Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Home ownership sentiment : attitudes towards ownership of a single family detached house Skerry, Margaret Jane 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 S54.pdf [ 5.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101350.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101350-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101350-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101350-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101350-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101350-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101350-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101350-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101350.ris

Full Text

THE HOME OWNERSHIP SENTIMENT: ATTITUDES TOWARDS OWNERSHIP OF A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE by Margaret Jane Skerry B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s t h e s i s 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 for 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 The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ( i i ) ABSTRACT Over the years ownership of a single family detached house has become associated with a series of p o s i t i v e s e n t i -ments re l a t e d to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs. I t has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been considered as the ultimate goal i n housing sought by a majority of the population. This study examines the "home ownership sentiment" to determine i t s major features and t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance i n consumer aspirations f o r t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e has detailed the att r i b u t e s of ownership of a single family detached house and correspon-ding consumer housing s a t i s f a c t i o n s . A f i e l d survey of a selected sample of future housing consumers has given some i n d i c a t i o n as to the p r i o r i t y of these features i n t h e i r preference f o r home ownership. The study findings have suggested important considera-tions i n the s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs and i n p a r t i c u l a r , areas of concern i n the upgrading of alt e r n a t i v e forms of housing. ( i i i ) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I CHAPTER I I INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Thesis Research Method Organization of the Thesis Footnotes ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HOME OWNERSHIP SENTIMENT Introduction H i s t o r i c a l Evolution of the Home Ownership Sentiment Consumer Preferences f o r Home Ownership Summary Footnotes CHAPTER III SURVEY OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARDS HOME OWNERSHIP: CONCEPT AND PROCEDURES Introduction Study Concept and Objectives Study Procedures Survey Technique Sample Selection Footnotes 1 5 6 8 9 11 11 12 26 39 41 46 46 47 54 54 56 62 (iv) TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEY DATA 63 Introduction 63 Analysis and Discussion of Survey Data 64 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Sample Respondents 65 Analysis and Discussion of Questionnaire Results 71 Summary 94 Footnotes 96 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 97 Footnotes 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY 108 APPENDIX A 114 (v) LIST OF TABLES TABLE I . TABLE I I . TABLE I I I . TABLE IV. TABLE V. TABLE VI. TABLE VII. TABLE VIII. TABLE IX. TABLE X. TABLE XI. TABLE XII. TABLE XIII. TABLE XIV. Page Proportion of Male and Female Heads of Household by Age Categories 67 Proportion of Households by No. of Children 67 Proportion of Households without Children with Plans to have Children 68 No. of Households by Category of Gross Annual Household Income 68 No. of Households by Type and Tenure of Previous Housing Accommodation 70 Proportion of Households by Category of Monthly Rental Rate 70 Proportion of Households by Type of Present Residence 72 Proportion of Households A n t i c i p a t i n g Home Ownership 72 Index of Importance of "Design" Related Features 77 Index of Importance of "Tenure" Related Features 82 Degree of Importance of " T r a d i t i o n " Related Features by No. of Households 82 Features Rated as Most Important P r i o r i t i e s by No. of Households 86 Rank Order of Importance of Component Categories by No. of Households Index of Importance of Features i n Upgrading Multiple Housing Units 91 (vi) LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1. Components of Home Ownership 50 ( v i i ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would l i k e to express my appreciation to my Advisor, Professor Brahm Wiesman f o r his constructive comments and guidance during the course of t h i s study. I would also l i k e to thank Dr. R.W. C o l l i e r f o r his he l p f u l suggestions and encouragement and Professor Paul Roer f o r his guidance on various points i n the thesis. My thanks are also extended to my research assistants Barbara Brady, Jane Cameron, Susan S i n c l a i r and G l o r i a Thomson who organized the c o l l e c t i o n of the questionnaires used i n the f i e l d survey. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to express my sincere appreciation to my parents f o r the i r assistance i n typing and assembling the manuscript and to several close friends for t h e i r en-couragement and support during the writing of t h i s paper. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION North American households d i f f e r i n t h e i r needs, pre-ferences and a b i l i t y to pay f o r housing. At the same time, the housing market o f f e r s various a l t e r n a t i v e s i n dwelling unit design, tenure, l o c a t i o n and cost. I t has been sug-gested that over a l i f e t i m e the housing requirements of a household change and that s h i f t s i n residence are i n part an attempt to accommodate new housing needs and preferences.^ On the average one family i n f i v e changes residence every year with up to three and four moves occurring i n the f i r s t ten years a f t e r family formation. During t h i s time Nelson Foote claims that the median housing consumer w i l l occupy several d i f f e r e n t housing a l t e r n a t i v e s but that the ultimate 2 goal i s ownership of a single family detached house. This p a r t i c u l a r housing alt e r n a t i v e has come to be r e -ferre d to as "home ownership". As i t i s now most popularly used the term implies not just a s p e c i f i c form of tenure ( i . e . ownership), but also a s p e c i f i c type of dwelling unit ( i . e . single family detached).-^ With i t has evolved a series of p o s i t i v e sentiments surrounding the idea of home ownership. These have originated as part of our c u l t u r a l heritage and have subsequently been reinforced by the attitudes and - 2 -actions of various public and private sectors (e.g. govern-ment, r e a l estate agents, etc.) and housing consumers over the years. In Canada the government has reinforced t h i s housing goal as the most preferable through i t s National Housing P o l i c y . Favourable l e g i s l a t i o n i n the National Housing Act has provided f i n a n c i a l incentives such as mortgage loans with a t t r a c t i v e terms and more recently, insured loans. Government o f f i c i a l s have repeatedly stressed that a l l f a m i l i e s should seek to abhieve home ownership i n the view that "a home owner i s a better c i t i z e n of his community and hi s country than a tenant".^ In addition, the lack of suitable housing a l t e r n a t i v e s available i n the housing market has further reinforced the d e s i r a b i l i t y of home ownership for the consumer. Other forms have been mainly r e n t a l apartments and row houses and more recently, condominium townhouses. The majority of r e n t a l types have been of poorer quality and design f o r family l i v i n g compared with detached houses. Inadequate design features c i t e d include lack of space ( i n t e r i o r and e x t e r i o r ) , minimal privacy, unsuitable f o r r a i s i n g children and lack of prestige compared with single family homes.^ S i m i l a r l y , d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n s have been expressed with r e n t a l tenure. When placed at the mercy of a landlord any feelings of indepen-dence and security tend to be destroyed. Since a l t e r a t i o n s - 3 -to the unit are also subject to restrictions, i t has been suggested that a tenant's self-expression i s further limited. These trends have effectively reinforced the view that ownership of a single family detached house i s the most desirable means of satisfying the housing needs. However, the cost of owning a single family detached home i s quickly escalating out of the reach of greater numbers of people. One Canadian author has commented: There i s no doubt that the price of housing for purchase in almost any of the Western Nations, including our own, has risen far more quickly than either wage rates, average individual incomes, or average total family incomes.' Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation data reveals that housing costs, including land, construction and changes i n dwelling size have increased by over 70 percent i n the last 15 years. This i s particularly true i n the larger urban centres across the country. In 1971 the average cost of new single detached houses in the major metropolitan areas was $23,569^. However, i n Vancouver, the setting for this study, the price was considerably higher at $27,3^9. This represented an increase from $25,591 i n the previous year.1*"* Later figures collected by the Vancouver Real Estate Board have placed the average cost of single detached houses at $29,920 i n mid-1972.11 As the Task Force on Housing has noted, with the rising costs of home ownership and a higher cost of liv i n g , this housing alternative i s becoming financially impossible for more and more Canadians. A wide margin of the population must therefore resort to alternative forms of housing. I f their aspirations are towards home ownership, then the housing needs of an increasing segment of the population may well be frustrated. At the same time, with the rapid urban growth charac-t e r i s t i c of large Canadian c i t i e s , the pressure of demand for sufficient serviced urban land i s becoming a major problem.^ In particular, serviced areas for residential development are required. Statistics show that i n the metropolitan centres across the country dwelling starts over a five year period have increased from 90,396 i n 1966 to 148,437 in 1971.^ In Vancouver alone over this same period dwelling starts have risen to 15,553 from 9,138.^ Most notably i n the last year i n Vancouver single-detached dwellings showed the largest increase in starts from 4482 in 1970 to 5283 i n 1971.^ As land for residential deve-lopment i s i n competition with other uses, should a large proportion of residents aspire to ownership of a single family detached house on a separate lot, this has important implications for the amount of land required. I f such a demand i n the future i s extensive, potential home-owners might well have to turn to higher density l i v i n g to satisfy - 5 -the housing needs that they aspired to i n home ownership. PURPOSE OF THE THESIS To recommend appropriate housing p o l i c i e s i n l i g h t of these trends, a detailed analysis of the home ownership sentiment would be valuable. Much of the housing l i t e r a -ture has assumed that a majority of the population i s s t r i v i n g to own t h e i r own homes. Numerous studies done since the mid 1930's have documented consumer preferences f o r home ownership but few have gone beyond a description of the extent of t h i s aspiration to provide a comprehensive analysis of i t s important features. I t would be useful not only to have some knowledge concerning the extent to which home ownership i s viewed as the ultimate goal i n housing by future housing consumers but also, those key att r i b u t e s of t h i s housing al t e r n a t i v e that cause i t to be perceived as the most desirable form of housing. Such an inv e s t i g a t i o n would hope to provide a greater understanding of the home ownership sentiment and s p e c i f i c a l l y , some insight into i t s major aspects. A study of the future housing consumer regarding attitudes and aspirations towards home ownership would a s s i s t i n determining i f t h i s housing al t e r n a t i v e i s s t i l l viewed as the ultimate goal i n housing. An i n depth analysis of consumer preferences would attempt to further reveal the preferred aspects of home ownership. - 6 -Subsequent findings would be a valuable i n d i c a t o r of future consumer preferences to be considered i n p o l i c y formu-l a t i o n s regarding housing. Should a great proportion of the population who are f i n a n c i a l l y able aspire to home ownership to s a t i s f y t h e i r housing needs, t h i s must be taken into account i n recommendations fo r land development. S i m i l a r l y , i f aspirations f o r home ownership are expressed by those who may not be able to own a house i f housing costs continue to r i s e , p o l i c i e s f o r providing suitable al t e r n a t i v e accommo-dation must be drafted. Here, information regarding pre-fer r e d features i n home ownership could be used to suggest guidelines f o r modification of alte r n a t i v e forms of housing (e.g. townhouse and apartment units) or development of i n -novative forms. In t h i s way greater s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs and preferences aspired to by the urban population might hope to be achieved. RESEARCH METHOD This t h e s i s examines the "home ownership sentiment" with a focus on consumer attitudes and aspirations for t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e has provided some i n d i c a t i o n of the evolution of the sentiments surrounding home ownership as well as subsequent consumer motivations reported i n past studies of housing preferences. From t h i s a set of features r e l a t i n g to the "design", the "tenure", - 7 -and the " t r a d i t i o n " aspects of home ownership has been de-ri v e d as the basis for a f i e l d survey of attitudes of a selected sample of housing consumers. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n f o r -mation i s sought on expressed preferences f o r home ownership and the r e l a t i v e importance of the various features of t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e i n a consumer's aspirations f o r home ownership. The study focuses on that segment of the population which constitutes future housing consumers since i t i s the pre-ferences of t h i s group that w i l l have to be accommodated. The future housing consumer i s defined as a young married couple with or without children where the male head of house-hold i s aged between 25 and 34 l i v i n g i n Metropolitan Van-couver. To determine i f t h i s population sub-group does aspire to home ownership only those households not presently owning single family detached houses have been selected. Since i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of po t e n t i a l subjects representa-t i v e of future housing consumers i n Metropolitan Vancouver proved d i f f i c u l t , a group of teachers and professors f o r whom some personal data could be obtained formed the basis of the sample population. Such a group also r e f l e c t e d the middle and upper income ranges which have d i f f e r i n g oppor-t u n i t i e s to r e a l i z e t h e i r housing aspirations and therefore create d i f f e r i n g implications f o r p o l i c y formulations. Questionnaires were mailed to selected subjects and - 8 -co l l e c t e d by a team of research a s s i s t a n t s . The r e s u l t s of the study and i t s implications are discussed at length i n subsequent chapters. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS Chapter II deals with the establishment of the home ownership sentiment and past consumer preferences f o r t h i s housing al t e r n a t i v e as reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . This material provides the basis f o r the sel e c t i o n of features of home ownership used i n the f i e l d survey of consumer attitudes and aspirations. Chapter I I I outlines the d e t a i l s of the f i e l d survey, the development of the questionnaire, the sample se l e c t i o n and study procedures. Chapter IV analyzes the r e s u l t s of the survey and sug-gests possible implications of in t e r e s t i n considering housing requirements. F i n a l l y , Chapter V d e t a i l s how the study findings might be used to recommend p o l i c i e s f o r better s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs and preferences of the urban population. - 9 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER I 1 Janet Abu-Lughod and Mary M. Foley, "The Consumer Votes by Moving," Urban Housing, ed. W. L. Wheaton (New York: The Free Press, 1966), p. 175-2 Peter Rossi. Why Families Move (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955), p. 1; see also Nelson Foote, Janet Abu-Lughod and Mary M. Foley, Housing Choices and Constraints (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), p. 101. 3 Further references to "home ownership" w i l l mean owner-ship of a single family detached house. 4 Canada, Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Develop-ment. Report on Housing and Urban Development (Ottawa, 1969), p. 17. 5 Glenn Beyer, Housing and Society (New York: MacMillan, 1965), p. 250. 6 Coleman Woodbury,, The Future of C i t i e s and Urban Redevelop-ment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 329. 7 Albert Rose, "Canadian Housing P o l i c i e s , " The Right to  Housing, ed. M. Wheeler (Montreal: Harvest House Ltd., 1969), p. 132. 8 Wolfgang I l l i n g , "The Rising Cost of Housing and Problems of Financing," The Right to Housing, ed. M. Wheeler (Montreal: Harvest House Ltd., 1969), p. 145. 9 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian  Housing S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa, 1971), p. 71. 10 I b i d . 11 Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Real Estate Trends  i n Metropolitan Vancouver 1972-1973 (Vancouver, B.C., 1972), p. A-10. 12 Federal Task Force on Housing, pp. 14-15* 13 "Land and New Communities," Statement by Honourable Ron Basford, Federal-Provincial Conference on Housing (Ottawa: Conference Centre, January, 1973), PP« 2-3. - 10 -14 C.M.H.C., p. 6 . A dwelling unit i s defined as "a struc-t u r a l l y separate set of self-contained l i v i n g premises with a private entrance from outside the b u i l d i n g or from a common h a l l , lobby or stairway insi d e the b u i l d i n g " (p. 1 0 2 ) . 15 C.M.H.C., pp. 10-11 . 16 I b i d . - 11 -CHAPTER II ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HOME OWNERSHIP SENTIMENT INTRODUCTION The o r i g i n s of the home ownership sentiment i n North America are rooted i n our c u l t u r a l heritage. Many of the attitudes towards home ownership which are held today stem from the early settlement patterns of the immigrants to the New World and t h e i r r u r a l way of l i f e . While there are currently major differences i n the land and housing p o l i c i e s of Canada and the United States, the early experiences which have shaped these attitudes are somewhat s i m i l a r . Canadian material i s c i t e d where possible, although much of the l i t e r a t u r e written describes the s i t u a t i o n i n the United St sit ©s • The f i r s t part of t h i s chapter deals with the h i s t o r i -c a l evolution of the home ownership sentiment focusing on the i n s t i t u t i o n of private property ownership and preference fo r a free-standing dwelling u n i t . This review i l l u s t r a t e s how attitudes toward the private ownership of land and the single family detached house combined as a unit have become i n t e g r a l l y woven into our c u l t u r a l pattern as the preferred t r a d i t i o n i n housing. Included i n the discussion are those - 12 -factors p a r a l l e l i n g the development of the home ownership sentiment which have reinforced t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e as the most preferable. The second part of the chapter focuses on consumer pre-ferences i n housing and s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e i r desire f o r home ownership as described i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Many of the under-l y i n g reasons for t h e i r preferences r e f l e c t the sentiments evolving from the r u r a l agrarian t r a d i t i o n which have become i d e a l i z e d i n ownership of a single family detached house, however small, i n urban areas. From these studies some i n d i c a t i o n of the key components of "home ownership" as a housing alt e r n a t i v e are brought to l i g h t . HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE HOME OWNERSHIP SENTIMENT. The o r i g i n s of the home ownership sentiment are rooted i n the r u r a l settlement pattern of early North America which r e f l e c t e d an a g r i c u l t u r a l economy. The early s e t t l e r s , mainly B r i t i s h and French i n Canada, brought t h e i r European ways of l i f e and i n s t i t u t i o n s which they adapted to the New World. I t was from the h i s t o r i c a l attitudes towards property owner-ship and methods of land d i s t r i b u t i o n as well as an emphasis on the home and family l i f e that the value of home ownership has evolved. In the home countries of the immigrants land had become - 13 -valued over the years. As well as the benefits of power over tenants and economic revenue accruing to landlords, property ownership was a sign of prestige. O r i g i n a l l y i t had represented a g i f t from the king to a p r i v i l e g e d few.^" With an abundance of land i n the New World there was an opportunity f o r every immigrant to acquire land holdings. Using the feudal system of seigneurial tenure, t r a c t s of land i n Canada were allocated to various i n d i v i d u a l s or groups f o r further subdivision i n t o separate p l o t s f o r each family. The i n i t i a l pattern of settlement, based on an a g r i c u l t u r a l economy, resembled the European t r a d i t i o n . "Home" l o t s were clustered together i n towns, (many former trading posts), where the s e t t l e r s resided f o r security purposes. Their f i e l d s lay beyond, divided into narrow s t r i p s f o r c u l t i v a t i o n . Although each group decided the crops grown, every family had f u l l ownership of the plots i t was allocated, a r i g h t to the harvest and a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r maintenance.-^ Thus, a great measure of freedom and independence was attained as well as pride i n having property ownership. These benefits were strengthened with the gradual s h i f t of residence by the s e t t l e r s on to t h e i r c u l t i v a t e d land, gi v i n g r i s e to the i n d i v i d u a l homestead. This trend was l a r g e l y the r e s u l t of the uniqueness of the f r o n t i e r s i t u a -t i o n . With a continual i n f l u x of new immigrants a d d i t i o n a l land was subdivided, and i n the process, e a r l i e r s e t t l e r s - 14 -were able to expand and consolidate t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l land holdings. Since maintenance of such large l o t s was d i f f i c u l t while r e s i d i n g i n town, many families b u i l t houses on t h e i r farm land.^" At the same time, pressure was exerted on e x i s t i n g town l o t s by in-migration. With a decreased need f o r protection, some groups of families moved away from these settlements and established new towns on undeveloped land granted i n the f r o n t i e r . Those who remained were able to acquire large "home" l o t s through subdivision of the surrounding farm land as the v i l l a g e s expanded.5 Hence, with t h i s unlimited land and an a g r i c u l t u r a l economy the emergent pattern was one of i n d i v i d u a l ownership of large p l o t s with a detached house on each. The independence, security and prestige afforded by property ownership were r e f l e c t e d i n t h i s pattern. The beginnings of a d d i t i o n a l sentiments associated with home ownership also evolved from the nature of r u r a l l i f e with i t s emphasis on the family and focus on the house and property. The family unit at t h i s time served both economic and s o c i a l functions. As the c h i e f unit of production i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l economy, the family l i v e l i h o o d and l i v i n g quarters were c l o s e l y associated and not separate.^ The detached house was an i n t e g r a l part of the farm, and i n the v i l l a g e trades were c a r r i e d on i n the home. Thus the house and property as a combined unit represented economic security - 15 -f o r the family. To serve the s o c i a l functions of the r u r a l family unit the detached house was spacious with many rooms. Families at t h i s time were larger, more often resembling the extended family and the members were l e s s mobile.^ In addition, there were usually servants to be accommodated. The detached house was s o l i d l y b u i l t with the intention of being used f o r several generations. I t created a f e e l i n g of permanence and was a physical reminder that a family had roots. Whether i t was b u i l t by the family themselves or for them, i t was t a i l o r e d to t h e i r s p e c i f i c needs and tastes and became an expression of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y . Thus the house of the 1 9 t h century was viewed as "a permanent abode, a l i f e t i m e investment and 8 a family haven". As a f f a m i l y haven*, the emotional security provided by the family unit came to be associated with "home". The tendency of the r u r a l family and i t s members to remain i n the same house and the constant i n t e r a c t i o n with numerous r e l a -o t i v e s encouraged a c l o s e l y - k n i t family atmosphere. In turn, u ,home T as a physical structure has become c l o s e l y i n t e r -fused i n the popular imagination with Thomef as a hoped f o r 10 stable family environment". Consequently, ownership of the detached house i n i t s r u r a l s e t t i n g r e f l e c t e d sentiments of permanence, security and i n d i v i d u a l i t y which were condusive to family l i f e . - 16 -As i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and urbanization took place, home and work became separated. Family members moved out of the house at e a r l i e r ages, often migrating to the c i t y to seek employment. Servants became l e s s common and the large de-tached house underwent conversion into smaller u n i t s . 1 1 The c i t y became associated with higher densities, i n d u s t r i a l p o l l u t i o n and anonymity. The countryside with i t s clean, natural s e t t i n g and the r u r a l agrarian t r a d i t i o n remained i d e a l i z e d i n the minds of many people. Many of the s e n t i -ments attached to t h i s way of l i f e and the homestead became valued and generalized to ownership of a single family de-tached house on a separate plot of land. Thus, the p o s i t i v e sentiment of home ownership became established i n North American society. Over the years there have been ad d i t i o n a l factors which have encouraged and reinforced t h i s home ownership sentiment. After World War I I i n Canada an increase i n the number of fami l i e s , r i s i n g incomes, an available supply of land on the outs k i r t s of c i t i e s , and favourable l e g i s l a t i o n i n the National Housing Act prompted a rapid increase i n ownership 12 of new single family detached homes i n suburbia. With a shortage of land i n the central c i t y available f o r development and an abundance of inexpensive land on the fringe, preference f o r home ownership i n v a r i a b l y meant a suburban l o c a t i o n . Here, the car enabled contact with the conveniences of the c i t y while - 17 -permitting the family to enjoy the approximation of the r u r a l s e t t i n g (large l o t s , green space and clean a i r ) that was sup-posedly provided by suburbia and achieved through home owner-13 ship. J One author commented on t h i s trend: People were eager to buy...; they were enchanted by the thought of a home of t h e i r own at a reasonable price, and the verdant delights of suburban pastures f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . 1 ^ Equally important at t h i s time was the emphasis of Canada's National Housing Policy (1945 to 1964) towards the d e s i r a b i l i t y of home ownership. 1^ Government o f f i c i a l s repeatedly stressed that a l l f a m i l i e s should seek to achieve t h i s goal, thereby r e i n f o r c i n g the view that "a home owner i s a better c i t i z e n of his community and his country than a t e n a n t . T h i s view was even more pronounced i n the United States where home ownership was acclaimed as streng-thening and encouraging democracy. Emotional statements echoing the following theme were common: I t i s doubtful whether democracy i s possible where tenants overwhelmingly outnumber home owners. For democracy i s not a p r i v i l e g e ; i t i s a responsi-b i l i t y , and human nature r a r e l y volun-teers to shoulder r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , but i t has to be driven by the whip of necessity. The need to protect and guard the home i s the whip that has proved...efficacious i n d r i v i n g men to discharge the duties of self-government... the men who have preserved the c i v i l l i b e r t i e s of the English-speaking peoples have been the men with a stake i n society. We have concerned our-selves too l i t t l e with the ef f e c t of - 18 -home ownership on c i t i z e n s h i p . . . f o r the sake of our p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u -t i o ns and what they mean to our l i b e r -t i e s , we should not forget that the obstacles to a much greater percentage of home ownership than we can now boast are a r t i f i c i a l and capable of removal.1? S i m i l a r l y , home ownership was considered to e s t a b l i s h the people of the nation as stable and responsible c i t i z e n s : The man who owns and loves h i s home can usually be depended upon to prac-t i c e the v i r t u e s of c i t i z e n s h i p . . . The discontented pessimistic elements i n our c i t i z e n s h i p for the most part come from the thousands who do not own t h e i r own homes.18 Clear l y , government p o l i c y i n both countries was dedi-cated to the encouragement of home ownership. This was achieved primarily i n the area of mortgage financing. Under the National Housing Act ( 1 9 4 4 ) , the Canadian Government provided 25 percent of the c a p i t a l amount of an approved N.H.A. Mortgage at i n t e r e s t rates of 3 percent, much lower than the consumer could obtain on the conventional market. These a t t r a c t i v e terms, i n addition to l a t e r provisions f o r successive decreases i n down payments as loan amounts i n -creased and a lengthened amortization period from 15 years ( i n 1946) to 2 0 , 25 and over 30 years, had a profound impact i n making home ownership f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e . x ^ While the government policy s h i f t e d l a t e r from d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n lending to mortgage loan guarantees i t s t i l l i ndicated i t s endorsement of merits of t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . Loans f o r - 19 -home purchase and home improvements, home owner grants, tax concessions on i n t e r e s t payments made by house buyers, and sp e c i a l voting p r i v i l e g e s are further examples of Canadian government assistance i n promoting ownership of single family detached houses. The house b u i l d i n g industry to the l a t e 1950*s concen-trated on the bu i l d i n g of new single family detached houses on vacant land since t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e was the only one e l i g i b l e for N.H.A. f i n a n c i n g . 2 ^ Government o f f i c i a l s praised the house b u i l d i n g industry f o r i t s production of these type of units during t h i s period. The e f f e c t of these p o l i c i e s was a strong encouragement f o r Canadians to become home owners. In fact between 1945 and 1966 the number of single family houses i n Canada increased by over 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 units. 2"*" (The r e s u l t was s u b u r b i a . ) 2 2 Another factor which has reinforced home ownership i s the lack of suitable housing a l t e r n a t i v e s . Other forms have mainly been r e n t a l apartments and row houses, and more recently, condominium townhouses. The view has generally been held i n Canada that r e n t a l accommodation i s "second best"23 and that tenants are second class c i t i z e n s compared with home owners. 2^ A s i m i l a r opinion of the home owner as a more stable, responsible c i t i z e n has been expressed i n the United States: ... owners of homes usually are more - 20 -interested i n the safeguarding of the worthwhile things of l i f e and the t r a d i t i o n s of our national h i s t o r y than are renters and tenants.25 As recently as 1969 the Task Force on Canadian housing made mention of the "widespread, i f not universal, support f o r the time worn concept that a home owner i s a better c i t i z e n of h i s community and h i s country than a tenant"... 2^ One possible explanation f o r these views l i e s i n the fact that the majority of r e n t a l accommodation has been of poorer quality and design f o r family l i v i n g compared with detached houses. Housing of t h i s type i s considered merely as a temporary place of residence u n t i l a single family house can be purchased. As many as two-thirds of a sample of households l i v i n g i n multiple dwellings have been shown to prefer single family housing. 2? Other studies have con-firmed that the highest proportion of movers are renters who are d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r present accommodation. Those inadequacies of multiple, r e n t a l housing commonly c i t e d are related both to the design and tenure c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these u n i t s . C l e a r l y the major complaint concerns the lack 29 of space, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r i o r space. With the higher den s i t i e s i n multiple housing, i n d i v i d u a l unit s i z e s usually tend to decrease, containing fewer rooms. Such small r e n t a l u n i t s are least adjustable to family changes which often are 30 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the young households l i v i n g there. Another common d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n concerns the lack of - 21 -private outdoor space. There i s some l i t e r a t u r e to suggest that people treasure private open space i n order to pursue 31 whatever a c t i v i t i e s they choose. Most multiple u n i t s do not provide a place where household members can be outside and assured some degree of privacy. Consequently, some res-t r i c t i o n s on a c t i v i t i e s occur unlike i n single family houses with private l o t s where a man can relax, garden or just "putter around". A recent study noted that those people lacking private open space tended to be frus t r a t e d about the r e s t r a i n t they f e l t imposed on them as a r e s u l t . ^ 2 The presence of shared party walls also i n h i b i t s a f e e l i n g of privacy. The knowledge of the closeness of neighbours tends to discourage a tenant from being exceedingly noisy i n the fear of provoking them. One study has confirmed that t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n i s , i n fa c t , f e l t . - ^ The desire f o r privacy and d i s l i k e of the noise and closeness of apartment l i v i n g are frequently c i t e d as negative features of multiple housing u n i t s which motivate a preference f o r home ownership. Further implications of these inadequacies of a l t e r -native forms of housing concern the u n s u i t a b i l i t y as an en-vironment f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n . The important factors i n t h i s respect are the lack of play areas and poor supervision 34 of c h i l d r e n . In a high r i s e apartment a mother i s unable to watch her children on the ground and she i s l i k e l y to worry when they are out of sight. Here, ease of access to - 22 -the outdoors i s c r u c i a l , but unavailable i n many multiple u n i t s . S i m i l a r l y , children tend to be noisy and are not permitted f u l l expression when neighbours are l i k e l y to be d i s t u r b e d . 3 5 The a c t i v i t i e s of other members of the family are also affected to some extent by l i v i n g i n confined quarters. Several studies have indicated that with high densities the chance of regular contact i s reduced and i n some cases s o c i a l withdrawal of tenants may r e s u l t . 3 ^ Rather, with decreased l i v i n g space allowing few a c t i v i t i e s , s a t i s f a c t i o n of needs must necessarily take place outside of the u n i t . Some claim that the husband i s most affected i n t h i s respect since he i s denied the opportunity to play the t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e of f i x i n g things around the house and yard.3''' In essence, an apartment i s r e a l l y not considered by consumers as "home". Why t h i s i s so i s suggested by one author: The high-rise apartment b u i l d i n g . . . i s rejected by most Americans as a 'home* because i t gives one no t e r r i t o r y on the ground, v i o l a t e s the archaic image of what a house i s , and, I would suggest, i s perceived unconsciously as a threat to one's self-image as a separate and uni que personality.3 8 Further d i f f i c u l t i e s have also been expressed with the tenure aspects of multiple housing u n i t s . A l t e r a t i o n s to the un i t are necessarily subject to r e s t r i c t i o n s of the landlord. These may be so r i g i d that they e f f e c t i v e l y l i m i t - 23 -39 a tenant's self-expression. At the mercy of the landlord, the f e e l i n g of security tends to be l o s t . Many comments to the Task Force expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the power they f e l t the landlord had. He could r a i s e rents, impose rules about children, pets, s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and bu i l d i n g manage-ment with l i t t l e say from the tenants. The tenants had to pay promptly, obey the regulations or else face e v i c t i o n . ^ L i t t l e opportunity remains f o r f u l l f l e x i b i l i t y such as home ownership provides. By i t s very nature r e n t a l tenure does not provide f o r the pride of ownership that has been esteemed. I t i s d i f f i -c u l t to i d e n t i f y with rented un i t s i n the same way as when t i t l e i s h e l d ^ l while multiple units v i o l a t e one's s e l f -image.^"2 Referring to apartments Clare Cooper further com-ments: This house form i n which people are being asked to l i v e i s not a symbol-o f - s e l f , but a symbol of stereotyped, anonymous f i l i n g - c a b i n e t c o l l e c t i o n of shelves. Even though we may make apartments larger with many of the appurtenances of the suburban house, i t s t i l l may be a long time before the majority of lower and middle-income Americans w i l l accept t h i s as a v a l i d image of Thome T. I t i s too great a threat to t h e i r s e l f -image . 43 More recently, the closest approximation to the single family detached house i s the condominium townhouse. I t attempts to provide some of the features of detached homes - 24 -such as more space inside the u n i t , proximity to ground l e v e l and outdoor space under a form of ownership tenure. However, a recent study has indicated that residents of t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e regard i t as merely temporary accommodation, and that 72.5 percent desire to own a single family detached house.^ I t would appear then that housing a l t e r n a t i v e s other than ownership of a single family detached house have been i n f e r i o r i n providing f o r family needs. Their design features have been lacking i n both i n t e r i o r and private outdoor space, as well as privacy. With the existence of party walls privacy i s further reduced and a c t i v i t i e s l i m i t e d so as not to disturb neighbours. In addition, the lack of proximity to ground l e v e l and the d i f f i c u l t y of seeing and moving outside e a s i l y makes many multiple u n i t s , espe-c i a l l y high r i s e s , an unsuitable environment f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n . F i n a l l y , the necessity of being responsible to a landlord has the e f f e c t of destroying f e e l i n g s of security and c u r t a i l i n g independence and f l e x i b i l i t y . L a s t l y , general advertising, p a r t i c u l a r l y by those who have an i n t e r e s t i n home owners, has helped to reinforce the esteemed value of ownership of a single family detached house. Included here are a r c h i t e c t s , builders and developers, firms dealing i n b u i l d i n g supplies, r e a l estate agencies, mortgage lenders, salesmen of household furnishings and appliances, - 25 -magazines and newspapers, t e l e v i s i o n , etc. The former are anxious to convince p o t e n t i a l buyers of the merits and worth of home ownership while the l a t t e r often advertise innovative furnishings f o r the home or new design layouts or remodelling projects which assume home ownership. One author has remarked: The home ownership movement does not depend alone upon untutored sentiments or a shortage of r e n t a l housing to s e l l homes. I t i s vigorously promoted by a varie t y of business i n t e r e s t s with a stake i n having families buy homes.45 Home promotion i s the key purpose of new model home displays. Here several business i n t e r e s t s j o i n i n enti c i n g p o t e n t i a l home owners to buy. In many cases newspapers and magazines w i l l feature a r t i c l e s on model homes incorporating new b u i l d i n g materials or household furnishings. "Home Bea u t i f u l " , "Better Homes and Gardens", "House and Home" and "Western L i v i n g " are just a few publications aimed at home improvement. Both "McCalls" and "Chatelaine" magazines have occasionally sponsored design competitions f o r innovative remodelling projects. As a r e s u l t , home promotion and advertising tend to emphasize the view of the "good l i f e " which home ownership i s presumed to provide. The home ownership sentiment has become an esteemed t r a d i t i o n i n housing over the years. From the i n s t i t u t i o n of private ownership of property and a way of l i f e focusing on the family unit has evolved the view that home ownership - 26 -best provides f o r housing needs. Additional factors such as a government p o l i c y favouring and encouraging the purchase of single family houses, a lack of other suitable housing a l t e r -natives, and the influence of advertising have been i n s t r u -mental i n r e i n f o r c i n g the home ownership sentiment i n North American society. CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR HOME OWNERSHIP That a widespread desire f o r home ownership has existed has been well documented i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Numerous re-ferences are made to the longing f o r the i d e a l home: owner-ship of a free-standing, single family house on a large treed l o t . One author has commented: The pioneer s p i r i t and the rela t e d image of the self-made man appears to have become ingrained i n the t r a d i t i o n of house and property ownership. Correspondingly, "the desire to own one's home i s both widespread and deep-seated i n American culture."^7 Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , surveys of housing preferences done since the 1930's have indicated an expressed desire by a large majority of the population f o r home ownership. One study went Deep i n the hearts of most American fa m i l i e s glows, however f a i n t l y , the spark of desire f o r home ownership.45 - 27 -so f a r as to claim: No matter how the data on preferences are considered, the main conclusion i s that, i f they could do as they pleased, many more people would l i k e to l i v e i n single family houses than do l i v e i n them.48 In Canada, t h i s view has also been echoed: I t i s widely believed that the majority of Canadians s t i l l regard the s i n g l e -family house as the most desirable form of accommodation.49 The extent of the desire f o r home ownership as reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e varies somewhat according to the p a r t i c u l a r study and the sampling procedures used. Nevertheless, the preference i s c l e a r l y i n favour of ownership of a single family detached house. Early studies reported that anywhere between 65 and 8 9 percent of the population preferred home ownership.50 A more recent survey of 1042 residents i n the Detroit area revealed that 87 percent favoured a single family house and 85 percent desired to own.5^ S i m i l a r l y , i n Canada, the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development indicated that i n a show of hands by those people attending i t s sessions as many as 8 0 percent aspired to home ownership.^ 2 Several of these studies have also pointed out that nearly two-thirds of the respondents currently l i v i n g i n multiple dwelling units expressed preferences f o r owning a single family detached house. 5 3 In fa c t , a prime motivator of the,decision to move has been the desire to purchase a home.5^ Studies of r e s i d e n t i a l mobility have repeatedly - 28 -indicated that renters are the most mobile, p a r t i c u l a r l y those seeking ownership. They tend to be d i s s a t i s f i e d u n t i l t h e i r housing goal i s achieved and consider t h e i r r e n t a l unit 5 5 to be temporary* The preference f o r home ownership appears strongest i n the middle and upper income groups e s p e c i a l l y among families with young c h i l d r e n . ^ Generally up to 80 percent of those people i n the upper income group prefer home ownership while 75 percent and 66 percent respectively of the middle and lower income groups d o . ^ Young couples with children have p a r t i c u l a r l y strong desires f o r home ownership as they are often at the stage of family expansion. I f t h e i r current accommodation cannot s a t i s f y t h e i r housing requirements, they w i l l usually move to larger quarters. Since many are i n multiple, rented u n i t s the preference f o r home ownership i s strong. In one study of married couples with children l i v i n g i n multiple rented accommodation, approximately 95 percent expressed a pre-ference f o r a single family house.^ The ef f e c t of these attitudes i s shown i n the s h i f t toward home ownership over the years. In 1966 i n Canada there was a t o t a l of 3,234,123 single family homes of which 88 percent were owner occupied. This represented an addi-t i o n of 2,000,000 units of t h i s type since 1945. 5^ In the United States, a s i m i l a r trend toward home - 29 -ownership occurred during the same period of time. From 1940 to 1950 the percentage of owner occupied u n i t s rose from 44 to 55 percent, peaking i n I960 to 62 percent.^° In both countries, much of t h i s development constituted the post-war housing boom. In essence then, the l i t e r a t u r e confirms that i n pre-vious years consumer preferences favouring ownership of a single family detached house over other housing alte r n a t i v e s have been quite strong. Although the desire f o r home ownership i s widespread, consumer motivations underlying t h i s preference are quite varied. Most of the studies s p e c i f i c a l l y examining t h i s aspect date from the l a t e 1930*s to the early 1950*s. Many of these were i n s p i r e d by the widespread r e s i d e n t i a l house-b u i l d i n g occurring at that time. Inte r e s t i n g l y enough, l i t t l e recent research focusing on home ownership e x i s t s . B a s i c a l l y , the desire f o r home ownership has been taken f o r granted as the housing goal which a majority of the popula-t i o n i s s t r i v i n g to a t t a i n . As the basis f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g current consumer a t t i -tudes towards t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e , a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on consumer motivations i n housing gives some in d i c a t i o n of the range of features att r i b u t e d to home owner-ship. An analysis of studies dealing both with consumer aspirations f o r home ownership and attitudes of those who - 30 -are recent purchasers of single family housing reveals the components of the home ownership sentiment to be further examined i n a f i e l d survey i n t h i s t h e s i s . Thus f a r i t has been established that the housing a l t e r -native of ownership of a single family detached house has, over the years, taken on a c o l l e c t i o n of po s i t i v e sentiments r e l a t i n g to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs. These have become established i n North American society as the "home ownership sentiment" or the " b e l i e f " i n home ownership.^1 These sentiments are generally related to the "home" and "ownership" aspects of t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . One author has commented: ...the home ownership sentiment seems to r e f l e c t a process whereby values not elsewhere guaranteed i n the culture have become loaded upon the 'home' and 'home' has come to mean 'home ownership*. The transformation which replaces the desire f o r 'home* with the desire f o r •home ownership' takes two steps: (1) 'home' i s interpreted as a detached, single family dwelling, however humble; and (2) the dwelling must become the family's home not merely by being i n -habited by the family, but also by , 2 coming under f u l l - f l e d g e d ownership. The attitudes expressed by housing consumers towards home ownership have i n turn r e f l e c t e d both emotional and p r a c t i c a l reasons f o r t h e i r preference. The emotional reasons pertain to "a desire to have the " 'f e e l i n g ' of ownership", as well as to the sentiments associated with "home" as a res-pectable, permanent and secure environment.^ Echoing t h i s - 3 1 -view one author claims: Home ownership i s not a purely r a t i o n a l u t i l i t a r i a n choice. I t i s overcrusted with sentiment, symbolic value, and • , considerations of status and prestige. * However, very p r a c t i c a l considerations support the con-sumer preference f o r home ownership and t h i s i s also r e-f l e c t e d i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s . The quality of various design features and the advantages of ownership tenure are frequently acclaimed by consumers as important. A more detailed consideration of consumer motivations i n home ownership outlines the major a t t r i b u t e s of t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e which s a t i s f y c e r t a i n housing goals. These are related to several general areas: the provision f o r a f l e x i b l e family and "home" environment; i n d i v i d u a l i t y and independence; f i n a n c i a l investment; and status and t r a d i t i o n . Both design and tenure features are c i t e d as s a t i s f y i n g these goals. In providing a f l e x i b l e environment, ownership of a single family detached house has several major a t t r i b u t e s which f a c i l i t a t e personal l i v i n g . These are re l a t e d to the st r u c t u r a l features of the detached house and l o t . In the past, single family houses have been of better q u a l i t y and design than r e n t a l u n i t s which were predominantly apartments.^* Single family houses are generally larger, providing more i n t e r i o r f l o o r space than most multiple housing u n i t s . A single family house may have a basement and up to three - 32 -storeys above ground. Large apartment units are not numerous and are usually on one f l o o r l e v e l . I t would be d i f f i c u l t to s a t i s f y large space requirements i n t h i s type of housing. To be assured adequate space requirements meant a single family detached house. This i n turn required purchasing the unit since r e n t a l of t h i s form of housing was l i m i t e d (with most r e n t a l quarters being apartments). The extensive l i v i n g area provided by owning a single family detached home i s c r i t i c a l f o r family expansion and accommodation of the households a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s . Adjustment to the addition of children can more e a s i l y be made i n a house than i n an apartment with few rooms. In addition, the l i v i n g area provided by home ownership allows more room f o r d a i l y l i v i n g , permitting household members to move about f r e e l y without f e e l i n g confined. There i s space f o r hobbies, play and other i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t i e s . This i s important to a family with children, as they are l e s s l i k e l y to be continually underfoot. Also important i n creating a f l e x i b l e environment i s the private outdoor space c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of home ownership. Several studies have reported that the desire f o r a large l o t i s a key factor i n the consumer preference f o r t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . I t has been shown that people value open space f o r the opportunity to use i t f o r a vari e t y of a c t i -v i t i e s . - 33 -I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important because i t allows c e r t a i n functions c a r r i e d on inside the unit to be transferred out-doors.^*8 These include such basic things as cooking, eating and drying laundry as well as entertaining and hobbies -(gardening, sports, e t c . ) . One study noted: ...people, and p a r t i c u l a r l y young people with children, do attach a p o s i t i v e value to closeness to the out-of-doors, open spaces and i n -formal living...°9 Private open space permits household members to wander f r e e l y on t h e i r own property, whereas shared open space discourages " l o i t e r i n g " . The p o s s i b i l i t y of regular contact with proximate neigh-bours f a c i l i t a t e s greater s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n than i n multiple u n i t s where there i s l e s s chance of seeing the same person 70 as frequently. Proximity to the ground and ease of seeing and moving outdoors which the detached house and l o t provide are im-portant to a mother with children. Their a c t i v i t i e s can be ca r r i e d on outside yet under the supervision of the parent. Since children have room to play i n and around t h e i r homes, parental influence remains strong f o r a longer period of time than i f children had to develop s o c i a l r e lationships and i n t e r e s t s outside of the unit due to lack of space i n s i d e (as i s often the case i n multiple u n i t s ) . ^ Related to t h i s i s the feature of detached party walls. - 34 -Since there i s a maximum distance between neighbours, poten-t i a l disturbance due to noise i s minimized. The security of knowing that children (and adults) can be out of hearing range of neighbours i s reassuring. This permits children to be noisy and does not r e s t r i c t large s o c i a l gatherings as i s the case i n multiple u n i t s . One study has indicated that people f e e l single family homes are le s s noisy than multiple u n i t s . ? 2 S i m i l a r l y , there i s evidence to suggest that the presence of party walls i s an i n h i b i t i n g f a c t o r which tends to r e s t r i c t a c t i v i t i e s to passive things.? 3 Since ownership of a detached home predominantly has re-f l e c t e d a low density, r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n i n suburbia, the i n d i v i d u a l l o t s have emphasized the family u n i t and the " h o m e " A s s o c i a t e d with t h i s are fe e l i n g s of permanence, security and s t a b i l i t y which home ownership i s considered by consumers to provide. Due to concern i n our culture with family l i f e as the source of support i n emotional development, the family represents a locus of security f o r i t s members. This i n turn has become projected on to the "home" and to attitudes towards home ownership.?5 The house represents a "symbol of continuity, a v i s i b l e guarantee that the person or the family has a t r a d i t i o n and a f u t u r e " . ^ As such, i t gives a d d i t i o n a l emotional support against the constant s o c i a l changes which are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of present day l i f e . This i s reinforced by the security of having f u l l t i t l e to the house - 35 -and property. Purchase of the house assures i n the minds of the owners a home for old age (even though the house i s not l i k e l y to be kept that long). The importance of security as a motivating force i n home ownership i s indicated by several studies. Two i n p a r t i c u l a r have c i t e d emotional goals of security as the prime reason 77 f o r seeking home ownership. In t h i s respect one author has concluded: The hunger f o r home as a place that abides i s a motivating under-current i n much home ownership and indeed, much can be said f o r s t a b i l i t y i n our r e s t l e s s society.f° C l e a r l y , a great many consumer motivations i n the pre-ference f o r home ownership concern the provision of a f l e x i b l e family and "home" environment. Certain s t r u c t u r a l features of the detached house and l o t have f a c i l i t a t e d the pursuit of a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s with a maximum of privacy. This i n turn has reinforced the view of home ownership as providing a f l e x i b l e , secure and stable family environment. I t has generally been held that: Successful home ownership...leads to an enriched family l i f e . . . . a n environ-ment of health, a r e a l i z a t i o n of family independence and property ownership, a medium i n which good morals and high i d e a l s f l o u r i s h . . . 7 9 Recent studies have confirmed that s u i t a b i l i t y f o r c h i l d -r a i s i n g has been c i t e d by as many as 9 0 percent of households as the most important reason i n the preference f o r a single - 3 6 -family house.^ Other motives f o r home ownership are related to the provision for i n d i v i d u a l i t y and independence. To a large extent maximum i n d i v i d u a l i t y and independence i s permitted through the wide range of a c t i v i t i e s which can be enjoyed without r e s t r a i n t i n the house and yard. Equally important, however, i s the freedom permitted by holding t i t l e to the house and property and not being subject to a landlord. While a home owner has certai n l e g a l constraints common to a l l owners, any al t e r a t i o n s to his unit and grounds do not require any landlord's approval. Clearly: The home owner i s master of his dwelling. He cannot be ordered to vacate, and the rent cannot be raised. He can make a l t e r -ations as he sees f i t , and money spent f o r improvements adds to the value of his home as property.°1 The owner i s , i n essence, a permanent landlord with the promise of a permanent home. This further contributes to the f e e l i n g of security associated with home ownership. Such independence permits the house and property to be modified to s u i t the fa m i l i e s ' needs. This may be, f o r example, the addition of an extra room or the creation of a play area f o r the children. In t h i s way the owner i s able to solve any d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s with h i s housing unit more e a s i l y than a tenant. At the same time the design c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s give maxi-mum opportunity f o r self-expression and i n d i v i d u a l i t y . - 37 -Pleasure and pride are derived from being able to " f i x up" what one owns. One author has commented: The house i s *our place* or 'my place*, something to be worked on, cared f o r , enjoyed. I f the place where a person l i v e s can be alte r e d to s u i t his tastes and i n t e r e s t s , he gains opportunity f o r self-expression and a f e e l i n g of control over the environment,°2 In a sense t h i s r e f l e c t s back to the pioneer s p i r i t of r e -sourcefulness and s e l f - a s s e r t i o n which i s a part of the i d e a l of home ownership. A recent study has indicated that people who value individualism consider single family housing to be 83 the i d e a l housing type i n t h i s respect. * In any case, the i n d i v i d u a l i t y and independence made possible by home owner-ship are important factors i n consumer preferences f o r t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . A t h i r d set of reasons commonly c i t e d i n aspirations f o r ownership of a single family detached house r e l a t e to aspects of f i n a n c i a l investment. To many consumers the pur-chase of a house provides a source of equity. Their monthly mortgage payments are not viewed as "spent money" as i n the case of renting, i n the b e l i e f that future sale of t h e i r home w i l l provide a return on t h e i r investment. A great many fami l i e s also consider home ownership to be cheaper i n the long run than renting. 8^" (Although t h i s may not be so, the view i s widely held). The house represents accumulated savings and to some home ownership i s regarded as a good - 38 -#5 incentive to save, a means of forced saving. Many hope to s e l l t h e i r houses at a p r o f i t some time i n the future, (not r e a l i z i n g that equal or higher p r o f i t could possibly have been obtained by investing funds i n other sources). Others consider t h e i r investment i n a home to be protected and as a hedge against i n f l a t i o n due to the tendency of property to appreciate. Most of the studies have indicated that the f i n a n c i a l aspects i n preferences f o r home ownership rank behind other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . ^ Nevertheless, i t should be noted that f i n a n c i a l aspects are always mentioned i n consumer preferences f o r t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . F i n a l l y , expressed consumer motivations i n ownership of a single family detached house r e l a t e to status and t r a d i t i o n . In part t h i s stems back to the prestige associated with property ownership i n the pioneer era. To many, home owner-ship i s a symbol of economic achievement and one's p o s i t i o n 88 i n the status hierarchy. The quality of housing which a family has achieved i s frequently used by people i n comparing themselves with others. I t i s more prestigious to own a go house than to rent a l t e r n a t i v e types of accommodation. 7 This i s r e f l e c t e d i n the view that a home owner i s a more 90 stable and responsible c i t i z e n with h i s roots i n the s o i l . Together these attitudes have reaffirmed the p o s i t i v e value of home ownership as a respected t r a d i t i o n i n housing. - 39 -That they are important to consumers i s evidenced i n several studies which report the pride and prestige i n home owner-ship as ranking near the top i n preferences f o r t h i s housing 91 a l t e r n a t i v e . I t would appear from the l i t e r a t u r e that the desire f o r home ownership i s widespread but f o r a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t reasons. Consumers have c i t e d both design and tenure features of t h i s form of housing as instrumental i n best providing f o r housing needs. SUMMARY The desire f o r home ownership i n our society has evolved as a preference f o r ownership of a single family detached house. I t has assumed a complexity of sentiments r e l a t i n g to both "home" and "ownership" which were r e f l e c t i v e of the r u r a l agrarian t r a d i t i o n and way of l i f e that have become i d e a l i z e d i n the minds of urban dwellers. As such i t i s an esteemed value and has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been associated with best pro-v i d i n g f o r family needs. Equally important were government f i n a n c i a l incentives and attitudes i n r e i n f o r c i n g the home ownership sentiment and i t s d e s i r a b i l i t y . Coupled with the inadequacy of other housing alte r n a t i v e s and advertising, the value of home owner-ship was strengthened even further. Consideration of consumer preferences f o r home ownership - 40 -revealed the desire for t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e to be strong. However, the reasons f o r t h e i r preference were f a i r l y diverse. These were related to several general areas: the provision f o r a f l e x i b l e family and "home" environment; i n d i v i d u a l i t y and independence; f i n a n c i a l investment; and status and t r a d i -t i o n . Analysis of consumer attitudes towards these features revealed the perceived a t t r i b u t e s of ownership of a single detached house which are r e f l e c t e d i n the home ownership sentiment. This review of past studies has indicated the key components of t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e which form the basis of the f i e l d survey conducted to assess current a t t i -tudes towards home ownership. - 41 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER II 1 Louis Mumford, The C i t y i n History (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961), pp. 107-110. 2 D.G. Kerr, A H i s t o r i c a l Atlas of Canada (Toronto: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1961), p. 25 3 John Reps, Town Planning i n Frontier America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 70-84 and pp. 147-149. 4 Reps, pp. 151-155. 5 Reps, pp. 153-155. 6 Nelson Foote, Mary M. Foley and Janet Abu-Lughod, Housing  Choices and Constraints (New York: McGraw-Hill, 19WT, p. 83. 7 Ben Schlesinger, "The Family L i f e Cycle i n Canada," Under One Roof (Ottawa: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Conference on Family L i f e , 1964), p. 11. 8 Foote and others, p. 84. 9 Schlesinger, p. 11. 10 John P. Dean, Home Ownership, i s i t Sound? (New York: Harper and Bros., 1945), p. 9. 11 Foote and others, pp. £4-87. 12 Ian Maclennan, The Architecture of Urban and Suburban  Development (Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, 1964), p. 4. 13 M. Meyerson, B. Terrett and W. C. Wheaton, Housing, People and C i t i e s (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962), p. 8 7 . 14 Maclennan, p. 4 . 15 Albert Rose, "Canadian Housing P o l i c i e s , " The Right to  Housing, ed. M. Wheeler (Montreal: Harvest House Ltd., 1969), p. 67 and p. 8 5 . 16 Canada, Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Develop-ment, Report on Housing and Urban Development (Ottawa, 19695, P. 17. - 42 -17 Dean, p. 4 . 18 Dean, p. 3 6 . 19 Rose, p. 67 and p. 85. 20 Rose, pp. 85-86. 21 See Wolfgang M. I l l i n g , Housing Demand to 1970 (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 19o4). 22 Rose, p. 6 7 . 23 David V. Donnison, "Housing Problems and P o l i c i e s : An Introduction," The Right to Housing, ed. M. Wheeler (Montreal: Harvest House Ltd., 1969), p. 56. 24 Canadian Housing Design Council, Canada, Housing Design (Ottawa, 1967), p. 3 . 25 Dean, p. 4 . 26 Federal Task Force on Housing, p. 17. 27 William Michelson, "Most People don't want what Architects want," Transaction, V (1968), 39. 28 Peter Rossi. Why Families Move (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955), p. 88 and p. 94. 29 William Michelson, Analytic Sampling f o r Design Infor-mation: A Survey of~Hbusing Experience, Research Paper No. 21 (Toronto: Centre f o r Urban and Community Studies, 1 9 6 9 ) , p. 12; and Leon Kumove, A Preliminary Study of  S o c i a l Implications of High Density L i v i n g Conditions (Toronto: S o c i a l Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 1 9 6 6 ), p. 28. 30 Rossi, p. 180. 31 Michelson, Analytic Sampling f o r Design Information, p. 17. 32 Michelson, Analytic Sampling for Design Information, p. 2 6 . 33 John Raven, " S o c i o l o g i c a l Evidence on Housing I I : The Home Environment," A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, CXLII (September, 1967), 2 3 6 . - 43 -34 Kumove, p. 2 6 ; Marvin Lipman, " S o c i a l E f f e c t s of the Housing Environment," The Right to Housing, ed. M. Wheeler (Montreal: Harvest House L t d . ? 1969), pp. 1 7 4 -175; and William Michelson, Man and h i s Urban Environ-ment (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 9 6 - 1 0 3 . 35 Margaret W i l l i s , " L i v i n g i n High F l a t s , " (London: London County Council, Architects Department, 1 9 5 5 ) , c i t e d by William Michelson, Man and h i s Urban Environ-ment (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 9 9 . 36 Kumove, pp. 13-16 and Michelson, Man and his Urban  Environment, pp. 5 0 - 5 3 • 37 Lipman, p. 175. 38 Clare Cooper, The House as Symbol of S e l f , Working Paper No. 120 (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a . I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, 1 9 7 1 ) , p. 1 3 . 39 Coleman Woodbury, The Future of C i t i e s and Urban Re-development (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1 9 5 3 ) , P. 3 2 9 . 40 Federal Task Force on Housing, p. 1 9 . 41 Woodbury, p. 3 2 9 . 42 Cooper, p. 1 3 . 43 Cooper, pp. 1 3 - 1 4 . 44 Condominium Research Associates, National Survey of  Condominium Owners (Toronto, 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 4 2 . 45 Dean, p. 4 3 . 46 Foote and others, p. 1 9 0 . 47 Woodbury, p. 322 . 48 John Lansing and Gary Hendricks, L i v i n g Patterns and  Attitudes i n the Detroit Region (Detroit: D e t r o i t Regional Transportation- and Land Use Study, 1967), p. 3 6 . 49 Lipman, p. 1 7 4 . 50 I r v i n g Rosow, "Home Ownership Motives," American Socio-l o g i c a l Review, XIII, No. 6 (December, 1948), 7 5 1 - 7 5 6 . - 44 -51 Lansing and Hendricks, p. 3 3 . 52 Federal Task Force on Housing, p. 17. 53 Michelson, "Most People," p. 39 and John Lansing and Eva Mueller with Nancy Barth, Residential Location and  Urban Mobility (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Centre, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1 9 6 4 ) , p. 4 7 . 54 Lansing and Hendricks, pp. 6 4 - 6 5 . 55 Rossi, p. 6; and Janet Abu-Lughod and Mary M. Foley, "The Consumer Votes by Moving," Urban Housing, ed. W. L. Wheaton (New York: The Free Press, 1966), pp. 178-179. 56 Foote and others, Housing Choices and Constraints, pp. 191-193. 57 Meyerson and others, Housing, People and C i t i e s , p. S 5 . 58 Lansing and Hendricks, p. 35. 59 Darwin D. E a r l , The Mixing of Housing Types: A Study of  Selected S o c i a l Issues, (Vancouver, B.C.: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, unpublished M.A. Thesis, 1970), p. 3 0 . 60 G. Beyer, Housing and Society (New York: MacMillan, 1965), p. 119. 61 Dean, Home Ownership, i s i t Sound?, p. 1 3 . 62 Dean, pp. 12-13. 63 "The Urge to Own," A r c h i t e c t u r a l Forum, November, 1937, c i t e d by Nelson Foote and others, Housing Choices and  Constraints (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), p. 191. 64 Foote and others, p. 190. 65 Beyer, p. 250. 66 Foote and others, p. 200. 67 Lansing~.and Hendricks, p. 5 9 ; Michelson, "Most People," p. 4 3 ; and Foote and others, p. 2 5 9 . 68 Foote and others, pp. 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 . 69 Lansing and Mueller with Barth, p. 3 7 . 70 Michelson, Man and his Urban Environment, pp. 50-53. 71 Kumove, p. 1 4 . - 45 -72 Lansing and Hendricks, pp. 51-53 and p. 81. 73 Raven, p. 236. 74 Michelson, Man and his Urban Environment, p. 84. 75 Dean, pp. 9-10. 76 United Savings and Loan League, Human Meeds i n Housing, Report on a Round Table Conference, Occasional Paper No. 4 (Chicago, 1964), p. 28. 77 Rosow, pp. 751-756; and Melvin C. Branch, Urban Planning  and Public Opinion (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univer-s i t y , Bureau of Urban Research, 1942), c i t e d by Coleman Woodbury, The Future of C i t i e s and Urban Redevelopment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 324. 78 Dean, p. 78. 79 Dean, p. 36 and p. 44. 80 Michelson, Analytic Sampling f o r Design Information, p. 22. 81 Dean, p. 81. 82 United Savings and Loan League, p. 2 9 . 83 Michelson, Man and his Urban Environment, p. 143. 84 "The Urge to Own," p. 324. 85 W.I. Greenwald, Buy or Rent? (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1958), p. 74. 86 Federal Task Force on Housing, Report on Housing, p. 17. 87 See for example Rosow, pp. 751-756; and studies summa-r i z e d i n Woodbury, pp. 324-326. 88 Foote and others, p. 111. 89 Meyerson and others, p. 8 5 . 90 Federal Task Force on Housing, p. 17. 91 See Lipman, " S o c i a l E f f e c t s of the Housing Environment," p. 174; studies summarized i n Woodbury, pp. 324-326; and Edward T. Paxton, What People Want When They Buy a House (Washington: U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, I955T, p. 10. - 46 -CHAPTER II I SURVEY OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARDS HOME OWNERSHIP: CONCEPT AND PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION From the discussion i n the l a s t chapter i t would appear that there are p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t e s of home ownership which correspond to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of ce r t a i n housing goals. In order to determine the r e l a t i v e importance of these a t t r i -butes i n the consumer preference f o r home ownership, a f i e l d survey was conducted. A focus on the views of a selected sample of future housing consumers has given some i n d i c a t i o n of the extent and preferred features of t h i s housing a l t e r -native. This group was chosen as i t s needs and preferences are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r future p o l i c y formulations i n housing. The survey was conducted i n Metropolitan Vancouver as data on p o t e n t i a l residents could be most e a s i l y obtained. A workable sample of young married couples l i v i n g i n r e n t a l accommodation were surveyed. A mailed questionnaire was used to determine t h e i r attitudes towards selected issues involving home ownership. This f i e l d survey has helped to c l a r i f y the home owner-ship sentiment as the preferred housing a l t e r n a t i v e and pro-vided i n i t i a l findings to be used to suggest guidelines f o r - 47 -better s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n other housing types. The f i r s t part of t h i s chapter outlines the study con-cept and i t s objectives. Based on the sentiments surrounding home ownership and consumer motivations reported i n past studies, a set of features r e l a t i n g to the "design", the "tenure" and the " t r a d i t i o n " aspects of home ownership has been derived as the basis f o r the f i e l d survey. The second part of t h i s chapter discusses the study procedures: development of the questionnaire, sample selec-t i o n , pretest, questionnaire d i s t r i b u t i o n and c o l l e c t i o n . STUDY CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVES Taking a closer look at the housing goals of consumers on one hand and the housing alternative as portrayed i n the home ownership sentiment on the other, i t would appear that home ownership constitutes a "package" of features with r e-lated consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s . Certain s t r u c t u r a l features are c i t e d as instrumental i n providing a f l e x i b l e family environment. Of importance are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i t i n g and design of the house and l o t , i n t e r i o r and exterior space, and detached party walls. The space provided inside the unit f a c i l i t a t e s household a c t i v i t i e s and accommodates family ex-pansion. Private outdoor space allows f o r proximity to the outdoors, the pursuit of various l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s (such as - 48 -gardening or sports), and play areas f o r children. Detached party walls ensure privacy and minimize noise disturbance to neighbours from most of the household's a c t i v i t i e s . Together these "design" related features s a t i s f y important consumer housing goals. S i m i l a r l y , other housing goals such as independence, i n d i v i d u a l i t y and f i n a n c i a l investment are considered to be s a t i s f i e d l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of ownership tenure. This i s brought about by holding t i t l e to the house and property. Not only does ownership assure permanence of the r e s i d e n t i a l environment that the owner has attained, but he i s master of his home, free to do as he pleases. Without the r e s t r i c t i o n s of tenancy or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to a landlord, the owner i s able to a l t e r any part of hi s house and yard to s u i t his needs. This permits greater expression of i n d i v i d u a l i t y . By v i r t u e of ownership tenure, equity i n the unit and property i s acquired. I t i s considered by many consumers to have p r o f i t p o t e n t i a l upon resale and to be more economical i n the long run than renting. These "tenure" features combine to s a t i s f y other important housing goals held by consumers. The s a t i s f a c t i o n of s t i l l other housing goals are a t t r i -buted to the " t r a d i t i o n " of home ownership as an esteemed and valued possession. Included here are such features as pride i n ownership, prestige and affirmation of the home owner as a responsible and stable c i t i z e n of the community. - 49 -These various a t t r i b u t e s of home ownership can therefore be organized into three major component categories: those r e l a t i n g to the "design", the "tenure" and the " t r a d i t i o n " aspects of home ownership, each with corresponding consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s . These relationships are further i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1. I t must be recognized that some consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s may derive i n part from att r i b u t e s i n d i f f e r e n t component categories. Privacy, f o r example, i s la r g e l y a function of design features. However, prestige derives i n part from the aesthetic q u a l i t i e s of the p a r t i c u l a r unit (a design function), and also from the t r a d i t i o n i n housing that values the house as a symbol of status. Recognizing that there may be some overlapping, i t i s s t i l l possible to associate most consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s primarily with a t t r i b u t e s i n s i m i l a r component categories. This delineation of components i s suggested only as one of many possible ways of t r y i n g to sort out the features r e -f l e c t e d i n the home ownership sentiment. I t i s u s e f u l i n that i t gives a clearer i n d i c a t i o n of the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s which exist between the features of the housing a l t e r n a t i v e of home ownership and the consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s which are associated with them. Further, t h i s framework provides a basis f o r exploring the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s within and among these component FIGURE 1. COMPONENTS OF HOME OWNERSHIP "HOME OWNERSHIP" OWNERSHIP OF A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE FEATURES "Design" - Related s i t i n g of house and l o t space: i n t e r i o r private outdoor detached party walls aesthetic appearance CONSUMER SATISFACTION f l e x i b i l i t y of environment c h i l d r a i s i n g privacy prestige O "Tenure" - Related equity investment t i t l e security p r o f i t independence i n d i v i d u a l i t y " T r a d i t i o n " - Related status prestige t r a d i t i o n stable c i t i z e n pride - 51 -categories i n the consumer preference f o r home ownership. By-developing questions r e f l e c t i n g the ideas outlined i t i s possible to obtain some i n d i c a t i o n of expressed consumer pre-ferences f o r home ownership including t h e i r attitudes towards i t s various features. Those features having p r i o r i t y and the r e l a t i v e importance of the component categories i n the consumer view could also be determined. Such information, aside from c l a r i f y i n g what i s aspired to i n the home ownership sentiment, would be us e f u l f o r p r a c t i c a l purposes i n recommending p o l i c i e s f o r the modi-f i c a t i o n or upgrading of alte r n a t i v e forms of housing. Here, some knowledge of whether "design" or "tenure" r e l a t e d features are of a higher p r i o r i t y to the consumer i s impor-tant i n considerations of pol i c y f o r a l t e r n a t i v e forms of housing to better s a t i s f y housing needs. Using the study concept outlined, questions were deve-loped f o r the f i e l d survey of a sample of future housing consumers to determine t h e i r views on a series of selected issues regarding home ownership. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , some measure was sought concerning the extent to which home ownership was aspired to by t h i s group. This was to confirm that a strong desire f o r home ownership s t i l l existed at present among future housing con-sumers as i n the past. For those who did not aspire to home ownership some - 52 -information was sought as to the reasons f o r t h e i r view and the alt e r n a t i v e type of accommodation they preferred. For those who anticipated owning a single family detached house, questions were devised to determine which features of t h i s housing al t e r n a t i v e were of primary importance i n t h e i r desire f o r home ownership. Of int e r e s t were the p r i o r i t i e s within the component categories of "design", "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " . Since future housing consumers at or approaching the stage of family expansion are often concerned with acquiring a f l e x i b l e family environment, questions were structured to ascertain i f , i n fa c t , a majority of the "design" related features were considered as very important as might be expected. S i m i l a r l y , regarding the "tenure" component, some i n -di c a t i o n was sought as to the major a t t r i b u t e s considered important i n t h i s category. I f a f l e x i b l e family environ-ment i s considered by consumers as a p r i o r i t y i n aspi r i n g to home ownership, then the housing goals of security and independence provided by holding t i t l e to the house and property would be more c r i t i c a l i n the consumer view than f i n a n c i a l aspects. With respect to the " t r a d i t i o n " component, some i n d i -cation of the strength of t h i s factor i n current consumer aspirations f o r home ownership was of i n t e r e s t . In the past pride i n ownership was a prime motivating force i n seeking - 53 -t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e rather than l e s s prestigious r e n t a l accommodation. With the increase i n construction of better quality r e n t a l u n i t s , t h i s survey attempted to determine the extent to which " t r a d i t i o n " related features were rated as important i n consumer aspirations f o r home ownership. Another s i g n i f i c a n t objective of the f i e l d survey was to examine the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p among the component cate-gories i n the consumer preference f o r home ownership. Some in d i c a t i o n as to the r e l a t i v e importance of the "design", "tenure" or " t r a d i t i o n " categories of rela t e d features i n t h e i r view was s i g n i f i c a n t . I t was anticipated that the degree of importance attached to the various elements i n each of the categories would be r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r o v e r a l l ranking of the component categories. An a d d i t i o n a l area of concern involved consumer attitudes towards multiple housing u n i t s as an al t e r n a t i v e to home ownership. Questions were designed to determine the p r i o r i t y of features considered important i n upgrading or modifying these u n i t s and the degree to which t h i s corresponded with those factors rated of primary importance i n aspirations f o r home ownership. Further to t h i s , some i n i t i a l i n s i g h t s were sought as to the r e l a t i v e importance of "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " features i f the "design" aspects were provided i n multiple housing u n i t s . - 54 -F i n a l l y , several questions to assess current consumer attitudes towards a series of commonly held views of home ownership were also included. This c o l l e c t i o n of questions comprising the f i e l d survey attempted to provide some information regarding the key features of home ownership as r e f l e c t e d i n consumer at t i t u d e s . In addition to assessing the extent of aspirations f o r home ownership among future housing consumers, the survey was designed to determine the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the features of t h i s housing al t e r n a t i v e and corresponding con-sumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s . By focusing on consumer attitudes an important perspec-t i v e i s added to the study of the home ownership as the preferred housing a l t e r n a t i v e . STUDY PROCEDURES Survey Technique The f i e l d survey to examine attitudes of future housing consumers towards home ownership was set i n Metropolitan Vancouver. To obtain the data required a questionnaire was mailed to selected households designated by the sample. This survey technique was chosen f o r several reasons. The nature of the information sought was f a i r l y s t r a i g h t -forward and could be drawn up c l e a r l y i n the questionnaire format. More people could be contacted i n a mailed survey - 55 -than through personal interviews with l e s s expense and time involved. In addition, the problem of errors and biases introduced i n an interview s i t u a t i o n was avoided. Although the scheme of questions was simple, several required some thinking out rather than a quick answer which a face-to-face interviewer might demand. In p a r t i c u l a r , those questions inv o l v i n g ranking or ra t i n g were better suited to a ques-tionnaire format. Any det a i l e d explanation about the survey which an interviewer might give could bias the responses. For the purposes of t h i s study then, the mailed ques-tionnaire provided the most e f f i c i e n t means of data c o l l e c -t i o n . The questionnaire i t s e l f consisted primarily of closed or f i x e d - a l t e r n a t i v e questions. This type was selected to test s p e c i f i c relationships involving key aspects of home ownership of int e r e s t i n the study. Based on the l i t e r a t u r e , questions were developed using ratings and rankings of sets of features of home ownership. Closed questions were also used for most of the biographical data. Open-ended questions were included to allow the respon-dents to add other s p e c i f i c features of home ownership con-sidered important i n t h e i r view. Where exploratory i n f o r -mation on a p a r t i c u l a r issue was sought, open-ended questions allowed f o r q u a l i f y i n g statements. In formulating the questionnaire, care was taken to keep - 56 -the length short, the questions straightforward, and the direc t i o n s c l e a r . The survey was designed to be completed i n l e s s than f i f t e e n minutes. A covering l e t t e r explaining the nature of the study and procedures f o r data c o l l e c t i o n was also drafted to accompany the mailed questionnaire. A copy of both the l e t t e r and the questionnaire are shown i n Appendix A. Sample Selection The study sample was chosen from future housing consumers whose needs and preferences would be s i g n i f i c a n t i n suggesting appropriate p o l i c y recommendations. Only those households not presently owning single family detached houses were con-sidered i n order to determine i f t h e i r aspirations were t o -wards t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . Since attitudes concerning aspects re l a t e d both to ownership and single family detached houses formed part of the study, those residents owning alte r n a t i v e forms of accommodation or renting a single family home were excluded from the study. A large proportion of t h i s group whose future actions are important are young married couples currently i n the pre-c h i l d or family expansion stages. According to past studies i t i s t h i s group who constitute the primary market of home buyers"** and who are currently faced with r i s i n g costs f o r t h i s form of housing. A d i f f e r i n g a b i l i t y to r e a l i z e t h e i r - 57 -aspirations by vi r t u e of household income creates d i f f e r i n g implications f o r p o l i c y formulation. Faced with rapid growth i n Metropolitan Vancouver, a widespread desire f o r home owner-ship among t h i s group who would be f i n a n c i a l l y able to exer-cis e t h e i r choice must be considered i n p o l i c i e s regulating r e s i d e n t i a l land f o r development. Somewhat more c r i t i c a l i s the s i t u a t i o n for young families i n the middle income groups. I f aspirations for home ownership are expressed by those who may be le s s l i k e l y to a t t a i n t h i s goal i f housing costs continue to r i s e , p o l i c i e s f o r providing suitable a l t e r n a t i v e s must be drafted. Their views on home ownership and the features which they consider important would be useful i n considering the s a t i s -f a c t i o n of t h e i r housing needs. The sample population of most in t e r e s t i n the study then, consisted of young married couples where the male head of household i s aged between 25 and 34 i n the middle and upper income groups who are currently occupying multiple r e n t a l u n i t s i n Metropolitan Vancouver. Subsequent i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of po t e n t i a l subjects proved exceedingly d i f f i c u l t and time consuming. Several al t e r n a -t i v e methods were considered. Using census data f o r Metro-p o l i t a n Vancouver i t was suggested that areas with high proportions of multiple dwellings and renter occupied u n i t s could be i d e n t i f i e d . Within these areas low and high r i s e - 53 -apartment buildings could be plotted, making the assumption that the majority were under r e n t a l tenure. Several b u i l -dings could be randomly selected and some e f f o r t made to determine i f any of the residents f i t the sample by contacting the b u i l d i n g s 1 owners or managers. Questionnaires could then be delivered to the appropriate s u i t e s . The other p o s s i b i l i t y involved d i s t r i b u t i n g the questionnaire to a l l suites i n the buildings selected and asking either a l l to be returned but subsequently using only those who f i t the sample, or asking only young marrieds under age 35 to complete and return the form. This approach had several disadvantages. I n i t i a l l y i t introduced a geographical bias by sampling from selected areas of the c i t y . The b u i l d i n g s e l e c t i o n was r e s t r i c t e d to low and high r i s e apartments since these could be more e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d and assumed as r e n t a l . In addition, the success of obtaining accurate information from owners or managers was considered a problem. D i s t r i b u t i n g questionnaires to a l l suites and drawing the sample from a l l those returned created the p o s s i b i l i t y of obtaining a very small sample s i z e . The rate of return using mailed questionnaires i s considerably l e s s than the t o t a l sent out, and with further sorting, the usable responses would have been even fewer. On the other hand, by allowing subjects to reply i f they f i t the c r i t e r i a s p e c i f i e d , a biased sample would have been created. A second a l t e r n a t i v e involved choosing the subjects from s p e c i f i c multiple r e n t a l housing projects r e f l e c t i n g a mode-rate rent range. Again, to determine i f residents f i t the sample c r i t e r i a , the co-operation of the manager was required. This approach also excluded p o t e n t i a l subjects i n other forms of r e n t a l accommodation such as medium and high r i s e u n i t s . More c r i t i c a l l y , a d ditional bias was created i n sampling from residents who had s p e c i f i c a l l y selected the housing project to l i v e i n and therefore might possibly have d i f f e r e d from the general population i n some respects. The constraints of time and resources were such that an adequate representative sample of future housing consumers i n Vancouver f i t t i n g the c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n could not be e f f i c i e n t l y obtained using either of these procedures. The approach f i n a l l y selected assured a high degree of accuracy and held promise f o r a good response rate. I t involved drawing the sample from a professional group where more accurate information could be obtained. To ensure that the group r e f l e c t e d to some extent the middle and upper income ranges, a sample of teachers and u n i v e r s i t y professors con-s t i t u t e d the sample population. Potential households s a t i s -f y i n g the c r i t e r i a of young married couples with the male head under 35 years of age and l i v i n g 'in r e n t a l accommodation i n Metropolitan Vancouver were i d e n t i f i e d . The t o t a l sample si z e drawn from the data available was 80 households. - 60 -While t h i s technique of sample se l e c t i o n introduced a bias i n favour of a p a r t i c u l a r professional group and l i m i t e d generalizations to the general population of future housing consumers, the views of t h i s group provided a us e f u l i n d i -cation of the attitudes of a segment of that population. On t h i s basis, the sample was selected to provide the necessary data on consumer attitudes towards home ownership. The questionnaire was d i s t r i b u t e d i n i t i a l l y to a small group of randomly selected young married households i n multiple r e n t a l units as a pretest. Respondents were asked to complete the forms and note the time length involved. They were also encouraged to comment on the questions and point up any ambiguities which they f e l t existed. Using t h e i r comments, several corrections were made and the f i n a l questionnaires were printed. The questionnaire and covering l e t t e r were mailed to each household designated by the sample s e l e c t i o n . A team of research assistants subsequently telephoned the respon-dents within two days of the expected time of delivery of the questionnaire. This was done to confirm receipt of the survey and to arrange a time f o r the completed questionnaire to be picked up. Personal c o l l e c t i o n of the forms was under-taken to ensure the immediate return of a maximum number of completed questionnaires. Respondents who s p e c i f i c a l l y chose to mail back t h e i r surveys were permitted to do so. - 61 -These study procedures resulted i n a t o t a l number of 61 completed forms returned. A discussion of the data c o l l e c t e d and an analysis of r e s u l t s i s presented i n the next chapter. - 6? -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER I I I 1 See f o r example Nelson Foote, Mary M. Foley and Janet Abu-Lughod, Housing Choices and Constraints (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), pp. 191-193 and John Lansing and Gary Hendricks, L i v i n g Patterns and Attitudes i n the  Detroit Region (Detroit: Detroit Regional Transportation and Land Use Study, 1967), p. 35. 2 William I. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods i n S o c i a l  Research (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952), p. 182. - 63 -CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEY DATA INTRODUCTION The survey of consumer attitudes has brought to l i g h t some of the important i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the attrib u t e s of ownership of a single family detached house and corresponding consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s . Some i n d i c a t i o n of p r i o r i t i e s of at t r i b u t e s has been obtained as well as attitudes towards t r a d i t i o n a l views of t h i s housing a l t e r -native which are r e f l e c t e d i n the home ownership sentiment. This information has helped to c l a r i f y from the con-sumer perspective what the "home ownership sentiment" e s s e n t i a l l y r e f l e c t s . Equally important, i t provides a basis f o r suggesting where future research might be directed. In p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s involves better provision f o r what i s aspired to i n home ownership for those who may be required to s a t i s f y t h e i r housing needs i n alte r n a t i v e forms of accommodation. This chapter d e t a i l s the r e s u l t s of the f i e l d survey of consumer attitudes towards home ownership. The discussion focuses on the responses as they r e l a t e to the questions of int e r e s t i n the study. - 64 -ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEY DATA From the t o t a l sample size of 80 households to which questionnaires were mailed, 61 completed forms were obtained. This high rate of return was attributed to the procedure of personal c o l l e c t i o n of the forms and the i n t e r e s t i n the study expressed by the respondents. Many added comments on the questionnaires while others emphasized p a r t i c u l a r points i n t a l k i n g with the research assistants. Of the 19 forms not returned every e f f o r t was made to contact these households. Six households declined to par-t i c i p a t e i n the survey. Four had moved and new addresses and telephone numbers were not av a i l a b l e . Three other house-holds could not be contacted even a f t e r repeated c a l l s . F i n a l l y , another s i x had bought single family detached houses. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g i n terms of the study since i n l e s s than s i x months from the date that the addresses used were compiled, a notable number had ac t u a l l y attained t h e i r preference f o r home ownership. A subsequent examination of the questionnaires obtained revealed that several did not s a t i s f y the sample c r i t e r i a . This was pa r t l y the r e s u l t of inaccurate information obtained i n i t i a l l y when the households were selected f o r the sample, as well as the necessity of assuming that addresses including a suite number were under r e n t a l tenure. Five respondents - 65 -were d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r having either ages or marital status d i f f e r e n t from that s p e c i f i e d . Four respondents who owned townhouse uni t s were also not included since these were under a form of ownership tenure rather than rented. F i n a l l y , one questionnaire was discarded as incomplete as the information given did not permit confirmation that the respondent f i t the sample c r i t e r i a . In t o t a l then, a usable sample of 50 questionnaires formed the basis f o r analysis and discussion of the data. Since the study was aimed at obtaining exploratory i n f o r -mation, the responses are examined f o r t h e i r major implica-t i o n s rather than i n terms of complex s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . In addition, the nature of the questions and the s i z e of the sample did not lend themselves to any rigorous s t a t i s t i c a l analysis that would have provided more usefu l findings. Where more d e f i n i t i v e conclusions are sought from the data, the appropriate t e s t s are employed to confirm v a l i d i t y . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Sample Respondents. I n i t i a l l y , c e r t a i n data was c o l l e c t e d to confirm that the respondent households s a t i s f i e d the sample c r i t e r i a as representing a segment of future housing consumers. I t further permitted a f u l l e r description of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p a r t i c u l a r group whose views form the basis f o r sub-sequent discussion and analysis. While a l l the respondents were under 35 years of age - 66-as s p e c i f i e d by the study constraints, the proportions of the male and female heads by age categories showed some difference. S i x t y percent of the males of the household were aged under 30 as opposed to 84 percent of the females. S i m i l a r l y , 40 percent of the males were aged between 30 and 35 while only 16 percent of the females were. This i s shown i n Table I . These fa m i l i e s r e f l e c t e d the pre-child, child-bearing and c h i l d - r e a r i n g stages i n the l i f e cycle. The majority (80 percent) were i n the pre - c h i l d category, with the re-mainder i n the l a t t e r two categories. Of those families where there were children, there was most often just a young baby. Only one household had two children, and none of the households had any of school age. Clearly these families were just approaching the stage of expansion (Table I I ) . Of those households without children 72.5 percent a n t i -cipated having children e i t h e r soon (20 percent), or sometime i n the future (52.5 percent). Only two households did not plan to have children at a l l (Table I I I ) . Since the sample was chosen from a professional group of teachers and professors the males of the household belonged to either occupational category. 35 were teachers and 15 were professors. A l l were u n i v e r s i t y graduates. Of the wives who gave information about t h e i r occupa-ti o n s , s l i g h t l y more than 60 percent were professionals. The remainder were housewives, c l e r i c a l and tech n i c a l workers - 67 -TABLE I . Proportion of Male and Female Heads of Household by Age Categories Male Head Female Head Age Category (Yrs.) 2 2 - 2 4 - 8 (16%) 25 - 29 30 ( 6 0 $ ) 34 (68$) 30 - 34 20 (40%) 8 (16%) (N = 50) TABLE I I . Proportion of Households by No. of Children. No. of Households No Children 40 (80%) 1 Child 9 (I856) 2 Children 1 (2%) (N = 50) - 68 -TABLE I I I . Proportion of Households Without Children With Plans to Have Children. No. of Households Soon 8 (20%) Sometime i n the Future 21 (52.5%) Uncertain 9 (22.5%) Not at A l l 2 ( 5 % ) (N = 40) TABLE IV. No. of Households by Category of Gross Annual Household Income. No. of Households Less than $5000 $5000 - $6999 $7000 - $9999 5 $10,000 - $11,999 6 $12,000 - $14,999 10 $15,000 - $19,999 21 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 - $ 2 4 , 9 9 9 4 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 - $ 3 0 , 9 9 9 1 $30,000+ 1 (N - 48) - 69 -or students. Many who worked were employed f u l l time. With just over h a l f of the households having two wage earners, the range i n gross household income was evident. As can be seen i n Table IV nearly 50 percent earned under $15,000 annually. Of the others, most earned between $15,000 and $19,000 before taxes. This represented both the middle and upper income groups. Interestingly enough, most of the respondents had l i v e d i n Vancouver either for only a few years or f o r a long time. Forty-eight percent had resided i n the c i t y f o r 5 years or le s s while nearly 42 percent had been i n Vancouver f o r 10 years or more. Respondents were also asked to l i s t the types of accom-modation that they had l i v e d i n since marriage. As shown i n Table V a l l had previously rented with a majority being low-r i s e apartment units (&8 percent). Far behind were high-rise u n i t s which 28 percent of the households had at some time occupied. Eighteen percent had rented suites i n converted houses, but only 6 percent of the households had ever rented a single family house. One might speculate that since most of the families had no children the extra space and upkeep was not needed. In addition, rents f o r single family houses which are furnished are usually over $300 a month ^ and few are currently paying r e n t a l rates that high. As Table VI i l l u s t r a t e s a majority of the sample group - 70 -TABLE V. No. of Households by Type and Tenure of Previous Housing Accommodation. Owned Rented Single Family Detached - 3 Duplex - 1 Townhouse/Row House - 4 Low Rise Apartment (4 Storeys & 44 Under) High Rise Apartment (Over 4 storeys) - 14 House Converted into Apartments - 9 Other - 2 (N = 50) TABLE VI. Proportion of Households by Category of Monthly Rental Rate. No. of Households Under $50 -$50 - $100 -$101 - $150 26 (52%) $151 - $200 16 (32%) $201 - $250 4 ( 8%) $251 - $300 2 ( 4%) $301 - $350 2 ( 4%) Over $350 -(N = 50) - 71 -were paying under $200 per month with over h a l f paying be-tween $100 and $150 for unfurnished s u i t e s . Two-thirds of the households occupied one bedroom suites with considerably l e s s (28 percent) i n two bedroom suit e s . Table VII points up an overwhelming preference for low r i s e apartment buildings (74 percent) compared to high r i s e units (16 percent) or townhouse uni t s and suites i n converted houses (4 percent each). In summary, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sample group of future housing consumers i n Vancouver consisted of young couples most of whom were approaching the stage of family expansion and who were currently occupying small (usually one bedroom) units with moderate r e n t a l rates. Analysis and Discussion of Questionnaire Results Past studies c i t e d i n Chapter II have indicated that young couples, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the middle and upper income groups l i v i n g i n r e n t a l accommodation, have p a r t i c u l a r l y strong desires f o r home ownership. Nelson Foote argues that the median housing consumer i s working towards the goal of owning a single family detached house and that the current accommodation i s temporary u n t i l enough money can be saved 3 to purchase a house. One of the prime motivating reasons f o r t h e i r goal i s the desire f o r a suitable environment f o r family l i f e including adequate space to house the family members, safe play areas outdoors f o r children and the freedom - 72 -TABLE VII. Proportion of Households by Type of Present Residence. No. of Households Rented Townhouse/Row House 2 ( Rented Low Rise Apartment 37 (74$) Rented High Rise Apartment 8 {16%) Rented Suite i n Converted House 2 ( k%) Other 1 ( 2%) (N = 50) TABLE VIII. Proportion of Households A n t i c i p a t i n g Home Ownership. No. of Households Anticipate Home Ownership 46 (92$) Do Not Anticipate Home Ownership 4 ( 8 $ ) (N - 50) o x Level of Significance: . 0 0 1 - 73 -to pursue family a c t i v i t i e s with a maximum amount of privacy. The data from t h i s study revealed that a majority of the sample group who are currently i n the pr e - c h i l d stage a n t i -cipated having children soon or sometime i n the future (Table I I I ) . A large proportion were currently paying a moderate monthly ren t a l rate (Table VI) i n view of the Cen-t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation's figure of 27 percent of gross family income considered appropriate to be budgeted for housing.^4-I t might be anticipated that the desire f o r home owner-ship among the sample group would be strong and the data revealed that t h i s was, i n f a c t , the case. As shown i n Table VIII, the expressed preference f o r home ownership was highly s i g n i f i c a n t . Nearly a l l the households i n the sample expected to own t h e i r own homes i n the future. To ascertain the degree of commitment to r e a l i z i n g t h i s goal, respondents were asked when they expected to purchase a house and what action they had taken i n terms of assessing the current stock or having begun to save f o r t h i s purpose. Interestingly, 75 percent of those a s p i r i n g to home ownership expected to have attained t h e i r goal i n l e s s than three years' time. In fa c t , as many as 33 percent were planning on owning t h e i r own homes i n under a year. This trend was r e f l e c t e d i n the f a i r l y high degree of commitment indicated by t h e i r actions. A majority had discussed home - 7 4 -ownership while almost three-quarters had consulted newspaper advertisements describing houses f o r sal e . Over h a l f of the households had act u a l l y v i s i t e d model homes and driven or walked around various neighbourhoods to determine the qual i t y of houses, location of schools and shopping f a c i l i t i e s , etc. Twenty percent had even contacted agents or builders with respect to a s p e c i f i c house. S i m i l a r l y , a major proportion of the fam i l i e s had made some f i n a n c i a l provision f o r home ownership. Two-thirds claimed that they had begun to save to enable future purchase of a single family detached house. Clearly, a marked i n t e r e s t i n home ownership i s indicated by the extent of these actions. This suggests that these households w i l l l i k e l y t r y to r e a l i z e t h e i r preferences i n the future as prices permit. As further evidence i s the fact that s i x of the households o r i g i n a l l y designated as part of the sample had act u a l l y bought homes i n s i x months from the time that the l i s t s were assembled. Only four households expressed no desire f o r home owner-ship. Three of the four anticipated renting with two i n d i -cating preferences for a townhouse unit and a suite i n a low r i s e apartment. One family planned to rent a high r i s e s u i t e . Another expected to own a unit i n a low r i s e apartment b u i l d i n g . The major reasons for t h e i r decision centered around two fa c t o r s . A l l rated the greater freedom they f e l t without - 75 -home ownership and a d i s l i k e of the upkeep and maintenance associated with home ownership as very important i n t h e i r preference not to own a single family detached house. S l i g h t l y l e s s important was the space provided with home ownership which was not considered as necessary by these f a m i l i e s . In t h i s respect, two households did not anticipate having children at a l l and two families were uncertain. Other reasons c i t e d f o r not owning a home were important to some respondents and not to others. Half f e l t that t h e i r futures were uncertain and that t h i s was a major factor i n t h e i r decision. For some households, the f i n a n c i a l respon-s i b i l i t y of owning and the fixed nature of the investment i n home ownership were key reasons i n seeking other housing a l t e r n a t i v e s . To an equal number of families t h i s was not important at a l l . Several f e l t that the costs of home owner-ship were too high and that they could not afford to buy a house. Others rated these factors as unimportant. The tax burden of home ownership was not generally viewed to be of c r i t i c a l f i n a n c i a l concern. I t would appear that there are certain drawbacks to home ownership which are strong enough to deter some house-holds from considering t h i s housing a l t e r n a t i v e . In t h e i r view home ownership t i e d a family down with r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and f i n a n c i a l commitments. Freedom from these obligations was of primary importance i n the decision not to own a single - 76 -family house. While i t i s d i f f i c u l t to generalize from such a small number these comments implied a somewhat diminished p r i o r i t y regarding the "design", "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " features offered by home ownership as motivating factors i n housing preferences of these p a r t i c u l a r consumers. For the large proportion of the sample group who did aspire to home ownership, further information concerning the p r i o r i t i e s within and among the "design", "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " categories was sought. Beginning with the "design" features, i t was anticipated that these would be most consistently rated as very important as they are c r i t i c a l i n creating a f l e x i b l e environment for family a c t i v i t i e s . Certain s t r u c t u r a l features of the detached house and l o t f a c i l i t a t e personal l i v i n g , e s p e c i a l l y where there are children. Most important i n t h i s respect are i n t e r i o r and exterior space, detached party walls and proximity to ground l e v e l . 5 Since a large proportion of t h i s sample group a n t i -cipated having children i t might be expected that a suitable environment for r a i s i n g children and the corresponding "design" features would be of high p r i o r i t y i n the preference fo r home ownership. As shown i n Table IX, the study data sug-gested that t h i s might be the case. That home ownership provides an environment conducive to r a i s i n g children was revealed as a key reason i n the consumer preference f o r t h i s - 77 -TABLE IX. Index of Importance of "Design" Related Features. Rank Feature Mean Rate of Importance* 1. Suitable Environment for C h i l d - r a i s i n g 2.78 2. Space Inside the Unit 2.76 3. Private Outdoor Space 2.67 4. Privacy 2.66 5. Private Entrance/Proximity to Ground Level 2.54 6. F l e x i b i l i t y of House Design and Lot 2.11 * Mean weighting of importance where very important i s weighted as 3, moderately important i s weighted as 2 and not important i s weighted as 1. See questionnaire #8 (f) (Appendix A) for actual question asked. - 78 -housing a l t e r n a t i v e . Correspondingly, those "design" related features i n s t r u -mental i n creating t h i s environment were also rated highly. I n t e r i o r space i s s l i g h t l y more c r i t i c a l than private outdoor space. I t i s space insi d e the unit which permits accommoda-t i o n of the household members and room for f u l l expression of the household's a c t i v i t i e s . Family members, p a r t i c u l a r l y children, are able to move about and pursue t h e i r i n t e r e s t s without being continually underfoot or f e e l i n g confined. Since the sample group expected to have children and a f l e x i b l e environment was considered important, i t follows that i n t e r i o r space would be ranked as one c r i t i c a l f actor i n adequately accommodating family expansion and a c t i v i t i e s . Also noteworthy was the fact that none of the households i n the sample group rated "space inside the u n i t " as "not im-portant" i n t h e i r preference f o r home ownership. The data also indicated that private outdoor space was another important "design" feature ranking just behind i n -t e r i o r space. Again, with an emphasis on a suitable environ-ment and the role of private outdoor space i n home ownership, i t might be expected that t h i s feature would be important. The yard permits the extension of family a c t i v i t i e s out of doors and provides a place where being outside on one's own t e r r i t o r y can be enjoyed. The yard i s c r i t i c a l f o r play areas f o r children who often spend much of t h e i r time outdoors - 79 -near the home. By vi r t u e of the l o t , the distance between neighbouring units assures a minimum of noise disturbance and increased privacy. This i s an e s s e n t i a l factor where there are children. Clearly, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r "design" a t t r i b u t e as a p r i o r i t y was recognized by the sample group. Related to t h i s , the s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of de-tached party walls was also given a f a i r l y high ranking i n the preference for home ownership. This feature i s also instrumental i n giving privacy from neighbours by enabling f u l l enjoyment of a c t i v i t i e s without f e e l i n g restrained. This i s important i n creating a f l e x i b l e family environment and as such, was a l i k e l y reason f o r being ranked as impor-tant by the sample respondents. Another important feature but rated behind the others by consumers i n t h e i r preference for home ownership was a private entrance and proximity to ground l e v e l . Again t h i s might be expected to be important due to i t s implications f o r enjoyment of the outdoors and c h i l d - r a i s i n g . I t pro-vides ease of movement inside and out which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important to children's play. I t allows a mother to keep closer supervision on her children (e.g. watching from the kitchen window). Somewhat les s important was the f l e x i b i l i t y of the design of house and l o t to be altered . This was rated more - 80 -frequently as moderately important and ranked considerably behind the other features. This i s somewhat su r p r i s i n g since the s i t i n g of the house and l o t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of home ownership i s a key factor i n allowing maximum f l e x i b i l i t y of environment to be achieved. I t i s quite possible that res-pondents did not view the statement i n those terms, or that they were thinking merely of minor improvements rather than major a l t e r a t i o n s such as the addition of rooms. While the other features were c l e a r l y of a much higher p r i o r i t y , only nine households ranked t h i s item as not important i n t h e i r preference f o r home ownership. F i n a l l y , with respect to "design" features, some house-holds ranked addi t i o n a l items as very important. Many were aspects of the items l i s t e d which certain households stressed under "other". One family c i t e d the lower noise l e v e l of single detached houses which i s e s s e n t i a l l y a function of privacy. Two others emphasized the yard, trees and sunlight which i s related to the outdoor space and s i t i n g of the house. Three other f a m i l i e s stressed a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which was not included i n the l i s t , that of i n d i v i d u a l i t y of design. Their comments suggested that home ownership provided the maximum opportunity to t a i l o r a housing unit to sui t one's needs and taste s . In t h i s respect one respondent expressed a desire f o r a two storey unit while another preferred a unique and o r i g i n a l s t r u c t u r a l design. To these respondents home - 81 -ownership permitted a greater opportunity for these i n d i v i -dual preferences to be achieved. I t would appear from t h i s discussion and the data that each of the "design" features was of considerable importance i n the consumer preference f o r home ownership. I t i s sug-gested that t h i s i s large l y due to the s t r u c t u r a l nature of the detached house and l o t which i s instrumental i n pro-v i d i n g c e r t a i n consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n s . Of sig n i f i c a n c e was the small number of households who ranked any of the "design" features as not important. Regarding the "tenure" related features, the data i n -dicated that these items were more often viewed as moderately important rather than very important. A substantial number of households rated several items as not important at a l l i n t h e i r preference for home ownership. As shown i n Table X, security of having t i t l e to the house and property had the highest mean rank of importance. Holding t i t l e removes the threat of a landlord with powers to ra i s e rents, impose rules or force e v i c t i o n . Since the owner i s his own landlord, per-manence and security of the r e s i d e n t i a l environment which he possesses by virtue of ownership i s assured. That t h i s was important to the sample respondents l i k e l y r e f l e c t s t h e i r concern for a stable environment f o r pursuit of a c t i v i t i e s with no interference from others. Ranking next i n importance of the "tenure" re l a t e d - 82 -TABLE X. Index of Importance of "Tenure" Related Features. Rank Feature Mean Rate of Importance* 1 . Security of Having T i t l e to the House and Property 2 . 3 5 2 . Equity Provided by Ownership 2 . 3 2 3. Ownership Allows Freedom To Be Own Boss 2 . 2 2 4 . Ownership As More Economical Than Renting 2 . 1 5 5 . Ownership As Investment With P r o f i t P otential 2 . 1 3 6 . Ownership As Incentive To Save 1 . 7 4 * Mean weighting of importance where very important i s weighted as 3 , moderately important i s weighted as 2 and not important i s weighted as 1 . See questionnaire #8 (g) (Appendix A) f o r actual question asked. TABLE XI. Degree of Importance of "Tr a d i t i o n " R e l a t e d Features by No. of Households. Very Moderately Not Feature Important Important Important 1. Respect and Prestige 6 38 2 . Home Owner Designated As a Stable C i t i z e n - 3 42 3. Pride i n Ownership 4 26 15 - S3 -features was "equity". There are several factors to suggest why t h i s might be important. To consumers the house and property provides f i n a n c i a l security i n terms of a r e l a t i v e l y safe investment. I t i s a v i s i b l e i n d i c a t i o n that t h e i r monthly mortgage payments are not "spent money" as i s the case when renting. The home may be sold at any time and f u l l (or frequently improved) equity may be r e a l i z e d . This further assures a f e e l i n g of sec u r i t y . Closely related i n implications to the highest "tenure" p r i o r i t y but ranked as t h i r d by the sample group was the freedom to be one's own boss which characterizes ownership. The lower p r i o r i t y of t h i s item was somewhat surprising since i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r f u l l expression of a household's needs and a c t i v i t i e s . The authority to t a i l o r the unit to accommodate family expansion, landscaping or other a l t e r a -t ions i s vested i n ownership. Nevertheless, that t h i s item i s f a i r l y important i s l i k e l y r elated to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the housing goal of independence. Of somewhat les s concern to consumers i n the "tenure" category were other f i n a n c i a l aspects of home ownership. These included the longer term economy of buying over renting, the opportunity to r e a l i z e a p r o f i t on resale and home owner-ship as an incentive to save. While the former two considera-tions were rated by over three-quarters of the households as moderately or very important, the l a t t e r was rated by nearly - 84 -h a l f the households as not important at a l l . The rankings within the "tenure" category suggested that f i n a n c i a l considerations are generally of les s impor-tance than those assuring security and independence. How-ever, among the f i n a n c i a l a t t r i b u t e s provided by virtue of ownership, "equity" was the most c r i t i c a l . With respect to the " t r a d i t i o n " component, only s i x households ranked any aspect as very important. A majority of the households considered the " t r a d i t i o n " related features as not important with one notable exception. This was the pride i n owning a single family detached house which was rated by two-thirds of the households as moderately important and by four households as very important (Table XI). Both the home owner as a stable c i t i z e n and the prestige of home ownership were rated by over 90 percent of the households as not important. That t h i s view was p a r t i c u l a r l y strong i s to be expected since the sample group were themselves tenants. "T r a d i t i o n " related features appeared to be of considerably l i t t l e importance except f o r the pride associated with home ownership which the data revealed as s t i l l esteemed by con-sumers . Having examined the p r i o r i t i e s within the component categories of home ownership, a further area of int e r e s t was the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p among these categories. Respondents were asked to review a l l the features i n the "design", - 85 -"tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " categories and choose the three which they considered to be the most important i n t h e i r pre-ference f o r home ownership. The re s u l t s are indicated i n Table XII. Interestingly, those features which more frequently were ci t e d as the top p r i o r i t i e s related to the "design" category. The "tenure" features generally ranked considerably behind with the exception of "equity". Much les s important but nevertheless mentioned was the " t r a d i t i o n " feature of pride i n ownership. Of top p r i o r i t y as might be expected were a suitable environment f o r c h i l d - r a i s i n g and i n t e r i o r space followed by outdoor space and privacy. This ranking cl o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d the ordering of features within the "design" category i While a test for the sig n i f i c a n c e of the difference between the means of the items i n the "design" category did not indicate a s i g n i f i c a n t difference, i t i s important to note the simi-l a r i t y i n rankings. Clearly, the "design" features are a p r i o r i t y . The lower ranking of the "tenure" features here r e -f l e c t e d the lower mean ratings they were assigned within the category as opposed to the "design features" (Tables IX and X). Again, the "tenure" feature of "equity" was rated more frequently as a higher p r i o r i t y item than the other "tenure" features. This was somewhat d i f f e r e n t from the ordering TABLE XII. Features Rated as Most Important P r i o r i t i e s by No. of Households. Rank •1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . a. 9 . 1 0 . 1 1 . 1 2 . Feature Suitable Environment for C h i l d - r a i s i n g F i r s t Second P r i o r i t y P r i o r i t y [No. Households) 11 I n t e r i o r Space 10 Outdoor Space 2 Detached Party Walls 7 Equity 2 Freedom To Be Own Boss 4 Investment/Profit Potential 4 Ownership More Economical 3 Holding T i t l e 1 Pride i n Ownership F l e x i b l e Design of Unit Ownership As Forced Saving 7 8 6 4 3 6 3 1 3 Third P r i o r i t y 5 1 7 2 7 1 2 4 4 6 2 1 Total No. of Households 23 19 15 13 12 11 9 a a 6 2 1 03. ON within the "tenure" category where security rated higher . This suggests that the e a r l i e r ordering should not be taken as conclusive. In any case, a majority of the "tenure" features con-s i s t e n t l y rated behind the "design" aspects i n the consumer preference for home ownership. S i m i l a r l y , the low p r i o r i t y given to " t r a d i t i o n " aspects was also r e f l e c t e d i n the choice of key features. Pride i n home ownership was the only item c i t e d . I t would appear from these findings that "design" features were considered of greater importance than "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " features i n the consumer preference for home ownership. To further confirm that t h i s was the case, res-pondents were asked to rank the order of importance of the three categories. The re s u l t s indicated an extremely strong choice f o r "design", "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " as the p r i o r i t y ordering as Table XIII i n d i c a t e s . Some addit i o n a l information was also sought regarding the attitudes of the sample group towards multiple housing u n i t s which attempted to incorporate the key att r i b u t e s of design and tenure as a substitute f o r home ownership. S p e c i f i c a l l y , respondents were asked i f the "design" features of space ( i n t e r i o r and e x t e r i o r ) , privacy and f l e x i b i l i t y to a l t e r the unit were incorporated into multiple housing units that could be owned, such a structure would be considered as - 88 -TABLE XIII. Rank Order of Importance of Component Categories by Mo. of Households. Rank Order* No. of Households 1 Design Tenure Design Tradition 2 Tenure Design Tradi t i o n Tenure Tradi t i o n Tradition Tenure Design 32 11 2 1 (N = 46) x Level of Significance; .001 * A rank of 1 indicates most important and ranks of 2 and 3 as les s important respectively. - 89 -a suitable a l t e r n a t i v e for home ownership. Forty-eight per-cent said that they would accept such a substitute, 37 per-cent would not and 15 percent did not know. That so many households were uncertain suggests that they might have had d i f f i c u l t y conceiving that such un i t s would ever be av a i l a b l e . This view was r e f l e c t e d i n the reasons given by those respondents who reacted negatively to the question. Their comments indicated that multiple u n i t s were unable to provide c e r t a i n design and tenure features as adequately as home ownership. Three-quarters of the reasons c i t e d the closeness of neighbours and the i n a b i l i t y to achieve maximum privacy as the major inade-quacies of the arrangement suggested. One respondent em-phasized that common walls were not conducive to privacy while another c i t e d the density of people i n a confined area as a negative feature. Other reasons pointed to the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of achieving the same equity from multiple units as i n home ownership. F i n a l l y , two respondents claimed that they desired a plot of " t e r r i t o r y " that was t h e i r s alone which they f e l t could not be provided to t h e i r l i k i n g i n a multiple u n i t . These views suggested that multiple units have i n t r i n s i c drawbacks which make them less suitable i n some respects as altern a t i v e s to home ownership. Respondents were also asked i f they would consider - 90 -renting the improved multiple units described as a substitute to owning a single family house. This was an attempt to determine the importance of ownership tenure i f only improved "design" features were provided i n multiple u n i t s . The r e p l i e s indicated that 40 percent were i n favour, 36 per-cent were opposed and 14 percent were uncertain. Not sur-p r i s i n g l y , the reasons given f o r not accepting t h i s arrange-ment were related to aspects of tenure. Most c i t e d the lack of equity as a key f a c t o r . Others considered t h i s arrange-ment as uneconomical, a poor investment and too expensive i n the long run. Several respondents indicated that renting such units would be only temporary and not suitable f o r long term housing accommodation. These comments suggested that ownership tenure was an important feature i n seeking a permanent housing u n i t . The implication was that renting would only be considered f o r the shorter term while owning was more appropriate f o r a long term residence. F i n a n c i a l reasons, p a r t i c u l a r l y the desire to have equity were also c i t e d as major attr i b u t e s of owner-ship tenure. Further to t h i s , some insight was sought as to the key features involved i n modifying or upgrading multiple housing u n i t s and the extent to which these r e f l e c t e d p r i o r i t i e s i n aspirations f o r home ownership. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table XIV. - 91 -TABLE XIV. Index of Importance of Features i n Upgrading Multiple Housing Units. Rank Feature Mean Rate of Importance* 1. Privacy from Neighbouring Units 7-55 2 . I n t e r i o r Space 7 . 2 0 3 . Private Outdoor Space 6 . 5 5 4 . Private Entrance/Proximity to Ground Level 5*47 5 . F l e x i b i l i t y i n Design of Unit 5 . 2 6 6 . Freedom to A l t e r Unit/Grounds at W i l l 5 . 1 4 7 . P o s s i b i l i t y of Owning Unit 4 . 6 5 8. P o s s i b i l i t y of Renting Unit 2 . 4 7 * Mean weight of ranking where a rank of 1 ( i n d i c a t i n g the highest importance) i s weighted 9, a rank of 2 i s rated 8 and so on down to a rank of 9 ( i n d i c a t i n g the lowest importance) which i s weighted 1 . See questionnaire #10 i n Appendix A for actual question asked. - 92 -Reflecting e a r l i e r comments concerning multiple dwellings, privacy from neighbouring units was the highest p r i o r i t y . Ranking clo s e l y behind were i n t e r i o r space and private out-door space, both of which were frequently c i t e d inadequacies of multiple u n i t s . These items were also important features i n consumer preferences f o r home ownership (Table X I I ) . Of i n t e r e s t was the f a i r l y high r a t i n g of "private entrance/proximity to ground l e v e l " . Coupled with the features rated higher, i t would appear that the study group favoured multiple units which provided a close approximation to the "design" features of home ownership. Of lower p r i o r i t y were f l e x i b i l i t y of design as well as two c l o s e l y related features pertaining to tenure. Although freedom to a l t e r the unit and the p o s s i b i l i t y of ownership rated behind the "design" aspects, these tenure features were considered more important than the p o s s i b i l i t y of renting the unit which ranked l a s t . S i milar to p r i o r i t i e s i n home ownership, the key features i n modifying or upgrading multiple u n i t s r e f l e c t e d "design" aspects as more important than those r e l a t i n g to tenure. F i n a l l y , some i n d i c a t i o n of attitudes of the sample group towards a series of t r a d i t i o n a l views of home ownership was sought. The f i r s t of these dealt with owning as l e s s expensive than renting i n the long run. Several studies have argued - 93 -7 that i n some cases t h i s i s a myth. These claim that the c a p i t a l put towards home ownership may y i e l d l e s s return i n the long run than i f invested elsewhere at a higher rate. Yet 70 percent of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that owning was more economical than renting. Secondly, the view has been held i n past years that home owners are more stable c i t i z e n s of the community than tenants. Since the quality of multiple units has improved over the years and many young couples occupy rented units during the early years of married l i f e , i t might be expected that t h i s view would not be strongly held. Nearly two-thirds of the households disagreed with t h i s statement. Undoubtedly a key factor was the fact that the sample group were a l l tenants. Thirdly, home ownership as a status symbol has been widely acclaimed i n the past.^ More households disagreed with t h i s view than agreed. However, a f a i r number were uncertain. I t i s possible that prestige i s a sen s i t i v e topic which i s recognized but not acclaimed outright by consumers as a motivating feature i n home ownership. F i n a l l y , the attitudes of the sample group confirmed that i n t h e i r view owning a home provided the best environ-ment fo r r a i s i n g children. This view has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated with home ownership for many years. - 94 -SUMMARY The study data suggested that aspirations f o r home ownership were s i g n i f i c a n t l y strong among the sample group. In t h e i r view "design" related features were of f i r s t p r i o r i t y , followed by "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " features. Within each category, the mean ratings of importance f o r each item were calculated but did not prove to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n comparison. While i t i s d i f f i c u l t to draw s i g n i f i c a n t conclusions i n some respects, the data revealed several consistent patterns of responses. The s e l e c t i o n of the three key features i n aspirations f o r home ownership r e f l e c t e d those items which has been given higher mean ratings within t h e i r respective categories. Those c i t e d most frequently were "design" re l a t e d features. The "tenure" features again ranked behind, but i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t order than they were rated within the "tenure" category. In questions regarding key aspects i n upgrading multiple housing u n i t s , the p r i o r i t i e s here r e f l e c t e d a preference for "design" features. Furthermore, those items ranking highest r e f l e c t e d the items rated important o v e r a l l , and of high rank within the "design" category. F i n a l l y , the t r a d i t i o n a l views of home ownership as more economical than renting and as most suitable f o r - 95 -c h i l d - r a i s i n g were supported. Home ownership as a symbol of prestige and designation of the owner as a stable c i t i z e n received l i t t l e support. While these views are not conclusive f o r the entire population of future housing consumers, these findings do suggest implications regarding the preferred features of home ownership and the s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing goals. - 96 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER IV 1 Examination of advertisements i n current editions of the Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province newspapers supports these p r i c e s . 2 These studies are detailed i n Chapter I I , pp. 27-28. 3 Nelson Foote, Mary M. Foley and Janet Abu-Lughod, Housing Choices and Constraints (New York, McGraw-Hill, I960), pp. 95-116. 4 Canada, Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, Report on Housing and Urban Development (Ottawa, 1969), p. 15 5 These features are discussed at length i n Chapter I I , pp. 31 -34 . 6 Revelant studies are detailed i n Chapter I I , pp. 20-22. 7 See John P. Shelton, "The Cost of Renting Versus Owning a Home," Land Economics. XL (February, 1968), 59-72. 8 Refer to Chapter I I , pp. 18-20 f o r relevant comments. 9 Refer to Chapter I I , p. 38 f o r more det a i l e d comments. - 9 7 -CHAPTER V CONCLUSION People place great value on where they l i v e and have emotional and symbolic r e l a -tionships with t h e i r homes and neighbourhoods. The implications of tvaluedness t of housing run right through the structure and operation of the market.1 As t h i s study has i l l u s t r a t e d , preference f o r owner-ship of a single family detached house has evolved into the "home ownership sentiment". Over the years t h i s housing alte r n a t i v e has assumed po s i t i v e sentiments related to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs. These include both emotional and p r a c t i c a l functions which home ownership i s best con-sidered to f u l f i l l . Government policy, private agencies and housing con-sumers have been instrumental i n r e i n f o r c i n g t h i s view. In Canada the National Housing Policy a f t e r World War II encouraged home ownership by providing f i n a n c i a l incentives to make home purchase f e a s i b l e for a large majority of the population. Continual praise by government o f f i c i a l s con-cerning the benefits which home ownership brought to families emphasized t h e i r support f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r housing - 98 -a l t e r n a t i v e . S i m i l a r l y , those people i n the private sector with an int e r e s t i n home ownership strongly promoted the de s i r a -b i l i t y of achieving t h i s form of housing. Included here were mortgage brokers, r e a l estate agencies, contractors, home furnishing outlets and other related firms. F i n a l l y , consumers themselves expressed the desire fo r home ownership as best s a t i s f y i n g c e r t a i n important housing goals. These included the provision f o r a f l e x i b l e family environment, i n d i v i d u a l i t y and independence, a good f i n a n c i a l investment and status. Their comments suggested that certain attributes of home ownership were instrumental i n f a c i l i t a t i n g attainment of these goals. This view was strengthened by the lack of other s u i t -able housing a l t e r n a t i v e s . These units have generally been inadequate i n aspects r e l a t i n g both to design and tenure. D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was commonly expressed with a lack of space (both i n t e r i o r and ex t e r i o r ) , privacy and proximity to ground l e v e l which created a poor environment f o r family a c t i v i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y where there were children. Since most of these alternative units were under r e n t a l tenure, addit i o n a l complaints involved the powers of the landlord over tenants and the i n a b i l i t y to achieve equity i n a r e n t a l s i t u a t i o n . Consequently, home ownership has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been - 99 -considered as the ultimate goal i n housing for a majority of the population. As such, the "home ownership sentiment" has been widely acclaimed and accepted. Recognizing that a greater proportion of the population may not be able to achieve t h i s goal, the concern i s to ensure s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs and preferences f o r these urban dwellers. To provide a basis f o r suggesting p o l i c y considera-tio n s , the approach taken i n t h i s study involved examining the extent of preferences f o r home ownership and attempting to determine those features which were instrumental i n the perception of t h i s housing alternative as the ultimate goal i n housing. Subsequent analysis of the "home ownership sentiment" indicated a strong desire to acquire a single family detached house was expressed by a large majority of the population. A review of past studies suggested that to consumers, home ownership constituted a "package" of features with related housing s a t i s f a c t i o n s . These att r i b u t e s could be organized into three component categories r e l a t i n g to "design", "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " . To gain some i n d i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e importance of these features i n consumer aspirations f o r home ownership, a f i e l d survey of future housing consumers who had not yet purchased houses was conducted. While the r e s u l t s were not conclusive f o r the entire - 100 -population, the implications have been u s e f u l i n suggesting areas of importance i n future policy considerations f o r housing s a t i s f a c t i o n and directions for further research. A major fi n d i n g of the study suggested that a strong desire f o r home ownership was expressed by the sample group of future housing consumers. These were young couples approaching the stage of family expansion whose housing needs would l i k e l y be inadequately suited to the exi s t i n g multiple u n i t s i n which they were l i v i n g . I f the aspirations of the sample group are i n d i c a t i v e of the general population of future housing consumers, t h i s has cert a i n major implications which should be noted i n any consideration of p o l i c i e s f o r land a l l o c a t i o n and develop-ment i n urban areas. Should the demand f o r home ownership by those who are f i n a n c i a l l y able to r e a l i z e t h e i r pre-ferences be extensive, the current housing stock and serviced land f o r development must be able to accommodate these r e -quirements. To draft e f f e c t i v e p o l i c i e s i n t h i s respect, further research i s suggested to i d e n t i f y the sub-groups i n the population who aspire to home ownership and the strength of t h e i r desire. Some attempt should be made to ascertain f o r each group the l i k l i h o o d that these preferences would be attained i n the l i g h t of f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y and housing requirements which would be better accommodated i n home - 101 -ownership. Such a p o t e n t i a l l y widespread desire f o r home ownership rai s e s another implication i n terms of available land. The demand f o r serviced areas f o r r e s i d e n t i a l development i n competition with other uses i s rapidly boosting urban land p r i c e s . In t h i s respect the Minister of Urban A f f a i r s has recently commented: This more rapid rate of land price increases a f f e c t s the housing picture: fewer people are able to aff o r d home ownership; more row housing and apart-ments are being b u i l t to economize on land, and l o t siz e s and f l o o r areas are tending to be reduced.3 Cle a r l y , i f widespread aspirations f o r home ownership exist which cannot be r e a l i z e d , then housing needs and preferences may well be fru s t r a t e d . This further underlines the need f o r other housing forms to provide a suitable a l t e r n a t i v e to home ownership. To ensure housing s a t i s f a c t i o n other forms must s a t i s f y the housing goals aspired to i n home ownership. I t has been argued that housing today lacks d i v e r s i t y and that i n r e a l i t y only two options have been extensively provided - the single family house and the apartment unit.^" Only recently have townhouse and row house uni t s shown an increase, and research indicates that i n many cases these are stepping-stones to home ownership.^ The challenge i s to focus concern on the modification and upgrading of alternative housing units and - 102 -begin to develop various p o l i c i e s with t h i s objective. Here, an i n d i c a t i o n of the key features of home owner-ship as the ultimate goal i n housing suggests p r i o r i t i e s of importance to consumers. These should be the focus of con-sideration i n the improvement of al t e r n a t i v e u n i t s f o r better s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs. This study has i d e n t i f i e d the features of home ownership as r e l a t i n g to "design", "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " and provided some information about the r e l a t i v e importance of each i n the consumer view. There appeared to be a s i g n i f i c a n t preference for the "design" related features of home ownership over the "tenure" and " t r a d i t i o n " aspects. I t i s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c structure of the house and l o t which i s most c r i t i c a l i n creating a f l e x i b l e environment, e s p e c i a l l y f o r children. The survey suggested that for young families i n the pre - c h i l d stage s u i t a b i l i t y for c h i l d r a i s i n g i s a key p r i o r i t y . S i m i l a r l y , those "design" features of i n t e r i o r and exterior space and detached party walls which permit maximum f l e x i b i l i t y i n housing and privacy from neighbouring u n i t s were rated as important. Yet these are prec i s e l y the features with which d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n s are expressed by consumers i n alternative u n i t s . The problem then becomes one of considering how suitable p o l i c i e s might be drafted to ensure that these preferred design features are better incorporated into - 103 -a l t e r n a t i v e housing forms. One approach might i n v o l v e a r e -examination o f c u r r e n t design standards r e g a r d i n g space i n s i d e the u n i t , p r i v a t e outdoor space and soundproofing r e -quirements. Here, i t must be r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the q u a l i t y o f space and p r i v a c y are key f a c t o r s . I n t e r i o r space r e -quirements based p r i m a r i l y on the amount of f l o o r space are l i k e l y t o be inadequate s i n c e the s i t i n g and design c r i t i c a l l y i n f l u e n c e the nature o f f l e x i b i l i t y o f the l i v i n g a r e a . S i m i l a r l y , the q u a l i t y o f p r i v a t e outdoor space i n a d d i t i o n t o the area p r o v i d e d , w i l l determine i t s s u i t a b i l i t y t o a f a m i l y ' s needs. A s m a l l y a r d surrounding each u n i t , i f c a r e f u l l y planned, may be more f u n c t i o n a l than wide open green spaces between u n i t s . Of importance here i s v i s u a l p r i v a c y , e s p e c i a l l y f o r the enjoyment of a c t i v i t i e s outdoors. For g r e a t e r p r i v a c y i n s i d e the u n i t , a re-examination o f soundproofing requirements should be c o n s i d e r e d . Here, a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h c o u l d be d i r e c t e d at d e t e r -mining " t o l e r a n c e " l e v e l s f o r v a r i o u s types o f households and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e housing needs i n r e l a t i o n t o these key " d e s i g n " f e a t u r e s . The complexity o f f a c t o r s i n c o n s i d e r i n g these d e s i g n f e a t u r e s p o i n t s up the n e c e s s i t y o f more r e -s e a r c h on the r o l e o f each f e a t u r e i n s a t i s f y i n g v a r i o u s household requirements. I n combination, these f e a t u r e s might then be examined i n a t r a d e o f f s i t u a t i o n t o g a i n a c l e a r e r i n d i c a t i o n o f p r i o r i t i e s . - 104 -At the same time, certain "tenure" features were c i t e d as p r i o r i t i e s . Although "tenure" related aspects rated be-hind "design" items, t h e i r importance to consumers may be somewhat underestimated. This thought i s suggested by the data from an exploratory question which investigated the importance of "tenure" i f key design features were inco r -porated into multiple u n i t s . The r e s u l t s indicated that over one t h i r d were opposed to renting such a unit because various attributes of ownership tenure were not provided. The important tenure aspects related to equity, the security of possession and freedom to be one's own landlord. These p r i o r i t i e s suggest ownership of a l t e r n a t i v e u n i t s i s a f e a s i b l e p r i o r i t y as a means of providing for equity i n one's residence. In addition, the importance of being one's own boss suggests that the threat of a landlord i n a r e n t a l s i t u a t i o n destroys feelings of security and r e s t r i c t s a tenant's actions. One approach to r e c t i f y t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n a l t e r n a t i v e u n i t s might be to re-assess the l e g i s l a t i o n governing land-lord-tenant r e l a t i o n s . Considerations here might include requiring d i s t r i b u t i o n of information to tenants to j u s t i f y rent increases or provision f o r greater co-operation with the management i n d r a f t i n g rules or improving u n i t s . While the "tenure" p r i o r i t i e s have been indicated i n the study, ad d i t i o n a l research i s required to translate these into - 1 0 5 -workable recommendations. Ranking much farther behind i n consumer p r i o r i t i e s were the " t r a d i t i o n " aspects of home ownership. By d e f i n i t i o n the pride associated with home ownership which has evolved over the years i s not associated with any other type of housing. Although not a prime motivating factor, i t was nevertheless recognized by consumers. However, i t i s possible that the desire f o r home ownership as the major symbol of status may be l o s i n g i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e . The current d i v e r s i t y i n oppor-t u n i t i e s for s a t i s f a c t i o n through t r a v e l , owning a summer home or boat could r e f l e c t a trend where the achievement of status i s through a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n st y l e of l i f e and consumption of goods and experiences. In t h i s respect one author has commented: Americans no longer see the house as homestead to be handed down from generation to generation, but rather as a possession to be consumed l i k e automobiles or furniture.7 Consequently, le s s emotional attachment i s placed on the house i t s e l f and the emphasis has s h i f t e d to the quality of l i v i n g . I f t h i s i s the case, c l e a r l y greater provision f o r the "design" and "tenure" features to improve the quality of l i v i n g i n alte r n a t i v e units should be a prime concern i f s a t i s f a c t i o n of housing needs and preferences i s to be r e a l i z e d . - 106 -This study of the home ownership sentiment and i t s implications provides a basis for understanding the key aspects i n the quest f o r home ownership as the ultimate goal i n housing. Consideration of consumer preferences gives important indications of the p r i o r i t i e s which must be accom-modated i f housing s a t i s f a c t i o n i s to be assured. While some would argue that the gap between housing preferences and f i n a l unit s e l e c t i o n i s wide, perhaps t h i s discrepancy arises from a lack of concern f o r consumer pre-ferences i n t a c k l i n g the problems of providing suitable a l t e r n a t i v e s to home ownership. While home ownership w i l l always provide maximum f l e x i b i l i t y for cer t a i n housing goals of importance to consumers, the challenge i s to recognize the a t t r i b u t e s of t h i s housing al t e r n a t i v e and incorporate the p r i o r i t i e s into other innovative forms. - 107 -FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER V 1 J.D. Berridge, The Housing Market and Urban Residential  Structure: A Review, Research Paper No.. 51 (Toronto: Centre Tor Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1971), p. 7. 2 "Land and New Communities," Statement by Honourable Ron Basford, Federal-Provincial Conference on Housing (Ottawa: Conference Centre, January, 1973), p. 2. 3 I b i d . 4 A.G. Diamond, Housing i n the Nineteen-Seventies - A View from the Private Sector (Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, 1968), p. 5. 5 Condominium Research Associates, National Survey of  Condominium Owners (Toronto, 1970), p. 42. 6 Refer to Chapter I I , pp. 19-24 for ad d i t i o n a l comments. 7 "About The House," American I n s t i t u t e of Architects  Journal, XLVII (January, 1967), 78. - 108 -BIBLIOGRAPHY "About the House," American I n s t i t u t e of Architects Journal, XLVII (January, 1967),78. Agan, Tessie and Elaine Luchsinger. The House: P r i n c i p l e s , Resources, Dynamics. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1965. Armiger, J r . , Louise G. Toward a model of the Residential  Location Decision Process. Chapel H i l l : University of North Carolina, M.A. Thesis, 1966. Basford, Honourable Ron. "Land and New Communities." Statement at Federal-Provincial Conference on Housing. Ottawa: Conference Centre, 1973. B e l l , Carolyn S. Consumer Choice i n the American Economy. New York: Random House, 1967. Berridge, J.D. The Housing Market and Urban Residential  Structure: A Review. Research Paper No. 51. Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, 1971. Beyer, Glenn. Housing and Personal Values. Ithaca, N.Y.: A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Memoir 364, 1959. . Housing and Society. New York: MacMillan, 1965. T.W. Mackesey, and J.E. Montgomery. Houses are for People: A Study of Home Buyer Motivations. Research Publication No. 3 . Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Housing Research Station, 1955. B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of Municipal A f f a i r s . A Home of Your Own. (1970) Burge, H.C. "Home Sweet Home," American I n s t i t u t e of  Architects Journal, XXXVI (September, 1961), 5 0 - 5 1 . Butler, Edgar W,-; and others. Moving Behaviour and Resi-d e n t i a l Choice. National Co-operative Highway Research Program Report 8 1 . Washington: Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 1969. Canada. Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development. Report on Housing and Urban Development. Ottawa, 1969. - 109 -Canada, Housing Design. Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, 1967. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Under One Roof. Ottawa: Conference on Family L i f e , 1 9 6 4 . Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Canadian Housing  S t a t i s t i c s , 1971. Ottawa, 1971. Chapman, Dennis. The Home and S o c i a l Status. London: Routledge and Paul, 1955. ! Chevan, A. "Family Growth, Household Density and Moving," Demography, VIII (1971), 4 5 1 - 4 5 8 . Clark, S.D. The Developing Canadian Community. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962. Condominium Research Associates. National Survey of Con-dominium Owners. Toronto, 1970. Cooper, Clare C. The House as Symbol of S e l f . Working Paper No. 120. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a , I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, 1971. Dean, John P. Home Ownership, i s i t Sound? New York: Harper and Bros., 1945. Diamond, A.E. Housing i n the Nineteen-Seventies - A View from the Private Sector. Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, 1968. Duhl, Leonard J . (ed.). The Urban Condition. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1963. E a r l , Darwin D. The Mixing of Housing Types: A Study of  Selected S o c i a l Issues. Vancouver, B.C.: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, unpublished M.A. Thesis, 1970. Eldridge, Mark T. Explorations into Decision Factors i n the  Rental Housing Market. Chapel H i l l : University of North Carolina, Masters Thesis, 1 9 6 7 . Eldridge, W.H. "Housing Preferences i n the USA," Town and Country Planning, XXX, No. 9 (September, 1961), 369-373. Foote, Nelson, Mary M. Foley, and Janet Abu-Lughod. Housing Choices and Constraints. New York: McGraw-Hill, I960. - 110 -Goode, William J . and Paul K. Hatt. Methods i n S o c i a l  Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952. Greenbie, Barrie B. New House or New Neighbourhood? Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 1968. Greenwald, William I; Buy or Rent? New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1958. Gutheim, Frederick. Houses f o r Family L i v i n g . New York: The Woman's Foundation, 1948. Hartman, Chester W. " S o c i a l Values and Housing Orienta-t i o n s , " Journal of S o c i a l Issues, XIX, No. 2 (1963), 113-131. Henry, Andrew. "Residential Turnover and Family Composition of Home Owners i n Four Subdivisions i n Natick, Mass.," S o c i a l Forces, XXXI (May, 1953), 355-360. "Housing's Market Revolution," House and Home, January, 1968, p.p. 48-59. I l l i n g , Wolfgang M. Housing Demand to 1970,Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1964. "Is There Any Hope fo r People Uho Want Their Own Home?" Better Homes and Gardens, August, 1970, pp. 35-43. Johnston, R.J. Urban Residential Patterns. London: G. B e l l and Sons Ltd. 1971. Kerr, D.G. A H i s t o r i c a l Atlas of Canada. Toronto: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1961. Kumove, Leon. Preliminary Study of the S o c i a l Implications  of High Density L i v i n g Conditions. Toronto: S o c i a l Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 1966. Lansing, John B. and Gary Hendricks. L i v i n g Patterns and  Attitudes i n the Detroit Region. Technical Report. De t r o i t : Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, January, 1967. , Robert W. Morans and Robert B. Zehner. Planned Residential Environment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Centre, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1970. - I l l -and Eva Mueller with Nancy Barth. Residential Location and Urban M o b i l i t y . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Centre, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1964. Lininger, Charles (ed.). The Outlook on Consumer Behaviour. Ann Arbor: Foundation f o r Research on Human Behaviour, 1964. Lyman, Eva G. H. Family L i f e i n the Apartment Environment; A Study of the S o c i a l Aspects of Apartment Housing f o r  Families. Vancouver. B.C.: University of B r i t i s h Colum-bia, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, 1959. Maclennan, Ian. The Architecture of Urban and Suburban  Development. Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, Meyerson, M., B. Terrett and W.C. Wheaton. Housing, People  and C i t i e s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Michelson, William. Analytic Sampling for Design Information: A Survey of Housing Experience. Research Paper No. 21. Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre f o r Urban and Community Studies, 1969. . Man and his Urban Environment. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970. . "Most People don't want what Architects want," Transaction, V (1968), 37-43. . " P o t e n t i a l Candidates f o r the Designer's Para-dise," S o c i a l Forces, XLVI (1967), 190-196. Mumford, Louis. The City i n History. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961. New, Peter K., Bernard L. Mausner and Maurice A. Shapiro. The Grey Area Dilemma: A Study of Attitudes Towards  Housing. Pittsburgh. Penn.: University of Pittsburgh. 1965. Paxton, Edward T. WhatPeople Want When They Buy a House. Washington: U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, 1955. Raven, John. " S o c i o l o g i c a l Evidence on Housing: I. Space i n the Home; I I . The Home Environment," A r c h i t e c t u r a l  Review, CXLII (July, 1967) 68-76; (September, 1967), 236-244. ~ 112 -Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. Real Estate Trends  In Metropolitan Vancouver, 1972-1973. Vancouver, 1 9 7 2 . Reps, John W. The Making of Urban America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965-. Town Planning i n Frontier America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969. Rosow, Irving. "Home Ownership Motives," American Socio-l o g i c a l Review. XIII, No. 6 (December, 1948), 751-756. . "The So c i a l E f f e c t s of the Physical Environment," American In s t i t u t e of Planners Journal. XXVII, No. 2 (May, 1961), 1 2 7 - 1 3 3 . Rossi, Peter. Why Families Move. Glencoe, 1 1 1 . : The Free Press, 1 9 5 5 . Rothblatt, Ronald M. "Housing and Human Needs." Town Planning Review, XLII, No. 2 ( A p r i l , 1 9 7 1 ) , 130-144. Scarth, David. Privacy as an Aspect of Residential Environ- ment. Vancouver, B.C.: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, unpublished M.A. Thesis, 1 9 6 4 . Schreir, W. "My Home i s my Castle." Habitat. VIII, No. 2 (March, A p r i l 1 9 6 5 ) , 16-19. She1ton, John P. "The Cost of Renting Versus Owning a Home," Land Economics. LXIV (February, 1 9 6 8 ) , 5 9 - 7 2 . Simmons, James and Robert Simmons. Urban Canada. The Copp Clark Publishing Co., 1 9 6 9 . Smith, L. B. Housing i n Canada: Market Structure and Policy  Performance. Research Monograph No. 2 . Ottawa, 1971. Smith, Wallace F. Housing: The S o c i a l and Economic Elements Berkeley: University or C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 7 0 . Speare, J r . , A. "Home Ownership, L i f e Cycle Stage, and Residential Mobility," Demography, VII, No. 4 (November, 1 9 7 0 ) , 4 4 9 - 4 5 8 . Symonds, Hilda. The Question of Housing. Vancouver, B.C., 1967. "Tenants Point of View," Urban Land, XXIX (February, 1 9 7 0 ) , - 113 -United Savings and Loan League. Human Needs i n Housing, Report on a Round Table Conference. Occasional Paper No. 4. Chicago, 1964. Wheaton, W. L., G. Milgram and M. E. Meyerson (eds.). Urban Housing. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Wheeler, Michael (ed.). The Right to Housing. Montreal: Harvest House Ltd., 1969. Wilner, D. M. and others. The Housing Environment and Family  L i f e . Baltimore, Md.: The John Hopkins Press, 1962. Woodbury, Coleman. The Future of C i t i e s and Urban Redevelop-ment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. I SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SURVEY OF HOUSING PREFERENCES 1. How long have you l i v e d i n t h i s residence? years months 2. How many bedrooms have you i n t h i s unit? 1. bachelor 3. 2 bedrooms 2 . 1 bedroom 4 . 3 bedrooms 3 a . In which category does your monthly rent l e v e l f a l l (without u t i l i t i e s ) ? 1. Under $50 _ 5- $201-$250 2 . $51-$100 6 . H251-H300 3 . $101-4150 7 . $301-$350 4 . $ l51-$200 8. Over $350 b. Is your s u i t e . . . 1. Furnished? 2 . Unfurnished 4 a . Would you please l i s t a l l the members of t h i s household beginning with yourself and give the age, sex and marital status for each. Relationship Age Sex Ma r i t a l Status Respondent: - • •  Spouse  Child Child Other Other Total b. Do you plan on having children ... 1. Soon 3- Uncertain. 2. Sometime i n the future 4 . Not at a l l 5. In what year were you married? 6 . In the l i s t below, check a l l those housing types i n which you have l i v e d since marriage. Also c i r c l e whether each was owned or rented. 1. Single family detached owned/rented 2. Duplex owned/rented 3 . Townhouse/row house owned/rented 4 . Low r i s e apartment (4 storeys & under) owned/rented 5. High rise.apartment (over 4 storeys) owned/rented 6. House converted into apartments owned/rented 7- Other (specify ) owned/rented 7 a . What type from the l i s t above i s your present residence? - 2 -7b. How long have you been l i v i n g i n the Metropolitan Vancouver area? (Check the number of years). Less than one, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+" 8 a . Do you anticipate owning a single family detached house i n the future? 1. Yes 2 . No_ b. I f NO, skip to question 9, p. 4 . c. I f YES, how soon might.this be? 1. Under 6 months 4 . 2 to 3 years 2 . 6 months to 1 year 5 . 3 to 4 years 3 . 1 to 3 years 6 . Over 4 years d. Regarding your preference for owning a single family detached house, what action have you taken? (Check those which are applicable) 1. Have not discussed homeownership 2 . Have had discussions with spouse about buying a house _ 3 . Have looked at- newspaper advertisements describing houses for sale 4 . Have v i s i t e d open houses and/or model homes _ 5. Have driven and/or walked around various neighbourhoods to determine such things as the quality of homes, loca-t i o n of schools, shopping f a c i l i t i e s _ 6. Have contacted r e a l estate agents or other professional sources for general information _ 7. Have contacted agents/builder with respect to a s p e c i f i c house _ e. Have you begun to save for ownership of a single family detached house? 1. Yes 2 . No f. Here are a number of features which relate to the DESIGN aspects of home ownership. Could you rate the importance of each feature i n your preference for owning a single family detached house i n the future. Design-Related Features Very Mod. Not Imp. Imp. Imp. 1. Space inside the unit 2. Private outdoor space 3 . Private entrance/proximity to ground l e v e l 4 . Privacy afforded by detached party walls ( i . e . no walls of unit joined to neighbours) 5. Design of house and l o t lends i t s e l f to alte r a t i o n s 6. S u i t a b i l i t y of environment f o r r a i s i n g children 7. Other (specify ) -3-8g. Here are a number of features r e l a t i n g to the TENURE aspects of home ownership. Could you rate the importance of each feature i n your preference for Ownership of a single family detached house. Tenure-Related Features Very Mod. Not Imp. Imp. Imp. 1. Security of having t i t l e to the house.& property.., 2. Ownership provides an incentive to save, a means of forced saving 3. Ownership i s more economical i n the long run than renting 4. Ownership i s a good investment with p r o f i t poten-t i a l . 5. Ownership provides equity: (a l i q u i d asset, no rent loss 6 . Ownership allows you to be your own boss 7. Other {specify ) h. Here are a number of features r e l a t i n g to the long TRADITION of home ownership i n our society. Could you rate the importance of each feature i n your preference for owning a single family de-tached house i n the future. Tradition-Related Features 1. Home ownership gives you more respect and prestige than any other type of accommodation 2. A home-owner i s a better c i t i z e n than a tenant 3. There i s a certain pride i n having a home of your own 4. Other (specify ) i . Now could you look back over ALL the features l i s t e d i n the l a s t 3 questions ( i . e . 8f, g, and h) and choose the three features which you consider to be the most important of a l l i n your pre-ference f o r home ownership i n the future. Write them below i n order of t h e i r importance: 1. (most important) 2. 3. j . In aspiring to ownership of a single family detached house could you rank which set of features are more important i n your pre-ference for t h i s type of accommodation. (NOTE: Mark *1'; beside the set that i s most important, ;,2,,? for the next most important and '*3" for the least important.) 1. The Design features offered by home ownership 2. The Tenure features offered by home ownership 3. The Tradi t i o n features offered by home ownership Very Mod. Not Imp. Imp. Imp. -4-8k. I f the design features of space ( i n t e r i o r and e x t e r i o r ) , privacy, and f l e x i b i l i t y to a l t e r unit were incorporated into multiple housing units that you could own, would you consider t h i s a suitable alternative to ownership of a single family detached house? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know I f No, why? 1. Would you consider renting a multiple unit l i k e the one i n 8k as a suitable alternative to ownership of a single family de-tached house? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know I f No, why? Answer 9 a and b only i f reply to 8a was. NO, ( i . e . i f you never plan to own a single family detached house! 9a. I f you never plan to own a single family detached home i n the future which type of housing from the l i s t below do you a n t i c i -pate l i v i n g in? ( C i r c l e the TYPE and the TENURE) TYPE TENURE 1. Duplex 2. Townhouse/row house 3. Low r i s e apartment (4 storeys & under) 4. High r i s e apartment (over 4 storeys) 5. House converted into apartment suites 6 . Other (specify ) owned/rented owned/rented owned/rented owned/rented owned/rented owned/rented b. Could you rate each of the following items as to t h e i r importance i n your decision not to own a single family detached house. Very Mod. Not Imp. Imp. Imp. 1. Future i s uncertain 2. Don't need space which home ownership provides 3. D i s l i k e upkeep, maintenance choice which owning a house requires _ 4. Without home ownership greater freedom i s obtained 5. Cannot afford to buy a single family detached house 6 . Financing costs of home ownership are too high 7. The tax burden of home ownership i s too high 8. I t i s more economical to rent an alternative type of accommodation 9. D i s l i k e the f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of owning 10. Investment i n home ownership i s too fixed 11. Other (specify ) -5-10. As the costs of owning a single family detached house are greatly increasing, more people w i l l be forced to turn to alternative forms of housing. Referring to the l i s t of features below, could you rank the importance of each i n designing or upgrading multiple housing u n i t s . (NOTE: Mark " l " f or the most important, "2" fo r the next most important, : ? 3 " , : J 4 " and so on. Be sure to rank a l l the items.) 1. Private entrance/proximity to ground l e v e l 2. Freedom to a l t e r unit and grounds at w i l l 3 . Privacy from neighbouring units 4 . Space inside the unit 5. P o s s i b i l i t y of owning the unit 6. Private outdoor space 7. F l e x i b i l i t y i n design of unit and outdoor space 8. P o s s i b i l i t y of renting unit 9 . Other (specify ) 11. Here are some statements about home ownership, meaning ownership of a single family detached house. For each state-ment could you indicate i f you agree or disagree using the code below. SD - Strongly disagree A - Agree D - Disagree SA - Strongly agree N - Neutral or don't know 1. In the long run buying i s less expensive than renting a residence of s i m i l a r s i z e . SD D N A SA 2. It i s more prestigious to have a home of your own than to l i v e i n any other form of housing. SD D N A SA 3 . Owning a home t i e s you down with too many r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . SD D N A SA 4 . Home owners are more stable c i t i z e n s of the community than tenants. SD D N A SA 5. Home ownership i s not ess e n t i a l f o r r a i s i n g children. successfully. SD D N A SA 6. The pride associated with owning your own home i s unmatched by any other form of housing. SD D N A SA 7. A home of your own provides greater privacy from neighbours than does any other housing type. SD D N A SA 8. Without home ownership you are free r to move about at w i l l . SD D N A SA 9 . Owning a home provides the best environment f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n . SD D N A SA -6-12. F i n a l l y , just a few additional questions. a. What i s the present occupation of the male of the household? " " ' ' Is i t : 1. f u l l time 2 . part time ______ 3. unemployed 4. not applicable What i s the present occupation of the femala of the household? • .' '• ' ' : ' • Is i t : 1. f u l l time 2. part time I 3 • not applicable^ What i s the highest educational l e v e l of the male and female of the household. (Check one l e v e l f or each) Male Female 1. Some high school 2. High school graduate 3. Technical diploma 4. Some un i v e r s i t y 5. University graduate d. What i s the gross household income (that i s , before taxes?) J 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Less than $5000 !55000-$6999 J57000-$9999 . J510,000-$ll,999 1512,000-5514,999 $15,000-5519,999 5 520,000-5 524,999 5525,000-$30,000 $30,000+' THANK YOU'. 

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.831.1-0101350/manifest

Comment

Related Items