UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attitudes of row house residents toward residential location Andzans, Peter 1973

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 A53.pdf [ 7.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101327.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101327-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101327-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101327-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101327-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101327-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101327-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101327-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101327.ris

Full Text

.ATTITUDES OF ROW HOUSE RESIDENTS TOWARD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION by PETER ANDZANS B.A., University of Windsor, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1973 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission fo r extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of O c ^ i w w ^ J b ^ O^AA Qe^jerAj J^ P Leuvvyy^ v^  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date t^-v ^ -2. \ °> T 3 ABSTRACT The town or row house has, i n recent years, become an important alternative form of family accomodation. Consequently, many of these developments cater to the young expanding family. However, the present location policies of some municipalities have not accounted for the locational concerns and preferences, of these residents, which are determined by their housing needs and are somewhat reflected i n their level of satisfaction with the existing residential environment. It was the purpose of this survey to examine this situation by testing the hypotheses that: 1) young expanding families have certain locational concerns and preferences which are dissimilar to those of other families i n row house developments. 2) those developments poorly located with regard to those location-a l concerns and preferences are causing dissatisfaction among the residents. A number of systematically sampled dwelling units, from selected dev-elopments i n two Vancouver area municipalities, were surveyed by questionnaire. For purposes of analysis, the data was manipulated by s t a t i s t i c a l techniques of the SPSS (St a t i s t i c a l Package for Social Sciences) computer program. Generally, the results indicated that the dissimilarity i n locational preferences was very pronounced between childless families and families with children, and secondly, many developments did reveal much dissatisfaction with important aspects of the residential location. The major sources of dissatis-faction were t r a f f i c and noise from adjacent streets; presence of obnoxious commercial or industrial f a c i l i t i e s ; inaccessible convenience stores; and, inadequate public transportation service. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i LIST OF TABLES v Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 1 Scope of the Research 9 Hypothesis 11 Significance of Research 12 2 . REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND CONCEPTS OF LOCATION 18 Aspects of Residential Location 18 Importance of Location 20 Factors of Residential Location . . . . . . 23 Influences and Determinants of Residential Location 25 Stage i n Family Life Cycle as a C r i t i c a l Determinant of Residential Location . . . . 28 Concepts of Row House Location - 33 Location and Market Supply 33 Vancouver Policy 3 4 Burnaby Policy 37 Measurement of Attitudes Toward Residential Environment 38 Methods for Measuring Important Factors . . 38 Methods for Measuring Residential Satisfaction kO i i i Chapter Page Dissatisfaction i n Row House Developments . . . . kl Canadian Surveys kl Greater Vancouver Surveys kk Summary kj 3. METHODOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS 58 Survey by Questionnaire 58 Selection of Sample 59 Distribution and Collection of Questionnaire 62 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures 63 Social Profile of the Respondents 6k k. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 77 Residents' Use of Services and F a c i l i t i e s 77 Satisfaction with Residential Location 79 Importance of Locational Factors 79 Subjective Responses of Residents 82 5. ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 92 Satisfaction with Accessibility Factors 92 Satisfaction with Features of Physical Environment 96 Influence of Social Variables on Satisfaction . . 100 6. ANALYSIS OF LOCATIONAL CONCERNS 103 Importance of Environmental Features . 105 XV Eamily l i f e Cycle as an Independent Variable . . . . 106 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I l 6 The Residents 116 Satisfaction 117 Family Life Cycle 119 Implications for Planning 120 Recommendations 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 APPENDICES Appendix A - Sample questionnaire . 130 Appendix B - Figure 1 (Development locations) . . . . 13^ Appendix C - Distances to Services/facilities . . . . 135 LIST OF TABLES v Table Page I Dwelling Starts i n Canada 2 II Dwelling Starts i n Metropolitan Vancouver . . . 2 III The Median Family and Housing Cycle 32 IV Features Liked/Disliked about Neighbourhood k 3 V Relationship Between Income and Response to Condominium Location hk VI Attitude Toward Location of Schools k-5 VII Attitude Toward Location of Shopping k6 VIII Attitude Toward Public Transportation ^7 IX Sampling Data 6 l X Sex of Respondent 65 XI Household Type and Marital Status 65 XII Persons per Household 66 XIII Employment Status of Main Breadwinner 67 XIV Age of Male Household Head 68 XV Number of Children per Household 68 XVI Age Groups of Children 69 XVII Number of Children Attending School 70 XVIII Children's Use of Park/Playground Areas 70 XIX Length of Occupancy 71 XX Tenure of Dwelling Unit 71 XXI Family Income 72 XXII Cost of Dwelling Unit 72 XXIII Employment Status of Wife 73 XXIV Journey to Work Time of Main Breadwinner 7 k v i XXV Journey to Work Mode 7^ XXVI Use of Bus Transportation 77 XXVII Use of Services and F a c i l i t i e s 78 XXVTII Satisfaction with Residential Location -Vancouver 80 XXIX Satisfaction with Residential Location -Burnaby 81 XXX Relative Importance of Individual Factors 83 XXXI Ranking of Factors by Importance 8h XXXII Reasons for Choosing a Particular . Deve lopment 86 XXXIII Ranking of Most Important Reasons for Choosing a Particular Development 88 XXXIV Features Most Liked about Residential Area . . . . 89 XXXV Features Most Disliked about Residential Area 90 XXXVI Satisfaction with Nearness to Park and Actual Distance to Park 93 XXXVII Satisfaction with Location of Local Stores and Distance to Stores 95 XXXVIII Satisfaction with Presence of Obnoxious F a c i l i t i e s 97 XXXIX Satisfaction with Traffic on Adjacent Streets 99 XL Satisfaction with Noise from Adjacent Streets . . . . . . . 99 XLI Length of Residence/Family Income Correlated with Satisfaction with Locational Features 101 XLII Stage i n Family Life Cycle correlated with Frequency of Use of Services and F a c i l i t i e s 107 XLIII Number of Children per Household correlated with Frequency of Use of Services and F a c i l i t i e s 108 XLIV Level of Family Income correlated with Frequency of Use of Services and F a c i l i t i e s 109 XLV Stage i n Family l i f e Cycle correlated with Relative Importance of Locational Features I l l XLVI Number of Children per Household correlated with Relative Importance of Locational Features 112 XLVII Level of Family Income correlated with Relative Importance of Locational F a c i l i t i e s 113 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIOH The Problem In the past decade, approximately 7 out of 10 people lived i n urban areas i n Canada,"'" while recent projections put this figure at 9.4 out of 10 for the year 2001. To accomodate this increase i n the urban population, nearly 4,000,000 new dwelling units are estimated to be the requirement of the three largest centres - Toronto, Montreal, 3 Vancouver. Of these units, a greater proportion than i n the past k would be required for family households. In the present trend, the group seeking home ownership most avidly i s the family with one or two 5 small children and a relatively young head of the household. y The dwelling unit which has been rapidly assuming a greater role i n the housing market over the last six years i s the row house. While the number of dwelling starts on detached and va semi-detached has been x relatively static over the last 6 years, the row house starts have tripled over the same period. This same situation has occurred in Vancouver, as illustrated i n Table I I . Even though row houses are proportionately few i n number, the trend indicates the diminishing importance of the single family dwelling i n relation to the increasing reliance on row houses. In this same period, the cost of land has increased substantially, 7 and at a rate as great as any other cost index.' This i s probably caused by the shortage of serviced land, along with the f i s c a l r e s t r i c t -ions on municipalities preventingservices from being provided at a faster rate. The need for new sewers, roads, schools, and the increas-2 Table I Dwelling starts (Canada) Year 1966 Single family house 70,642 Row House 5,000 1967 72,534 7,392 1968 75,339 8,042 1969 78,4o4 10,721 1970 70,749 17,055 1971 98,056 15,659 Table II Dwelling starts (metropolitan Vancouver) Single Family Row house Duplex/Semi-detached Apartment Year 1967 5,980 208 348 7,360 1968 5,146 311 512 9,721 1969 4,763 580 402 11,945 1970 4,482 839 350 7,766 1971 5,283 1,057 391 8,822 1972 7,311 1,635 368 6,896 From: Canadian Housing Statistics 1972, C.M.H.C., Ottawa, 1973, PP 9-H 3 ing maintenance burden, which are the result of urban growth, are noted as serious problems affecting future urban growth, particularly, o the supply and cost of land. So acute i s this problem that the federal government has been compelled to allocate funds i n the order of $500 million over 5 years, for the assembly of land for housing i n Canada.^ Another impetus to the row house has been the drafting of condom-inium legislation i n Canada, within the last decade. The Strata T i t l e s Act was passed i n Bri t i s h Columbia i n 1966, but, i n that particular act made i t a requirement that a development have two or more strata levels, which i n effect excluded row houses. 1^ However, Chapter k2 of the 1968 Statutes amended this, allowing row housing within the legal bounds of condominium legislation. The number of row house dwelling starts more than doubled the following year, 1969."^  Condominium housing i s seen as the alternative to families priced 12 out of the single family home i n major urban centres. However, most young families, either presently with children or those expeeting an 13 enlarged family, are drawn to the town house form of accomodation. J This i s exemplified by the fact that an overwhelming 93-8$ of the households i n condominium row houses are families, of which 62$ have Ik children. Since families, particularly young families, comprise the majority of residents i n town houses, i t i s possible to view these developments from the standpoint of the needs and preferences of this household group. I f stage i n family l i f e cycle i s a c r i t i c a l determinant of these needs, the examination of the characteristics of the stage of the families should yi e l d valuable insight to the importance of certain location features. k Generally, row housing contains family groups at a different stage i n the family l i f e cycle than those i n apartments or single family dwellings. While the average age of the head of the household 15 for a townhouse i s 32, the head of a single family household i n the inner city might approximate kj years and i n the suburban areas average 16 HO years. The profile of the heads of condominium households i n Metro Vancouver1^ i s almost identical to that of the national survey1® with regard to age, both surveys finding more than 66$ of the heads to be under the age of 35- (J.W. Poole, of Dawson Developments, while referring to a proposed row house project i n Burnaby, alluded to the youthfulness of these family households i n an address to Burnaby Council on September 20, 1971' He noted that the anticipated typical purchaser was to be a young couple, 19 to 30 years of age, with a small baby or perhaps a child on the way.) These families have an average of 1.20 children, most of whom are of pre-school or elementary school ages, 19 with the average age feeing 6.8 years. Different household groups show particular tendencies toward certain locations within the city, due to their stage i n the family 20 l i f e cycle. Noting that young people with children attach positive values to certain locational and environmental factors, Lansing pro-ceeded to "underline the importance of parks, recreation areas, open spaces, and careful segregation of land uses. According to Abu-Lughod, "At different stages of the family's growth and development, some needs w i l l seem more compelling than others. Abu-Lughod also contends that "there are six basic stages i n the l i f e of a median family when i t s housing demand exerts a potent - and each time different - influence on the market."2^ One of these, 'Stage II', characterized by child bearing and expanding family size, 5 i s exactly identical to the largest category of families inhabiting condominiums (noting that family condominiums are town houses), i n which 2k the age of the husband rages from 25 to $k years (57#)> and the 25 average family size i s 3 to k persons, (51.5$). The single difference i s the prevalence of rental accomodation for this group i n fibu-Lughod's survey. However, home ownership i n that period of time (i960) meant the purchase of a single family dwelling, and did not include the more available and lesser cost alternative of a condominium town house, as exists today. In any event, neighbourhood character, proximity to a park, a more residential character away from urban congestion, and concern for the children's schooling become of primary importance i n the search for l i v i n g accomodation ;at this stage i n the family l i f e cycle. Because of the recent introduction of row housing on a large scale 26 i n the Vancouver area, some municipalities had no explicit policy for the location of low density multiple housing comparable with the policies 27 for the more conventional forms of apartments. The Municipality of Burnaby, recognizing that the row house i s designed primarily for family i i v i n g related to park, school and local shopping f a c i l i t i e s , used these c r i t e r i a as guidelines i n designating special zones i n the municipality 28 for low density or garden apartments, while amending the by .-law with i-egard to row houses after recommendations i n another r e p o r t . ^ On the other hand, Vancouver which was and s t i l l i s rezoning for such projects by considering them separately on their own merits, i n what appears to be an *ad hoc' spot zoning process, s t i l l has no explicit policy for the 30 location of row housing. Yet, which of these approaches provides more preferable and satisfactory housing location for families i n this stage of the family l i f e cycle is not known. Nor i s i t known whether specific zoning for this type of housing best achieves residential 6 satisfaction for any of these residents, young families and other households. Another significant problem, which i s tangential to this study, i s that of locating townhouse developments within particular neigh-bourhoods. Specifically, does row housing integrate well i n single family d i s t r i c t s or i s i t best located among other apartment-type develop-ments? Obviously, this question can only be answered by viewing the situation as a whole and observing each element functioning within the whole. Nevertheless, this further emphasizes the need for understanding the attitudes of row house residents and their response to their resident-i a l location, as defined by Foote. It i s also noted that, "Localities tend to impose multi-family zoning i n less attractive d i s t r i c t s , sometimes i n the worst places possible, such as those backing onto industrial complexes, railroad sidings, highways, and similar locations. In addition, there i s often the pernicious attempt to locate such developments on the rim of old or expanding ghetto areas as a buffer zone rather than to bring about the creation of good housing."^ 1 Examination of some of the townhouse locations i n Vancouver and Burnaby does i n fact i l l u s t r a t e the afore-mentioned situation. In fact, Vancouver has even gone to the extent of inducing row housing, through zoning, i n the older rim of the ci t y (CRM-2 and CRM-3 zones) as i t s f i r s t step to allow outright use of row houses i n a specified area of the cit y . Yet, the role of the developer i n the location of the row house cannot be overlooked. To some, "any location seems to d o , w h i l e others look for "the right zoning," and with secured mortgage financing expect to make "an instant sales winner out of it."33 Of course, not a l l 7 developers approach this matter with similar concepts about location, since many of them do look closely at location i n the process-of market-ing their housing development.-* However, the very fact that some develop-ers do not adequately explore the locational needs of this potential market suggests that closer scrutiny be given to the location of these developments. In an effort to provide cheaper housing, i n the form of condominium row housing, for the nearly insatiable demand, i t i s very possible that developers have cut costs to supply this demand and con-currently have situated these residential developments i n poor locations. In a presently ongoing housing consumer satisfaction study by United Community Services of Vancouver, under the direction of Larry I. B e l l , reviewed i n Chapter 2, a great amount of dissatisfaction with the location of the town house developments was expressed, through interviews, by the residents of certain projects. Location of shopping f a c i l i t i e s and public transportation f a c i l i t i e s were noted to be very inadequate by a vast majority of residents i n a number of developments. These responses can-not be taken li g h t l y , since "Serious dissatisfaction with a given location would logically lead to a consideration of moving to another more sat-isfactory location".35 Be l l also observed that many town house developments were poorly located with the respect to parks and playgrounds. He noted that not only was there an abundance of young children i n these projects, but also a f a i r amount of pre-teen and early teenage children who required more than the 'tot lot s ' and greenways of these developments i n which to participate i n sports and other physical activites. For the present, some develop-ments had vacant land or bush areas nearby, where these older children could play, but upon development of these areas this group would be at 36 a loss for park and play space. 8 He also noted that some row house projects are located too close to major streets which carry heavy t r a f f i c , while reflecting upon the noise from these. Other comments were directed towards developments squeezed between commercial land uses with few open spaces or green areas nearby, and also to the more preferable locations, which were within walking distance to schools, shops and other f a c i l i t i e s . Above a l l , he stressed the need for policies to be more aware of the concerns 37 of the housing resident. Presumably, location has been underestimated or overlooked by either developers or municipalities for dissatisfaction of such magnitude to occur. According to E. Paxton, who surveyed what people want when they buy a house, "More buyers,... were as much interested, and many of them more interested, i n the location of their new home than i n any particular feature of the house i t s e l f . This i s not an extraordinary finding. In response to the question 'Why did you decide to buy a unit i n your particular condominium project?', 27.4$ of the owners cited good location - the most important reason i n an open-ended question.^ In addition, 28.5$ noted good location near services, shopping and downtown as a feature liked about the neighbourhood - the most frequently cited feature, while a multiple choice question appraising the features of the project found that 65.3$ of the sample liked location, again the ko most frequently cited feature. Because urban households must make trips to places of employment, to schools, shopping and recreation, Wallace Smith notes that "There i s a practical limit to the length of such trips ... to economize on the time and cost of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . T h u s , i f the locational pre-ferences of row house residents for certain services and f a c i l i t i e s are not evaluated by either developer or municipality, i t i s not surprising k that high dissatisfaction occurs among these people, with regard to location. 9 Residents are also concerned about 'environmental amenities' or the characteristics of the surrounding area - not only the physical appearance but also the social character of the people i n the neigh-k3 bourhood. This study does recognize the many major influences on the location of row housing, particularly land costs and availability, the attitudes of lenders and developers, zoning, response of municipal o f f i c i a l s and the general public, and so forth. However, the complexity of this process prohibits, at this time, any thorough examination of these factors influencing town house location. Satisfactorily located row housing must account for the locational preferences of the residents - and this dimension of housing satisfaction can be and should be ensured by municipalities through some regulatory process - be i t long range planning, zoning, or some other method. A l -though this i s only one consideration i n the planning of row house loca-tion, i t i s a major one indeed - one that has not yet been accounted for i n the location process. Scope This study concerns i t s e l f with the attitudes of residents l i v i n g i n row house developments i n the more built-up central areas of the c i t y . I t i s not the purpose of this study to undertake a rigorous analysis of the functioning of the housing market; but, rather, to investigate the problem of locatingerow housing by accounting for the locational prefer-ences of these residents. Because much of the land i n Vancouver and Burnaby i s becoming more expensive for the construction of single family dwellings, there w i l l probably be an increasing reliance on low density multiple dwellings to provide family accomodation. 10 Since both areas are relatively more developed than the suburban municipalities, most of the row house projects have been located i n f u l l y or pa r t i a l l y built-up areas, as opposed to many of the housing projects i n Richmond, Surrey or North Vancouver, which were constructed i n relatively undeveloped areas. The location of row housing within a developed environment i s more complicated than development on farm acre-age, and i t i s the former situation which w i l l be examined. While the important features and satisfaction of location of the general townhouse population are surveyed, a more i n depth examination of the young expanding families i s undertaken i n an attempt to sensitize public policy to the concerns of a particular group i n a stage of the family l i f e cycle. Specifically, by being i n the same stage of the family l i f e cycle, with similar needs and preferences, these families may be further examined with regard totheir attitudes toward housing location. The developments examined are those generally catering to the expanding family, not those aiming at the luxury accomodation market (leisure orientation, some retirement markets), nor those located near the downtown areas. Both lower and middle income families have been surveyed i n the suburban areas of Vancouver and Burnaby. To introduce the variables and factors of location into the study, a thorough review of the literature on residential preference and s a t i s -faction was undertaken and presented i n Chapter 2. The basic dimensions kk of location as set out by Foote and others have been used as guidelines i n the survey. From studies of attitudes toward the neighbourhood, of preferences and choices of the residential environment, of housing choices and constraints, and of other related subject areas the set of residential location factors has been derived. In a sense, the importance of these as set out by these authors i s tested on the town house residents. 11 Primarily, the study investigates the locational concerns of row house residents, particularly the 'expanding family' group, by ascertain-ing the importance of certain locational factors as categorized i n the basic dimensions of location as defined by Foote. This research also surveys the extent of dissatisfaction i n town house developements, with regard to residential location. Specific as-pects of location are examined, then compared to the corresponding level of satisfaction of the residents, and this allows for further comparison between developments. The research technique i s outlined i n Chapter 3, along with a descriptive social profile of the respondents, so that the attitudinal responses may be viewed i n light of the particular characteristics of the sample population. The actual results of the survey are compiled i n Chapter k. An analysis of satisfaction with residential location i s presented i n Chapter 5, while the analysis of locational concerns with regard to the family l i f e cycle i s undertaken i n Chapter 6. A brief summary of the survey, along with certain implications for planning and some recommend-ations are included i n the f i n a l chapter. Hypothesis I Because young families comprise a large majority of households i n most town house developments, and this group has certain needs as deter-mined by i t s stage i n the family cycle, i t i s probable that these residents are concerned about similar features of location, which are not as import-ant to the other residents, who are i n different stages of the family cycle. Hypothesis II Since previous studies have evidenced location of row housing i n 12 undesirable areas, and other studies have noted a great deal of dis-satisfaction with certain locational aspects of this type of housing, i t i s very l i k e l y that poor locations of row house projects i n the more developed areas of the ci t y are causing a f a i r amount of dissatisfaction for these residents. Significance The demand for 400,000 new dwelling units i n the metropolitan 45 Vancouver area by the year 2001, ' the increasing cost of land and service-ing, and the recently instituted legislation on condominiums - the Strata Tit l e s Act, should put more emphasis on the self-owned town or row house as a major alternative to the self-owned single family dwelling. I f present trends continue, the row house could become a major component of the hous-ing market within the next decade. The increasing development of family-oriented row housing i n the Vancouver area necessitates some workable formula for location, which, among other things, accounts for the locational concerns and preferences of these families. This study should provide a better understanding of those locationaj. factors considered most important by young families as compared to the other household groups i n the developments. It should alsoshed light on the locational needs of the households i n row housing. In effect, this research not only surveys the locational concerns and preferences of row households i n general, but, also within the context of family l i f e cycle examines the particular factors important to the young expanding family, i n order to make public policy more sensitive to this stage of famijty l i f e cycle. 13 These young families have never inhabited any particular form of dwelling. According to Abu-Lughod, their •mobility i s greater than i t w i l l ever be again', and the dwellings i n which accomodation was sought were apartments, row houses, duplexes, and basement suites, u n t i l f i n a l l y , the single family dwelling was purchased after many years. But now, these young families comprise the majority of residents i n town house develop-ments, and by being i n a common location, f a c i l i t a t e the decision process for their location. Yet, these decisions should i n part be based on the housing needs of this group, and to do this requires the planner to as-certain the important locational factors. No studies to date have been done on the locational preferences of row house residents i n particular. Foote et a l , 1 have surveyed the 'median family* i n i t s l i f e cycle stages and noted i t s general needs and prefer-ences, while condominium surveys have basically examined the general satisfaction of condominium residents, and s t i l l others have s t r i c t l y surveyed the locational preferences and choices of home owners, but none have been combined i n a focus on the row house resident. Numerous locational studies exist for senior c i t i z e n housing, the singles* apartment, suburban single family housing, and other types, except row housingi If Burnaby i s proceeding with i t s policy for the location of row housing, which i s largely based on literature reviews of this same topic, ko and not even on a sample survey of the residents of these developments, ^ i s the policy i n actuality providing satisfactory location for these people? This study would also shed more light on this matter. It i s also known that some "localities tend to impose multi-family zoning i n less attractive areas", as previously noted i n this chapter by 50 Clurman. By surveying, the levels of satisfaction of row house residents, the v a l i d i t y of applying this observation to either Vancouver or Burnaby Ik could be determined. Presumably these people would perceive an undesir-able environment i n the same manner as Clurman observed i t and would express their dissatisfaction accordingly. Heeding that "No pattern of metropolitan development can be basically sound which does violence to the certain location preferences of the people, the need for a greater understanding of the attitudes of these people be-comes imperative. 15 Chapter I - References and Notes 1 Leroy 0. Stone, Urban Development i n Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, 1967, P. 29. 2 N.H. Lithwick, Urban Canada; Problems and Prospects, report for the Minister responsible for Housing, Ottawa, 1970, p. 145. 3 Ibid., p. 155. 4 Ibid., p. 156. 5 L.B. Smith, Housing i n Canada: Market Structure and Policy Performance, Research Monograph no. 2, CMHC, Ottawa, 1971* P« 30. 6 Canadian Housing Statistics 1971, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, 1972. 7 N.H. Lithwick 1970, 0p_. Cit., p. 22. 8 Ibid., p. 158. 9 Ron Basford, The Vancouver Sun, vol. 87, no. 84, p. 1, January 11, 1973* 10 Habitat, vol. 12, no. 4-5, 1969, p. 10. 11 Canadian Housing Stat i s t i c s , 1971, J2&: c l t . . o. 12. 12 Ontario Housing, v o l . 15, no. 1, p. 2. 13 Condominium Research Associates, National Survey of Condominium Len-ders, Toronto, 1970, pp. 63^60^ Ik Condominium Reserach Associates, National Survey of Condominium Owners, Toronto, 1970, pp 6-8. 15 Ibid., p. 7. 16 Barrie Greenbie, New House or New Neighbourhood? A Survey of Prior i t i e s among Home Owners i n Madison, Wisconsin, Univ. of Wisconsin Pilot Project i n Environmental Sciences and Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Madison, Wisconsin, May 1968, p. 75» 17 S. Hamilton, Condominium Development i n Metropolitan Vancouver, Real Estate Council of B.C., Dec. 1971, p. 51. 18 Condominium Research Associates, Og. Cit., pp 6-9. 19 Ibid., 20 John B. Lansing, et a l , Residential Location and Urban Mobility, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, Univ. of Michigan, 1964, p. 11. 16 21 Ibid., p. 37. 22 N. Foote et a l , Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, New York, McGraw H i l l Book Co., Inc., 19ob, p. 95. 23 Ibid., p. 97. 24 Condominium Research Associates, Og. Cit., p. J. 25 ttjid., p. 9. 26 Habitat, vol. 11, no. 4-5, 1969 27 Technical Planning Board, City of Vancouver, Low Density Multiple Housing Report, 1969, P. 4. 28 Burnaby Municipal Planning Department, Apartment Study 1969, Burnaby 19&9, P« 2. 29 Burnaby Municipal Planning Department, Group Housing Study, Burnaby, 1972. 30 Technical Planning Board, Og. Cit., p. 4. 31 David Clurman and E. Hebard, Condominiums and Co-operatives, Toronto: Wiley-Interscience, 1970, p. 30. 32 G. Denford, "Developers Look at Condominium", Habitat, vol. 12, no. 4-5, p. 34. 33 J. Poole, Ibid., p. 42. 34 Ibid., pp 28-45. 35 Maurice R. Brewster, et a l , How to make and interpret locational studies of the housing market, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, 1955, P« 51« 361 Phone conversation with L.I. Be l l , January 22, 1973, re: early findings of Housing Consumer Satisfaction study and personal observations. 37 Ibid., 38 Edward T. Paxton, What ijaeople want when they buy a house, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, 1955, P» H « 39 Condominium Research Associates, p. 38. 40 Ibid., p. 27. 41 Wallace, F. Smith, Housing: The Social and Economic Elements, Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1971, p. Q. 42 L.I. B e l l , Housing Consumer Satisfaction survey, 1972-3* 17 43 N. Foote, Op. C i t . , pp 180-1. 44 Ibid., 45 N.H. Lithwick, 1971, Op_- Cit., p. 155* 46 N. Foote, Op. Cit., p. 101. 47 Ibid., 48 Condominium Research Associates, Op. Cit., 49 from interview with R.B. Chilton, Senior Planner, Burnaby Planning Department, Oct. 1972. 50 D. Clurman, Op. Cit., p. 30. 51 N. Foote, 0p_. C i t . , p. 175. 18 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND CONCEPTS OF LOCATION The approaches to the study of residential location have been both many and diverse. In this chapter a literature review of residential location i s presented systematically to create a foundation for the en-suing s t a t i s t i c a l research. Aspects of Residential Location Of primary importance i s the definition of location, or particularly of residential location. Foote^" considers residential location to have at least three basic, but not necessarily related aspects. It i s defined as site, physical environment, and social environment. As a site, a certain location i s related spatially to other parts of the c i t y and these distances are modified by transportation systems. The location i s then subjectively rated as convenient or inconvenient, depend-ing on the time involved to reach school, work, recreation, friends, and relatives, and i s also ranked on i t s importance relative to the other parts of the city. With specific characteristics such as density, open space, light, as well as houses, playgrounds, schools and other local f a c i l i t i e s , a location or a neighbourhood i s also a physical environment. Lastly, since neighbourhoods are inhabited by people as well as phy-s i c a l elements, the characteristics of the people i n that location create a social environment. The spheres of orientation of this environment are obviously different for children, housewives, retired people and working people, but the particular environment s t i l l produces a neighbourhood •reputation*. In effect, most social environments are assigned a rank of social prestige and this i s f e l t by even the non-participating residents 19 of the neighbourhood. 2 In his study of residential location, Lansing noted that the kind of people l i v i n g i n a neighbourhood, the physical characteristics of the neighbourhood, along with the convenience of location, each act as a basis for attitudes toward the neighbourhood. A very similar approach 3 was used by Brewster to study satisfaction of residential location, i n which convenience of location, the characteristics of the people i n the neighbourhood, and the neighbourhood environment were the major aspects, k Bossi, also, classified his specific neighbourhood attributes i n a similar manner - location, social composition, and other neighbourhood attributes. Departing slightly from this approach, Smith'' visualized the spatial aspect of housing as comprised of location, or relative location, and environmental amenities, which he further defined as the physical appear-ance of the neighbourhood and secondly, the subjective kind of environment-a l amenity - the social character of people i n the neighbourhood. Similar-ly , Beyer suggested that location be viewed from a social relations view as well as from the physical aspects, while another study by Gruen cat-egorized location into accessibility and social features.''7 It was probably to these same concepts of location that Paxton was referring to, when he specified nearness to f a c i l i t i e s as being of equal importance to the general o tone or quality of the neighbourhood i n the selection of housing location. Deviating from these general aspects, Greenbie^ while surveying import-ant factors of 'where you l i v e 1 , basically summarized responses towards either the house or the neighbourhood, without noting any specific aspects of residential location. At the other extreme i s a study by Menchik which proposes that the 20 important aspects of the residential environment are a complex of elements which include accessibilities, quality of the natural environment, character-i s t i c s of the man-made environment, the neighbourhoods social composition, and the provision of f a c i l i t i e s . 1 0 In the same respect, S t e f f e n s 1 1 l i s t s a maze of concerns such as accessibility, nearness, physical character-i s t i c s of the neighbourhood, services and f a c i l i t i e s , social environment, social accessibility, and neighbourhood amenities, i n his study of factors influencing the choice of residential location. 12 In a study of the behaviour of developers i n Hand development, Chamberlain found that the f i r s t two attributes of location were environ-ment and accessibility. More recently, Butler i n his survey of moving behaviour and residential choice, viewed residential location as quality of the neighbourhood, accessibility of the home to specific a c t i v i t i e s , and available public services and f a c i l i t i e s , a l l of which were aggregates of more specific f a c t o r s . ^ Numerous aspects of residential location have been conceptualized, but i t i s f a i r l y safe to assume that most of these are variations of the Ik aspects of location as defined by Foote et a l . In general, most location-a l concerns could be classified as site or relative location, as physical environment, or as social environment. Within this framework the specific factors of residential location may be enumerated. Importance of Location Before the factors of location are examined, i t would be valuable at this point to c l a r i f y the relative importance of location within the complex sphere of housing. This w i l l produce the wide array of opinions held by the numerous researchers who have reached conclusions on the relative importance of location. 21 In his comprehensive study on housing, Beyer ' noted that the location of a house i s generally considered just as important, i f not more so, than l 6 i t s design. From a survey of home buyers, Paxton comments that "More buyers, 38 percent of the tota l , were as much interested, and many of them more interested, i n the location of their new home than i n any particular feature of the house i t s e l f . " Home buyers showed that location was a prime element i n a buyer's housing preference, not only because i t was an import-ant factor i n choosing a house, but, also because many were unwilling or extremely hesitant to compromise this attribute. A study by Brewster which examined factors determining dissatisfaction of residents hypothesized that "Serious dissatisfaction with a given location would logically lead to a consideration of moving to another more satisfactory 17 location." Of those entirely satisfied, only 14$ were seriously thinking of moving, while 65$ of the dissatisfied families seriously considered moving. Generally, one out of every four families did not like their residential location. Of special interest i s the close relationship of reasons for not lik i n g a location and the inconvenience of location, and 18 the relationship between reasons for l i k i n g location and the environment. From the Harvard Business School, a report on condominium housing noted that location i s of prime importance. Viewing housing from the supply side of the market, i t recommended: "The developer must not lose sight of the fact that he i s selling location, and that one of the most important de-19 terminants of the project i s the attractiveness of the location he chooses." A national survey, conducted by Butler i n the United States, found that respondents overwhelmingly chose neighbourhood quality over quality of housing 20 and accessibility i n their search for a place of residence. Yet, i n res-ponse to an open-ended question seeking the major factors considered i n the selection of their present home, suburbanites answered 'accessibility' 22 factors more often than 'social reasons', and both of these more often than 21 factors directly associated with the dwelling unit. Major decisions are often motivated by several considerations rather 22 than by one. Lansing, from a study of residential location, concludes that the decision to move i s greater i f the desire for a change of dwelling exists along with the desire for a new neighbourhood. He proposes that housing reasons and locational reasons for moving are actually reinforcing, and that most attempts at determining which i s the greater motivating force are largely speculative. Yet, a number of studies indicate a lesser role for location i n housing. Location was considered to be of a f a i r l y low rank i n comparison to other housing goals, since good neighbourhood location was rarely preferred over 23 a good dwelling. Within the sphere of location i t s e l f , social environment or the social characteristics of the neighbours are more important as i n -fluences on mobility than the physical characteristics or appearance of the neighbourhood. Data from a survey of homeowners' pri o r i t i e s tends to con-firm the concept that housing reasons predominate over neighbourhood 2k reasons for moving. This same source also suggested that while obtaining housing i s an important reason for moving, the neighbourhood i s of equal importance i n the decision to stay. Rossi, 2^ i n his investigation of 'why families move*, arrived at similar conclusions: "Apparently, the character of the particular dwelling unit i t s e l f i s more important as a source of f e l t dissatisfaction than the other characteristics of the dwelling such as i t s distance from important „26 a c t i v i t i e s or i t s surrounding milieu. Factors which have generally played a prominent role i n discussions among city planners and housing experts, such as the journey to work or accessibility of schools, received only infrequent complaints. 23 A survey by Norcross and Hysom of a number of mixed-housing develop-ments comprised of garden apartment and town house rental units included a chapter on the motivations behind the renters 1 choice of their particular 27 community. It was noted i n the introduction that to professional apprais-ers location i s the primary factor for judging proposed new apartment communities, yet, the results showed that good location i s important, but not as important as r e a l estate appraisers consider i t to be. Although renters were attracted to the good locations of these developments, they rated other factors higher. However, one apartment community which only had a f a i r location to begin with, was assumed to have been turned into a good or excellent location by the creation of an attractive environment. Since the details of this process were not presented, no argument on this matter can be instigated. I f this i s a valid observation, then the im-plications on the location of row house developments become apparent. Specifically, how much do the amenities provided i n these projects make up for the poor location? Does the development,, in fact, create i t s own location with regard to certain services or f a c i l i t i e s and environment? Unfortunately, no conclusive evidence exists, at the present time on this matter with regard to row housing. Disregarding, for the present, the argument of the relative importance of residential location among the other aspects of housing, i t i s undoubt-edly true that location i s a matter of importance, as presented i n the literature. In effect, "No pattern of metropolitan development can be basically sound which does violence to the certain locational preferences of the people. Factors of Residential Location In most studies of the residential environment certain features of location are examined with regard to their importance as a factor of that 2k location. Numerous variables have been suggested, yet the more important variables are recurrent i n these surveys. Mentioned most often, and of similar importance, are distances to work and distance or nearness to schools. From their research observations, 29 30 31 -3.0 Paxton, Lansing, Greenbie, and Zehner-' considered these to be sign-i f i c a n t with regard to residential location. The social aspects of the residential location, the type of neighbour-hood, the kind of people, and other related variables, although not mention-ed as frequently as the f i r s t two, are seen as very important i n a number of studies. R o s s i ^ Steffens,^ Beyer,35 and B e l l , ^ among others, have identified these social factors as highly influential i n the choice of a residential environment. Accessibility to shopping i s also noted as a major concern by Norcross,^^ 38 39 kn k i Zehner, Paxton, Brewster, and Lansing, while the av a i l a b i l i t y of, and nearness to a public transportation system exhibited significance i n k5 k2 k3 kk studies by Gruen, Paxton, and Brademas. Of lesser importance are nearness to parks, noted by Lansing, U6 Wilkinson, and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of nearby recreational and entertainment kl kQ f a c i l i t i e s as emphasized by Greenbie, 1 and Zehner. k9 50 The importance of open spaces was evidenced by Rossi, B e l l , and 51 Norcross, along with the significance of quiet or lack of noise i n a residential location, to which Beyer,'*2 and Brewster"^ agreed. In addition, 5k 55 56 heavy t r a f f i c was viewed as a notable e v i l by Boyce, Lansing, and Beyer,' 57 who went on taanention the similar undesirability of nearby industry. Menchik agreed to the importance of this and suggested that the nearness of commercial 58 59 f a c i l i t i e s was also undesirable. In more general terms, Rossi,' and Lansing, reported the influence of obnoxious land uses as an impetus to change resident-i a l location. 25 60 Lastly, the nearness of friends and relatives, noted by Gruen and ;61 Beyer, plus the residential location as being suitable as a child en-62 vironment, as suggested by Bell, may also be included i n the l i s t of factors. Other features, a l l examined at one time or another for their relative importance as part of residential location, include population density, amount of trees, unpolluted or fresh a i r , neighbourhood reputation, land-scape, community a c t i v i t i e s , and privacy. Influences and Determinants of Residential Location Even though, housing needs vary from household to household, certain characteristics of these households influence housing choice more strongly than do other factors. To select the most important influences i s a d i f f i c u l t task, since the whole complex of needs, aspirations, limitations and personal tastes i s almost i n f i n i t e i n variations. Yet, a number of authors have attempted to delimit the most influential factors, particularly those affect-ing residential location. R o s s i ^ contends that specifications for housing accomodation have some correspondence to the needs f e l t by families as expressed i n their l i f e cycle position. These specifications include space, design, and location, i n that order of importance. For instance, as a family passes through the stages of i t s l i f e cycle, the need for a particular kind of social environment, location, and services changes, causing the family to seek out new residential locations. Another concept used to explain the social choice of place of residence, i s that of l i f e style. A particular range of preference patterns i s defined by 6k , W. B e l l , which includes familism, upward ve r t i c a l mobility (career), and consumership. In effect, a residence area i s expressive of i t s population's styles of l i f e , and this holds true for any neighbourhood in an urban area. The decision to move was also seen as a function of the two variables of l i f e 26 cycle and career pattern, i n earlier studies.^ As Michelson summarizes "There i s thus support fromthe literature with respect to several types 66 of congruence between l i f e styles and physical environment. " Differentiating within the household, Norcross found that i n general, there was close agreement between the sexes over the most important c r i t e r i a used i n choosing a particular garden apartment development.^ Yet, the fact remains that minor differences of opinion on the relative importance of location and the environment were detected between men and women i n a l l developments. Marital status also produced different results, with the more mobile singles ranking location higher i n importance than their married 68 counterparts. Menchik also, found a non-significant relationship between sex and residential preferences, while noting only a few strong and system-atic relationships with the family income variable. Even the age of the household head which i s associated with the family l i f e cycle, exhibited a weak s t a t i s t i c a l correlation to residential preference. Another c r i t e r i a for the voluntary selection of residence i s previous experience i n environment. Jonassen, among others, argues that people w i l l choose a particular residential location which i s f a i r l y similar to, or has similar characteristics of, the previous environment i n which they l i v e d . ^ In a survey of the pri o r i t i e s of home owners,7° a noted difference was found in the preferences of inner cit y residents and suburban:residents over the proximity to schools. The author concluded that this was a reflection of the greater proportion of couples with young children i n the suburban areas. Lansing^ 1 found similar tendencies for young families with children, which differed from the rest of the sample, again signifying the importance of stage i n family l i f e cycle as a determinant of residential location. At some point i n the family l i f e cycle, extra members w i l l probably be added, causing the housing requirements to be more complex. In fact, 27 the factors of stage i n family l i f e cycle and type of household become 72 more important than the number of family members.1 Because these d i f f e r -ent groups have different housing requirements, the adjustments may take place within the same house, but, more frequently the needs are met by a change of location. The different stages of a family's growth and development cause some needs to be more compelling than others, while other factors such as income, race, and marital status modify these demands and diversify the housing patterns 73 of different families. The journey to work i s also viewed as a determinant of residential location. Because i t found that people tend to l i v e near their place of employment, Goldstein contended that a relationship existed between commut-7 k ing and residential location. Another study, by Kain, assuming the practice of u t i l i t y maximization, suggested that journey to wferk, and the costs involved, along with the cost of residential space, could form the 75 76 base of a model of residential location. On the other hand, Stegman concludes that neighbourhood considerations are more important to residential 77 locators than accessibility to place of work, while Wolforth suggests that distance to work has very l i t t l e effect as a determinant of residential location. Both Beyer^ and Rossi 7^ also agree that location of employment or journey to work i s not a strong determinant of residential location. In fact, a change i n employment i s not seen as a significant factor for most moves within the c i t y . ^ 0 On the other hand, when the focus was turned to occupation, the d i f f e r -ence i n background characteristics exhibited a strong influence on different-i a l choices of the place of residence i n Duncan's study,®1 and, similarly, i n another survey, by Wheeler a dissimilarity index suggested a strong and 82 consistent relationship between occupational status and residential location. 28 However, this points out the importance of socio-economic character-i s t i c s such as income, occupation, and education, on the residential choice. 83 Simmons suggests that socio-economic status, along with l i f e style characteristics and ethnic or r a c i a l identification are the major variables affecting mobility, but contends that li f e - c y c l e i s the most powerful i n -ducement for people to change their place of residence. 8k Contrary to this contention, Butler has evidenced that income and race are the major constraints i n the households selection of a new place of residence, and that variables related to family cycle appear to be weak predictors of the outcome of a residential move. In any event, both income and change i n family structure seem to be 85 of some importance i n the process of changing residential location. Stages i n Family Life Cycle as a C r i t i c a l Determinant of Residential Location. To understand more thoroughly the social behaviour of groups or individ-uals, i t i s suggested that stage i n l i f e cycle be considered instead of age 86 or some other socio-economic variable. Rather than examining birthdays as c r i t i c a l dates, the focus should f a l l on dates in which a change i n family status occurs, for example, marriage or the birth of the f i r s t child i n the family. Evidence does indicate that the l i f e cycle factor i s one of the 87 most powerful inducements to change place of residence. "As a family goes through i t s l i f e cycle, i t s needs for a particular kind of social environment, location, and services change, making a previous-l y satisfactory neighbourhood less so."°° Housing requirements are usually related to the needs of families, as expressed i n their l i f e cycle position, and location i s one of these needs. In fact, of alithe specified things people were looking for i n a new home, location was one of the most important, as were space and design.®9 29 One lengthy stage i n the fimily l i f e cycle i s the one characterized by a married couple with young children, and usually, s t i l l experiencing expanding family size. This particular group attaches positive values to open spaces and closeness to green areas, while disliking crowding, 90 noise, and t r a f f i c as such.^ Lansing also contends that these attitudes underline the importance of parks, open spaces and the careful segregation of land uses i n the planning for a pleasing physical environment. A family's dissatisfaction with i t s neighbourhood i s often the result 91 of a change i n the family status. Where once the neighbourhood environ-ment was suitable for the young couple, i t eventually becomes inadequate with the addition of a child, even before i t reaches school age. In effect, the location of the young couple's home, which previously was preferable because of i t s proximity to entertainment, shops, and transportation points i s unsatisfactory i n light of the new needs and requirements of the family incurred by the addition of a new member. The 10 to 12 years of the family l i f e cycle termed the 'child-bearing 92 period* by Foote et a l i s a period i n which the family adjusts to changing needs resulting from increasing family size with the aid of i t s resources, presumably i t s increasing income. Even though space takes precedence over location, neighbourhood character i s of great importance i n the housing choices of these families. A more residential character than the inner c i t y areas of intensive activity i s sought after, while proximity to a park becomes equally as desirable. With the child gaining more mobility, their welfare outside the home becomes paramount i n importance. Concern over 'safe outdoor running room', •nice playmates', and 'schooling' could manifest i t s e l f i n a house location away from busy streets, i n a homogeneous single family neighbourhood, and only a short walk away from a school. 30 Beyer adds that the 'basic needs', with regard to housing for low income families are not greatly different from the needs of higher income families, and are generally the same for families i n the same stage of the family l i f e c y c l e . ^ Conversely, groups i n different stages of the family l i f e cycle do have different housing requirements. These changing requirements are satisfied by moving to a different location, or occassion-a l l y , by making adjustments within the same house. Housing requirements become more complex with the addition of new members. But, at this point, the stage i n family l i f e cycle and the type of household become more important than the absolute number of family members to be housed. ok In surveying the move to the suburbs, B e l l ^ contends that this i s a search process which aims: for a location where family l i f e may be conducted i n a more suitable manner than i t might i n the inner city. The physical features of the suburbs would better the conditions for children, whether these were toddlers or teenagers. Particularly, the trees, open country, quiet, less t r a f f i c and congestion, along with the kind of people i n the neighbourhood (people of similar backgrounds and social class standing) were a l l attractive to these suburbanites. Michelson, also, states that the hordes of people streaming to the suburbs are induced by considerations of child raising and a desire for a 95 particular style of l i f e . However, the environment's purpose has been served, he notes, when the teenaged child begins topursue peer a c t i v i t i e s outside the home and finds the r i g i d segregation of land uses a major obstacle. The family groups least bothered by a neighbourhood not having a lower noise level, less t r a f f i c , and not being more 'residential' i n land use are the single persons, married couples without children, and households with heads aged 55 96 or over.^ 31 Using Foote's breakdown of the stages i n the family l i f e cycle, the two levels most concerned that residential location reflect a family en-vironment are the child-bearing and child-rearing stage of the median family, as described i n Table III. Although both are representative of the household types found inhabiting row houses, i t i s the former that i s shown to be well 97 represented.-" TABLE III The Median Family and, Housing Cycle Stage of Family Cycle Age of Husband I Pre-child 23-24 (constant size) II Child-bearing 25-34 (expanding size) III Child-rearing 35-44 (constant size) IV Child-launching 45-51 (declining size) V Postchild 52-64 (constant size) VI Widowed wife 61-72 Family Size Median Tenure Rental 3-4 Rental Owned 4-3 Owned 2.5-2 Owned Owned 33 Concepts of Row House Location "At any size, large or small, row housing can exist harmoniously with 99 areas of single-family houses or apartment blocks." However, larger projects containing more than 200 units are able to create their own en-vironment and can positively influence adjacent developments. If these attached dwellings are built i n the right location, are designed to meet local market needs, and are developed with regard to influences of the site, they can prove to be highly successful, while extending the v i a b i l i t y 100 of the community through diversity of housing mix. Location and Market Supply To bring into proper perspective the locational preferences of home seekers, or the demand side of the market, an examination of the supply, or those locations which developers are willing to offer, w i l l be examined. Of primary concern i s the question of cost, and this i s reflected i n the location. According toone Canadian developer: "It may be that for condominiums that cater to people of modest means, the lower the down pay-ment probably the weaker the location could be and you'd s t i l l get by." 1 0 1 However, i t should be pointed out here that the potential of a site i s not only a function of i t s attractiveness and accessibility, but also, the 102 relationship between existing supply and demand. Some developers attempt to provide adequate locations, such as 103 those close to shopping and transportation , those i n proximity to a park or potential playground to lessen the higher density of this type of 10k 105 housing, and those close to schools and other amenities. Yet, some developers do>not perceive location to be of any import-ance. One entrepreneur commented that "where there's a tremendously high demand, any location seems to do," while another noted" i n today's market, i f we've got a site that's got the right 2orring and we've got the mortgage financing,then we can make an instant sales winner of i t . " 1 0 ^ 3k Chamberlain crudely summarized the development process, where i t i s influenced by the planners of a government body, as follows: i ) developers develop where profitable; i i ) planners prepare plans basically to modify, but heavily i n -fluenced by and building on what developers already do; i i ) developers make their development decisions based on their inter-actions with planners, and their knowledge of what planners w i l l accept. He further notes extreme diversity among developers i n their norms or constraints, i n their decision making procedures, and i n other aspects, a l l affecting the decision of choosing development sites. However, regardless of how developers of row housing approach the selection of development sites, whether they attempt to provide certain locational amenities or not, the burden to regulate the su i t a b i l i t y of these locations f a l l s on the municipality and i t s planning department. To further understand the influences on row house location, i t i s necessary to examine these regulatory policies as set out by the two mun-i c i p a l i t i e s under scrutiny. Vancouver Policy A review of policy for the location of low density multiple housing i n Vancouver was completed i n a report i n 1967* Because of numerous re-zonings to CD-I, or Comprehensive Development, i n single family areas, strong opposition had been encountered from owners of adjacent dwellings. In this process i t was noted that "rezoning for such projects had been con-sidered separately on i t s own merits i n what appears to be an 'ad hoc' 109 spot-zoning process." A continuation of the policy was thought to be disruptive of the single family zones and would eventually cause the fragmentation of these d i s t r i c t s within the city. 35 However, the demand for low density, high amenity, multiple accomodation to house young married couples, families with children, elderly, and a l l income groups, in the suburban parts of the c i t y necessitated the use of this type of accomodation. Because no explici t policy for the location of low density multiple housing existed compar-able to the policies of the apartment d i s t r i c t s (BM-2,3,4) the report brought out specific recommendations. It suggested that the location of low density multiple housing could be regulated on a more refined basis than the rezoning approach. A transitional location was recommended for this type of housing, for example, between a single family zone and an area of greater intensity land use, while more compatible developments could be located within a single family d i s t r i c t , i f the residents agreed to such a proposal. Finally, i t stated that high rise apartments should only be permiteed i n apartment zones and recommended against use of CD rezoning i n the sub-urban parts of the c i t y . Yet, after receiving a number of briefs on the aforementioned report on location policy, another approach was proposed. In the 1969 r e p o r t , 1 1 0 the limited use of CD-I zoning for low density multiple housing was proposed, along with the recommendation that rezoning applications for low density apartments (RM-l) be considered when adjacent to d i s t r i c t commercial centres. Rezoning applications i n certain areas of the c i t y were to be l a i d over pending a planning study, while low density multiple housing would be allowed as a conditional use i n the inner areas of the c i t y (both RS-2 and RT-2). In effect, the report stressed the need for more studies of the housing situation and a need for an interim policy. While noting the importance of preserving the amenity of existing single family areas, i t also 36 recognized the increasing demand for low density multiple housing, which resulted from both the lack of, and increasing cost of land for family housing. It was f e l t that the continued use of the CD-I rezoning procedure would retain a f l e x i b i l i t y for considering new forms of multiple family housing. Also, the rezoning process would ensure citizen participation, and a high degree of design control. Suitable sites for this type of housing included portions of the south east sector over 8 acres i n size, particularly, where any such site would have direct access to a major street, while smaller developments, preferably those containing attached dwelling types, would be considered for areas i n the single family d i s t r i c t s . These sites would be at the periphery of established single family d i s t r i c t s , abutting major streets or other land uses not consisting of single family dwellings. Those devlopment proposals fronting a local access route to a single family area would not be considered. In addition, low density multiple housing would also be acceptable adjacent to, or surrounding a d i s t r i c t commercial centre to act as a buffer zone, and also, i n the inner areas of the c i t y , where an injection of good quality housing was considered desirable. However, both of these last proposals were deemed to be economically severely limited by :the relatively high cost of land and the problems of site consolidation. But forth to Council, the report was tabled and eventually the recommendations for amendments to the RS-2 and RT-2 schedule, to allow row housing as a conditional use, were instituted i n the Zoning By-Law, along with the inclusion of an RM-1 d i s t r i c t schedule, specifically for town houses and garden apartment type developments. It wasthe intention of the report to provide Council with guidelines on location for future rezonings of low density multiple housing developments; but, the report was not accepted 37 i n principle, and hence, the CD rezoning policy s t i l l remains, evaluating developments on their own merit i n an ad hoc manner. Burnaby Policy Recognizing that among other things, the low density or garden apartments are designed primarily for family l i v i n g related to park, school and local shopping f a c i l i t i e s , the Municipality of Burnaby compiled, , 111 i n 1969, an overall locational plan for apartment development. Specific-a l l y , this overall plan, implemented through zoning, would ensure that the apartment types were properly related to schools, open space, roads, and other services and f a c i l i t i e s . Of particular importance with regard to the row housing developments, was the relatively larger number of children found i n these apartments than in other types. In addition, the concentrated demand for services and f a c i l i t i e s , the increased t r a f f i c , the lesser ratio of open space per unit and per resident, along with the increased cost of providing services by the municipality, were a l l taken into consideration. However, i t was noted that because of the low density and the i n -creasing land costs, the row house or garden apartment would be less ec-onomical than an apartment building for developers to undertake. Thus, to be economically feasible and competitive these housing projects should be located on vacant or relatively undeveloped land. The overall plan was intended to ensure that apartment areas were located i n proper relationship to other land uses and serve as a policy guide to the Council for the control of future apartment development i n the municipality. In a number of areas i n Burnaby designated for apartment development, as proposed i n the Apartment Study, certain locations were specifically set aside for low density apartment developement (row house or garden apartment). Eventually, three different developments containing town house units were located on the suggested sites, as set out i n the study! 1 2 38 After i t s adoption in principle by the Burnaby Municipal Council i n February Of 1970, the apartment study review began to focus on individual •Community Plans'. Recently the municipality released i t s 'Group Housing Study 1 which 113 focused on low density multiple family dwellings. Row houses and garden apartments were expected to become increasingly popular as alternatives to the single family house which was noted as becoming economically unattainable for numerous families. In relating population characteristics to housing, the report noted that both the families with young children and families with teenage children desired units at ground level with suitably sized outdoor spaces. In addition, nearby public green spaces were considered necessary for families with children old enough to participate, outside the home environment, i n organized sports and a c t i v i t i e s . In this same report, a set of locational factors for group housing was presented. A location which i s easily accessible to schools, particular-l y elementary schools, was considered necessary, while park areas, especially active type playgrounds and related recreational f a c i l i t i e s , were viewed as having equal importance i n terms of accessibility. These developments should also have local or neighbourhood commercial f a c i l i t i e s i n close proximity. Lastly, other accessibility related factors were also recommended, those such as accessibility to cultural and community f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . library, community centre) and public transit services. This report has also been adopted i n principle and the zoning by-law amended to the schedule found therein. Measurement of Attitudes Toward Residential Environment Methods for Measuring Important Factors It has been proposed that dealing directly with persons' residential 39 preferences i s of more use than examining their market choice i n order to Ilk evaluate demand for particular residential environments. This approach has been used i n numerous studies of the residential environment, where mostly op&n-ended questions were used to probe either the specific factors 115 of location, or to e l i c i t more general responses concerning the aggregate factors of location, of social environment, and of those related to the dwelling 116 unit i t s e l f . In this same manner, Rossi, expecting that asking for the important specifications of place of residence would reveal the concerns of that person, asked "What were the important things you had i n mind 117 about a place when you were looking around?" 1 Another method used to ascertain the important factors of a certain lift residential location i s similar to the process of elimination. In this case, however, a l i s t of factors i s provided along with the question so that each variable may be measured. Then, the selection of the most import-ant variables entails eliminating those noted as 'not applicable' or 'doesn't matter' most frequently by the respondents. Steffens, also, included a l i s t of variables i n two questions when asking for the reasons for choosing present location and for reasons with 119 respect to choice of future location. ' In addition, he asked that the most important factors be ranked i n numerical order of significance, which he later correlated to certain background characteristics of the respondents. Using a set of detailed questions, another research group f e l t that 1 PO statements of preference would show something about what i s required. However, they hastened to add that i t i s dangerous to presume that these are completely independent of preferences for other things. But, generally, most studies confront the situation directly with either an open-ended or structured question. For instance, when Zehner asked "When you were looking for a place to li v e what especially appealed 40 to you about coming here?"^ 1 he inferred that frequently mentioned reasons identified the most salient characteristics. Methods for Measuring Residential Satisfaction In his survey, Rossi posed the question "Now about this place, would 122 you say you were satisfied, dissatisfied, or doesn't i t matter to you about., to which he added a selected l i s t of housing aspects, containing both dwell-ing unit related and location variables. He then went on to rank order the complaints, similar to dissatisfaction according to Rossi i n his study, and the proportion indifferent, or the 'doesn't matter' responses. 123 Similar to the above approach, Ravitz selected a number of neighbourhood features and f i t these into a question which related them to degrees of satisfaction, which were 'satisfied', 'don't know1, and 'not satisfied'. The author considered dissatisfaction to be a more sensitive index than satisfaction, and from these two response categories constructed a rank order of dissatisfaction variables, by subtracting the percentage not satisfied from the percentage satisfied, where the lowest'score 1 was the highest priority variable. Keller, also, notes that "the reasons given for l i k i n g a neighbourhood tend to be general and abstract, whereas those given for disliking i t are more specific . . . i l l u s t r a t i n g . . . that i t i s 124 easier to know what one does not want rather than the converse." Stating at the outset that he intended only to record responses and not to construct any complex scaling of the intensity of personal 125 attitudes, Wilkinson simply asked a set of detailed questions to find out i f respondents were satisfied with their present surroundings. In his opinion, expressed attitudes revealed something about satisfaction, but, added that these attitudes were not necessarily independent of attitudes towards other things. in 126 Butler also, l i s t e d the factors of satisfaction and dissatisfact-ion by asking specific questions and then went on to create indices of dissatisfaction, by associating general residential satisfaction with the factors of location and accomodation, among other analytical procedures. Representative of the other approach, the open-ended question, i s 127 that used by Steffens which asks direct satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the present location. These numerous variables are then ranked i n order by frequency of response or percentage responding. After asking for a general evaluation of the area as a place to l i v e , with possible responses from excellent to poor, one survey asked for the 128 major reasons behind the response. The study went on to relate a scale of satisfaction, derived from the above responses, to selected variables, such as accessibility and other factors. A summary ar t i c l e of this research noted that the responses were directed to two scales of the environment, the 129 community and the micro-neighbourhood, while adding that the communities and residents studied were not representative of the f u l l range known to exist, and that because of the newness of some of the areas, the planning and construction of additional community f a c i l i t i e s was s t i l l i n progress. In an earlier study, Lansing 1^ 0 stated that two approaches existed to measure attitudes toward the neighbourhood. Either the expressed likes or dislikes are asked i n a direct question, or certain factors may be studied i n association with favourable or unfavourable attitudes toward the neighbourhood. Dissatisfaction i n Row House Developments Canadian Surveys Even though the results of the National Survey of Condominium Owners1^ included responses from both town house and apartment residents, they are nevertheless a f a i r indication of the general attitude of row house dwellers. k-2 This particular survey used both structured and open-ended questions to examine residents attitudes towards their housing environment, particularly, 133 their likes and dislikes. From a structured question, asking respondents to indicate two features most liked and most disliked about the condominium project, i t was found that 65.3$ favoured location, while the next most frequently stated like was 33*3$ who favoured the provision of patios and balconies. Unfavourable comments were directed towards the recreational f a c i l i t i e s , kOfft, and parking, 40.2$ while location only received 10.6$ of the respondents 13 k disliking i t . However, i n an open-ended question, seeking the likes and 135 dislikes about the project, a much more diverse response was encountered. Another open-ended question was directed at the residents 1 attitudes towards the proximate neighbourhood of the condominium project, and the relationship between the condominium and this neighbourhood. In their analysis of the responses, as i n Table IV, the authors noted that locational factors were most liked and that a significant proportion liked the neigh-bourhood i n general. In addition, they emphasized the preference of con-dominium residents to li v e near areas of better housing and people of higher socio-economic status, while disliking being near lower status people i n public housing projects. This, they explained was due to the fact that condominium dwellers were upwardly mobile and identified themselves more 1^6 with a higher class than with public housing tenants. 43 TABLE IV "What Features do You Like/Dislike About the Neighbourhood i n Which the  Condominium i s Located, and the Relationship Between the Condominium and  the Neighbourhood?*" Like Feature Dislike 28.5$ near services, shopping, near downtown; good 8.7$ location i n general 11.8 like neighbourhood i n general 1.2 9.2 proximity to, quality of neighbourhood schools 2.0 5.8 near single-detached housing, modern housing, .7 areas of higher socio-economic status 9.7 quiet neighbourhddd,privacy i n neighbourhood 4.7 5 .0 near roads, expressway 6.5 4.0 proximity to public transit 6.9 1.1 near old housing, slums, areas of lower 6.5 socio-economic status .2 proximity to public housing 14.4 137 CRA J l However, for our purposes, much of the important data i n Table IV has been neglected i n the analysis. For instance, even though 28.5$ liked the location, and liked being near services, shopping, and downtown, 8.7$ disliked i t . More important though, when comparing the response rates to •near roads, expressways,1 'proximity to public transit,' and 'near old housing, slums' each feature was disliked more often than i t was liked. Also, i n adding the percentages of both responses of each locational factor, i t should be noted that at least 10$ of the residents, i n most cases, found the features important enough to comment upon. Undoubtedly, poorly located developments do exist and these are then unsatisfactory i n certain aspects tothe residents; but, unfortunately, this meaning i s lost i n the presentation of aggregate data which indicates a varied l i s t of location deficiencies for 44 a l l developments collectively, and does not point out specific drawbacks of individual projects. TABLE V Relationship Between Income and Response 1^ to Condominium Location Family Income i n Thousands of Dollars  Under 5- 7- 10- 12- 15- 20-5 7 10 12 15 20 25 Over 25 i> like condominium 60.0 77.6 66.5 66.4 65.5 60.8 52.1 55.6 location <f> dislike condominium 6.7 7.1 6.8 12.3 H«7 H . 8 10.4 22.2 location The authors then went on to show the influence of other variables on the evaluations of residential environment. In relating income and response to condominium location, i t was found that low income groups disliked the location less and liked i t more than the high income residents. The ex-planation assumed that low income people are more impressed by l i v i n g i n the suburbs than the upper class groups, and, i f they are predominantly employed i n suburban areas, are more satisfied than the other groups, which are probably commuting to the cit y core. Greater Vancouver Surveys From raw preliminary data of a study by a United Community Services research group, under the direction of L.I. B e l l , the dissatisfaction with location as f e l t by town house residents i n individual developments i s further exemplified. To the question "Do you presently f e e l : " the "location of shopping f a c i l i t i e s are", "Location of the schools the children attend i s " and "public transportation f a c i l i t i e s i n the area are," the residents responded by selecting an answer from 'very adequate' to 'very inadequate'., With responses ranging from 72$ very inadequate to 82$ very adequate, i n Table VII, the specific l i a b i l i t i e s and assets of individual project locations become apparent. The location of schools seems to be satisfactory to most residents except for those i n development #7, which i s relatively remote to existing f a c i l i t i e s and i s i n an area yet to be f u l l y developed. However, this factor might assume less overall importance to these projects because only families with children would, generally, be concerned with schools. In fact, a f a i r l y large number of respondents were ignorant of the relative location of these, as exhibited by the 'Don't Know1 column of Table VI. TABLE VI Attitude Toward Location of Schools - Percentage Responses Very Very Don't Adequate Adequate Neutral Inadequate Inadequate Know Development ' 7 ' 1.89 22.64 30.19 28.30 13.21 3.77 'A' 14.00 48.00 6.00 18.00 8.00 6.00 «C 84.00 12.00 0 4.00 0 0 'D' 36.17 38.30 6.38 6.38 8.51 0 *E1 43.33 36.67 10.00 3.33 0 6.67 »p» 32.00 38.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 12.00 'J' 100.00 0 0 0 0 0 46 TABLE VII Attitude Toward Location of Shopping - Percentage Response Very Very In- Don't Adequate Adequate Neutral Inadequate Adequate Know Development •7* 0 9.43 5.66 24.53 60.38 0 •A' 0 12.00 4.00 12.00 72.00 0 »C 52.00 44.00 4.00 0 0 0 'D' 8 2 . 9 8 14.89 0 0 2.13 0 «E' I6 .67 30.00 10.00 33-33 10.00 0 • F < 4 .00 28.00 18.00 10.00 40.00 0 'J' 40.00 40.00 0 10.00 10.00 0 Conversely, the location of shopping f a c i l i t i e s , i n particular, i s very important to these residents as evidenced by the small number answering 'don't know', i n Table VII Lastly, the f a c i l i t i e s for public transportation appear to be extremely unsatisfactory i n a l l town house projects, except one. With more than 40$ of the residents, i n most cases, and up to 90$ i n once, answering very i n -adequate to the question of public transportation f a c i l i t i e s , one might expect that this, also, i s an important locational aspect. *7 TABLE VIII Attitude Toward Public Transportation - Percentage Response Very Very In- Don't Adequate Adequate Neutral Inadequate Adequate Know Development •7' 0 1.89 3-77 3-77 90.57 0 •A* 0 0 2.00 14.00 84.00 0 • c 0 12.00 8.00 28.00 52.00 0 'D' 8.51 23.40 17.02 10.64 38.30 0 «E» 13.33 16.67 6.67 20.00 43.33 0 I J I t 2.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 80.00 0 ' J » 0 60.00 30.00 10.00 0 0 Summary Residential location or residential environment may be viewed from different aspects which separately form the basis of a persons attitudes toward the neighbourhood or residential environment. A location may be regarded as a specific site, related to other locations by accessibility, as a physical environment with buildings, open space, and other character-i s t i c s , and as a social environment which produces a 'neighbourhood re-putation' or rank of social prestige. Some housing studies have suggested a complex of locational aspects, while others only differentiate between the house and the neighbourhood. Yet, i n general, the residential location commonly defined as site, physical environment, and social environment, provides an adequate framework for the more detailed examination of the particular factors of location. Location, i t s e l f , i s thought to be as important as, i f not more important than, any particular feature of a house, to a person selecting a place of residence. Some studies have ranked the importance of specific locational aspects such as the quality of the neighbourhood, and accessibility, above kd the features of the dwelling unit. With an equal amount of evidence claiming that housing or dwelling unit characteristics are more important than neighbourhood or location, a general consensus i s impossible to achieve. However, much insight may be gained from the studies suggesting that neither location nor housing features are greater i n importance, but, that both are complementary, along with other considerations, i n major decisions on housing selection. Numerous factors of residential location have been analysed i n housing studies, but, the more important onesn; are recurrent i n most of these. The more important accessibility related factors seem to be nearness to school and to place of work, while proximity to shopping, parks, and recreation f a c i l i t i e s , along with the ava i l a b i l i t y of public transportation play a lesser role. The reputation or type of neighbourhood, the kind of people, the nearness to friends and relatives, and the location as a child environ-ment were cited frequently as social factors, while closeness to open space, and quiet, were important physical environment factors. Equally worth mentioning are the undesirable characteristics of nearby heavy t r a f f i c / -industrial f a c i l i t i e s , or any other obnoxious land use. Certain characteristics of the individual household influence housing choice more strongly than do others, even though housing needs vary from household to household. The stage i n family l i f e cycle as well as the l i f e style of the family members are frequently noted as major determinants of residential location. Thought to be nearly as influential on the f i n a l outcome are the constraints of income and race. Of lesser importance are the journey to work, marital status, age of the head of the household, and previous experience i n a particular environment. To more thoroughly understand the social behaviour of groups of individuals, i t i s considered that stage i n family l i f e cycle i s more valuable than h9 variables such as age or socio-economic status. As a family passes through i t s l i f e cycle, needs for certain services, locations, and social environ-ments change. Specifically, housing needs, of which location i s one, are related to the needs of families, and these change with a change i n family status. The child-bearing period of the family l i f e cycle i s one where a great emphasis i s placed on proximity of schools and parks, nearby open space, and a quiet residential character of the location, while noise, t r a f f i c , and crowding are expressly disliked. Other groups such as single persons, married couples without children, and older couples are dissimilar i n that they are least bothered by not residing i n a neighbourhood environ-ment as described above. However, the locational concerns of these residents should be viewed within the scope of the present determinants and constraints of row house location. Architecturally, row housing could be located within areas of single family dwellings as well as i n higher density apartment areas. The develop-ers, who make the actual selection of these housing sites, usually hold a wide array of opinions on what type of locations are necessary and are feasible within economic constraints. Yet, these developments are under the close scrutiny of planners who also influence the locatiomoT row housing. In addition, municipalities may set out their own ideas with regards to the location of these housing developments through some sort of policy or guidelines. For Vancouver, the policy i s a reactive process where developers apply to Council for rezoning to allow for low density multiple housing and each proposed development i s then judged on i t s own merit. Burnaby, on the other hand, has set aside certain areas within an overall apartment plan, for multiple housing, and development has thus taken place on these sites. 50 To provide satisfactory housing location the locational concerns of the residents should be ascertained. In order to evaluate demand for a particular residential environment a frequently used method i s that of directly asking for persons preferences rather thaatreviewing their market choice. This may be achieved by posing an open-ended or structured question to the respondent. Similarly, to measure residential satisfaction, either the open-ended question, or the structured question, which asks for an evaluation of pre-selected factors, may be used. Evidence does exist that town house developments i n Canada do not provide adequate locations for their residents. From a recent survey of condominium owners, a large proportion of these people cited numerous features of location as being unsatisfactory. Since this information was an aggregate of responses from a l l developments, and, as such, re-flected an overall view of satisfaction, the actual sources of dissatis-faction for any one particular project were probably underemphasized. This last assumption was more or less brought to light i n a local survey of housing developments i n the Greater Vancouver area. Dissatis-faction with particular aspects of location was very pronounced i n a number of row house projects. The findings of these studies are used as a foundation for the more detailed examination of the locational concerns of town house residents i n this survey. 51 Chapter 2 - References and Notes 1 Nelson Foote, Janet Abu-lughod, Mary Mix Foley, and Louis Winnick, Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, New York: McGraw-H i l l Book Co., Inc., i960, p. 186. 2 John B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N. Barth, Residential Location and Urban Mobility, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research University of Michigan, 1964, p. 34. 3 Maurice R. Brewster, W.A. Flinn, and E.H. Jurkat, How to make and interpret locational studies of the housing market, Housing and Home Finance Agency, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1955, P* 50. 4 Peter H. Rossi, Why Families Move, Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free Press, 1955, P- 1 5 C 5 Wallace F. Smith, Housing: The Social and Economic Elements, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971, pp 7-8. 6 Glenn H. Beyer, Housing and Society, Toronto: 3Jhe MacMillan Company, 1965, P. 70. 7 Nina Gruen and Claude Gruen, Low and Moderate Income Housing i n the Suburbs, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972, p. 43. 8 Edward T. Paxton, What People Want When They Buy a House, Housing and Home Finance Agency, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1955, P* 15* 9 Barrie B. Greenbie, New House or New Neighbourhood? A Survey of Priorities among Home Owners i n Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Pilot Project i n Environmental Sciences and Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Madison, Wisonsin, 196©, pp 67-68. 10 Mark D. Menchik, Residential Environmental Preferences and Choice: Some Preliminary Empirical Results Relevant to Urban Form, Regional Science Research Institute, Discussion Paper no. 46, Philadelphia, 1971, P. 2. 11 Roger C. Steffens, Factors Influencing Consumer Choice of Residential Location, University of North Carolina, 1964, pp k~^-k~6~. 12 Simon B. Chamberlain, Aspects of Developer Behaviour i n the Land Development Process, Centre for Urban, and Community Studies, Research Paper no. 56, University of Toronto, 1972, p. 30. 13 Edgar W. Butler et a l , Moving Behaviour and Residential Choice: A National Survey, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 8 l , Highway Research Board, Division of Engineering, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 19&9, P« 19« 52 14 Nelson Foote et a l ; Op_ Cit; pp 180-4. 15 Glenn H. Beyer; OJD Cit; p. 501. 16 Edward T. Paxton; OJD Cit; p. 11. 17 Maurice R. Brewster; OJD Cit; p. 51. 18 Ibid; p. 52 19 Housing for Tomorrow, Graduate Students at the Harvard Business School, Management Reports: Boston, 1964, p. 10. 20 Edgar W. Butler; Ojo Cit; p. 22. 21 Nina Gruen and Claude Gruen; OJJ Cit., p. 43. 22 John B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N. Barth;_0j> Cit; p. 20. 23 Nelson Foote et a l ; 0p_ Cit; p. 184 24 Barrie B. Greenbie; OJD Cit; p. 77. 25 Peter H. Rossi; OJD Cit; p. 82 26 Ibid: 27 Carl Norcross and John Hysom, Apartment Communities: The Next Big Market, Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin 6 l , Washington, 19657 pp 29-76. 28 N. Foote et a l ; OJD Cit; p. 179-29 E. T. Paxton; OJD Cit; p. 15• 30 J. B. Lansing; 0jo Cit; p. 42. 31 B.C. Greenbie; OJD Cit; p. 86 32 Robert B. Zehner, "Neighbourhood and Community Satisfaction i n New Towns and Less Planned Suburbs", Journal of the American Institute of  Planners, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 1969, p. 382. 33 P. H. Rossi; Op Cit; p. 172. 34 R.C. Steffens; 0j> Cit; pp 45-47. 35 G. H. Beyer; OJD Cit; p. 70 36 Wendell Bell, "The City, the Suburb, and a Theory of Social Choice", pp 132-168, i n The New Urbanization, Scott Greer et a l , editors, New York; St. Martin's Press, 1968, pp 153-154. 37 C. Norcross and J. Hysom; OJD Cit; p. 70. 53 38 R.B. Zehner; OJD Cit; p. 382. 39 E.T. Paxton; OJD Cit; p. 15. kO M. R. Brewster; OJD Cit; p. 51 41 J. B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N. Barth; OJD Cit; p. 42. 42 N. Gruen and C. Gruen; OJD Cit; p. 26. 43 E. T. Paxton; 0j> Cit; p. 15. 44 T.B. Brademas, "Fringe Living Attitudes", Journal of the American Institute.of Planners, vol. 22, no 2, Spring 195~~7 0 0 . 75-82. 45 J. B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N. Barth; OJD Cit; p. 37. 46 R.K. Wilkinson and E. M. Sigsworth, "Attitudes to the Housing Environment: An Analysis of Private and Local Authority Households i n Bateley, Leeds and York", Urban Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, June 1972, p. 210. 47 B.B. Greenbie; Op Cit; p. 96 48 R.B. Zehner; OJD Cit; p. 382 49 P. H. Rossi; Op Cit; p. 8 l . 50 W. B e l l ; OJD C i t ; p. 155* 51 C. Norcross and J. Hysom; OJD Cit; p. 70. 52 G. H. Beyer; OJD Cit; p. 70. 53 M. R. Brewster; OJD Cit; p. 51. 54 Ronald R. Boyce, "Residential Mobility and i t s Implications for Urban Spatial Change", Proceedings of the Association of American  Geographers, vol. 1, 1969, P« 23. 55 J.B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N. Barth; OJD Cit; p. 33. 56 G.H. Beyer; OJD Cit; p. 70. 57 M. D. Menchik; Og Cit; p. 15. 58 P. H. Rossi; Op Cit; p. 145. 59 J. B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N. Barth; OJD Cit; p. 37. 60 N. Gruen and C. Gruen; Op Cit; p. 43. 61 G. H. Beyer; OJD Cit; p. 70.~ 62 W. B e l l ; OJD Cit; "p. 154. 54 63 P. H. Rossi; OJD Cit; pp 147-153. 64 W. B e l l ; OJD Cit; p. l47. 65 G. Leslie, "Life Cycle, Career Pattern, and the Decision to Move,v American Sociological Review, vol. 26, no. 6, Dec. 1961, p..894. 66 William H. Michelson, Man and His Urban Environment; A Sociological Perspective, Don M i l l s , Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970, p. 91. 67 C. Norcross and J. Hysom; OJD C i t ; pp 32-5* 68 M. D. Menchik; OJD C i t ; pp 34-6. 69 C. T. Jonassen, "Cultural Variables i n the Ecology of an Ethnic Group", American Sociological Review, vol. 14, no 1, Feb. 1949, P« 38. . 70 B. B. Greenbie; OJD Cit; p. 95. 71 J. B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N. Barth; OJD Cit; £p 37-8. 72 G. H. Beyer; OJD C i t ; pp 283-4. 73 N. Foote et a l ; OJD C i t ; p. 95. 74 S. Goldstein and Kurt Mayer, "Migration and the Journey to Work", Social Forces, vol. 32, no. 4, May 1964, p. 472. 75 John F. Kain, 'The Journey-to-Work as a Determinant of Residential Location." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science  Association, vol. 9, 1962, PP 137-l60. 76 Michael A. Stegman, "Accessibility Models and Residential Location", Journal of the American Institue of Planners, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 1969T P' 22. <77< John R. Wolforth, "Residential Location and Place of Work", Tantalus Research Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. Geographical Series no. 4, 1965. 78 G.H. Beyer; Op Cit; p. 71. 79 P. H. Rossi; OJD Cit; p. 30. 80 R. Boyce; Op_ C i t ; p. 23. 81 Beverly Duncan and Otis Duncan, "The Measurement of Intra-City Locational and Residential Patterns",.Journal of Regional Science, vol. 2, I960, pp 37-5^. .. 82 James 0. Wheeler, "Residential Location by Occupational Status", Urban Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, February 1968, p. 30. 83 James W. Simmons, "Changing Residence i n the City", Geographical Review, vol. 58, no..4, October 1968, p. 628. 55 Ok E.W. Butler; Op Cit; p. 76. 85 R. Boyce; Or> Cit; p. 2 3 . 86 John B. Lansing and L. Kish, "Family Life Cycle as an Independent Variable", American Sociological Review, vol. 2 2 , no. 5 , Oct. 1957, P. 512. 87 J.W. Simmons; Op_ Cit; p. 630. 88 P. H. Rossi; 0p_ C i t ; p. ikl 89 Ibid; p. 153. 90 J. B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and K. Barth; Op_ Cit; p. 37-91 N. Foote et a l ; 0p_ Cit; p. 157. 92 Ibid; pp 101-109. 93 G. H. Beyer; Qp_Citj p. 283. 9k W. B e l l ; Op_ Cit; pp 151-159. 95 W. H. Michelson; OJD Cit; p. 102. 96 E. W. Butler; 0p_ Cit; p. 2 2 . 97 Condominium Research Associates; National Survey of Condominium Owners, Toronto,1970, p. 7 . 98 N. Foote et a l ; Op_ Cit; p. 99* 99 Jack Klein, The Row House, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, 1970, p. 10. 100 Ibid; p. 10. 101 E. Sully, i n "Developers Look at Condominium", Habitat, vol. 12, no. k 1969, P. .30. 102 A. G. Houghton, "The simulation and evaluation of housing location", Environment,and Planning, vol. 3 , no. k, 1971, P' 387. 103 Habitat, "Developers Look at Condominium", vol. 12, no. k-5, 19&9> C. Sharpe, p. 3 5 ' 10k Ibid; G. Bhatia; p. 36 . 105 Ibid; B. Winberg; p. k5. 106 Ibid; G. Denford; p. 3k. 107 Ibid; J. Poole; p. 3 2 . 108 S. B. Chamberlain; Or; Cit; pp k5-k6. 56 109 Technical Planning Board, City of Vancouver, Low Density Multiple Housing Report, 19&9, p. 1. 110 Ibid; 111 Burnaby Municipal Planning Department, Apartment Study 1969, Burnaby, 1969. 112 Ibid; refer to Areas 'D', 'D', and »F'. 113 Burnaby Municipal Planning Department, Group Housing Study, Burnaby, 1972. 114 M D. Menchik; p£ Ci t ; p. i i i . 115 C. Norcross and J. Hysom; Op_ Cit; p. 35. 116 N. Gruen and C. Gruen; 0p_ Cit; p. 43. 117 P. H. Rossi; Or, Cit; pp 153-154. 118 E. W. Butler; pjo Cit; p. 81. 119 R. C. Steffens; Op_ Cit; pp 45-49. 120 R. K. Wilkinson and E. M. Sigsworth; 0p_ Cit; p. 194. 121 R. B. Zehner; Op. Cit; p. 38O. 122 P. H. Rossi; Og Cit; pp 81-85. 123 Mel J. Ravitz, "Use of the Attitude Survey i n Neighbourhood Planning", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 23, no. 4, 1957, PP« 179-183. 124 S. Keller, The Urban Neighbourhood; A Sociological Perspective, New York; Random House, ""1968T 125 R. K. Wilkinson; Og Cit; p. 194. 126 E. W. Butler; Cit; pp 19-22. 127 R. C. Steffens; Og Cit; pp 46-7. 128 John B. Lansing, R.W. Marans, and R.B. Zehner, Planned Residential Environments, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1970; report for U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads. 129 R.B. Zehner; Og Cit; p. 384 130 J. B. Lansing, E. Mueller, and N.Barth; Op Cit; p. 30 131 Condominium Research Associates; 0r> Cit; 132 Ibid; p. 6; only 9$ of the sample were apartment dwellers. 133 Ibid; p. 22. 134 Ibid; p. 25. 135 Ibid: pp 25-26. 136 Ibid; pp 26-27. "-37 Ibid; p. 27. !38 Ibid; p. 33. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS Survey by Questionnaire The basic tool used to gather information for this research was the questionnaire, as found i n Appendix A. Although i t totalled only two pages of questions and one introductory letter, i t yielded more than 80 variables for computer analysis. The major assets and l i a b i l i t i e s of this tecnhique become apparent i n the following explanation. From the f i r s t set of questions, a f a i r l y descriptive profile of the respondent was derived, while the remaining blocks of questions probed the attitudes of town house residents, with regard to importance of, and satisfaction with, certain locational factors of row house developments. The prevalence of structured as opposed to open-ended questions was a result of a number of factors. F i r s t , a structured question i s readily amenable to coding for computer analysis, and second, there i s no room for individual bias affecting the data classification, as there exists i n categorizing responses to open-ended questions for coding purposes. Most Importantly, a structured question does not involve as much time i n answering i t - as does a subjective, open-ended one - and thus, f a c i l i t a t e s ease i n completing the whole questionnaire. Time, i t should be noted, i s a crucial factor to an individual confronted with the task of f i l l i n g i n a questionnaire, and as a result, the easier i t appears, the greater the chances are of a possible response."1" In this sense, the questionnaire was indeed successful, draw-ing a f a i r response rate from the sample. Within the block of questions measuring the intensity of use of certain f a c i l i t i e s and services, the specific factors selected were those extracted from previous research on residential environment and other related topics. The l i s t was expanded to include environmental and social factors i n the 59 question measuring satisfaction, and, i n the f i n a l question on importance, most of the factors were aggregated, again, to be ranked i n numerical order. However, not a l l questions were of the structured form. To reduce the bias of the author i n the selection of factors of location, two open-ended questions were included to e l i c i t possible responses, noting reasons or factors not coincident with those already stated i n the structured questions. The likes and dislikes, also, acted as a check for the responses to the levels of satisfaction, while the reasons of importance for choosing the development provided a relative measure of the importance of location and certain aspects of i t . Regretfully, the space for •Comments * was inadequate, as numerous people took additional time to write out their thoughts, sometimes up to a page i n length, and i n doing so were forced totuse the back of the last page. Selection of Sample The universe from which the sample was chosen was comprised of town and row house developments i n the more urbanized areas of the Vancouver metropolitan region. Those developments containing self-owned units were mainly selected, while an additional two rental projects were purposely included to provide a wider range of locations. Any development under construction was eliminated, as were those which contained only a few units or had been bui l t before the current trend of row house construction, of the late sixties. Consequently, any self-owned town house development built during the current trend was included i n the sample. It was recognized that siting row housing i n built-up and p a r t i a l l y developed urban areas i s a more delicate and complex task than selecting a site i n a bedroom suburb with i t s acres of farmland and undeveloped land, 6o and for that reason Vancouver and Burnaby were both chosen. These same areas would probably experience increasing construction of low density multiple housing in the wake of spir a l l i n g single family dwelling costs. Neither public housing nor upper income leisure-oriented developments were selected. It was the objective of the research to survey those developments catering to family households, particularly with children. This was accomp-lished since each development was typical of the family-oriented environment. To measure satisfaction with various types of residential environments more precisely, the two rental projects were included because their locations included locational aspects not found i n the other-developments. The pre-dominance of family households was a further reason to include these dev-elopments i n the sample. In any event, i t was the purpose of the research to survey the relationship of the residential environment to families, not to renters or owners. Rather than saturate the developments with questionnaires as was done 2 by the Condominium Research Associates, two approaches to sampling were used i n this research. For a l l the larger developments, those containing more than f i f t y units, the systematic sampling technique was employed. From the largest developments, those containing more than 100 units, one-half of these were selected for sampling. For the projects between 50 and 100 units, approximately two-thirds of the units were sampled. These ratios did vary slightly because of unoccupied units and dwellings s t i l l under construction. On the other hand, a similar technique i n the smallest developments would have produced a sample too small for s t a t i s t i c a l tests. Hence, to increase the r e l i a b i l i t y of s t a t i s t i c a l tests each unit i n the smaller projects was included to bolster the sample size. The exact size of the developments and the sample sizes are noted i n Table IX, while their locations are indicated on Figure 1 of Appendix B. 61 TABLE IX Sampling Data Development/location Vancouver: «A' - Marine Gardens •B' - Champlain V i l l a 'C* -De Cosmos Village «D' - Park Place No. of Units 70 132 132 150 Total Vancouver Sample Size ko 65 31 2k5 No. of Returns 27 35 kk 35 Ikl % Return 6856 68$ kl$ 5% Burnaby: »E» - Action Line 'F1 - Holdom-Broadway 'G' - Kneale Place •H' - Montecito 2000 Simon Fraser H i l l s - Phase •I' •J' - Phase II •K1 Phase III 20 20 54 (row kO house and pseudo-row house) 31 31 48(occup- kS ied) l89(comple- k5 ted) (partially I4.5 occupied) (under con- 10 struct!on) Total Burnaby Total Sample 229 klk 11 28 19 31 21 17 6 135 276 55# 70$ 615& 65# kl1» 38$ 60% 58% 62 Distribution and Collection of Questionnaire Because of the close proadmity of individual dwelling units i n town house developments, the situation lent i t s e l f to distribution of the questionnaire by hand. Rather than risking possible wrong addresses, vacant units, and lost mail, these questionnaires were delivered i n person to the selected units. Taking into account the possibility of working households, both husband and wife employed outside the home, the collection schedule for the question-naires alloted at least one morning or afternoon c a l l and one evening or Saturday c a l l for each dwelling unit sampled. In some cases, a third c a l l -back was made to households promising a completed questionnaire during the second c a l l . The f i r s t c a l l was made no less than 2 and no more than k days after the i n i t i a l distribution. The second c a l l was made either upon i n d i v i -dually arranged times with the respondent or according to the schedule. Although no dwelling unit received more than three c a l l s , each development was visited numerous times. The actual return rates and f i n a l sample size are included i n Table IX. The f i n a l response rate, or 58 percent, was achieved by two and i n some cases three c a l l s . In the collection process, i t was observed that the residents of certain developments exhibited a greater willingness to complete the questionnaire than those i n other projects. Although refusal rates varied only sli g h t l y between developments, the number of people showing positive interest i n the study were more prevalent in a few projects. Numerous people i n develop-ment *C, for example, inquired about the study's purpose and readily en-gaged i n discussions on the aspects of multiple-family residences with the interviewer. This openess on the part of the residents might be explained by the fact that these people were members of a co-operative housing project 63 and as such were enthusiastic to relate their experiences i n organizing or becoming an integral part of i t . Also, the spokesmen or 'executive' persons of the condominium owners associations were most responsive to the questionnaire, both in writing lengthy comments and i n relating problems of the developments to the author. Most of these people requested the results of the survey. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures The information gathered was coded, keypunched onto data cards, and analysed by means of the SPSS (St a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences) system of computer programs at the University of British Columbia Computing Centre. To present the data i n a descriptive manner, the Crosstabs program was u t i l i z e d . This not only computed the frequency of responses to certain variables, but also, crosstabulated these with the sample divisions - by city, by development, by cluster, and so forth. In this same process, certain sets of relationships were investigated by the inclusion of additional sta t i s t i c s after the printing of each table. The most common st a t i s t i c used to measure the degree of association of two variables, which i s based on the frequency counts i n the table, i s the chi-square. The c h i -square tests the independence (lack of s t a t i s t i c a l association) between two variables, but, does not measure the degree of association. While the Crosstabs program was adequate i n presenting the data i n a comprehensible fashion, i t was insufficient i n determining actual relationships between variables. To ascertain the influence of income, length of residence, and factors of the stage in family l i f e cycle, on the attitudes toward location, a more sophisticated program was needed. The bivariate correlation analysis was employed for this reason. By 6k measuring the linear relationship between two variables, this program produces a single summary s t a t i s t i c describing the strength of the associa-tion. This 'correlation coefficient', i n effect, enables the researcher to determine the degree of covariation between two variables, by computing the number of observations cn which i t was based and the level of s t a t i s t i c a l significance. Within this program, two procedures were employed. The Pearson Corr, which was suited for normally distributed data with an interval scale, produced zero-order or product-moment correlation coefficients. The Nonpar Corr, on the other hand, was used for data with an ordinal scale, and the results yielded Kendall rank-order correlation coefficients. Social Profile of the Respondents Before the results of the survey are presented, a closer examination of the respondents w i l l be undertaken so that the attitudinal responses may be viewed i n light of the particular characteristics of the sample population. Furthermore, i t w i l l be possible to compare the sample group to the national survey conducted by C.R.A."1' In this same process, the existence of a majority group, found i n a similar stage of the family cycle, might be ascertained or disproven. Because i t was not known whether any differences existed i n social background between the people of Vancouver and Burnaby, these groups were examined separately as well as i n aggregate form. Since the questionnaire did not specify which sex was to respond to the survey, i t was l e f t to the discretion of the household members as to who would reply. Generally, more females answered than did males, i n both Burnaby and Vancouver, but, the difference did not inhibit the further analysis of the influence of sex on the attitudes toward location as presented i n a later chapter. It may be added that this response ratio did not vary greatly between developments. 65 TABLE X Sex of Respondent Vancouver Burnaby Total Sample Male 4 2 . 6 % 4 3 . 0 % 42.8% Female 5 5 . 3 % 55.6% 55 .4% HR (no response) 2 . 1 % 1.556 1.8% The CRA study found 9 3 . 8 % of the households to contain family units. In asking for that information they classified household groups as family, single, widowed, and other. The respondents in this study, however, were asked their marital status, categorized as married, single, or other (div-orced, separated, widowed, etc.). In comparison of both, the difference between married and family appears substantial, yet, i f i t i s recognized that numerous respondents to the 'other* category i n this study indicated that they were raising a family, the difference may be negated. It i s quite l i k e l y that single adults, separated after marriage, yet raising children, responded to the 'family' category i n the CRA survey, but were not able to do so i n this questionnaire. Of special interest i s the fact that this type of accomodation i s not oriented to the single adult, as the 3*3% response indicates. TABLE XI Household Type and Marital Status Vancouver Burnaby Total Sample CRA (p.6) Married 8 2 . 3 % 8 8 . 9 % 8 5 . 5 % 93.8% (family) Single 2.8% 3-7% 3-3% 2.9% Other lU.9% 6.7% 1 0 . 9 % 1.7% NR 0 . 7 % 1.2 (widowed) 66 A marked difference i s found between the number of two person households i n the CRA study and the number i n this study. Specifically, fewer households i n Vancouver contain only two people while those i n Burnaby contain more than the Vancouver sample, yet, both have much less than the national survey, which accounted for 32$. This might be ex-plained by the fact that the CRA study included apartment condominiums, which do not have the same family groups as town houses. The proportion of 1, 3, a n d 4 member households i s similar to that found by the CRA, but, the percentage of 5 member households i s nearly double that noted by the national study. This, again, may be attributed to the dilution of the CRA sample by the responses of apartment residents. TABLE XII Persons per Household 1 2 3 4 5 or more m Vancouver 0 14.2$ 29.1$ 32.6$ 24.1$ 0 Burnaby 2.2$ 24.4$ 23.7$ 22.2$ 25.9$ 1.5$ Total sample 1.1$ 19.2$ 26.4$ 27.5$ 25.0$ •7$ CRA (p. 9) 3.6$ 31-7$ 27.6$ 23.9$ 13.0$ .2$ In the vast majority of cases, the head of the household was either working or unemployed (other), but, rarely was he retired. Although some of these residents may have purchased this type of accomodation with the intention of making i t a place for their retirement, the present situation indicates that these housing developments i n Burnaby and Vancouver are not being used as such. 67 TABLE XIII Employment Status of Main Breadwinner Working Retired Other Vancouver 93-6% 2.1% 4.3% Burnaby 95-6% 1.5% 3.0% Total sample 94.6% 1.8% 3.6% The age groups of the male head of the household for the sample were very similar to the national survey, except for two cases. Many more males of the 25-29 age group were found to inhabit condominiums on the national scale, than i n the local sample. The situation reverses i t s e l f when the 35-39 age bracket i s examined. Here, the local sample shows twice as many household heads as the national sample. Classifying the groups by Foote's stages of the family l i f e cycle, more than half the national sample (58%) are found i n the child-bearing stage, 25-34 years, while this study only revealed 43% i n that group. Con-versely, the national sample shows less than 20% i n the child-rearing stage, 35-44 years, while this sample indicates more than one-third of the families at this stage. Hence, while the national sample i s well represented by families i n the child-bearing l i f e cycle period, the local sample i s more representative of both child oriented stages, the child-bearing and ch i l d -rearing periods. In comparing the c i t i e s , the data shows many more young household heads below the age of 29 i n Vancouver, 32.6%, than i n Burnaby, 23%, and conversely, more males aged 30-44 i n Burnaby, 53«3%> than Vancouver, 40.4%. 68 TABLE XIV Age of Male Household Head Vancouver Burnaby Total Sample CRA(p. 7) Less than 25 9.2$ 3.0$ 6.2$ 8.9$ 25-29 23.4$ 20.0$ 21.7$ 32.9$ 30-3 k 18.4$ 24.4$ 21.4$ 24.6$ 35-44 22.0$ 28.9$ 25.4$ 11.9$ (35-39) 45-51 9.2$ 8.1$ 8.7$ 6.8$ (40-44) 52-64 7.1$ 9.6$ 8.3$ 9.1$ (45-64) 65 and over 1.4$ 0 .7$ .6$ NR 9.2$ 5.9$ 7.6$ 5.2$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ Nearly one-third of the households i n Burnaby have no children, while Vancouver households with no children t o t a l only one out of seven. The other major difference i s the larger number of two child households i n Vancouver. TABLE XV  Number of Children per Household 0 1 2 3 or more NR Vancouver 14.2$ 24.1$ 34.0$ 27.0$ • 7$ Burnaby 29.6$ 20.7$ 21.5$ 27.4$ .7$ Total sample 21.7$ 22.5$ 27.9$ 27.2$ .7$ CRA. (p. 8) 38.8$ 23.7$ 23.9$ 13.6$ 0 With almost four out of ten households childless, the national sample i s double the local sample i n that respect, but, f a l l s short of the greater number of households with two or more children found i n this sample. 69 TABLE XVI Age Groups of Children Vancouver Percentage of Households Responding to each Age Level Years 0 - 5 6 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 5 l 6 and over 40.4% 41.1% 27.7% 14.9% Burnaby 34.1% 25.2% 24.2% 18.5% Total Sample 37.3% 33.3% 26.1% 16.7% Clearly, from the above table, the younger the children, the more prevalent they are i n these developments. Even though one out of every three households contains young children under the age of ten, the fact that at least one-quarter of these residents have older children should not be overlooked. While there i s no sure way of generalizing on the c r i t i c a l age of children when they become mobile, i t i s assumed that the 11-15 age group i s more mobile than the 6-10 category, and w i l l seek outside acti v i t i e s more frequently than the latter group. Interestingly enough, one out of every six households contains older children, over 16 years of age, those whose potential mobility i s very high. Although more than half the households reported children attending school, a large proportion of the households, nearly 30% i n Vancouver, con-tained children not attending school. In emphasizing the importance of proximity to schools for these chil d -oriented developments, i t should not be overlooked that a large majority of these children could need pre-school f a c i l i t i e s , because of certain family conditions, such as both parents working. 70 TABLE XVII Number of Children Attending School per Family NA 0 1 2 3_ (not applicable) NR Vancouver 29-8$ 20.6$ 18.4$ 16.3$ l k . 2 $ .7$ Burnaby 24.4$ 16.3$ 12.6$ l 6 . 3 $ 29.6$ .7$ Total sample 27.2$ 18.5$ 15.6$ l 6 . 3 $ 21.7$ «7$ Playgrounds found inside the housing development are most frequently used by children as play areas. Because the Vancouver children make more use of public parks than their Burnaby counterparts, i t would seem that this i s possibly a function of the nearness or ava i l a b i l i t y of park areas. On the other hand, Burnaby children are more apt to play i n other places, which were inferred to be vacant lots or undeveloped bush or treed properties adjacent to or near these housing sites. The closer examination of results by development i n the following chapters should c l a r i f y these points. TABLE XVIII Childrens* Use of Park/Playground Areas Percentage Responding to F a c i l i t y Most Frequently Used Play Areas Nearby NR 2.9$ 8.1$ 5.5$ Even though the national sample was taken more than two years ago, the profile of length of occupancy is remarkably similar to this study sample. Minor variations do exist between the half-year intervals, but, these are lessened when the data is aggregated to differentiate those residing i n the development more than one year from those less than one year. In both samples, approximately two thirds or more of the respondents had inhabited their home for less than i n Project Public Parks Other Places m Vancouver 49.6$ 17.0$ 16.3$ 14.2$ Burnaby 26.7$ 5.9$ 29.6$ 29.6$ Total Sample 38.4$ 11.6$ 22.8$ 21.7$ 71 12 months. TABLE XIX  Length of Occupancy Months 7-12 13-18 19-24 2 yrs. or more NR Vancouver 51.1% 25.5% 12.8% 9.2% • 7% i-75 Burnaby 34.1% 17.8% 21.5% 5.2% 2i .5% 0 Total sample 42.8% 21.7% 17.0% 7.2% 10.9% M CRA (p. 17) 32.3% 42.6% 19.6% 4.3% 1.2°, Because the possibility existed that condominium owners might lease their units, the extent of this practise had to be ascertained i n order to determine the possible effects of this on attitudes. Disregarding the actual rental units i n the sample, i t was evidenced that only a few con-dominiums had been rented out by their owners. However, i t must not be forgotten that the sample does include a substantial number of residents who are renting their accomodation. TABLE XX  Tenure of Dwelling Unit Percent Total No. of Rented No. of Units i n Owned Rented Units Condominium Units Rental Projects Vancouver 75.9% 23.4% 141 6 27 Burnaby 81.5% 18.5% 135 14 11 Total Sample 78.6% 21.0% 276 20 38 In general, the respondents of the national sample were of a higher income bracket than these respondents, but, without the weighting of a price index, this comparison i s not as exact as i t might be. However, i f the older sample was already of a higher income Category 3 years ago, then i t i s safe to assume that this difference does exist, i f not accentuated i n this i n f l a t i o n -ary period. 72 TABLE XXI Family Income $,000 - less then 5 5-6.9 1-9-9 10-11.9 12-14.9 Over 15 NR Vancouver 7*1% 15.6% 44.7% 9.2% 10.6% 6.4% 6.4% Burnaby 2.2% 11.1% 19.3% 14.1% 17.0% 29.6% 6.7% Total Sample 4.7% 13.4% 32.2% 11.6% 13.8% 17.8% 6.5% CRA (p.12) 1.3 7.6% 23.6% 22.4% 23.9% 21.2% 2.4% The more extreme difference i s found between the Burnaby and Vancouver samples. The modal income level for Burnaby i s $15,000 and over, while Vancouver's i s 7 to 10 thousand dollars. While more than two-thirds of the Vancouver residents have incomes less than ten thousand dollars, an almost equal number of households i n Burnaby have more than this amount. The difference i n income levels between the residents of the two c i t i e s i s reflected i n the cost of the individual dwelling units, where the majority of Vancouver units were less than twenty-one thousand and most of those i n Burnaby were more than this. As with comparing income levels over a period of three years, the same danger applies to contrasting dwelling unit cost without the use of a price index mechanism. TABLE XXII Cost of Dwelling Unit - (in thousands of dollars) Less Than 16- 21- 26- 31 and 16 20.9 25.9 30.9 Over NR NA Vancouver 14.2% 57-4% • 7%. 0 0 5-0% 22.7% Burnaby 12.6% 5.2% 22.2% 30.4% 9.6% 3.0% 17.0% Total Sample 13.4% 31.9% 11.2% 14.9% 4.7% 4.0% 19.9% less than 17- 21- 25- 31 and IT 21 over NR CRA(P. 46) 8.8% 46.5% 28.8% 12.5% 3-2% 2.2% 73 In comparing the employment status of wives, no real difference exists between the Vancouver and Burnaby population but, seemingly, more women were found to be working f u l l time i n the national sample than i n the local study. This dissimilarity i s caused by the classification of responses to,the original questions i n the surveys. Whereas the CRA com-bined both working wives and female heads of the household i n the ' f u l l time* group, this study differentiated between them and included the female heads of the household in the not applicable category. Hence, the NA (not applicable) and the ' f u l l time' responses of this study combined, more closely approximate the national sample's ' f u l l time' classification. TABLE XXIII Employment Status of Wife Not Employed Employed Part Time Employed F u l l Time No Response Not Applicable Vancouver 13.5$ 17.0$ 5.7$ 16.3$ Burnaby 48.1$ 11.1$ 29.6$ 3.7$ 7.4$ Total Sample 47.8$ 12.3$ 23.2$ 4.7$ 12.0$ CRA 46.5$ 12.4$ 38.3$ 2.8$ _ Responses to commuting time appear to be concetrated within the one-half hour interval, while the numbers drop off sharply after 45 minutes. A relatively minor difference i s noted for the 31-45 minute interval, with more Burnaby residents u t i l i z i n g this amount of time to travel to work. 74 TABLE XXIV Journey to Work Time of Main Breadwinner Time i n Minutes Less 15- . 31- 46- Over Than 15 45_ 6p_ 60 NA NR Vancouver 14.9$ 57-4$ 11.3$ 5.7$ 3.5$ 2.1$ 5.0$ Burnaby 17.0$ 45-9$ 24.4$ 3-7$ 1.5$ 2.2$ 5.2$ Total Sample 15-9$ 51.8$ 17.8$ 4.7$ 2.5$ 2.2$ 5.1$ Commuting to work, by private automobile i s the favoured mode of travel i n both areas, while car pools and other means (walking, etc.) of transport are methods used very infrequently. There exists, though, a relatively heavy reliance on bus transportation by Vancouver residents, as compared to the insignificant amount of people using buses i n Burnaby. TABLE XXV  Journey to Work Mode  Percentage Using Car Car Pool Bus Other NA NR Vancouver 75.2$ 3.5$ 14.2$ 1.4$ 2.1$ 3.5$ Burnaby 89.6$ 1.5$ 1.5$ 2.2$ 2.2$ 3-0$ Total Sample 82.2$ 2.5$ 8.0$ 1.8$ 2.2$ 3.3$ In brief summation, this study sample is very similar i n social character-i s t i c s to the national sample as researched by the CM. These households may be typified as being family groups with three or more members per household, including a working head of the household, aged 25 to 44. Most .'Will have at least two children, and the majority of these w i l l be of pre-school or elementary school ages. The family incomes present a broad range of classes, yet, a great many families find themselves i n the $7 to 10 thousand bracket, 75 while another large segment earns more than this. Less than half of the wives work, and most of these occupy f u l l time positions. Yet, differences between the two samples do exist and the most prom-inent of these are the income levels and the stage i n family l i f e cycle. The family groups i n this study could be approximately categorized as follows: 13% no children; i n child-bearing period; male head of the household less than 35 years of age. 9.1% no children; past child-bearing stage; male head over 35 years old. 1+0.3% with children; i n child-bearing period; male head less than 35 years old. 25.2% with children; in child-rearing stage; male head 35 to kk years of age. 12.4% with children; child-launching stage; male head over k5 years of age. While i t could have been valuable, to analyse the locational concerns of families with direct regard for the child-bearing stage, i n the national sample, where this group comprised a large majority of a l l residents, i t would not have been so i n this sample which did not even-reveal a majority of family households i n that stage. The child-rearing stage was, i n fact, almost as great i n numbers as the aforementioned group. Hence, any analysis i n this study would most assuredly need to focus on both child-bearing and child-rearing stages of the family l i f e cycle, as well as including the chiId-launching stages. 76 Chapter 3 References and Notes 1 D.C. Miller, Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 2nd edition, New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1970, pp 57-58. 2 Condominium Research Associates, National Survey of Condominium Owners, for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, 1970. 3 Norman Nie, D.H. Bent, and CH. Hull, S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences, Toronto; McGraw-Hill book Company, 1970. k Condominium Research Associates; Or, Cit. 77 CHAPTER k RESULTS OP THE SURVEY To provide a foundation for the analysis inthe following chapters, and to emphasize the key elements of the survey, the results of the question-naire are presented here. Use of Services and F a c i l i t i e s The frequency of use of a certain f a c i l i t y can provide a relative measure of i t s overall importance to the residents of these projects. From the responses shown i n Table XXVII, a number of services are rarely used by the t o t a l sample. Day care centres, medical f a c i l i t i e s , recreation and enter-tainment f a c i l i t i e s are not weekly or daily needs to the vast majority of row house residents. Shopping f a c i l i t i e s , both local and major centre type, are, on the other hand, used without f a i l at least once a week by 75$ of the respondents. Bus transportation i s well used by Vancouver residents, but, less so by the people i n Burnaby. The following table indicates, use of bus service by any member of the family. Vancouver Burnaby Never 12.8$ 13-3$ TABLE XXVI Use of Bus Transportation Hardly Once Per Once Once No Ever Month Per Week Per Day Response 20.6$ 26.7$ 13-5$ 7.4$ 20.6$ 11.9$ 29.8$ 14.9$ 2.8$ 5.9$ This difference might be explained after examining the responses to sat i s -faction of nearness to bus stop and quality of service, to be undertaken i n a later chapter. Similar differences were noted for the use of parks and 78 TABLE XXVII Use of Facilities/Services Hardly Once Per Once Per Once Never Ever Month Week Per Day NR Local Stores 3.6% 8.0% 6.9% 64.9% 14.9% 3.6% Large Shopping .4% 4.3% 19.6% 71.0% 2.2% 2.5% Centres Bus Transportation 22.8% 23.6% 10.5% 16.3% 22.5% 4.3% Day Care Centre 72.1% 3.6% .7% 1.8% 8.0% 13.8% Medical/Health Services 13.8% 37*0% 34.4% 2.5% 0% 12.3% Public Parks/ Playgrounds 13.5% 30.1% 15.6% 21.4% 12.0% 6.5% Recreation 16.7% 19.2% 15.9% 24.6% 3.3% 20.3% Entertainment 3.6% 2.9% 4.3% 5.4% 1.8% 8 l . 9 % Community Centre 34.8% 18.5% 7.2% 14.1% 2.2% 23.2% 79 community centres, with Vancouver residents making greater use of both f a c i l i t i e s . Satisfaction with Residential Location The satisfaction with residential location, which was measured by the evaluation of numerous factors, i s displayed i n Table XXVIII for Vancouver, and Table XXIX for Burnaby. Satisfaction with the location of schools, medical f a c i l i t i e s , place of work, recreation and entertainment, and with the type of people i n the surrounding neighbourhood, was f a i r l y high i n both Vancouver and Burnaby. Nearness to a bus stop and the quality of bus service was a source of dissatisfaction for the Burnaby residents, while the proximity of major shopping centres was not as satisfactory to the Vancouver sample. The differences i n satisfaction with the location of parks, community centres, obnoxious commercial and industrial f a c i l i t i e s , and local stores, was more a function of the sitetof each development than of the particular municipality. Lastly, responses to noise and t r a f f i c vary with the clusters of dwelling units within the development, rather than between developments. Importance of Locational Factors From these same tables of residential satisfaction, i t i s possible to derive a ranking of the relative importance of individual factors, as done i n a previous study. 1 This was done by ranking those variables mentioned least often as 'not applicable 1 or 'doesn't matter'. The ranking by percent-age responding 'doesn't matter' to factors i n this study i s presented i n Table XXX. Shopping f a c i l i t i e s seem to be of primary concern to row house residents, followed by proximity to bus stop, exterior noise, distance to parks, and place of work. Of least importance i s the kind of people i n the surrounding area. 80 TABLE XXVIII Satisfaction with Residential Location - Vancouver Doesn't No Dissatisfied Matter Satisfied Response Nearness to Schools/ Day Oare 7.1% 14.9% 72.3% 5.7% Nearness to Place of Work 12.8% 22.3% 56.7% 8.5% Noise from Adjacent Streets 20.5% 15.6% 56.7% 7*1% T r a f f i c on Adjacent Streets 35.5% 18.4% 39«7% 6.4% Obnoxious Industry 9.2% 19*9% 59-5% 11.3% Obnoxious Commercial Activity 5.6% 21.3% 61.7% 11.3% Nearness to Public Parks 5-0% 9«9% 78.8% 6.4% Nearness to Local Stores 38.3% 8.5% 49.0% 4.3% Nearness to Shopping Centres 22.7% 11.3% 59-5% 6.4% Nearness to Community Centre,; 8.5% 21.3% 63.1% 7.1% Nearness to Bus Transportation 11.4% 7.1% 75-9% 5.7% Quality of Bus Service 29.0% 16.3% 49.7% 5-0% Nearness to Adult Recreation 12.8% 24.1% 56.0% 7-1% Nearness to Children's Recreation 8.5% 9.9% 6 l . 0 % 20.6% Nearness to Medical Services 22.0% 22.0% 49.0% 7»1% Type of People 6.4% 32.6% 51.8% 9*2% 81 TABLE XXIX Satisfaction with Residential Location - Burnaby Doesn't Ko Dissatisfied Matter Satisfied Response Nearness to Schools/ Day Care 9.7% 32.6% 51.9% 5.9% Nearness to Place of Work 13.3% 13.3% 66.7% 6.7% Noise from Adjacent Streets 35.6% 17-0% 44.4% 3.0% Traffic on Adjacent Streets 25-2% 20.7% 50-3% 3«7% Obnoxious Industry 16.3% 24.4% 52.6% 6.7% Obnoxious Commercial Activity 16.3% 20.7% 55*6% 7.4% Nearness to Public Parks 20.0% 25.2% 51.1% 3.7% Nearness to Local Stores 19.3% 9-6% 69.6% 1.5% Nearness to Shopping Centre 5-9% 4.4% 86.7% 3-0% Nearness to Community Centre 11.9% 40.7% 39.2% 8.1% Nearness to Bus Trans-portation . 23.7% 23.0% 49.6% 3.7% Quality of Bus Service 46.6% 23.7% 24.4% 5.2% Nearness to Adult Recreation 11.8% 27.4% 54.8% 5.9% Nearness to Children's Recreation 12.6% 28.9% 39.3% 19*3% Nearness to Medical Services 18.5% 21.5% 53.3% 6.7% Type of People 3.7% 32.6% 55.5% 8.1% 82 This ranking can also be compared to the numerical ranking of selected variables specified i n the questionnaire. As noted i n Table XXXI, nearness to schools was the most frequently cited f i r s t reason, and also, the most frequently mentioned in the f i r s t three most important reasons; yet, many people stated that this factor did not matter to them with regards to residential satisfaction. This can be explained by the fact that families with children perceive this locational amenity to be very important, where-as to those without children, this factor does not affect their residential satisfaction at a l l . Although the numerical order of the variables i n Table XXX i s not the same as i n Table XXXI the relative position of these factors remains the same. Nearness to shopping, work, bus stop, and the noise and t r a f f i c on adjacent streets are areas of primary concern, while the distance to parks and the closeness of obnoxious commercial and industrial f a c i l i t i e s are of lesser importance. Found to be least important were nearness to community centre, recreational f a c i l i t i e s , and medical f a c i l i t i e s , along with the type of people or housing in the surrounding neighbourhood. Up to this point, a l l of the data presented has been in response to structured questions containing pre-selected factors of residential location. This information, as was already noted, may very well be slanted to the author's biases. However, to provide a check, the responses to the open ended questions are presented here, without alteration. Subjective Responses of Residents Numerous reasons for choosing the particular town house development were evidenced i n the results, and for the sake of comprehensibility, were aggregated as much as possible, without losing the essence of the individual reasons stated. These factors were then further grouped into the more general TABLE XXX 83 Relative Importance of Individual Factors Factor Percent Responding 'Doesn't matter" Nearness to Major Shopping Centre 8.0 Nearness to Local Stores 9.1 Nearness to Public Transportation Ik. 9 Noise from Adjacent Streets 16.3 Nearness to Parks YJ.k Nearness to Place of Work 17.8 Nearness to Children's recreation 19.2 T r a f f i c on Adjacent Streets 19.6 Quality of Bus Service 19.9 Nearness to Medical F a c i l i t i e s 21.7 Obnoxious Industry 22.1 Obnoxious Commercial Activity 21.0 Nearness to Schools/Day Care 23.6 Nearness to Adult Recreation 25.7 Nearness toCommunity Centre 30.8 Type of People i n Area 32.6 TABLE XXXI Ranking of Factors by Importance Response to Feature by 1 Total Location Feature Position of Importance Response 1 2 1 Near schools/day care 79 36 18 133 Near place of work 43 41 23 107 Near open space/green areas 34 25 27 86 Away from noise/traffic 24 29 24 77 Near bus transportation 11 27 28 66 Near shops/stores 6 23 37 66 Away from obnoxious f a c i l i t i e s 15 23 27 65 Near public parks/playgrounds 5 7 23 35 Area of single family houses 11 9 5 25 Near friends/relatives 6 4 8 18 Near recreation/entertainment 1 4 12 17 Near medical/health services l 5 5 11 Near a community centre 1 4 3 8 Other 4 1 2 7 Response from to t a l sampileof 276 1. Each feature was ranked 1 to 14 i n order of importance. The tot a l response tathe f i r s t three positions i n the ranking (in absolute figures) i s shown. 2. Total number of responses to feature i n f i r s t three positions. 85 categories of accessibility, cost-related, environmental, social, dwelling unit related, development related, and other reasons, as shown i n Table XXXII. As was suggested i n previous studies, cost related factors weighed most heavily i n people's minds when choosing their particular development. Also, coincident with other studies, the importance of location was re-flected by the numerous times accessibility was cited as being a major reason. Both dwelling unit anddevelopment related factors were mentioned less often than accessibility. Unexpectedly, social aspects were cited only slightly more often than development related factors which were least mentioned. An equal number of people to those citing social factors, mentioned environmental quality as being a determinant of the f i n a l selection. However, when comparing the importance of individual factors or reasons (as i n Table XXXII) i n the open-ended questions to that of the pre-selected variables i n the structured questions, a difference i n the type of locational factor i s encountered. While proximity to place of work was the only variable of high importance i n the previous rankings found to be of similar importance i n the open-ended question, most of the other factors which related to accessibility were surpassed by more abstract social and environmental aspects of location. For instance, nearness tffshopping, recreation f a c i l i t i e s and parks were a l l noted to be of lesser importance in the decision to choose a specific development. More influential were the pleasant surroundings or locale, the child-oriented and family related environment, the less congested, industrialized, and polluted environment, and the rusticity, remoteness and open space of the area. Only was nearness to schools a reason of equal importance i n the open-ended question responses. 86 TABLE XXXII Reasons for Choosing a Particular Development Percentage of Respondents Reasons Citing Factor Economic 55•8 reasonable price/cost 43.1 financing 12.7 Accessibility 48.2 close to work 17.4 general accessibility 9«1 close to school 7«2 in/near Vancouver 7-2 close to shopping 5'1 close to recreation/entertainment 1.4 close to park .8 Dwelling unit related 30.4 layout/design 14.2 space 7.2 other 9.0 Physical environment - 22.0 pleasant surroundings/locale 11.2 open space, rustic, remote 5*7 less congestion, t r a f f i c , industry, pollution 5«1 Social 20.5 child/family related 13.3 other (neighbourhood, etc.) 7»2 Location (unspecified) 20.4 Development related 17.6 Other 16.6 87 The more specific aspects of location were revealed i n asking the residents what they especially liked or disliked about l i v i n g i n the area. Although this question could have received responses dealing with the neighbourhood, the city, the metropolitan area, or even the larger regional area, the general trend of the responses indicated an evaluation of a local or neighbourhood area. Because the boundaries of individuals' communities or neighbourhoods are different, i t was the intention of the question to leave these undefined, so that a person could indicate the important factors within any spatial sphere, as long as these were of primary concern to him. As indicated i n Table XXXIV, the largest proportion of factors cited as being liked were accessibility related ones, while the number of environ-mental features was also very high. In fact, both 'quiet' and 'open or green spaces' were mentioned more often than any accessibility related factor. Some of the environmental variables are very abstract, such as 'better surroundings 1 or 'more residential i n character, not as dense as apartment li v i n g ' , while others are tangible as evidenced by mentions of 'more trees' and 'less t r a f f i c , industry and pollution*. Yet, again, social factors were cited very infrequently, with the most important aspect being the child-oriented environment of the development. Upon examination of the particular dislikes of these residents the situation i s greatly altered. If i t i s agreed that dissatisfaction or 2 dislikes are a more sensitive measure of attitudes, and that people are able to define their dislikes more readily than their likes^, then the information i n Table XXXIV i s of great importance. The concern for environmental amenities i s exemplified by the large proportion of responses to the features of the physical environment. 88 TABLE XXXIII Ranking of Most Important Reasons for  Choosing a Particular Development Percent responding to rank Reason (in ; numerical order of importance) 1 2 3_ reasonable price/cost 27-9 11.2 4 . 0 good location (unspecified) 6.2 9 . 1 5 . 1 close to work 6 . 9 8 . 3 2 . 2 layout/design of unit 5.1 4 . 0 5 . 1 other development related 4 . 3 6.5 3 .3 child/family related 5 .4 3 . 6 4 . 3 financing 8 . 3 3-3 1.1 pleasant surroundings/locale 2 . 9 4 . 0 4 . 3 a v a i l a b i l i t y 6.5 1.8 1.1 dwelling unit space 2.5 3 . 6 1.1 general accessibility . 4 3 . 6 5 .1 other dwelling unit related 2.5 2 .5 4 . 0 social/neighbourhood related 4 . 7 1.1 1.4 location in/near Vancouver 1.4 4 . 8 1.8 close to school •7 2 . 9 3 . 6 open space, rustic, remote 1.4 1.8 2 .5 less congestion, t r a f f i c , industry . 4 2 .5 2 .2 close to shopping 0 2 .2 2 . 9 development f a c i l i t i e s . 7 1.4 1.4 close to recreation/entertainment 0 • 7 . 7 close to park 0 . 4 . 4 other 0 1.8 5-4 Same data as Table XXXII TABLE XXXIV Features Most Liked About Residential Area Percentage Response Accessibility close to stores 12.3 close to parks 12.0 close to work 10.9 central/convenient location 10.9 other accessibility aspects 7*0 close to schools 6.2 bus transportation 4.7 close to recreation/entertainment 3*7 Physical Environment quiet open space/green areas trees less t r a f f i c , industry, pollution more residential, not like apartments better surroundings Social Environment child related environment 8.0 friendliness of people (similar background) 3«2 community l i v i n g appealing 2.9 privacy 2.6 General location (undefined) 10.9 Development aspects recreation f a c i l i t i e s 2.6 other f a c i l i t i e s .8 other development aspects 2.2 Other 18.8 15.2 13.8 6.2 6.1 5.0 2.6 TABLE XXXV Features Most Disliked about Residential Area Percent Response Physical Environment noise ( t r a f f i c ) from streets 13.4 heavy t r a f f i c on adjacent streets 9.2 congestion/too dense 8.3 pollution 3.7 obnoxious industrial/commercial f a c i l i t i e s . 1.8 dirty surroundings 1.8 Accessibility inadequate public transportation (bus) 14.5 other (too far to work, etc.) 9.5 too far to stores 8.4 Social Environment neighbours 10.5 inadequate supervison of pets 9.5 poor child, family-related environment 5.8 lack of privacy 2.9 Development related 8.4 Dwelling unit related 3.9 Other (no f a c i l i t i e s for teenagers, no community centre, etc.) 1.8 91 Noise from traf f i c , and the heavy t r a f f i c i t s e l f , are two of these variables. Accessibility, i t seems, i s not a major source of dissatisfaction, for i n fact, i t i s only slightly more disliked than social factors, which through-out the study, have played a minor role i n the satisfaction and importance of location to row house residents. Invariably, the factors receiving the highest responses of dis-satisfaction i n the structured question are the same ones noted i n the open-ended question on dislikes. Noise from t r a f f i c , heavy t r a f f i c , distance to local stores, the proximity, of obnoxious industrial f a c i l i t i e s , and the inadequate public transportation system, were factors of high dissatis-faction i n answers to both questions. To this l i s t , the residents added a few, more abstract, items, including congestion of the housing area, dirty surroundings, and unsuitable environment for children. However, a criticism made i n an earlier chapter may also be levied here. The aggregate responses are insufficient for any i n depth examination of the actual problems of developments and can only provide a general conception of the extent of the shortcomings with regard to location. Yet, i t i s this aggregate data which enables the analysis i n the next chapter to focus on the specific factors causing dissatisfaction i n the individual developement. 92 Chapter k References and Notes 1. E.W. Butler, Moving Behaviour and Residential Choice, Highway Research Board, 1969, p7 8 l . 2. M.J. Ravitz, "Use of the Attitude Survey i n Neighbourhood Planning", JAIP, vol. 23, no. k, 1957, p. 182. 3. S. Keller, The Urban Neighbourhood: A Sociological Perspective, New York, Random House, 1$6&~. 92 a CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENTIAL LOCATION It has been hypothesized in this study that poor locations of town house developments i n the Vancouver area are causing dissatisfaction among the residents. To ascertain what the actual sources of dissatisfaction were, each development was analysed by comparing the level of satisfaction with each locational feature to the proximity or presence of that feature. Yet, the possibility also existed that the responses to satisfaction were also a function of the social background or characteristics of the individual respondents. For this reason, a number of independent variables, selected from the social profile data of the survey, were correlated to the responses to satisfaction to determine any significant relationships. Satisfaction with Accessibility Factors From the satisfaction tables in the previous chapter, a number of important factors have been selected for a more detailed examination. A l -though each factor was s t a t i s t i c a l l y cross tabulated with each development, only the more important findings are summarized. In comparing each developments level of satisfaction with nearness to a park to the actual distance to the park, a definite relationship becomes evident. The greater the actual distance to the f a c i l i t y , the greater i s the level of dissatisfaction, and the lower the level of satisfaction as indicated by Table XXXVI. The closest park to Vancouver developments 'B', •C, and 'D', i s found i n the municipality of Burnaby. Although this is a developing area and a local park i s planned for the town house projects, the high level of satis-faction with location of parks for these people i s due to this unplanned circumstance, since no existing Vancouver parks are located nearby. TABLE XXXVI 93 Satisfaction with Nearness to Park and Actual Distance to Park Approximate Distance Percent Percent Number Development to Park(feet) Dissatisfied Satisfied Responding 500 2.3 83.2 44 'H« 600 12.9 64.5 31 •B1 800 2.9 82.8 35 •E' 800 9-1 81.8 11 •D' 1,000 8.6 77-1 35 •A' 1,400 7-4 51.8 27 'G' 2,000 15.8 63.2 19 >F • 2,300 21.4 28.6 28 • J ' 2,700 18.8 50.0 17 •I' 2,700 36.9 52.7 21 9h On the other hand, the highest dissatisfaction was encountered i n Burnaby developments ' I 1 , 'J', and 'K'. The public park which i s to service this resdiential area has not yet been created, and hence the resident population i s forced to travel a distance longer than expected to reach these f a c i l i t i e s . Also unexpected i s the lower level of dissatisfaction found i n develop-ment 'A', which i s reflective of the spot zoning location policy, as compared to the more planned Burnaby developments 'F1, 'G', and 'H'. It should be noted here that temporary park f a c i l i t i e s are available nearby for residents of 'H', but, this area i s also s t i l l under development. The majority of residents are satisfied with distances less than one thousand feet, but, after one quarter of a mile the levels of dissatisfaction increase quite rapidly. For developments *B', 'C, and *D' i n Vancouver, dissatisfaction with the proximity of local stores was widespread and higher than in any other project. Even though a proposed commercial centre i s under construction i n this area, i t i s s t i l l more than half a mile from the housing sites and w i l l not effectually reduce the distance to a satisfactory level as noted i n Table XXXVII. The spot-zoned location of development 'A' was adjacent to commercial f a c i l i t i e s and, hence, proved to be satisfactory, while two of the planned locations i n Burnaby, 'G* and 'H*, received frequent complaints. For those in fH', the situation w i l l improve with the addition of a commercial complex in the immediate area, but, the people i n the former project are forced to travel to another neighbourhood for minor shopping needs. 95 TABLE XXXVII Satisfaction with Nearness to Local Stores and Distance to Local Stores Approximate Distance to nearest convent Per cent Per cent Number Development ience Store(in feet) Dissatisfied Satisfied Responding (n) 'A' 300 7-4 77.8 27 ip i 1,200 14.3 82.2 28 'E' 2,000 0 100.0 11 'H' 3,600 25.9 58.1 31 'D' 3,6oo 48.5 37.2 35 •J» 4,000 18.7 62.5 17 •I' 4,000 26.4 68.4 21 'B' 4,000 42.9 45.7 35 • c 4,200 45.4 43.2 44 •G' 4,400 31.6 59.1 19 96 Satisfaction with Features of Physical Environment It was noted i n Chapter k that certain environmental factors were a major source of dissatisfaction for people i n row housing, and that two of the more disliked features were the presence of obnoxious commercial and industrial f a c i l i t i e s i n the residential area. Industry, i t i s generally-agreed, is not a desirable activity i n residential locations, and i s , for the most part, an obnoxious neighbour. On the other hand, some commercial f a c i l i t i e s are not necessarily undesirable i n areas of housing, as i s evidenced by the presence of the ubiquitous neighbourhood convenience store. Yet, knowing that gas stations and other similar f a c i l i t i e s do not convey the same sense of residential neighbourhood as described above, the use of the term obnoxious was adopted to define undesirable commercial a c t i v i t i e s . An extreme case of an industry located near row housing i s borne out by site 'E' i n Burnaby. Here, the industrial plant faces the front side of the development, which i s located on the opposite side of the street, and runs the f u l l length of this street, so that each dwelling unit directly faces this f a c i l i t y . It was not unexpected that most of these residents were dissatisfied, and, more importantly, none were satisfied (see Table XXXVIII). At the other extreme i s the relatively low level of dissatisfaction with the presence of industry observed i n Vancouver developments *B', 'C, and *D', which are f a i r l y remote in this aspect, lithe same situation are the planned unit projects 'I', 'J', and 'K' i n Burnaby, which are not close to industry, but, because some of these plant f a c i l i t i e s remain within sight of the housing area, the responses to dissatisfaction were slightly higher than encountered i n the former area. Another seemingly remote project 'H1, i s actually only a short distance from an a i r polluting industry, which probably 97 TABLE XXXVIII Satisfaction with Presence of Obnoxious F a c i l i t i e s Industrial F a c i l i t i e s Commercial F a c i l i t i e s Lopment Percent Percent Dissatisfied Satisfied Percent Dissatisfied Percent Satisfied 'A' 37.0 33-3 11.1 51.9 'B' 5-8 62.8 8.6 62.8 • c 2.3 61.3 2.3 54.6 •D' 0 74.3 2.9 77.1 »E' 72.8 0 18.2 45.5 ip i 14. 3 39-3 35.7 21.4 •G' 5-3 52.6 42.1 31.6 'H' 19.2 80.7 3.2 90.3 •I' 5.3 53-6 0 68.4 f J ' 12.5 k 3 . 8 6.2 56.3 98 accounts for the relatively high level of dissatisfaction of i t s residents, With similare conditions, and also within visual range of several industrial f a c i l i t i e s , development 'A' was also deemed to be unsatisfactory, i n this respect, by i t s residents. Being located across a major artery from industry did not cause any great dissatisfaction to the people i n developments 'F' and *G', because of the buffering effect of the road. Extreme dissatisfaction with obnoxious commercial f a c i l i t i e s was observed only at two sites. In both locations, an automobile service station abutted the residential development. As indicated by the responses of the residents i n developments *F' and *G', this i s a highly undesirable situation. An indication of the acceptability of specific commercial f a c i l i t i e s i s noted when the dissatisfaction level i n development 'A' i s compared to that of 'F' and ,G'. Although the former site abuts a small commercial complex of stores and apartments, i t seems to be less unsatisfactory than the gas stations located adjacent to the latter projects. Yet, the most disliked features of the physical environment were -the noise from adjacent streets and the heavy t r a f f i c on these streets. By dividing each development into clusters of units, the variations i n level of satisfaction for each group of dwelling units were observed (see Table XXXIX). In each development, those units fronting a major street were those which produced very negative responses to satisfaction with the amount of t r a f f i c on adjacent streets. However, even those residents i n clusters buffered by other units from these roads were not entirely satisfied with the situation, as indicated by the relatively low levels of satisfaction recorded i n the table. In any event, the location of dwelling units along a major artery cannot produce a satisfactory residential environment for family l i v i n g with children, especially when these are young children who are extremely vulnerable i n this type of situation. 99 TABLE XXXIX Satisfaction with Traf f i c on Adjacent Streets Cluster Adjacent To Street Other Clusters Percent Percent Percent Percent Development Dissatisfied Satisfied n Dissatisfied Satisfied n •A' 81.9 18.2 11 33.3 kk.k 16 'B' 42.9 57-1 7 10.7 k6.k 28 •c 52.2 13.0 23 31.2 50.0 21 28.6 28.6 7 25.0 57.2 28 tF» 74.2 12.5 16 33.3 33.3 12 'G' 21. 4 35.7 14 20.0 40.0 5 TABLE XL Satisfaction with Noise from Adjacent Streets Cluster Adjacent To Street Other Clusters pment Percent Dissatisfied Percent Satisfied n Percent Percent Dissatisfied Satisfied n •A' 72.8 9.1 11 28.6 71.4 16 «B' 14.3 42.9 7 7-1 77-9 28 •c 3 k . 7 26.1 23 12.4 87.5 21 'D' 42.9 42.9 7 14.3 78.6 28 75.0 6.2 16 25.0 33.3 12 'G' 78.5 7.1 14 40.0 20.0 5 1 - For developments adjacent to an a r t e r i a l street 100 On the other hand, dissatisfaction with noise (Table XL) was less pro-nounced than dissatisfaction with t r a f f i c i n clusters away from the road. Evidently, noise i s not as primary a concern as i s heavy t r a f f i c . This might be attributable to the fact that noise does not affect those i n the sheltered clusters of the developments as i t does those residents of dwelling units adjacent to the street emitting noise; but, heavy t r a f f i c i s not only an inconvenience, but an ever-present hazard to a l l persons crossing or entering i t , no matter what cluster they reside i n . Dissatisfaction with noise and t r a f f i c was not exclusively characteristic of one particular municipality, but, was common to both. Taking into consideration the l i a b i l i t i e s of each individual development, no existing project provides a completely satisfactory residential location i n the opinion of i t s residents. Each site, whether i t was located i n Vancouver or Burnaby, had many negative aspects of location. It i s evident that major sources of dissatisfaction with residential location are present in each development. Although some locations did prove to be satisfactory i n many respects, dissatisfaction was ever-present when a detailed examination of the residential environment was undertaken. Influence of Social Variables on Satisfaction However, the possibility s t i l l remains that the responses to satisfaction are also a function of other factors, such as the social characteristics of the individual residents. Particularly, the level of family income, the number of people i n the household, the length of occupancy of the unit, or the sex of the respondent, among other things, could have influenced the responses to satisfaction. Generally, the difference between males and females, responding to satis-TABLE XII 101 Correlation Coefficients Satisfaction With Locational Features Correlated With Locational Feature Length of Residence Level of Family Income nearness to local stores .142 .173 nearness to schools .085 -.185 nearness to bus transportation .076 -.211 nearness to shopping centres .035 .235 nearness to medical services .023 - .001 nearness to place of work -.019 .133 nearness to a community centre -.021 -.166 quality of bus service -.038 -.119 nearness to childrens recreation -.087 -.213 kind of people in neighbourhood - .088 -.087 nearness to adult recreation -.119 -.099 nearby commercial f a c i l i t i e s -.128 -.097 t r a f f i c on adjacent streets -.155 .032 nearness to public parks -.156 -.218 noise on adjacent streets -.263 -.099 102 faction with location, was negligible. Similarly, the size of the household, the age of the head of the household, and the number of children, showed no significant relationships. None of the factors produced any particularly significant relationships, but, the length of occupancy of the unit and the level of family income did show a general direction of a possible relationship. Apparently, the longer the duration of occupancy of the residence the lower i s the level of satisfaction for a number of features of location, as exhibited i n Table XLI. Of notable importance i s the fact that satisfaction with noise has a comparatively high negative correlation to the length of residence, as do a l l 'physical environment1 aspects. On the other hand, the accessibility factors correlated both negatively and positively, but, always showing weaker relationships. Level of income was also negatively related to satisfaction with numerous features of location, but less strongly than with the former variable. In sum, the responses to satisfaction with residential location have not been influenced to any extent by any one particular variable, and, because of the wide variations between developments, are probably reflective of the primary concerns of the residents. However, the important factors of location are analysed i n the following chapter with direct regard for the stages of the family l i f e cycle. 103 CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF LOCATIONAL CONCERNS Since different housing needs are experienced by families i n different stages of the family l i f e cycle, i t has been hypothesized that these needs w i l l be reflected i n location and that young families with children, i n particular, w i l l exhibit dissimilar locational concerns to those of other family groups. However, because i t was revealed i n the results of the survey that child-bearing families do not comprise a majority of the residents of row housing, a greater amount of attention w i l l be focused on the other stages of the family l i f e cycle, particularly the 'child-rearing* and 'child-launching' periods. For the sake of simplicity, three stages were constructed using the age categories for the head of the household, as noted earlier i n the study. These are: 1 child-bearing stage - one or more children, head of the household less than 35 years old. 2 child-rearing stage - one or more children, head of the household aged 35 to kk years. 3 chiId-launching stage - older children, age of the household head over k5 years. and also, k young family - no children, head aged less than 35 years. 5 older couple - no children, head aged 35 years or over. Each of these family groups were crosstabulated with the frequency of use of certain services and f a c i l i t i e s . 104 No major differences i n usage pattern were found between these groups for medical and health services, recreation and entertainment f a c i l i t i e s , or even major shopping centres. The only expected difference was that for the use of day care f a c i l i t i e s , but, even here, a small number of c h i l d -rearing families were found to use this i n addition to those i n the c h i l d -bearing period. A notable difference exists i n the frequency of use of local convenience stores. More than one-fifth of the child-bearing families u t i l i z e this service daily, while a lesser number of the other two family groups use i t this often. The non-child families, i t appears, use i t least often. Conversely, nearly half of the families i n the child-launching stage use public transportation daily, while this frequency of use decreases to one-third i n the child-rearing and to one-fifth i n the child-bearing stages. Again, childless families use the bus service least often. There i s an equal use of parks by families with children, with more than one-third v i s i t i n g them at least once per week. On the other hand, child -less households use them rarely. The most significant difference between family groups is that concerning the use of community centres. More than kofo of the child-rearing families use them on a weekly basis, while only one f i f t h of the child-bearing and 17 percent of the child-launching families do so. It becomes evident that major differences exist i n the daily needs of these residents, especially between families with children and those without. Lesser dissimilarities occur between the other l i f e cycle stages. With approximately four out of five families having at least one child, the importance of these f a c i l i t i e s becomes apparent. The local convenience store, public transportation service, park f a c i l i t i e s , and a community centre are well used by these family groups. 105 Importance of Environmental Features As much as these accessibility related factors are important to families with children, certain environmental features were shown to be of equal importance to a l l households, when the stages i n the family l i f e cycle were crosstabulated with responses to the most important factors. Hearby open space and green areas, away from noise and heavy t r a f f i c , and away from obnoxious commercial and industrial f a c i l i t i e s , were factors mentioned numerous times by a l l household types, as being either f i r s t , second, or third in importance. Although nearness to shopping, place of work, and bus transportation were also of prime importance to a l l households, only families with children considered proximity to schools to be a v i t a l feature. On the other hand, childless couples cited location within a single family neighbourhood and nearness to friends and relatives as being among the f i r s t three most import-ant location features. As hypothesized, the young family with children, at the child-bearing stage of the l i f e cycle, does place different amounts of importance on certain features of residential location than do other l i f e cycle groups. However, the real difference in attitude toward residential location exists between the childless married couples and the families with children. The locational concerns of both the aforementioned groups diff e r with regard to the actual features of residential location, while the family l i f e cycle groups only vary i n intensity of response to certain features. Yet, the question s t i l l remains as to whether these responses to location are more highly correlated with stage i n family l i f e cycle or with some other social variable. If locational concerns are related to particular stages of the family l i f e cycle, then certain locational amenities could be accounted for i n the process of selecting sites for proposed housing developments. 106" A number of variables, considered to be important i n previous studies, were correlated with the attitudes toward residential location and with the frequency of use of f a c i l i t i e s and services. Before these correlation coefficients are examined, i t should be noted that the numerical value of the coefficient (in this case Kendall^ tau) may be relatively small i n spite of what appears to be, upon inspection, a moderately strong relationship. 1 Family Life Cycle as an Independent Variable When the family l i f e cycle variable, as defined at the beginning of the chapter, was correlated with the frequency of use of certain services and f a c i l i t i e s , as i n Table XLII, very few significant relationships were observed. The only relationships of any importance were those with the use of a community centre and the use of public transportation. This has a l -ready been evidenced i n the crosstabulated data, where the families with older children used both of these f a c i l i t i e s more frequently than the younger families, while the childless couples used them least often. Yet, the correlation of the number of children per household by the frequency of use produced even higher coefficients. Not only did the use of a community centre and bus transportation exhibit relatively significant relationships, but, also, the use of parks appeared to be related to the number of children. The other factors, as i n the previous correlation, produced relatively insignificant relationships. The level of family income, the number of people i n the household, and the age of the head of the household, among others, were correlated to the frequency factors, but did not produce coefficients as significant as the aforementioned two variables. Only the level of income created some interest-ing relationships. While the use of medical, recreation, entertainment and 107 TABLE XLII Frequency of Use of Services/Facilities  Correlated With  Stage i n Family Life Cycle Service/facility community centre .270 bus transportation .226 local parks .15k local stores .122 recreation . m entertainment . 073 medical/health services .048 day care/nursery .026 large shopping centres .022 TABLE XLIII Frequency of Use of Services/Facilities  Correlated With  Number of Children per Household Service/facility public parks/playgrounds .383 community centre .308 bus transportation .221 local stores .183 recreation .169 day care/nursery .154 entertainment .086 medical/health services .072 large shopping centres - .047 109 TABLE XLEV Frequency of Use of Services/Facilities Correlated With  Level of Family Income Service/facility entertainment . 077 large shopping centres .057 recreation .051 medical/health services .035 local stores -.059 day care/nursery - .068 community centre -.114 public park/playground --117 bus transportation -.152 110 major shopping f a c i l i t i e s are positively related to income, the remaining variables produce negative relationships. It might be conjectured that higher incomes are associated with the lesser use of parks, community centre ^  bus transportation, day care services, and local convenience stores. In the correlations with the relative importance of the location factor, the only notable results were produced with the family l i f e cycle variable, the number of children per household, and the level of family income variable. Positive relationships with the family l i f e cycle variable were created by the correlation of the importance of nearness to schools, parks, and community centre, while the remainder of the dependent variables showed negative associations. However, only nearness to school had a relatively significant relationship to family l i f e cycle. These same dependent variables, the importance of nearness to school, park, and community centre were also positively correlated to the number of children i n the household, while the others produced negative coefficients. The importance of nearness to school exhibits a f a i r l y strong positive relationship. Here, as i n the correlations with the frequency of use of services and f a c i l i t i e s , the number of children per household produced higher co-efficients, on the whole,than did'.family l i f e cycle. From Table XLVII i t might be construed that higher incomes are associated with a higher degree of importance conferred upon a location away from noise and t r a f f i c , and away from obnoxious commercial and industrial f a c i l i t i e s . The nearness of place of work, recreation, and open spaces, along with the presence of single family houses i n the neighbourhood also produced positive relationships. While locational concerns are related to stage i n the family cycle, as observed from the crosstabulated data, the number of children i n the household i s a more sensitive indicator of these as noted i n the results of the non-I l l TABLE XLV Relative Importance of Locational Factor  Correlated With  Stage i n Family Life Cycle Locational factor near schools/day care centres .331 near a community centre .060 near public parks/playgrounds .055 near bus stop/public transportation -.003 near recreation/entertainment - .029 near place of work - .038 away from obnoxious f a c i l i t i e s -.072 near shops/stores -.079 near open space/green areas - .084 near medical/health f a c i l i t i e s -.097 away from noise and t r a f f i c -.122 within single family area -.173 near friends/relatives -.176 TABLE XLVI Relative Importance of Locational Factor  Correlated With  Number of Children per Household Locational factor near schools/day care centres .576 near public parks/playgrounds .163 near a community centre .150 near bus stop/public transportation - .006 near medical/health f a c i l i t i e s -.017 near recreation/entertainment - .068 near place of work - .099 away from obnoxious f a c i l i t i e s -.152 near stores/shops -.157 near open space/green areas -.171 near friends/relatives -.210 away from noise and t r a f f i c -.234 within a single family area -.273 TABLE XLVII Relative Importance of Locational Factor  Correlated With  Level of Family Income Locational factor away from noise and t r a f f i c away from obnoxious f a c i l i t i e s near open space/green areas within a single family area near recreation/entertainment near place of work near public parks/playgrounds near medical/health f a c i l i t i e s near a community centre near friends/relatives near shops/stores near bus stop/public transportation near schools/day care centre 114 parametric correlations. In both the correlation with frequency of use and the correlation with the most important factors of location, the number of children per household produced higher coefficients than the family l i f e cycle variable. Hence, the importance of viewing location from the perspective of family l i f e cycle stage of the residents, particularly when focusing on the child-bearing stage, should not be overemphasized. F i r s t of a l l , the large majority of families or households i n the row housing under study i s not reflective of the child-bearing family, but, i s a composite structure of this type of family, the child-rearing family, and the chiId-launching family. Secondly, the attitudes toward residential location are more highly correlated with the number of children in the household than with the family l i f e cycle variable. 115 Chapter 6 References and Notes 1 Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics, Toronto: McGraw-Hill book Company, i 9 6 0 , p. 323. Blalock produced an example where tau equalled .268 when the relationship from observation appeared to be moderately strong. 116 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The location of row housing i n the urban area, as opposed to the suburban area, i s a complex process which has, yet, to account for the locational concerns and preferences of the residents. This fact has been realized i n the high levels of dissatisfaction, i n these projects, over certain features of the residential location. With the increasing development of low density multiple housing, of which the town house i s the most popular at present, there has been a great-er concern expressed over their location. One municipality has taken pos-i t i v e steps and has defined specific locational standards and areas for row housing, while the other i s not commited to any particular policy and tends to deal with this type of development i n piecemeal fashion. Yet, whatever these public policies have attempted 1D achieve, they have not created satisfactory residential environments for the families l i v i n g i n many of these developments. It has, thus, been the purpose of this paper to suggest that, among other considerations, the locational con-cerns and preferences of row house residents be recognized i n any site select-ion for future development. The following general summary attempts to familiarize the reader with the type of people residing i n row housing and to reflect their attitudes on residential location as revealed i n the survey. The Residents A large proportion of the households i n row house developments are family groups at the child-bearing stage of the l i f e cycle. However, this group does not constitute the bulk or vast majority of the residents, as previously expected, since the families i n the child-launching and child -117 rearing stage of the family l i f e cycle comprise nearly an equal number of households. The latter group, i n fact, accounts for one-fourth of the to t a l . With approximately four out of five dwelling units containing chil d -ren, and a slightly higher ratio i n certain developments, the child-orient-ation of these housing projects i s self-evident. This i s further exempli-fied by the fact that only a few per cent of the residents are single or retired, and only a slightly larger proportion are married couples without children, of which half are s t i l l i n the child-bearing stage and could s t i l l raise children. Although the residents are not wholly reflective of the young expand-ing family, they are not by any means an older population. The majority of household heads are less than 35 years old, while only a small percentage are over forty-four years of age. The predominance of the young family i s also evidenced by the fact that nearly half of the dwelling units contain children who are not more than five years old. These town house developments i n Burnaby and Vancouver are not comprised of single persons or retired people, nor are there many childless couples. Thus, to suit the requirements of the vast majority of residents, these develop-ments would ideally need to be suitable environments for children. Satisfaction The analysis of each development indicated the particular sources of dissatisfaction and revealed the general attitude toward these locational features. No single housing site was void of any major locational disadvantage and many had a number of inadequacies. Those locations which were more than one quarter of a mile from a park had high levels of dissatisfaction, while those less than one thousand feet from this f a c i l i t y showed that the majority of residents were satisfied. In 118 a similar fashion, a number of complaints were directed toward convenience stores which were too distant to a number of developments. A very undesirable situation was observed at a number of developments which were located close -to>an obnoxious commercial or industrial f a c i l i t y , one that i s incompatible with a residential area i n the opinion of the residents. An industry located adjacent to a housing site evoked the greatest protest, while those industries within visual range, but s t i l l f a i r l y distant, were not deemed to be as unsatisfactory. I f however, a distant industrial f a c i l i t y was a source of ai r pollution the effects were realized i n the dissatisfaction expressed by neighbouring residents. Commercial f a c i l i t i e s were also unsatisfactorily located tithe opinion of many residents of a few row house projects. Specifically, gas stations which abutted the housing sites received the greatest amount of dissatis-faction, while other f a c i l i t i e s such as stores, were not as heavily c r i t i c i -zed. Stores appear to be more desirable, and possibly more compatible than f a c i l i t i e s emitting noise and odours and presenting a less attractive appear-ance, such as gas stations. Yet, the most disliked locational features i n most developments were the noise from t r a f f i c , and the heavy t r a f f i c i t s e l f , on adjacent streets. Although the whole development was generally dissatisfied, the residents i n the cluster of dwelling units facing the road were most annoyed by the noise and heavy t r a f f i c . The other clusters, sheltered from the road, i n many cases, by the exposed cluster, did not exhibit as high a level of dis-satisfaction. Even i n the case of a berm buffering the adjacent cluster from the road, the residents i n the closest dwelling units were s t i l l very dissatisfied. The seriousness of this problem was reflected i n the comments of one respondent who stated that the windows of the dwelling unit facing the street were never opened because of the intolerable noise and fumes 119 from motor vehicles. This same family expressed a desire to move as soon as possible to an area better suited for the upbringing of their children. The social background did not particularly influence the level of satisfaction, but, the length of residence i n the development did show a minor relationship to satisfaction. Apparently, the longer the period of occupancy, the greater was the dissatisfaction with most locational features. Although the level of income showed nearly as many negative relationships with satisfaction, these were far weaker than those produced by the former variable. The Family Life Cycle While the families i n different stages of the l i f e cycle d i f f e r i n their intensity of use of certain f a c i l i t i e s and services, the childless couples apparently do not even use these same f a c i l i t i e s . Each stage of the family l i f e cycle used a specific f a c i l i t y more often than the other stages. The child-bearing families used local stores most often, the child-rearing households used a community centre most frequently, and bus transportation was u t i l i z e d by a very large proportion of the child-launch-ing families. Only the parks were used equally as often by families, with children, i n each stage. Proximity to the aforementioned services and f a c i l i t i e s , along with nearness to a school, was of major importance to most families with children. Childless households, on the other hand, were more concerned with nearness to friends and relatives and with having a neighbourhood comprised of single family dwellings. Almost a l l households noted nearness to stores, bus transportation, and place of work as being of major importance. The family l i f e cycle variable was not as sensitive as the number of children per household as an indicator of the locational concerns of residents. 120 The l i f e cycle variable did, however, produce more significant relationships than the other social variables such as level of family income or age of the head of the household. As previously stated, the real difference i n attitude on location exists between the childless couples and the families with chil d -ren. Implications for Planning Although there i s no method which conclusively measures the success of a location by the satisfaction of i t s residents, the serious shortcomings of many of the town house locations i n the survey preclude any observation of the t o t a l success of these. In many instances, the major sources of dis-satisfaction were also the locational factors noted to be most important by the residents. The problems with these locations are not those of minor i n -conveniences, but, of major defects, not only with accessibility but also of the physical environment. The necessity of driving to the nearest convenience store i s not only inconvenient,but, a major obstacle to families without a car. This problem i s compounded i f bus service i s infrequent or even non-existent i n the immed-iate area. For the mother with a young child at home and without the use of a car during the day, which i s typical of many row households, the t r i p to a convenience store, more than half a mile away, i s a real predicament. It has been generally recognized that playgrounds provided i n town house developments do l i t t l e more than accomodate the 'toddlers' or youngest child-ren. The older children, seeking peer group a c t i v i t i e s , preferably i n organ-ized games or sports ac t i v i t i e s are forced to look outside the housing pro-ject. Knowing that a great deal more than one-third of the households contain older children the demand for play areas within walking distance of the hous-ing project must be great, especially i n the larger developments. But, un-121 fortunately, even park f a c i l i t i e s are located more than one-quarter of a mile away from a number of these developments. Planning for the compatibility of land uses has long been a practice of municipalities interested i n creating liveable environments. In many cases though, these row house developments have been located adjacent to highly incompatible commercial and industrial activites, and have caused a great amount of dissatisfaction for the residents. An automobile service station which may involve nocturnal operation i s the source of air , noise and visual pollution and i s not a desirable neighbour to people seeking a quiet, less polluted, more residential environment. Numerous residents commented that they had previously lived i n more congested, higher density apartment areas of the city, and because of an expected addition to the family had relocated i n an environment thought to be more amenable to raising children. The same criticism applies to nearby factories which destroy the residential character afneighbourhoods, with their noise, f i l t h , nocturnal activity, obnoxious odours, and visual pollution. Granted, a distant i n -dustrial f a c i l i t y which creates only visual pollution or a i r pollution must be accepted as a necessary e v i l , but, when these industries are so close that they are totall y obnoxious, this becomes an undesirable situation to families who are especially concerned about the environment. Yet, the most serious locational flaw of many of these developments i s their location next to a major t r a f f i c artery. As much as i t reduces t r a f f i c on local access streets t single family areas and, presumably, permits quicker access to the major street system, i t creates intolerable conditions for many residents l i v i n g next to the street. In fact, the noise and heavy t r a f f i c are highly disliked by most of the residents. Not only i s the heavy-t r a f f i c a hazard to a l l younger children i n the nearest cluster of dwellings, 122 but, i t also destroys the quiet residential character by emitting, i n some instances, intolerable amounts of noise. The very features that most young families were seeking i n their residential environment - quiet, less congestion, t r a f f i c and pollution, nearby open spaces and green areas, more residential i n character - i n order to raise their children, were lacking i n many of the developments. If i t i s recognized that the single family dwelling i s becoming more unattainable because of the scarcity and cost of land, the cost of servicing, construction costs, and other factors, then there should be an increasing demand for alternative housing to the single family dwelling. One of these major alternatives is the row or town house. If the residential location of future row house development proves to be unsatisfactory to the residents, i t i s not inconceivable that these families w i l l desire a better environment which most closely approximates a single family area and w i l l use the row house as a stepping stone to achieve this. In effect, the poorly located town house development may not provide a satisfactory alternative to the single family dwelling and i t s environment, and may perpetuate the demand for single family homes, leaving the row house developments inhabited by a more transient population using i t as interim housing. More often than not, families i n row house developments have locational preferences similar to those of families l i v i n g i n single family areas. I f this i s the case i n Vancouver, then public policy should strive to ensure that the location of row housing be as satisfactory as the location of single family residences. It i s not the duty of the private developer to provide a sa t i s -factory location, but only to achieve an expected rate of return on his invest-ment. Thus, to prevent the development of row housing in undesirable areas, the municipality must set out certain guidlines for location, to be followed by the entrepreneur i n the site selection process. 123 If a municipality were able to increase the desirability of row housing by improving the residential environment or location to suit family l i v i n g requirements, i t could very well reduce the demand for single family dwellings as family accomodation, and, thus, relieve the pressure on the already scarce land i n the urban area. Recommendations The results of this survey reveal various aspects of the residential environment of row housing which demand attention. The major recommendations which could decrease the high levels of dissatisfaction with residential location are summarized below. If at a l l possible, family oriented town house developments should not be located adjacent to major t r a f f i c arteries. I f however, this does not prove to be feasible, then some form of buffer should be required so that children would be protected from the t r a f f i c and any noise would be effectively deflected away from the dwelling units. A berm alone cannot achieve both of the above requirements, as evidenced i n one of the developments surveyed. Commercial f a c i l i t i e s which create a i r , noise, or visual pollution, or operate noeturnally, should not be located near family oriented town house developments. Similarly, obnoxious industrial f a c i l i t i e s should not be allow-ed i n the v i c i n i t y of these housing projects. In general, a keener approach to the regulation of land uses i s necessary i f these housing sites are to become livable environments. Because these residents are generally families who are seeking a quiet residential environment suitable for raising families, the proximity of parks, greenbelts, or any other open spaces, are a highly welcome addition. Stated rest r i c t i v e l y , i t i s recommended that areas of congestion, noise, or high intensity land use be avoided. 12k Since these people are primarily concerned with residing i n a child-related and family environment, the more closely a residential location resembles a single family neighbourhood the more acceptible i t w i l l be. From the above recommendations, i t becomes evident that using low density multiple family developments as a buffer zone between single family dwelling areas and areas of higher intensity land use i s not satisfactory to the re-sidents of the former projects. I f both of these groups are seeking similar residential environments, why then create a better environment for the more affluent families who can afford a single family home at the expense of the lesser privileged families l i v i n g i n row housing who cannot afford a detached house? Although i t i s impossible to provide aUthe needed services and f a c i l i t i e s for the residents of a particular location, some of the more important ones would be highly desirable. Primarily, i f nothing else i s provided, some form of adequate public transportation should be available to increase access-i b i l i t y to other services and f a c i l i t i e s . As noted i n the survey, bus trans-portation i s both frequently used and most disliked because of the inadequate service. A convenience store, located within reasonable walking distance, would be an additional boon to those without the use of an automobile and with young children i n the household. For larger developments which are family oriented, a nearby park i s also a requirement. While the few children i n a smaller project who are inconvenienc-ed by a long walk to a park may be overlooked, the demands of a few hundred children cannot be ignored so easily. The need for closer regulation of row house location cannot be over-emphasized. Because people are equally as concerned with residential location as with their dwelling unit, row housing must be satisfactorily located to be a viable form of family accomodation. 125 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bell, Wendell, "The City, the Suburb, and a Theory of Social Choice", i n Scott Greer, editor, The Hew Urbanization,New York: St. Martin's Press, 1968, pp 132-168. Beyer, Glenn H., Housing and Society, Toronto: The MacMillan Company, 1965. Blalock, Hubert M., Social Statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, i 9 6 0 Butler, Edgar W., et a l , Moving Behaviour and Residential Choice, National Co-operative Highway Research Program Report 8 l , Highway Research Board, Division of Engineering, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1969. Chamberlain, Simon B., Aspects of Developer Behaviour i n the Land Development  Process, Center for Urban and Community Studies, Research Paper no. 56, University of Toronto, 1972. Clurman, David, and Hebard, Edna, Condominiums and Cooperatives, Toronto: Wiley-interscience, 1970. Foote, Nelson; Abu-Lughod, Janet; Foley, Mary Mix; and Winnick, Louis, Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., i960. Gans, Herbert J., The Urban Villagers, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Greenbie, Barrie, New House or New Neighbourhood? A Survey of Pri o r i t i e s among Home Owners i n Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Pilot Project i n Environmental Sciences and Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Madison, May 1968. Gruen, Nina, and Gruen, Claude, Low and Moderate Income Housing i n the Suburbs, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. Keller, Suzanne, The Urban Neighbourhood: A Sociological Perspective, New York: Random House, 196b. ' Lansing, John B.; Marans, Robert W.; and Zehner, Robert B., Planned Residential  Environments, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1970, report for U.S. Dept. of Transport-ation, Bureau of Public Roads. Menchik, Mark D., Residential Environmental Preferences and Choice: Some Pre-liminary Empirical Results Relevant to Urban Form, Regional Science Research Institute, Discussion Paper no. k6, Philadelphia, 1971. Meyerson, Martin, et a l , Housing, People and Cities, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. . 126 Michelson, William H., Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological Perspective Don M i l l s : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970' Michelson, William H., The Physical Environment as Attraction and Determinant: Social Effects i n Housing, Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Research Paper no. 22. Miller, D.C., Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970, second edition. Moser, CA., Survey Methods i n Social Investigation, London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1969". Nie, Norman; Bent, D.H.; and Hull, C.H., S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social  Sciences, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Norcross, Carl, and Hysom, John,Apartment Communities: The Next Big Market, Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin no. 6 l , Washington, 1968; Rossi, Peter H., Why Families Move, Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free Press, 1955» Smith, Wallace F., Housing: The Social and Economic Elements, Berkeley: the University of California Press, 1971. Werthman, Carl, et a l , Planning and the Purchase Decision: Why People Buy i n Planned Communities, prepublication of the Community Development Project, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Center for Planning and Development Research, Berkeley: University of California, 1965. Wheaton, William, et a l , edit., Urban Housing, New York: The Free Press, 1966. Wheeler, Michael, edit., The Right to Housing, Montreal: Harvest House, 1969. Whyte, William H., Cluster Development, New York: American Conservation Association, 1964. Periodicals Boyce, Ronald R., "Residential Mobility and i t s Implications for Urban Spatial Change", Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 1, 1969« Brademas, Thomas B., "Fringe Living Attitudes", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 22, no. 2, Spring 1956, pp 75-82. Crothers, R. J., 'Factors Related to the Community Index of Satisfactoriness", Ekistics, vol. 30, no. 177, Aug. 1970, pp 107-109. Davidson, J., "Row Houses Come Back to Life", American Institute of Appraisers Journal, vol. 48, no. 3, Sept. 1967, pp 57-65. Duncan, Beverly and Otis, 'The Measurement of Intra-City Locational and Residential Patterns", Journal of Regional Science, vol. 2, i960, pp 37-5^' 127 Frieden, Bernard J., "Locational Preferences i n the Urban Housing Market", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 27, no. If, Nov. 196l, pp 316-325. Goldstein, S., and Mayer, Kurt, "Migration and The Journey to Work", Social Forces, vol. 42, no. 4, May 1964, pp 472 - 48l. Habitat, vol. 12, no. 4-5, 1969, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation publication, entire issue. Hoinville, G., "Evaluating Community Preferences", Environment and Planning, vol. 3, no. 1, 1971, pp 33-50. Houghton, A.G., 'The Simulation and Evaluation of Housing Location", Environment  and Planning, v o l . 3 , no. 4, 1971, PP 383-394. Jonassen, C.T., "Cultural Variables i n the Ecology of an Ethnic Group", American  Sociological Review, vol. l 4 , no. 1, Feb. 1949, pp 32-42. Kain, John F., 'The Journey to Work as a Determinant of Residential Location", Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, vol. 9, 1962, pp 137-l 6 0 . Kaiser, E., and Weiss, S., "Public Policy and the Residential Decision Process", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 36, 1970, pp 30-37. Lansing, John B., and Marans, Robert W., "Evaluation of Neighbourhood Quality", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, uo* 2, May 1969, PP 195-199. Lansing, John B., and Kish, Leslie, "Family Life Cycle as an Independent Variable", American Sociological Review, vol. 22, no. 5, Oct. 1957, PP 512-519* Michelson, William H., "Urban Sociology as an Aid to Urban Physical Development: Some Research Strategies", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 24, no. 2, March 1968, pp 105-108. Michelson, William H., "An Empirical Analysis of Urban Environmental Preferences", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 32, no. 6, 1966, PP 355-360. Ontario Housing, vol. l 6 , no. 2, May 1971, entire issue, publication of Ontario Housing Corporation, Toronto. Ravitz, Mel J., "Use of the Attitude Survey i n Neighbourhood Planning", Journal  of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 23, no. 4, 1957, pp 179-183. Recht, R.A., "Bay Area Simulation Study: Residential Location Model", The Annals of Regional Science, vol. 2, no. 1, Dec. 1968, pp l42 -152. Simmons, James W., "Changing Residence i n the City", Geographical Review, vol. 58, no. 4, Oct. 1968, pp 622-651. 128 Stegman, Michael A., "Accessibility Models and Residential Location", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 19&9, PP 22-29. Vancouver Sun, The, "Basford announces Land Assembly Plan: $500 million aid for housing pledged", vol. 87, no. 84, Jan. 11, 1973, P« !• Wheeler, James 0., "Residential Location by Occupational Status", Urban Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, Feb. 1968, pp 30-Wilkinson, R.K., and Sigsworth, E.M., "Attitudes to the Housing Environment: An Analysis of Private and Local Authority Households i n Batley, Leeds, and York", Urban Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, June 1972, pp 193-209. Wolforth, John R., "Residential Location and Place of Work", Tantalus Research /V Limited, B.C. Geographical Series No. 4, 19&5• Zehner, Robert B., "Neighbourhood and Community Satisfaction i n New Towns and Less Planned Suburbs" Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol 37, no. 6, Nov. 1971, PP 379-3^ 5-Government Reports Brewster, Maurice R., et a l , HOT; to make and interpret locational studies of the housing market, U.S. Dept. 6f Commerce, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, 1955* Burnaby, Municipality of, Group Housing Study, Municipal Planning Department, 1972. , Apartment Study 69, Municipal Planning Department, 19&9' Canadian Housing Statistics 1972, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, 197J Condominium Research Associates, National Survey of Condominium Lenders ; Toronto, 1970, CMHC grant. Condominium Research Associates, National Survey of Condominium Owners, Toronto, 1970, CMHC grant. Klein, Jack, The Row House - i t s place i n the urban community, Canadian Housing Design Council, CMHC, Ottawa, 1971. Lehigh-Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania, Zoning: How i t s application and  administration affects housing, Joint Planning Commission, 1971. Lithwick, N.H. Urban Canada: Problems and Prospects,report for the Minister responsible for Housing, CMHC, Ottawa, 1970. Paxton, Edward T., What people want when they buy a house, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, 1955• 129" Smith, L.B., Housing i n Canada: Market Structure and Policy Performance, Research Monograph no. 2, CMHC, Ottawa, 1971. Stone, Leroy 0 . , Urban Development i n Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, 1967. Vancouver, City of, Low Density Multiple Housing Report,Technical Planning Board, 1969. , Apartment "Buffer Zone" - Kerrisdale, City Planning Department, f i l e reference S.100.14.64.1., Feb. 20, 1967. Unpublished material Armiger, L.E. Toward a Model of the Residential Location Decision Process, un-published thesis University of Worth Carolina, Chapel H i l l , 1966. Bell, L. I. et a l . , Housing Consumer Satisfaction Study, Social Policy and Research Department, United Community Services, Vancouver. Hamilton, S.W., Condominiums i n Canada: Past, Present and Future, paper for 23rd , annual B.C. Assessors Conference, Kamloops, Sept. 7, 1972. Hamilton, S.W.; Davis, I; and Lowden, J., Condominium Development i n Metro  Vancouver, Real Estate Council of B.C., Dec, 1971. Ito, K.K., An Analysis of the Residential Satisfaction of Condominium Owners, unpublished MA thesis, University of Br i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1972. Livingston, Lawrence, and Blayney, Townhouse Study: Contra Costa County, California, March, 1970. Michelson, W., Intentions and Expectations i n Differential Residential Selection, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Toronto 1972; Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, Discussion Paper B.72.5. ,Environmental Choice: A Draft Report on the Social Basis of Family Decisions on Housing Type and Location i n Greater Toronto, MSUA, Discussion Paper B72.9. 1972. Steffens, R., Factors Influencing Consumer Choice of Residential Location, MA. thesis, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel H i l l , 196*4. Urban Development Institute, Condominiums - Some Problems and Potentials of the  Eastern Canadian Market, Associate Consultants Committee, 1969. APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Please check the appropriate squares and f i l l in the blanks 132 Your marital status 1 [married | Isingle | lother How many children do you have? ( |0 111 | J2 I J3 or more How many people altogether live in your household? 4 5 or more l i v e BIs the main breadwinner 1 jworking | vjretired | |other In what age group is the male head of the household? less than 25 yrs, 30 - 34 yrs. 45 - 51 yrs. 65 yrs, and over 25 - 29 yrs. 35 - 44 yrs. 52 - 64 yrs. How long have you lived here? 1 to 6 months 13 to 18 months more than 2 years 7 to 12 months 19 to 24 months At what level i s the present annual family income? less than $5,000 $7, - 9,900 $12, - 14,900 $5, - 6,900 $10, - 11,900 $15,000 and over Do you I I own | [rent Questionnaire completed by I Imale [ Ifemale How many of your children attend school? •° 13 d 2 13or more Which do your children use most often as play areas? Bplaygrounds inside townhouse project nearby public parks | |other places In what age groups are your children? Bless than 5 yrs. I |5 - 10 yrs, 11 - 15 yrs, I |16 yrs, and over How much did your particular unit cost? tess than $16,000 1 |$16, - 20,900 $21, - 25,900 I |$26. - 30,900 $31,000 and over How long does i t take the main jreadwinner to get to work? less than 15 min, I |15 to 30 min, 31 to 45 min, | V*6 to 60 min. more than 1 hour How does the main breadwinner travel to work? Bown car I Icar pool bus J [other Is the wife employed outside the home? 1 [no 1 |part time | |full time How often do you or your family use the following services and f a c i l i t i e s ? Daily At least At least Hardly Never local stores large shopping centres bus transportation day care/nursery medical/health services public parks/playgrounds recreation/entertainment (please specify) community centre once a wee c oncea month ever What things do you especially like and dislike about living in this area? Like: Dislike: 133 Thinking about where you l i v e , would you say you were satisfied, dissatisfied, or doesn't i t matter to you about , , , Very (Dis DissatisfiecTl satisfied Doesn't Matter Satisfied Very Satisfied nearness to schools/day care nearness to place of work • noise from adjacent streets/railroads nearness to public parks/playgrounds obnoxious industrial activity nearby obnoxious commercial/gas stations nearby nearness to local stores nearness to major shopping centres t r a f f i c on adjacent streets nearness to community centre nearness to public transportation/bus nearness to recreation/entertainment-for adi i l t s l for children nearness to medical/health f a c i l i t i e s quality of bus service kind of people in surrounding neighbourhood * (outside your townhouse development) If you were forced to move today and had to look for a new townhouse, what would be the important things you would look for when considering the location of your new home? Please rank the following features in numerical order of importance (1, 2, 3, . . and so on). near schools/day care centres near public parks/playgrounds near place of work near recreation/entertainment near bus stop/public transportation near friends/relatives near open space/green areas near a community centre near shops/stores near medical/health f a c i l i t i e s within an area of single family houses other^ away from noise and t r a f f i c of major streets , away from obnoxious commercial/industrial f a c i l i t i e s For what reasons did you choose this particular townhouse development to live in? Please l i s t in order of importance: 1. 2. , 3 : ; Comments: FIGURE 1 Distances to Nearest Services and F a c i l i t i e s From Each Development: (as multiples of 100 feet) A B C D E F G H I J K Bus stop 5 5 6 1 15 2 8 28 2 2 2 Community centre 55 48 k8 32 98 82 k& 88 97 97 98 Convenience store 3 ko k2 36 20 12 kk 36 40 40 42 Dar care centre 1 l 8 8 50 98 85 80 1 3 5 Elementary school 28 30 32 28 21 22 20 39 44 44 46 High school 54 48 k3 k2 15 67 76 96 98 98 98 Major shopping centre 85 89 8k 89 85 k8 96 98 50 51 52 Medical f a c i l i t i e s 25 Ik 69 79 6k 60 5 k 72 41 43 46 Park 14 8 5 10 8 23 20 •6 26 27 29 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101327/manifest

Comment

Related Items