Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Demand for industrial property and intra-metropolitan location Van der Linde, Hendrik 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A4_6 V35_3.pdf [ 11.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101234.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101234-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101234-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101234-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101234-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101234-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101234-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101234-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101234.ris

Full Text

DEMAND FOE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND INTRA-METROPOLITAN LOCATION Hendrik van der Linde B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y of New Brunswick, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION i n the D i v i s i o n of URBAN LAND ECONOMICS Facu l ty of COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION We accept t h i s thes i s as conforming to the required standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1973 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree th a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Depart-ment or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copy-i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l nol; be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of Commerce & Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND INTRA-METROPOLITAN LOCATION ABSTRACT Hendrik van der Linde The l o c a t i o n of i n d u s t r y has a marked impact on the s p a t i a l development and form of the urban area. In the pas t , the l o c a t i o n of i n d u s t r y was determined almost e n t i r e l y by the i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s concerned. Their d e c i s i o n s were based on such f a c t o r s as c o s t , a c c e s s i b i l i t y and ta x a -t i o n p o l i c i e s w i t h l i t t l e regard f o r the i n h a b i t a n t s of the communities i n which they l o c a t e d or f o r t h e i r impact on the environment. T h i s , w i t h the increased u r b a n i z a t i o n and the phenomenal urban spraw/of the past few decades, has brought the r e a l i z a t i o n that urban pla n n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l . Urban planners are faced w i t h a tremendous respons-i b i l i t y i n attempting to balance the requirements of indus-t r y w i t h the needs of the community. To achieve t h i s goal i t i s necessary t o i d e n t i f y i n d u s t r y ' s requirements as w e l l i v as measure them i n some manner. F o l l o w i n g a general d i s -c u s s i o n of the v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n t h e o r i e s and a review of the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e , t h i s study attempts to dis c o v e r by e m p i r i c a l means i f any one of the sources of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property i s l a r g e enough to be used as a b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g f u t u r e growth and development i n the Van-couver m e t r o p o l i t a n area. The study in c o r p o r a t e s i n i t s framewor\k a review of some of the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e on the l o c a t i o n of i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s . The purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n of the study (Chapter I I ) i s to i d e n t i f y and summarize the v a r i o u s t h e o r i e s which attempt to e x p l a i n why i n d u s t r y l o c a t e s where i t does. I t provides the framework i n which the case study of Vancouver can be presented. In a d d i t i o n , Chapter I I provides a u s e f u l b a s i s f o r comparing the observations of reviewed authors of other "western" c i t i e s w i t h Vancouver. The primary o b j e c t i v e of the study i s to examine the sources of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property to a s c e r t a i n i f any one i s s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e to allow i t to serve as a b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g f u t u r e demand. I t i s hypothesized t h a t the source a r i s i n g from the r e l o c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g companies i s s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver to serve t h i s purpose. A r i s i n g out of t h i s i s a secondary o b j e c t : to analyse the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those f i r m s which have r e l o c a t e d to d i s c o v e r i f any common denominators e x i s t which could be used to p r e d i c t f u t u r e i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t movements. The area of study has been r e s t r i c t e d to Vancouver C i t y and the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Burnaby. I t would have been more d e s i r a b l e to i n c l u d e the e n t i r e m e t r o p o l i t a n area, since d e f i n i t e conclusions could then have been drawn; how-ever, the survey r e q u i r e d to gather the data f o r the e n t i r e r e g i o n was beyond the p h y s i c a l c a p a b i l i t y of any one i n d i v -i d u a l . The survey, y i e l d e d data on 238 companies. When the sample was o r i g i n a l l y constructed i t was decided to choose 320 companies (or 40% of the presumed t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n ) . This was considered necessary since the survey was to be conducted during the summer months. I f , when the i n t e r v i e w e r c a l l e d on a company, he was unable to have the questionnaire completed, the company was dropped from the sample. In t h i s manner, the sample was reduced t o about 30%. The a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that much of the demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property o r i g i n a t e s w i t h i n the me t r o p o l i t a n area. Although the r e l o c a t i o n of . e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r i e s appears to be the l a r g e s t source of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property, i t i s not so l a r g e t h a t i t dominates. As a consequence i t i s doubt f u l t h a t t h i s source could be used as a b a s i s f o r pro-j e c t i n g f u t u r e i n d u s t r y requirements. An examination of the v i f irms that had re located showed that the majori ty moved due to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the phys i ca l premises i n which they were loca ted . Once they had decided to move, they normally only gave scant a t tent ion to the l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n . This i s perhaps due to the fact that many of these companies were small and d i d not own t h e i r premises. v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S This study was made possible through, f i n a n c i a l a s s i s -tance provided by the Property Services Branch, Department of Public Works, Federal Government. The author would l i k e to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the many owners and representatives of i n d u s t r i a l firms i n Metropolitan Vancou-ver who provided the basic data f o r the study. I am also indebted to numerous c i v i c and governmental employees who assisted i n data c o l l e c t i o n and the f i n a l physical prepara-t i o n of t h i s report. v i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i i Acknowledgement v i i L i s t of Figures x L i s t of Tables x i Chapter I INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem 2 Purpose of Thesis 3 Significance of Thesis. . 4 Limitations of the Thesis 3 Organization of Chapters 8 Footnotes 11 II SURVEY OF EXISTING LITERATURE Introduction 12 Inter-Regional Locational Theory 13 Least-Cost Theory of Location 13 Market Area Analysis and Locational Interdependence. . . . . 20 Intra-Metropolitan Location Theory 24 Empirical Studies 24 Location Models 27 Theory 33 Conclusion 36 Footnotes 37 i x Chapter Page I I I METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER Vancouver's Economy ^ Indus t r i a l Development. 4-8 Conclusion 59 Footnotes 61 IV ANALYSIS OE THE STUDY AREAS C i t y of Vancouver 63 Munic ipa l i ty of Burnaby . 69 Relocat ion as a Source of Demand 72 Study Areas 76 Survey of Industries 78 Relocat ion - Impetus and S i t e Se lec t ion . . 100 Footnotes V CONCLUSIONS Introduction 106 Conclusions 107 Footnotes 113 Bibl iography 121 Appendix "A" Questionnaire • Appendix "B" Univar iant Tables l 2 ^ I I: X LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. von Thunen's Locat ion Model 14-2 . Weberian Polygon 17 3. C l a s s i c a l Market Areas vs Lb*sch's Market Areas 2 2 4-. Metropol i tan Vancouver 4-7 5 . Isard"s Spa t i a l Model 5 0 6. Indus t r i a l D i s t r i c t s and Transportat ion Grid i n Metro Vancouver 5 2 7- Metropol i tan Vancouver - Core, Intermediate and Per iphera l ,-/, Indus t r i a l D i s t r i c t s 8. Metropol i tan Vancouver - Travel Time Zones 57 _9. Metropol i tan Vancouver - Mileage Zones. . . .^7 I LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Employment i n Canadian Metropol i tan Areas, 1961 . . . 4-2 2. Comparison of Important and D i s t i n c t i v e Industries i n Selected Metropol i tan Areas - Employment 4-3 3. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Employment by Economic Sector 4-5 4. Populat ion Growth, i n Metropol i tan Vancouver 4-9 5. I--.J. Indus t r i a l Firm Movements (1968-1972) (Former Locat ion Ident i f ied) 80 6. io. Indus t r i a l Firm Movements (1968*1972) (Present Locat ion Ident i f ied) 81 7. Sources of Demand for Indus t r i a l Property - Number of Companies 84-8 . Acreage uptake i n the Core and Intermediate Indus t r i a l D i s t r i c t s 87 9 . F loor Area Uptake - Core and Intermediate Indus t r i a l D i s t r i c t s , 89 10. Reasons for Relocat ing 101 11. Reasons for Choosing New Locat ion 102 Dedicated to my wife Pat, who provided the necessary moral support .... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Industry p l a y s a very important r o l e i n the continued e x i s t e n c e , growth and development of almost every urban center i n Canada. Per establishment, i n d u s t r y i s the l a r g e s t user of l a n d i n the M e t r o p o l i t a n area. This f a c t , p l u s other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , guarantee that the l o c a t i o n of Indust-r i a l p l a n t s w i l l have a marked impact on the s p a t i a l design of the community. Urban planners have also recognized that people l i k e to l i v e near t h e i r jobs. As a r e s u l t , when a new extension to the urban area i s planned, the p o t e n t i a l l o c a t i o n and type of i n d u s t r y i s f i r s t determined. A f t e r t h i s , the u t i l i t y system, the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n g r i d , and the r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial areas are planned. The improper l o c a t i o n of i n d u s t r y can create b l i g h t e d areas, cause t r a f f i c problems, and can r e s u l t i n tremendous waste of f i n a n c i a l resources a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o v i d i n g the i n f r a - s t r u c t u r e . 2 Statement of Problem The exi s t i n g techniques for estimating the future demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property normally give an estimate ©f the t o t a l demand for an entire urban area. This, although h e l p f u l , i s of only l i m i t e d usefulness because there i s no i n d i c a t i o n where the demand w i l l occur nor how much property w i l l be needed at that point i n time. Some of the more recent computer models have had l i m i t e d success i n t h i s area as a r e s u l t of working with smaller areal units and in d i v i d u a l i n d u s t r i e s ^ But the problem of predicting when an area w i l l develop or redevelop and who the new occupants w i l l be, s t i l l remains. The timing of the development or redevelopment of an area depends l a r g e l y on the demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property. The chief problem then, i s to i d e n t i f y the sources of demand i n a metropolitan area. A second problem i s determining the relevant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which l i n k demand and locati o n . A t h i r d problem l i e s i n the measurement of these character-i s t i c s and the strength of the linkages between the demand and l o c a t i o n . 3 Purpose of the Thesis William Kinnard has i d e n t i f i e d the following f i v e p r i n c i p a l sources of demand for i n d u s t r i a l property: 1. Firms which are established i n the Metropolitan area expand on-site, or absorb the adjacent property. 2. E x i s t i n g firms which r e t a i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l loca-t i o n expand to other parts of the Metropolitan area by opening branches. 3. E x i s t i n g firms established elsewhere who expand and estab l i s h branches i n another Metropolitan area. 4-. New firms who begin operations for the f i r s t time. 5 . E x i s t i n g firms who are un s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r l o c a t i o n and move to another within the same metropolitan area. This study explores the hypothesis: The major source of demand for i n d u s t r i a l property i n a metropolitan area r e s u l t s from the relo c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g firms within that area. This w i l l be done using metropolitan "Vancouver as a case study. I t i s also proposed to analyse the firms i n the study area which have recently relocated to ascertain i f any common denominators e x i s t . This w i l l involve an examina-t i o n of the ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the firms at t h e i r present and previous locations as well as an examination of t h e i r stated reasons for changing locations. 4 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Thesis With the growing concern over sprawling suburbs and decayingc c e n t r a l cores, urban planners today are faced w i t h a f a r l a r g e r and more complicated task than were t h e i r pre-decessors. The me t r o p o l i t a n area must be planned as a whole, w i t h i n d u s t r y as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the whole. I t has been observed t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l areas tend to grow towards i n d u s t -r i a l l o c a t i o n s ^ w h i l e the commercial and r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d users f o l l o w r e s i d e n t i a l development. The importance of p r o p e r l y l o c a t i n g i n d u s t r y cannot be overst a t e d . I t d e t e r -mines, t o a l a r g e extent, the s p a t i a l design of the community. Estimates of the f u t u r e demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property are normally based on e a s i l y obtainable r a t i o s such as popu-l a t i o n per acre, employment d e n s i t i e s , absorption r a t e s or a combination of these. These estimates represent the t o t a l demand at some p o i n t i n the f u t u r e f o r the whole m e t r o p o l i t a n area. In the case of m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, the d i f f e r e n c e between the h i g h estimates and low estimates f o r the year 2000 i s 1 0 , 0 0 0 acres or n e a r l y 2 , 7 0 0 acres more than the t o t a l t j l n use today^ Such i n f o r m a t i o n i s very u n r e l i a b l e and of l i t t l e value t o urban planners. For e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g , a v a r i e t y of other i n f o r m a t i o n should be a v a i l a b l e . For example, the sources: of demand should be known. What types of fir m s w i l l be r e q u i r i n g Indust-r i a l property? Where w i l l the demand l i k e l y focus? How great 5 w i l l the demand be i n t h a t area? W i l l the demand be f o r small s i t e s or l a r g e s i t e s ? What support s e r v i c e s w i l l be r e q u i r e d i n those areas? Without knowing the answers to such questions, p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s cannot hope to adequately i n t e g r a t e i n d u s t r y and the community. The i n f r a -s t r u c t u r e to support i n d u s t r y must be planned w e l l i n advance of i t s a c t u a l requirement. This t h e s i s i s concerned w i t h the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the sources of demand and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the demand a r i s i n g from the r e l o c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g f i r m s . The accompanying a n a l y s i s of r e l o c a t e d f i r m s provides an i n s i g h t i n t o i n d u s t -r i a l p l a n t movement w i t h i n the Vancouver m e t r o p o l i t a n area. I t s f i n d i n g s w i l l h o p e f u l l y provide planners w i t h a d d i t i o n a l u s e f u l input to t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s . L i m i t a t i o n s of the Thesis The major l i m i t a t i o n s of the t h e s i s are r e l a t e d to the data. Data of the type and d e t a i l needed to examine the hypothesis and to analyze i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s simply does not e x i s t . I t was necessary, t h e r e f o r e , t o devise a question-n a i r e to be administered to f i r m s which had r e c e n t l y leased or purchased i n d u s t r i a l p r o p e r t y . IThen the problem arose: how does one f i n d those f i r m s ? A comparison of the 1972 and 1968 C i t y D i r e c t o r y was made which r e s u l t e d i n an extremely long l i s t of companies who were r e s i d e n t s i n metro-Vancouver i n 6 1 9 7 2 , "but not i n 1 9 6 8 . The C i t y D i r e c t o r y , although a u s e f u l source f o r some i n f o r m a t i o n , has s e v e r a l f a u l t s : (a) companies and addresses are sometimes overlooked; and (b) companies are given addresses at which they no longer r e s i d e . F u r t h e r , the C i t y D i r e c t o r y does not help i n l o c a t i n g companies which have experienced o n - s i t e expansions or which have opened other branches. 5 By c o n s u l t i n g other p u b l i s h e d sources, a f i n a l l i s t was compiled. Despite the l e n g t h of the l i s t , there was no way of knowing what p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l i t represented and what biases are inherent i n the sample. This l i m i t s the u n i v e r s a l i t y of any conclusions which are drawn. Another l i m i t a t i o n i s the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data which was obtained from companies through the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The questionnaire was administered during J u l y and August, 1 9 7 2 , the prime v a c a t i o n months. Consequently, i n t e r v i e w s were o f t e n rushed w i t h l i t t l e thought given to the responses because o f f i c i a l s sometimes claimed they were shorthanded. In other s i t u a t i o n s , i n f o r m a t i o n was volunteered by people who were t e m p o r a r i l y i n charge, but who had not been i n v o l v e d i n the a c t u a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s . Companies which were branches of l a r g e Eastern f i r m s had f r e q u e n t l y s h i f t e d managers since the company f i r s t occu-p i e d i t s present l o c a t i o n ; or the s e n i o r o f f i c i a l s d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n had subsequently r e t u r n -7 ed Eas t . Such circumstances r a i se serious questions about the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data obtained. However, a l l responses were used at face value with no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by the author. One f i n a l point concerning the l i m i t a t i o n s of the data: the company o f f i c i a l being interviewed would often r e f l e c t current opinions of the l o c a t i o n rather than the one at the time of the d e c i s i o n . The length of the o r i g i n a l l i s t of prospective compan-ies to be interviewed precluded a study of the ent ire metro-p o l i t a n Vancouver area. The study was terminated af ter Burnaby and Vancouver C i t y had been surveyed. Consequently, the conclusions presented are only v a l i d for Burnaby and Vancouver C i t y and, although i n d i c a t i v e of the whole, they should not be considered as the f i n a l conclus ions . The f i r s t study area, Burnaby, i s reppesentative of an inner r i n g of the r i n g model of a c i t y , or more c o r r e c t l y as an inter-urban area since i t l i e s between the metropol i tan core and a secondary core. Burnaby has, i n the past , rece ived the larges t number of new industr ie s of any munic ipa l i ty i n the metro-Vancouver area^ It has also been the most l i k e l y area for r e l o c a t i o n for firms leaving Vancouver C i t y . Thus, the conclusions drawn concerning Burnaby are biased towards the general hypothesis . Vancouver C i t y , the second study area i s more balanced i n regard to i t s sources of demand for i n d u s t r i a l property . 8 P r e v i o u s l y , i t has r e c e i v e d the second l a r g e s t number of new f i r m s , but has not experienced the heavy r e l o c a t i o n of f i r m s t h a t Burnaby has s u s t a i n e d . In f a c t , Vancouver C i t y has experienced the r e v e r s e , w i t h most f i r m s going t o Burnaby and Richmond. One f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n r e s u l t s from the e x t e n s i v e -ness of the survey. In Burnaby, about 120 f i r m s were surveyed out of a t o t a l of about 360, w h i l e i n Vancouver, the f i g u r e surveyed was much sm a l l e r i n r e l a t i o n t o the t o t a l a v a i l -a b l e . Therefore, the r e s u l t s i n Burnaby can be considered r e l a t i v e l y more r e l i a b l e . Had i t been p o s s i b l e to survey a l l the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, more d e f i n i t e conclusions could have been drawn. O r g a n i z a t i o n Of Chapters Chapter I I c o n s i s t s of a survey of some of the more important l i t e r a t u r e on l o c a t i o n theory. I t i s not a l l - i n c l u -s i v e , s i n c e t h i s i s beyond the scope of the study. Rather, i t i s intended t o provide some background to the study. L o c a t i o n Theory can be d i v i d e d i n t o two c l a s s e s : I n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n and I n t e r - m e t r o p o l i t a n (or i n t e r - r e g i o n a l ) . I n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n theory i s concerned w i t h the met-r o p o l i t a n area as a t o t a l u n i v e r s e , w h i l e I n t e r - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n theory considers much l a r g e r d i s t a n c e s and areas 9 which, may i n c l u d e s e v e r a l m e t r o p o l i t a n areas. W i t h i n the I n t e r - m e t r o p o l i t a n framework, the theory i s t r a c e d through two p r i n c i p a l schools of thought - the Least-Cost School and the Market-Area A n a l y s i s School, to t h e i r s y n t h e s i s and on t o present day. In the Intra-metro-p o l i t a n framework, the development of the theory i s t r a c e d from the e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s to the computer models, and f i n a l l y to the t h e o r e t i c a l work of Moses and Williamson, and others. I t i s immediately apparent t h a t r e l o c a t i o n , as a source of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l p r o p e r t y , has r e c e i v e d but scant a t t e n t i o n . I t i s most o f t e n simply considered as p a r t of the o v e r a l l problem of l o c a t i n g new i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s . Chapter I I I i s a d i s c u s s i o n of the economic and i n d u s t -r i a l development of M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver. The metropolis i s c l o s e l y t i e d to i t s h i n t e r l a n d - a s i t u a t i o n which has i n f l u e n c e d i t s s p a t i a l form. This i s demonstrated by the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n g r i d and the l o c a t i o n of the i n d u s t r i a l areas. Recent tre n d s , i n p a r t i c u l a r those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the r e l o c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s , are noted. Chapter I I I serves as a framework f o r Chapter IV, which i s devoted to a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of r e l o c a t i o n . This chapter examines the sources of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l prop-e r t y and i n d i c a t e s that r e l o c a t i o n i s the p r i n c i p a l source. \ ( 1 0 The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and l o c a t i o n a l behavior of the r e l o c a t -i n g companies are also discussed. F i n a l l y , Chapter V summar' i z e s the f i n d i n g s of the study and presents i t s c o n c l u s i o n s . 11 Footnotes 1. "An I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n Model f o r the San F r a n c i s c o Bay Area", Michael A . Goldberg, Annals of Regional Science, December, 1 9 6 7 , pp. 60 - 7 3 . "Estimating the S p a t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Industry w i t h i n an Urban Region", David T. Dubbink, Annals of Regional Science, December, 1 9 6 8 , pp. 187 - 202. 2. I n d u s t r i a l Real E s t a t e , W i l l i a m N. Kinnard, S o c i e t y of I n d u s t r i a l R e a l t o r s , Washington, D.C, 1 9 6 9 , p« 4-2. 3 . Suburbanization of Manufacturing A c t i v i t y W i t h i n Standard  M e t r o p o l i t a n Areas, Evelyn M. Kitagawa and Donald J . Bogue, Scripps Foundation f o r Research i n P o p u l a t i o n Problems, Scripps Foundation, 1 9 5 5 , P« 127-4 . Space f o r Industry, The Greater Vancouver Regional P l a n -n i n g D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, 1 9 7 2 , pp. 68 - 7 7 . 5 . I n d u s t r i a l Expansion i n B r i t i s h Columbia, The B r i t i s h Columbia Department of I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade and Commerce, 1968 - 1 9 7 2 . Annual Reports, Vancouver and Lower Mainland I n d u s t r i a l Development Commission. 6 . Vancouver Urban Renewal Study, Technical Report Number Four, I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s , C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department, Vancouver, August, 1 9 6 4 , p. 16. CHAPTER I I SURVEY OE EXISTING LITERATURE I n t r o d u c t i o n R e l o c a t i o n of i n d u s t r y i s p a r t of the "broader question concerned w i t h the l o c a t i o n of a l l i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y . I t i s d i s t i n c t i v e i n that when a company r e l o c a t e s , i t makes a c e r t a i n amount of i n d u s t r i a l property a v a i l a b l e f o r other uses at i t s former s i t e . Companies which decide to r e l o c a t e do not come to that d e c i s i o n as a r e s u l t of a t t r a c t i o n s i n other areas, r a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s at t h e i r present s i t e induce them to seek a l t e r n a t i v e l o c a t i o n s . Once they begin the search, they do not d i f f e r from other companies which are seeking s i t e s f o r the f i r s t time. In the past 150 years, a v a r i e t y of t h e o r i e s have been proposed which attempt to e x p l a i n why economic a c t i v i t y l o c a t e s where i t does. Most of the e a r l i e r t h e o r i e s were concerned w i t h i n t e r - r e g i o n a l l o c a t i o n . For example, e x p l a i n -i n g the l o c a t i o n of a s t e e l m i l l which draws i t s inputs from widely s c a t t e r e d p o i n t s and markets over a l a r g e area. In the l a s t few decades, the emphasis has s h i f t e d to d i s c u s s i n g 13 i n t r a - r e g i o n a l or i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n . This has come about l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t most of the world, and North America i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s now h i g h l y urban-i z e d , and tha t the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of people l i v e i n metro-p o l i t a n areas. I n t r a - r e g i o n a l or i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n theory i s concerned w i t h a smaller geographic area than i n t e r -r e g i o n a l theory, w i t h the r e s u l t that some f a c t o r s considered important i n the l a t t e r are of l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the former. Inter-Hegional L o c a t i o n Theory P l a n t l o c a t i o n theory has developed along two l i n e s : , the l e a s t - c o s t theory; and the market-area a n a l y s i s . I t has only been i n the l a s t quarter century, w i t h the growing i n t e r -est i n i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n s problems, that these d i f f e r e n t approaches have begun to merge. Least-Cost Theory of L o c a t i o n The o r i g i n s of the t h e o r i e s of l o c a t i o n can be t r a c e d t o Germany. The f i r s t w r i t e r of note t o deal w i t h the problem of l o c a t i o n was Johann H e i n r i c k von Thunen. His theory d e a l t w i t h a c e n t r a l market town surrounded by conc e n t r i c zones, each of which produced crops f o r sa l e i n the town (see F i g . 1 ) . The l o c a t i o n was s p e c i f i e d and von Thunen then sought t o determine which product was to be produced t h e r e . The b a s i c 14-- OA cost of producing 41 .00 potatoes - A'S (A"T) cost of t r a n s p o r t i n g the potatoes over OJ (0. distance - OB cost of producing $1.00 wheat -B'M (B"N) cost of t r a n s p o r t i n g the wheat over OX (OX ) distance - A'S i s greater than B'M and the crops would "be produce i n the zones as shown. Figur e 1 von Thunen's Loc a t i o n Model 15 assumptions c a l l e d f o r a homogeneous land surface and one consuming centre. The l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n depended upon the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the cost of a given crop at a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s . These d i f f e r e n c e s i n t u r n were due to the land rent and the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n expenses^ Although developed f o r a r u r a l environment, von Thunen's model i s the b a s i s of most modern urban land value and rent theory. For example, i n s t e a d of growing potatoes near the market town, and wheat f u r t h e r out, we can l o c a t e small p r i n t i n g f i r m s who t u r n out l e g a l b r i e f s and weekly a d v e r t i s i n g f l y e r s near the urban core and lar g e manufact-u r i n g f i r m s on the suburban f r i n g e s . Von Thunen's assumptions regarding labour c o s t s , i . e . , assuming them uniform throughout the reg i o n or by i n c l u d i n g them as p a r t of the land r e n t , are open to c r i t i -cism when one discusses l a r g e geographic u n i t s . However, when co n s i d e r i n g a me t r o p o l i t a n area, the "cost of labour" i s f o r a l l i n t e n t s and purposes, uniform. This i s becoming i n -c r e a s i n g l y so as the labour f o r c e becomes more h e a v i l y union-i z e d . A l f r e d Weber, almost a century l a t e r , approached the l o c a t i o n a l problem from an opposite p o i n t of view. He assumed:that the i n d u s t r y (product) was given and th a t a l o c a t i o n had to be found. His theory i s based upon cost m i n i m i z a t i o n where the i n d u s t r y was supposed to l o c a t e at the l e a s t - c o s t p o i n t . In determining the optimal l o c a t i o n , he i d e n t i f i e d three b a s i c f a c t o r s : (a) t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs; 16 (b) labour costs; and (c) agglomerating f o r c e s . I f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s , which i n c l u d e d raw m a t e r i a l and f u e l c o s t s , are the p r i n c i p a l concerns i n choosing a l o c a t i o n , then the s i t e chosen i s l a r g e l y dependent up^n the product. When the products (such as i r o n ore) loose weight i n manufacturing, then the i n d u s t r y w i l l l o c a t e near the source of raw m a t e r i a l s . On the other hand, i f the product gains weight i n manufacturing, then.the s i t e chosen w i l l tend to be near the source of i t s markets. Weber, u n l i k e von fhunen, recognized t h a t i t was unre-a l i s t i c to assume away labour c o s t s . They could very e a s i l y o f f s e t any savings i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s . In other words, by c o n s i d e r i n g labour c o s t s , the l e a s t - c o s t p o i n t i n terms of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n could teery w e l l not be the o v e r - a l l l e a s t -cost p o i n t . I f the i n d u s t r y was labour i n t e n s i v e , i t would tend to g r a v i t a t e towards the labour source. The agglomerating f o r c e s , which Weber i d e n t i f i e d as the t h i r d f a c t o r i n optimal i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n , were c o n s i d -ered as an adjunct to the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and labour c o s t s . He f e l t t hat they would counteract or i n t e n s i f y the r e l a t i o n -ship between the p r i n c i p l e l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s . Only those i n d u s t r i e s which added g r e a t l y t o the value of the product, as a r e s u l t of p r o c e s s i n g , would b e n e f i t from agglomerating. Weber defined "value added" i n terms of labour costs and/or the cost of machinery. This l a t t e r cost i n v o l v e d a greater use of f u e l and, t h e r e f o r e , a greater dependence on t r a n s -portation^!" 17 *3 Weber's theory can be g r a p h i c a l l y shown by use of the Weberian T r i a n g l e which i s based on an elementary experiment i n p h y s i c s (See F i g u r e 2 ) . Each v e r t e x of the t r i a n g l e represents e i t h e r an input or a market. The theory u t i l i z e s two i n p u t s , say f u e l and ore, an output and a marketing centre. The problem i s to l o c a t e the p l a n t or i n d u s t r y at the l e a s t - c o s t s i t e . I n the p h y s i c s experiment, three s t r i n g s are t i e d t o a small r i n g and each s t r i n g i s f e d over a r o l l e r l o c a t e d at each v e r t e x . Then weights are t i e d to the s t r i n g s to represent the import-ance of each on the i n d u s t r y . For example, i n the above I diagram l e t A-, be the l o c a t i o n of the f u e l , A p the l o c a t i o n 18 of the ore, and the consuming l o c a t i o n . I f the cost of moving fue l i s X^ (the weight to be t i e d to each s t r i n g ) , and the cost of moving ore i s X £ , while the cost of moving the f in i shed product to the market i s X^, then the r i n g w i l l ind ica te the optimal s i t e for the plant since t h i s i s where 6 the system se t t l e s into equ i l ib r ium. The Weberian Polygon can only be used to f i n d the optimal s i t e i n terms of t ransporta t ion costs . Weber i n t r o -duced the concept of isodapanes to allow the optimal s i t e , i n terms of t ransporta t ion costs , to be moved when labour costs were important. Walter Isard explained the concept i n the fo l lowing manner: An isodapane i s a curve connecting points representing locat ions invo lv ing the same increases of transport cost over the cost incurred at the transport optimum p o i n t . The c r i t i c a l isodapane for any cheap labour s i t e i s the one which represents an add i t ion-a l transport outlay equivalent to the saving i n labour outlay at the cheap labour s i t e . I f the s i t e l i e s anywhere w i t h i n the area bounded by the c r i t i c a l isodapane, i t becomes e l i g i b l e for a t t r a c t i n g the production pro-cess under cons iderat ion; Weber ignored the demand factors and dismissed. ! inst i tu-t i o n a l costs such as i n t e r e s t , insurance, taxes, climate and management. He d i d however include such i tems ; as gas,, water-mains and s treets i n h i s l o c a t i o n a l f ac tor s . His d i v i s i o n of things to include and things to disregard when evaluat ing a l o c a t i o n has caused h i s theories to be challenged i n a . number of areas. ; 19 Edgar M. Hoover, although interes ted i n the s ize of the market area and i n d i r e c t l y concerned with the demand fac tor , d i f f e r s very l i t t l e from Weber i n bas ic theory. He d i f f e r s i n h i s approach to the subject and succeeds i n b r i n g -ing the minimization of costs into sharper focus. Hoover introduces demand determinants but f e l t that i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n could best be explained i n terms of minimization of t rans fer costs and product ion costs . Transportat ion costs include the cost of procuring the raw mater ia l s , d i s t r i b u t i n g the f in i shed products , and such costs as are associated with holding large inventor ies and customer d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n due to distance and slow serv ice . By enlarging the concept of t ransporta t ion costs , Hoover found i t necessary to examine the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f re ight costs . He concluded that i n each t rans fer there were terminal costs which were independent of the distance the goods were moved. He emphasized that the cost of t ransfer does not increase proport ionate ly with dis tance . Eor example, water-borne goods have a high terminal cost . Therefore, i t i s prudent to send goods by water i f pos s ib le , when they are bulky and need to be shipped great dis tances , since t h i s allows the terminal costs to be spread out. Truck transport has the lowest terminal cost of any mode of t ransporta t ion and i s c h i e f l y u t i l i z e d for small shipments over short dis tances . Hoover's second p r i n c i p a l l o c a t i o n a l f ac tor , product ion costs , involves an analys i s of the agglomerating and deglom-20 e r a t i n g f o r c e s introduced by Weber. However, u n l i k e Weber, he i s i n t e r e s t e d i n a l l p o s s i b l e l o c a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , not only the general ones which Weber defines as a f f e c t i n g a l l p l a n t l o c a t i o n s . Hooker i n f a c t r e l a x e s the d i v i s i o n between i n s t i t u t i o n a l and n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s , which allows a more p e n e t r a t i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the f a c t o r s which might have an i n f l u e n c e on l o c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s . Von ThTInen and Weber were i n t e r e s t e d i n la r g e geo-graphic areas, not i n c i t i e s or urban areas of those r e g i o n s . They were concerned w i t h r e g i o n a l l o c a t i o n . Hoover, although s t i l l w i t h i n t h i s general framework, has introduced elements which all o w a more m i c r o - i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h i n a r e g i o n . How-ever, he does not handle l o c a t i o n a l interdependence very w e l l . "... he assumes the l o c a t i o n and determines the market and supply areas therefrom; he does not e x p l a i n the whys of the l o c a t i o n from the standpoint of l o c a t i o n a l interdependence (demand). Market Area A n a l y s i s and L o c a t i o n a l Interdependence The second prominent school of l o c a t i n n a l theory i s the Market Area A n a l y s i s and the L o c a t i o n a l Interdependence School. They assumetthat buyers are s c a t t e r e d , ' " . . . w i t h each s e l l e r becoming a monopolist w i t h respect to consumers who are l o c a t e d near h i s p l a n t . " " ^ Harold H o t e l l i n g , one of the e a r l y proponents of t h i s approach, assumed th a t s i n c e buyers are s c a t t e r e d over an area, then the d e l i v e r e d p r i c e 21 of goods had to vary with l o c a t i o n . Firms were assumed to have i d e n t i c a l costs and quoted the same f . o . b . n e t - m i l l p r i c e . Thus, they were able to s e l l only to those customers to whom the de l ivered p r i ce was lower than that of a r i v a l . Each f i r m , therefore , a t ta ins a monopoly s i t u a t i o n near i t s own p l a n t . The s ize of the market area i s of prime concern and i s l a r g e l y determined by the l o c a t i o n a l interdependence on the companies or p l a n t s ^ This School of thought has concerned i t s e l f with examining the " inf luence of (a) the shape of the i n d u s t r i a l demand curve, (b) the shape of the marginal cost curves, and (c) the height of the f re ight rate on the l o c a t i o n of 12 indus t ry " . In doing so, the H o t e l l i n g School has committed the same sins that they accuse the Least-cost School of committing—abstracting from one element and thereby pro-ducing a onesided theory. They have abstracted cost , whereas the Least-cost theor i s t s have abstracted demand. Hoover, a Least-cost t h e o r i s t , made an attempt to bridge the gap between the two schools by discuss ing demand determinants as wel l as cost f ac tor s . However, h i s analyt-i c a l emphasis was on cost . August Ltfsch s i m i l a r l y made attempts to p u l l the two schools together, but from the other s ide : he f e l t that the l o c a t i o n depended upon the cost of product ion at a l ternat ive s i t e s and the market area i t could contro l from those s i t e s . But l i k e Hoover, Lftsch extended the l o c a t i o n theory i n h i s own area and pnly pa id l i p service 22 Ltfsbh's Market Areas F i g u r e 3.. t o the u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e of the opposing school. LOsch's p r i n c i p a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to l o c a t i o n theory i s h i s concept of minimum s i z e market area and h i s d i s c u s s i o n on agglomeration (See Figu r e 3 ) . He d e p i c t s the market area as a hexagon which s a t i s f i e s the requirements f o r l o c a t i o n a l e q u i l i b r i u m that the c l a s s i c a l c i r c l e s do not. Due to the f a c t t h a t i t i s s i m i l a r to a c i r c l e , d i s tance is\minimized and demand i s maximized. Secondly, he views t h e 1 t r a d i n g area of each type of i n d u s t r y i n terms of nets r o t a t e d around a common centre. This creates concentrations of p o p u l a t i o n and i n d u s t r i e s ^ 2 3 Melvin L. Greenhut attempted to correlate the two schools. After a det a i l e d examination into the assumptions, both expressed and implied, underlying ' botk. theories, he concluded that "... despite t h e i r differences, they are quite s i m i l a r : both emphasize the search f o r the s i t e which of f e r s 14-the greatest spread between t o t a l costs and t o t a l revenues." Greenhut f e l t that a "general theory must include... (1) cost factors of lo c a t i o n , ( 2 ) demand factors of lo c a t i o n , ( 3 ) cost-reducing factors, (4-) revenue-increasing factors, ( 5 ) personal cost-reducing factors, (6) personal revenue-:^ increasing f a c t o r s , and perhaps (7) purely personal consider-15 atxons." ; At about the same time, Walter Isard provided a synthesis of the Weberian and market area analysis as well. His emphasis was i n the area of international trade and, l i k e those before him, he dealt with the inter-regional aspects of the l o c a t i o n a l problem^ In recent years, l o c a t i o n theory has advanced on several fronts, notably i n the relaxation of assumptions and the p r o v i s i o n of more general and powerful a n a l y t i c a l frame-works. William Alonso, Gilbert A. C h u r c h i l l , and others, have made some i n t e r e s t i n g reformulation of the so-called 17 C l a s s i c a l Location Theory.' Alonso broke new ground by apply-ing vector analysis to C l a s s i c a l Location Theory. He also introduced such factors as economies of scale, factor sub-s t i t u t i o n and e l a s t i c demands to the established theory and 24 concluded t h a t m i n i m i z a t i o n of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs i s a d o u b t f u l c r i t e r i a f o r l o c a t i o n . Another important c o n t r i b u -t i o n was h i s d e f i n i t i o n of a common ground between the theory of rent and l o c a t i o n theory. These, he concluded, were 1 Pi e q u i v a l e n t . A b r i e f scan of the l i t e r a t u r e shows a r e v i v a l of even von Thunen's b a s i c theory which i n d i c a t e s t h a t the a r t i s a l i v e and w e l l . This c o n t r a d i c t s Hoover's a s s e r t i o n t h a t von Thunen's and Weber's works are "now mainly of 19 h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t . " y I n t r a - M e t r o p o l i t a n L o c a t i o n Theory The l a r g e s t body of i n f o r m a t i o n on l o c a t i o n theory i s concerned w i t h i n t e r - r e g i o n a l problems, not i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n or i n t r a - r e g i o n a l l o c a t i o n . E m p i r i c a l Studies The l i t e r a t u r e on i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n i n d u s t r i a l l o c a -t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e s a number of approaches which have b u i l t upon and r e i n f o r c e d each other. There are s e v e r a l s t u d i e s which are e m p i r i c a l i n nature and attempt to i d e n t i f y the f a c t o r s which are considered important by the l o c a t i o n d e c i s -i o n maker. These have l a r g e l y been conducted without any f i r m t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e . To the extent t h a t any one theory was r e l i e d upon, i t was C l a s s i c a l L o c a t i o n Theory, i n t e r -p r e t e d from the i n t e r - r e g i o n a l sphere to an i n t r a - m e t r o p o l -i t a n s e t t i n g . This approach has had l i m i t e d usefulnees i n 25 that i t has provided model bu i lder s with a r e a l i s t i c set of l o c a t i o n a l factors to use as v a r i a b l e s . 20 M. I . Logan, i n a case study of Sydney, A u s t r a l i a , attempted to examine the factors involved i n s i t e s e l e c t i o n . By sampling a number of firms which had recent ly chosen s i t e s , he found that the most common reasons given fore choos-ing a s i t e were: (1) Closeness to market (2) Closeness to suppl iers (3) Closeness to a n c i l l a r y services (4-) Closeness to labour supply . (5) Land ava i lab le at the r i g h t p r i ce (6) Personal l i k i n g for the area (7) Take-over or merger (8) Suitable atmospheric condi t ions . Logan noted that the question of s i t e s e l ec t ion was taken very ser ious ly by large companies. They tended to be trend setters since they were able to locate i n r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n . In other words, they were large enough not to worry about support se rv ice s , raw mater ia l s , or customers. For small f i rms , the l o c a t i o n dec i s ion was not an oneroua one because they were very mobile, and tended to have small market areas. Land va lue , Logan noted, was an important force a f fect-ing the l o c a t i o n of manufacturing f i rms . A d i r e c t c o r r e l a -t i o n could be made between main t ransporta t ion a r ter ie s and land va lue . 21 Further , Logan c i t e d several wr i ters who had i n d i c -ated that personal elements played a large ro le i n p lant l o c a t i o n . One of the most important var iab le s was the back-26 ground of the d e c i s i o n maker. J . L. G r i f f i n p o i n t e d out t h a t some of the m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r s are the d e s i r e f o r power, p r e s t i g e , independence, and s o c i a l approval, as w e l l as the 22 p r o f i t motive. Although much of the r e g i o n a l l o c a t i o n a l theory i m p l i c -i t l y assumes t h a t l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s are made by the "economic man", there i s some doubt t h a t "firms can a c t u a l l y f i n d t h e i r optimum l o c a t i o n even i f they do behave i n a p r o f i t - m a x i m i z i n g manner. I t has been argued t h a t l o c a t i o n theory can only p o i n t out the c o n d i t i o n s of an optimal l o c a t i o n ; and there i s no simple market mechanism • whereby the optimum may be reached. "23 Another problem i s t h a t today's optimal s i t e may not be tomor-row's optimal s i t e . Thus, when a d e c i s i o n i s t o be made, which c r i t e r i a should be a p p l i e d — t h a t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h today or t h a t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h somettime i n the f u t u r e ? In a much o l d e r , but "made i n Canada" study, Donald Kerr and Jacob S p e l t examined p a r t of a downtown i n d u s t r i a l area i n Toronto to f i n d out what was going on i n the area. The popular b e l i e f was t h a t downtown i n d u s t r i a l areas are 24-r a p i d l y d e c l i n i n g . T h e i r study concluded t h a t : On the surface the area appears as on o l d and d d e c l i n i n g i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t , but t h e f f a c t i s , t h a t w h i l e there are a number of stagnant f i r m s s c a t t e r e d throughout the area, behind t h i s facade there i s a s u r p r i s i n g l y strong growth of youth and v i g o u r . Kerr and S p e l t i d e n t i f i e d a number of f a c t o r s which seem t o . b r i n g and keep p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r i e s i n t o the down-27 town i n d u s t r i a l area. These i n c l u d e d cheap renta b l e space, i amenities, nearness to customers and s u p p l i e r s , and l e s s 25 r e s t r i c t i v e by-law enforcement-. Hoover and Vernon, i n a much more comprehensive study of the New York metropolis i d e n t i f i e d many of the same f a c t o r s and drew s i m i l a r conclu-26 s i o n s . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these f a c t o r s by e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s has added g r e a t l y to our understanding of the i n d u s t -r i a l movement w i t h i n a m e t r o p o l i t a n area. I t has allowed us to g a i n greater i n s i g h t i n t o the type, q u a l i t y , q u a n t i t y , and l o c a t i o n of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property. This i n f o r -mation has been used i n l o c a t i o n models to attempt to d i s c e r n the f u t u r e more c l e a r l y . 27 L o c a t i o n Models ' A m a j o r i t y of the i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n models have been developed as p a r t s of l a r g e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and land use s t u d i e s . The i n c l u s i o n of i n d u s t r i a l land a l l o c a -t i o n models i n these s t u d i e s r e s u l t s from a conventional d i v i s i o n of land use i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l , and other uses. Industry i s normally a l l o c a t e d i t s land f i r s t on the assumption t h a t the place of employment w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on l o c a t i o n of homes. .These s t u d i e s have normally been r e s t r i c t e d to d e a l i n g w i t h the s i t u a t i o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r m e t r o p o l i t a n area; consequently, there was 28 no attempt to develop a general theory to serve as a b a s i s f o r model a p p l i c a b l e anywhere. Dubbink p o i n t s out t h a t i n most cases model b u i l d e r s are c o n s t r a i n e d by f i n a n c i a l and personnel c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , as w e l l as the l a c k of q u a l i t y 28 data. These c o n s t r a i n t s deter attempts to g e n e r a l i z e . A number of the more recent models are presented below. Chicago Area T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Study ( C A T S ) ^ In t h i s study, the m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n was d i v i d e d i n t o r i n g s , d i s t r i c t s , and zones. The developed areas of the r e g i o n were then examined f o r changes i n land use p a t -t e r n s and an inventory of vacant land was taken. L o c a l know-ledgeable i n d i v i d u a l s were consulted as to f u t u r e trends and employment growth. This judgemental i n f o r m a t i o n was used i n a l l o c a t i n g p o p u l a t i o n and employment f o r each of the a r e a l u n i t s . The model placed a heavy emphasis on ensuring t h a t sub-area t o t a l s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t o t a l s f o r the next l a r g e s t a r e a l u n i t s . The s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e s of t h i s model are i t s r e l i a n c e on judgement and i t s emphasis on i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s . •50 Boston Regional Planning P r o j e c t ^ The s e c t i o n of t h i s study which i n t e r e s t s us i s common-l y r e f e r r e d t o as EMPIRIC Land Use F o r e c a s t i n g Model. EMPIRIC, u n l i k e CATS, i s a f l e x i b l e mathematical model which 29 was designed to l o c a t e exogenously determined a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n a r e g i o n . These a c t i v i t i e s or l o c a t e d v a r i a b l e s were: (a) white c o l l a r p o p u l a t i o n ; (b) blue c o l l a r p o p u l a t i o n ; (c) r e t a i l and wholesale employment; (d) manufacturing employ-ment; and (e) other employment. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between these l o c a t e d v a r i a b l e s and l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s , which were s p e c i f i c a l l y d e t a i l e d , was ex-amined by use of r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . EMPIRIC i s s u f f i c e n t l y f l e x i b l e that i t i s p o s s i b l e to make a d d i t i o n a l refinements on such items as the di s a g g r e g a t i o n of employment. 31 Penn-Jersey T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Study^ The LINT or LINTA model was developed f o r t h i s study i n order "to f o r e c a s t the l o c a t i o n of manufacturing employment...by small area- This model f i r s t spreads the r e g i o n a l growth r a t e of a given a c t i v i t y over a l l sub-areas. Then, based on sub-area s p e c i f i c measures of ' a t t r a c t i v e n e s s ' , the model r e a l l o c a t e s the growth to d i f f e r e n t sub-areas i n pro-p o r t i o n to t h e i r a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . -32 Goldberg notes that the advantage of such a model l i e s i n i t s a b i l i t y to produce a unique c o r r e l a t i o n between a sr£* and an amount of a p a r t i c u l a r type of employment, p r o v i d i n g a fe a s -i b l e s o l u t i o n e x i s t s . 30 Bay Area Simulation. Study (BASS) The o v e r a l l goal of t h i s study was the p r o j e c t i o n and s p a t i a l a l l o c a t i o n of employment and housing w i t h i n the San Fr a n c i s c o Bay Area. The i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n model was con-cerned w i t h d i s t r i b u t i n g p r o j e c t e d manufacturing employment. " I t f u n c t i o n s by i d e n t i f y i n g f o r each i n d u s t r y group a set of l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s i t needs i n f i n d i n g a s i t e . For each s i t e (census t r a c t ) the f a c t o r s are measured and added together to give a score f o r each census t r a c t f o r each i n d u s t r y group. The t r a c t w i t h the highest score f o r a given i n d u s t r y group r e c e i v e s a u n i t of employment. The scores are then u s u a l l y r e c a l c u l a t e d and the a l l o c a t i o n continues as above u n t i l a l l p r o j e c t e d employment i s a l l o c a t e d . "34-Models which pre-dated BASS had two general weaknesses which BASS developers sought to overcome. One was the prob-lem of uniqueness. There was no way of handling the s i t u a -t i o n where s e v e r a l u n i t s of d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s d e s i r e d a s i n g l e l o c a t i o n or v i c e - v e r s a . The second problem focused on the l a c k of dis a g g r e g a t i o n w i t h regard to economic a c t i v i t y and to geographic areas. The problem of uniqueness was solved by d i v i d i n g the i n d u s t r i e s i n t o sub-groups and then i d e n t i f y i n g a d i f f e r e n t group of r e l e v a n t l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s f o r each sub-group. Thus, no census t r a c t had the most a t t r a c t i v e score f o r more than one i n d u s t r y , and v i c e - v e r s a , no two i n d u s t r i e s wanted the same t r a c t . Despite t h e i r success i n circumventing the uniqueness 31 problem and i n p a r t i a l l y overcoming the disaggregation prob-lem by c r e a t i n g smaller sub-units, the developers were s t i l l confronted w i t h s e v e r a l problems. One was the l i m i t e d number of l o c a t i o n a l f a c t o r s which could be measured i n a r e g i o n . A more seriou s problem e x i s t e d i n an i n a b i l i t y t o weight the r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s . 3 5 The Santa C l a r a County I n d u s t r i a l Land Use M o d e l ^ This model, which was developed about the same time as BASS, i s a r e g r e s s i o n — b a s e d t r e n d model. I t was con-ceived on "the e s t a b l i s h e d n o t i o n that the p r o b a b i l -i t y of the development of a piece of vacant land i s r e l a t e d to the q u a l i t y and character of the s i t e . The modeling pro-cedure assumes t h a t , i f t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i t e q u a l i t i e s and land develop-ment i s t r a c e d i n h i s t o r y , i n f e r e n c e s can be drawn about the current- and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n of development."56 An i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t concerning the t r e n d aspect i s that although the growth experience of the country f o r 1 9 6 2 -1965 was p r o j e c t e d i n t o the f u t u r e , the growth f o r each i n d i v i d u a l census t r a c t was not. Instead, the h i s t o r i c a l growth of a census t r a c t at a comparable stage of develop-ment was p r o j e c t e d i n t o the f u t u r e . For example, i f t r a c t 1 was at l e v e l X i n 1 9 6 2 , and at l e v e l Y i n 1 9 6 5 , then t r a c t 2 , which had only reached l e v e l X i n 1 9 6 5 , would use t r a c t l ' s growth h i s t o r y f o r a f u t u r e p r o j e c t i o n . 32 This model has s e v e r a l weaknesses. L i k e BASS, i t i s unable to handle employment decreases a c c u r a t e l y . A second weakness l i e s i n a tendency to o v e r f i l l t r a c t s , but more p a r t i c u l a r l y to use more land i n a t r a c t than a c t u a l l y poss-essed the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e q u i r e d by a c e r t a i n i n d u s t r y . For example, i f one-half mile from freeway access was r e q u i r e d , the model would o v e r f i l l on t h i s requirement, since only a small percentage of i n d u s t r i a l l a n d f i l l e d t h i s c r i t e r i a . Logan f e e l s t h a t models of c i t y s t r u c t u r e are r e l e v a n t but provide " . . . l i t t l e understanding of entrepreneur-i a l behavior. L o c a t i o n a l decision-making i n t h i s context i s complex; the s i z e and cost of p a r c e l s of l a n d , the pl a c e of residence of the managing d i r e c t o r , the p r o v i s i o n s of t r a n s p o r t f a c i l i t i e s f o r workers, closeness t o a n c i l l a r y f i r m s and the a t t i t u d e s and p o l i c i e s of l o c a l govern-ment bodies towards i n d u s t r y are important v a r i a b l e s . The weight given by i n d i v i d u a l f i r m s to these v a r i a b l e s i s l i k e l y to vary w i t h the c a p i t a l reserves and s i z e of the f i r m , and w i t h the q u a l i t y of t h i s manage-ment. As e x t e r n a l economies of s c a l e are not u b i q u i t o u s throughout a c i t y , they too, could be expected to a f f e c t the l o c a t i o n of manufacturing firms."37 To meet some of t h i s c r i t i c i s m , model development i n general seems t o be tending towards a breakdown of smaller a r e a l u n i t s and an increase i n the l o c a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This t r e n d i s e x e m p l i f i e d by Goldberg's comments on the weak-nesses of the BASS model and by Dubbink's comments on the Santa C l a r a County model. In a l l these models there i s a 33 l a c k of t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e and the tre n d mentioned above w i l l only discourage any attempts to g e n e r a l i z e , since the more d e t a i l e d such models become, the more s p e c i a l i z e d and unique they are. Theory As mentioned above, n e i t h e r the e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s nor the l o c a t i o n models have attempted to provide a t h e o r e t i c a l framework i n which to operate. Any movement i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n has merely attempted to ex t r a p o l a t e from r e g i o n a l l o c a t i o n theory. The d i f f e r e n c e s between i n t e r - r e g i o n a l and i n t r a -r e g i o n a l problems i s l a r g e l y one of s c a l e . In the i n t r a -m e t r o p o l i t a n context, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs are a minimal con-s i d e r a t i o n since they vary only s l i g h t l y between any two p o i n t s i n the r e g i o n . The same i s al s o t r u e f o r such costs as labour, p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s , and insurance. Land p r i c e s are the p r i n c i p a l exceptions. With such obvious d i f f e r e n c e s be-tween the two s i t u a t i o n s , i t i s necessary to discuss i n t r a -m e t r o p o l i t a n i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n i n terms other than those used when d i s c u s s i n g i n t e r - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n . I n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n theory has u n t i l r e c e n t l y been almost non-existent. Michael A. Goldberg was one of the f i r s t to develop a general theory f o r p l a n t l o c a t i o n w i t h i n an urban s e t t i n g . He presented a syn t h e s i s 3 4 of the t h e o r i e s of pr o d u c t i o n , l o c a t i o n and s i z e d i s t r i b u -t i o n . T h i s , i n t u r n , l e d him to formulate a theory which "recognizes e x p l i c i t l y the r o l e of s i z e i n the l o c a t i o n of p l a n t s and s i m i l a r l y the r o l e of l o c a t i o n i n the theory of 38 p r o d u c t i o n and i n the s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p l a n t s . " v 39 Raymond Vernon i n M e t r o p o l i s 1985 discusses the l o c a t i o n of manufacturing p l a n t s i n terms of i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l economies. He surmised that small f i r m s , as w e l l as those r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l l i n k a g e s , chose to l o c a t e i n the c e n t r a l c i t i e s because of the e x t e r n a l economies a v a i l a b l e . On the other hand, l a r g e r p l a n t s were able to i n t e r n a l i z e many f u n c t i o n s that s m a l l e r p l a n t s had to purchase extern-a l l y . F u r t h e r , l a r g e r p l a n t s encountered many diseconomies such as congestion, and these, both allowed and fo r c e d them to move out of the c e n t r a l c i t i e s . Thus i t can be seen th a t there e x i s t s some r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s i z e of a p l a n t and i t s l o c a t i o n i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n area. Vernon's observa-t i o n s i n d i c a t e "that d i f f e r e n t s i z e p l a n t s have d i f f e r e n t p r o d u c t i o n f u n c t i o n s and d i f f e r e n t r e t u r n s to s c a l e . Thus, r e t u r n s to sc a l e vary w i t h s i z e and s i z e v a r i e s w i t h location."^"O Goldberg shows that when the r e t u r n s to sc a l e are 41 i n c r e a s i n g and the expansion path i s s h i f t i n g over time, they are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . He al s o demonstrates that changes i n l o c a t i o n can e x p l a i n i n c r e a s e s i n r e t u r n to sc a l e by assuming th a t 35 "the r e l o c a t i o n of p lants to out ly ing areas, leads to a dec l ine i n c e n t r a l i t y . . . the geographic d i sper s ion of p lants can r e s u l t i n the increase i n returns to scale . . . a n d . . . i m p l i e s that d i sper s ion i n the s ize of p lants must also increase . This fol lows from the l o c a t i o n of smaller p lants at higher density locat ions and l a rger p lants at les s centra l ones. The l a rger p lants enjoy returns to scale and therefore they tend to grow more ea s i ly i w i t h higher p r o f i t rates than the smaller c e n t r a l l y located p l a n t s . Large and small p lants can grow at the same ra te , but t h i s s t i l l leads to increased d i s -per s ion i n plant s i z e s . The fact that l a rger p lants do more enables them to maintain t h e i r growth rates and thus increase d i sper s ion both i n a geograph-i c a l and s ize d i s t r i b u t i o n sense. "4-2 Changes i n l o c a t i o n also inf luence p r o f i t s and output-c a p i t a l r a t i o s . Under the assumption that input - output e l a s t i c i t i e s are constant, large plants i n suburban loca -t ions have considerable increases " i n the output - c a p i t a l r a t i o since greater returns to scale imply greater output per 43 uni t of i n p u t . " ^ The r e s u l t of Goldberg's synthesis of the l o c a t i o n , product ion and s ize d i s t r i b u t i o n theories has been a theory of in t ra-metropo l i t an l o c a t i o n of manufacturing plants which recognizes the r o l e of s ize i n the l o c a t i o n of plants and the r o l e of l o c a t i o n i n the theory of product ion and i n the s ize 44 d i s t r i b u t i o n of p l a n t s . As a r e s u l t , he put f o r t h and success fu l ly tes ted the fo l lowing hypothesis : 1. There i s an inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s ize of a p lant and the density of the sub-area i n which i t loca te s . 36 2. P l a n t growth i s l i m i t e d "by space c o n s t r a i n t s of the p l a n t - s i t e . Conclusion There has been p r a c t i c a l l y no research on i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t r e l o c a t i o n s . Goldberg attempted to examine the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between the growth of a p l a n t and i t s propensity to move to a l a r g e r s i t e . However, due to an inadequate data base, he was unable to draw any conelusions concerning the hypothesis that manufacturing p l a n t s move to l e s s dense sub-areas i n the m e t r o p o l i s . Much of the other work r e l a t e d to r e l o c a t i o n has been i n the form of e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s and has focused on t h e i r reasons f o r moving and on t h e i r new l o c a -t i o n s . This chapter has discussed l o c a t i o n theory and the' l o c a t i o n of demand. The development of the theory was t r a c e d from von Thtlnen through Weber, Hoover, and others, to Gold-berg, w i t h a b r i e f look at some of the computerized l o c a t i o n models. R e l o c a t i o n w i l l be discussed i n a subsequent chapter. The next chapter discusses i n d u s t r y i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and b r i e f l y describes the survey which was conducted to gather the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h i s study. 37 Footnotes 1. Melvin L . Greenhut, Plant Locat ion : In Theory and  In P r a c t i c e , Univer s i ty of North Caro l ina Press", 1956, pp. 5 - 8 , 2 5 4 - 255. 2 . I b i d . , p . 2 5 4 . 3 . Michael A . Goldberg, "Evaluat ing the Inter -ac t ion between Urban Transport and Land Use Systems", Land  Economics, November, 1972. 4 . Greenhut, op. c i t . , pp. 8 - 17, 255 - 257. 5 . Adapted from Michael Goldberg, Intrametropolitan  Indus t r i a l Locat ions : Plant Size and the Theory of  Product ion, Ins t i tu te of Urban and Regional Develop-ment, Univer s i ty of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkley, 1969, p . 30. 6 . Wi l l i am Alonso, "A Reformulation of C l a s s i c a l Locat ion Theory and Its Re la t ion to Rent Theory", Papers: The  Regional Science Foundation, V o l . 19, 1967, pp. 23 - 2 4 . 7- Goldberg, op. c i t . , p . 31* 8 . Edgar M. Hoover, Locat ion of Economic A c t i v i t y , McGraw H i l l Book C o . , I n c . , 1963-9 . Greenhut, op. c i t . , p . 2 1 . 1 0 . I b i d . , P . 23. 1 1 . I b i d . , P P • 39 - 4 1 , 2 5 8 . 12. I b i d . , P . 2 5 8 . 13. I b i d . , P P . 3 4 - 3 7 , 2 6 3 - 2 6 4 . 1 4 . I b i d . , P . 9 7 . 15. I b i d . , P P . 1 7 6 - 177. 1 6 . Goldberg, op. c i t . , pp. 33 - 3 4 . 17. I b i d . , pp. 34 - 39. 1 8 . Alonso, op. c i t . , p . 23-38 1 9 . Hoover, op. c i t . , p. 2 7 n . 2 0 . M. I . Logan, "Location Behaviour of Manufacturing Firms i n Urban Areas", Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, YmL 5 6 , September, 1 9 6 6 . pp. 451-466. 2 1 . G. H. E l l i s , "Why New Manufacturing Establishments l o c a t e d i n New England", "August 1945 to June 1948", • Monthly Review, F e d e r a l Res erve Bank of Boston, V o l . 3 1 , 1 9 4 9 , pp. 1 - 1 2 . C. M. Tiebout, "Location Theory, E m p i r i c a l Evidence and Economic E v a l u a t i o n " , Papers: Regional Science  A s s o c i a t i o n , V o l . 3 , 1 9 5 7 , PP- 74- - 8 6 . 2 2 . Logan, op. c i t . p. 4 5 3 . 2 3 . I b i d . 24. Donald K e r r , Jacob S p e l t , "Manufacturing i n Downtown Toronto", Geographical B u l l e t i n No. 1 0 , 1957 , p. 16. 2 5 . I b i d . , pp. 1 - 1 5 . 26. Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of a  M e t r o p o l i s , Doubleday Anchor Books, New York, 1 9 6 2 . 2 7 . The most recent and d e t a i l e d survey and c r i t i q u e of I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n models i s by Stephen H. Putman, "Intraurban Employment F o r e c a s t i n g Models: A review and a Suggested New Model Construct", Journal of the  American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, V o l . XXXVIII, No. 4 , J u l y , 1 9 7 2 , pp. 216 - 2 3 0 . 28. David T. Dubbink, "Estimating the S p a c i a l D i s t r i b u -t i o n of Industry W i t h i n an Urban Region - The Santa C l a r a County I n d u s t r i a l Land Use Model", Annals of  Regional Science, Dec. 1 9 6 8 , p. 188. 2 9 . Michael Goldberg, "An I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n Model f o r the San F r a n c i s c o Bay Area", Annals of Regional  Science. December 1 9 6 7 , p. 60. 3 0 . I b i d . , p. 61. 3 1 . I b i d . , p. 62. 3 2 . Putman, op. c i t . , p. 218. 39 33. Goldberg, "An I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n Model f o r the San F r a n c i s c o Bay Area", op. c i t . , pp. 60 - 73 . • Michael Goldberg, "Bay Area S i m u l a t i o n Study Employ-ment Lo c a t i o n Models", Annals of Regional Science, December, 1968. pp. 161 - 176. 34- . Putman, op. c i t . , p. 220. 35- Dubbink, op. c i t . , pp 187 - 202. 36. I b i d . , p. 188. 37. Logan, op. c i t . , p. 4-55. 38. Goldberg, I n t r a m e t r o p o l i t a n I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n : P l a n t  S i z e and the Theory of Production, op. c i t . , p. 220. 39. Vernon, op. c i t . , p. 455. 40 . Goldberg, I n t r a m e t r o p o l i t a n I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n : P l a n t  S i z e and the Theory of Production, op. c i t . , p. ^7 . 4-1. The expansion path represents the b a s i c manufacturing a c t i v i t y of an i n d u s t r y . The s i z e s of p l a n t s , which group around t h i s path, are given by t h e i r p o s i t i o n on the path. The s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p l a n t s i s there-f o r e defined w i t h respect to t h i s path. 42 . Goldberg, op. c i t . , p. 163- I n t r a m e t r o p o l i t a n I n d u s t r i a l  L o c a t i o n : P l a n t Size and the Theory of Production, op. c i t . , p. 163. 43 . I b i d . , p. 167. 4A. I b i d . , p. 167. CHAPTER I I I METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER This chapter discusses the economy and i n d u s t r i a l development of met r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, I t serves as a framework w i t h i n which the study areas can he examined. The economy i s discussed i n terms of i t s present s t a t e of develop-ment w i t h a b r i e f look at f u t u r e trends. The region's i n d u s t -r i a l development i s discussed w i t h some of the more s i g n i f i -cant trends o u t l i n e d . M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, which i n c l u d e s f i f t e e n c i t i e s , towns, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , d i s t r i c t s and unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s " ^ i s l a r g e l y defined by topography. The mountains r i s i n g s h a r p ly from Burrard I n l e t , have de f i n e d the northern extrem-i t i e s w h i l e the sea forms the western boundary. An act of h i s t o r y has set a l i m i t to southern expansion but the east-ern boundary i s vague and f l u i d . Vancouver '*s Economy Me t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver i s the f i n a n c i a l , commercial, and manufacturing centre of B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h roughly one-half of the Province's p o p u l a t i o n and two-thirds of i t s 4-1 labour f o r c e . As Canada's t h i r d l a r g e s t urban area, Van-couver performs three b a s i c economic f u n c t i o n s . F i r s t , i t i s the hub of B r i t i s h Columbia's developing secondary i n d u s t r i e s , which i n c l u d e wood and wood products manufact-u r i n g , food p r o c e s s i n g , metal f a b r i c a t i o n and p r i n t i n g and .publishi n g . These i n d u s t r i e s represent a l a r g e p o r t i o n of the t o t a l P r o v i n c i a l i n d u s t r i a l c a p a c i t y . Secondly, the me t r o p o l i t a n area i s the P r o v i n c i a l focus f o r t e r t i a r y or s e r v i c e i n d u s t r i e s . This segment of the n a t i o n a l economy has been growing r a p i d l y i n the past few decades. T h i r d l y , the metropolis i s Canada's l a r g e s t port i n terms of annual ton-nage handled and i s also the major d i s t r i b u t i o n and t r a n s -shipment centre f o r Western Canada. Vancouver's economy i s e s s e n t i a l l y "resource-based" . i n the sense t h a t the area's p r o s p e r i t y and growth are- c l o s e l y t i e d to the e x p l o i t a t i o n and processing of the raw m a t e r i a l s found i n i t s h i n t e r l a n d . These n a t u r a l resources, which e x i s t i n almost u n l i m i t e d q u a n t i t i e s , have been r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e and have brought good p r i c e s on world markets. This has helped to give the r e g i o n one of the highest stand-ards of l i v i n g i n Canada. Since n a t u r a l resources have been so easy t o harvest and t h e i r s a l e , i n e i t h e r a raw or semi-processed form, so p r o f i t a b l e , investment i n t h i s sector of the economy has been hig h r e l a t i v e to other s e c t o r s . This helps t o e x p l a i n the low l e v e l of manufacturing a c t i v i t y , i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n area. 42 Table 1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT  IN CANADIAN METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1961 Montreal Toronto Vancouver Primary 0.7 1.0 3-3 Secondary 38.6 36.2 26.3 T e r t i a r y 60.7 62.8 70.4 T o t a l Labour Force 807,000 790,000 295,000 T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n 2,110,000 1,824,000 790,000 Source: D.B.S., Census of Canada, 1961 Not only does manufacturing provide a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower percentage of t o t a l employment i n Vancouver, i n com-p a r i s o n to Montreal and Toronto (see Table 1) but i t s s t r u c r t u r e i s a l s o narrower (see Table 2). Vancouver has approximately 40 d i s t i n c t i v e manufact-u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s , of which only t h i r t e e n can be r a t e d as 2 . important. In comparison, Montreal has over 65 d i s t i n c t manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s of which 40 employ more than 1,000 persons while' Toronto, w i t h about 45 d i s t i n c t i v e i n d u s t r i e s , has 26 which are considered important. The narrowness i s even more evident when the employment f i g u r e s are examined more c l o s e l y . Of the t h i r t e e n important i n d u s t r i e s i n 4-3 TABLE 2 Cq?ARTSO:-.' OF TMPCRTA?!? A?!D DISTINCTIVE INDUSTRIES IN S3I3CTEO MSFROPOLTTAH AREAS - EMPLOYMENT Industry Group Montreal Toronto Vancouver 1968 254 Sash, door and other millwork plants 261 Household furniture Inds. 302 Fabricated structural Metal Inds. 303 Ornamental & architectural Metal Inds. 304 Metal stamping, pressing,coating Ind. 305 'Wire & wire products mfgs. 306 Hardware, tool and cutlery mfgs. 308 Machine shops 321 Aircraft and parts mfgs. 336 Mfgs of electrical industrial equip. 347 Concrete prod. mfgs. 348 Ready-mix concrete mfgs. 356 Glass and glass prods, mfgs. 101 Slaughtering and meat processing 105 Dairy factories 112 Fruit, vegetable canners & preservers 128 Biscuit mfgs. .129 Bakeries 141 Soft drink mfgs. 131 Confectionery mfgs. 174 Shoe factories 179 Luggage, handbag and small leather goods mfgs. 214 Narrow Fabric Mi "lis 218 Textile dying and finishing plants 231 Hoisery mills 243 Men's clothing inds. 244 Women's clothing inds. 245 Children's clothing inds. 246 Fur goods inds. 248 Foundation garmet ind. 273 Paper box and bag manufs. 286 Commercial printers platemaking, typesetting 287 Trade bindery 288 Publishing 289 Publish & printing 365 Petroleum Refineries 375 Paint & varnish mfgs. 374 Mfgs. of pharmaceuticals & medicines 382 Jewellery & silverware manfgs. 393 Sporting goods and toy industries 324 Truck body and trai l e r mfgs. 325 Motor vehicle parts and accessories mfgs. 332 Mfgs. of motor appliances 334 Mfgs. of household radio, T.V. receivers 337 Battery mfgs. 338 Mfgs. of electric wire &. cable 377 Mfgs. of to i l e t preparations 381 Scientific and professional equip, mfgs. 397 Signs and display inds 251 Sawmills 252 Veneer and plywood mills 327 Shipbuilding & repair 111 Fish Product inds. 271 Pulp and paper mills TOTALS 1,153 4,214 3,369 3,317 7,068 3,907 1 , 8 a 2,780 16,816 1,572 1,403 1,062 3,281 4,634 2,564 1,581 2,430 5,652 2,844 1,875 5,744 2,895 1,129 1,118 2,415 13,090 21,950 5,432 1,528 1,579 3,308 7,952 1,993 1,697 5,313 2,418 1,602 5,518 1,088 1,041 2,302 4,422 3,628 8,744 2,880 3,320 2,671 1,929 1,053 2,685 1,663 6,572 1,831 14,134 9,080 3,228 4,164 1,367 5,243 3,843 3,087 1,072 2,387 2,264 6,405 2,600 1,454 1,310 1,333 1,061 1,343 1,411 1,883 1,735 162,173 102,574 7,175 4,970 1,902 11936 1,102 46,015 SOURCE: MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES OF CANADA, Section G, Geographic Distribution, 1967 and 1958, Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 44 Vancouver, s i x are engaged i n f i r s t stage resource produc-t i o n and represent 2 9 . 0 % of the t o t a l employment i n a l l manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s . In Montreal there are s i x such i n d u s t r i e s employing 1 3 , 7 8 7 or 5*0% of the labour f o r c e engaged i n manufacturing, while i n Toronto the f i g u r e s are even lower f o r f i r s t stage resource p r o d u c t i o n i n d u s t r i e s . As w e l l as having a l a r g e p a r t of i t s manufacturing employment engaged i n f i r s t stage resource production, most of Vancouver's other important i n d u s t r i e s e x h i b i t a h i g h degree of dependence on the h i n t e r l a n d . For example, the machine shops b u i l d and r e p a i r p a r t s and equipment f o r use i n the h a r v e s t i n g of the Province's timber and mineral resources. The same i s t r u e f o r the wire and wire product manufacturers and the t r u c k body and t r a i l e r manufacturers. The metal stamping, p r e s s i n g and coating i n d u s t r y provides cans f o r the f r u i t and vegetable canners and the f i s h pro-cessors. The a c c e s s i b i l i t y and p r o f i t a b i l i t y of resource ex-p l o r a t i o n has perhaps been a curse,as w e l l as a b l e s s i n g f o r Vancouver. I t has a source of easy money, which has allowed Vancouver's c i t i z e n s to purchase a h i g h standard of l i v i n g w h ile negating the n e c e s s i t y to develop a secondary manufac-t u r i n g base. In recent years, the economy has been d i v e r s -i f y i n g l a r g e l y due to the growth of the l o c a l market. In 1 9 5 8 , m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver had 1,74-6 manufacturing estab-lishments, employing 5 2 , 8 7 8 persons and the t o t a l s e l l i n g 4-5 TABLE 3 PERC3?!TAG5 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOY!^ CT BY ECONOMIC SECTOR CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA METRO-VANCOUVER 1951 1961 58 1951 1961 55 1951 1961 56 Primary 19.855 12. -35 -39 3.655 3.155 -14 Secondary (Manufacturing 31.356 -7 3 1 . $ 29.155 - 8 29.855 - 7 Tertiary (Service Inds.' 48.955 hi 9 55.2f0 62. Sp -14 66.655 69.155 r 4 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Derived from Census of Canada, 1951 and 1961, Dominion Bureau of Statistics 46 value of f a c t o r y shipments i n current d o l l a r s was $94-1, SO3,000. By 1 9 6 8 , the number of establishments had increased to 1,846, employing 61 , 7 6 6 people. Although these increases are modest, i n the order of 6% and 17% r e s p e c t i v e l y , the t o t a l value of goods shipped i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c a l l y to over $ 1,800 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . i n current d o l l a r s ? In constant 1958 d o l l a r s t h i s represents an increase of almost 50%. The d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of the economy has l e d to an i n c r e a s e i n the s e r v i c e i n d u s t r i e s as w e l l . In Vancouver, which has always enjoyed a h i g h standard of l i v i n g , the demand f o r s e r v i c e s i s much higher r e l a t i v e t o other Canadian c i t i e s (see Table 1) However, the recent growth i n t h i s s e c t o r has been very s m a l l , r e f l e c t i n g a tendency towards a more balanced economy. In 1 9 6 1 , the s e r v i c e i n d u s t r i e s i n Canada accounted f o r about 58% of t o t a l employment, whi l e i n B.C. they represented 63% and i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver over 69% of t o t a l employment. For the decade 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 6 1 , the serv-i c e i n d u s t r i e s increased t h e i r percentage of t o t a l employment by 19% i n Canada as a whole, while i n Metro-Vancouver i t only i n c r e a s e d by 3-7% i n the same p e r i o d (see Table 3). The f u t u r e w i l l probably see a d e c l i n e i n the primary s e c t o r l a r g e l y due t o advances i n technology and i n c r e a s e d automation. I t w i l l a l s o be brought about by the d e p l e t i o n of n a t u r a l resources w i t h i n the metropolitan's boundaries. The c o n t i n u i n g growth i n the domestic markets and a g r e a t e r emphasis on p r o c e s s i n g of the province's resources w i l l spur 4 8 on incre a s e s i n output, but w i l l probably have l i t t l e impact on employment l e v e l s , l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of the more i n t e n -s i v e use of c a p i t a l and machinery. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . o f secondary i n d u s t r i e s i s sl o w l y occuring as an i n c r e a s i n g domestic market creates new demands which l e a d to new pro-ducts which i n t u r n creates more demand. This phenomenon i s the subject of Jane Jacob's book The Economy of C i t i e s . The t e r t i a r y or s e r v i c e i n d u s t r i e s w i l l i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d experience only modest gains since a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e number of people are already employed i n t h i s s e c t o r of the economy. I n d u s t r i a l Development Since the 1940's me t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, l i k e other North American c i t i e s , has experienced phenomenal urban sprawl. With the r a p i d growth, of the m e t r o p o l i s , urban sprawl has been creeping up the Fraser V a l l e y absorbing small r u r a l communities and consuming some of the most f e r t i l e farm land i n B r i t i s h Columbia (See Table 4 and Figure 4 ) . This has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the development of low d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t i a l suburban r i n g s around the h i s t o r i c c e n t r a l cores. Concurrently, the i n d u s t r i a l and r e t a i l s e c t o r s have also been moving from the c e n t r a l c i t i e s thereby u p s e t t i n g many t r a d i t i o n a l l a nd use p a t t e r n s . A number of models and diagrammatic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s have been formulated i n attempts t o e x p l a i n c i t y growth and 4-9 TABLE 4 POPULATION GROV.'TH IN METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER 1941 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 Vancouver City 275,353 344,833 365,844 385,490 411,545 426,256 Burnaby 30,328 58,376 83,745 100,157 112,036 @ Richmond 10,370 19,186 25,978 43,323 50,460 <3 New Westmini-ster 21,967 28,639 33,093 55,266 38,136 42,835 Delta * * + + 8,752 14,597 20,664 @ Surrey 3,404 9,735 43,927 70,838 81,826 @ Port Moody 1,512 2,246 2,713 4,789 7,021 10,778 Port Coquitlam 1,539 3,232 4,632 8,111 11,121 19,560 * Coquitlam 8,501 16,066 21,016 29,218 41,080 @ North Van. Cit; ' 8,914 15,6^7 19,951 23,656 26,851 31,847 North Van. Dist. 5,931 14,469 26,252 38,971 48,124 @ West Van. 7,669 13,990 19,197 25,454 31,987 @ White Rock * * + + 5,439 6,453 7,787 10,349 Univ. 3nd. Lands 636 2,120 2,999 3,272 2,979 @ loco * * + + 528 570 559 @ TOTALS 377,447 530,728 665,017 790,165 892,286 1,082,352 Note; + Figures not strictly comparable due to changes in Metropolitan Area Definition. * Includes Fraser Mills which Joined Coquitlam in 1972. * * Delta, loco, White Rook and Indian Reserves = 1323 + + Delta, loco, White Rock and Indian Reserves = 2149 @ Data not available Sourcet Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Census Years 50 s t ruc ture . These models, i n many cases, are based on the f indings of a study of a p a r t i c u l a r c i t y . The f indings and conclusions have then been general ized to attempt to give them univer sa l a p p l i c a b i l i t y . This has only p a r t l y been successful because each c i t y i s unique and i t s s p a t i a l development depends very heav i ly on topography and the resources of i t s h i n t e r l a n d . Manufacturing Areas Figure 5 I sard ' s Spa t i a l Model Walter Isard has proposed an optimal urban land-use 5 pa t te rn , which i s based on the mul t i n u c l i e theory. I s a rd J s model has segregated a l l manufacturing into d i s t r i c t s with each d i s t r i c t encompassing a l l the producers of the same commodity. These d i s t r i c t s are found adjacent to or s t rad-d l i n g major t ransporta t ion a r t e r i e s , which are focused on the CBD (See Figure 5).- This madel i s one of the few that 51 recognizes t h a t i n d u s t r i e s tend to c l u s t e r and may create d i s t i n c t i v e d i s t r i c t s . This medel has been c r i t i c i z e d on two counts: (1) i t does not allo w f o r a manufacturing d i s t r i c t near the CBD and (2) i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l l manufacturing i s concentrated and completely ubiquitous w i t h i n the d i s t r i c t s f Despite these c r i t i c i s m s , the model helps to describe the s p a t i a l d i s t r i b -u t i o n of i n d u s t r y i n m e t r o p o l i t a n "Vancouver. Because of the me t r o p o l i t a n area's extensive i n t e r -a c t i o n w i t h i t s h i n t e r l a n d and i t s importance as a t r a n s -shipment p o i n t , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g to f i n d t h a t the i n d u s t -r i a l areas are h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n g r i d (see F i g u r e 6 ) . The s p a t i a l form of Vancouver has t h e r e f o r e , t o a l a r g e extent been d i c t a t e d by i t s resource-based economy. The e a r l i e s t i n d u s t r i a l areas have devoted t o sawmi l l i n g and ki n d r e d i n d u s t r i e s and were l o c a t e d adjacent t o water s i n c e i t was the most convenient and cheapest means of moving goods. The r a i l r o a d s , when they a r r i v e d , provided ancfcbher means of t r a n s p o r t , and i n d u s t r i a l areas soon sprung up near t h e i r t e r m i n a l s and along t h e i r r i g ht-of-ways. With the coming of the r a i l r o a d s , Vancouver grew i n importance as a t r a n s -shipment p o i n t , thereby i n c r e a s i n g the demand f o r areas between the s h o r e l i n e and the r a i l w a y l i n e s f o r warehousing. In recent decades, the tru c k has lessened the depend-ence of some i n d u s t r i e s on water and r a i l and has allowed Figure 6 Industrial D i s t r i c t s  and Transportation Grid i n Metro Vancouver S o u r c e : G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t ro 53 them to move to other parts of the metropolitan area. This has l e d to the development of i n d u s t r i a l areas along major highways. In the process of developing, some areas have become associated with a p a r t i c u l a r type of industry, but not to the t o t a l exclusion of others. For example, the Grandview i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t , which i s located between the approaches to the Lougheed Highway and the approaches to the 401, i s b a s i c a l l y a warehouse area. The S t i l l Creek i n d u s t r i a l area between the Lougheed and the. 401 Highways i s predomin-antly used by transportation oriented companies, while the i n d u s t r i a l areas i n Richmond, between the approaches to the Oak Street and Fraser Street bridges are predominantly secondary manufacturing. Growth i n North American c i t i e s has tended to be i n circumferential rings, which l e f t t h e . h i s t o r i c a l CBD i n the approximate geographic centre of the urban area. In metro-p o l i t a n Vancouver, topography has forced growth eastward up the Fraser Valley. It i s presently estimated that the geographic centre of the metro area i s near Boundary- Road and F i r s t Avenue, almost s i x miles from the CBD. This s h i f t of the geographic centre i s expected to continue southeast-ward at the rate of about one mile every f i v e years' and w i l l greatly influence i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n i n the future. Several of the companies interviewed indicated that they had chosen t h i s area because i t was the geographic centre. When asked 55 how they had determined t h i s , they remarked that i t was common knowledge. One suspects that r e a l estate agents have been fos t e r i n g a myth. Despite t h i s lopsidedness, Vancouver City i s consid-ered the core of the metropolitan area with Burnaby, Rich-mond, New Westminster and the North Shore communities as the intermediate r i n g and the other communities as the peripheral r i n g . However, i n terms of i n d u s t r i a l areas, the core includes only the i n d u s t r i a l areas adjacent to the CBD. The intermediate r i n g includes the Grandview and Southwest Marine Drive areas of Vancouver, as well, as those i n the North Shore M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Burnaby, New Westminster and the Northern i n d u s t r i a l areas of Richmond. The other i n d u s t r i a l areas are considered as being i n the peripheral r i n g . (See Figure 7). As mentioned above, the metropolitan area contains approximately 570,000 acres of land of which only 7,500 acres i s occupied by industry with an additional 11,000 acres of vacant and suitable land which i s available for immediate i n d u s t r i a l development. The GVRD feels that there i s another 24,340 acres which could be reclaimed f o r i n d u s t r i a l use i f the demand existed. Thus for every acre occupied by industry another f i v e could be put to i n d u s t r i a l uses. I t appears that supply greatly exceeds demand. In the period 1960-1966, the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t ' s study shows an o annual absorption of approximately 180 acres. Projecting 56 t h i s absorption rate into the future , metropolitan Vancouver w i l l have s u f f i c i e n t i n d u s t r i a l land wel l into the twenty-f i r s t century. Most of t h i s vacant industr ia l ly zoned land l i e s i n the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Richmond, De l t a , Surrey, and Burnaby. The M u n i c i p a l i t i e s c losest to Vancouver C i t y are the most i n t e n s i v e l y developed r e f l e c t i n g not only strong a t t r a c t i o n of the p r i n c i p a l CBD but also the h i s t o r i c development of the area. Although Vancouver C i t y ' s CBD overshadows the ent i re metropoli tan reg ion , there are two other independent c i t y centers ; those of North Vancouver C i t y and the C i t y of New Westminster. These centers developed l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of the port functions of each c i t y . '' Their subordination to Vancouver has come only i n recent years , l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of improved highway communications and urban sprawl. q A study carrxed out by the C i t y of Vancouver , - i n .' 1968, found that the settlement pat tern for new companies r e f l e c t e d the desire to locate near the p r i n c i p a l CBD. Burnaby had received the most new companies i n the f i ve previous years (187) while Vancouver C i t y , Richmond and North Vancouver C i t y followed with 176, 73 and 64- respect-i v e l y ^ An overwhelming number of the firms located wi th in 40 minutes of the downtown, while the most popular time zone was the 21-30 minute zone (See Figure 8 ) . Relocat ion of firms followed a d e f i n i t e pat tern i n that the core areas of Vancouver suffered large losses to the 58 intermediate and to a l i m i t e d extent, the per iphera l areas. Vancouver C i t y appeared to be l o s i n g the t ransporta t ion and manufacturing indus t r ie s while i t was gaining the wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n i n d u s t r i e s . As a r e su l t there appeared to be a trend to smaller firms and smaller s i t e s ^ The intermediate i n d u s t r i a l areas seemed to be the most popular areas for new companies and those r e l o c a t i n g as w e l l . But a l l parts of the intermediate areas are not deve l -oping uni formly. The a t t r a c t i o n of the CBD seems to be so strong as to inf luence the rate of development i n these areas. For example, when Lake C i t y Indus t r i a l Park i n Burnaby was opened, sales were very slow. The absorption rate remained low we l l into the 1960 's.and only picked up when the Grand-view Indus t r i a l d i s t r i c t was almost f i l l e d . The Grandview area i s almost f ive miles and 10-15 minutes c loser to the CBD than i s Lake C i t y . The per iphera l areas have been slow i n developing. They receive few r e l o c a t i n g companies. Those that do move to such i n d u s t r i a l areas are normally quite l a rge , s e l f -s u f f i c i e n t and noxious. The greatest percentage of companies 12 that locate i n those areas, are new companies. The lack of development can be a t t r ibuted to several f ac tor s ; 1) Distance from other i n d u s t r i e s , commercial and f i n a n c i a l services and other external economies; 2) Much of the i n d u s t r i a l l y zoned land consists of peat bogs or waterfront areas which f lood twice a day. 59 They normally r e q u i r e extensive development and land f i l l b efore improvements can be pl a c e d on them; 3) Much of the l a n d i s unserviced, w i t h no prospect of m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s i n the near f u t u r e . The development of these areas depends h e a v i l y on when the intermediate areas reach a f u l l y developed stage. U n t i l then growth w i l l remain s m a l l . In summary, the metropolis i s c l o s e l y l i n k e d to i t s h i n t e r l a n d . This heavy dependence i s r e f l e c t e d i n i t s economic development as w e l l as i t s s p a t i a l form. Employ-ment i n the primary and t e r t i a r y s e c t o r s of the economy i n Vancouver i s l a r g e r e l a t i v e t o other urban centers i n Canada, whil e manufacturing i s considerably s m a l l e r . As the popula-t i o n grows and the domestic market expands, the v a r i o u s sec-t o r s w i l l become more balanced. The i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s appear to be h i g h l y c o r r e l -ated w i t h the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n g r i d r e f l e c t i n g the close l i n k -age between'Vancouver and i t s t r i b u t a r y area. The i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n can be viewed i n terms of zones; the core, intermediate and p e r i p h e r a l zones. Development has been most intense i n the gore areas and only sparse i n the p e r i p h e r a l areas r e f l e c t i n g the appeal f o r c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n . Both new and r e l o c a t i n g f i r m s seem to 60 prefer the intermediate areas, es p e c i a l l y those nearest Vancouver C i t y . The next chapter i s concerned with a more extensive examination into these trends i n two municipalities; Vancou-ver C i t y and Burnaby. The chapter focuses on re l o c a t i o n as a source of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property and on the loca-t i o n a l behavior of re l o c a t i n g companies. 61 g.aotnotes 1. The Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t includes the following i n i t s d e f i n i t i o n of Greater Vancouver or Metropolitan Vancouver: Viancouver C i t y Port Moody Burnaby Richmond Coquitlam (Fraser M i l l s ) Surrey Delta ' Vest Vancouver N§w Westminster". White Rock North Vancouver City Unorganized T e r r i t o r i e s (loco & University Endow-ment Lands) Source: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Dynamics  of I n d u s t r i a l Land Settlement, Vancouver, 1961, p. 4. 2. D i s t i n c t i v e refers to separate i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the 3 d i g i t l e v e l of the SIC.code. For example, 251 sawmills i s d i s t i n c t i v e , while 259 miscellaneous wood industries i s not. An industry i s considered important i f i t employs 1,000 or more persons at the 3 d i g i t l e v e l . 3. The Manufacturing Industries of Canada, Section G, Georgraphical D i s t r i b u t i o n ; 1958 and 1968, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Cat. No. 31-209• 4. For a summary of the most important models see A l l a n R. Pred, "The Intrametropolitan Location of American Manu-facturing" , Annals of the Association of American Geogra- phers , Vol. 54, June 1964, pp. 165 - 180. 5. For b r i e f description of t h i s Theory see I b i d . , p. 142. 6. Ib i d . , p. 173. 7. From an interview with representatives of Fras'er Valley Milk Producer's Association.Representative stated that t h e i r l o c a t i o n a l studies conducted p r i o r to t h e i r reloca-t i o n had shown t h i s to be the case. 8 . Space for Industry, Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department, 1971', p. 71- * 9 . Vancouver Urban Renewal, Technical Report No. 4. Indust- r i a l D i s t r i c t s , Vancouver Planning Department, November, 1969. 10. I b i d . , p. 16. 11. I b i d . , p. 17-12. I b i d . , p. 16. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY AREAS This study i s concerned w i t h examining r e l o c a t i o n as a source of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property and i t s r e l a t i o n to the l o c a t i o n a l behaviour of i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s . The dtudy has been confined to Vancouver C i t y , which i s the core of the me t r o p o l i t a n area and to the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Burnaby, which represents the p r i n c i p l e component of the intermediate r i n g (See F i g u r e 7)» Time c o n s i d e r a t i o n s precluded an i n v e s t -i g a t i o n i n t o the other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which make up the me t r o p o l i s . The f i r s t p a r t of t h i s chapter c o n s i s t s of a short d e s c r i p t i o n of the two study areas, while' the remain-der discusses the f i n d i n g s of the study i t s e l f . 1 'City 'Qtf "Vancouver*" < i The C i t y of Vancouver, encompassing some. 44 square miles s t r a d d l e s the Burrard P e n i n s u l a near i t s western extremity. Almost fromthe date of i t s i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n 1886, Vancouver has been the commercial, f i n a n c i a l and i n d u s t r i a l centre of B r i t i s h Columbia and, more p a r t i c u l a r l y , the 64 present m e t r o p o l i t a n area. The c i t y began i t s existance as a sawmill town i n 1868. The " G r a n v i l l e Township", as i t was known, and. the neighbouring v i l l a g e at Hastings M i l l served as lumber p o r t s f o r the communities on both sides of the Burrard I n l e t , since only the south shore possessed s u f f i c -i e n t water depth to allow ocean-going v e s s e l s t o dock. The area grew slowly u n t i l the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway estab-l i s h e d i t s western t e r m i n a l i n Vancouver i n 1887- Despite i t s i n c r e a s e d importance as a trans-shipment p o i n t , most of the i n d u s t r y i n the C i t y c o n s i s t e d of primary resource p r o c e s s i n g , i n p a r t i c u l a r , sawmills. Most of these e a r l y i n d u s t r i e s were l o c a t e d along the waterfront r e f l e c t i n g the dependence on water t r a n s p o r t . I t was the cheapest and most convenient way to move bulky goods. With the coming of the r a i l r o a d , the i n d u s t r i a l areas spread f u r t h e r i n l a n d to take advantage of the new mode of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . As the young c i t y grew and the trans-shipment f u n c t i o n s increased i n import-ance, the i n d u s t r i a l areas expanded along the waterfront and the CPR right-of-way to Coal Harbour i n the west and to the Second Narrows i n the east. The primary resource p r o c e s s i n g i n d u s t r i e s , notably the s a w m i l l s , l e f t the main harbour very e a r l y and moved to p F a l s e Creek. The CPR b u i l t a spur l i n e to F a l s e Creek i n 1888 and e s t a b l i s h e d a storage yard on the nor t h side of the Creek. But development of the area was slow because of the 65 extensive marshlAdd and t i d a l areas. The reclamation of the F a l s e Creek marshlands s t a r t e d i n earnest w i t h the estab-lishment of the Great Northern Railway Terminal at the eastern end of the Creek i n 1906. Before t h i s date, the C i t y had been growing r a p i d l y and some profound changes had occurred. The most s t r i k i n g was the r a p i d s h i f t of the C e n t r a l Business D i s t r i c t from the Cordova S t r e e t area to the G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t Area. The s h i f t was emphasized by the r e l o c a t i o n of the C.P.R. Depot from Cordova to G r a n v i l l e , the movement of the Post O f f i c e from Main and Hastings to Hastings and G r a n v i l l e , and the r e l o c a -t i o n of the Hudson's Bay st o r e from Cordova to i t s present l o c a t i o n on G r a n v i l l e . These p r e s t i g i o u s f i r m s , which vacated the o l d CBD, were rep l a c e d by others who were engaged p r i n c i p a l l y i n warehousing and wholesaling. Their l o c a t i o n i n the o l d CBD can be a t t r i b u t e d to s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . One was nearness to t h e i r source of supply, the r a i l r o a d and the wa t e r f r o n t . Another was nearness and c e n t r a l i t y i n terms of t h e i r markets and i n terms of the p r e v a i l i n g mode of t r a n s -p o r t a t i o n of goods within the C i t y . The horse and wagon are at best a slow method to move goods, but also s u f f e r s from extreme l i m i t a t i o n s i n terms of the area t h a t can be served from one l o c a t i o n and the i n a b i l i t y t o c a r r y l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of goods. Two other f a c t o r s , the a v a i l a b i l i t y of space and the r e l a t i v e cheapness of tha t space, were by products of 66 the s h i f t i n g core. Up to the t u r n of the century, there was r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property and very l i t t l e d e v e l -opment occurred. What d i d occur was l a r g e l y the work of the C.P.R. and was confined to meeting t h e i r needs i n t h e ' r o l e of a t r a n s - s h i p p e r . In the two decades a f t e r the t u r n of the century, the p o p u l a t i o n spread out r a p i d l y from the o l d core. Bridges were thrown across F a l s e Creek and s t r e e t c a r l i n e s were r a p i d l y extended i h almost every d i r e c t i o n . I n 1911» the neighbouring township of Hastings M i l l was annexed w i t h i t s waterfront i n d u s t r i a l area. In 1913, the Vancouver Harbour Board was created and i t immediately set So .work to develop the p o r t . By 1917, over 400 acres of land had been reclaimed i n the F a l s e Creek area as a r e s u l t of the e f f o r t s by the r a i l r o a d s and the Harbour Board. The Creek i t s e l f was dredged and G r a n v i l l e I s l a n d was developed f o r i n d u s t r i a l users. The e a r l i e s t i n d u s t r i e s which were a t t r a c t e d to the area were of a noxious nature - sawmills, slaughter houses, and creosote m i l l s . This p a t t e r n , e s t a b l i s h e d e a r l y i n the century, s t i l l i n f l u e n c e s the e x i s t i n g l a nd use. The expansion of the c i t y i n v o l v e d the annexation i n 1929 of P o i n t Grey and the C i t y of South Vancouver, both predominately r e s i d e n t i a l suburbs. The annexation of South INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Burnaby North Shore First and Boundary-S t i l l Creek Kingsway The Bend Eurnaby Lake Lake City Ind. Park Fort Moody Coquitlam Port Coquitlam Downtown (CBD> • False Creek Fairview Slopes Clark Drive Povell Street Grandview K?rine Drive North Shore Tiict-.mond Surrey - Delta Outsile Metro Vancouver Hew Westminster Figure 9 Metropolitan Vancouver  I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s and Mileage "on<?s LANCLET TOWNSHIP 68 Vancouver added the i n d u s t r i a l area along the no r t h arm of the F r a s e r R i v e r to the expanding c i t y . This area was p r i n c i p a l l y occupied by sawmills and wood product f i r m s . A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which s t i l l i d e n t i f i e s i t today. That same year, 1929, saw the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of an i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t i n the Boundary Road/Lougheed Highway Area. Development i n t h i s area was slow due to i t s distance from the C i t y Centre, i t s foundation c o n d i t i o n s and the advent of the Depression Era. I t was not u n t i l a f t e r the Second World War, when the C i t y and B.C. Hydro j o i n t l y began to develop the area, that i n d u s t r y sought l o c a t i o n s there. I t has subsequently become the most p r e s t i g i o u s i n d u s t r i a l area i n Vancouver. The p r i n c i p l e i n d u s t r i a l areas had been more or l e s s d e f i n e d by 1930. They i n c l u d e d the waterfront on the south shore of Burrard I n l e t from the Second Narrows to Coal Harbour (Area 1 5 ) , the d i s t r i c t s around False Creek (Areas 12 ana 13) the Downtown d i s t r i c t (Area 11) , those d i s t r i c t s east of Main S t r e e t (Area 14), the d i s t r i c t along the North Arm of the F r a s e r R i v e r (Area 17) and the Boundary Road D i s t r i c t (Area 16) (See Figure 9)« In subsequent decades these areas expanded only s l i g h t l y . As the demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property i n Vancouver i n c r e a s e d , the C i t y rezoned the F a i r v i e w Slopes from r e s i d e n t i a l t o i n d u s t r i a l ( i n the 1950 's) and made small a d d i t i o n s i n the Joyce Road area. The C i t y i n 1969 had 3,920 acres zoned f o r i n d u s t r i a l 69 use, which represents 14% of the C i t y ' s t o t a l land area. With the growing concern f o r ecology and a re-emphasis on people, 4»his f i g u r e probably represents a high-water mark f o r i n d u s t r y . Several i n d u s t r i a l areas, such as the s i t e of the former c i t y dump, near Boundary Road, and the F a l s e Creek area, are being considered f o r other uses and no new i n d u s t r i a l areas are contemplated. M u n i c i p a l i t y of Burnaby The M u n i c i p a l i t y of Burnaby, l y i n g between Vancouver and New Westminster, was incorporated i n 1892. This Munic-i p a l i t y , w i t h over 39 square miles i n land area, has u n t i l r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t l y been a r u r a l e n t i t y . I t s i n i t i a l areas of settlement were i n the v i c i n i t y of the Second Narrows, on the northern boundary of New Westminster and along the "Kingsway". An e a r l y predecessor of the Kingsway was a road hewn through the f o r e s t connecting the m i l i t a r y post at New Westminster to the south shore of the Burrard I n l e t , near what was to become the G r a n v i l l e Township. This road was created to give the troops i n New Westminster an avenue of escape, i f the s i t u a t i o n warranted. Over time, i t has become the p r i n c i p a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a r t e r y between the two c i t i e s . Burnaby's e a r l y i n d u s t r i e s i n c l u d e d the appropriate number of sawmills, both on the south shore of Burrard 70 I n l e t and on Burnaby Lake. The f i r s t s u b s t a n t i a l i n d u s t -r i a l development occurred i n the 1930 's, when o i l f a c i l i t i e s were b u i l t on Burrard I n l e t (Area 1 ) . These s i t e s o f f e r e d good docking f a c i l i t i e s , r a i l w a y and s e c l u s i o n . This e a r l y development has completely determined the character of the area. By 1965, there were s i x petroleum or petroleum a s s o c i a t e d companies l o c a t e d there. In 1955 Lake C i t y I n d u s t r i a l Park (Area 7) was created on the side of Burnaby Mountain. Although slow i n i t s i n i t i a l stages of development, the 300 acres have now been almost completely s o l d out. The i n d u s t r i a l area near Boundary Road and the Lougheed Highway (Areas 2 and 3) lias been developing at a r a p i d r a t e r e c e n t l y . This i s i n p a r t due t o i t s p r o x i m i t y to Vancouver's Grandview i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t , to the construc-t i o n of the .4-01 Freeway, and the upgrading of the Lougheed Highway. Development i n t h i s area has been expanding east-ward to Burnaby Lake (Area 6) despite the peat bog and i t s a s s o c i a t e d foundation problems. T h i s , i n the past, has been the c h i e f reason f o r i t s slow development. Today, the area i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n d u s t r i e s having medium to low s i t e d e n s i t i e s . The o l der i n d u s t r i a l areas between the Kingsway and . the former C e n t r a l Park Interurban Railway Line (Area 4) has evolved i n t o a mixed i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t . The B.C. Hydro 71 Railway i s a c t i v e l y encouraging small and medium s i z e indus-t r i e s which generate f r e i g h t t o l o c a t e there. "The Bend" (Area 5) i s a l a r g e peat hog j u t t i n g i n t o the North Arm of the Er a s e r R i v e r . I t i s l a r g e l y undevel-oped, but i s a t t r a c t i n g noxious i n d u s t r i e s which have l a r g e land requirements. For example, s e v e r a l wood processing p l a n t s have l o c a t e d t h e r e , as have s e v e r a l metal f a b r i c a t o r s and machinery manufacturers. In 1968, i n d u s t r i a l l y zoned l a n d (5,555 acres) accounted f o r 23% of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s t o t a l l a n d area. Of t h i s , over 3,100 acres was peat l a n d , or i n h i g h water areas. The la n d a c t u a l l y used by i n d u s t r y was only 1,4-13 a c r e s , or 25-5% of the land so zoned!? Subsequent to t h i s , rezoning has occurred i n s e v e r a l areas, which have added to the supply of i n d u s t r i a l l y zoned l a n d . The former peat farms i n "The Bend" area.'have been acquired by the B.C. Hydro and rezoned. B.C. Hydro, i n co n j u n c t i o n w i t h the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Burnaby, has acquired s e v e r a l p r o p e r t i e s near S t r i d e Avenue, adjacent to the o l d munic i p a l dump w i t h an i n t e n t i o n to co n s o l i d a t e and l i n k "The Bend" i n d u s t r i a l area w i t h the o l d e r Kingsway Indust-1 r i a l area. . At the same time, there are a number of c i t i z e n groups who are opposing any f u r t h e r extension of i n d u s t r i a l zones, and i n s e v e r a l cases, are seeking to have p a r t s of 72 them rezoned f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l uses. For example, attempts were made to stop an expansion of one of the o i l r e f i n e r i e s on the south shore of Burrard I n l e t . Several groups are s t i l l f i g h t i n g to get the area n o r t h of Burnaby Lake rezoned, as w e l l as a l a r g e p a r t of "The Bend", f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l 6 purposes. I t i s t h e r e f o r e reasonable to expect that there w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n i n d u s t r i a l acreage i n the near f u t u r e . I f anything, there w i l l be some s i g n i f i -cant l o s s e s . This i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a bad t h i n g , s i n c e the most probable areas to be l o s t - "The Bend" and the area around Burnaby Lake - hatoe d i f f i c u l t s o i l c o n d i t i o n s which would be expensive t o develop f o r i n d u s t r i a l 1 purposes. R e l o c a t i o n as a_ Source of Demand One of the most pronounced trends a s s o c i a t e d w i t h urban growth has been the r a p i d suburbanization of places of work and residences. I t i s commonly b e l i e v e d t h a t people move to be near t h e i r j o b s , t h e r e f o r e the l o c a t i o n of indus-t r y , t o a l a r g e extent, determines the urban s p a t i a l form. Suburbanization of i n d u s t r y has occurred p r i n c i p a l l y as. a r e s u l t of the r e l o c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g companies. A study c a r r i e d out i n Vancouver i n 1966 noted t h a t over 30% of the 1,100 major companies in t e r v i e w e d s i x years 7 e a r l i e r had r e l o c a t e d . This f i g u r e i n i t s e l f i s not very e n l i g h t e n i n g wince no attempt was made t o i n v e s t i g a t e the 73 impact of these companies on the property up-take i n the metropoli tan area. This study was undertaken i n an attemptto more c l e a r l y define the ro le of r e l o c a t i o n i n the l a rger context of i n d u s t r i a l property development i n a metropolitan area. I t i s hypothesized that the demand for i n d u s t r i a l property i n a metropol i tan area ar i ses from f ive bas ic sources, the larges t of which i s generated by ex i s t ing companies, which seek to r e l o c a t e . The other four bas ic sources r e s u l t from: a) New companies beginning operation fo r the f i r s t time i n i n d u s t r i a l premises; b) Companies which are establ i shed i n other urban centres , who seek locat ions for branch p lant s ; c) Companies already establ i shed i n the area d e s i r -ing to open other branches; and d) E x i s t i n g companies who desire on-s i te expansion; t h i s includes acquir ing adjacent property . Indus t r i a l property i s defined as land and buildings, located i n an i n d u s t r i a l l y zoned area and u t i l i z e d by an i n d u s t r i a l f i r m . The land i s normally measured i n acres , while the b u i l d i n g area i s expressed i n square feet . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between land area and b u i l d i n g f l o o r area i s l a r g e l y determined by the proper ty ' s owners and/or users with only minimum governmental c o n t r o l . Thus, a one-half acre l o t could have a b u i l d i n g with over 50,000 square feet 74 of f l o o r area on s e v e r a l l e v e l s , i n c l u d i n g perhaps a mezz-anine or i t could accommodate a b u i l d i n g w i t h only 5,000 square f e e t of f l o o r area. The governmental a u t h o r i t y may r e q u i r e setbacks from the s t r e e t , as w e l l as from other property l i n e s . They may a l s o impose r e s t r i c t i o n s as t o height of b u i l d i n g and s p e c i f y land requirements f o r p a r k i n g and storage. In the above example, i f the b u i l d i n g or any p a r t of i t i s i n use, the l a n d i s e f f e c t i v e l y withdrawn from the t o t a l supply of i n d u s t r i a l l a n d . The b u i l d i n g , as a separate entity,' could be occupied by one user and withdrawn from the supply of i n d u s t r i a l premises. Or, i t could be a v a i l -able as a m u l t i - t e n a n t i n d u s t r i a l premises, i n which case, any f l o o r area not occupied would be considered as p a r t of the a v a i l a b l e supply. The a v a i l a b l e supply of i n d u s t r i a l p r o perty i s never s t a t i c . The land supply increases when: a) A d d i t i o n a l unoccupied land i s zoned f o r i n d u s t r y . For example, when farmland i s zoned f o r i n d u s t -r i a l uses; b) Non-conforming users i n i n d u s t r i a l areas are e l i m i n a t e d and t h e i r improvements removed. This occurs when r e s i d e n t i a l premises are demolished; c) Companies vacate e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r i a l p roperty, thereby opening the p o s s i b i l i t y that the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e might be demolished. In other words, i f the b u i l d i n g i s vacant, the land i s a v a i l a b l e . 75 The l a n d supply decreases when: a) I n d u s t r i a l l a n d i s zoned f o r other uses, such as p a r k l a n d , or r e s i d e n t i a l development; b) Non-conforming uses encroach on i n d u s t r i a l areas. For example, the b u i l d i n g of s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s i n i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s ; c) Vacant premises are occupied, thereby e l i m i n -a t i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the improvements w i l l be demolished immediately; or d) The l a n d i s purchased by an i n d u s t r i a l f i r m f o r f u t u r e expansion, even i f i t remains vacant f o r s e v e r a l years. In the case of b u i l d i n g s , they are considered as p a r t of the a v a i l a b l e supply i f they are completely, or, i n the case of a m u l t i - t e n a n t b u i l d i n g , p a r t l y vacant. Occupation removed them from the market. I t should be evident t h a t the e x p i r a t i o n of a lease agreement places a b u i l d i n g on the market s e v e r a l months to a year before i t i s a c t u a l l y vacated. S i m i l a r l y , a lease agreement may take the premises o f f the market s e v e r a l months before a c t u a l occupation. The up- take of i n d u s t r i a l p r operty r e f e r s to t h i s process of removing property from the a v a i l a b l e supply, while a b s o r p t i o n re'fers to the act of p u t t i n g to i n d u s t r i a l use a piece of i n d u s t r i a l l y - z o n e d p roperty f o r the f i r s t time. Thus a p i e c e of property could be uptaken s e v e r a l times, but could only be absorbed once. This d i s t i n c t i o n i s important because 76 the i n d u s t r i a l survey under d i s c u s s i o n i s concerned w i t h property uptake not absorption. Study Areas For the purposes of t h i s study, the i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s i n Vancouver C i t y and Burnaby were d i v i d e d i n t o , f o u r t e e n areas (see Figure 9 ) . Some d i v i s i o n s were r e a d i l y apparent, such as the Marine Drive i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t i n Vancouver, or Lake C i t y I n d u s t r i a l Park i n Burnaby, but others were based on s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n . Some of the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e d the d i v i s i o n i n c l u d e d topography, major thoroughfares, general i n f o r m a t i o n about types of f i r m s l o c a t e d i n the area and s i z e of the area. For example, the F i r s t and Boundary Road area and the S t i l l Creek area (No. 2 and No. 3 ) i n Burnaby were determined to be d i f f e r e n t i n terms of topography and the types of companies which were l o c a t e d there. The Lougheed Highway, a major thoroughfare, was made the demarcation l i n e . These areas were then regrouped i n t o core and i n t e r -mediate i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s . The core d i s t r i c t s i n c l u d e d a l l the areas w i t h i n a fo u r - m i l e r a d i u s of the corner of West Georgia and G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t s , the supposed centre of the Vancouver C i t y ' s downtown (see Fi g u r e 7 ) -Several areas were e l i m i n a t e d from the study because i t was f e l t t h a t too-jfew companies e x i s t e d i n the areas to 77 have any s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the study. The south shore of Burrard I n l e t i n Burnaby (Area 1) i s almost completely developed, w i t h l i t t l e prospect f o r rezoning or redevelop-ment, which could increase the i n d u s t r i a l acreage. The m a j o r i t y of f i r m s i n the area are c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the petroleum industry. P r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e v e r a l of these companies had undertaken expansions, but that no a d d i t i o n a l l and had been acquired and the i n c r e a s e s i n f l o o r area had been very s m a l l . Due to the nature and technology of the i n d u s t r y , expansions can be s u b s t a n t i a l i n terms of p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y , w i t h almost no in c r e a s e i n f l o o r area.- I t was also found t h a t only a few companies had l o c a t e d i n the area, while there were no new companies e s t a b l i s h e d t h ere. In a l l , l e s s than t e n compan-i e s could have been i n c l u d e d i n the survey, w h i l e t h e i r impact appeared to be small both i n terms of acreage and f l o o r area. In Vancouver C i t y , (Areas 11 & 12) which encompass most of the downtown p e n i n s u l a , were excluded. P r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t there were l e s s than f i f t e e n companies which would have been i n c l u d e d i n the survey. This i n c l u d e s a couple of r e l o c a t i o n s , seven expansions and f i v e new companies. I t was noted t h a t there had been a l a r g e number of companies l e a v i n g these areas i n the f o r t y -f i v e months covered by the study. The survey found that f o u r t e e n companies had l e f t these areas and had returned 78 about 170,000 square f e e t of f l o o r area to the supply of a v a i l a b l e i n d u s t r i a l p roperty. Since no companies were in t e r v i e w e d who now r e s i d e d i n the areas, there i s no way of e s t i m a t i n g how much net . uptake of i n d u s t r i a l property there a c t u a l l y was. The Federal Government has acquired two c i t y b l o c k s i n the area f o r an o f f i c e complex, thereby reducing the supply of a v a i l a b l e property considerably. By i n c l u d i n g these areas i n the a n a l y s i s i t was f e l t t hat the r e s u l t s would be bi a s e d towards the other demand sources, since these areas show only a r e t u r n of f l o o r area to the supply s e c t o r , and no uptake. This has a great impact on the core area. For example, i n s t e a d of r e t u r n i n g 130,000 square f e e t of f l o o r area to the supply s e c t o r , r e l o c a t i o n s a c t u a l l y had a net up-take of 41,365 square f e e t . Survey of I n d u s t r i e s The survey which was conducted i n conjunction w i t h t h i s study sought to gather data on companies which, since January 1969, had (a) r e l o c a t e d ; (b) begun operation f o r the f i r s t time; (c) e s t a b l i s h e d a branch o p e r a t i o n i n the metro-p o l i t a n area; (d) expanded by e s t a b l i s h i n g a branch opera-t i o n i n the m e t r o p o l i s , or (e) expanded o n - s i t e . These are, of course, the f i v e sources of demand r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r . Due to the sheer numbers of companies i n v o l v e d the survey had t o be l i m i t e d i n some manner. Since there was no way of 79 determining i n advance the number of employees i n any par-t i c u l a r company, i t was decided to use geographic c r i t e r i a and confine the study to Vancouver C i t y and the Munic ipa l i ty of Burnaby. These two communities had more developed indust-r i a l s i t e s , and more i n d u s t r i a l firms than a l l the other Q communities i n the metropoli tan area combined. Their t o t a l area of occupied i n d u s t r i a l land almost exceeds that i n the other communities as w e l l . These two communities also r e -ceived the larges t number of new firms i n the 1963-1968 p e r i o d . Burnaby and Vancouver rece ived 187 and 176 new companies r e spec t ive ly while the next two most popular Mun-i c i p a l i t i e s , Richmond and North Vancouver C i t y , received 73 and 64 r e spect ive ly? These two communities also contained the core i n d u s t r i a l areas, as we l l as a large proport ion of the intermediate i n d u s t r i a l areas (see Figure 7)« In the l i g h t of the above fac t s , i t was reasoned that , although perhaps not t o t a l l y representat ive of the metro-p o l i t a n area, these communities would give some c lear i n d i c a t i o n of the patterns and trends apparent i n metropol-i t a n Vancouver's i n d u s t r i a l development. The s t a t i s t i c a l universe from which the sample was to be se lected consisted of approximately 800 companies for these two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . This l i s t had been compiled from several sources, p r i n c i p a l l y City. D i r e c t o r i e s . I t was found that over 60% of the companies on the l i s t had re loca ted . 80 TABU 5 INDUSTRIAL FIRM MOVEMENTS (1968-1972) PRESENT LOCATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '9 10 11 1'2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Totals % 1 1 1 2 3 . 4 2 21 9 1 3 11 1 2 1 2 1 52 L0.3 3 1 • 4 18 •< » 1 ' 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 34 6 . 7 4 1 3 1 9 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 28 5.6 5 2 ' l 1 1 1 6 1 . 2 6 4 1 1 3 1 10 2 .0 7 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 1.6 8 •1 NOIX' 9 «*: 8 1 0 11 1 6 2 11 2 2 3 2 2 1 32 6.3 12 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 9 1.8 13 6 5 1 1 8 1 47 7 9 6 13 2 9 1 1 117 2 3 . 2 14 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 23 6 2 3 2 2 1 1 55 L0.9 15 3 16 4 2 4 3 1 15 3 25 1 3 2 1 83 16.5 16 2 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 17 3 - 4 17 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 5 1 23 5 1 51 10 .1 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 Totals 4 4 5 6 9 25 9 13 30 2 5 3 6 . 3 85 53 44 18 51 8 2 2 5 1 3 504 0 . 8 8 . 9 1 3 . 7 5 . 0 1 . 8 2 . 6 6.0 0 . 4 1 . 0 0 .6 1 . 2 0 .6 16. < 10.5 8 . 7 3.6 1 0 . 3 1 . 6 4-4 1 . 0 0 .2 0.6 100 # Identifies former location within Vancouver City and Burnaby and shows their subsequent location within Metropolitan Vancouver. 81 TABLE 6 INDUSTRIAL FIRM MOVEMENTS (1966-1972) 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 1 2 20 17 12 A 5 10 10 PRESENT LOCATION 9 10 11 12 13 IA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 AA 20 17 10 23 21 22 Totals Al 68 1 28 10 30 79 A7 3A 19 A7 0.7 9.7 16.2 6.7 1.7 2.A 7.1 l.A 0.5 18.8 11. 8.1 A . 5 11.2 # Shows present location within Vancouver City and Burnaby and indicates their previous location within Metropolitan Vancouver. 82 I t should he pointed out that t h i s study includes a l l com-panies regardless of the number .of employees, while the study re fer red to e a r l i e r surveyed only those companies with ten or more employees. As a r e s u l t , t h i s survey includes many more companies, s ince the majority of i n d u s t r i a l firms i n metropol i tan Vancouver employ fewer than ten p e r s o n s ^ To ggt SOme ins ight into the i n d u s t r i a l plant move-ment w i t h i n metropoli tan Vancouver, two o r i g i n - d e s t i n a t i o n tables were constructed based on the 512 companies mentioned above. The f i r s t , Table 5 , shows the l o c a t i o n of companies i n Vancouver and Burnaby i n 1 9 6 8 , and indicates where they have re loca ted . The second t a b l e , Table 6 , shows the pres-ent l o c a t i o n of companies i n Vancouver and Burnaby and indica tes where they have come from. I f the ent i re metro-p o l i t a n area had been included i n the pre l iminary survey, then one table would merely be the inverse of the other. However, s ince the study only oovers ' r part of the metro-p o l i t a n area, the tables are d i f f e r e n t , even as to the number of companies tabulated. The trend i n i n d u s t r i a l p lant r e l o c a t i o n , as i n d i c -ated by the t ab le s , has been from the core areas to the intermediate areas. The areas with the largest net losses include the Powell S t reet , Fairview Slopes and downtown i n d u s t r i a l areas (numbered 1 5 , 1 3 , and 1 1 ) , while the areas with the larges t net gains were the S t i l l Creek, Lake C i t y 83 I n d u s t r i a l Park and Richmond i n d u s t r i a l areas (numbered 3, 7, and 22 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note tha t , depending on which table i s consulted, the Clark Drive area (number 14) had e i ther a small net gain or a small net l o s s . This implies tha t , contrary to the trend i n the other core areas, Clark Drive i s remaining s t a t i c or gaining s l i g h t l y . The only intermediate area to suffer a net decl ine i n the number of i n d u s t r i a l firms was the F i r s t and Boundary area (number 2 ) . Although t h i s t rend, from the core to the intermed-i a te areas, i s apparent from Mae o r i g i n - d e s t i n a t i o n t ab le s , these tables provide l i t t l e other information. They give no i n d i c a t i o n as to the type of company, nor to i t s s i z e , i n term employees, f l o o r area or s i t e s i z e . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n as to the motivat ion behind the move nor the reasons for the s e l ec t ion of the new s i t e . I t was these questions that the survey was intended to answer. I t was f e l t that the survey should include at l ea s t 30% of the presumed universe i n order to be representat ive ly However, s ince the survey was to be conducted during the prime vacat ion months, i t was f e l t that an add i t iona l 10% should be included i n the event that some companies could not respond to the quest ionnaire; of the 320 i n the sample, 260 responded, but due to a v a r i e t y of reasons, only 238 were considered v a l i d for the purposes of t h i s study. This 84 i s very near the 30% l e v e l i n i t i a l l y d e s i r e d . The survey revealed t h a t i n terms of numbers of com-panies, the p r i n c i p a l hypothesis i s supported. The number of companies r e l o c a t i n g exceeded any other type of demand source. From Table 7 i t can be seen t h a t the met r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n to a very h i g h degree generates i t s own demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l p roperty. Only about 8% of the companies d i d not o r i g i n a t e i n Vancouver. This i s s i g n i f i c a n t because the l o c a t i o n a l l i t a r a t u r e conveys the impression t h a t i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s a t t r a c t e d to a metropolis create a s i g n i f -i c a n t demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l space. TABLE 7 SOURCES OF DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY - NUMBER OF COMPANIES ON SITE EXPANSIONS . NEW COMPANIES EXPANSIONS WITHIN VANCOUVER EXPANSIONS INTO VANCOUVER RELOCATIONSj TOTALS 51 21.43$ * 82 30.48$ 37 15.55$ 37 13.75$ 17 7.14$ 17 6.32$ 21 8.82$ 21 7.80$ 112 I 238 47.06$ | 100.0$ 112 I 269 41.64$ 1 100.0$ •This includes companies which have expanded after relocation or initial establishment. 85 This sample, l i k e the universe from which i t was drawn, was l a r g e l y made up of companies which had r e l o c a t e d . R e l o c a t i o n accounted f o r about 47% of those sampled, wh i l e i t accounted f o r about 65% of the i n i t i a l u n i v e rse. The survey revealed the same b a s i c trends t h a t had been i d e n t -i f i e d by the o r i g i n - d e s t i n a t i o n t a b l e s . The core i n d u s t -t r i a l areas of the F a i r v i e w Slopes and Powell S t r e e t (areas numbered 15 and 15 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) experienced a l a r g e net d e c l i n e , while the other core area, C l a r k D r i v e , showed a small net gain i n the number of i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s . The S t i l l Creek area experienced a very l a r g e net gain, while the other i n d u s t r i a l areas i n the Ce n t r a l Burnaby V a l l e y showed moderate gains. These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those reported by the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t i n 12 Space f o r Industry. I t i s also c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the general trend observed i n most North American c i t i e s i n the past few decades. Such a high p r o p o r t i o n of the companies having r e l o c a t e d i n the f o r t y - f i v e months since January 1968, one can assume th a t a l a r g e number of i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s are always i n the process of changing t h e i r l o c a t i o n . I t i s assumed th a t each move r e s u l t s i n expanded premises, t h e r e -f o r e r e l o c a t i o n i s a l a r g e source of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l p r o p e r t y . I t should be r e c a l l e d that the universe was p r i n c i p a l l y drawn from the C i t y D i r e c t o r i e s and as such, i s 86 most l i k e l y somewhat biased towards r e l o c a t i n g companies. C e r t a i n l y the onsite expansions are -understated since they were compiled from l i s t s p r i n t e d i n p r o v i n c i a l and municipal government p u b l i c a t i o n s . These publ i ca t ions tended to focus on companies which had taken out b u i l d i n g permits i n excess of $10,000 i n value or had over 15 employees. They also provided no information on companies who had expanded by acquir ing e x i s t i n g adjacent property . As a point of i n t e r e s t , the survey found tha t , of the 112 companies which had re loca ted , 10, or 9%, had subse-quently expanded t h e i r f l o o r area by approximately 22%. The hypothesis that r e l o c a t i o n i s the larges t source of demand for i n d u s t r i a l property cannot be adequately proven merely i n terms of numbers of such companies. As a consequence, de ta i l ed information on f l o o r areas and s i t e s izes was also c o l l e c t e d . While the representat ives of most companies were able to supply data concerning f l o o r areas, few were able to supply the s i t e s izes they occupied. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true i n the instance where the company leased or rented the property , or where several tenants shared the b u i l d i n g . Of the companies surveyed, only 37% were able to supply s u f f i c i e n t information on s i t e s izes to make any meaningful ana lys i s . With such sparse data on s i t e s izes any conclusions reached are tenuous at best . However, the r e s u l t s can give an i n d i c a t i o n of the general s i t u a t i o n i n the metropol i tan area. TABLE 8 ACREAGE UPTAKE IN THE CORE AND INTERMEDIATE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Demand Source Industrial Areas 1969 1970 1971 1972 Totals On Site Expansion Core Intermediate 6.73 4-50 0.48 0.0 0.10 11.20 0.27 7.00 7-58 22.70 Sub-Total 11.23 0.48 11.30 7.27 _30.28 New Companies Core Intermediate 0.21 0.0 0.34 5.66 0.43 0.0 0.0 4.69 0.98 10.35 Sub-Total 0.21 6.00 0.43 4.69 11.33 Expansion Into Vancouver Core Intermediate 0.0 0.95 0.35 3.13 0.0 2.85 0.0 0.21 0.35 7-14 Sub-Total 0.95 3-48 2.85 0.21 7-49 Expansion Within Vancouver Core Intermediate 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.45 0.0 4-07 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.52 Sub-Total 0.0 1.45 4.07 0.0 5.52 Relocation Core Intermediate - 2.53 30.14 0.14 26.01 2.47 7.51 0.17 10.03 0.25 73.69 Sub-Total 27.61 26.15 9.98 10.20 73.94 Totals Core Intermediate 4-41 35-59 1.31 36.25 3.00 25.63 0.44 21.93 9.16 119.40 Grand Totals 40.00 37-56 28.63 22.37 128.56 88 In the f o r t y - f i v e month p e r i o d before October 1972, 128 .56 acres of land were removed from the a v a i l a b l e supply i n excess of the acreage added to i t by the companies sur-veyed. Companies which r e l o c a t e d took up 73*94 acres or 57*5% of the t o t a l l a n d up-take i n the areas surveyed. Table 8 shows t h a t o n - s i t e expansion was the second l a r g e s t user of i n d u s t r i a l land w i t h a 23.6% take-up, while new companies, expansions i n t o Vancouver and expansions w i t h i n Vancouver, took up 8.8%, 5-8%, and 4 .3% r e s p e c t i v e l y . This i n d i c a t e s support f o r the p r i n c i p a l hypothesis t h a t r e l o c a -t i o n i s the l a r g e s t source of demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l property i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n area. By disaggregating the f i g u r e s i n t o y e a r l y t o t a l s , a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e emerges, but they s t i l l support the general hypothesis. In 1969 and 1970, r e l o c a t i o n accounted f o r 69.0% and 69.6% of the t o t a l l a n d take-up r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t was only i n 1971 and the f i r s t t h r ee-quarters of 1972 that r e l o c a t i o n d i d not account f o r more land up-take than a l l the other sources of demand combined. And, i n 1971, o n - s i t e expansion took up more land than r e l o c a t i o n , 39•5% versus 34.9%. In terms of i n d u s t r i a l areas, the core c o n t r a d i c t s the hypothesis, w h i l e the intermediate i n d u s t r i a l area supports i t . In the core area, 83.8% of the property up-take was by o n - s i t e expansions, while only 2.7% was absorbed \ 8 9 TABLE 9 FLOOR AREA UPTAKE - CORF. AND INTERMEDIATE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Demand Source Industrial Areas 1969 1970 1971 1972 Totals On Site Expansion 2ore Intermediate 65,930 98,500 68,640 98,000 82,800 210,430 106,600 124,102 323,970 531,032 Sub-Total 164,430 166,640 293,230 230,702 855,002 New Companies Sore Intermediate 16,100 24,400 9,100 54,832 17,400 14,200 2,250 55,150 44,850 148,582 Sub-Total 40,500 63,932 31,600 57,400 193,432 Expansion Into Vancouver Sore Intermediate 16,050 7:800 192,900 1,600 29,000 4,000 52,320 13,400 290,770 Sub-Total 16,050 200,700 30,600 56,820 304,170 Expansion Within Vancouver Core Intermediate ?',900 25,600 12,000 136 .OR0 19,430 24,700 14,900 206,710 Sub-Total 28,500 148,980 19,430 24,700 221,610 Relocation Core Intermediate 28,500 473,484 -7,300 108,600 -3,335 117,850 23,500 408,318 41,365 1,108,252 Sub-Total 501,984 101,300 114,515 431,818 1,149,617 Totals Core Intermediate 113,430 638,034 90,240 591,312 98,465 390,910 136,350 665,090 438,485 2,285,346 Grand Totals 751,464 681,552 489,-375 801,440 2,723,831 90 by reloc a t i o n s . On the other hand, r e l o c a t i o n accounted f o r 61.7% of the up-take i n the intermediate areas, with on-site expansions a distant second with only 19.0%. An examination of f l o o r area up-take by source of demand produced s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . Since there i s a much larger sample, the findings can be considered as a better r e f l e c t i o n of r e a l i t y than the findings associated with the acreage up-take. Relocation accounted for 42.2% of the net up-take of f l o o r area by the 238 companies surveyed, while on-site expansions, the next largest demand source, accounted f o r 31.4-% and new companies, expansion into Vancouver and expansion within Vancouver, absorbed 7%, 11.2%, and 8.1% respectively (see Table 9 ). In the aggregate, the f l o o r area f i g u r e s , l i k e the s i t e size data, support the p r i n c i p a l hypothesis. Although re l o c a t i o n s did not take up more i n d u s t r i a l property than the other sources of demand com-bined, i t was almost 35% greater than the next largest demand source's up-take. In the core areas, on-site expan-sion took up 73.9% as compared to 9-4-% for r e l o c a t i o n . Although not of the same magnitude, t h i s i s s i m i l a r to the re s u l t s found when s i t e sizes are compared. It i s note-worthy that i n the Clark Drive area (numbered 14), the square footage taken up by re l o c a t i o n was almost equal to that taken up by on-site expansion. This was the only core area not subject to an absolute decline i n the number of companies 91 located there. These r e s u l t s are not surprising when one considers that the core d i s t r i c t s have remained v i r t u a l l y s t a t i c i n size over the past twenty years. Those parts of the core included i n t h i s study encompass about 1,460 gross acres, 13 or about 860 net areas of i n d u s t r i a l l y zoned land. In 1968, vacant land and land used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes accounted f o r 93 and 98 acres respectively. This land was considered as being immediately available f o r development, or could be redeveloped i n the near future. At that time, i t was estim-ated that these areas had a net absorption of about f i f t e e n acres per year, but t h i s has been la r g e l y offset by the encroachment of r e t a i l and commercial users, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Gastown and the Fairview Slopes areas. As a consequence, the various sources of demand are competing for the same l i m i t e d supply of property, which i s then allocated l a r g e l y on a b i l i t y to pay. It i s presumed that a company which decides to expand, rather than relocate to larger premises, w i l l be the highest bidder for adjoining property. This e f f e c t i v e l y removes the property from the available supply f o r long time periods; u n t i l the company relocates or goes out of business. Thus, other companies are forced to relocate, returning t h e i r acreage to the available supply where, i n turn, i t i s absorbed by the ex-panding company. Relocation has thus returned, say 0.25 of an acre to the supply with no compensating up-take i n 92 that area (the core areas have a net outflow of companies), while on-s i te expansion has absorbed that 0.25 acres . This ind ica te s that fewer and l a rger companies are acquir ing more of the i n d u s t r i a l property i n the core areas. It was found that over 25% of the companies surveyed, which had employment i n excess of 100 employees, were located i n the core areas. These companies occupied, on the average, about 105,000 square feet of b u i l d i n g and about 5.5 acres of land before expansion. As a r e su l t of expan-s i o n , they took up 163,820 square feet of f l o o r area, or about 37% of the t o t a l f l o o r area up-take i n the core d i s t r i c t s . This averages out to about 27,000 square feet of b u i l d i n g area, and one acre of land area per company. The average f l o o r area for a l l other companies surveyed i n the core d i s t r i c t s was about 11,400 square fee t . A l l but one of these expanding companies owned the property on which they were located and that company i s engaged i n a staged r e l o c a t i o n . They had purchased close to 30 acres of land i n an intermediate i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t and had already moved part of t h e i r production process there . The re s t of the f a c i l i t y was to be t rans ferred i n stages over the next 10-15 years . The other companies ind ica ted that they were s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r ex i s t ing l o c a t i o n and had no plans to r e loca te . They f e l t i t was cheaper to acquire adjacent property rather than disrupt t h e i r opera-9 3 t ions and re locate t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s .elsewhere. These o b s « * -14-vat ions support Pred ' s contention that not a l l indus t r i e s are in tere s ted i n r e l o c a t i o n , e i ther through i n e r t i a or t r a d i t i o n . The low net up-take of i n d u s t r i a l property hy r e l o -cat ing companies ind ica ted that the companies moving in to the core areas are taking up almmet the same amount of f l o o r area as the companies moving out, one must conclude that those moving i n are l a rger i n terms of the space they occupy. In the intermediate areas, r e l o c a t i o n was the larges t source of demand for i n d u s t r i a l property . This was not neces sar i ly the case i n each i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t . Those areas nearest the core experienced a l a rger demand for property as a r e s u l t of o n « 9 i t f t expansions than as a r e s u l t of r e l o c a t i o n s . Lake C i t y Indus t r i a l Park experienced an up-take of 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 square feet of f l o o r area, more than a l l the other intermediate i n d u s t r i a l areas combined. This can be a t t r ibu ted to the fact that a couple of very large companies had re located there i n the past few years . This Park, which has now been t o t a l l y so ld out, had become a f avor i t e l o c a t i o n i n recent years for wholesale and d i s t r i b -u t i o n type companies. The r a p i d l y developing S t i l l Creek area (number 3 ) experienced the next largest net up-take of i n d u s t r i a l property . Unlike Lake C i t y Indus t r i a l Park 94-which had a c o n t r o l l e d environment and e x c e l l e n t s o i l c o n d i -t i o n s , t h i s area has experienced unplanned development and s u f f e r s from poor s o i l c o n d i t i o n s . The l a r g e percentage of t o t a l f l o o r up-take i n the intermediate areas i s not s u r p r i s i n g on a number of counts. a) These areas are s t i l l growing and expanding In other words, t h e i r a b sorption r a t e s are q u i t e h i g h r e l a t i v e t o those i n the core areas. b) When companies leave t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n the core areas, there i s a very h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t they w i l l s e t t l e i n the intermediate areas. In both the core and intermediate areas, the combined up-take of i n d u s t r i a l property by new companies, expansions i n t o Vancouver and expansions w i t h i n Vancouver was l e s s than 20%. In one d i s t r i c t , the Marine Drive area (numbered 17), expansions i n t o Vancouver accounted f o r almost 40% of the t o t a l up-take i n the area. This was l a r g e l y due to the development of m u l t i - t e n a n t incubator type b u i l d i n g by one development company. These u n i t s , which were b u i l t s p e c i f -i c a l l y f o r a warehousing f u n c t i o n , can accommodate any s i z e tenant. They are w e l l l o c a t e d i n terms of a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the m e t r o p o l i t a n markets. The small take up of property by new companies i s expected because there are only a few such companies each year and they normally begin o p e r a t i o n on a small s c a l e . 95 Expansions wi th in Vancouver as a source of demand would also he small s ince the region i s smal l and almost any point can be reached w i t h i n 60 minutes d r i v i n g t ime. Thus the ent i re market can normally be served from one l o c a t i o n . From Tables 8 and 9 i t can be seen that metropol i tan Vancouver generates about 90% of i t s own demand f©r i n d u s t r i a l prop-e r t y . The few conraanies which come in to the region from other parts of the country take up very l i t t l e i n d u s t r i a l proper ty . This i s probably a r e su l t of the fact that a major i ty of these companies are wholesalers and/or d i s t r i b -utors of products made elsewhere. As a consequence t h e i r s ize i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the s ize of the market they ant ic ipa te ex i s t s i n the reg ion . The d i s t r i c t s themselves are important only i n t h e i r a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the markets which i n d u s t r i a l firms serve. The GVRD noted that " cent ra l l oca t ions " (near the CBD) 15 s t i l l exerted a powerful a t t r a c t i o n for indus t ry . Compan-ies i n the metropoli tan Vancouver area should therefore be r e l o c a t i n g as near the CBD as space permits . The survey showed quite the opposite . Within a two mile radius there was an absolute decl ine i n the number of f i rms , while the 4 to 6 mile and the 8 to 11 mile zones experienced large increases . This i s not s u r p r i s i n g since the 0 - 2 mile zone includes most of the core i n d u s t r i a l area which had suffered the l arges t net dec l ine s . Nor i s i t s u r p r i s i n g to 96 f i n d that the 4- - 6 mile and the 8 - 11 mile zones exper-ienced the greatest net increases since these zones include those intermediate i n d u s t r i a l areas which experienced the greatest increases. Since the movement has been from the 0 - 2 mile zone to the 4- - 6 and the 8 - 11 mile zones, one must conclude that the central l o c a t i o n hypothesis does not explain plant l o c a t i o n very well . Also, mileage from the CBD appears to be of l i t t l e concern to companies who are r e l o c a t i n g . A much more important consideration i s t r a v e l time. The GVED noted fchat a majority of the companies which r e l o -cated i n the I960 - 1966 period acquired new premises i n the 20 - 30 minute time z o n e ^ The present survey's f i n d -ings are similar 1. The 0 - 1 0 minute zone had the largest decline, while the 20 - 25 minute zone experienced the largest increase. Companies engaged i n trade a c t i v i t i e s (SIC Codes 600-699), p r i n c i p a l l y wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n oompanies (SIC Codes 600-629) made up 4-7.3% of the t o t a l of relocated companies. The second largest group manufacturing (SIC Codes 100-399) represented an additional 28.6%. This large number of wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n companies indicates that grouping of the industries by SIC Codes was f a u l t y . This overstatement of wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n companies can be attributed to several sources, l o r example, some of 97 the companies in t e r v i e w e d s o l d t h e i r products at both wholesale and r e t a i l p r i c e s , hut company o f f i c i a l s were unable to i n d i c a t e which type of s a l e s generated the great-est revenue. In other cases, companies which acted as man-u f a c t u r e r ' s agents and/or d i s t r i b u t o r s were grouped w i t h the wholesalers. Recognizing t h a t the wholesaling and d i s t r i b -u t i o n s e c t o r i s probably o v e r s t a t e d , the r e s u l t s of the survey are s t i l l v a l u a b l e . The f a c t t h a t w h o l e s a l i n g and d i s t r i b u t i o n companies made up over 4-7% of the companies which had r e l o c a t e d and only 37.4-% of the t o t a l surveyed, seems to suggest t h a t these f i r m s are more mobile and f o o t l o o s e than other types of companies. Of the 52 wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n compan-i e s which had r e l o c a t e d , 36.5% occupied l e s s than 5,000 square f e e t of f l o o r area and about 4-5% occupied 10,000 square f e e t or l e s s . I t was also found that 4-5«8% of these companies employed l e s s than f i v e persons, w h i l e about 65% employed t e n or l e s s people. The f a c t that the f i r m s tended to be small probably c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e i r m o b i l i t y . Another c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i s the type of tenancy i n v o l v e d . Over 80% of the wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n companies leased t h e i r premises before they r e l o c a t e d and 77% leased subsequent to t h e i r move, wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n companies showed a strong preference f o r Vancouver's Marine Drive (number 17) area and a moderate a t t r a c t i o n f o r the S t i l l Creek, Lake 98 C i t y , C l a r k Drive and the F i r s t and Boundary Road i n d u s t r i a l areas (numbered 3, 7 5 14, and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s were the second l a r g e s t group of companies to r e l o c a t e . They represented 28.6% of the r e l o c a t i n g f i r m s and over 40% of the t o t a l surveyed. This group of i n d u s t r i e s i s most l i k e l y understated because of the d i f f i c u l t y of c l a s s i f y i n g the f i r m s . For example, a company engaged i n s e l l i n g i n d u s t r i a l equipment used i n c o n s t r u c t i o n . The f i r m a l s o provides s e r v i c e and r e p a i r f a c i l i t i e s f o r i t s products. What SIC group does such a f i r m come under? The d e c i s i o n was u s u a l l y made by c o n s u l t -i n g the oompany's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s as to which f u n c t i o n was most important. As a r e s u l t , some companies were place d i n other groups which might b e t t e r have been accommodated i n the manufacturing group. 'h.f The manufacturing f i r m s tended to be l a r g e r than the wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n forms. Almost 40% of the compan-i e s occupied f l o o r areas i n excess of 10,000 square f e e t compared to only 25% f o r wholesale. Manufacturing f i r m s a l s o tended t o have a l a r g e r number of employees; over 50% employed more than t e n persons compared to l e s s than 35% i n the wholesale s e c t o r . A greater p r o p o r t i o n of manufacturing f i r m s a l s o owned t h e i r own property (34.4% versus 21.2%). These f a c t o r s combined i n d i c a t e t h a t manufacturing f i r m s tend not to r e l o c a t e as o f t e n as wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n 99 f i r m s . The l a r g e s t sub-group of manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s c o n s i s t e d of twelve metal f a b r i c a t i n g companies (SIC Code 300). They d i s p l a y e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r to the whole-s a l e and d i s t r i b u t i o n firms i n that they were g e n e r a l l y small and tended to lease t h e i r premises. However, on the average, they employed more people. Manufacturing f i r m s as a group showed a preference r f o r r e l o c a t i n g i n the S t i l l Creek and C l a r k Drive areas. The Powell S t r e e t area s u f f e r e d the greatest net d e c l i n e , l a r g e l y due to the r e l o c a t i o n of the metal f a b r i c a t i n g f i r m s to the S t i l l Creek area. The c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y (SIC Codes 400-421) repre-sented 12.5% of the r e l o c a t i n g companies. The companies, 85*7% of which were s p e c i a l - t r a d e c o n t r a c t o r s (SIC Code 4-21), were f a i r l y evenly d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the survey areas. However, there does seem to be a tendency to l o c a t e i n the i n d u s t r i a l d i s t r i c t s of the C e n t r a l Burnaby V a l l e y (areas numbered 2, 3, and 6 ) . T h e i r l o c a t i o n before r e l o -c a t i n g was l i k e w i s e q u i t e uniform w i t h a s l i g h t emphasis on the F a i r v i e w Slopes (area 13) and the Kingsway (area 4-). A m a j o r i t y of these f i r m s employed l e s s than 15 persons before they r e l o c a t e d . This f i g u r e i s not s i g n i f i c a n t because the employees do not work at the f i r m ' s l o c a t i o n . Employment tends to f l u c t u a t e r a p i d l y depending on the c o n t r a c t s a v a i l -able to the company. For these reasons employment i s a poor 100 measure of a company's s i z e . Over 75% of these companies occupied le s s than 5,000 square feet of f l o o r area. This i s expected since the f i r m ' s l o c a t i o n i s normally only used as a storage area and an administrat ive center. The other types of industry , Mines (SIC 050-099), Transportat ion, Communication and other U t i l i t i e s (SIC 500-599), and Community, Business and Personal Service Industries (SIC 800-899), represented 1.8%, 5.3% and 4.5% of the sample r e s p e c t i v e l y . There were too few companies i n each SIC Group on which to base any conclus ions . Relocat ion - Impetus and S i te Se lec t ion In add i t ion to not ing the l o c a t i o n a l patterns of Indus t r i a l Plant movement, t h i s study i s also concerned with the motivat ion behind that movement. Companies, which had chosen new s i te s during the study p e r i o d , were asked to ind ica te the reasons for choosing the s i t e s they d i d . Relocat ing companies, during the same p e r i o d , were asked to ind ica te why they l e f t t h e i r former locat ions as w e l l . In each case a number of reasons were suggested (see question-na i re i n appendix) and the company's representat ive was asked to ind ica te how important each was i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n . The responses are tabulated i n Tables 10 and 11. In general , companies re located because the previous p h y s i c a l p lant was unsuitable for continued operations. The b u i l d i n g was most often too smal l , but technologica l changes 101 TABLE 10 REASONS FOR RELOCATING Freauencv of ResDonse Im oortance Total i 2 Lease not renewed by owner 13 4 1 18 Lease rate too high 3 3 3 9 Lack of access to principal transportation arteries 3 8 5 16 Plant obsolete 21 17 10 48 Lack of support services 3 3 7 13 On-Site expansion not possible 45 14 3 62 No available property nearby 8 16 5 29 Available property nearby too expensive 3 5 2 10 Available property nearby had zoning constraints 4 2 1 7 Neighborhood deteriorating - 4 3 7 Neighborhood congested 9 8 6 23 Residential and/or commercial infringement 1 3 3 7 Business expanded and/or diversified 49 13 6 68 Lack of proximity to major customers 8 6 7 21 Lack of proximity to major suppliers 1 4 3 8 Lack of proximity to like industries 3 1 3 7 Consolidation Move 5 1 - 6 Upgrading Image 3 2 - 5 Other 17 2 4 23 102 TABLE 11 REASONS FOR CHOOSING NEW LOCATION F r e q u e n c y o f R e s p o n s e I m p o r t a n c e T o t a l 2 3 C e n t r a l l o c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g c u s t o m e r s 37 11 13 61 C e n t r a l l o c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g s u p p l i e r s 6 12 11 29 Good a c c e s s t o p r i n c i p a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a r t e r i e s 19 23 22 64 P r i c e o f p r o p e r t y o r l e a s e r a t e 27 16 21 64 B u i l d i n g was a v a i l a b l e on s h o r t n o t i c e 16 16 7 39 U n c o n t e s t e d n e i g h b o r h o o d 8 12 1 8 38 Ample p a r k i n g 9 17 22 48 P r o x i m i t y t o l i k e i n d u s t r i e s 3 3 6 12 A v a i l a b i l i t y o f s e r v i c e d l o a d '4 8 7 . 19 N e a r n e s s t o s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e ' s r e s i d e n c e 6 3 7 16 A v a i l a b i l i t y o f r a i l s e r v i c e 5 3 3 11 N e a r n e s s t o l a b o r - 5 8 13 S u i t a b i l i t y o f b u i l d i n g 10 3 - 13 Known a d d r e s s 4 7 1 12 O t h e r 1 2 10 6 32 103 i n manufacturing processes and mater ia l handling also con-t r i b u t e d to making the bu i ld ings unsui table . Very few com-panies were concerned with such factors as up-grading com-pany image and de te r io ra t ing neighbourhoods. In other words companies are b a s i c a l l y s t a t i c and ob l iv ious to t h e i r sur-roundings . The interviews ind ica ted that the majority of compaHd ies devoted very l i t t l e time or energy to s i t e s e l e c t i o n . The survey showed that the lease rate or purchase p r i ce and good access to p r i n c i p a l t ransporta t ion a r te r i e s were the prime determinants . . This ina t t en t ion to the d e t a i l s of s i t e s e l e c t i o n probably r e f l e c t s the character of the companies and the study area. Since a majority of firms are small and ren t , they are h ighly mobile. The metropolitan region i t s e l f , i s s t i l l small enough that l o c a t i n n a l decis ions are not onerous nor are the f i n a n c i a l pena l t ie s very high i f a mistake has been made since the companies are so mobile. 104 Footnotes 1. The h i s t o r i c a l information was gathered from numerous sources. The p r i n c i p a l source was an unpublished paper e n t i t l e d "Vancouver: A Biography and Future Project ions" , by K e i t h A i t k e n , Terry Burns, Br ian Copeland and David Reed, U . B . C . 1972. 2. Some m i l l s , of course, remained and continued to oper-ate i n the area wel l into the mid-twentieth century. 3. Vancouver Urban Renewal Study, Technical Report No. 4, I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s , Vancouver Planning Department, November, 1969, p . 1. 4. "A Report on the Recreat ional Use of the Burrard In le t Shore - w i t h i n the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Busmabfry", 1965, p . 7-5. This i s net of s t ree t s , lanes , power r i g h t s - o f ways,etc. 6. Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 17, 1971; Vancouver Sun, Ju ly 6, 1971. : 7. The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board i n a study e n t i t l e d The Dynamics of Indus t r i a l Land Settlement defined a major company as one having over ten employees. The 1966 study was conducted by the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t and reported i n Space.for Industry, Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , P l a n n i n g Department, 1971. 8. Space fo r Industry, Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Planning Department, 1971, o p . c i t . , p.. 16. . 9« Vancouver Urban Renewal Study, op. c i t . p . 16. 10. The study conducted i n 1959 hy the Lower Mainland Region-a l Planning Board noted that i n 1958 manufacturing firms with ten or more employees made up about 55% of the t o t a l number of f i rms , but they accounted f o r over 99% of t o t a l employment. See Dynamics of Indus t r i a l Land  Settlement, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of B . C . , 1961, p . 5. 105 11. The sample s ize was chosen i n consul ta t ion with some s t a t i s t i t i o n s . They ind ica ted that with sample s ize of 30% of the assumed universe , one could be 99% confident that the re su l t s (the breakdown of i n d u s t r i a l property up-take by demand source) would l i e wi th in one standard dev ia t ion of the true mean. 12. Space for Industry, op. c i t . , pp. 36 - 38. 13. Figures obtained from Vancouver Urban Renewal Study, op. c i t . 14-. A l l e n R. Pred, "The Intrametropolitan Locat ion of American Manufacturing" Annals of the Assoc ia t ion of  American Geographers, V o l . 54, June, 1964-, p . 170. 15. I b i d , p . 50. 16. I b i d , p . 51. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS Introduct ion It was e a r l i e r noted that the demand for i n d u s t r i a l property was associated with f i ve sources, four of which ar i se i n the metropolis i t s e l f , while the f i f t h i s i n t r o -duced from without. The suggestion was made that the r e l o c a t i o n of ex i s t ing companies was the p r i n c i p l e source of demand. I t was further suggested that by noting the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and l o c a t i o n a l behaviour patterns of such companies, the urban planners might be able to improve t h e i r p red ic t ions of future development. The study's object ive was, to v e r i f y or disprove that r e l o c a t i o n was i n fact the p r i n c i p a l source of demand. I f t h i s was sub-s tant ia ted , then a further object ive would be to examine the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and behavioural pat tern of those i n d u s t r i a l firms i n Vancouver to ascer ta in i f they d i f f e red from those found i n other North American metropolitan reg ions . 107 Several extensive studies have been undertaken i n Vancouver with the purpose of determining future i n d u s t r i a l land demands. These studies have not dealt with the o r i g in s of demand and have only made f l e e t i n g references to the r e l o c a t i o n of ex i s t ing f i rms . These studies have also been l i m i t e d to companies with ten or more employees. There was an assumption made that these companies occupied a sub-s t a n t i a l percentage of the t o t a l i n d u s t r i a l property i n the reg ion . This study included a l l companies regardless of the number of employees. Conclusions Indus t r i a l property consists of land and/or b u i l d -ings . As a r e s u l t , both the f l o o r area and the s i t e area have to be considered when discuss ing i n d u s t r i a l property uptake. A small proport ion of the companies surveyed were able to provide s u f f i c i e n t information on s i t e s izes to make a meaningful ana lys i s . The data indicates that the r e l o c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g companies i s the largest source of demand for i n d u s t r i a l land i n the metropoli tan reg ion . An analys is of the f l o o r area data produces the same general conclus ion. These observations are based on the aggregated data for a twenty-five month p e r i o d . I f the data i s examined on a year by year ba s i s , no consistent pa t tern emerges. A more meaningful breakdown involves examining the components 108 of the m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n . The core areas, on a year hy year b a s i s , c o n s i s t e n t l y showed a l a r g e r uptake of f l o o r area by o n - s i t e expansions than by a l l other demand sources combined. The intermediate areas f o l l o w e d no such r e g u l a r p a t t e r n . For example, r e l o c a t i o n was the l a r g e s t demand source i n 1969 and 1972, f o l l o w e d by o n - s i t e expansions. And, i n 1970, expansion i n t o Vancouver was the l a r g e s t demand source f o l l o w e d by expansion w i t h i n Vancouver. Since no p e r i p h e r a l i n d u s t r i a l areas were surveyed, nothing can be s a i d about them except to repeat an observation made i n Vancouver's Urban Renewal r e p o r t . That study i n d i c a t e d t h a t few i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s were r e l o c a t i n g i n the p e r i p h e r a l areas. Instead, t h e i r growth was due l a r g e l y to the estab-lishment of new companies and to the establishment of branch operations by companies expanding i n t o m e t r o p o l i t a n Van-couver. I f the core and intermediate areas are disaggregated i n t o t h e i r component d i s t r i c t s , the p i c t u r e becomes even l e s s c l e a r . However, i t was observed t h a t those d i s t r i c t s nearest the CBD were the areas where o n - s i t e expansion was the l a r g e s t demand source. R e l o c a t i o n was the l a r g e s t demand source i n those areas l o c a t e d f u r t h e s t from the CBD. Based on the survey, i t i s very evident that over 90% of the demand f o r i n d u s t r i a l p r operty a r i s e s w i t h i n the r e g i o n i t s e l f , - w hile only a small percentage r e s u l t s from 109 the l o c a t i o n of branch p l a n t s whose headquarters are l o c a t e d elsewhere. The core areas p r e s e n t l y represent a small p r o p o r t i o n of both the supply and demand sectors of the i n d u s t r i a l property market, r e f l e c t i n g a c o n t i n u a l d i m i n i s h -i n g of the importance of those i n d u s t r i a l areas! A s i g n i f -i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of l a r g e firms are s t i l l l o c a t e d i n the core and these f i r m s accounted f o r a very l a r g e percentage of the t o t a l uptake of f l o o r area t h e r e . There i s l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t these f i r m s w i l l r e l o c a t e u n t i l f o rced to do so. The core areas were also popular w i t h f i r m s beginning p operations f o r the f i r s t time. This source of demand accounted f o r the second l a r g e s t uptake of i n d u s t r i a l prop-e r t y . The core areas are most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned as the p l a c e of o r i g i n f o r companies r e l o c a t i n g . These p a t t e r n s are expected to p e r s i s t f o r some time to come. To adequately d i s c u s s sources of demand and to r e l a t e them to each other, a complete inventory of the e n t i r e metro-p o l i t a n r e g i o n must be undertaken. Sampling i s inadequate because of the heterogeneous nature of the s u b j e c t s . R e l o c a t i n g companies i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver have d i s p l a y e d many of the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and behavioural p a t t e r n s as companies i n other i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s . The core areas have s u f f e r e d an absolute d e c l i n e , while the i n t e r -mediate areas experienced r a p i d growth. Firms which have r e l o c a t e d tended t o d i s p l a y some 110 r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i r s i z e and t h e i r l o c a t i o n w i t h i n the Vancouver m e t r o p o l i t a n area. Small companies tended to r e l o c a t e close to the core while l a r g e r companies showed a preference f o r l o c a t i o n s f u r t h e r out. This i s s i m i l a r to Vernon's observations about the New York me t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n and i t tends to support Goldberg's t h e o r i e s on p l a n t s i z e and t h e i r l o c a t i o n . I t should be noted that t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s only t e n t a t i v e since the study d i d not i n c l u d e the p e r i p h e r a l areas of Vancouver. A m a j o r i t y of the companies which have r e l o c a t e d do not own t h e i r premises, nor d i d they own them before they moved. Most of these companies tended to be s m a l l , both i n terms of the number of employees and the square footage they occupied. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e i r investment i n tenant improvements and c a p i t a l equipment i s s m a l l , thus they have maximum m o b i l i t y . Logan drew the same con c l u s i o n about small f i r m s i n h i s study of Sydney, A u s t r a l i a . The survey revealed t h a t a m a j o r i t y of the r e l o c a t i n g companies were wholesale and d i s t r i b u t i o n f i r m s , and not u n n a t u r a l l y , these are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s they d i s p l a y e d . The second l a r g e s t group of r e l o c a t i n g f i r m s were manufacturing companies. Again, these were small and tended to lease r a t h e r than own. The i n c i d e n t of ownership was considerably higher f o r S p e c i a l Trade Contractors who made up the t h i r d l a r g e s t group of r e l o c a t i n g companies. I l l The most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned reason f o r moving has been a l a c k of space. I t was only i n f r e q u e n t l y that the e x t e r n a l environment prompted a company to move. One can t h e r e f o r e conclude that once a company i s l o c a t e d i n an area i t becomes o b l i v i o u s to i t s surroundings, and only tends to move when i t l a c k s space. Companies do act l i k e an economic man, i n that when the l o c a t i o n a l disadvantages outweight the cost of r e l o c a t i n g , a company w i l l move. .For example, the f a c t t h a t the neighbourhood i s d e t e r i o r a t i n g w i l l not prompt many to move, but when congestion i s so bad that shipment of goods becomes d i f f i c u l t , the company w i l l move. In examining the reasons companies gave f o r choosing new s i t e s , one concludes t h a t most f i r m s , although very much aware of t h e i r customer's l o c a t i o n and d e l i v e r y time, probably make t h e i r f i n a], d e c i s i o n on much more mundane c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , such as lease r a t e s . The survey i n d i c a t e s t h a t l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given t o e x t e r n a l s e r v i c e s . This i s l a r g e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the f a c t that the Vancouver m e t r o p o l i t a n area i s so small t h a t any such r e q u i r e d s e r v i c e s are w i t h i n easy reach. From the i n t e r v i e w s , one i s l e f t w i t h the impression t h a t very l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given t o the s e l e c t i o n of a new l o c a t i o n , nor was the search area very l a r g e . Most companies spent l e s s than a couple of months l o o k i n g f o r a l o c a t i o n , and o f t e n took a premises i f i t was immediately a v a i l a b l e . 112 Despite the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, the t e n a t i v e conclusions provide some i n s i g h t i n t o the sources of demand f o r i n s u s t r i a l property and the l o c a t i o n a l requirements of i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s which can he used as an input to consider-i n g o v e r a l l p l a n n i n g and development of met r o p o l i t a n areas. The f a c t t h a t i n d u s t r i e s i n the s e l e c t e d d i s t r i c t s of Vancouver tended to d i s p l a y l o c a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r i a l charac-t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r to those observed i n other "western" c i t i e s gives support to the i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n l o c a t i o n t h e o r i e s put f o r t h by M. A. Goldberg and others. In con t r a s t to the computer models which are becoming i n c r e a s i n g unique, t h i s study provides encouragement to those who seek a more g e n e r a l i z e d i n t r a - m e t r o p o l i t a n i n d u s t r i a l l o c a t i o n theory. 113 Footnotes 1. Benjamin C h i n i t z , C i t y and Suburb, P r e n t i c - H a l l , Inc., 1964, p. 23 . 2. I b i d , p. 2 1 . Raymond Vernon, M e t r o p o l i s 1 9 8 5 , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , I 9 6 0 , p. 25-Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of A  M e t r o p o l i s , Doubleday Anchor Books, 1 9 6 2 , p. 62. 3- Donald K e r r and Jacob S p e l t , "Manufacturing in-Downtown Toronto", Geographical B u l l e t i n , No. 1 0 , 1957 , pp. 5 - 2 0 . M. I . Logan, " L o c a t i o n a l Behavior of Manufacturing Firms i n Urban Areas", Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of American  Geographers, V o l . 5 6 , Sept. 1966, pp. 451-466. Inserted to Correct Page Number! 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Boley, Robert, I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s Restudied: An A n a l y s i s  of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C, 1961. , I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s : P r i n c i p a l s i n P r a c t i c e , Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C, 1962. C h i n i t z , Benjamin, C i t y and Suburbs, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N.J., 1964. Garrobrant, Robert B., Redevelopment f o r I n d u s t r i a l Use, Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1955. , The Community and I n d u s t r i a l Development, Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1953. Goldberg, Michael A., I n t r a m e t r o p o l i t a n I n d u s t r i a l Locations: P l a n t S i z e and the Theory of Production , I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i -f o r n i a , B e r k l e y , 1969. Greenhut, Melvin L . , P l a n t L o c a t i o n : In Theory and i n P r a c t i c e , U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a Press, 1956. Hardwick, Walter G., "Vancouver: The Emergence of a 'Core-Ring' Urban P a t t e r n " , Geographical Approaches to  Canadian Problems, ed., R.L. G e n t i l c a r e , P r e n t i c e -H a l l , 1971. Hoover, Edgar M., L o c a t i o n of Economic A c t i v i t y , McGraw-H i l l Book Co., Inc., New York, 1963. Jacobs, Jane, The Economy of C i t i e s , Random House, New York, 19W. K a i n , John R., "The D i s t r i b u t i o n and Movement of Jobs and Industry", The M e t r o p o l i t a n Enigma, ed., James Q. Wilson, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968. Kennedy, Wm. J.V., The Planned I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t ; I t s  s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r Urban Development i n Canada, M.A. Thesis, U.B.C, 1964. \ 116 Kinnard, W i l l i a m N. , I n d u s t r i a l Real E s t a t e , Society of I n d u s t r i a l R e a l t o r s , Washington, D.C., 1969. Kitagawa, Evelyn M. and Bogue, Donald J . , Suburbanization  of Manufacturing A c t i v i t y W i t h i n Standard Metropol-i t a n Areas, Scripps Foundation f o r Research i n P o p u l a t i o n Problems, #9, 1955. Vernon, Raymond, Metr o p o l i s 1985, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P ress, I960. , Hoover, Edgar* M. , Anatomy of a M e t r o p o l i s , Doubleday Anchor Books, New York, 1962. Yaseen, Leonard C., Pl a n t L o c a t i o n , American Research C o u n c i l , New York, I960. , Planned I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s , T h e i r Organ- i z a t i o n and Development, edd. Milburn F o r t h and J. Ross McKeever, Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1952. , Real Estate Trends i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver i n 1971, I'he Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Vancouver, 1971« 117 PERIODICALS / Adams, N., " F a i l u r e to A t t r a c t Industry," The Vancouver Sun, Nov. 29, 1971. , "Land f o r Industry", The Vancouver Sun, January 22 , 1972. Alonso, W i l l i a m , "A Reformulation of C l a s s i c a l L o c a t i o n Theory and I t s R e l a t i o n to Rent Theory", Papers:  The Regional Science Foundation, V o l . 19 1 9 6 7 . Baur, Andrew H., "The Importance of P r e s e r v i n g Land f o r I n d u s t r i a l Use", Area Development, May, 1970. B o b l e t t , Robert P., "Factors i n I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n " , The A p p r a i s a l J o u r n a l , American I n s t i t u t e of Real E s t a t e A p p r a i s e r s , October, 1 9 6 7 . C a r e s t i o , Ralph M., "Land Absorption i n I n d u s t r i a l Parks", I n d u s t r i a l Development and Manufacturer's Record, January/February, 1971• C a r r i e r , Ronald E. and S c h r i v e r , W i l l i a m R., "Location Theory: An E m p i r i c a l Model and Selected F i n d i n g s " , Land Economics, V o l . 4 4 , 1 9 6 8 . D e l M a r c e l l e , David J . , "How Zoning can A f f e c t your New F a c i l i t y P l a n s " , Area Development, October, 1970. Dubbink, David T., "Estimating the S p a t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Industry w i t h i n an Urban Region", Annals of Regional  Science, December, 1 9 6 8 . Goldberg, Michael A., "Bay Area S i m u l a t i o n Study: Employ-ment L o c a t i o n Models", The Annals of Regional  Science, December, 1 9 6 8 . , " I n t r a m e t r o p o l i t a n I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n : Some Emperical F i n d i n g s " , The Annals of Regional Science, June, 1 9 6 9 . , "An I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n Model f o r the San F r a n c i s c o Bay Area", The Annals of Regional Science, December, 1 9 6 7 * 118 "Evaluating the Interaction between Urban Transport and Land Use Systems", Land Economics, November, 1972. Isard, W. and Liassates, P., "On Location Analysis f or Urban and Regional Growth Situations" Annals of  Regional Science, June, 1972. Kerr, Donald, and Spelt, Jacob, "Manufacturing i n Downtown Toronto", Geographical B u l l e t i n , No. 10, 1957-Lcewenstein, Louis K., "A Proposed Manufacturing Location Model", Annals of Regional Science, December, 1967-Logan, M.I., "Locational Behavior of Manufacturing Firms i n Urban Areas", Annals of the Association of  American Geographers, Vol. 56, September, 1966. Moses, Lean and Williamson, Harold F. "The Location of Economic A c t i v i t y i n C i t i e s " , Papers and Proceedings; The American Economic Review, Vol. 57, No. 2, May . 1967. Pred, A l l a n R., "The Intrametropolitan Location of American Manufacturing", Annals of the Association of  American Geographers, Vol. 54, June, 1964. Putman, Stephen. H. , "Intraurban Employment Forecasting Models: A Review and a Suggested New Model Construc-t i o n " , Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 4 , July, 1972. "Intraurban I n d u s t r i a l Location Model: Design and Implementation", Papers: The Regional Science  Association, Vol. 19, 1967. Rose, Ron, "Needs of 'Average guy' Satisfied"', The Vancouver  Sun, June 27, 1970. Sargent, Charles, "Land for Industry", Urban Land, February, 1964. 119 GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS , The Manufacturing I n d u s t r i e s of Canada, S e c t i o n G, Geographical D i s t r i b u t i o n , Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1958 and 1968. , Outlook on Industry i n the Lower Mainland Region - A P r e l i m i n a r y Report, 1957-, "A Report on the R e c r e a t i o n a l Use of the Burrard I n l e t Shore - w i t h i n the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Burnaby", 1965. , Dynamics of I n d u s t r i a l Land Settlement, Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Vancouver, 1961. , Space f o r Industry, Crreater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, 1972. , "Technical Report Number 4- - I n d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s " , Vancouver Urban Renewal Study, Vancouver, 1969. , I n d u s t r i a l Expansion i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade and Commerce, 1968 - 1972. , Annual Reports, Vancouver and Lower Mainland I n d u s t r i a l Development Commission. , "Community Improvements and Development Program", C i t y P lanning Department, Vancouver, 1970. 120 MISCELLANEOUS A i l k e n , K e i t h , et a l , "Vancouver: A Biography and Future P r o j e c t i o n s " , (Unpublished paper) U.B.C, 1972. Bater, James H. and Walker, David F. I n d u s t r i a l L o c a t i o n  A n a l y s i s of I n d u s t r i a l Areas, and I n d u s t r i a l  Commissioners, Paper presented at 1970 Ontario I n d u s t r i a l Development Seminar, U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, October, 1970. , Performance Standards i n I n d u s t r i a l Zoning, The N a t i o n a l I n d u s t r i a l Zoning Committee (NIZC), Columbus, Ohio, I 9 6 0 . , P r i n c i p l e s of I n d u s t r i a l Zoning, NIZC, 1966. Sound Zoning, NIZC, 1966. APPENDIX "A" QUESTIONNAIRE 122 MRTH0POLXTIAN VAriCQUVn.'. TKTOSTRIAI. PROPERTY STUDY  COKl'IDKMTTAI. 1 . Hano (>f Vim: 2, Prosont Addre:m' 3 . Major Product Produced or 11-itu'ro of Sorvlco Performed U. tho headquarters of your f i r m l o c a t e at tho addros? p.iven i n rjufir-.tion /'? above? I f not, ploar.f. i n d i c a t e v.+ioro the head o f f i c o l o located: ( ) Outrddo l i r i t i f i h Colui-.bin ( ) Within B r i t i s h Columbia, but outside Metro Vtncouvor ( ) V.'ithi.n Metro Vancouver, pleaso cpocify _ _ 6. Ploa^o i n d i c a t e vidch of tho f o l l o d n f , dencribonthe s i t u a t i o n of your f i r n at your present, l o c a t i o n : ( ) Oi.'n lb-nd and b u i l d i n g s ( ) Own land and inane b u i l t f i n r n ( ) Lance 3;ind and buildln»n ( ) Lonr.a b u i l d i n g only ( ) Loa:;o land nnd ovn b u i l d i n ^ o ( ) Othor 7. Whan van tho prcnont n i t o acquired, oither by ]oano or purchase? 8.. I f you own or loane tho e n t i r e c i t o , vilrnt i u tho t o t a l 3 and area of tho nite? 9, (A) Since acquiring t h i s s i t e , has your f i r n enlarged i.ta land holdings? (P.) I f so, ploaso plvo d e t a i l s : V.Oiere: When: Aron: 10, Vfhon d i d your firm bopln operations at t h l o s i t e ? 1 1 , How many employees do you have at procont? 12, (A) Since beginning operations at this olto, hao your firm ineroMed it.s employment? (B) If oo, plaiG-' plve d o t a i l a : Vhetu How manyt 123 -2-13. Arc you tho sole occupant of your building? Hi. How much floor area do you occupy now? 15. (A) llao thin (mount Increaoed nlnco yon bopnn operations at thin si to? (H) If BO, ploaoe pive details? V/hen: How much: 16. Is this site the original location of your firm? 17. If not, whore was your firm previously locatnd? THE FOU-a-ffKO QlflT.TIONS ARE FOR FJ.RKS TIIAT WKRE FOICKRI.Y LOCATED AT ANOTHER ADDRKf;.*} T T m r T T ^ - i ' Q V A N ' c T T i i T a u  10. Please indicate wliich of tho following described the situation of your firm at i t s fornmr 19. Do you s t i l l own or leoco that site? 20. V'ere you tho sole occupant of your building? 21. How many employees did you employ at your [o.-mnv site? 22. How much floor area did you occupy? 23. If you owned or leased the ontire site, whnt van the total aroa of that site? 2h. (A) Did you ovm or lease any other land and/or buildinftn? (B) If so, plooso Rive details: V.'hore: How Much land: How much floor area: location. ( ) Owned land and buildings ( ) Leased land and building ( ) Leaned land and owned buildings ( ) Owned land and leased buildings ( ) Leased buildings only ( ) Other 124-?S. For each of the following, please indicate the level of importance in your dooinion to move from your previous location within Metro Vancouver. Host Important Important Fairly Important Unimportant Lease not renewed by owner Lnase rate too hiph Lack of access to principle transportation artories Property taxes too high business taxes too high J'lant obsolete Lack of support services On-site expansion not possible Ho available property nearby Available property nearby too expensive Available property nearby had zoning constraints Neighborhood deteriorating Veiphborhood consented Residential and/or commercial infringement 1 ollution control!? ''usiness expanded and/or diversified Lack of proximity to major customers Lack of proximity to major suppliers Lack of proximity to labor Lack -of public transportation — Lack of proximity to like industries Others! (Please Specify) 125 26. For each of tha following, please indicate tho level of importance in your decision to locate at your present s i te . M o s t I m p o r t a n t I m p o r t a n t F a i r l y I m p o r t a n t U n i m p o r t n n t — — -' A n t r a l l o c a t i o n r o t C u s t o m e r s C e n t r a l l o c a t i o n r e t S u p p l i e r s ".ood a c c e s s t o p r i n c i p l e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a r t e r i e s ( P u r c h a s e P r i c e o r L e a s e R a t e ) H u i l d i n r c was a v a i l a b l e on s h o r t n o t i c e P r o p e r t y a v a i l a b l e on s h o r t n o t i c e U n c o n t e s t e d n e i g h b o r h o o d Ample p a r k i n g l Y o x i m l t y t o l i k e i n d u s t r i e s A v a i l a b i l i t y o f s e r v i c e d l a n d N e a r n e s s t o s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e ' s r e s i d e n c e A v a i l a b i l i t y o f r a i l s e r v i c e " A v a i l a b i l i t y o f w a t o r t r a n s p o r t ' InarnosB t o l a b o r O t h e r s : ( P l e a s e S p e c i f y ) APPENDIX "B" UNIVARIANT TABLES Question 1. Name of Firm or Company. (Used only — f o r ~ d e T . t T f i C a t i o f i and d l f f e r s n r i a t l o n of companies which were located at the same street address.) Question 2. Present Address. These were coded as to d i s t r i c t (see figure 6), miles from Central Business D i s t r i c t (see figure 9), and tr a v e l tine from Central Business D i s t r i c t (see figure 8). CODE NUMBER DISTRICT CODE NUMBER MILES CODE NUMBER TRAVEL TIKE 1 N o r r h Shore o f Burnaby 1 1 1 5 m i n u t e s 2 F i r s t and Boundary Road 2 2 2 10 minutes 3 l-ougheed Hwy - S t i l l Creek A r e a 3 , 3 3 15 minutes A Kingsway 4 4 * 4 20 minutes 5 The Bend 5 5 5 25 minutes 6 Burnaby Lake Area 6 6 6 30 minutes 2 I.«',->• C i r y I n d u s t r i a l Vpvk 7 7 7 35 m i n u t e s B Downtown Vancouver (CBD) 8 8 . 8 40 minutes C N o r t h Shore F a l s e Creek 9 9 XI Sauth,..5h__ F _ j _ _ t _ _ , A LQ E R a i l w a y i n d u s t r i a l A r e a B 11 F W a t e r f r o u ; C 12 G Bfmndar> Ro;.d Crandvlew A r e a H M a r i n e D r i v e A . ea 8 £2 * 2 i ' 2 00*001 *2S*2 30*01 i O ' b l U ° a t 0<? °b S6'£2 2 V 30*0 1 10 *b l U * 5 t 78" - J V ' B b & * £ 2 Z*,' * S i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *& 1 *0? St X b i . 1IN * b3vi\3D33d "IvlCJl fc£2 •V2 S 8 !itZ *9 vc t 7 " Sb Z OZ *a . L 9 s *- £ 02 i i T * * * * * * ;f * * * * . ; * * * w S J£2_ _ * 2 V 3T*21 7 i ' l i t Ot s.E 02 i i 01 SNlk * ' rsb : o ) B N . j ' ^ K i i na m i l 3ivi"3"7?rr\n_ 2Z*9 0t*9 WZZ V 2 * U VB* £ ; * 6 T S V t l *************** ********* ********** *********************v********* *********<-********* ****** 00*001 b ' i ' c l ZL'9 O f ? i2*22 7 t ' U ? b * C t ' o t * ********************* v******** ****** *************** IT Z * " 3 0 V l ! \ 3 3 c 3 d l t J .01 b£2 *I 62 M ' i l l Si t& 2 9+- 2-* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ¥ * * V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ft* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * b£2 *I 62 £ t VI .ST €S i i ! 2 9v ' t i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *3 » * * * V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • ' - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 « Z. 9 i £ 2 * ( £ b . 03) S 3 H r , d G ' s l f e V i 3 1 v i a v - A l N n &£2 * T 6 * 9 l 92*1 v f i t 9Z.*T1 ********************************* 99 *b 05= *0 I IT 99 *o C. ! , *Oi 02" •7 S t ' t 79 *Z 2 c ' * £ T t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * « 2 " ^ t s - T i — T t ^ ; — < -;•-?**** * * * * £ 2 T v ~ ~ ~ fxf **********.-:•-!?*** 1 * 00*001 * I3 *9 I 92*1 v t ' T T * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a * l l 0 d 9/.' * jMlavw ObAGd 3 a 3 i v « o i ad "oTss ~m « u w u 0.-J3H iTUrm TTTls U T T T - S N A T C — * aOVlNSO'ead 'IvJLOi cc £ 2 9c 01 6 - i ii \Z i s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 82 . £2 52 -->! 6 31 ££ T2 1 * 8 £.2 v07 t i c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 022 * 0 7 £ £2_ * H 0 3 3 * 3 . M I N V * 0SAG8 ^31V.V. Glad G I 9 S Od'jS 01 J " i >iv 1A£? u- : - ,3l i = * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * V * * * * * * * * * * V * * ; ; * * * * '/ £ 2 7 * i " ' _ N l > i ' n i l i J L S o l a S N A i j b * (T£ 33) 13 I ciS I (- i(J 5 " u v i 3 i V i :-;7 A I Nifl Question 3. Standard Industrial Code This question attempted to categorize the companies as to p r i n c i p a l source of revenue. U v i s i o n 4..- Mines ..(including,Milling)., Quarries, and O i l Wells. 090 - Services Incidental to Mining D i v i s i o n 7 - Transportation, Communication & Other U t i l i t i e s )tvxslc "Hawnfa'cturing- Industries 500 - Transportation 520 - Storage  100 - Food and Beverage Industries 160 - Rubber and P l a s t i c s . Products. Jr. dust r_i.es_ 180 - T e x t i l e Industries 250 - Wood Industries ?50 - Furniture & Fixture Industries D i v i s i o n 8 - Trade 600 - Wholesale Trade 630 - R e t a i l Trade 270 - Paper and A l l i e d Industries 280 - P r i n t i n g , Publishing & A l l i e d Industries 290. - .Primary Metal. Industries 300 - Metal Fabricating Industries 310 - Machinery Industries ?20 - Transportation Equipment Industries  D i v i s i o n 10 - CommunityBusiness & Personal Service Industries 800 - Education and Related Services 850 - Services to Business Management  330 - E l e c t r i c a l Products Industries 350 - Non-Metallic Mineral Products Industries 370 r_ Chemical & Chemical _Products_.Indust.ries  390 - Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries )^vision 6 - Construction Industry  890 - Miscellaneous Services 400 - General Contractors 420 - Special - Trade Contracts I' I ! 33 CV sO O vC Ovl p-4 I M r<"i o c o o- w >r O - , -< o co cr. M .O *•£ C o o in x IM IM f f t 1*1 <1 ^ *J" --i IM >J FL-1 IM o r i o I*- cr rs-PJ (M PO IT. - C P-| IN' 4" >C -fr ^ m 0"> st- * * 0 C Uj O O C '•. r-J Pv.' rn M j r\t IM ^ IM CD It * * J - c n C C m u~ p-rP -P. _) O UJ ... t . 3 o cr. •H PU CC M O 0> M IM P-* * •» -5 s<: _ J 0 ' o rv r n «* .r c, o > rv -in ir vC it » <t J. o — C c ;<1 r r n t «* CC n o o ••I •.-•> IT. 0 ITI 0» (M RV) «!• a-•It * ^ O C " c Pv C in vf) 1 a at' ... o o •1 . . . ir. •P> CP cc # ' » * it # fl-it * I fl-it « <t •» 1 It it . * ^ <t it -tt If Question 4. Is the Headquarters of your firm Question 5. I f not, please i n d i c a t e .where_the head located at the address given i n question o f f i c e i s located. #2 above? (This refers to the location . where the interview was conducted.)  1* Addre^s_where .interview took place 3« Outside Metro-Vancouver,. but. within B. C,_ 2. Within Metro-Vancouver. 4. Outside B. C.  i)->. IVTiTc T.\-<L-= 0 - AH CS. 1 1 7 ) * 1 2 1 4* * * * * * * i t.: •. s * * ?• i:t * * * * i * * * * * A i * S ~" * £ * *^ * * * * * * * * * * * * <r *-.<!» * * * 1- Hi- f. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I 1 3 i s ? 7_i_^  z:-: / TCT1L PEPT.f»jT%G = * A-VT/C M - n - i y ->r ••» I T H C "  ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *y **>. ** *.J ****** *»: :• * * *<•** *v *** * ^ . ^ ^ '..31 . V< ' J.'M* 1 ( 0 / ' * * * * * * * * * * * * ****»• *» * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **** ******** * h-'.ll o . l l . 1 4 2 5.1.".4- 2 3 7 Q u e s t i o n 6 . T h i s q u e s t i o n o u g h t t o e x p l o r e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e v a r i o u s fo rms o f t e n u r e . 1. Own l a n d and b u i l d i n g s . __ Q u e s t i o n 7 . When was p r e s e n t s i t e a c q u i r e d ? . o r e 1968 2. Rent o r l e a s e l a n d a n d b u i l d i n g s . 3 . L e a s e l a n d & own b u i l d i n g s . : 4 i — O w n l a n d & L u a s a b u i l d i n g s . '• :  5 . O t h e r . NOTE ; The c a t e g o r i e s o f l e a s e l a n d and b u i l d i n g s and L e a s e 1969 1970 4 . 1971 5 . 1 9 7 2 b u i l d i n g o n l y , i n t h e o r i g i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e were c o m b i n e d a s #2 a b o v e . .. .  UNIVA-IAT! = T £ M V : C Y ( OC ! ?-"* ) UN IV*- ' I A T P T A H L F 0- A C Q U I S : ~ ( C r - M s t * 1 ? 3 4 * * * * * * * * * ! * y * * * * * * * * * » * * * » • • « • * * * • * . « • J : j . r-n* ' * 1 7 3 * * 3 5 'VS 45 'l':^ 5 i 4 5 4 5 Sjj 2 7 -TOT A l " ^ C f ^ l T A G ? 1 9 6 S 1 > V ? 1 * 73 i * 2? 6 * 1 2 4 C'* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : < * * * * * * * * * * * * f * ? * S 4 * » f * S * t 4 * s : * ? ? . i i i s . 9 i i j j ' . ' 7 * i ' * 1 ? ?* . * * * * * * * * * * * * « < * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . - * * * t t « t * * / Vt-ittf-*» *»••***»***•***» = t - u n l ? . J I . n . ' U * •» ;.9 3 <,^.ft4 . 4 2 * 1 0 : . C C * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * - ? - * • * * * * * »**-•».******* ? 0 . ^3 5-). 64 . 4 2 * 2.3-S _ ; Question 8. If you own or lease the entire s i t e , what i s the t o t a l land area of the site? 1. 0 - a c r e s y. 2.W - 2.24 H 5.0U - b . 99 f 25.UO - 2y .99 2. 0.25 - 0.49 A 2.25 - 2.49 I 6.00 - 6.99 Q 30.99 - 34.99 3. 0.50 - 0.74 B 2.50 - 2.74 J 7.00 - 7.99 R 35.00 - 39.99 I ii. ij.lo- 0.99 (i ' 2.75 - 2.9y " K ' 8.UU - '8.99 -S ; 4U.U0 - 4y.yy - — 1 5. 1.00 - 1.24 D 3.00 - 3.49 L 9.00 - 9.99 T 50.00 - and larger 6- 1.25 - 1.49 E 3.50 - 3.99 M 10.00 - 14.99 / . 1.5U - 1./4 V 4.0U - 4.4y N 15.ou - 19.yy 8. 1.75 - 1.99 G 4.50 - 4.99 0 20.00 - 24.99 \C.^ c^ r, c:(  r.C ISA) .?5 ) . 5 0 5 I." -- 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.2? 2.50 2.7b 3.00 *• I 2 3 4 =5 6 7 c; A ,3 C * * * * •; * * fty.- ** » -.H -j -/ * * * * -A * a A * * ** 'c** A * : »»•»* •'-=' ** * * * * *•' » * »•»»*»»*»**** v.yt* i 3.5' 5 . r c 'j.01"' 7.CO - r, K f >* ** J S S S S i S . i i * . r> 1 o *> 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * » J r * * * 1 : . . r? = z_ 16 3 5 ? r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * < 3 r> Z_ C3= )!|-«JCV T i \ L C < O'NTIM'JE'"') » IO,-- 15.rr- or . ?5.r.r ^ « C 0 * * * * * * * y J L ••' N n 0* < * * K * t f * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * < * • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 i ; • 5 i _ _ i i * i i ? * * * * * * J " * * ! y- .•=:: * * * * * * * < y * *y-y.- * * * * « » * * * * ^ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? 1 i 5 1 1 1* 117 T C T M o-5^r.C 4 - !Tir ,= * I ' - ' . ' i 0.5 i ">. 75 1 ^ r\ r 4 l . ? 5 5_ 1. 50 A . 1.75 2.2 5 7 ° 2. 5^ A_ '2. 75 JL 3.0C C 3. 5C D 4.50 5.00 6 .CO H 7 . r r-I ****** ******* ********* 1.71 1.71 4.77 2.5«: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TTTT 4727 ?.5t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * y y . * y * * * * * * *y-y,y ***« **y- **y.-***y.i*y,. *** ******* **<•**»«*****«» * 37 .13.6-) 5.13 5.°"- 13.68 5.1? 2. 5A -V.27 1.71 1.71 » 4 * t 1 * * * * * * * * i < •>* * * x ****y- -**>•.**** * * < * * * * s- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.56 1.71 ?l.ir 13.6? 5.13 5.9- 13.6a- 5, i : 2.56 *.?7- T I — r m — 2 T 5 b — i . 7 i . i . 7 i TOTAL j]i?c-..,;^.:i: * 3.<-- ) i . T * l^.r-r. l i , ' ' - •- 2R.C-3 -5.O0* * J < L ••) N H 0* * * * * * * *y4 * * * * * * * * * * i ' * * * * * * * * * * * y « - y - * * / * * * * * i * * * / * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ! .71 .35 4„?7 .35 y-* *** *******y-*s-*y *y *s-- *y *y « y * **y.*-* ********** 1.7 1. . ...«5_ '..2.7 _ „«5 .»5 55 :************ : 17 — — : < Question 9. (a) Since acquiring this site, has your firm enlarged i t s land holdings? (This refers only to property associated with I - the film's upeiatiuns.—It dues nut rufar to property : j investments). (b) If so, please give details. . ;  NOTE: In some cases, a firm may have enlarged its land holdings more than : once. These show up as separate enlargements in the following tables. WHERE: CODE # " LOCATION (see figure 6) 1 North_Shore of Burnaby,. CODE # LOCATION -South Shore at False -Creek-CODE # MILES CODE # TRAVEL TIME FROM CBD First and Boundary Road Lougheed Hwy—Still Creek Area Kingsway E Railway Industrial Area F Waterfront Boundary Road—Grandview Area--5-aimites 10 15 -20-5 The Bend 6 Burnaby Lake Area 7 T.ake City Industrial Park Marine Drive North & West Vancouver Richmond 8 Port Moody 9 Coquitlam A Port- fV. qui 1-1 am K Surrey—Delta L Outside Metro Vancouver _K ; New West-mini srer 8 9 -L0_ Downtown Vancouver (CBD) North Shore of False Creek Adjacent (refers to immediate area) On-site (refers to property 11 12 25 30 35 40 next door) WHEN; A R E A ; C0DB_# • _YBAR _TODE..# ASjEA CODE # ___AREA CODE.# AREA 1 Pre-1968 1 0 - 0.24 8 1.75 - 1.99 F 4.00 - 4.49 2 1968 2 0.25_^ 0.49 9 2.00 - 2.24 G 4.50 - 4.99 3 1969 3 0.50 - 0.74 A 2.25 - 2.49 H 5.00 - 5.99 4 1970 4 0.75-0.99 B 2.50-2.74 I 6.00-6.99 5 1971 : 5_ _1.00 -. 1.24 _£ 2.75 - 2.99 J 7.00 - 7.99 6 1972 6 1.25 - 1.49 D 3.00 - 3.49 K 8.00 - 8.99 7 1.50 - 1.74 E 3.50 - 3.99 NOTE; Ignore "Pre-1968" in this table. \35 i i x •{f x X X IA , - i •it r-. X X it •if * X 1 it X X it c X X X r-t V it X ^ x •)"-•}f x ii *• W X •if <*• •t^ y- it cr r-" c O if t x _'• <>; f ~> V. -) X « X • ii • O X X p . <: i; X X u *• i , ii X X •ii-X r-l * i ' T -> •ij fs. r --> X- X . * :t • V-•j* ex. X •tv X ,^ J-t if - X i i 1 „ «-' r- L. . X X ) t . it # •t^ X A- X X • *• a •if X < a X X IT •ii a z- X > •:<• 'A X V .- ' x \: X X t*~-< it if X •H- X • X • > x >• «• * ,— rr x T X X o ff X a: X X c x * X w c. i r .•( ir LT X Tr •» •I!" X" L.; V. -;, • X T X —- •ii-. i- X X •i; ^^  •if i« X w • r\ •Ji1 r —1 t. X P' T" x X • •J! « J— >. X r o -it U IT- X - r i—< r.~ i X ,^ X X }^ > it »-- r- •ii ,-t •— U ' %- •V —J •):• n •^ ^ '-r _ J •r. • • <* <*t *- X I.- *• X Vl X •i, •i;- Li. X 1.1' X o X K- j;. X a' X X o •ie It- X X •>• ii X X b l •ii •Ir X -i >, •!; X > O >i W' •ii X u.) •it •j. V. X Q x X (~. X X U, tt X y~ X •» •K it it it ii m i;- it It rr i ' •t — i it- (. i * r-t *• r. it • -rj. it it •'j it K * it. «..., it ii i i it r-i i i <.• i ' It it it it It i. i l it it *t •It it it it < it f-' it «• tT ii it it Ml. ii it it it • it • *• 't it r- )t-* it it •B it it it a it it it a. it it- c i . o-ir- it it it-it- it it- « it « t< it it i: r---»t it it K i - it-^ v it it ti it »-i 't r-i CJ it it fl- it i< < it it it it • • it •;t it r- it-it i . it- It-«• i : it- i . :t it -;i it rr -*t it r>-> X .;i i,-•f it it it- i -•Si » i i it it- ii !t >t it i ! )t it it it it it it-r- -it iM :t <J 0 it- ct ;^ it it it ic • * it i i If i ' IT; it —4 c* it it * i i r-l « it V it-i: r— •>t it f t-i ; it it « it- it • H -— it it r- .^ •—• s. il it i . i; if -ii i i U ' it i< i ; i> r • i . "•" it *—• -it i.- it- rr •t. y i ; it • i ! « 1' T „ i f a i . it r-t i . r-i * if i> i. it u -it •fl- <*- li i r>i i' it _ l n it it < ^  1. It it it <• • ^i- • it it t- it if <: it 7" it it c' p- it •n 11 I.JL it i<- it it it it •).• O it it it il <1 it it 11. it it ^_ it i . G it ii •')• u it it it 1' <- r i . ii it > n it it - - it it M it it t - it it a. it it c it it Z5 a it it l ~ X •ft X X ;;• PI X X jt •if •J- •ft- «-1 X X X • * X •i> if •a X X X r-l X X X X it it J1. cf •)(' •1. X «• O « a' o- X •J-X X • • X X X p- X p-•K- X •!> X -:v -> X -:J X # M r—1 -.1- c- 4{ c r-"i X X X •il-.;j v- X « X X X p- v->r X •!;• •ir X J*. X Si- it v. i;- x- *,' ;r C ' s; O f t •Ji- i; 1' 1 X x a X 0 a X X r- *- P-r^ X X •iJ-(M X •i, X cr •» ii ii .-* IT X •n- •(. P- X P-r : X t\i < P-o X • « X X — X f >; X 1> i> U' •iY -„ •i' 7" u> (»• if •Jr •r. r<* X c X r> V- p-i X •** —^< X •ii \- "(f- St X » ti » X" X ii II :r X X r r i it X X X x X •if i C IT *• IT U c • r X —1 H ~. X X C it t > _l X <^ 4i « « «• T X X <— X o 1- <\ X •it I? X p. •r t- X >; t;. X U •It •it 4> t-- > it it rt X x X X X <T O X >i U. •iJ <J i-4 '7. X - h c. X f* u. •ir il ir ."• X is- — •i;-> o X •K i: 1.' 1 X V- 11- X o X C . X X 7J u. X 1- X X i F3E3U5.NCY.. T_A3L£ * 5 ^ c f ^ 196? 1">69 * 1 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ' ! e * * * * * * * * * * * * * "l 97 0 ' 4 19 71* <5* * 6 C 9 4 4 3 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 c n 4 4 ? 4* 714 **************** . 4* 714 TOTAL Pr'-CFNTAG1: * o.PFfeq 1°63 2 96? 1 970 1971* * I 2 3 **************>!****************** 9 9 7.30 .56 .56 4 * ** * * .42 5* **************** . .56* i r o . o r * * * * * * * * * * * * ******* ******** * ** *** 97.90 .56 .56 **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .42 .56* 75 4 UNIVARIATE T43L s OF ACKC.C 1891 FPE:jiJ c\'CY TABLE * < A . 2 5 . 0. 50 0.75 1.CC * 1 2 3 4 • a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1.25 ].75 2.25 3.50 4.00 4.50 6.00 8.CO* 5 7 9 0 E F H J * ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1* 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2 1 1 • 1 2 I 1 1 1 1 1* 14 TOTAL < 5F£CEN TAGE • .* <0.2 5 0.5"-. 0.75 1 .r.C L.25 !.75 2.25 :. 50 4 . CO 4.50 6.00 8.QC* * 1 2 3 4 . 5 7 9 1 E F H J * * * * * * * a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7. 14 14. 29 7.14 7.14 7.14 14.2^5 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14* 100.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7.14 14,29 7.14 * * * * * 7.14 * * * * * * * * * S . - * * * * * f f * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7.14 14.29 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14* 14 • 9t Insirted to Cor-ect Pige Nuperlnj 137 138 Question 10. When did your firm begin operation _.at_ t h i s_stte2 CODE NO. YEAR CODE NO. YEAR Pre-1968 1968 1969 1970 1971 U N I V A - i . t A T ! r T A H t - t 1 ° ~ H - i T T O V * L ( C C ? » ( 5 ) 4CY :.T.v?LE * n J. =• ^ 3 s**y * * 19 A " 1.570 ! v 7 i * ^ .', ' r-.* : * * * * * * * * y * * y." * * * * * * * y , 4? 44 '•<? ' - 7 4 9 * 23<> T O T M . :=os i I " A 3 1 VA? 197Q .1971* y- * * •* y- * * 1 2 3 5* y * * * * * * y * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * y * # * * x x r i . o 13.41 T j . i q 1 9 . 7 5 20.5'y ^ * * * y ; r ; y - . y * y - : - y : y * * * * * * y - * * * * * . * *>'-•* * * * * * y i o . 34 13 .4 ' J 20.51 H."»5 20.5',-.! ^ y: * :V* * * * 23? Question.11. How many employees do you have at present? CODE NO. EMPLOYEES CODE NO. EMPLOYEES CODE NO. EMPLOYEES less than 5 10 15 -__ 20 25 30 35 40 9 A B C D E F G 45 50 60 70 80 _90_ 100 125 H 150 I 175 J 200 K 250 L 300 M greater than 300 222 *lh°Z T7° <zL'1 * * ( ! « S i . ( ¥ - > * > ¥ - f * * * * l = * V * * * * * W » « * , s * « * * * < * . * * . - * • ' : • * * * * : , — , , : ;,J'o01 * ¥ i- ' T c m T v 1 5 ********************************.::************** " *^ i y i * . , , * . j j £ < C^UT 1757 m * IUrlmU:«0:i r ' j U ^ ; O c i d iVJ.01 TFT c v l 87^ zp i a F 7 P T Tv"5! £ 9 * 1 £ 9 * 2 6X^2 LTT^ - j r * T — S T I . r r r : — ~ b t ' j a'd* c£*X tt-i* Sz.'X £9*2 £9*1' £9*2 tX'Z 0L'<3 'i.'S c'J'Z. ^ V f c S C * If. ^ ' 9 3 *  . * ; ; . * * * * * * * * * - ! * * * ' . I * * . ; * - , : * * * * * * H 0 d 0 J d 7 6 a i 9 i *? t t 1 * Oil 921 001 u3 U 09 05 9V 0<7 9£ . Of )o b i C l t> cc2 Vr I r- I * * * , ! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . . J * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * , bZZ v t X •/ X v * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ; * * * * * x * * * * * * * * * * * * x * * * * * i » I * * ".' Ji< J i t L t c £ » X * ( C J j i l M I I W ' J O ) £ T 9 1 X> ****************************************************************** f £ <; £ 2 7 9 9 1 ?, ********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* *•* ** * * i * * « * * * * » # * * * * . * > * * * * * . : * * * r . * * < * * £1 i I ? X cC' X9 ' * • * * * * * * * * * * * * • . - * * * * . * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * i * u * * *•* * ; v x * * * * v * * * H 0 921 O H 0 J 7 09 •J v 9 0 2 X 3 ; .x • "1 v. v j . ( vb<l ' J j)S = J A - i " l c k.L = u :l>-;i £.i.v Is:,- l*r< _ . / i Question 1 2 . (a) Since beginning operation-at t h i s s i t e , has your firm i increased i t s employment? (b) I f sc. please give d e t a i l s : ; . ; When: How many; NOTE; Most respondents were unable to give dates of increases i n labor force, so t h i s part of the question was dropped. U "1! v' - ; ! A T £ T - i L - 0 = " * - l - : Y r i •< ( CC 287) * * * * - f * 30 35 4 C 4 5 50 fc 7 a o A > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5C l C f * o r* :******************* --• -.1 11 i 5 5 1 ? ' 1 2 1 6*' 135 -******** *y *** * A * *x * ** y*** ** i' * ******** ********** *.-;************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a 5 5 1 3 3 1 2 1 13"-J U L TOTAL D=?C":' iTA': < 5 35 4 S 50 80 .? <? A n F * A * * * * S ! * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.17 0 . 1 7 .72 1.45 .7? 4.35* H C O ": * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2. 17 17 1.4 5 . 7? 4.35* ! 3P Question 13. Are you the sole occupant of your building? < :J*S TV-'.-'I A T * T»M-~. Ir S r ' . r . C P f f C _Ji • 1 •>* ' - ' r ^ 12 , J t 121 1 : I??-- ' ? 23 *W * 4. -r. £ * I: y i *< A y * * $ * S * * * 4 o . 4 } 1'.- :.( 0 4 - , . '>-> 3 J ; 5 l V 7 23. Question 14. How much floor area do you occupy now? CODE NO. FLOOR AREA CODE NO. FLOOR AREA CODE NO. FLOOR AREA 1 less than 1,000 _2 -4r0O0 8,000 9,000 40,000 50,000 3,000 4,000 -5y00G~ 6,000 7,000 A B _C-D E 10,000 15,000 ^O^OOu-75,000 100,000 _15d,flQvL 25,000 30,000 K L 200,000 more than 200,000 UN IV". I i\T rj TAHL' -" T= P L W A ( C C 2P<?) r9g->; c \CV T > " . ' ' ~" iTTJoo WP^ n~nrz—2WTF—?flTo——TsocT A B c n E F H *** ********************** ******************** * i : ^ ^ ?? n i? * i \i ~i n i »- n ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *********^ ' 12 _» 34 1 7 1 1 1 ? . 9 6 1 4 27 1 3 6 a ] ] = FRE-JU-"XY T A 3L c ! CfNT I'.jufn) • * ' •'. .: ') H if Q ; ,'- f f f Q' > ? o y * ****** TDTM opor.rVTAC-? * <i'A-v i 3 f .-r /-.fv-r- si 0;: f>r r.Q ' 7(.ro <*i.-r>0 90(0 l K . r q 15000 2«'>CC 0 ?5CO") 3-C-CO 4000 750CC * i 2 ? - -% 6 7 a =5 A f C 0 C F H * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * * * * * * * *a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * v * * * * ; s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * 4.27 3.a5 1.4.5? 9.4r 7, 4.71 5.12 ?.?5 2.5t- 5.93 1 1. 54 5. 56 2.14 3.42 4 . ? r 2.14 * * * * * * - * * * * * * * . * * * • * ! : * * it * * * * * * * * - * * *<**,. * * * * * * * * * * * " * * ft* * * * * * * * * * * * * : ? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 . 2 ^  ; .95 14.53 ° . 4 ( A 7.26 4. 7C' 5.13 ?T85 2. 56 5. 9 8 i l . 54 5.5' ?.14 3.4? 4.7C 2.14 .TOT A! ? . £ £ £ . ? . M T AG ii (CCA71&UEQ) . * ) C'; "• 2 15,' 1 ? rr r '.'if >.:>rn--.* * I I u !.* * * * * * * * * * » < * * / c * * l : * * » * * * * * * * • • - * * * * * * * ! • . ; • * - • • . * * * * * * * * * 3.^2 3.4.2 .«r- 1 .* >"«* l.-JC^' ***********-**************>• •*• ********* *********** T . 4 ? . >•>«; I . ? H * Question 15. (a) Has this amount increased since you began operation at this site? tb) If so, please give d e t a i l s . — WHEN HOW MUCH WHERE CODE NO. YEAR Prp 1968 Refer to code in question 14. District: Refer to code in question 9. Miles from CBD: Refer to code in question 9. Travel Lime from CBD; 1 Refer tu cudu in q u n s > L l u i i 9. 2 3 1968 1969 • 970 1971 UNI V 5 T AT P T l ^ l = TP V M Z N M C C ' S H p u c -j; i c v - v T * 31 -* ° - i = --, 1 1 9 6 1 1 9 6 9 19T<~ * 1 2 ?. 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **************<**•** 1 5 7 1 * 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 ? 2 15 1 ° 2 5 ***** ************< ** ***.•****•*•*******•*:.• ** >?? 15 1 ' 2 5 2 4 * 7 1 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? 4 * 7 1 4 TOTAL 0 F J C F N T A r , P « = t v , a 1 i f ) 1 3 7 ? 1 9 7 1 * * ! ? ' * • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - ' . 52 2 . 1") 2 . 6 ? "».V 5* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****** ** ****************. a*.5 2 » . 1 " > 2 . 5 2 2..5's * * * • > * * * * * * * * * * * 3 . 3 6 * 7 1 * U N ! l / i P [ U ; T A ^ L E 1 c *> 2 C T/1. (C C 2901 F R r i U c , l . C / TA-3L = * <10r "> 2! j ' 1 3.' I" 1 4 0 r ' * 1 •> * 4 5 1 C . ' v C " Tf.r-.: 8 f G ' . ' 9 ' r o l ? W . . O 1 5 ( 0 0 ? ( C ( 0 2 5 0 0 0 3 0 C C O 4 0 C I . C 5 W O 5 6 7 3 9 " A R C 0 6 P ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *s* * 1") 3 12 ? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****** ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 2 6 5 5 1 6 5 4 * 1 ? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 1 -1 12 2 6 3 6 5 5 1 6 5 4 4 1 2 FRP - lU l^r jCV TA1.L- ( C - l N r t T i E D l * 7 = 0<"0* * - I * * * * » * » * & » * * * * » * » * * < * * / * * * * * 2 * 32~~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - . ; . - * * * * * * * - . • ; * 2* 32 T O T M C P M T \",P * < l f j ) ->. -"> ?,"•") 4t-r-i A r . -. 7<~fp, J ^ r " F.-' ->•;• U C 0 0 1 5 i CO 2 ' f C C 2 5 f 0 " 3 C C 0 C 4 C 9 ; j Q 5 J C " C  * " 1 2 ^ 4 6 o 7 « 9 A B C 0 c F ^ . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * » * * * < • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (• * 1 ? . 2 3 *.T-- 1 4 . 6 ? 2./><- 7 . 3 2 ^ . ' . f 7 . 3 2 « • . 1 f * . l" . 1 . 2 2 7 . 3 ? 6 . 1 0 4 . 8 H 4.<"3 1 . 7 ? 2 . ^ 4 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * _ ) !?.">") > . 7 i I V . 6"> 2 . 4 * . 7.22 3. 66 7 . 32 6 . I T , 6 . 1 0 1 . 2 ? 7 . 3 ? 6 . 1 C 4 . 8 8 4 . 3 8 1 . 2 2 2 . 4 4 * * * * .': :! /- * i * :' i : * I •;: * "r < • * • * « * < • * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* I': * * t •» e=E3'. ICNf.v TA 3 L " * PI=?.3T STi'Ll. KINGS -3 = NO LCI? "A'•' 1 N r tO.JCT C N S I T E * * 3_ u r- •-' o . » « t J S I : i * f ** f i * * > S ^ i ! * « J i i i * « * * / / f t * * * * * * * * * « * * * « . *•*««***:*** ** 3 3 1 ? 3 1 14 5 4 * R1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * » * 4 * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * ' * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = I«ST >T I L.S. <' J O 3 C ' r > LCIP "A SI'.'? iOJCT f-NSITF* * l < 4 f 7 H Q ° * * * * * i ***********-:• *•* *s ** ** * *:!• ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 .47 3 .?^ l . ? 0 3 . 7 0 3 , 7 0 1 . ? ? 1 7.28 ^ . n ' * ' 1 < VJ."O ***** * * * * * * * * * * >•-*/.*•*, * ****** ** ******* ** ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * , 2 . 4 7 , . 7 , - 1 > ? 3 3 . 7 c J . . 7 Q 1 7 . 7 5 6 6 . ^ 7 * . 3 ]. UVIV-'.-TiT? 7\3L = O c MII.=S A(CC 297) TOTAL. ?"0C?MTif,.: * _ _ _ •> 3 K A 7 H 9 * J2^_ * * * * * i t * * Y * * * * * V i * * * * i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13.V3 24. 5" l.')4 4.9? 19.57 4.92 P.20 3 . 7 R 11.4" 3.28* 13r.CC * * * * * * * * * * * **** ********•« ** * * * * * * * * * *******.'!************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : ~1->."•» '24.5 4 T 7 6 4 4 7 9 2 19. hi 4 7 9 2 f T T O 3 7 1 ? 3.2 8* S I F5= 3'! - v "v t. '2 * ••!N^ . 1 > l c 25 V- '5 4 ? * * l 7 2 f: 5 £ 7_ a- * ************** ***•*****•*<!•• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a * * * ! : i * * * * i . * * * v * * * * * * * * * * * * * l i . * * * * * * ? ?/< . l l i is 14 ? ? * 71 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * * * *:,'** * * * * * * * * * * * * * . - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T~ 7. ? o \ i ~1 i * TT '• ? 7* : 7 i TnrAi. ' H C ^ J T ^ r ^ i  * • 41 M5 1 "> 15 .?'..• 25 3C 35 4 r * * 1 •> 3 4 «; r T a* ******************** *********** ********** ********** ******************* * ? . : " . 1 7 lr>.*.o [Tn 25.35 19. 7.? 4. ?3 7 . F, 2 * J rO.O!) * * * * * * * * * * * i *.-*.** *x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7.33 !-'.^ 1.4} 25.35 ! ° . H 4.?? 3.0;* 7 ! Question 16. is this site the original location of your firm?  ')V-7Ai I AT? r y ; f - : Q= 3 - 3 I T : ( CC 323} •* ' ' 1 3 * * 1 ?* ********* ********* ** *** •/* ***** **•* * 77 1 - ~ * 7 Vs * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <•*****.* * * * * * * 77 T33* 21o TOTAL »5<»CeNT-y;«: * v<=S N 1* * 1 7* * * <• * * * * * * * * * * — * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 6.«> 7 > 5 .-.3* H o. r •) * * * * * * / . * * * . * * » * * * r - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * " : ^Tol - , 3 . 3 3-* n T Question 17. If not, where was your firm previously located? Location: For code see question 9. Miles: For code see question 9. Tinie: For code see question 9. UNivi• i \ T C rAM_r. " i i s ^ p t c c ^sf . i £ _ S E J ' I - - r . Y 3 i * .ny | 5 c j i C^T > TItL KI s r,c- -. - av; l.CIP O T M Y n P V u T * : MS *=C SSFC " J f A wATfuf 32V?0 •'AS If.-r rr;<Hi) * 1 2 ? ' ' 5 r 7 ^ P C 0 F F ' " H I * * * * * * * J*4> * * * * * * * * * ±*. * * * * * * * * * * * A* **V-*.********4ft**ft«*****^ * ~T -s ? o 5 T ? ! 4 23 Tr? 21 6 19 1 * * * * * * * * * a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * •*********«•*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 6 2 : 7 1 ? I K 4 2 3 16 21 6 1 •» 1 F ? C ' ) " : N C Y T i U. r ( ^ N n ' i : ^ ) * ?.\--4 s n v - i v £ v ' - i r c * * J K ' I * * * * * * * * ************ **************** ****.•*< * . 1 1 2 * I^.i * a * * * * * * * * * * * * < * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2 2* I V T DT V r T V " : K-.y-|3 C!^.<:-T S T I L L K P ' S S ; » ' J Y L A K L C T ° PT' - 'V O C ' - n T " ; N S F C S S F C " ! n V 'ATfS .F n.r,YPn V £ P INF v p o s ^ p * 1 2 3 4 6 .6 7 « B C i? c F G H I * ; J t * £ , * * r * * * ; . * - * * * * • * * * * * : . • * * * * * * * * * * > 4 S V * * * * * v * * * f t *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * [,6 V 4 . 6' 6.15 l . f - 4 .7'' l . ? 4 .77 7.69 ?.(jp 1 7.60 12. * i 16.15 4.6? 14 .' 2 .77 * * * i • .;• - -, * * •<-- * * * * * * ; ' : • . < * S< * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * » * * * * * » * : * & * * * * * * - * * : ' • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * " TTTv 77v^  i 7 5 ^ 6TTT TT 7^ TTT I . 54' r r ? 7779 37Te 17.6 9 F f T l 1 1 sTTs ^762 14.62 . 7 7 T ^ T A I - i ^ r r ' n y - , ' ( c r ' i T l M ; r o ) * K * * * * * ' , - * * * 4* *** * *< X• * * ** * * * * * * * * t i t . * '? * * * * . . . _ _ 2 . 3 1 1 . 5 4 * U'OTcT * * * * * * * * * ******** *; **** * !c* **• 4 **«***.»* * * * . 7 7 ? . ' i 1 . r 4 * 1 ; " tr:'. v* ~ I\T- T ^ I . " c c M I T P H C " " . 3 7 ) F ' t 1 ; ' - N 2 Y T A " L r 4 1 ? -, =, 7 0 9 A n D F* t * * * ** ** ** * ** * *.* i. * * %-* * • * * * . * 4 ? ! * * * * * * * * * *- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A * 4 * * * * * * * * * £ * * * * * * * * * * * * * _ ^ . •__ ^ ^ . _ — - _ 2 4 * 1 2 ° " ***•';. .- * * * '• ******** 1 * * * < ?, 'i t * i * * > • * * : * V * j , i * * • ; • . ' * * * ; : * * * |t * * * * 4 * * * * * * 4 ** 4 * * * * * * i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A * *^ ** 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * i , ? i T I -> 3 1 4 ! 6 K 1 4 3 ? 4 * 1 2 ° ************************* 2_-2_: 1.5= ,.1C» 10^.--r f : ; ; ? ' -ft Y~. •£: f- -Jr.? * rn' 1 2. v i «•*•* **» * * * * * * * * * * * * 21. 7 i 2 4 . - 3 2. * » * * * * * a t * v * « * * * . * * * . * . * * * * * * . i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 . 7 7 1C . 3 5 ! ' . 6 3 5. .3 .?» 3.10 2. 33 1. 55 3. I " * l?'"? U-V J V * ' I *-Tc T >. 3 L :3C T . M.'MCC "S3) f ">!C Y T A t ! . : : ! * i ••IJ'-n 1^  1= _,- 25 3C 3 5 4 - A S * * 1 P. ° 4 7 P. O* * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * J - * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * J * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16 ?5 • ?4 7 2 2 13 P 1 3* 129 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )t * * * : * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16 33 24 7 '• TT Tl fi ] 3* 129 _L0.LU.__ ?___L_!J___LA_ i J 5 10 15 25 30 35 -0 _5* * L 2 3 4 , 6 7 °- ° * * * * * * * *********•*-.**..-•.**** * * * * * * * * * * * * *--.-*. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12.4"! 27.13 ! 3 . * C ' 5,43 17. i.S l 0. ,8 6. 30. Tr* 2 .33* 100.0C ************** * *-•* *: * * *«** ********* * \ ************* ** ******************************* ' 2. * . 37.13 10. -»•') 5.43 17. .s IP.'-fl 6.70 .78 ?.?•',* 129 Question 18. This question sought to determine type of tenure at former loc a t i o n . For code, re f e r co question 6. U. IV f-3 T AT _ T ;\ ~L . 1" rC :r-1 r i T r V i CC 341) * rrw'-ifKN L_';3v, LL n 3 1TH = ? « * 1 2 3 5* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 . ' 4 3 2* 1 1 7 ************ * * * * * * * * * * * • * . * * * * * * * * * * « < - * *• * * * * * * * * ' ?•? <4 " ' 3 2* l l 7 T O 7 i t . D : -• C - V 7 r  * «-. • , ' ; L - A '* r I C Q " . T T ' ^ - f * * 1 2 3 5--* * * * : : * * * * * • : * * * * * : ' • - ' • * * * * * * * * : * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2'-. " • " .T> >. .-. 1 .7 ! * IQ'-.r : . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * <•* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * — • '3.93 . '1.70 1 .7] * 117 5 Question 1 9 . Do you s t i l l own or J.ease that site? •5 r ( c c 3 • 2 ) Y . S 1 h-i- *? * * ************ 1 -. 7 * 1 1 / • * * *** ****** *.*, * * * * * * * .Question 20.. Wer.e_yQu_the .so.le_.pccupant of your building at your former location? !'•/*-' I n i l . - i e .CL.OC: ( C f 343 ' - ; . u f Y T . :***** ************* * ** * * •* S 1 % •'; * 1 1 7 .**:-*****;••**** / * .: * *: ** * •I I* -> . 1 i j . i p ; ' \ n i * : • * * * * * • * * • - * . ; . : ; * * * -j Question 21. How many employees did you have at your former location? Far code, refer to Question 11. H .fV.?.= I ATF T A H. = 0~ = M J | rrVFr.a;.- (CC 3'.-.> - J- :-,.|-.; 1- Y T A Hi g * <5 i o IS 2i' ?5 30 35 40 <,S 50 .60 7C 80 -0 ICC 125 * 1 I 3 4 5 £ • 7 5 ? A B C ' 0 c c 0 i i S H ; * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * » • . . * * * * A * * * * * • » * * ; : * * i * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * _ -. i t : f s f i o i 3 i i 2" I 1 > ~ ~1 I * a **-..**** * *** *». *v * * * * *****.******** ** * **** * ***.*. ******-**** • _7 15 IS 11 9 1 3 ! 1 .? 1 1_ F s n o ^ V C V T ABLE (CT-iTI-'l'IF.')) i * y 0 * ^ * **•*****.********** *: ** **»:** * _ L t _ 1_L_ • • **•***.*< * * * * * * * * ** ** **• *» * * * 1- 110 TCT>> r^c-r= .TAG^ * < . 15 3 0 25 30 3 5  Lb 50 6C 70 30 90 K r 125 * \ ->__ 2 _ _ r, 2 2_ 2 _ _ £. 1 p- _ f l i ***** ************ *..** ** *****-****************************************************************.***************************** * "» .. 13 13.54 1 i.h4 1'~.'0 1.1?. .01- 2."'3 .91 .91 1.32 .<»! .91 1 .*•> . .91 _.77> .91 *. * *-.« * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * «***<:* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TTTTI - n T f * " TTT^ ~ ~ HTTP 7W~TT>~1 7i~i "~7n 1752: T9l 751 lTff? ~ \ T7r% :^T~ C 'IT 11'.'.11 • * 3 0 1 * * L * ******* ******* ******* **.•:* * * ' ". " 3 l* -'"I7T.~ Question 22. How much f l o o r area did you occupy at 'your former lucaLluii? For code, please r e f e r to question 14. | J N T V ' - T . \ T F T A X I ? . :1F F (_ A R t A F 0. P M (C C °90) f 3 ? '}!!= ;-.;GY <10 r '» Zr 00 •>,fi)>.) 4000 50 r tC 7 C C C "•: lrcoo 15CCC 2CCC-0 40CC0 fOCOO 15CCC'* o A ° . C F G J * * * * * * * i * * * * * * * 4 4~ * ********** ** ************ 4** a : * * * * : - . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IT 25 ° e IJ 2 ? 7 5 5 "7 1 1 1 1 * K 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 § Tr, 2 3 1 5 X- 7 1 1 1 T* \Cf~ 25 T i"i T A j :> c ; * c >.i y .« p. r. * <ior ) •>:..••»-! vToc 400? 50o3 S5Zo Tcoc ?-CC-c' <?5oo IOOPO TBToo ?00(. o -toccc • 5«;cno i w n * : ' * I 2 a - 5 6 7 O A P -C F G J * *************** ********44**44 *********************************************************************************************** _____ ^ ^_ __ YT7X% i7H7 • 2.r>0 6754 47F7 6754 .92 ~ T 9 l .93 .92* ICO.CO * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * < * * * * * 4 * * 9 * * * * * * * * . • » * * * * * • * * * * . * * * * * ! * * * * A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17.76 2 3 . < * . 4 1 7.4° 12.15 1.P7 2.«30 6.54 4.67 4.67 6.54 .9? .9? .93 ."3* 107 Question 23. I f you owned or leased the ent i r e s i t e . what was the t o t a l area of that s i t e ? For code, please r e f e r to question 8.  tn ro rP.'j j->E".ZV TAIL-* < - 2 . ? 5 ) . I 0 . -5 1 . 2 3 * * : | * : * * * : • * * * y * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * V 1.25 I . 7 ? 2.^C 2.?5 /. ~ 7 •} • C, : . r Tr ****.*;• **.•„*****•/_**•****.-*#* 2.75 6.00* TOT \ l - O r ' t - V T A C . : 2. C . 7 S _L l . 7<; =___ 7.25 ' 2.75 6.0.0* 1 2 3 4 0 . 7 >*****«*> ******************* a**.-**** ********;*« ' '.C ' > o" ?___L2 2.77 2_.27 2.27 ? - 2 7 2.27* iCO.PQ t * * * V * » - * « • « * * » • * * V * *-X** ** . ********<• **•* ** a * ; ? * * * * * * * * * * 50.' o 75.0) ..oo 7.77 7.27 2.77 2.27 2.27 2.27 ************* 2.27* 44 XjU-lS-ion 24 . C»3 Bid you own any other land and/or buildings? (This does not refer to investment property. It is only concerned with property associated wirh the company and i t s operation.) UMTV-,- I ATE T \ 3 L " 3 d lT'l = -s>? 00(0.0 3 Al ) * 1 ,. 2* , _ _ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r * » * * * **-v * 15 91* i _ o _ • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * » . * . * • * * * * * ( » 1-" 01* 105 TOTAI. ••r?C_M T:'iO,= * i ?•* * * i * •': * * * * * * * ft * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .1 1>.1~ > ^ . - ! 5 * ' • 0 . 0 0 * * * * ; : * * . * * * i * * v - * * s * * <• * * : * * * * v * * .» 1 -.. I 5 35. 10-, Question 24. (b) I f so, please give d e t a i l s . WHERE Location: for code, please refer to question 9. LAND AREA FLOOR AREA For code, please r e f e r to question 8. For code, please refer to question 14. Miles from CBD: f o r code, please r e f e r to question 9 . Travel time from CBD: f o r code, please r e f e r to question 9. U * ' T V * S T A T E * * 3 l = 'Ir* TISTOICC n ? > csT.r.;r..,rv T/1 ,, * S T I L K ^ Y L A * LCtP OT-1V KATgkr "•* Ar I Nl: S U r C i:l N E W T S ' * 3 . ~ . • i> F H K :< ' * * « ; • ' * < • * * * : * * * « . ***:< < * * f c * * * * * * * * * * * * * ft-*.**************.**** * * * * * * * * * * A O J C T * 0 * • •* 1 1 1 ! 2 4 2 K * t * i - < : * * * s s t * ; t 4 * * i : * * " * r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * l ? * * * * * * * * * * * * * n * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 ' 1* 1* 14 14 T n T \L P F S C F N T A - ; * ' * S T I L L 3 3"!_A< ! C T P » T H Y « T f ^ "•* AF I ?«t SyePEI •-YFWKzS . -OJCT* * > r s> r M K ' " •'. n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • = * - . : * * * 4 ; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 - J _ 7.14 7.14 1 4 . ; - ? 2 7.14 14.2^ 7.14* 10*.m * * * * * * * * ************.****** 7.1-4 14. ' 9 23.57 , 7.14 14.2'"- 7.14* ***** 14 U M I V A " I A T E TAJL2 '"!= ML-OJCC 293) "75 J* * 3 7 A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . : - . * * * * * * * * * * * * * J * -. 3 1 3 " I 12 * * * * * * * * * * * 1 - 12 ***** *********** 5 c * ************ TOTAL o-csr*!\'TAr.= * 3 5 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * s * * * * * * < * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : : * 2 5.'-) 2 5. i T V - ; 3.33 u.?3 -.3- 5.3"* 1OC.0C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : • • * < * * * i ft* i . : - * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * , T * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ' " . 3 ^ 2 _ _ 3.3V- -l.?? •*.?••» 3.^3*- 12 tJNIVAI •! ATT r A i l . T I - - f % . f C ' ?4> r?1'3'='i *:Cv TA3I.S * 13 1 5 1 30 4 5* 9* * ***:"*-****;;* #x. *.* ** **** Vii. * * * * * * * * * * *.* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 1 i 3 3 - 2 i * 12 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * v . i * * * * *-» * * * * . * r <^ ^ * * i * . * * * * * . . c * * * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 1 1 1* . 12 • * <V -ft tr r- ;> r- • •A- « • ii -it —• !:• >! it Lt * ;i •it -:» •K It- ii fl !!' T O r h "• v u Ij ' „ -t »-o •ii # •ii- ir-•ft 155 —< r-\ ii ii K it ii « ii ii • i> CV ir i . if \ Question 25. This question l i s t e d 29 factors which could have had an influence on a company's decision to move from t h e i r previous l o c a t i o n . The respondents were asked to ind i c a t e the l e v e l of importance each played i n t h e i r decision. 1. Most Important 2. Important 3: Fairly~Tnp"orrafft "—4~r"~ Uffimp"ert"artt COLUMN NUMBER FACTORS COLUMN NUMBER FACTORS 411 Lease not renewed by owner 427 Lack of proximity to major customers 412 Lease rate-too high 428 Lack of proximity to major suppliers 443 Lack—ot-acce-ss to p r i n c i p a l transportation a r t e r i e s 425— Lack of proximity to -labor 414 Property taxes too high . 430 Lack of public transportation 415 Business taxes too high 431 Lack of proximity to l i k e i n d u s t r i e s 416 Plant obsolete , — 417 Lack of support services OTHERS: 418 On-site expansion not possible 419 — No available-property aeaxby '• 432 Tenant lti)nrovminnt.s 420 Available property nearby too expensive 433 Desire to own 421 Available property nearby had zoning constraints 434 High land values 422 Neighborhood-deteriorating , 435 Consolidation -423 Neighborhood congested 436 Expropriated 424 Residential and/or commercial infringement 437 Lack of proximity to r a i l 425 P o l l u t i o n contr-ol-s—, 438 Op-grading of image 426 Business expanded and/or d i v e r s i f i e d 439 Lack of parking space V ii »« ii r-t •z c a O r-> it 157 ii Ir a." -if- ii r~* •it- • >1 r » _. t i r- i ii « ii H * * «• •ii •x:. * i r •)• IT • If •ii •.r. * tr •rt * * ! •j. <N * •ii IN •,: » •ii » f v * i i c • t *l 1. i i ! •ti r\\ f< i i : N :\ • i i t i. •I; r-.i ii •:t ii ;', » iy * -tf l i •It >; i i ii ii « ii ii * . . . •I! f, •t it r. u •t < <1 a- a a ~i a C M » • • 4. t " -It v | JJ. : * / * <f • i it • • « *i •St st & * •It * C « ; _. It it ' t - •it •it: r- « r - * ir (\, ii r, o * o •«• • i t O i t n «• '. i t • • -it • « :o ii M tt r-i « tt -> tt • • *• • V M -it tt it ir •k •!< tt v ii 15* a .-c r l * i; i> i. i> ii m i. i ' > * r-C U V t y A T = TA5L3 nr- COLU'-'fi 415 p 5 C - , M , v . T 3 L * • 7* * s i * X * f A * * * * * * * A -'• * * J- ft * * * * * 1* 1 1* L_ TOTAL PERCENTAGE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jt * * i * * * * * 10O.CO* ' 100.30 100.00* 1 UNI VA!-! I AT £ TABLE OF COLUMN 416 rsEOHPNCY T i A L E  * 1 . ? 3 A ******* ******************** * 2 7 .21 I i * 59_ *************** * * ; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 7 21 11* 5 9 TO TAL p E " CENTAOE * 1 . 2 3* * * **=t* * * * * * * * * * * * * - . * * *= : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 45.76" 35.59 13.54* 100.CC *********************_****************** 45.76 35 . 59 13.54* 5 9 _ U ; , i f V£ P. I A T F TABLE 0^ OOLnv.f-; ,,yf F3E .:.Er-!CY TADLc * 1 2 3* **************************************** * 3 5 ' 8* It ********* ******** ** * ********** ****** **** 3* 16 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * . 1 2 3* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * x r . * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 3. 75 31 . 25 50.00* ICO.OC ******* *********** ******* *** . 15.75 31.25 50.00* 16 !,''•;! •!••- t AVE TA'°,LO '!c CDUHN 418 • » i 2 3* ******* ***»»**> ************************* * 5 5 16 3* 74 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * =••-**** 4* A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * , 5 ' '- ft 3* Z__ TOTAL p E & C EM T A G E * 1 ? ^ * ********************. * ******************* * 7^.3? 21.6? 4.06* IOC.00 ***** * ********* ****** ********* ********** 74.32 21.62 4.05* 74 UNIVARIATE 7A3LE OF COLUf-'N M 9 _ . £ - I _ C Y TA.P1 ?. * 1 2 3 * ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 17 6* 34 ************************* *************** 11 17 6* 34 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 2 3* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 2.35 53.00 17.65* 100.0C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 32.35 50^00 1.7.65* 34 UNIVARIATE TABLE 0= COLUMN 420 FREQUENCY TABLE * 1 2 3*_ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . 3 5 4* 1.2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4* 12 TOTAL PERCENTAGE 1 2 3* ****** * * * * * * * * * *********** ************** » ^.Q-> *l.f>7 33.33* 100.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25.00 41.67 33.33* 12 i t * d ii CO i t cc i t i i ii i t i t i t t-i t C J i t i i -,r •it •ii ii i i •& ii i i i i C-* o i i • i i i n i i fM •it O t O -it i n • a i t i i i t l O i t if it-it- # it i t it •it i t i;-it C l i t '.J-i i t 2| i—' i t i t •it i t •St <^ i i O i t i t i t -it i t IM it O ii ry O i . O • « O v o •J- i t -J-i i •ti r— •>» O CC. it C-c 7-. i t C- i t i t r-j i t _ J CD «1 h-> i-' l _ l c i t r-l i i i t -it C -*- (Ni it-i t it i t -J--tt IT' t-C T : ! .V • • / . - - T "JL _" " r C O L V - ' N ' - > - V * I 2 - * * * * * * * a * * * » * * * v A * j * * v < * * * * * , * » * • * * , * * • * * * * » - * * 2 3 4* 9 *. * * * : . * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ft * * A * * * . , ~> 3 <<* 9 T 'V'Al. i>c 2 CEN ~ \G E £ ! 2 1* ; ************ ****** ** ******************** * 22.?? 33 .33 t-i*. 44* 100. 00 * * * * * * r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 2.22 33.33 ^4.44* U N I V i P I i T F TABLE 0= COLUMN 425 F° E T ) ^  NCY T A a L "  * 1 3 * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2— 11 L * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 1* 3 TOTAL ??«C5MTAG= * 1 3* ****************.****•************* * 6-5. 57 3 5. 33* 100. CO ** * ********* * ** ******** ******** 1 5 A . 67 33 .?3* 3 _ UNIVARIATE TAItLc OE COLUMN 426. FREQUENCY TAHLE *. L * * * * * * *** ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 56 17 ' 6 * 79 ************** ******** ******** ********** 56 17 . 6* 79 TOTAl PFPCEMTAGE 1 2 3* *************** ****»********** ********** 70.30 21.52 7.59* 100.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 70.59 21.52 7.sq* 79 ft •*?-i t CC •a i»- r v •M i i •?t 1'. j t i] .»<. it -:t <-i; & -:t .H-•it Vr i t I J<. c : •it-it •ii •>,-V r-j .;-4 .- i •ii to -it .t •!}• •Jr -j', •i: \t •*<• it it .1 00 txi • O • r O -;t -r •it-*-•C- -* <r Vr r-IP is-* • •>.- • c r c c i i -|; r j £ .i-•K- r- 3} 1*-Si m V •Jt- » -ft • •»{• •>*• •i;- r v .;• (NI *• a -Jr •it It •if r v it-it -it O it H • it ' r- i t r v it •'I i t . - i t -t * «< if t - l i t l i t > :t i i t i t o | * r ; it IS i * 1•ii i t i t O •it « i t i t • i t i t O i t •it <j ,•{. i i •tt i i •» * i t i t i t *• * o i t C> •t; o •vt O i t • i t • * c i t •ti tr- i t IP i t ' i t i t •it c i t o S; c -;, I—' i t • * i t -»i i f i r i t IT. •it >-i i it i t i t i t i t ii-•it i t •it i t •It i t i t it i t i t i t i t * 16 V " " rsi -it p. * * -ft it i. i t c C it • it C c <t —< it Hi 1i C * C o II i r • i. i- -I. in it * ill ' "1 M i i •i. l; u. # c it \- it •—1 * i i •i! « it r". i t r^ • « • r>- i! rr. r o « m •ii •it ri « rv >-u ft * it •it •li « * -It r-l -It It • * it it tt it « <t it •it •it it •it •it it . it it ir C. i t c # • il .it LL" c.1 .-• o •ii « r •it * r- •It C l_ •it I.L. tt r- • O •it re it a it u it o it ii - J i'-• ' .1 - •It c •It t-1 6 it c--it * it C (' Si o * • ti-lt -0 l i -l t <t •ft •it # -tt in it •K-it * it CM a * C; H r--cc 1< . . . •IJ JI-; •ii *-_j c." V u. •T-tr •rt •v u • if •ii V h <- -j; . t- •ii 1.; •J! » - >• * l l i f -1 t_> -;: •;* 11 •j'.- •i«. > • U ! ir -if-r" l a ' 73 U •*! ii • it O i ! K •>li o H il *• IJ.' i : *•! G •it •If •id -.t »•; •ft i l ! t- * •ii: c. i i i V" it a i r-•4-2" 5 U.I XT i i IT. i t rf-t-•fi C\. it •ii O •it it •li it it i , it ii it it it •it Question 26. This question l i s t e d 33 factors which could have had an influence on a company's decision to move to t h e i r preseiiL I U C J L I U U . — T h e respondents were asked to IndlcaL-the l e v e l of importance each played i n t h e i r decision. 1. Most Important 3. Important 2. F a i r l y Important 4. Unimportant COLUMN NUMBER FACTORS COLUMN NUMBER FACTORS 446 Central location r e : Customers 462 Lack of i n d u s t r i a l p o l l u t i o n 447 Central location r e : Suppliers 463 S u i t a b i l i t y of bu i l d i n g 448 trood access to p r i i i f i p a l transportation 464 F O s s i b i i i t y tor future expansion a r t e r i e s 449 Purchase pr i c e or lease rate 465 Good landlord ^ - 450 Building was available oh" short notice 466 " Proximity to head o f f i c e ~" ' 451 Property available on short notice 467 A v a i l a b i l i t y to sub-lease 452 Uncongested neighborhood 468 Zoning 453 Ample parking 469 Investment opportunity 454 Proximity to l i k e industries 470 ' Fl e x i b l e lease arrangements 455 A v a i l a b i l i t y of serviced land 471 Truck terminal nearby A 5 6 - Nearness to senior executive's residence 472 Known or r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e address 4 7 A v a i l a b i l i t y of r a i l service 473 Owned property previously 458 A v a i l a b i l i t y of water transport 474 Proximity to CBD 459 Nearness to labor 475 Associated with other tenants i n b u i l d i n g OTHERS: 476 Advertising value 477 Telephone number remained unchanged 460 Image 478 Support services 461 Better location o z a i o v> 7 O •A < U. o CD < U J t -z' •J-"3 o o fl-it •it it it it ii it it «•-. it it fl-it <\l -it it t->- # u.. * it CT-o il c —I it r - l it i t I11 -o •it it -O i t it O i i -J" O it - H it ii it it it *0 it C it • it •C ii -r, i : (-•) it 7 •it i t il •It ft —I -it -it •it " i i t i t i t . . . i t m it fl-i t i t 1 6 Z\ *v i. . Z i i i * * * * * * ,<********>!:**:?**** * i z 1 * IS1? a l b V i 3 x V l t V / M N n S » * £ B ' t T _ 9 * i . t t 5 * £ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : » * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * O O ' O O l *28*6I _ 9 * / t £S't<7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * : 4 * 4 * * *=?* * * * * * * * * 4 4 * * * * * 4 * s » 4 *£ Z I * bb" *9T 2£ i t * * * * * * « * * * * ^ * * » * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 58 *9I Zc i t * ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . r * * * 4 * * * » < i * v ! * * * * * * * * * * * * * *£ t 1 * CS* K r t i r . O D =0 33SVI a i V l B V A l K H 30T *<>fc*92 6 T £ E 9c " _ e v*********w**-** 00*001 *£3'9Z * = ? * * * * * * * *= * * * V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * b l ' S t V6*i.£ * * 4 * 4 * v i * 4 * 4 * * J i 7 * * * * * * * t Z I * S a v i i - i a O b a d 3X101 tfOi 301 *t>c * 6 2 * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? = ^ * * 4 fc£ f , * * * * * * * * ! S * t f i * * * * £ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * c - 4 * * ^ * * * * 2 I * B i t V I A O h a f i C a c ' d V O T * 8 9 * 6 i . E O ' c t hi'be * 4 4 * ¥ * * * * ; - • 4 * * 4 4 4 4 4 V 4 1 * * * ? * 4 4 * * j j ' u O I S t o V ^ i B O V i i d ' e c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 . X * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * V * * * * * * t c T. * -it it it O -I.' i t O i t i t ir -:t it •t i i I*- V it i.~ IM i<-••f • i i '.r-. i ; » i i i i it •it i r if • i i •it i ! it ii i i CNJ -:: « i i it it i i it ,1 it it * C I T i t i i TO" At. 1 ~ : - ' : r * 1 ? -3 * i e * " * * * * i s i < . • * * * * * * A * * - * * * * » * * * : > 3 . - 3 . i 3 3 , - 3 3 . ^ . - * • ' • » • . " ? . ' • • ****ac »*SJ44i*t ** ** ** ***» 73.31 33.33 42.36* 21 t.A-IVA' TATE T A 3 E OF COL''" i 455 E^EOUE'lCY TABLE . • ' . * 1 7 3* * 5 7* 21 :•** 21 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 2 3* * * * * * * 4 - S 4 4 t t * S 4 S * * * * * * - * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * " * 23.31 47.36 33.33* 100.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . 2 3.31 42.3 6 33.33* 2 1 UNIVARIATE TABLE Or- COLU'-'N 4 56 P9?0U-=MCY TA3LE * 1 2 3* *************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 5 3-3* 72 *********** **.* * ** 7 *, ***** ***** * * * * * * * rt * * * * 5 10* 22 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 2 3* *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 31.-3 2 ***************** 31.32 22. 73 '45.45* 1 GO . C 0 72.73 45.45* 22 UNIVARIATE TA3LE OF COLUMN 457 F5cQ'.:r"iCY TABLE . . . * ... 1 •y o * ***************!.*******< ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 4 6* 17 . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 4 6* 17 • I I i •it O O it O it —I it :f. -it ir tr, -it i f > ii it it •it •it * it r\j -It •it it it « it -it it it •it; •it r-1 *t i t it •*; i t CO it I It I * 172 4^1 F'EO'l-NCY "43LE * 1 7* * * t t f ! * * * * * * * * i 4S!'? ****** j * 1 2* 3 S ********** ******** *X ** ** ** ***** *** 7* 3 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * i ->•* *******»»*#«•**.* **« ** **** **#* ****** * 7 5."' 66.67* 1 CO. CO *************************** ****** 33.23 66.67* 3 UNIVARIATE T A3LG 0 = COLUMN P Q P i M C M r y T A 3 ! -* 1* * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • 1* 1 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1* ************ *** *********** * ICO.CO* ICO.00 ************************** i n o . o o * 1 UNIVARIATE T A 3 L E 0 F COLUMN 4.63 F R E Q U E N C Y TA3LE * 1 2* **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • 22 8* 30 ******************<****•* - i * * * * * *** 22 3* 30 T 0 J 1 1 PERCENTAGE * 1 7* ************** * ** ***** * ******** ** * 73.33 25.67* Iff:.CO  *****************************•:*** 7 3. 2 3 36.67* 30 : i ! i . * ? V . * . ; I '• T c T 1 - : | . P " I ' i ' " L ' l " s 54 = - ) H c v r y T A H L E * 1 2 3* » t » « t r > t » » t « » i » « * . » * * * * * * * » * * * * • » * « » * * * * » * * 1 3 1* 5 *******************>:<*****.*»************* - 1 3 _J_i L_ TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1_ 3 * **************************************** * ?0.00 60.0'"> 30.00* .100.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ?0.C0 SO.00 70.00* UN I VAP. 1 ATE TABLE OF COL"NN FREO^NCY TABLE  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * i 1 465 3* *********** 1* 4 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 * * * * * * v * * 25.00 50.03 25,00* 100.00 : 4 * * * * * s » A * * * * * * * * * * * * 25.CO 50.00 25.00* 4 _ UNIVARIATE TABLE 0^ COLUMN 466 FREQUENCY TABLE . * l * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *«.* * 4* 4 ************************* * .TOTAL PFRCENTAGE * 1* ***************** ********* * 'iCO.t 0* K 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 100.00* 4 ' V - ' I T '- Ti--<!.- .-}>= C O L U T . ) 467 FRE«-U = '..CY TAnLE * 1* • 4 i t * i f ? 4 * * * * * * * 4 *• >:• t ••• * •'* * * # J ft 1* 1 1 * * , ' ; ? i * * 4 * * * * * * * * * 4 4 4 * 4 4 * 4 * 14 1 TOTAL QE^CENTAGS 4 ] * 4 * 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 * 4 * 4 * * **• 4 * * 4 * * * * 4 * ICO.CO* 100.00 4 * 5 : 4 4 * 4 * * 4 4 * 4 4 4 * * 4 4 4 * * * * * * 100.CO* I UNIVARIATE TABLE OE COLUMN 463 FSFOUCNfY TA3I = * 1 2 3 * 4 * * * 4 * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 1 2* 4 4 4 4 * 4 * * 4 4 * * * * 4 * * * * * * 4 * * * 4 * * * 4 4 * * 4 4 4 * * * * * 1 1 2* 4 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 2 3* * * * ¥ * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25.00 25.00 60. 00* 100.OC * * * * * * 4 * * 4 * 4 * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * _ ^ ^ 1 0 25 .00 50.00* 4_ UNIVARTATE TABLE OF COLUMN FREQUENCY TABLE • * 2_* * * * 4 * * ft 4 4 ft* » * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I* 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1* 1 TOTAL PERCENTAGE  * 2* * 100.00* 100.00 * * 4 * 4 * * * 4 * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * 4 4 4 100.CO* i C M /••- ! T\-L" :1! i - 7 ; F- T ; " - L t * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * : * * * * **• * * * * ?. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * -3 3* 6 *< * * * * * * * * * * 3* 5 I ?* ***** a ****** *************< ** ** *** * 5 0 . r o 5 0 . 0 0 * I C O . C O * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 0 . C O 5 0 . C C * 6 UNI VAP ! ATF ' T4f3LE OF COLUMN 471 FREQUENCY TABLE * 1 3* ,************** ****.* *. **.*. * * * * * * * *** * I 4* 5 ************** ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 4 * 5 TOTAL PFE C CN T AG E * 1 7* * * * * * * * ********- ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * zo.co 5 0 . 0 0 * ioo.ro * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • 20.< 0 3 0 . r - * 5 UNIVARIATE T A B L E OF COLUMN <+lZ FRE3U-N0Y TABLE * I I 3*j **************************************** * 7 7 1* 15 * * * * * * * - * » < • * * * « » * * * * » * » » • * * * * * * * * » » * * * * < • »  _ 7 7 1* 1 5 " TQTAt_ PERCENTAGE  * 1 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 6 . 6 7 4 4 . 6 7 6 . 6 7 * 1 0 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 6 . 6 7 4 6 . 6 7 6 . 6 7 * 15 P 5.E ):JC'!C'' T •HL C * 1* <**»**********»»*»*»»**»*« * 1* 1 —s 4 4 * * * * 4 4 4 4 4 4 * 4 * 4 * 4 « * 4 t « * * 1* 1 TOTM Pc30.r:,l'T'lf.!: * 1* * * 4 * 4 * * 4 4 4 * 4 4 4 4 4 * 4 4 * * 4 4 4 4 * * 100.00* 100.00 9 * * * 4 4 4 4 4 * 4 4 4 * 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 * 4 * 4 100.00* 1 UNIVARIATE TABLE GF COLUMN * > 4 l • cpconr-\r . V TA^l F * L*. * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * 4 4 * 4 4 * 4 4* 4 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 4 * * * * * * * * * * * 100.00* 100.00 * * * 4 4 * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 100.00* UN I VA 3 I A TF T A <M_ E OF COLU uN 473 FREQUENCY TABLE * 1* *************** *********** * . 1 * 1 • ***************** ********* 1* 1 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1* * * 4 * * * . * 4 . 4 4 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 100.CO* 100.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * 4 * 4 100.0 0* 1 p ; ^ -i i ' - - f v T « -- -> -* * * * * * * * S * * . . * : • * * I 4 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A * * * * * * TOTAL 'ESCcM"\G = * ?* **:•,-*:;*******.**;: * r ********* * 100.CO* 100.Or ******* ** ******** ********* 100.00* 1 UNIVARIATE TA'*t£ OF COLUMN 475 FPE3NFNCY T A BL E  * 1* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4* 4 ******-_******************* 4* 4 T O T A L u = P C F N T A r , S * ).* * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1C3.CO* K O.OC ************************** 100 . r o * 4 UNIVARIATE TABLE QF COLUMN 476 FREQUENCY TA^LE * 7* ************************** * 3* 3 ************************* * 3* TOT AL PERCENTAGE * 2* ************************** ; * l o o . r c * I C Q . o c ***************** ******** * 100.00* 3 0 3 F?.F.QU.r\-CV T 4 3 L E ********.******•*** * * * * * * * * * * l * i ************************** L* L _ TOTAL °C 0 CENTAG F * 2*. * * * t v ? i - 4 i * * * * * * * * * * * •-* 1 0 0 . C O * If 0.OC _***_**_* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . 1 0 0 . 0 0 * UNIVARIATE TABLE OF COLUMN A 78 F P - o n r . - i r v TAAl c  * 3 * ******************* ******* * * l * L _ « t ? S t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A * * 1* TOTAL °E3 CENT AGE * 3* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * j ' * * * * : > * . * * * * 1 0 0 . 0 0 * 1 0 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * * * * * * 103 . 1 

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.831.1-0101234/manifest

Comment

Related Items