i n the front yards indicated t h e i r interest i n the appearance of the front yards. Some townhouses had a small private front space (see Plate 14) rather than the more t y p i c a l open area of lawn. These spaces were of value for providing excellent privacy for the inside of the unit, and for improving the appearance - 116 -P l a t e 13. Landscaping enhances p r i v a c y at Springmont. - 117 -of the carport areas because of the extra storage space provided. In general, these semi-private front spaces were no substitute for a private back yard, unless they were separated from the street and parked cars, as at Greentree V i l l a g e (see Plate 15). Balconies The fi n d i n g that most balconies i n townhouses were unused and l i t t l e appreciated was due pr i m a r i l y to t h e i r location o f f upstairs bedrooms. In projects l i k e L i l l o o e t where the l i v i n g rooms i n some units were on upper f l o o r s , the balconies o f f these rooms were very popular. The minimum depth for a usable balcony i s about f i v e feet; otherwise, s i t t i n g comfortably on a chair i s almost impossible. Balcony r a i l i n g s should be s o l i d enough to provide some privacy and safety for child r e n , but where there i s a view, the top r a i l i n g should not be thick enough to block the view from i n s i d e . Since the major use of balconies seemed to be growing flowers, r a i l i n g s should be provided which allow people to hang pots and flower boxes. Planter boxes b u i l t into the r a i l i n g can be a t t r a c t i v e where the balconies face a street or courtyard, but can create problems i f there i s a view. These planter b o x - r a i l i n g s are best planted with annuals rather than vines and shrubs unless they w i l l receive water from r a i n f a l l ; dead or dying plants look worse than none at a l l . Roof Decks One sample project (False Creek) had roof decks on some units (see Plate 16). These decks were l i t t l e used because of wind and the lack of shade. I f roof decks are provided, they should be at least p a r t i a l l y protected. - 118 -Plate 15. Front patios at Greentree are removed from the street. - 119 -Plate 16. Some False Creek roof decks were l i t t l e used because of exposure to sun and wind. - 120 -5.2 SITE DESIGN Children's Play There were few complaints about noise from children's play i n the projects sampled. Play areas should always be located between rows of u n i t s , i f possible, to reduce noise problems. Sand boxes and sand p i t s should always be covered, i f provided at a l l , because of problems with cats. Children's play i n project streets and parking areas was a worry for some residents. It should be recognized by now that children over the age of s i x or so prefer to play i n a c e n t r a l location with a hard surface. Parking l o t s and streets f i t children's c r i t e r i a p e r f e c t l y . It is probably wiser for designers to anticipate this play rather than to ignore i t or t r y to prevent i t . Court arrangements are probably the safest and long, narrow streets with parking on the side are probably the least safe. Speed bumps can help slow t r a f f i c but t h i s i s a makeshift s o l u t i o n . Parking The general conclusion about parking i s that each unit should have parking space for two cars. One should be at the front door of the u n i t , preferably covered, and the other a short distance away. The problem of preventing townhouse projects from looking l i k e parking l o t s has been admirably solved at Mariners V i l l a g e . The court arrangement with a c e n t r a l , well-landscaped parking island is a t t r a c t i v e , serves as a v i s u a l buffer, and the road design tends to slow down t r a f f i c . Swimming Pools Swimming pools were used and appreciated by the residents who have them. Most people without pools said they would use one, but the c r i t i c a l question of whether they would pay more to get a pool was not asked. There can be - 121 -problems with management and noise, and the l o c a t i o n of the pool within the project i s important. The best solution i n large projects i s to locate the pool i n a common area between sections or "neighborhoods". In small p r o j e c t s , landscaping can help f i t the pool i n with i t s surroundings and can act as a noise b u f f e r . 5.3 MANAGEMENT There was a general lack of interest and information on the part of residents regarding the s t r a t a c o u n c i l s . Few long-term residents attended the annual meetings and both new and old residents were quite i l l - i n f o r m e d about coun c i l rules regulating changes to yards and fences. I f the councils were to d i s t r i b u t e a summary of what can and cannot be done together with a d e s c r i p t i o n of acceptable fences, screen doors, etc., there would probably be less discomfort with the r u l e s , less resentment about co u n c i l decisions, and better communication between some residents and c o u n c i l s . The fact that most people knew a number of the items covered by t h e i r monthly maintenance fee d i d nothing to counter t h e i r impression that the landscape maintenance was too expensive. This impression, whether true or not, caused bad feelings among residents about the q u a l i t y of the maintenance. Again, better communication between the management, co u n c i l , and residents would eliminate some of the misunderstandings and encourage discussion of a l t e r n a t i v e maintenance systems. For example, one of the smaller projects (Springmont) had recently f i r e d i t s management company and residents were managing the project and doing the landscape maintenance on a communal b a s i s . This might be a reasonable option for many of the smaller projects, although any project larger than 50 units or so may find the management company earns i t s fee. - 1 2 2 -6.0 SUMMARY This chapter summarizes and discuss some of the more important findings reported throughout the study. 6.1 WHO ARE TOWNHOUSE OWNERS? The study found that a broad range of people own townhouses i n the Vancouver area. The average respondent was over 40 years old and had a household income of about $30,000 a year. The study included young singles, young married couples, families of a l l ages, older couples, and older single people. Therefore, the common market wisdom that townhouses are only for f i r s t owners and "empty nesters" was not supported by t h i s study. There were subs t a n t i a l numbers of f i r s t owners but there were also people of a l l ages who had moved from t h e i r own single family houses. 6.2 ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOWNHOUSE PROJECTS WHICH AFFECT OWNERS'  SATISFACTION? A v a r i e t y of private outdoor space treatments were represented i n the sample, ranging from the paved, private yards i n Mariners V i l l a g e to the small open patios at Greentree V i l l a g e . A number of conclusions can be drawn from residents' evaluations of t h e i r yards: 1. Yards of about 300 square feet were s a t i s f a c t o r y to most residents. Completely enclosed yards seem smaller. 2. Patios less than 10 x 10" were too small, e s p e c i a l l y i f they were b u i l t into a recess i n the b u i l d i n g . I f a c t i v i t i e s s p i l l o f f the patio onto grass areas, the patios seemed larger. 3. Concrete patios were s a t i s f a c t o r y , but t i l e or exposed aggregate was better. 4. Those who had a small lawn wouldn't dream of being without one, but those with paving preferred the paving. Having no grass sounds bleak, but once people have a paved yard, the convenience and low maintenance are popular. - 123 -5. Most people l i k e to garden or "putter" i n t h e i r yards and most are content with the small plots and an assortment of containers. 6. Some people want a degree of privacy not usually available i n townhouses, but a s i g n i f i c a n t number are quite s a t i s f i e d . 7. The t a l l e r and more s o l i d the fence, the better many people l i k e i t . Hedges are preferred to fences. There should be fencing a l l around the yard. 8. Children playing bothers few residents but cats i n yards bothers almost everyone. 9. The best way to s a t i s f y the range of preferences i s to l e t people change t h e i r fences and yards. 6.3 CAN A PERSON'S RATINGS OF HIS YARD AND TOWNHOUSE PROJECT BE PREDICTED  FROM HIS DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, HOUSING BACKGROUND, OR PREFERENCES? General Ratings, Privacy Ratings, and "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" were a l l predicted s u c c e s s f u l l y . Between 20 and 26% of the variance i n ratings was accounted f o r . 1. Preference information was the most useful for pre d i c t i n g a respondent's ratings. People who gave higher General Ratings and Privacy Ratings moved to the townhouse to get a smaller house with less maintanance, did not think of housing as an investment, and thought the back yard was important for children's play. 2. A respondent's housing background affected h i s ratings on the project and his outdoor space (General Ratings) and the privacy of h i s yard (Privacy Ratings). People who had l i v e d i n houses with large yards gave lower privacy ratings than people who had l i v e d i n apartments. 3. Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were the least useful for p r e d i c t i n g r a t i n g s , although younger respondents with higher educations and incomes gave lower General and Privacy Ratings. Women were also more c r i t i c a l of privacy then men. 6.4 UTILITY OF FINDINGS The u t i l i t y of the findings reported here can be i l l u s t r a t e d by a series of recommendations to the groups involved i n designing and managing townhouse outdoor space. Landscape architects are often hired to produce s i t e plans and landscaping plans for townhouse projects, and much of the information i n t h i s - 1 2 4 -s t u d y w i l l p r o v e u s e f u l to them. P l a n n e r s u s u a l l y w r i t e the g u i d e l i n e s w h i c h s e t s t a n d a r d s f o r a c c e p t a b l e p r o j e c t d e s i g n . The i n c l u s i o n o f the r e c o m -m e n d a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e c o u l d improve the q u a l i t y o f the p r i v a t e o u t d o o r s p a c e s . The g r o u p s which manage townhouse p r o j e c t s i n c l u d e p r o f e s s i o n a l management f i r m s and the s t r a t a c o u n c i l s e l e c t e d by r e s i d e n t s , as w e l l as g r o u p s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o o p e r a t i v e and r e n t a l townhouse p r o j e c t s . The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s s t u d y have s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p r o j e c t management. L a s t , some a d v i c e i s ex tended to p r o s p e c t i v e townhouse b u y e r s . L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s One o f the most i m p o r t a n t g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s o f the s t u d y was t h a t a l t h o u g h the d e s i g n o f the p r i v a t e o u t d o o r s p a c e i s not a f a c t o r i n a p e r s o n ' s d e c i s i o n to buy a townhouse , the g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e and l a n d s c a p i n g o f the p r o j e c t a re i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s . Ample p l a n t i n g s o f t r e e s and s h r u b masses i n s c a l e w i t h the h o u s i n g , f u n c t i o n a l and a t t r a c t i v e open s p a c e s , w e l l - d e s i g n e d p a r k i n g and r o a d w a y s , and good s i g n a g e and f u r n i t u r e d e t a i l a re f e a t u r e s w h i c h r e s i d e n t s and p r o s p e c t i v e b u y e r s a p p r e c i a t e . Some o f t h e s e f e a t u r e s are e x p e n s i v e and o n l y the more e x p e n s i v e p r o j e c t s , may have a l l the d e s i g n f e a t u r e s the l a n d -s c a p e a r c h i t e c t would l i k e to i n c l u d e , but b e t t e r d e s i g n i n the m o d e r a t e l y -p r i c e d p r o j e c t s can e n s u r e t h a t e x p e n s i v e p l a n t m a t e r i a l i s u s e d to i t s b e s t e f f e c t . Townhouse y a r d s can be as s m a l l as 15x20 f e e t as l o n g as the paved a r e a i s f u n c t i o n a l . P a t i o s are u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y and need to be l a r g e enough to accommodate g a r d e n f u r n i t u r e , a b a r b e c u e , and some s t o r a g e . P a t i o s s h o u l d be at l e a s t 10x10 f e e t and t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t many p e o p l e would l i k e y a r d s w i t h no g r a s s at a l l . P e o p l e were s a t i s f i e d w i t h the c o n c r e t e p a t i o s i n most p r o j e c t s , a l t h o u g h the more e x p e n s i v e t i l e or e x p o s e d a g g r e g a t e p a t i o s were p o p u l a r w i t h r e s i d e n t s who had them. - 125 -It is c r i t i c a l that privacy fencing be provided on at least two sides of the yard. Few people demanded complete privacy, but most people wanted fencing to control access to t h e i r yard. Fencing is expensive but i t i s c r u c i a l to the q u a l i t y of the private outdoor spaces. If yards are not completely enclosed, pedestrian access to the rear yard areas should be l i m i t e d . Gardening on a small scale was popular among the townhouse owners interviewed. Small planting areas should be provided for flowers and vegetables, and where decks are b u i l t , large planters should be included. Planners The findings i n this study indicate that the recommendations for the s i z e of yards i n multiple housing (about 400 square feet) are acceptable. Patio si z e may be just as important as the s i z e of the yard because patios are used so often. Patios should be a minimum of 10x10 feet and larger i f set back into a b u i l d i n g recess. Guidelines for fencing should set some standards for the " s o l i d i t y " of the fence and not j u s t state a minimum height. I f fences are meant to e s t a b l i s h r e a l privacy then they must be b u i l t so people can't see through them. This may seem obvious, but much of the fencing provided i n townhouse projects does l i t t l e to e s t a b l i s h privacy. Standards for road design should allow for children playing i n project s t r e e t s . Cul-de-sacs and court arrangements are safer than linear layouts. Management The r e s u l t s from the interviews indicate that townhouse management could be improved by better communication with residents and more f l e x i b i l i t y i n allowing a l t e r a t i o n s to yards and fences. Recommendations include the d i s t r i b u t i o n of project rules and regulations to residents as soon as they - 126 -move i n . A description of acceptable fence designs and materials, for example, would inform people of the alter n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e . Better communication about budget matters would prevent some misunderstandings about the costs of land-scape maintenance and other services. More small projects might want to explore the option of self-management. Prospective Townhouse Owners People who have never l i v e d i n a townhouse may not r e a l i z e how important the design of the open space and private outdoor space are i n townhouse projects. Features to look for include privacy i n the back yard, pedestrian patterns along front or back property l i n e s , places ch i l d r e n play, busy streets or project parking areas on the bedroom side of the u n i t , and o r i e n t a t i o n to the sun at the front and back of the u n i t . Recognizing that features outside the house can be as important as the inside can help prospective buyers a n t i c i p a t e what l i v i n g i n the townhouse project w i l l be l i k e . 6.5 FURTHER RESEARCH Several i n t e r e s t i n g side issues have been raised i n the course of the study and some suggestions can be made for further study. 1. Asking people how much they would pay for a suggested improvement may  be more useful than unqualified statements of preference. Many of the features discussed i n this study are expensive and builders and developers need to know i f consumers w i l l accept higher prices to get pools, more fencing, or aggregate paving, for example. Trade-off questions which ask people to choose between a l t e r n a t i v e s with r e a l i s t i c consequences (such as cost) c o l l e c t u s e f u l , p r a c t i c a l information. 2. Resident s a t i s f a c t i o n with townhouse projects may be affected by  project management. A comparison of cooperative townhouse projects with condominium projects l i k e the ones i n this study could demonstrate the importance of communication and resident involvement i n project management. - 127 -3 . R e s i d e n t s o f townhouse p r o j e c t s may be i n t e r e s t e d i n a l a n d s c a p e  a d v i c e s e r v i c e . I n f o r m a t i o n about g r o w i n g a n n u a l s , v e g e t a b l e s , l a w n s , s h r u b s , and t r e e s c o u l d be t a i l o r e d to the e x p o s u r e and s o i l c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o j e c t y a r d s . T h i s s e r v i c e c o u l d be p r o v i d e d by an i n t e r e s t e d r e s i d e n t w i t h h e l p f rom a l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t or a n u r s e r y m a n . 4. What i s the b e s t b a l a n c e between communal open s p a c e and p r i v a t e  s p a c e ? Q u e s t i o n s c o u l d be a s k e d about the amount , f u n c t i o n , and use o f open s p a c e i n townhouse p r o j e c t s and the i n t e r f a c e between communal and p r i v a t e s p a c e . - 128 -Bibliography Bat t l e s , Robert A.M. (1976) Townhouses i n Single Family Areas: Analysis of  Public Attitudes Towards Increasing Density, M.A. Thesis i n Community & Regional Planning, U.B.C. Beck, Robert J . and P. Teasdale (1977) User-Generated Program for Low-Rise  Mult i p l e Dwelling Housing - Summary of a Research Report, University of Montreal. Becker, Franklin (1974) Design for L i v i n g : The Resident's View of M u l t i - Family Housing, Center for Urban Development Research, Cornell U n i v e r s i t y , Ithaca, N.Y. B e l l and Constantinescu (1974) The Housing Game - A Survey of Consumer Preferences i n Medium-Density Housing i n the Greater Vancouver Region, United Way of Vancouver. Broady, Maurice (1966) " S o c i a l Theory i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design", Arena, 81 (Jan. 1966), pp. 149-154. Burnaby Planning Dept. (1974) Mul t i p l e Housing Questionnaire, Burnaby, B.C.. Byrom, Connie (1970) "Privacy and Courtyard Housing", The Architect's Journal, Jan. 14, 1970, p. 101. Byrom, J.B. (1972) Shared Open Space i n Scottish Private Enterprise Housing, Architecture Research Unit, Department of Architecture, U n i v e r s i t y of Edinburgh. Calgary, C i t y of, Planning Dept. (1970) M u l t i - R e s i d e n t i a l Standards ( D r a f t ) , Calgary, A l b e r t a . Chermayeff, Serge and Christopher Alexander (1963) Community and Privacy - Toward a New Architecture of Humanism, Doubleday, New York. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Architecture and Planning D i v i s i o n (1974) User Study of Private Open Spaces i n a Courtyard Housing Project, Working Paper #10, Ottawa. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (1977) Site Planning C r i t e r i a , Ottawa. Condominium Research Associates (1970) National Survey of Condominium Owners. Cooper, Clare (1967) "Fenced Backyard - unfenced frontyard - enclosed front porch", Journal of Housing (1967), 24:5, pp. 268-274. (1970) Resident Attitudes Toward the Environment at St. Francis Square, S.F.: A Summary of the I n i t i a l Findings, Working Paper #126 I n s t i t u t e of Urban & Regional Development, Uni v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at Berkeley. - 129 -(1971) "St. Francis Square: Attitudes of Its Residents", AIA Journal (Dec. 1971) 56:22-27. (1975) Easter H i l l V i l l a g e : Some S o c i a l Implications of Design, The Free Press, N.Y. Department of the Environment (1971) New Housing - A Cleared Area. A Study of  St. Mary's, Oldham, HMSO, Design B u l l e t i n No. 22, London. Eadie, Graeme (1978) "Condominium Owner's and Tenants' P r o f i l e s " i n Hamilton (ed.), Condominiums: A Decade of Experience i n B r i t i s h Columbia, B.C. Real Estate Association, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 75-104. Gatt, Carmel (1978) Privacy i n Private Outdoor Spaces i n Multifamily Housing  Projects, M. of Architecture Thesis, U.B.C. Ganchat, U. P. (1978) Parameters for High Density Urban Housing: The Suburban Metaphor, Harvard Publication Series i n Architecture, Cambridge, Mass. Gilmour, Andrew, et a l . (1970) Low-Rise High Density Housing Study, Univ e r s i t y of Edinburgh, Architecture Research Unit. G r i f f i n , Mary E. (1974) "Mount Hope Courts: A Social-Physical Evaluation", Proceedings of Northeast Undergraduate Conference on Environment and  Behavior, Vogt, Jay W. (ed.), U n i v e r s i t y of Mass, Amherst, Mass., p. 33-49. GVRD Planning Department (1974) Background Paper: Compact Residential  Communities i n the GVRD, Vancouver, B.C. Planning Department (1977a) Survey of Resident Atti t u d e s : Bookside Townhouse Development, (Port Moody, B.C.), Vancouver, B.C. Planning Department (1977b) Survey of Resident A t t i t u d e s : Lynn Va l l e y Coop Townhouse Development, Vancouver, B.C.. Planning Department (1977c) Survey of Resident A t t i t u d e s : Greentree V i l l a g e Phase 1 Townhouses, Vancouver, B.C. Planning Department (1978) Summary Survey of Resident A t t i t u d e s : Edgewater Park duplexes, Vancouver, B.C.. Halkett, Ian P.B. (1978) "The Recreational Use of Private Gardens", Journal of  Leisure Research 10:1 (13-20). H a l l , Edward T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday, Garden C i t y , New York. Harding, Michele, Kerry Wasserman and Andrew Zdanowicz (1975) User Study:  Zero l o t l i n e Concept prepared for Mini s t r y of Housing, Ontario Housing Corporation. Hinshaw, Mark and Kathryn A l l o t t (1972) "Environmental Preferences of Future Housing Consumers", JAIP (Mar. 1972), pp. 102-107. - 130 -Kaiser, Edward J . , S. Weiss, R. Burby and T. Donelly (1970) Neighborhood Environment and Res i d e n t i a l S a t i s f a c t i o n ; A Survey of the Occupants and  Neighborhoods of 166 Single Family Homes i n Greensboro, North Carolina, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel H i l l . Katz, Robert D. (1963) Intensity of Development and L i v a b i l i t y of Multi-Family  Housing Projects: Design Q u a l i t i e s of European and American Housing  Projects, Technical Study TS 7.14, U.S. Gov't P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Wash, D.C. (1966) Design of the Housing Site - A Cri t i q u e of American P r a c t i c e , d i s t r i b u t e d by Small Homes Council-Building Research Council, U. of I l l i n o i s , Urbana, 111. K i f f , Janet (1974) Space Outside the Dwelling Unit: A Review of Selected  Canadian Housing User Studies, Working Paper #7, CMHC Architecture and Planning Professional Standards and Service Group, Ottawa. • (1975) A Review of Municipal and CMHC Requirement for Space About Res i d e n t i a l Buildings, Working Paper #9, CMHC Architecture and Planning Professional Standards and Service Group, Ottawa. Knight, Robert L. and Mark D. Menchik (1974) R e s i d e n t i a l Environmental Attitudes and Preferences: Report of a Questionnaire Survey, I n s t i t u t e for Environmental Studies, U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Koenig, John Franklin (1975) Al t e r n a t i v e Forms of Housing, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C.. Kuper, Barbara (1968) Privacy and Private Housing, Building Design Partnership. Lansing, John B. and G. Hendricks (1967) L i v i n g Patterns and Attitudes i n the  Detroit Region, Technical Report, Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, Detr o i t , Michigan. Lansing, John B., Robert W. Marans and Robert B. Zehner (1970) Planned Res i d e n t i a l Environments, Survey Research Center, I n s t i t u t e for S o c i a l Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Lynch, Kevin (1960) The Image of the Ci t y , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Mann, Thorbjoern (1972) "The Role of Research i n the Development of Performance Standards" i n W.J. M i t c h e l l (ed.), Environmental Design: Research and  Pra c t i c e , Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Environmental Design and Research Association, University of C a l i f o r n i a at Los Angeles. Marshall, Nancy J . (1970) "Environmental Components of Orientations Toward Privacy", Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Environmental Design Research  Association Conference, Archea, L. and C. Eastman, eds., Pittsburgh: Carnegie Meleon Uni v e r s i t y , pp. 316-319. - 131 -Michelson, William (1968) "Most People Don't Want What Architects Want", Transaction, 5:37-43. (1969) Anal y t i c Sampling for Design Information: A Survey, of Housing Experience, Research Paper #21, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. Mi n i s t r y of Housing and Local Government (1967) "Housing at Coventry: A User Reaction Study", O f f i c i a l Architecture and Planning. ( 1 9 6 9 a ) Family Houses at West Ham, Design B u l l e t i n #15, HMSO, London. (1969b) The Family at Home, Design B u l l e t i n #17, HMSO, London. Murray, James and Henry F l i e s s (1970) Family Housing - A Study of Horizontal  Multiple Housing Techniques for the Canadian Housing and Design Council. Newman, Oscar (1972) Defensible Space - Crime Prevention Through Urban Design, Macmillan, New York. Norcross, Carl (1973) Townhouses and Condominiums: Residents' Likes and  Pis l i k e s , I n s t i t u t e Special Report, Washington, D.C.: Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . North Vancouver, Ci t y of (1976) Open Space C r i t e r i a for Low and Medium Density  Comprehensive Residential Developments, North Vancouver, B.C. Ottawa, C i t y of, Planning Branch (1977) Res i d e n t i a l Design Guidelines (Draft) Ottawa, Ontario. Pa v l i c h , Dennis J . (1978) "The Strata T i t l e s Act" i n Hamilton (ed.) Condominiums: A Decade of Experience i n B.C., B.C. Real Estate Association, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 33-73. Perin, Constance (1977) Everything i n Its Place: Social Order and Land Use i n  America, Princeton University Press. Proshansky, H., W. I t t e l s o n and L. R i v l i n (1970) "Freedom of Choice and Behavior i n a Physical Setting" i n Proshansky et a l . (eds.) Environmental  Psychology, Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Proshansky, Harold M. (1974) "Environmental Psychology and the Design Professions" i n Lang et a l . (eds), Designing for Human Behavior, pp. 72-80. Rapoport, A. (1969) House Form and Culture, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. S a i l e , David G., et a l . (1971) A c t i v i t i e s and Attitudes of Public Housing  Residents: Rockford, I l l i n o i s , Committee on Housing Research and Development, Uni v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s at Urbana-Champaign. - 132 -Sandvik, Gl o r i a J . , Barbara B. Shellenbarger and Margaret M. Steveson (1973) Resident Evaluation of Four Planned Unit Developments: Eugene, Oregon, Report presented to the Eugene Planning Department, Eugene, Oregon. Sanoff, H. and M. Sawhney (1972) "Residential L i v a b i l i t y : A Study of User Attitudes Toward Their Residential Environment" i n W.J. M i t c h e l l (ed.) Environmental Design: Research and Pra c t i c e , Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Environmental Design and Research Association, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at Los Angeles. Shankland and Cox Assoc. (1967) "Front and Back: Problems of the Threshold" The A r c h i t e c t s ' Journal, Nov. 22, 1967, pp. 1307-1312. Sommer, Robert (1969) Personal Space - The Behavioral Basis of Design, Pre n t i c e - H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. (1972) Design Awareness, Rinehart Press, Corte Madera, C a l i f o r n i a . U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan Survey Research Center (1970) Interviewers' Manual, revised e d i t i o n , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Vischer Skaburskis Planners (1980a) False Creek, Area 6, Phase 1: Post- Occupancy Evaluation, Volume 1: Executive Summary, prepared for CMHC, Vancouver, B.C. (1980b) False Creek, Area 6, Phase 1: Post- Occupancy Evaluation, Volume 2: F i n a l Report, prepared for CHMC, Vancouver, B.C. Walkey/Olson Architects (1976) Privacy i n Compact Housing, prepared for the GVRD Planning Department, Vancouver, B.C. Whyte, William H. (1964) Cluster Development, American Conservation Association, New York. W i l l i s , Margaret (1963) "Designing for Privacy", Architects Journal 137 pp. 1137-1141, 1181-1187, 1231-1236. Willmott, P. (1962) "Housing density and town design i n a new town", Town  Planning Review 33:2 (July 1962), pp. 115-27. Z e i s e l , John (1975) Sociology and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design, Russell Sage Foundation. Z e i s e l , John and Mary E. G r i f f i n (1975) Charlesview Housing: A Diagnostic  Evaluation, Architecture Research O f f i c e , Graduate School of Design, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y . - 133 -APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES - 134 -Introduction Hello. My name i s Barbara Greig and I'm a graduate student at UBC. I'm conducting a townhouse study and t h i s complex was chosen for interviews. F i r s t , can I ask you 2 quick questions? 1. Do you rent or own t h i s unit? rent own 2. How long have you l i v e d here? less than 3 mo. more than 3 mo. Rejection statement: I'm only speaking to people who ( l ) own t h e i r unit (2) have l i v e d here more than 3 months, so I won't need to speak with you. Thank you anyway. Goodbye. I'm a student of landscape architecture and I'm studying the private gardens that are b u i l t with townhouses. I'm asking people what they l i k e and what they don't l i k e , what they'd l i k e to change, etc. so we can learn how to design these gardens b e t t e r . The interview takes about 25 minutes and a l l information w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l . Can we do the interview now? yes no or s h a l l I come back later ? - 135 -1. In general, how would you rate t h i s project? Response Frequency % Respondents Very poor 0 0.0 Poor 0 0.0 So-so 3 3.3 Fa i r 9 10.0 Good 53 58.9 Excellent 25 27.8 90 100.0 2. How would you rate the inside of your house? Very poor 0 0.0 Poor 0 0.0 So-so 10 11.1 F a i r 15 16.7 Good 49 54.4 Excellent 16 17.8 90 100.0 3. How would you rate your outdoor space? Very poor 0 0.0 Poor 5 5.6 So-so 7 7.8 F a i r 14 15.6 Good 49 54.4 Excellent 15 16.7 90 100.0 4. In general, how would you rate your back yard? Very poor 0 0.0 Poor 6 6.7 So-so 6 6.7 F a i r 18 20.0 Good 45 50.0 Excellent 15 16.7 90 100.0 5. As far as the size goes, i s i t : Much too small 8 8.9 A l i t t l e too small 30 33.3 About right 52 57.8 A l i t t l e too b i g 0 0.0 Much too b i g _0 0.0 90 100.0 - 136 -Do you have a fence? Response Yes No I f yes, would you say i t i s : Very poor Poor So-so F a i r Good Excellent 8. What do you think a back fence should do? Mark the edges of my property and nothing else Keep intruders and pets out or make a safe place for children Give privacy from the neighbors on the sides but open at the end Act as a s o l i d wall to make a completely private space Other 9. Would you say your back yard should be: Much more private A l i t t l e more private Just as i t is A l i t t l e less private Much less private Frequency % Respondents 72 18 90 0 0 3 12 38 19 72 0 14 42 33 _1 90 4 32 54 0 _0 90 80.0 20.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 13.3 42.2 21.1 100.0 0.0 15.6 46.7 36.6 1.1 100.0 4.4 35.6 60.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 10. Which of these things, i f any, are problems here? Frequency of % % "Yes" Problem "Yes" responses Respondents Responses Noise from neighbors 9 10.0 11.8 Noise from t r a f f i c 12 13.3 15.8 People walking by too close 10 11.1 13.2 People seeing i n from t h e i r 13 14.4 17.1 houses and yards Children and pets wandering i n 23 25.6 30.3 Other 9 10.0 11.8 76 84.4 100.0 - 137 -11. How private is your yard from people seeing in? Not private at a l l 11 12.2 Not very private 16 17.8 Somewhat private 48 53.3 Very private 15 16.7 90 100.0 12. How much does this bother you? A l o t 4 4.4 Some 22 24.4 Not much 28 31.1 Not at a l l 36 40.0 90 100.0 13. Are you concerned about your family making too much noise outside? Not concerned at a l l 13 14.4 Not very concerned 13 14.4 Somewhat concerned 48 53.3 Very concerned 16_ 17.8 90 100.0 14. Does anyone i n your family l i k e to garden? Yes 71 78.9 No 19 21.1 90 100.0 15. Have you grown vegetables i n th i s yard? Yes 43 47.8 No 47 52.2 90 100.0 16. Is the size of your p a t i o : Much too b i g 0 0.0 A l i t t l e too b i g 0 0.0 About right 48 53.3 A l i t t l e too small 31 34.4 Much too small 11 12.2 90 100.0 17. Are you s a t i s f i e d with the patio being (material) or would you rather have something else? S a t i s f i e d 73 81.1 Not s a t i s f i e d 17 18.9 90 100.0 - 138 -18. What do you have on your patio? Frequency of 20. Feature "Yes" responses % respondents Water tap 70 77.8 Gas 0 0.0 E l e c t r i c i t y 65 72.2 Some form of roof 20 22.2 Fence or screen 82 91.1 Planter boxes 15 16.7 Laundry l i n e 2 2.2 Storage shed 17 18.9 271 301.1 Ld you l i k e to add any of these things? Response Frequency % Respondents Yes 52 57.8 No 38 42.2 90 100.0 ch would you l i k e to add? Frequency of Feature "Yes" responses % respondents Water tap 15 16.7 Gas 1 1.1 E l e c t r i c i t y 16 11.1 Some form of roof 11 8.9 Fence or screen 8 2.2 Planter boxes 14 5.6 Laundry l i n e 11 8.9 Storage shed 10 4.4 86 58.9 21, Is there anything you have that you could just as well do without? Response Frequency % Respondents Yes No 2 88 90 22. Your way to the patio now goes through the (room) . Kitchen Dining room L i v i n g room Other 2 9 72 _7 90 2.2 97.8 100.0 2.2 10.0 80.0 7.8 100.0 - 139 -23. Would you rather i t went through another room l i k e the dining room or kitchen? Response Frequency % Respondents Yes No 37 53 90 41.1 58.9 100.0 24. Which would you prefer? Kitchen Dining room L i v i n g room Other 25 2 1 _9 37 67.6 5.4 2.7 24.3 100.0 25. Beyond the patio, would you l i k e to have; Much less space A l i t t l e less space Just as i t i s A l i t t l e more space Much more space 0 0 56 26 _8 90 0.0 0.0 62.2 28.9 8.9 100.0 26. I f you could have that amount of space would you want i t i n : Mostly grass with small shrub or flower 38 42.2 beds \ Some grass and some shrub and flower beds 19 21.1 A l i t t l e grass and mostly shrub and flower 6 6.7 beds No grass 12 13.3 More paving and some grass 15 16.7 90 100.0 27. Which of these things would you l i k e to have i n your i d e a l back yard? Frequency of % % "Yes" Feature "Yes" responses Respondents Responses Area for play equipment 25 27.8 11.5 Space for a vegetable garden 56 62.2 25.8 Pond or fountain 16 17.8 7.4 F r u i t trees 47 52.2 21.7 Benches 28 31.1 12.9 Small greenhouse 38 42.2 17.5 Other 7 7.8 3.2 217 241.1 100.0 - 140 -What does your family use the back yard for? A c t i v i t y Frequency of "Yes" responses % Respondents % "Yes" Responses Eating, cooking 77 85.6 18.3 Sunbathing, just s i t t i n g 85 94.4 20.2 Growing flowers or vegetables 71 78.9 16.9 Having friends over 71 78.9 16.9 Children's play 31 34.4 7.4 Working on messy projects 41 45.6 9.7 Storage 27 30.0 6.4 Drying laundry 14 15.6 3.3 Other 4 4.4 0.9 421 467.7 100.0 do you think i t ' s important to have some outdoor space of your own? Frequency of % % "Yes' Reason "Yes" responses Respondent! 3 Respons* Safe children's play 35 38.9 8.3 For other family a c t i v i t i e s 68 75.6 12.0 (eating, cooking, s i t t i n g , etc.) For a nice view from inside 51 56.7 12.0 For some place to go outside and 73 81.1 17.2 s i t for a few minutes For a private or quiet place 73 81.1 17.2 outside my house To grow flowers and vegetables 63 70.0 14.9 For a piece of land that I own 34 37.8 8.0 For extra storage space 22 24.4 5.2 Other 5 5.6 1.2 424 472.0 100.0 When do you get sun i n the back yard (which d i r e c t i o n does your back yard face)? Response East South West North Frequency % Respondents 34 25 21 10 90 37.8 27.8 23.3 11.1 100.0 Would you prefer to face another way? Yes No Ambivalent 24 64 _2 90 26.7 71.1 2.2 100.0 - 141 -32. Which way would you prefer to face? Response East South West North Other 33. Do you have a private space i n front? Frequency % Respondents 3 17 3 0 _3 26 11.5 65.4 11.5 7.7 3.9 100.0 Yes No 60 30 90 66.7 33.3 100.0 34. Do you have a balcony? Yes No 27 31.0 60 69.0 87* 100.0 (* 3 missing cases) 35. Over a l l , how would you rate your front area? Very poor Poor So-so F a i r Good Excellent (* 0 3 7 15 29 _5 59* 1 missing case ) 36. Overa l l , how would you rate your front balcony? Very poor Poor So-so F a i r Good Excellent 0 1 3 7 9 _6 26* (* 1 missing case) 37. As far as the size of the front goes, i s i t : Much too small A l i t t l e too small About right A l i t t l e too big Much too b i g 6 15 38 0 _0 59 0.0 5.1 11.9 25.4 49.1 8.5 100.0 0.0 3.9 11.5 26.9 34.6 23.1 100.0 10.2 25.4 64.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 142 -38. As far as the size of the balcony goes, i s i t : Response Frequency % Respondents Much too small 1 3.8 A l i t t l e too small 6 23.1 About r i g h t 19 73.1 A l i t t l e too big 0 0.0 Much too big _0 0.0 26 100.0 39. Is there any fence or screening i n the front yard? Yes 27 45.8 No 32 54.2 59 100.0 40. Would you change i t i n any way? Yes 17 29.3 No 41 70.7 58 100.0 41. Would you change the balcony screening i n any way? Yes 10 38.5 No 16 61.5 26 100.0 42. What do you think a front area should be for? Frequency of % "Yes" Function "Yes" responses Respondents Responses A t t r a c t i v e entrance 52 88.1 46.0 To separate the front entry from 36 61.0 31.8 the sidewalk or street Another private area to s i t out 19 32.2 16.8 i n , for eating, c h i l d r e n 1 's play, etc. Storage 3 5.1 2.7 Other 3 5.1 2.7 113 191.5 100.0 43. Would you say your front area should be; Response Frequency % Respondents Much less private A l i t t l e less private As is A l i t t l e more private Much more private 0 0 44 12 _3 59 0.0 0.0 74.6 20.3 5.1 100.0 - 143 -Would you say your balcony should be: Response Much less private A l i t t l e less private As is A l i t t l e more private Much more private Frequency % Respondents 0 0 20 4 _2 26 0.0 0.0 76.9 15.4 7.7 100.0 What does your family use the front area for? Frequency of % % "Yes" Use "Yes" responses Respondents Responses Children's play Storage Eating, cooking Sunbathing, just s i t t i n g Having friends over Working on messy projects Growing flowers and vegetables Other 12 20.3 11.0 6 10.2 5.5 12 20.3 11.0 22 37.3 20.2 9 15.2 8.2 6 10.2 5.5 38 64.4 34.9 4 6.8 3.7 109 174.7 100.0 What does your family use the balcony for? Children's play 1 3.8 2.7 Storage 6 23.1 16.2 Eating, cooking 2 7.7 5.5 Sunbathing, just s i t t i n g 13 50.0 35.1 Having friends over 1 3.8 2.7 Working on messy projects 2 7.7 5.4 Growing flowers and vegetables 11 42.3 29.7 Other 1 3.8 2.7 37 142.2 100.0 Does t h i s project have a place for chi l d r e n to play? Response Frequency % Respondents Yes 59 66.3 No 30 33.7 89* 100.0 (* 1 missing case) How often do your ch i l d r e n play there? Never 1 7.7 Some 3 23.1 Often _9 69.2 13 100.0 - 144 -49. Does the noise from ch i l d r e n playing ever bother you? Response Yes No Occasionally 50. Is there any common area for adults? Yes No Frequency % Respondents 13 69 _7 89 50 40 90 51. Do you use i t ? Project has re c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s Use Don't use Project has no rec r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s Would use Would not use 35 15 50 26 14 40 52. I see that the house here are (describe s i t e plan) change this i n any way? Yes No 53. How much is the fee for maintenance here? No answer $30-39 $40-49 $50-59 $60-69 $70-79 28 62 90 3 38 18 20 9 _2 90 14.6 77.5 7.9 100.0 55.6 44.4 100.0 70.0 30.0 100.0 65.0 35.0 100.0 Would you l i k e to 31.1 68.9 100.0 3.3 42.2 20.0 22.2 10.0 2.2 100.0 - 145 -54. What does that include? 55. Number of Items Mentioned Fre quency % Respondents 0 1 1.1 2 2 2.2 3 3 3.3 4 21 23.3 5 17 18.9 6 20 22.2 7 7 7.8 8 12 13.3 9 7 7.8 90 100.0 you s a t i s f i e d with the work and how much i t costs? Response Frequency % Respondents Yes 64 71.1 No 5 5.6 Ambivalent 21 23.3 90 100.0 56. What rules do you have here about changing your house and garden? Are you s a t i s f i e d with these rules? Do you think these rules are a good idea? No Yes Ambivalent 2 76 12 90 2.2 84.4 13.3 100.0 57. Have you changed anything outside since you moved in? Yes No 59 31 90 65.6 34.4 100.0 58. I f money was no object, what kind of housing would you choose? % Respondents for each % Total Frequency housing type respondents Single family With land i n the country On a large l o t i n the suburbs On a medium-sized l o t i n the c i t y On a large l o t i n the c i t y On a small l o t i n the suburbs 69.0 17 22 20 2 _1 62 27.4 35.5 32.3 3.2 1.6 100.0 - 146 -Duplex In the suburbs In the c i t y Frequency % Respondents for each % Total housing type respondents 50.0 50.0 100.0 2.2 Townhouse In the c i t y In the suburbs In a small project In a large project i n the suburbs In a small project i n the suburbs In a small project i n the c i t y 22.2 5 2 2 3 5 _3 20 25.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 25.0 15.0 100.0 Apartment Low r i s e High r i s e Other TOTAL 1 2 3 _3 90 33.0 67.0 100.0 3.3 3.3 100.0 59. Would you want to rent or own? Response Own Rent Ambivalent 60. Where was the l a s t place you lived? Vancouver Burnaby Richmond North Vancouver, West Vancouver Other Lower Mainland Other B.C. Other Frequency % Respondents 84 4 _2 90 36 13 12 9 11 2 _7 90 93.3 4.4 2.2 100.0 40.0 14.4 13.5 10.0 12.2 2.2 7.7 100.0 - 147 -61. What kind of house was that? Single family home 33 36.7 Duplex or t r i p l e x 8 8.9 Townhouse 5 5.6 Low r i s e apartment 31 34.4 High r i s e apartment 10 11.1 Other _3 3.3 90 100.0 62. Did you own or rent? Own 28 31.1 Rent 61 67.8 Lived with parents _1 1.1 90 100.0 63. Did you have a private yard there? or a balcony? Was i t large or small? None 9 10.0 Small balcony 12 13.3 Medium balcony 8 8.9 Large balcony 7 7.8 Small yard 9 10.0 Medium yard 13 14.4 Large yard 3^2 35.6 90 100.0 64. Have you ever lived i n a townhouse before? Yes 22 24.4 No 68 75.6 90 100.0 65. What kind of houses did you grow up in? Single family 75 83.2 Single family and townhouse 5 5.6 Single family and rented house or apartment 5 5.6 Rented apartment and/or house _5 5.6 90 100.0 66. What kinds of houses have you lived i n since then? None 1 1.1 Single family 10 11.2 Single family and townhouse 3 3.3 Single family and rented house or apartment 37 41.1 Rented apartment and/or house 36 40.0 Other _3 3.3 90 100.0 - 148 -67. Why did you decide to move out of your l a s t house? Frequency of % % of "Yes" Reason "Yes" responses Respondents Responses Changed job 7 7.8 3.7 Change i n family size 20 22.2 10.6 Wanted to own or e s t a b l i s h equity 46 51.1 24.5 Wanted better neighborhood 13 14.4 6.9 Wanted location closer to job or 13 14.4 6.9 transportation Wanted house with yard 14 15.6 7.5 Wanted bigger or better house 27 30.0 14.4 Wanted smaller house with less 16 17.8 8.5 maintenance Wanted less expensive house 4 4.4 2.1 Other 28 31.1 14.9 188 157.8 100.0 did you choose t h i s house? Reasons to do with project General appearance of project 57 63.3 25.2 Size of project - large or small 14 15.6 6.3 Location - close to job or 49 54.4 21.7 transportation Good neighborhood 36 40.0 15.9 Project features (underground 32 35.6 14.1 parking, play f a c i l i t i e s , pool, etc.) Wanted a townhouse 33 36.7 14.6 Other 5 5.6 2.2 226 251.2 100.0 Reasons to do with unit A v a i l a b i l i t y 36 40.0 12.8 Price 62 68.9 22.1 P o t e n t i a l for investment 26 28.9 9.3 Inside of house - size and 63 70.0 22.4 arrangement of rooms Outdoor space - design or s i z e 36 40.0 12.8 of yard, patio, etc. Good location within project 57 63.3 20.3 Other 1 1.1 0.3 281 312.2 100.0 - 149 -69. How long do you plan to stay? Response Less than 1 year 1- 2 years 2- 5 years More than 5 years Other Frequency % Respondents 15 16.7 10 11.1 32 35.6 32 35.6 J . 1.1 90 100.0 70. Why w i l l you move? Frequency of % % of "Yes' Reason "Yes" responses Respondents Responses Change i n job or retirement 21 23.3 12.9 Change i n family size 20 22.2 12.3 Want better neighborhood 7 7.8 4.3 Want better neighbors 5 5.6 3.1 Want location closer to job or 8 8.9 4.9 transportation Want bigger or better yard 30 33.3 18.4 Wanter bigger or better house 43 47.8 26.4 Want smaller house 7 7.8 4.3 Want less expensive house 2 2.2 1.1 Other 20 22.2 12.3 163 147.8 100.0 : w i l l you look for i n your next home? Frequency of % % of "Yes Feature "Yes" responses Respondents Responses P a r t i c u l a r type of house 85 94.4 19.6 (single family, duplex, townhouse, etc.) Price 54 60.0 12.4 P o t e n t i a l for investment 32 35.6 7.4 A v a i l a b i l i t y 16 17.8 3.7 Good neighborhood 61 67.8 14.1 Good location close to job or 48 53.3 11.0 transportation Inside of house - size or 69 76.7 15.9 arrangement of rooms Design or size of lot/yard 62 68.9 14.3 Other 7 7.8 1.6 434 482.3 100.0 72. Do you have any children? Response Yes No Frequency % Respondents 52 38 90 57.7 42.2 100.0 - 150 -73. Age of oldest c h i l d Age Frequency % of Older Children 1 4 7.7 2 3 5.8 3 4 7.7 4 1 1.9 5 3 5.8 6 1 1.9 8 3 5.8 9 4 7.7 11 2 3.8 12 2 3.8 13 5 9.6 14 1 1.9 15 1 1.9 16 1 1.9 17 2 3.8 18 2 3.8 19 3 5.8 20 2 3.8 21 2 3.8 22 2 3.8 23 1 1.9 24 3 5.8 52 100.0 74. Age of youngest c h i l d Age Frequency % of Younger Children 1 4 17.4 3 1 4.3 4 3 13.0 5 1 4.3 7 4 17.4 8 3 13.0 9 1 4.3 11 2 8.7 16 1 4.3 17 1 4.3 19 1 4.3 20 1 4.3 23 100.0 - 151 -75. So how many people l i v e here? 76. Total Frequency % Respondents 1 10 11.1 2 30 33.3 3 25 27.9 4 22 24.4 5 2 2.2 6 1 1.1 90 100.0 old are you? Age Frequency % Respondents 20-24 4 4.4 25-29 9 10.0 30-34 26 28.9 35-39 10 11.1 40-44 9 10.0 45-49 9 10.0 50-54 6 6.7 55-59 6 6.7 60-64 6 6.7 65-69 4 4.4 70-74 0 0.0 75-79 1 1.1 90 100.0 :h category describes your annual household income before taxes? Response Frequency % Respondents Less than $10,000 3 3.3 $10-15,000 11 12.2 $15-20,000 10 11.1 $20-25,000 14 15.6 $25-30,000 19 21.1 $30-50,000 24 26.7 $50-80,000 5 5.6 More than $80,000 1 1.1 No answer 3 3.3 90 100.0 - 152 -78. Which category describes your education? Response Frequency % Respondents Males Grade 8 7 14.4 Some high school 5 5.6 Finished high school 11 12.2 Some vocational or technical school 7 7.8 Finished vocational or technical school 14 15.6 Some college 15 16.7 Finished college 11 12.2 Some post graduate work 2 2.2 Finished post graduate work 12 13.3 83 100.0 Females Grade 8 5 8.9 Some high school 6 6.7 Finished high school 25 27.8 Some vocational or technical school 5 5.6 Finished vocational or technical school 7 7.8 Some college 15 16.7 Finished college 13 14.4 Some post graduate work 5 5.6 Finished post graduate work _6 6.7 83 100.0 78. Sex of respondent Male 32 35.6 Female 5_8 64.4 90 100.0 1979 B.C. Assessment Authority Valuation of Units ( i n thousands of dollars) $37 10 11.1 39 10 11.1 41 10 11.1 43 10 11.1 45 10 11.1 55 20 22.2 65 5 5.6 67 10 11.1 100 5 5.6 90 100.0 - 153 -Age of Project ( i n months) Age Frequency % Respondents 24 10 11.1 40 10 11.1 48 10 11.1 60 20 22.2 84 10 11.1 96 10 11.1 97 10 11.1 99+ 10 11.1 90 100.0 Size of Patio i n Square Feet 0 3 3.3 32 1 1.1 60 10 11.1 64 10 11.1 72 21 23.3 144 21 23.3 200 12 13.3 225 2 2.2 300 10 11.1 90 100.0 Residence Time ( i n months) 3-6 13 14.5 6-12 4 4.4 12-24 22 24.4 24-36 17 19.0 36-48 10 11.1 48-60 13 14.5 60-72 1 1.1 72-84 3 3.3 84-96 4 4.4 96+ _3 3.3 90 100.0 - 154 -APPENDIX 2 LETTER AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS SENT TO RESPONDENTS - 156 -Y a r d s and P a t i o s Most p e o p l e were q u i t e s a t i s f i e d w i t h the s i z e o f t h e i r y a r d s . P a t i o s were f r e q u e n t l y r a t e d as too s m a l l . The s i z e recommended f o r p a t i o s i s a t l e a s t 10x10 f e e t , w i t h no w a l l s or f e n c e s e n c l o s i n g the s i d e s o f the p a t i o . P a t i o s w h i c h a r e s u r r o u n d e d by g r a s s on at l e a s t two s i d e s a r e e a s i e r to u s e b e c a u s e a c t i v i t i e s c a n " s p i l l o f f " onto the g r a s s . P r i v a c y P e o p l e d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r i v a c y i n t h e i r b a c k y a r d s , and the y a r d s s t u d i e d ranged f rom open ones w i t h v e r y l i t t l e p r i v a c y to y a r d s w i t h h i g h f e n c i n g a l l a r o u n d . The recommendat ion made was t h a t f e n c e s s h o u l d be b u i l t so p e o p l e can e a s i l y change them to make them more or l e s s p r i v a t e . N o i s e , C h i l d r e n , and P e t s N o i s e was n o t a p r o b l e m i n most p r o j e c t s u n l e s s t h e r e was a b u s y r o a d n e a r the h o u s e s . Few p e o p l e were b o t h e r e d by the n o i s e o f c h i l d r e n p l a y i n g i n t h e p r o j e c t s . C o m p l a i n t s about c a t s coming i n the y a r d s were common i n s e v e r a l p r o j e c t s . Management Most r e s i d e n t s were s a t i s f i e d w i t h the r u l e s and f e e s o f t h e i r p r o j e c t . Most p e o p l e knew s e v e r a l o f the t h i n g s t h e i r m o n t h l y f e e p a i d f o r and most thought the l a n d s c a p e m a i n t e n a n c e was done w e l l . The recommendat ion made was t h a t s t r a t a c o u n c i l s s h o u l d d i s t r i b u t e a summary o f t h e r u l e s about c h a n g i n g f e n c e s and y a r d s and d e s c r i b i n g the k i n d o f f e n c e s t h a t c o u l d be pu t u p , so t h a t a l l r e s i d e n t s would know what was a l l o w e d . - 157 -APPENDIX 3 TOWNHOUSES IN FOUR MUNICIPALITIES This l i s t represents a l l occupied townhouses i n the four m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n August 1979. A number of projects have been b u i l t since that time, especia i n Vancouver. The Vancouver l i s t i n g s are organized by l o c a l neighborhood planning areas for convenience (see map next page). - 158 -WEST V A N C O U V E R Ladncr Neighborhood Areas of Lower Mainland Municipalities - 159 -TOWNHOUSES IN FOUR MUNICIPALITIES Included Number from Sampling in Sample 3 Frame*-VANCOUVER West End Number Date 1979 BCAA Strathcona Grandview-Woodland Address of Units Tenure 0 B u i l t Valuation 1-4/1509 Harwood St. 4 Strata (VR 152) pre-1974 $58,000 English Bay V i l l a g e Davie at Denman 10 Strata 1979 $125,-1: 610 Jervis St. 9 ren t a l pre-1974 917 W. Beach St. 19 rental pre-1974 168-176 Powell St. 17 ren t a l pre-1974 616-620 E. Georgia St. 3 Strata (VR 317) 1976 $45,500 730 Union St. 7 coop 1975 $59,000 831-835 Union St. 3 Strata (VR 303) 1976 $6,800 833-837 Prior St. 3 Strata (VR 302) 1976 $45,000 811-815 Prior St. 3 Strata (VR 301) 1976 $6,800 701-705 Union St. 3 Strata (VR 319) 1976. $6,800 546-554 Union St. 5 Strata (VR 418) 1977 $48,000 402-480 Reefer St. 6 rental pre-1974 517 E. Union St. 6 rental pre-1974 721 Reefer St. 12 re n t a l pre-1974 816-834 Hawks St. 9 rental pre-1974 800-816 Hawks St. 7 re n t a l pre-1974 730-734 Union St. 8 Strata (VR 356) 1974 $6,100 652 Reefer St. 3 Strata (VR 328) 1976 $45,500 532, 536 E. Prior St. 6 rental pre-1974 100 Semiin Dr. 12 re n t a l 1977 150 Semiin Dr. 12 ren t a l 1977 200 Semlin Dr. 12 rental 1977 aAn asterisk appears i n this column i f the project was one of the nine chosen for the sample ''The number a r b i t r a r i l y assigned to projects i n the sampling frame. I n e l i g i b l e projects have no number c S t r a t a t i t l e ownership, r e n t a l , or coop. I f strata t i t l e , the Land Registry O f f i c e Strata Pla number is given i n parentheses. Number from Included Sampling in Sample Frame Address 1350-1360 Franklin St. 208-222 N. Garden St. 2100-2116 Eton St. 2165 Oxford St. 115-127 S. Garden St. 105-135 N. Templeton St. 102-118 S. V i c t o r i a St. 1934 Triumph St. 2034-2036 E. Triumph St. 105-117 S. Lakewood Dr. 2198 Triumph St. 2280 E. Triumph St. 137 Garden St. 2080-2090 E. Pender St. 2066 E. Triumph St. 1624 E. Georgia St. 1055-1095 S. V i c t o r i a St. 1892-1896 E. Napier St. 1505-1523 Charles St. 1208-1210 S. Salisbury St. 1555 Woodland St. 1906 E. Grant St. 1908-1942 Woodland Dr. 2008-2014 V i c t o r i a Dr. Ha stings-Sunrise 26 N. Garden St. 2550 Adanac St. Ren f rew-Co1lingwood 5512 Tyne St. Kil l a r n e y 5702-5798 Rupert St. 1 3150-3180 E. 58th 3240-3280 E. 58th 3350 E. 54th 1 6 0 -Number Date 1979 BCAA Units Tenure B u i l t 4 re n t a l pre-1974 7 rental pre-1974 4 ren t a l pre-1974 8 rental pre-1974 5 ren t a l pre-1974 5 rental pre-1974 5 ren t a l pre-1974 14 rental pre-1974 5 ren t a l pre-1974 4 rental pre-1974 5 ren t a l pre-1974 4 rental pre-1974 3 ren t a l pre-1974 8 rental pre-1974 4 ren t a l pre-1974 4 rental pre-1974 3 re n t a l pre-1974 5 rental pre-1974 4 ren t a l pre-1974 5 rental pre-1974 32 ren t a l pre-1974 8 rental pre-1974 4 ren t a l pre-1974 4 rental pre-1974 5 ren t a l pre-1974 L25 coop (Adanac Coop) 1977 29 ren t a l 1979 36 r e n t a l pre-1974 104 Strata (VR 111) 1974 $55-66,000 140 ren t a l pre-1974 100 rental pre-1974 161 -Number from Included Sampling in Sample Frame Address Number of Units Tenure Date B u i l t 1979 BCAA Valuation 2 3405-3477 E. 49th 150 Strata (VR 53) pre-1974 $40,000 * 3672 E. 49th and 6600-6900 Arlington St. 3550-3650 E. 49th 110 132 Strata coop (Decosmos Vi l l a g e ) 1972 6655-6696 Arlington St. 8 rental 1975 6705-6805 Arlington St. 14 Strata (VR 234) 1975 $55,000 7100 Champlain Cres. 150 coop (Kanata) 1975 3220 Rosemont Dr. 22 Strata (VR 228) 1975 $60,000 3300 Rosemont Dr. 16 Strata (VR 213) 1975 $58,000 Champlain Heights Enclave 18 66 coop (La Petite Maison) 1979 Champlain Heights Enclave 19 105 ren t a l 1976 Victoria-Fraserview 2550 Waverly St. 180 ren t a l pre-1974 Kensington-Cedar Cott age • 719 E. 31st 28 ren t a l 1978 Sunset 6265 Knight 132 r e n t a l pre-1974 805-997 E. 52nd 22 rental pre-1974 1003-1089 E. 52nd 32 re n t a l pre-1974 Riley Park 219-225 E. 21st 4 ren t a l pre-1974 10 460 W. 16th 31 Strata (VR 449) 1977 $46,000 430 W. 16th 30 ren t a l 1976 Mount Pleasant 2811 Alberta St. 4 ren t a l % pre-1974 2880-2882 Manitoba St. 4 rental pre-1974 301 W. 15th 6 re n t a l pre-1974 2932-2942 Sophia St. 6 rental pre-1974 2832-2854 St. George St. 6 re n t a l pre-1974 589-593 E. 13th 4 rental pre-1974 3080-3096 Alberta St. 8 Strata (VR 546) 1974 $40-50,000 Fairview 1129-1149 and 20 Strata (VR 332) 1974 $69,000 1159-1175 W. 8th - 162 -Included i n Sample Number from Sampling Frame Address 1541-1551 W. 12th 1002-1018 W. 10th 941 W. 13th 2888 W. Heather St. 525 W. 14th 1163-1177 W. 7th 838-848 W. 7th 1063 W. 7th 1132-1136 W. 7th 1181-1199 W. 7th 995 W. 7th 1024 W. 7th 870 W. 7th 1135-1155 W. 7th False Creek - Enclave 3 Pel. 4 False Creek - Enclave 2 Pel. 2 False Creek - Enclave 5 False Creek - Enclave 6 Spruce Neighborhood (Enclave 7, P e l . 17) False Creek - Enclave 1 Pel. 11 False Creek - Enclave 1 Pel. 11 Heather Neighborhood (Enclave 4) False Creek - Enclave 7 Pel. 8 Number of Units 4 12 14 7 4 6 6 8 3 20 15 6 66 19 56 46 88 82 48 61 37 48 50 Tenure Strata (VR 416) rental r e n t a l Strata (VR 340) ren t a l Strata (VR 531) ren t a l Strata (VR 544) ren t a l Strata (VR 447) ren t a l rental r e n t a l Strata (VR 491) coop (Creek V i l l a g e Coop) ren t a l (Bertha 0'Clarke Soc.) coop (False Creek Coop) coop (False Creek Coop) Strata (VR 514) rental (Kiwanis) Strata Strata Date B u i l t 1974 pre-1974 1976 1976 1974 1978 1978 1978 1979 1979 1978 1978 1978 1978 1976 1976 1978 1978 1978 1976 1976 1976 1979 BCAA Valuation $60,000 $70-80,000 $90,000 $44-100,000 $100,000 $70-115,000 $31-92,000 $80,000 $75,000 coop (University 1976 Building Society) South Cambie Shaughnessy False Creek - Enclave 8 3239 Heather St. 101 rental (Nether- 1976 lands Assoc.) 4 r e n t a l pre-1974 1320 W. 15th 9 r e n t a l pre-1974 - 163 -Included in Sample Oakridge Marpole Number from Sampling Frame Number Date 1979 BCAA Kerr isdale Arbutus Ridge Dunbar-Southlands West Point Grey K i t s i l a n o Address of Units Tenure B u i l t Valuation 6409-6429 Oak St. 4 Strata (VR 49) 1974 $80,000 445 SW Marine Dr. 70 rental 1974 8107-8167 Cambie St. and 510-522 W. 65th 16 Strata (VR 175) 1974 $40-50,000 6618-6630 Turnberry Cres., 402-434 Greensboro PI, and 320-340 Wethersfield Dr. 42 Strata (VR 478) 1978 $117-193,000 7142-7178 Neal St., 7117-7123 T i s d a l l St., 7069-7091 Cambie St., and 7226-7298 Ash Cres. 34 rental 1974 2225-2245 W. 43rd 3 re n t a l pre-1974 4351-4449 Arbutus St., 2106-2138 Nanton St., and 4304-4450 Yew St. 40 Strata (VR 452) 1977 $100,000 2350 W. 39th 41 ren t a l pre-1974 2180 W. 38th 4 rental pre-1974 2893 W. 41st 19 Strata (VR 441) 1977 $60-89,500 4350 Valley Dr. 21 Strata (VR 474) 1974 $128-140,000 2202-2297 McBain St. 34 Strata (VR 120) 1974 $76-115,700 2100-2199 McMullen St. 19 Strata (VR 146) 1974 $100,000 2258-2294 W. King Edward St., 4005-4154 Vine, and 3950-4042 Yew 37 Strata 1978 $76-115,000 3907-4097 Arbutus, 3909-4099 Springtree Dr., and 3901-4195 Parkway Dr. 75 rental 1978 4100 Salish St. 75 rental 1974 1701-1721 Wallace St. 20 coop (Penta Coop) 1978 3890 W. Pt. Grey Rd. 15 coop (Dunbar V i l l a g e ) 1979 1305 Maple St. 4 rental 1979 1333-1363 Chesnut St. 6 Strata (VR 366) 1976 $79,000 - 164 -Included i n Sample Number from Sampling Frame Address Number of Units Tenure Date B u i l t 1080 Maple St. 8 coop (Sam Greer Coop) 3800 W. 2nd 36 rental 1979 1870-1890 Bayswater St. 4 Strata (VR 476) 1977 1820 Bayswater St. 12 Strata (VR 409) pre-1974 2766-2788 W. 1st and 1710-1718 McDonald St. 10 Strata (VR 199) 1978 2720 W. 2nd 5 ren t a l 1979 2565-2595 W. Pt. Grey Rd. 5 rental pre-1974 2417-2449 W. Pt. Grey Rd. 8 Strata (VR 489) 1974 1555-1593 Larch St. 6 rental pre-1974 3551-3567 W. 4th 10 ren t a l pre-1974 3415-3425 W. 4th 9 rental pre-1974 1969-1999 Waterloo 4 re n t a l pre-1974 1960-1990 Waterloo 9 rental pre-1974 3325-3347 W. 4th 12 r e n t a l pre-1974 3235-3273 W. 4th 14 rental pre-1974 3135-3179 W. 4th 14 r e n t a l pre-1974 3139-3153 W. Pt. Grey Rd. 7 rental pre-1974 3270, 3250 W. 4th 12 ren t a l pre-1974 2304-2316 W. 8th 7 rental 1975 2138-2150 W. 6th 4 r e n t a l 1977 2963-3069 W. 4th 46 rental pre-1974 3028-3068 W. 4th 36 ren t a l pre-1974 2874-2880 W. 4th 6 rental- pre-1974 2010-2040 Larch St. 4 r e n t a l pre-1974 2280-2294 W. 3rd 14 rental pre-1974 2268-2278 W. 3rd 6 ren t a l pre-1974 2293-2295 W. 6th 6 rental pre-1974 2510-2560 Larch St. 6 r e n t a l pre-1974 2396-2398 W. Broadway St. 8 rental pre-1974 1999 W. 8th 5 ren t a l 1977 1981-1999 W. 10th 12 rental pre-1974 1905 W. 8th 5 r e n t a l 1978 2431-2439 Vine St. 8 rental 1979 1605-1617 Maple St. 6 r e n t a l pre-1974 1979 BCAA Valuation $121-138,700 $26-57,000 $73-105,600 $45,000 - 165 -Included i n Sample Number from Sampling Frame Address University Endowment Lands RICHMOND 11 12 13 14 15 5500-5600 Kings Rd, Alison Road., and Toronto Road 6071 Azure Rd. 6251-6291 Minoru Blvd. 8660 Westminster Hwy. 8501-8583 C i t a t i o n Dr. and 6501-6541 Pimlico Way 6831 Cooney Rd. 7491 No. 1 Road and 3900 Moresby Rd. 3581 Blundell St. 7300 Ledway Rd. 7251 Langton St. 8220-8280 No. 2 Road and 6200 Blundell St. 6600 Lucas Rd. 6871 Francis Rd. and 6880 Lucas Road 9240-9500 Glenacres Dr. and 9280, 9460 Glenallen Dr. Number of Units 47 Tenure re n t a l Date B u i l t pre-1974 7 rental 1978 68 Strata (NW 243) 1974 98 Strata (NW 628) 1976 96 Strata (NW 807) 1976 79 Strata (NW 28) 1970 1979 BCAA Valuation 50 re n t a l 1964 24 rental 1960 66 rental 1979 63 Strata (NW 559) 1975 $55-56,700 $44-47,000 63 Strata (NW 505) 1975 $50-51,000 33 Strata (NW 875) 1976 $56,700 66 ren t a l 1975 66 rental 1975 $121-126,000 $57, 63,600 $30-46,000 16 9650-9800 Glenacres Dr. 151 Strata (NW 12) 1969 $44,100 17 811 Saunders Rd. 96 Strata (NW 269) 1974 $74-84,000 18 11160 Kingsgrove Ave. 52 Strata 1979 * 19 9331 No. 5 Rd. and 11751 King Rd. 62 Strata (NW 227) 1973 $40-50,000 20 11711-11791 King Rd. and 9371 No. 5 Rd. 50 Strata (NW 371) 1974 $34-41,000 21 9111 No. 5 Rd. 63 Strata (NW 433) 1975 $49,800 22 11602-11778 Kingsbridge 80 Strata (NW 644) 1976 23 10011-10111 Swinton Cres. 89 Strata (NW 30) 1970 $43-52,600 24 10751-10771 Mort f i e l d Rd. 30 Strata 1971 $50,800 25 10680-10980 Ryan Rd. and 9030 Ryan Cres. 56 Strata (NW 16) 1969 $38-41,500 26 8411-8491 Ryan Rd. 46 Strata (NW 24) 1969 $46,900 27 8040 Rosewell and 10900 No. 3 Road 20 Strata (NW 5) 1969 $48,000 28 8311 Steveston Hwy. 20 Strata (NW 9) 1969 $48,000 - 1 6 6 -Included i n Sample Number from Sampling Number Date 1979 BCAA BURNABY Frame Address of Units Tenure B u i l t Valuation 29 10391 No. 3 Road and 10220 Dunoon Dr. 87 Strata (NW 976) $63-65,000 30 4900 Francis Rd. 4700 Francis Rd. 93 65 Strata rental (NW 578) 1975 $53-58,000 31 3031 Williams Rd. 208 Strata (NW 438) 1972 $42-53,900 32 10200 4th Ave. 110 Strata (NW 51) 1970 $35-40,000 33 10900-10960 Springmont Dr. 30 Strata (NW 69) 1970 $42,800 34 10800-10840 Springmont Dr. 32 Strata (NW 60) 1971 $43,700 35 3051-3251 Springfield Dr. 62 Strata (NW 152) 1972 $43,600 36 11291 7th Ave. 55 Strata (NW 280) 1973 $65-70,000 37 11391 7th Ave. 50 Strata (NW 279) 1973 38 11391 7th Ave. 24 Strata (NW 330) 1973 39 11491 7th Ave. 91 Strata (NW 947) 1974 $44,800 4120 Steveston Hwy. 12 Strata (NW 914) 1977 $52-59,000 4151 Regent St. 80 r e n t a l 1976 4340 Steveston Hwy. 70 coop (Klahanie Coop) 1975 4800 Trimaran 50 rental 1976 40 4460 Garry St. 28 Strata (NW 153) 1973 $47,100 41 11451-11651 Kingfisher Dr. 58 Strata (NW 76) 1972 $55,200 42 11711 Kingfisher Dr. 72 Strata (NW 150) 1973 $66,800 5116 Smith Ave. 58 ren t a l 1964 5706 Irwin St. 20 rental 1969 7121 4th Ave. 90 r e n t a l 1970 7460-7478 13th Ave. 15 Strata (NW 210) 1974 $47-48,000 43 4651-4695 Garden Grove Dr., 4679-4799 Femglen PI., 4770-4865 Fernglen Dr., and 4703-4765 Fernglen Ct. 73 Strata (NW 194) 1973 $45-52,000 44 4555-4591 Garden Grove Dr., 4701-4733 Elmgrove PI., and 4511-4597 Elmgrove Dr. 40 Strata (NW 208) 1974 $45-51,900 45 3903-3963 Garden Grove Dr., 4706-4784 Laurelwood, 4704-4794 Willowdale, and 4701-4792 Cedarglen 72 Strata (NW 310) 1975 $45-55,000 46 4703-4794 Driftwood, 62 Strata (NW 440) 1975 $45-55,000 4201-4282 Birchwood Cres. 4701-4713 Birchwood PI. and 167 Included i n Sample Number from Sampling Frame 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 4102 7303-7304-1801-7301-7301-3202-8902-8901-8902-3201-3017-9001-9002-8902-3001-3001-8804-2863-8924-2829-2947-2966-8686-9125-9143-Number Address of Units -4396 Garden Grove Dr. 76 -7393 Montecito Dr. 93 -7328 Goleta PI. and 61 -1948 Goleta Dr. -7386 Coronado Dr. 68 -7398 Capistrano Dr. 75 -3377 Ganymede Dr., 196 -8950 Ganymede PI., and -8962 Orion PI. 8948 Centaurus C i r c l e , 130 3031 Centaurus Dr., 3057 Carina PI., 9033 Lyra Pla., and 9048 A l t a i r PI. 8948 Centaurus C i r c l e , 49 3018 Vegas Ct., and 3016 Carina PI. 8862 Centaurus C i r c l e , 87 2899 Corona Dr., 8970 Corona PI., and 2899 Neptune Cres. 2991 Mira PI. and 67 2995 Corona Dr. 8688 Centaurus C i r c l e , 220 9138 Capella Dr., and 9155 Saturna Dr. 8750 Centaurus C i r c l e 102 8851-8951 Home St. 67 3802-3944 Pentland Ct., and 31 9125-9165 Wiltshire PI. 9061 Home St. 73 9080-9180 Halston Ct., 216 9085-9296 Gildwood Dr., and 9215-9380 Sandlewood Cres. 9908 Millburn Ct., 106 9852 Millbrook Ln., 9801 B e l f r i a r Dr., and 4101 Bridgewater Cres. 8202-8292 Elkwood PI., 134 8320-8370 Aspenwood PI., 8206-8284 Amberwood, 8204-8266 Rosswood, and 8310-8386 Vinewood 6702-6762 Kneale PI. 31 2666-2692 Kingsford Ave. 14 Date Tenure B u i l t Strata (NW 603) 1975 Strata (NW 136) 1975 Strata (NW 128) 1973 Strata (NW 86) 1973 Strata (NW 90) 1973 Strata (NW 58) 1971 Strata (NW 39) 1971 Strata (NW 65) 1971 Strata (NW 97) 1973 Strata (NW 65) 1973 re n t a l 1976 coop (Norman 1975 Bethune Coop) rental 1974 Strata (NW 311) 1975 Strata (NW 300) 1976 rental 1976 Strata (NW 655) 1976 Strata (NW 963) 1977 Strata (NW 64) 1972 Strata (NW 938) 1977 1979 BCAA Valuation $39-44,000 $42,900 $40-49,900 $40-50,000 $50,000 $31-34,500 $40-49,000 $40-45,700 $39-49,000 $44-49,000 $57-61,000 $44-56,000 $50-60,000 $38-46,900 $42-45,000 $56-57,000 - 168 Number from Included Sampling in Sample Frame Address Number of Units Tenure* Date Bu i l t 1979 BCAA Valuation 2620-2698 Moorcroft, 6858 Beechcliffe, and 6871-6899 Bromley Ct. 40 Strata (NW 468) 1976 $55-56,000 62 2701-2777 E l l e r s l i e Ave., and 2604-2696 Tretheway Dr, 44 Strata (NW 728) 1977 $42-47,000 2701 Bainbridge 28 rental 1978 2780 Bainbridge 76 rental 1978 7302-7364 Dunvegan Ct. 32 rental 1977 63 2007-2053 Holdom Ave., and 5560-5658 Broadway 54 Strata (NW 27) 1970 $26-37,000 64 5502-5548 Broadway 24 Strata (NW 48) 1971 $39,000 5330 Broadway 28 Strata (NW 218) 1974 $46,500 65 2004-2090 Springer Ave. 27 Strata (NW 806) 1972 $45-50,000 5740 Canada Way 60 Strata 1979 NORTH VANCOUVER DISTRICT (INCLUDING N. VAN. CITY) 3730-3736 Edgemont Blvd. 4 rental 1955 3750 Edgemont Terrace 52 rental 1964 3501-3497 Capilano Rd. 35 rental 1965 3300 Capilano Rd. 28 ren t a l 1966 2871-2935 Capilano Rd. 9 rental 1971 751-755 W. Queens St. 3 Strata (VR 218) 1975 $70,000 701 W. Queens St. 5 Strata (VR 43) 1972 $61,600 Westview Terrace 114 ren t a l 555 W. 28th 133 coop 251 W. 14th 22 renta 1 202-204 W. 4th 5 Strata (VR 550) 1979 $74,000 177 W. 6th 3 Strata 1974 $53,000 117-125 W. 6th 5 rental 1976 1535 St. George's 7 rental 220 E. 11th 23 rental 108 W. Windsor and 3201-3263 Lonsdale 12 Strata (VR 573) 1978 $54-63,000 150 E. Queens St. 5 re n t a l 1963 3701-3817 Princess A v e . 57 rental 1972 66 821-877 Hendecourt, 82 Strata (VR 391) 1975 $89-100,OOC 812-889 F r e d e r i c k , a n d 3352-3381 W i l l i a m - 169 -Number from Included i n Sample Sampling Frame Address Number of Units Tenure Date B u i l t 1979 BCAA Valuation 67 2601-2645 Fromme Rd. 22 Strata (VR 596) 1979 $71-75,000 2516 Fromme Rd. 65 coop (Lynn Valley Coop) 1976 68 1271-1293 Emery PI. and 2301-2395 Mountain Hwy. 60 Strata (VR 13) 1970 $50-53,000 1285-1289 E. 27th 3 rental 1971 1861-1939 Rufus Dr. 21 ren t a l 69 1515-1556 McNair Dr. 31 Strata (VR 102) 1973 $53-54,900 70 4675-4699 Hoskins Rd. 75 Strata (VR 17) 1971 $50-52,000 71 1090-1254 Premier 100 Strata (VR 10) 1970 $42-47,000 72 801-955 L i l l o o e t Rd. 78 Strata (VR 5) 1969 $47,200 73 961-1207 L i l l o o e t Rd. 123 Strata (VR 126) 1973 $40-52,000 74 960-1008 L i l l o o e t Rd. 65 Strata (VR 44) 1972 $53-58,000 75 1804-2090 Purcell Way 95 Strata (VR 329) 1970 $39-60,000 251-329 Seymour River PI. 65 ren t a l 1971 2131 Dollarton Hwy., 251- 291 Riverside Dr., and 252- 290 Seymour River PI. 39 rental 2125-2135 Munster Ave. 6 ren t a l 1969 2160-2166 Dollarton Hwy. 4 rental 1968 76 4001 Mt. Seymour Parkway 86 Strata (VR 46) 1972 $61-63,500 1142-1196 Deep Cove Rd. 10 Strata (VR 23) 1971 $47,800 77 2026-2042 Deep Cove Cres. 22 Strata (VR 14) 1970 $46,200 - 170 -APPENDIX 4 PLANS OF PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE IN SAMPLE PROJECTS - 171 -H 0 U 5 E fUPPEfc) — 1 . . . . t ... m e ^ c • \ \ i \ -• V " ' \ . " ' ' r r i> \- •• ~--<c(kie)n^ HOUSE 1 / . . i • • i i ' „ ; c/\LE GREENTREE V|lLA<qE - 172 -HOUSE ' — ' " ID' " ' " " Lf\WVl FOREST hlEADOWS - 173 -CONCRETE PATIO V S C U D 0 a -pi>.-NmNcq 4 F^NCE House •= K1NQ5U100D D0NN5 - 174 -HOUSE COUNTRY CLUB .4 peNce ? 0 " 0 SPRINGMONT =0-S C A L E I 'i - 176 -scAte i " ' 3 ' MARINERS MILEAGE - 1 7 7 -LILLOOET - 178 -HOUSE 3r 0 • LAV/OP 0 •= C H A P L A I N VILLA - 179 -•iff SOLID 0 15 0 \J LATT1C6 PfJMCE SCALP \w'.3* FALSE CREEiC - 180 -APPENDIX 5 EQUATIONS USED TO COMPUTE SCALE SCORES - 181 -Scale Name Equation Demographic Scales Family Size Score = Young, Well-educated Score Respondents with High Incomes have children + family size + (age of oldest c h i l d ) ^ + (age of youngest c h i l d ) ^ income - age + education (males) + education (females) Sex Score Housing Background Scales Score Past Apartment Renters, Plan to Stay Wide Experience i n Childhood Housing, Lived i n Townhouse Before Score = sex last housing type/5 + l a s t tenure/5 + plans to stay/10 childhood housing type/5 + l i v e d i n townhouse before Had a Large Yard and Now Want to Rent Non-singl e Family Housing Non-single Family Housing Since Childhood Residence Time Rating Scales General Ratings Privacy Ratings Score = l a s t private outdoor space/5 + i d e a l housing type/5 - i d e a l tenure Score = housing since childhood Score = residence time/10 Score = project rating/5 + outdoor space rating/5 + back yard rating/5 + back yard size rating/5 Score = back yard privacy rating/5 + back yard v i s u a l privacy rating/5 Good Fences Make Good Score Neighbors Preference Scales function of back fence - patio s i z e rating/5 + neighbors' noise + t r a f f i c noise + people walking by too close + people seeing i n the back yard - children and pets coming i n Importance of Housing Score Value unit chosen because a v a i l a b l e + unit chosen because of investment p o t e n t i a l + features of next house include p r i c e + features of next house include investment p o t e n t i a l - features of next house include good neighborhood - 182 -Outdoor Space Important for Children's Play Gardeners Moving Down to a Townhouse Score = outdoor space important for children's play + id e a l back yard has play equipment + back yard is used for children's play + project chosen for general appearance + unit chosen for outdoor space Score = grow flowers and vegetables i n the back yard + outdoor space i s important for growing flowers and vegetables + l i k e s to garden + i d e a l yard should have space for a vegetable garden + id e a l yard should have f r u i t trees Score = moved to get less expensive house + moved to get smaller house with less maintenance + were looking for a townhouse project + w i l l move to get a smaller house Seeking Better House Score = Want Better Neighbors, Score Neighborhood Outdoor Space Score Important for Storage and as Land w i l l move to get bigger yard + w i l l move to get bigger or better house + inside of next house i s important + yard of next house i s important + outdoor space i s important for a nice view from inside w i l l move to get better neighbors + w i l l move to get better neighborhood back yard used for storage + outdoor space i s important for storage + outdoor space is important as land Family Use of Back Yard Score = back yard used for eating and cooking + outdoor space i s important for family a c t i v i t i e s Use Patio and Want Score = use the back yard for sunbathing and s i t t i n g + to Change Connection want to change the patio connection 

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.831.1-0100185/manifest

Comment

Related Items