UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Housing and the family Kirby, Elizabeth Jeannette 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 K57_3.pdf [ 7.4MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101455.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101455-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101455-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101455-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101455-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101455-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101455-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101455-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101455.ris

Full Text

f 1 HOUSING AND THE F A M I L Y by E L I Z A B E T H J E A N N E T T E K I R B Y B . H . S c , U N I V E R S I T Y OF TORONTO , 1 9 6 2 M . S c , U N I V E R S I T Y OF W I S C O N S I N , 1 9 6 7 A T H E 5 I 5 SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T DF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n t h e S c h o o l o f COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL P L A N N I N G We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 7 3 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t , c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date S e p t e m b e r , 1973 i i . ABSTRACT Some form of shelter, commonly referred to as "housing", has always been an important requirement of man. Today,the study of housing i s a complex matter, as this topic can be approached from several viewpoints. Since the characteristics of the family, as an i n s t i t -ution, changes over time, i t i s important to pe r i o d i c a l l y study the family's purpose, goals and functions. Changes in the family also influence their attitude towards, and needs for, housing. As a result, the architectural style of the family's housing has also changed over time. The objectives of this paper are to provide the planner with: soc i o l o g i c a l information on the family; knowledge of the-social b e l i e f s which have influenced the physical form of North American domestic architecture; an outline of the major domestic architectural styles in North America, with reference to the relationship between house design and the character-i s t i c s of the family; knowledge of the expressed preferences of households for their housing, and the consumer's housing behavior. From the sociologist's study of the family, discussed in Chapter II, i t i s found that the most characteristic contem-porary North American family, as compared with the early North American one, i s of a nuclear, urban, form. It i s primarily a consumption unit, rather than a production one. In today's family, there i s now an emphasis on individualism, rather i i i . t h an f a m i l i s m . As a r e s u l t the f a m i l y i s more o r i e n t e d t o the p e r s o n a l needs and d e s i r e s o f each member - i n p a r t i c u l a r , t o the c h i l d . Many a s p e c t s o f the f o r m e r f u n c t i o n s o f the f a m i l y have been t r a n s f e r r e d , i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s , t o o t h e r i n s t i t -u t i o n s and a g e n c i e s which a r e o u t s i d e o f the home. The home, however, r e m a i n s i m p o r t a n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y as a p l a c e t o o b t a i n s e c u r i t y and h a p p i n e s s . The c o n t e m p o r a r y house, as d e s c r i b e d i n / C h a p t e r I I I , o f f e r s more p r i v a c y and o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the i n d i v i d u a l i t y f o r each f a m i l y member than i n p r e v i o u s a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e s . T h e r e a r e d e s i g n f e a t u r e s , such as two l i v i n g a r e a s , which a l s o a l l o w f a r the s e p a r a t i o n o f the two g e n e r a t i o n s and which r e f l e c t the f a m i l y ' s g o a l o f i n d i v i d u a l i s m . In t o - d a y ' s house, J.too, c o n v e n i e n c e i s i m p o r t a n t , as e v i d e n c e d by a f u n c t i o n a l f l o o r p l a n , a n d the p r o v i s i o n o f many m e c h a n i c a l d e v i c e s . F r o m - i n f o r m a t i o n about h o u s i n g p r e f e r e n c e s , s u r v e y e d i n C h a p t e r IV, i t i s fo u n d t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f h o u s e h o l d s d e s i r e the o w n e r s h i p o f a s i n g l e f a m i l y d e t a c h e d house. Most c o n -t e m p o r a r y f a m i l i e s , however, l i v e i n s e v e r a l forms o f h o u s i n g d u r i n g the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e . In g e n e r a l , f a m i l i e s move from one d w e l l i n g u n i t t o a n o t h e r i n o r d e r t o b r i n g t h e i r h o u s i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s more i n t o l i n e w i t h t h e i r needs. A f r e q u e n t r e a s o n f o r moving i s the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l s p a c e . In s e l -e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e , f a c t o r s such as the i n t e r i o r d e s i g n , the s o c i a l character of the neighborhood and design features related to the requirements for children are considered important. With the information provided in this paper, the planner has a broader background of knowledge from which to assess the requirements of the contemporary family for a more sat-isfactory housing environment. T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S P a g e A B S T R A C T i i C H A P T E R I . I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 N e e d f o r R e s e a r c h 4 O b j e c t i v e s o f R e s e a r c h 7 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f R e s e a r c h 8 S c o p e o f 5 1 u d y 1 0 O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d S o u r c e o f I n f o r m a t i o n 1 2 D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s 1 3 I I . T H E F A M I L Y 1 7 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 7 E a r l y N o r t h A m e r i c a n F a m i l y 21 A. O r i g i n 21 B. P u r p o s e o f t h e F a m i l y 21 C. G o a l o f t h e F a m i l y 2 4 D. F u n c t i o n s o f t h e F a m i l y 2 5 1. E c o n o m i c F u n c t i o n 2 5 2 . S t a t u s - C o n f e r r i n g F u n c t i o n 2 5 3. E d u c a t i o n a l F u n c t i o n 2 6 4. R e l i g i o u s F u n c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 5. R e c r e a t i o n a l F u n c t i o n 2 8 6. P r o t e c t i v e a n d S e c u r i t y F u n c t i o n . . 2 8 C a u s e s o f C h a n g e i n t h e F a m i l y 2 9 C o n t e m p o r a r y N o r t h A m e r i c a n F a m i l y 3 0 A. G e n e r a l C h a n g e s i n t h e F a m i l y 3 4 1. S h i f t f r o m P r o d u c t i o n t o C o n s u m p -t i o n 3 4 2 . W o r k o f Women O u t s i d e t h e H o m e . . . . 3 6 3 . C h a n g e i n H u s b a n d / W i f e R o l e s 41 B. P u r p o s e o f t h e F a m i l y 41 C. G o a l s o f t h e F a m i l y . ... 4 5 D. F u n c t i o n s o f t h e F a m i l y 4 8 1. E c o n o m i c F u n c t i o n 4 9 2 . S t a t u s - C o n f e r r i n g F u n c t i o n 5 0 3. E d u c a t i o n a l F u n c t i o n 51 4. R e l i g i o u s F u n c t i o n 5 2 5. R e c r e a t i o n a l F u n c t i o n 5 3 6. P r o t e c t i v e a n d S e c u r i t y F u n c t i o n . . 5 6 b u m m a r y , 5 7 v i . - T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s ( C o n t ' d ) C H A P T E R P a g e I H . T H E F A M I L Y ' S H O U S I N G 61 I n t r o d u c t i o n 61 E a r l y N o r t h A m e r i c a n H o u s i n g 6 3 A . M e d i e v a l H o u s e 6 3 1 . C o l o n i a l H o u s e 6 5 T r a n s i t i o n a l N o r t h A m e r i c a n H o u s i n g 6 9 A . C l a s s i c a l H o u s e 6 9 1 . C o l o n i a l G e o r g i a n H o u s e 7 3 B . C l a s s i c a l R e v i v a l H o u s e 7 6 1 . F e d e r a l H o u s e 7 8 2 . G r e e k R e v i v a l H o u s e 8 0 C . V i c t o r i a n H o u s e 8 2 1 . P i c t u r e s q u e R e v i v a l i s m a n d E l e c t i c i s m . . . . 8 9 C o n t e m p o r a r y N o r t h A m e r i c a n H o u s i n g 9 5 A . C o n t e m p o r a r y H o u s e 9 5 1 . M o d e r n ' . I H o u s e 1 0 1 R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n t h e F a m i l y a n d t h e H o u s e 1 0 7 I V . T H E F A M I L Y ' S H O U S I N G B E H A V I O R A N D E X P R E S S E D P R E F E R E N C E S . . . 1 1 3 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 1 3 R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y a n d t h e D e s i r e f o r H o m e O w n e r s h i p 1 1 4 A . I n c i d e n c e 1 1 4 1 . R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 1 1 4 2 . D e s i r e f o r H o m e O w n e r s h i p 1 2D B . M o t i v a t i o n a l F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y a n d t h e D e s i r e . f o r H o m e O w n e r s h i p . . . . 1 2 5 1 . S t a g e i n F a m i l y L i f e C y c l e / A g e o f H e a d o f H o u s e h o l d 1 2 9 2 . T e n u r e 1 3 5 3 . E c o n o m i c / S t a t u s 1 3 8 4 . R e s i d e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t 1 4 4 C . H o u s i n g C y c l e R e l a t e d t o F a m i l y L i f e C y c l e . . . . 1 5 5 b u m m a r y 1 5 7 v i i . T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s ( C o n t ' d ) CHAPTER £ a g e V. IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING 161 I n t r o d u c t i o n 161 R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 161 A. R a t e o f R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 161 1. Consumer I n f o r m a t i o n 162 2. H o u s i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n and D e s i g n 163 3. F i n a n c i a l A s s i s t a n c e 164 a. P u r c h a s e o f a L a r g e S i z e d House.... 164 b. P u r c h a s e o f E x i s t i n g H o u s i n g 165 S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h H o u s i n g E n v i r o n m e n t 166 A. House 166 1 . D e s i g n 166 2. T e n u r e , 167 3. G r e a t e r Number o f A l t e r n a t e Forms 167 B. N e i g h b o r h o o d 168 1. D i v e r s i t y i n R e s i d e n t H o u s e h o l d s 168 Need f o r R e s e a r c h and S u p p o r t 169 A. R e l a t i v e I m p o r t a n c e o f H o u s i n g 169 B. P r e f e r r e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f H o u s i n g E n v i r o n m e n t 171 C. Government S u p p o r t f o r I n n o v a t i v e H o u s i n g . . . . 172 B i b l i o g r a p h y 174 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express.her appreciation to the many individuals who rendered valuable advice and assistance in the preparation of this paper. Special acknowledgment i s gratefully made to my thesis advisors, Dr. Robert C o l l i e r and Dr. Gordon Stead, who offered constructive guidance and advice throughout. Appreciation for his continued encouragement and assistance i s also expressed to Professor Brahm Wiesman, Acting Director, School of Community and Regional Planning. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Some form of s h e l t e r has always been an important requirement of man even though i t has been provided i n a v a r i e t y of forms and f o r many d i f f e r e n t reasons. Today, i n North America, s h e l t e r i s commonly r e f e r r e d to as "housing." The contemporary house, however, serves other purposes i n a d d i t i o n to p r o v i d i n g a s h e l t e r f o r our p h y s i c a l comfort. To some households the i n t e r e s t i n a house may be to secure a higher p o s i t i o n of statu s and p r e s t i g e among f r i e n d s and i n the community (Seeley et a l , 1956, 46-49). To other households the ownership of a house may be f o r the purpose of securing an economic gain (Federal Task Force, 1969, 17). Ownership may a l s o serve the purpose of p r o v i d i n g a f e e l i n g of independence (United States Savings and Loan League, 1964, 29). Housing thus serves p h y s i o l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t i e s and psycho-c u l t u r a l needs (Seeley et a l , 1956, 42). Planners, as w e l l as engineers, economists, s o c i o l o g i s t s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s , lawyers, p o l i t i c i a n s , and others are t h e r e f o r e i n v o l v e d with aspects of housing. In a d d i t i o n , housing i s a complex matter since i t i s not only important to the r e s i d e n t household, but also i s important to many major p r i v a t e businesses and to the f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and municipal governments of Canada. For in s t a n c e , 2. with an economic aspect of housing such as mortgages, the f e d e r a l government and p r i v a t e l e n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s are u s u a l l y i n v o l v e d . T h e i r r o l e s are i n formulating p o l i c i e s and e s t a b l i s h i n g p r a c t i c e s which r e s u l t i n the a l l o c a t i o n of the mortgage to the mortgagor. The c o n d i t i o n s of the mort-gage i n turn have an e f f e c t on the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y i n the type, q u a n t i t y , and q u a l i t y -of the dwelling u n i t s b u i l t . At the household l e v e l the economic problem i s i n s e l e c t i n g , from the dwelling u n i t s a v a i l a b l e , the most s u i t a b l e one which can be a f f o r d e d . Over the years the general a t t i t u d e and degree of concern towards the many aspects of housing has v a r i e d . The concern f o r housing may be expressed by, or d i r e c t e d toward, the population i n general or only sub-groups. At d i f f e r e n t times the same aspect, such as the quantity of dwelling u n i t s and t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t income groups may be viewed as "good," " s a t i s f a c t o r y , " a "problem," or a " c r i s i s . " In recent years there have been r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g costs of accomodation a r i s i n g from the higher p r i c e of s e r v i c e d land, m a t e r i a l s and l a b o r , and increased i n t e r e s t r a t e s . Now the inadequacy of housing f o r lower income households has extended i n t o the middle-income group (Wheeler, 1969, 13; Federal Task Force, 1969, 1, 14, 15). With t h i s l a r g e seg-ment of the population having a personal concern f o r the p r o v i s i o n of housing, the subject i s r e c e i v i n g more p u b l i c 3. and p o l i t i c a l a t t e n t i o n . As a r e s u l t , the a t t i t u d e , concepts and approaches toward housing are undergoing change. At the f i r s t Canadian Conference on Housing i t was declared that " . . . a l l Canadians have the r i g h t to be adequately housed whether they can a f f o r d i t or not" (Wheeler, 1969, 15). Also i n the f e d e r a l government Task Force report on housing i n 1969, one of the declared p r i n c i p l e s was that "Every Canadian should be e n t i t l e d to cl e a n , warm s h e l t e r as a matter of basic human r i g h t " (Federal Task Force, 1969, 22). They say that "... the aim of government p o l i c i e s should be to generate s u f f i c i e n t housing stock so that a l l Canadians may e x e r c i s e t h e i r own freedom of choice as to the s t y l e and tenure of housing i n which they l i v e " (Federal Task Force, 1969, 22). The Task Force also s t a t e s that housing i s a "people problem" (Federal Task Force, 1969, 7). Although there are s t a t i s t i c s d e a l i n g with various aspects of housing, such as the number, cost, and form, housing i s ' " . . . t i e d every b i t as much to human d e s i r e s and p r e j u d i c e s as to s c i e n t i f i c graphs and c a l c u l a t e d l o g i c " (Federal Task Force, 1969, 7). Thus, the housing problem cannot be explained or measured by only l o o k i n g at s t a t i s t i c s . Many of the problems i n housing may al s o be perceived by people at the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l , f a m i l y or community (Wheeler, 1969, 14). It i s also at these l e v e l s that various changes are 4. brought about i n our s o c i e t y . Included are changes i n a t t i t u d e toward 'home,' and thus toward the house (Seeley et a l , 1 956, 57). In recent times there has been an increased emphasis on s c i e n c e , technology, i n d u s t r y and urbanism. Accompanying these changes away from an a g r a r i a n s o c i e t y there have been s o c i o - c u l t u r a l changes of vast dimensions. These l a t t e r changes are rooted i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i o -l o g i c a l needs, d e s i r e s , and motives of man. The t r a n s i t i o n throughout our c i v i l i z a t i o n from r u r a l to urban, along with the varying a t t i t u d e s of man, i n f l u e n c e the habits of a pop-u l a t i o n . These, i n turn, modify the s t r u c t u r e , f u n c t i o n , and values of our s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and the p h y s i c a l components of our environment ( E r i c k s e n , 1954, 28-64). Need f o r Research As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , there are changes within our s o c i e t y . They are u s u a l l y gradual changes which are c o n t i n -uous. Because of t h i s , i t i s necessary to assess the changes which have occurred by an examination of s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s at a p a r t i c u l a r period i n time. Housing i s a t o p i c which can be viewed from various approaches. A study may be i n v o l v e d with aspects of the house i t s e l f , such as the q u a n t i t y , p h y s i c a l q u a l i t y , cost of con-s t r u c t i o n , or purchase p r i c e . A study of housing may a l s o be considered from the viewpoint of the government, the p r i v a t e business s e c t o r , or the household. In a d d i t i o n , housing need 5. n o t b e r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e , t h e h o u s e , b u t m a y i n v o l v e t h e p s y c h o - c u l t u r a l a s p e c t s o f t h e h o u s e h o l d . T h u s a s t u d y o f h o u s i n g m a y i n v o l v e o n e o r m o r e d i s c i p l i n e s s u c h a s p l a n n i n g a n d s o c i o l o g y . F r e q u e n t l y , h o w e v e r , p l a n n e r s d o n o t h a v e t h e o p p o r t -u n i t y , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e o f t h e l a c k o f t i m e , r e s o u r c e s o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o b e c o m e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s w h i c h d i s c i p l i n e s , s u c h a s s o c i o l o g y , c a n c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e i r k n o w -l e d g e . T h e p h y s i c a l p l a n n e r ' s c o n c e r n i s w i t h t h e p h y s i c a l e l e m e n t s o f o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d s , u r b a n a r e a s a n d r e g i o n s . He h a s k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e h u m a n c o m p o n e n t o f o u r s o c i e t y i n t e r m s o f t h e p h y s i c a l a s p e c t s , s u c h a s w a t e r s e r v i c e s , r o a d s a n d s c h o o l s w h i c h a r e r e q u i r e d f o r t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f a h o u s e -h o l d . O f f u r t h e r i n t e r e s t t o h i m c o u l d b e i n f o r m a t i o n o f a s o c i o l o g i c a l n a t u r e w h i c h d e a l s w i t h t h e w a y s i n w h i c h p e o p l e r e l a t e t o o n e a n o t h e r , t h e n e e d s w h i c h p e o p l e h a v e , i n c l u d i n g s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l o n e s , a n d t h e p r i o r i t y o f t h e i r n e e d s . W i t h t h i s a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h e p l a n n e r h a s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f m a k i n g m o r e a c c u r a t e a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l a n d c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f o u r s o c i e t y . T o f a c i l i t a t e t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h i s k n o w l e d g e , t h e r e i s a n e e d t o s y n t h e s i z e t h e f i n d i n g s o f s e l e c t e d s o c i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s o f r e l e v a n c e t o t h e w o r k o f t h e p h y s i c a l p l a n n e r . F o r a n i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p t o b e s u c c e s s f u l , i t i s a l s o v i t a l t h a t t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s , o f t e n a b s t r a c t i n n a t u r e , b e c o - o r d i n a t e d w i t h t h e a i m s o f t h e p h y s i c a l p l a n n e r with his focus on the applied. This collaboration i s important because both d i s c i p l i n e s have an impact on the organization and functioning of many of the i n s t i t u t i o n s of which our society i s composed. With respect to the residents of housing the s o c i o l -ogist has made a study of the individual and family. His analysis includes the purpose, goals and functions of families From 'the sociologist, therefore, the planner can obtain information which would broaden his understanding of the residents of housing. Since the physical form of housing i s in part affected by the belie f s and aspirations of the families which make up a society, the planner can better understand the reasons for particular s t y l i s t i c characteristics of housing by having knowledge of the s o c i a l history of the different periods of the North American heritage. This information can be bene-f i c i a l to the planner by providing him with an understanding of why a particular style, such as Colonial or Greek Revival, was a va l i d expression of the society's be l i e f s during a sp e c i f i c time, and why i t i s inappropriate or in disfavor at other times. Again, this information i s provided by s o c i o l -ogists as well as architectural historians who have specialize in s o c i a l history. The housing behavior of contemporary households and their expressed preferences w i l l also supply the planner with 7. information which he can use in providing more satisfactory housing for today's families. Over a period of time, too, the planner can perceive changing preferences for housing and housing trends which w i l l be helpful in supplying housing for future years. Objectives of Research An objective of this study i s to gather soc i o l o g i c a l information about the family which would broaden the planner's knowledge and thus be of benefit to him in providing suitable housing. Emphasis w i l l be placed on the current purpose, goals and functions of the family in a society which has undergone change, and continues to do so. This objective i s to enable the planner to assess more accurately the needs for housing, and therefore to help him provide a more applicable physical environment. A further objective i s to present the analysis of the sociologist in a form which the planner can interpret. Another objective i s to provide the planner with know-ledge of s o c i a l b e l i e f s which have influenced the physical form of North American domestic architecture. Included w i l l be an outline of the various styles of housing that have been popular during various periods of North American history. An objective, also, i s to relate the characteristics of the family to the design of the house. The planner can u t i l i z e this information in providing housing which i s suited to the 8. contemporary family. A further objective i s to survey the l i t e r a t u r e of studies concerning the family's housing behavior, their expressed preferences for housing, and their stated causes of s a t i s f a c t i o n and di s s a t i s f a c t i o n with their r e s i d e n t i a l environment. This information w i l l provide the planner with further guidelines to determine the characteristics of houses suitable for the contemporary family. Significance of Research Due to the continual change taking place in our society i t i s necessary p e r i o d i c a l l y to study the soc i a l and physical factors such as the family and their housing. Also, during different eras, there i s emphasis on various aspects and approaches to a subject. Today, there i s a growing trend toward i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y studies with the intent of providing more meaningful solutions to current problems. In the plann-ing profession there i s an increased awareness of the co n t r i -butions which can be made by the soc i a l sciences. With respect to housing, the collaboration between the planner and s o c i o l -ogist should enable the planner to assess more adequately the needs for housing and, therefore, help him to provide a more applicable physical environment for the population. A c r i t i c a l problem in many planning matters, including housing, i s the relationship between the family's desires and 9. expectations, and the knowledge and values of the p r o f e s s i o n a l planner, who i s expected to be an expert on some aspects of subjects such as housing (Lamanna, 1964, 317). He i s u s u a l l y i n v o l v e d with c o n s i d e r i n g i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s and c o n s t r a i n t s i n making d e c i s i o n s on f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s as p o s s i b l e answers to an i s s u e . Input from various d i s c i p l i n e s and sources may f a c i l i t a t e the planning process, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n d e f i n i n g , or c l a r i f y i n g d i s c r e t e features of a problem, or i n e s t a b l i s h i n g where there i s consensus or c o n f l i c t . When e v a l u a t i n g the o v e r a l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and p r i o r i t i e s , the planner may f i n d that a l l i n f o r m a t i o n concerning a problem cannot be u t i l i z e d to form the p o l i c y or plan. However, i t may be u s e f u l f o r other purposes, such as g i v i n g the planner i n s i g h t i n t o the degree of success, the re p e r c u s s i o n s , or side e f f e c t s of the p o l i c y or plan. In h i s c a p a c i t y as a p r o f e s s i o n a l planner, the respon-s i b i l i t i e s of the p o s i t i o n may i n c l u d e the formulating and pr e s e n t a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e proposals; the s e t t i n g and enf o r c -ing of standards; the implementation of p o l i c i e s and programs; and the a l l o c a t i o n of resources. To f u l f i l l many of these f u n c t i o n s , i t may b e n e f i t the planner to be aware of changing trends, and various approaches to the s u b j e c t . In housing, i t i s often the planner who sets and a p p l i e s standards and r e g u l a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to zoning by-laws, land use c o n t r a c t s , and s u b - d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . Knowledge of the needs and values of households, both p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o - c u l t u r a l , 1 0 . may be important for purposes of setting and approving dwell-ing unit types, tenure, size, quality and cost. The planner i s also frequently concerned with the pattern of land use within the urban area and the region. Information concerning the needs and desires of households for housing i t s e l f and other land uses, such as commercial and recreational, may be considered by the planner in land use a l l o c a t i o n . This information may influence the kind, number, size and placement of housing developments and amenities. It may also influence a decision to zone areas as exclusively r e s i d e n t i a l , or in combination with other uses. Scope of Study This study w i l l focus on the North American family and their housing. Information on the family which influences their housing requirements and attitudes w i l l be drawn from the sociologist's analysis of the family's purpose, goal and functions. In order to i l l u s t r a t e changes in our society a comparison between contemporary and e a r l i e r characteristics of families and their housing w i l l be included. A l i t e r a t u r e review of the housing behavior and expressed preferences of the contemporary household w i l l also be presented. It i s recognized that the population i s composed of individual house-holds which d i f f e r in their composition, ethnic background, income, needs and preferences. For purposes of this study, 1 1 . however, emphasis w i l l be placed when possible on the urban nuclear family, p a r t i c u l a r l y of the middle class. This paper does not claim to be an exhaustive study of a l l the pertinent aspects of the family and their housing. Only selected factors of the sociologist's analysis of the North American family which are pertinent to housing, w i l l be surveyed. The influences on the physical form of domestic architecture are also r e s t r i c t e d to the so c i a l ones. The dis-cussion of the family's housing i s also limited to aspects of the design which r e f l e c t the family's attitude to housing and their functional requirements. An attempt has been made to refer to the most recent l i t e r a t u r e . In some instances, however, the most thorough investigations were undertaken several years ago and are now considered as " c l a s s i c " studies. Often these e a r l i e r references are s t i l l pertinent as their results are confirmed in more recent studies of a smaller scale. Many of the s t a t i s t i c s quoted in this paper are from census information from the governments of the United States of America and Canada. In other cases the data are from individual research studies from independent organizations or i n s t i t u t i o n s , primarily in the United States of America, as well as some from Canada. 1 2 . Organization and Source o f Information The organization o f the remainder o f this paper w i l l be as follows: Chapter II, "The Family," w i l l describe the origin, structure, purpose, goal and functions o f the early Morth American family, which w i l l be compared with the struct-ure, purpose, goal and functions of the contemporary Morth American family. A brief survey of the causes of change in the family w i l l be included. The source o f this s o c i o l o g i c a l information i s from recent books, written by leading author-i t i e s on the family, which are used either as texts or recommended books for university courses on this subject. In Chapter III, "The Family's Housing," a brief out-line o f the soc i a l history of the major North American archi-tectural periods, with emphasis on the society's attitude to nature and their immediate physical environment, i s included. The physical attributes of the North American house, such as shape, plan, size, exterior and i n t e r i o r design, and equip-ment w i l l be described for the early North American house, the three major t r a n s i t i o n a l periods and the contemporary house. An attempt w i l l be made to relate the characteristics of the family, noted in Chapter II, to the attributes o f the house. Again, the source o f information i s textbooks or recommended books which are used in university courses dealing with the h i s t o r i c a l styles o f domestic architecture from both a func-tional and aesthetic point o f view. 1 3 . Chapter IV, "The Family's Housing Behavior and Expressed Preferences," w i l l describe the type of dwelling unit design and tenure found to be characteristic of contemporary famil-ies throughout the family l i f e cycle. This chapter w i l l focus on the physical and s o c i a l q u a l i t i e s of the r e s i d e n t i a l envir-onment with which today's families have stated s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , or for which they have expressed a pref-erence. The l i t e r a t u r e concerned with the causes of resident-i a l mobility and the c r i t e r i a sought in a dwelling unit, and the l i t e r a t u r e on the features desired in the ownership of a single family detached house w i l l be reviewed. The sources of this information are from sociological and planning journals, research reports from public and private i n s t i t u t i o n s , and books recommended in university planning and geography courses. In the concluding Chapter V, "Implications for Plann-ing," some implications for planning a more suitable resi d -e n t i a l environment for the contemporary family in an urban area w i l l be noted, as well as certain subject matters for which research could be undertaken by planners. Attention w i l l be given to the housing needs related to the sociological changes -in the family which have occurred in recent years; the stated causes of housing s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ; and expressed preferences of the family for their dwelling unit. Definition of Terms  House This term refers to the physical structure and the 14. three-dimensional o r g a n i z a t i o n of the i n t e r i o r space i n which a household c a r r i e s out c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s (Parsons, 1968a, 40). F a c i l i t i e s f o r a c t i v i t i e s such as e a t i n g , s l e e p i n g , s a n i t a t i o n , r e s t and r e c r e a t i o n are provided (Moore, 1968, 48; Seeley et a l , 1956, 43). In i t s e l f , i t i s an a r t i f a c t and i n a d d i t i o n serves as a r e p o s i t o r y of a r t i f a c t s (Seeley et a l , 1956, 43). Home The concept of home i s formed through family exper-iences and memories that are r e l a t e d to a house (Blood, 1972, 241). The emotional environment a s s o c i a t e d with "home" provides i n d i v i d u a l s with many q u a l i t i e s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i r needs of both a p r i v a t e and p u b l i c nature (Agan and Luch-s i n g e r , 1965, 4). Household The term household r e f e r s to a l l persons l i v i n g i n a common residen c e . I t may in c l u d e persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 15). Nuclear Family This term r e f e r s to a ki n s h i p unit of two or more persons r e l a t e d by blood, marriage, or adoption who occupy a common residence ( K i r k p a t r i c k 1955, 15). The North American nuclear family i s u s u a l l y composed of parents and c h i l d r e n ( G r e e n f i e l d , 1969, 251). 15. Extended Family An extended f a m i l y i s a k i n s h i p u n i t of persons from three or more generations who are r e l a t e d by blood, marriage or adoption, and who occupy a common residence (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 24). Value or Value O r i e n t a t i o n s These are rank-ordered p r i n c i p l e s , b a s i c to an i n d i v i d -ual or group, which are g u i d e l i n e s f o r human behavior, and t h e r e f o r e tend to e s t a b l i s h the d i r e c t i o n i n which a c t i o n i s taken (Beyer, 1959, 5; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961, 341; Michelson, 1970b, 131). They are based on such f a c t o r s as an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e a l s , motives and t a s t e s which are determined by c u l t u r a l background, education, habits and experiences (Beyer et a l , 1 955, 49) . A t t i t u d e An a t t i t u d e may be defined as "...an idea charged with emotion which predisposes a c l a s s of a c t i o n s to a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s of s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s " ( T r i a n d i a y . 1971, 2). They are learned or i m p l i c i t p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s to respond i n an evaluat-i v e manner, which tend to change over time (Beyer, 1959, 5; Osgood, 1957, 189). Preference A preference i s an aspect of behavior which, although 16. based on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s range of experience, may not be j u s t i f i e d on the ba s i s of any commonly accepted standards or moral judgments. They a l s o tend to change over time (Beyer, 1959, 5). Behavior or Action An i n d i v i d u a l ' s behavior or a c t i o n i s u s u a l l y a com-promise between values, a t t i t u d e s and other aspects of a r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n i n which one kind of a c t i v i t y i s s t r e s s e d as opposed to another (Beyer, 1959, 5; Kluckhohn and S t r o d t -beck, 1961, 29; Osgood, 1957, 199). IT CHAPTER II THE FAMILY Int r o d u c t i o n Changes wit h i n our s o c i e t y have r e s u l t e d i n noteworthy changes i n family s t r u c t u r e , the purpose, goals and f u n c t i o n s of the fami l y and the r o l e s of fami l y members (Parsons, 1968a, 36; Klemer, 1970, 19). Because the family u n i t as an i n s t i t -u t ion i s small and f l e x i b l e , i t can s h i f t as s o c i e t y changes, and can adapt to new c o n d i t i o n s with remarkable r a p i d i t y . The f a m i l y from i t s beginnings has undergone change, but the rate of change has increased i n modern times (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 447). Duvall notes that f a m i l i e s have changed more i n recent generations than i n any previous century i n recorded h i s t o r y ( D u v a l l , 1967, 53). Changes i n the family as an i n s t i t u t i o n are a s s o c i a t e d with changes i n t h e i r housing requirements, and also i n the a t t i t u d e of the fami l y to the dwelling u n i t . Due to the f a c t that these changes are u s u a l l y gradual and continuous, i t has been noted i n Chapter I that i t i s necessary p e r i o d i c a l l y to study these changes so that the planner may more a c c u r a t e l y assess the f a m i l y ' s needs f o r housing. In North America, the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f a m i l y has changed from a r u r a l one, to an urban one, as documented l a t e r i n t h i s 18. chapter. There has thus been a change, during t r a n s i t i o n a l years, f rorrr the c o n t r o l of the mores of a predominantly r u r a l s o c i e t y , with the i n f l u e n c e of P u r i t a n values, to an urban, i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y , with a d i f f e r e n t way of l i f e . The rep-r e s e n t a t i v e house f o r the family has a l s o changed from the r u r a l farmhouse to the urban dwelling (Foote et a l , 1960, 83). Some changes, due to i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n during the twentieth century, are as f o l l o w s : There has been: a d r a s t i c r e d u c t i o n i n the f a m i l y ' s s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y as a producing and consuming e n t i t y (Parsons, 1968a, 36); a d e c l i n e i n the author-i t y of husbands and f a t h e r s ; an increase i n the number of wives and mothers working f o r pay outside of the home; an i n c r e a s e i n i n d i v i d u a l i s m and freedom of f a m i l y members (Klemer, 1970, 20); a r e - a l l o c a t i o n of family r o l e s ; an i n c r e a s e i n l e i s u r e time; an improvement i n education; an increase i n f a m i l y f i n a n c i a l resources; and demographic changes such as a younger age at marriage ( D u v a l l , 1967, 67). In addition,some f u n c t i o n s of e a r l y f a m i l i e s have remained, while most of these f u n c t i o n s have been weakened or l o s t . The l o s s of f u n c t i o n s from the f a m i l y , however, does not mean that they have been l o s t to s o c i e t y . Over the years there have been changes i n which f u n c t i o n s have been t r a n s -f e r r e d , i n varying degrees, to other i n s t i t u t i o n s . One f u n c t -ion that has remained with the family i s that of supplying or r e p l a c i n g members of s o c i e t y (Martinson, 1970, 110). Another 19. f u n c t i o n which i s s t i l l p r i m a r i l y one of the fam i l y ' s i s that of preparing c h i l d r e n s o c i a l l y to take t h e i r place i n s o c i e t y (Martinson, 1970, 110). An example of a f u n c t i o n that has been almost e n t i r e l y l o s t i s that of p r o t e c t i o n and s e c u r i t y . A l a r g e part of the edu c a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n has al s o been t r a n s -f e r r e d from the home to p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s from the nursery school to the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l (Ogburn, 1968, 60). For the purpose of i l l u s t r a t i n g changes i n the famil y i n t h i s paper, the r u r a l North American fam i l y of the 1800's, and the urban fam i l y of the mid-twentieth century w i l l be discu s s e d . Although the changes i n the family are continuous, and u s u a l l y occur by small increments over a period of time, fo r the purpose of c l a r i t y i t i s often more p e r t i n e n t to view change which i s i n greater c o n t r a s t . It i s f e l t that the d i s c u s s i o n of today's family with the family of previous generations i s v a l i d i n North America because v e s t i g e s of the e a r l i e r periods s t i l l remain i n c e r t a i n geographical areas. ManyNorth Americans are al s o only one or two generations removed from r u r a l and t r a n s i t i o n a l f a m i l i e s , and so have knowledge of t h i s way of l i f e . Moreover, many North Americans have romanticized our r u r a l h e r i t a g e , and now value and i d e a l i z e many aspects of the r u r a l way of l i f e of t h e i r ancestors (Foote et a l , 1960, 84). It i s common f o r each generation to look back with n o s t a l g i a at the past gener-a t i o n s and i d e a l i z e the family l i f e of t h e i r predecessors. 20 S o c i o l o g i s t W i l l i a m Goode c a l l s the r u r a l North American family "the c l a s s i c a l family of Western n o s t a l g i a , " s i n c e , when studying the family h i s t o r i c a l l y , few examples of the " c l a s s i c a l " stereotype can be found ( 5 c h l e s i n g e r , 1964, 4, 5) Other myths are the i d e a l of the s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t yeoman farmer and the a g r a r i a n v i l l a g e (Donaldson, 1969, 110, 113). One of today's images of the past r u r a l l i f e which has been i d e a l i z e d may be described as f o l l o w s : "There are l o t s of happy c h i l d r e n , and many k i n f o l k l i v e together i n a l a r g e , rambling house. Everyone works hard. Most of the food to be eaten during the winter i s grown, preserved, and stored on the farm. The fam i l y members r e p a i r t h e i r own equipment, and i n general the household i s economically s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . . . . Father i s ste r n and reserved, and has the f i n a l d e c i s i o n i n a l l important matters. L i f e i s d i f f i c u l t , but harmonious because everyone knows his task and c a r r i e s i t out.... Though the parents do not arrange t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s marriages, the el d e r s do have the r i g h t to r e j e c t a s u i t o r and have a strong hand i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . ' A f t e r marriage, the couple l i v e s harmoniously, e i t h e r near the boy's parents or with them, f o r the couple i s s l a t e d to i n h e r i t the farm..." ( S c h l e s i n g e r , 1964, 5). It i s noted that, although some of the above c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s were t y p i c a l of most f a m i l i e s , there were very few f a m i l i e s which would f u l f i l l t h i s image described by S c h l e s i n ( 5 c h l e s i n g e r , 1964, 5). In order to i l l u s t r a t e some changes which have taken place i n f a m i l i e s , a b r i e f survey of the e a r l y North American fami l y w i l l be undertaken. This f a m i l y w i l l then be used as a r e f e r e n c e t o d i s c u s s c h a n g e s i n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y f a m i l y . E m p h a s i s w i l l b e p l a c e d o n t h e c h a n g i n g s t r u c t u r e , p u r p o s e , g o a l s a n d f u n c t i o n s o f f a m i l i e s w h i c h h a v e p e r t i n e n c e t o h o u s i n g a t t i t u d e s , n e e d s a n d d e s i r e s . E a r l y N o r t h A m e r i c a n F a m i l y A. O r i g i n T h e e x p l o r a t i o n a n d e a r l y s e t t l i n g o f N o r t h A m e r i c a w a s u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e p e o p l e s o f W e s t e r n E u r o p e . A l o n g t h e e a s t -e r n c o a s t o f w h a t i s n o w t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a a n d C a n a d a , t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s w e r e u n d e r t a k e n p r e d o m i n a n t l y b y t h e F r e n c h , E n g l i s h a n d D u t c h . A l t h o u g h t h e i r n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s w e r e d i v e r s e , t h e r e w a s a c o m m o n m e d i e v a l t r a d i t i o n w h i c h t h e y a l l s h a r e d . A s t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e t t l e r s w e r e f r o m t h e m i d d l e , a n d l o w e r c l a s s e s , t h e y w e r e m o r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e f e u d a l w o r l d . o f t h e s e r f s , r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e l o r d s . T h e s e t t l e r s , t h e r e f o r e , b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m a m u c h s i m p l e r , m o r e d i r e c t a n d m o r e e l e m e n t a r y r e s p o n s e t o t h e i r h u m a n c o n d i t i o n ( G o w a n s , 1 9 6 4 , 3 ) . B . P u r p o s e o f t h e F a m i l y T h e t y p i c a l e a r l y N o r t h A m e r i c a n f a m i l y w a s a r u r a l o n e , w i t h a p r e d o m i n a n t l y a g r i c u l t u r a l e c o n o m i c b a s e . I t w a s n e a r l y a l w a y s a s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t a n d e x t r e m e l y c o - o p e r a t i v e u n i t w h i c h o p e r a t e d w i t h i n a m a t e r i a l i s t i c a n d p r a c t i c a l s e t t i n g . T h i s f a m i l y w a s s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t i n t h a t s u c h b a s i c 22. needs as those for food, clothing, shelter, recreation, education, r e l i g i o n , medical care, s o c i a l i z a t i o n and protect-ion o f family members were f u l f i l l e d largely within the home (Lantz and Snyder, 1969 , 3 8 ) . At a later time, when some agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s , such as schools, which today are included in municipal plans by planners, were a part o f the rural community, the family s t i l l raised, processed and made much o f what they needed in the home (Duvall, 1967 , 5 8 ) . For the early North American family, the ma t e r i a l i s t i c needs referred to above were those required for survival. This m a t e r i a l i s t i c setting, therefore, necessitated the pro-duction of goads and the provision of services by the family i t s e l f , as well as the subsequent consumption (Duvall, 1 9 6 7 , 5 8 ) . In order to f u l f i l l these needs adequately, the active participation and f u l l co-operation of a l l family members was required. The dependence of the early North American family on i t s e l f for survival required, in addition, a sett-ing in which materialism and p r a c t i c a l i t y were highly valued. These values were reflected in the basis o f a marriage which was primarily economic. As a result, mate selection was usually concerned with such p r a c t i c a l considerations o f the men and women as whether or not they had a sturdy constitution and good working habits. The a b i l i t y o f the woman to perform household duties such as perserving and cooking foods, and making clothes was o f prime importance (Lantz and Snyder, 1969 , 35 , 3 7 - 3 9 ) . 23. The b i r t h of many c h i l d r e n was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and was viewed as an economic asset. The high b i r t h rate r e s u l t e d i n part from inadequate knowledge of b i r t h c o n t r o l . However, a high b i r t h rate was d e s i r a b l e to o f f s e t a high death r a t e and a l s o to provide an adequate l a b o r supply. This l a s t reason f o r producing c h i l d r e n was of prime importance because of the n e c e s s i t y of s u r v i v a l i n an economy where there was l i t t l e mechanization (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 44). Because of the economic basis f o r marriage and c h i l d r a i s i n g , f a m i l y members were t r e a t e d somewhat as commodities. T h e i r worth was based on how much they could produce, and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e i r a b i l i t y to c o n t r i b u t e to the fa m i l y ' s economic well-being (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 44). Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the e a r l y r u r a l family that i s r e l a t e d to the economic aspect of t h e i r s u r v i v a l i s the extended fa m i l y nature of the household. T h i s form of house-hold i s comprised of three or more generations of r e l a t i v e s (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 24). Although the p r a c t i c a l reason f o r e n l a r g i n g the number of household members i n t h i s way was to supply l a b o r , the younger generations a l s o f e l t a duty to support aging, i n f i r m and unmarried members of t h e i r kin (Kephart, 1966, 251). Even i f these a d d i t i o n a l members of the family were unable to supply labor f o r farm or home production a c t i v i t i e s , they were f r e q u e n t l y capable of tending young c h i l d r e n , or performing l e s s r i g o r o u s tasks (Kephart, 1966, 251). With respect to planning, the decreasing s i z e of today's 24. f a m i l y , which i s i n f r e q u e n t l y an extended form, has i m p l i c -a t i o n s f o r a decreasing s i z e of house (Winnick, 1957, 72, 80). Th us, the primary purpose of the family was an economic one as members su p p l i e d labor f o r the operation of the farm and household a c t i v i t i e s from which were produced the resources f o r t h e i r own s u r v i v a l . C. Goal of the Family In the t r a d i t i o n a l e a r l y North American f a m i l y , there was an o r i e n t a t i o n toward f a m i l i s t i c values and goals, r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ones. This pattern r e q u i r e d the sub-o r d i n a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l to the welfare of the fami l y u n i t . In other words, the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r e s t s were second-ary to the i n t e r e s t s of the fami l y as a whole. To ensure that the goals of the family as a whole were f u l f i l l e d , i t was necessary f o r the family to assign w e l l - d e f i n e d goals to each fam i l y member. As a r e s u l t , the r o l e s of family members were a l s o c l e a r l y defined (Kephart, 1966, 474, 477, 478; Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 37, 39, 40). Even though the e a r l y North American fam i l y emphasized fa m i l y a s p i r a t i o n s , and a f e e l i n g of unity often developed which was based on economic t i e s (Winch, 1952, 474) and personal l o y a l t i e s , the family was u s u a l l y not a democratic i n s t i t u t i o n . Most often the power to make d e c i s i o n s and pass judgment, i . e . , the power to r u l e , was i n the hands of one person who demanded immediate obedience and allowed l i t t l e 2 5 . f r e e d o m . T h i s p o w e r t o r u l e w a s u s u a l l y g i v e n t o t h e e l d e s t m a l e w h o w a s t h e n l o o k e d u p o n a s t h e h e a d o f t h e h o u s e h o l d ( L a n t z a n d S n y d e r , 1 9 6 9 , 4 0 ) . D. F u n c t i o n s o f t h e F a m i l y T h e f a m i l y v a r i e s f r o m m o s t o t h e r f u n c t i o n i n g i n s t i t -u t i o n s i n t h a t i t c a r r i e s o u t a g r e a t v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y d i f f u s e n e s s r a t h e r t h a n s p e c i f i c i t y ( M a r t i n s o n , 1 9 7 0 , 1 1 0 ) . A n o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t t h e f a m i l y c a r r i e s o n a c t i v i t i e s a n d f u n c t i o n s f o r s e v e r a l g r o u p s s i n c e t h e f a m i l y s e r v e s i t s o w n m e m b e r s , o t h e r p e r s o n s , a n d s o c i e t y a s a w h o l e ( M a r t i n s o n , 1 9 7 0 , 1 1 0 ) . 1 . E c o n o m i c F u n c t i o n D u r i n g t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y o f N o r t h A m e r i c a , w h e n b o t h c o u n t r i e s w e r e l a r g e l y a g r i c u l t u r a l , t h e f a r m f a m i l y c a m e c l o s e t o b e i n g a s e l f - s u f f i c i . e n t e c o n o m i c u n i t ( W i n c h , 1 9 5 2 , 4 7 4 ) . A s a n e c o n o m i c u n i t , t h e y w e r e a p r o d u c i n g u n i t ( K e p h a r t 1 9 6 6 , 2 3 1 ) , w i t h t h e f a m i l y c o n s u m i n g w h a t t h e y p r o d u c e d ( O g b u r n / 1 9 6 8 , 5 9 ) . T h u s , i n t h i s r u r a l f a m i l y , w h e r e t h e l a b o r f o r p r o d u c t i o n w a s s u p p l i e d b y t h e f a m i l y , a l l t h e m e m b e r s w e r e e c o n o m i c a l l y i n t e r d e p e n d e n t ( W i n c h , 1 9 5 2 , 4 7 4 ) . 2 . 5 t a t u s - C o n f e r r i n g F u n c t i o n S i n c e a * m e m b e r o f a f a m i l y w a s l e s s a n i n d i v i d u a l a n d m o r e a m e m b e r o f a f a m i l y , a n d d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t f a m i l y 26. members were u s u a l l y economically interdependent, the fami l y became the center of p r e s t i g e and, t h e r e f o r e , gave stat u s to i t s members (Ogburn, 1968, 59). Of con s i d e r a b l e importance was the perpetuation of the fami l y name, lin e a g e and property r i g h t s (Kephart, 1966, 474, 477; Ogburn, 1968, 59). Most f a m i l i e s a l s o stayed f o r generations on the same piece of land and hence had an opportunity to e s t a b l i s h a r e p u t a t i o n i n the community based on the f a m i l y ' s property accumulation. The f a m i l y was a l s o i n t e g r a t e d by the bond of common i n t e r e s t i n t a n g i b l e property. The transmission of the property was an important aspect of the s t a t u s - c o n f e r r i n g f u n c t i o n as there was pride i n the possessions accumulated by generations ( K i r k -p a t r i c k , 1955, 133). During t h i s period i n which property i n h e r i t a n c e was important, there was l i t t l e r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y since members of a younger generation remained with t h e i r parents as an extended f a m i l y , r a t h e r than e s t a b l i s h i n g a household of t h e i r own, which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the contemporary fam i l y ( G l i c k , 1957, 31). This change i n a t t i -tude and behavior thus has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the planner i n the p r o v i s i o n of an adequate number of dwelling u n i t s and s u i t a b l e design f e a t u r e s . 3. E d u c a t i o n a l Function In the e a r l y North American f a m i l y , education was con-s i d e r e d to be a f u n c t i o n of the home (Kephart, 1966, 249). Because of the economic f u n c t i o n of home production of the 27. n e c e s s i t i e s of l i f e and t h e i r consumption, the ed u c a t i o n a l emphasis was v o c a t i o n a l (Ogburn, 1966, 59). A boy was expected to f o l l o w h i s f a t h e r ' s f o o t s t e p s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l endeavors, and a g i r l her mother's duties i n domestic science (Kephart, 1966, 249; Ogburn, 1968, 59). In a d d i t i o n to teaching the se c u l a r aspects of education, the family assumed almost t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the moral education of the c h i l d r e n (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 466). For the e a r l y North American f a m i l y , t h e r e f o r e , the p r o v i s i o n of schools, f o r which planners are now i n v o l v e d , was not p a r t i c u l a r l y important compared to t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e by today's parents ( D u v a l l , 1967, 60). 4. R e l i g i o u s Function R e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g and observance was al s o a family f u n c t i o n , many aspects of which u s u a l l y took place i n the home. The home thus often served as a kind of adjunct to the church, with fa m i l y prayers, B i b l e reading, teaching of the catechism, hymn-singing, and grace before meals (Kephart, 1966, 250; Ogburn, 1968, 59). Attendance at church was al s o a f a m i l y a c t i v i t y (Kephart, 1966, 250). It was thus important f o r husbands, wives and other fa m i l y members to belong to the same church (Ogburn, 1968, 59). Since church attendance and r e l i g i o u s observations were p a r t i c u l a r l y important to the e a r l y North American s o c i e t y , the church i n the community or town was u s u a l l y given a prominent l o c a t i o n by the townspeople (Gowans, 1964, 96; Gowans, 1966, 36). 28. 5. R e c r e a t i o n a l Function The home was al s o the center of r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s since few outside d i v e r s i o n s were a v a i l a b l e (Kephart, 1966, 250). Moreover, there was often l i t t l e time f o r any r e c r e a t -i o n a l p u r s u i t s since work took up most of the d a y l i g h t hours. What entertainment there was u s u a l l y took place i n the home, to be enjoyed by the fami l y as a whole (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 468). Family members were u s u a l l y the only a v a i l a b l e p a r t i c i p a n t s (Kephart, 1966, 250). R e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s were u s u a l l y of an a c t i v e nature, and inc l u d e d such a c t i v i t i e s as s i n g i n g , dancing and games of various kinds (Kephart, 1966, 250). What community r e c r e a t i o n there was u s u a l l y was home centered as i t took place at the residence of some other fam i l y (Ogburn, 1968, 59). Besides having l i t t l e d i s c r e t i o n a r y time, community r e c r e a t i o n was r e s t r i c t e d f u r t h e r due to the f a c t that t r a n s p o r t a t i o n was poor and time consuming (Kephart, 1966, 250). 6. P r o t e c t i v e and S e c u r i t y Function In~the e a r l y f a m i l y , i n d i v i d u a l s r e l i e d on family members fo r t h e i r p h y s i c a l p r o t e c t i o n , s e c u r i t y f o r the i n f i r m and care i n times of sickness and o l d age (Kephart, 1966, 251). It was u s u a l l y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the f a t h e r to p r o t e c t the famil y from i n t r u d e r s , e i t h e r human or animal (Klemer, 1970, 27, 28). The home was al s o the source of medical s e r v i c e s (Kephart, 1966, 251) as i t was customarily the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 29. of the mother to prepare and administer remedies f o r the i l l , and to p r o t e c t the famil y against disease (Klemer, 1970, 28). It was a l s o i n the home of t h e i r mature - c h i l d r e n that par-ents, i n t h e i r o l d e r years, found comfort and care (Ogburn, 1968, 59). P u b l i c s e r v i c e s such as p o l i c e and f i r e p r o t e c t -ion and h o s p i t a l s , t h e r e f o r e , were seldom considered by a community, as they are now by planners of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s (Lynch, 1962, 143). Causes of Change i n the Family As an explanation f o r the changes which have taken place i n the f a m i l y , K i r k p a t r i c k has suggested that the family has been a f f e c t e d by, and has responded to s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n o l -o g i c a l and economic changes ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 136). Ogburn notes that the changes i n the fa m i l y may be traced l a r g e l y to in v e n t i o n s using steam as power, since steam power made poss-i b l e the c i t i e s , f a c t o r i e s , improved t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , mass production and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n (Ogburn, 1968, 60). Lantz and Snyder a l s o c i t e the spread of democracy as an i n f l u e n c e on change i n the famil y (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 49). With i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , the production of goods was t r a n s f e r r e d from the home environment to that of the f a c t o r y . This d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of work from the family has been recog-nized as one of the fundamental i n f l u e n c e s on the e v o l u t i o n of the contemporary fam i l y (Rapoport and Rapoport, 1968, 55). For example, the i n d u s t r i a l f a m i l y , i n comparison to the r u r a l 30. f a m i l y , seldom i s the work u n i t , since f a m i l y members inde-pendently seek employment outside the home. As a r e s u l t , the power over the work l i v e s of fami l y members has been almost t o t a l l y t r a n s f e r r e d from the fami l y a u t h o r i t a r i a n to such persons outside the family as a foreman or manager. Furthermore, the a u t h o r i t a r i a n f r e q u e n t l y l o s t c o n t r o l over his own work s i t u a t i o n , since unless he e s t a b l i s h e d h i s own business, he was employed by other persons who gave d i r e c t i o n s . Of importance to planners has been the sep a r a t i o n of work from the home, since areas of the m u n i c i p a l i t y are zoned f o r s p e c i a l uses, such as r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, and i n d u s t r i a l . The need f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routes between land uses has a l s o i n v o l v e d planners (Lynch, 1962, 37-48). A t t i t u d e s towards f a m i l i e s a l s o tended to be challenged and often changed when members were exposed to new and d i f f -erent s o c i a l patterns i n t h e i r work environment (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 46, 47). Wi l l i a m Goode f e e l s that c r u c i a l points of pressure on the t r a d i t i o n a l f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e from i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n are as f o l l o w s : F i r s t , i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n u s u a l l y n e c e s s i t a t e s the p h y s i c a l movement from one l o c a l i t y to another, thus decreasing the frequency and intimacy of contact among family members. In a d d i t i o n , i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n creates c l a s s - d i f f e r e n t i a l m o b i l i t y by which one or more famil y members move r a p i d l y upward while the others do not. As a r e s u l t , there are u s u a l l y d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n s t y l e of l i f e which make famil y contacts l e s s easy and pleasant. T h i r d l y , 31 . i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n creates a value s t r u c t u r e that recognizes achievement more than b i r t h . Because of t h i s , each family member must make h i s own way (Goode, 1968, 115). The above c l a s s - d i f f e r e n t i a l m o b i l i t y which may occur within f a m i l i e s often r e s u l t s i n c e r t a i n family members l i v i n g i n a d i f f e r -ent r e s i d e n t i a l environment. The various q u a l i t i e s of a r e s i d e n t i a l area may be i n f l u e n c e d by planning by-laws r e g u l a t i n g the s i z e of l o t , set-backs f o r the dwelling u n i t , and dwelling unit s i z e and height. In some i n s t a n c e s , the value of the dwelling unit and m a t e r i a l s may al s o be set by by-laws (Lynch, 1962, 20). The ownership of a s i n g l e f a m i l y dwelling by a nuclear family i s al s o considered as a source and i n d i c a t o r of p r e s t i g e by many households, as noted i n Chapter IV of t h i s paper. With improved technology and mechanization, many of the duties performed by the fam i l y , such as cooking and c l e a n i n g , have been s i m p l i f i e d . As a r e s u l t , the fa m i l y , when freed from performing many chores, could apply the extra time and energy to other aspects of fami l y l i v i n g . One r e s u l t i s the development of an i n t e r e s t i n the needs of the i n d i v i d u a l (Lantz and Snyder, 19.69 , 46, 47). As w i l l be noted l a t e r i n t h i s chapter, there has been an increase i n the amount of d i s c r e t i o n a r y time f o r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members, which i s often spent i n the p u r s u i t of r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t -i c u l a r l y ones outside of the house. The planner i s thus in v o l v e d with the a l l o c a t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l areas and resources within a m u n i c i p a l i t y and a l s o at the r e g i o n a l l e v e l . The increased u r b a n i z a t i o n of North America has al s o i n f l u e n c e d changes i n the famil y . Beyer points out that i n a period of one hundred and seventy years the United States of America has changed from a nation made up almost e n t i r e l y of farmers to one which i s p r i m a r i l y urban. He s t a t e s that i n 1790, f i v e per cent of the population could be considered urban, while i n 1960, seventy per cent were urban (Beyer, 1965, 87, 88). A s i m i l a r change from r u r a l to urban i s noted i n Canada. Census data give the l e v e l of u r b a n i z a t i o n i n Canada i n 1851 as l e s s than f i f t e e n per cent. This l e v e l had increased to about t h i r t y - f i v e per cent by 1901, and had passed f i f t y per cent by 1931. By 1961, the degree of urban-i z a t i o n i n Canada had reached seventy per cent (Stone, 1967, 33). Along with the change from r u r a l to urban, there has been an expanded r o l e f o r the planner i n the development and growth of urban areas(Mumford, 1961, 448). I n t e g r a l l y related'^to the development and growth of c i t i e s has been the t r a n s f e r of some f u n c t i o n s from the fami l y to other p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s . With the grouping together of large numbers of f a m i l i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s i n a l i m i t e d geographical area, i t was b e n e f i c i a l to the s a f e t y and economic aspects of a community to provide some s e r v i c e s on a community b a s i s . Examples p e r t i n e n t to planning and the family are the p r o v i s i o n of water and sewage s e r v i c e s . In a d d i t i o n , s e r v i c e s f o r p r o t e c t i o n , such as p o l i c e and f i r e , were p r e v i o u s l y provided by the f a m i l y . Today, of course, i t i s expected that these s e r v i c e s w i l l be provided by the community. The h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d nature of some f u n c t i o n s , such as education and r e c r e a t i o n , has al s o brought about the t r a n s f e r of most aspects of these f u n c t i o n s from the fa m i l y . Also, with a population which i s more concentrated i n space, i t i s more f e a s i b l e f o r i n s t i t u t i o n s outside of the fami l y to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r these f u n c t i o n s . Today, i t i s u s u a l l y s p e c i a l i s t s who provide these s e r v i c e s with s o p h i s t i -cated equipment i n s p e c i a l b u i l d i n g s or areas. Again, i t becomes customary to have these f u n c t i o n s provided f o r the family by non-family members, i n c l u d i n g planners (Cavan, 1969, 524 ). The spread of democratic values, accompanied by increased strength of -"democracy at the p o l i t i c a l l e v e l , has al s o been an i n f l u e n c e i n changing a t t i t u d e s toward the family and i n weakening f u n c t i o n s at the family l e v e l . As i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members moved within.the urban area, they i n t e r a c t e d with per-sons of d i f f e r e n t backgrounds with d i f f e r e n t r u l e s of conduct and value systems. As a r e s u l t , an i n d i v i d u a l viewed the p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l patterns of his family as only one of many e x i s t i n g patterns (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 47, 49). In some in s t a n c e s , there was a d e s i r e f o r a more equal opportunity f o r a l l members of the pop u l a t i o n . An example i s the t r a n s f e r of the ed u c a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n from the family to p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s provided by the community f o r a l l c h i l d r e n . 34. Contemporary North American Family A. General Changes i n the Family The t y p i c a l contemporary family earns more than previous f a m i l i e s , and the majority of f a m i l i e s now secure the basic n e c e s s i t i e s of l i f e with r e l a t i v e ease. As a r e s u l t , they l i v e b e t t e r than ever before ( D u v a l l , 1967, 59). 1. S h i f t from Production to Consumption With the changes i n economics and productionn.due to i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , there has been a change from the making of goods to the earning of money and the buying of goods. In comparison to the e a r l y North American f a m i l y , the contempor-ary one i s e s s e n t i a l l y a consumption u n i t . They s e l e c t , buy and arrange goods made by i n d u s t r i e s outside the home ( D u v a l l , 1967, 58; Martinson, 1970, 114). The emphasis has thus s h i f t e d from "making a l i v i n g " to "earning a l i v i n g " ( K i r k -p a t r i c k , 1955, 123; Winch, 1952, 474). As a r e s u l t , the s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y of the family has i n c r e a s e d . Accompanying t h i s change i n emphasis, there has been a change i n the char-a c t e r of the economic bonds among family members. Instead of being economically interdependent, the fami l y has been a l t e r e d so that now there are the "breadwinners" and the "dependents" (Moore, 1968, 48; Winch, 1952, 474). With i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and our present-day economy there 35. has a l s o been a s h i f t from the p a i n s t a k i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n of an a r t i c l e that would l a s t a fami l y f o r years to the r a p i d replacement of goods. The e a r l i e r philosophy of "make i t do" has been replaced by "get the new model" ( D u v a l l , 1967, 59). Today, the burden of producing things has moved from the farm land and home to the f a c t o r i e s . Some f a m i l i e s s t i l l make some of t h e i r goods, but home production i s no longer a n e c e s s i t y . Instead, i t i s u s u a l l y pursuedc! f o r the purpose of f u l f i l l i n g !'the need f o r a r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , that i s , a hobby. There are some f a m i l i e s , however, i n which members perform some " d o - i t - y o u r s e l f " p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g home r e p a i r s and renovations f o r the purpose of p r o v i d i n g a more s a t i s -f a c t o r y dwelling u n i t at a more economical cost (Kleiner, 1 970, 27; Martinson, 1970, 114). For the urban wife, i n p a r t i c u l a r , most a c t i v i t i e s of home production have become o p t i o n a l . With the coming of mechanization during the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n , i t was no longer f e a s i b l e f o r women to work i n the home to the same degree as i t was p r e v i o u s l y . This was because household handi-c r a f t s could no longer compete with goods mass produced by power machinery i n the f a c t o r i e s ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 123). I f home production i s now valued, i t may not be due to the money saved. More o f t e n , i t i s valued because of a d e s i r e to be p e r s o n a l l y c r e a t i v e or to provide a s u p e r i o r or unique product f o r family or guests (Martinson, 1970, 114). 36. 2. Work of Women Outside the Home Another fo r c e which has brought about the segregation of work from the famil y i s the more d i v e r s i f i e d e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r women (Rapoport and Rapoport, 1968, 56). P r e v i o u s l y , g i r l s were t r a i n e d by t h e i r mothers i n such s k i l l s as sewing, cooking, and other e s s e n t i a l s of homemaking. This education was not only f o r the purpose of imparting t e c h n i c a l knowledge, but al s o f o r c o n d i t i o n i n g young g i r l s to the view that household accomplishments were something of which to be proud. But today, to a large extent, both the t e c h n i c a l and " a t t i t u d i n a l " aspects of homemaking are ignored at a l l l e v e l s of p u b l i c education as we l l as i n the home. Today, g i r l s are encouraged to seek a l i b e r a l a r t s education or p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g such as i n nursing or teaching. Moreover, many women are being f o r m a l l y educated i n the f u l l range of pro-f e s s i o n a l d i s c i p l i n e s , and are ent e r i n g a greater v a r i e t y of occ u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s (Kephart, 1966, 231; Rapoport>and Rapoport, 1968, 56). One of the current problems i n the family that i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y s i g n i f i c a n t i s how to r e c o n c i l e an academic education with the household duties and maternal o b l i g a t i o n s which confront the average wife (Kephart, 1966, 230; Lantz and Snyder 1969, 309). Kephart poin t s out that: "... i t i s one thing to be mentally stimulated by the humanities, the f i n e a r t s , the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s ; i t i s something e l s e again to f i n d oneself unable to use or enjoy these i n t e l l e c t u a l b e n e f i t s because of the press of ro u t i n e home-making task s . " (Kephart, 1966,230). 37. In recent generations, the a t t i t u d e of s o c i e t y towards the t r a d i t i o n a l woman as a housewife has a l s o changed. Even though a high l e v e l of s k i l l may be req u i r e d to run a con-temporary home p r o p e r l y , the woman who has chosen to devote her l i f e to her famil y i s considered i n f e r i o r to the woman who al s o has a career (Kephart, 1966, 229). The contemporary woman, i n co n t r a s t to her grandmother, i s l e s s l i k e l y to take p r i d e i n housekeeping as a means to status ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 132). Today, then, the term "housewife" has come to s i g n i f y low s t a t u s , and a woman i s l i k e l y to r e f e r to h e r s e l f i n s e l f -deprecation as a mere house-wife (Kephart, 1966, 229; K i r k -p a t r i c k , 1955, 132). Today, however, there are a great number of women i n the North American l a b o r f o r c e . In p a r t i c u l a r , there has been a great i n c r e a s e i n recent years i n the number of married women who are employed outside of the home. One of the contemporary d e v i a t i o n s from the t r a d i t i o n a l pattern of fami l y l i f e i s the employment of married women with c h i l d r e n ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 124). At the turn of the twentieth century, p r a c t i c a l l y h a l f of the women i n the United States never entered paid employment. By the nineteen-f i f t i e s , at l e a s t nine out of ten women'-worked outside t h e i r homes sometime during t h e i r l i v e s . More married women are al s o employed now than formerly. In 1890, only three out of every ten working women were married, as compared to si x out of every ten by the n i n e t e e n - f i f t i e s . Of the women who are married, i n the e a r l y n i n e t e e n - f i f t i e s , three out of 38. every ten were c u r r e n t l y working ( D u v a l l , 1967, 55, 56). In 1953, the pro p o r t i o n of the labor f o r c e which was composed of women at working age was 32.4 per cent. Of the female pop-u l a t i o n i n 1952, approximately f i f t y per cent were married. Of the married women, 26.8 per cent were working outside of the home, and 25.3 per cent of these had a husband present ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 124). Between 1950 and 1960, there was an in c r e a s e from 24.8 per cent to 30 per cent among married women with a husband present who were i n the la b o r f o r c e . This was an increase of more than twenty-five per cent w i t h i n a decade (Parsons, 1968a, 38). There i s al s o a s i g n i f i c a n t number of married women with c h i l d r e n who are i n the la b o r f o r c e . In 1952, of married working women who had a husband present, 13.9 per cent had c h i l d r e n under the age of s i x , and 20.7 per cent had c h i l d r e n under the age of eighteen ( K i r k -p a t r i c k , 1955, 124). In Canada, there has a l s o been an increase i n the number of married women, with a husband present, who are i n the labor f o r c e . For example, married women comprised 47.3 per cent of the female labor f o r c e i n 1961, compared with 56.7 per cent i n 1971. I t i s al s o found that i n 1971 the f o l l o w i n g percentages of married women at d i f f e r e n t ages were i n the labor f o r c e : 33.8 per cent aged 14-19; 46.8 per cent aged 20-24; 35.6 per cent aged 25-34; 36.9 per cent aged 35-44; 35.9 per cent aged 45-54; and 23.3 per cent aged 55-65. Many married women with f a m i l i e s , t h e r e f o r e , continue to be employed outside 39. of the home (Women's Bureau, Labour Canada, 1971, 20, 23). Frorri'these s t a t i s t i c s , i t i s seen that the contemporary North American woman i s l e s s often only a housewife and v o l -unteer worker than her predecessors (Parsons, 1968a, 38). There i s a l s o somewhat of a c y c l e f o r the career of the married woman with c h i l d r e n . There i s a general tendency f o r a young wife to work f o r a few years a f t e r she marries. When her f i r s t c h i l d a r r i v e s , she may temporarily leave the l a b o r f o r c e , or take a diminished schedule u n t i l the c h i l d and sub-sequent c h i l d r e n demand l e s s care i n the home. By the time the c h i l d r e n reach adolescence and are near the launching stage of the family l i f e c y c l e , the mother may re t u r n to work outside the home ( D u v a l l , 1967, 58). I t w i l l be noted i n Chapter IV that the choice of dwelling u n i t type, tenure, s i z e and l o c a t i o n a l s o tends to f o l l o w a pattern which, i n p a r t , i s i n f l u e n c e d by the employment of the wife and the b i r t h and development of c h i l d r e n . It i s suggested by some authors that the primary reason f o r women to work outside the home i s an economic one. In some i n s t a n c e s , however, the personal s a t i s f a c t i o n gained from a job i s an important reason. K i r k p a t r i c k s t a t e s that there i s a wish to a t t a i n a higher standard of l i v i n g f o r themselves and t h e i r dependents. As a r e s u l t of only one wage earner i n the f a m i l y , there i s often a low f a m i l y income i n r e l a t i o n to f e l t needs and d e s i r e s ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 125). Martinson recommends that the way f o r the wife to achieve a higher l e v e l 40. of l i v i n g f o r her f a m i l y i s not to produce goods i n the home, but f o r her to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the labor force and thus"' to earn a s a l a r y (Martinson, 1970, 114). The improved occup-a t i o n a l s t a t u s of women has a l s o been c i t e d by Kephart as an economic source of strength i n a marriage. He f e e l s that wives have often r e i n f o r c e d or preserved marriages because of t h e i r f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s (Kephart, 1966, 229). The opportunity which women have taken to work outside of the home has a l s o had an e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the wife to her marriage partner. In the past, women-were looked upon as being i n f e r i o r to t h e i r spouse (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 49). Now that women are permitted to occupy independent jobs, they have become independent of members of t h e i r f a m i l y , such as a husband, f a t h e r , or brother, f o r t h e i r very existence (Goode, 1968, 118; Klemer, 1970, 23). In a d d i t i o n to o b t a i n -ing t h e i r own work and c o n t r o l l i n g the money they earn, women are b e t t e r able to a s s e r t t h e i r own r i g h t s and wishes •• w i t h i n the f a m i l y (Goode, 1968, 118). Women now have more equal treatment w i t h i n the family because they have acquired a cer-t a i n element of power by v i r t u e of t h e i r economic c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the support of the f a m i l y . A woman's employment outside of the home has a l s o increased her personal contacts which have, to some extent, r e l e a s e d her from the male dominance of the t r a d i t i o n a l family (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 50, 51). 41 . 3. Change i n Husband/Wife Roles One of the consequences of the increased employment of women outside of the home i s a change i n the r o l e s of f a m i l y members (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 475). For i n s t a n c e , the r o l e of the male as the wage-earner, p r o t e c t o r and represent-a t i v e of the f a m i l y outside of the home has been a l t e r e d ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 126). A change i n : r o l e s has not only permitted wives to take on many r o l e s t r a d i t i o n a l l y reserved f o r men, but has a l s o made i t p o s s i b l e f o r men to perform and gain g r a t i f i c a t i o n from c e r t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l l y feminine a c t i v -i t i e s such as c h i l d care. In the contemporary f a m i l y , there has been a focus on r e a l l o c a t i n g f a m i l i a l and o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e s on the basis of s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t s (Rapoport and Rapoport, 1968, 56). Accompanying t h i s trend there has been the e v o l u t i o n of more complex and f l e x i b l e r o l e s f o r f a m i l y members both w i t h i n and outside the home ( D u v a l l , 1967, 61; Martinson, 1970, 117). Today, a l l family members are more l i k e l y to " p i t c h i n " to help another, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n emer-gencies. However, i n some i n s t a n c e s , such as with the woman's working outside the home, the time span f o r g i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e i s often prolonged. Today, the husband i s u s u a l l y much more deeply i n v o l v e d i n r o u t i n e tasks a n d ' c h i l d care than he was i n e a r l i e r times (Martinson, 1970, 117, 118). B. Purpose of the Family For the e a r l y North American f a m i l y , the most formidable problem was that of s t a y i n g a l i v e . With p r i m i t i v e techniques 4 2 . and equipment, elementary knowledge of a g r i c u l t u r e and l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l resources, the energies that the family had went i n t o the p r o v i s i o n of goods f o r t h e i r p h y s i c a l e x i s t e n c e . Therefore, there was an emphasis on the economic aspect of production. A f t e r the i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and urban-i z a t i o n of North America, l e s s energy and time was r e q u i r e d f o r the d i r e c t support of the p h y s i c a l needs of the f a m i l y . Therefore, today, there i s the opportunity f o r a greater i n t e r e s t i n the i n d i v i d u a l . As a r e s u l t , the basis f o r marriage and the family has s h i f t e d from an economic one to an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p c e n t e r i n g on the s a t i s f a c t i o n of personal needs (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 56, 65). , In an urban s o c i e t y , g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by impersonal and often t r a n s i t o r y r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the family has now placed i n c r e a s e d emphasis on f u l f i l l i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i o -l o g i c a l needs ( Moore , • .1 968 , 48). With the emphasis on personal s a t i s f a c t i o n and happiness, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which i n d i v i d u a l s seek i n a mate have undergone change. Romantic love and emotional i n t e r a c t i o n are now u s u a l l y the b a s i s of choice, r a t h e r than whether the wife w i l l be a good cook or seamstress ( K i r k p a t r i c k 1955, 135; Ogburn, 1968, 61). With marriage now u s u a l l y based on romantic love, there i s a l s o a trend f o r both husbands and wives to expect more of each other i n i n t a n g i b l e r o l e s , such as: an understanding companion; a s t i m u l a t i n g c o l l e a g u e ; and a l o v i n g and sympath-e t i c parent ( D u v a l l , 1967, 61). Between marriage partners i n 43. p a r t i c u l a r , today there i s the expectation of a more i n c l u s -iv e companionship than i n the t r a d i t i o n a l r u r a l f a m i l y . For in s t a n c e , companionship may be sought with regard to p h i l o -sophy of l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s and p o l i t i c s ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 135). Another reason why i n d i v i d u a l s look to the family f o r companionship i s because of the i m p e r s o n a l i t y of casual contacts with people outside the f a m i l y . In North America, i t i s u s u a l l y within the family that intense human s a t i s f a c t i o n s are pursued ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 133). Companionship with other f a m i l y members, which takes place p r i m a r i l y i n the dwelling u n i t , i s thus sought as one means of a t t a i n i n g happiness f o r i n d i v i d u a l family members. The home environment, i n c l u d i n g the p h y s i c a l aspects of the dwelling u n i t and the neighborhood, which are i n f l u e n c e d by planners, are thus important to the fami l y (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 479). One purpose of the contemporary fam i l y i s thus to provide f o r the a f f e c t i o n a l l i f e of the fami l y members. For s o c i e t y , too, the fami l y i s s t i l l the only recognized place f o r the reproduction of c h i l d r e n to replace members of the s o c i e t y (Ogburn, 1968, 60). However, today's family i s much smaller than that of the e a r l y r u r a l North American one. A reason f o r the d e c l i n e i n s i z e may be that the cost of r a i s -ing c h i l d r e n today i s greater than before. When c h i l d r e n are regarded from an economic viewpoint, today they are con-s i d e r e d an economic l i a b i l i t y or a luxury expenditure, r a t h e r 44. than an investment, as i n the e a r l y f a m i l y (Kephart, 1966, 166, 248; Moore, 1968, 52; Ogburn, 1968, 62; Winch, 1952, 476). C h i l d r e n now e x i s t not f o r what they can do to help the f a m i l y , but r a t h e r f o r themselves as growing persons with r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s and values as uniquely t h e i r s ( D u v a l l , 1967, 64). With smaller f a m i l i e s today, which are u s u a l l y r e s t r i c t e d to the nuclear f a m i l y , there i s al s o a d i s p o s i t i o n f o r parents to be more a t t e n t i v e to the needs and d e s i r e s of t h e i r one or two c h i l d r e n ( G r e e n f i e l d , 1969, 251; Winch, 1952, 478). Fewer c h i l d r e n , t h e r e f o r e , make i t p o s s i b l e f o r each c h i l d to have more advantages, such as b e t t e r food, l e s s i l l n e s s , and a s u p e r i o r well-being of both a p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l nature (Ogburn, 1968, 62). The emphasis with respect to c h i l d r e n has thus been s h i f t e d from the quant i t y of c h i l d r e n produced to the q u a l i t y of c h i l d r e n r a i s e d (Blood, 1968, 558). For a l l f a m i l y members, i t i s u s u a l l y no longer enough to make ends meet or to j u s t feed, c l o t h e and supply s h e l t e r f o r a c h i l d . Today, more and more f a m i l i e s are seeking a higher q u a l i t y of l i f e f o r a l l t h e i r members, ( D u v a l l , 1967, 67). I t w i l l be noted i n Chapter IV that one of the primary reasons f o r the de s i r e to own a s i n g l e family detached house i s r e l a t e d to the b e l i e f that t h i s type of tenure and dwelling u n i t type i s b e t t e r f o r c h i l d r e n . Thus, f o r planners, there i s a need to provide housing s u i t e d to the requirements of households with c h i l d r e n . 45. C. Goal of the Family In the e a r l y North American r u r a l f a m i l y , the a c t i v e e f f o r t of a l l family members was required f o r s u r v i v a l and the improvement of the f a m i l y ' s economic s i t u a t i o n . As a r e s u l t , the f a m i l y ' s needs had p r i o r i t y over those of an i n d i v i d u a l . Today, however, i n an i n d u s t r i a l i z e d and urbanized s o c i e t y where there are more d i v e r s i f i e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r each fam i l y member, emphasis i s placed on the needs, values and goals of the i n d i v i d u a l ( D u v a l l , 1 9 6 8 , 60; Kephart, 1966, 252; Lantz and 5nyder, 1969, 65; Ogburn, 1968, 60). For t h i s type of s o c i e t y , i t i s necessary f o r the fami l y to produce achieve-ment-oriented, f u t u r e - o r i e n t e d , independent, s e l f - r e l i a n t persons. To develop t h i s a t t i t u d e i n a person, the fami l y must permit, and even f o s t e r , i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c expression (Klemer, 1970, 28; Martinson, 1970, 127). Therefore, there has been a change from the group-centered fam i l y to a person-centered f a m i l y , with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on a c h i l d - c e n t e r e d family (Lantz and Sny der ,:1 9 6 9 , 64; Martinson, 1 970, 127). As a consequence of t h i s change, the family i s seen as e x i s t i n g f o r i t s members, r a t h e r than the members f o r the fa m i l y . The contemporary family can be described as a c o l l e c t i o n of d i s -c r e t e family members, each being served by the family without being unduly r e s t r i c t e d by i t s demands (Martinson, 1970, 127). In the changes i n the design of the North American house, which are described i n Chapter I I I , i t i s seen that, today, p r i v a c y f o r c h i l d r e n i s d e s i r e d , as evidenced by a separate bedroom 46. f o r each c h i l d , and the p r o v i s i o n of both a family room and l i v i n g room, which allows s e p a r a t i o n of the two generations f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes. One goal of the contemporary family i s thus to give p r i o r i t y to the i n d i v i d u a l i s m of family members. Lantz and Snyder describe t h i s as "the r i g h t of a person to be the a c t i v e agent i n s o l i c i t i n g his own i n t e r e s t s out of the array of those that are a v a i l a b l e " (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 52). This means that the i n d i v i d u a l i s f r e e r to pursue the goals that he himself s e l e c t s , r a t h e r than being forced to accept the goals set f o r him by his f a m i l y . There i s thus often a tendency to think i n terms of "what I want" ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 123). Lantz and Snyder point out, however, that i n d i v i d u a l i s m i s designed to create i n the person an aware-ness of and respect f o r the r i g h t s and d i g n i t y of others (Lantz and Snyder, 1969, 52). The i n d i v i d u a l i s m of each fam i l y member has i n f l u e n c e d the l i f e s t y l e of the family i t s e l f , since the nature of the family i s now chosen by i t s i n d i v i d u a l members. As a conseq-uence of greater freedom of choice, there tends to be an increased v a r i a b i l i t y of f a m i l i a l behavior ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 135). This d i v e r s i t y i n family l i f e s t y l e i s i n c o n t r a s t to the e a r l i e r family which l i v e d according to r e l a t i v e l y r i g i d r u l e s , which were e s t a b l i s h e d and maintained by s o c i a l and moral pressures of the e n t i r e s o c i e t y ( D u v a l l , 1967, 61, 65). For i n s t a n c e , today's couple may choose whether to have c h i l d r e n or not; may choose to remain:close to the place where they grew up, or move around from place to place; may choose to " l i v e i t up" as they go along, and spend a l l they earn, or save a l l they can spare f o r the future ( D u v a l l , 1967, 65). Today, there i s thus a greater r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on a married couple f o r t h e i r own destiny and degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 135). With regard to planning, there i s thus a need f o r d i v e r s i t y i n the type of dwelling u n i t , s i z e , tenure and l o c a t i o n , so there i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with accommodation f o r f a m i l i e s of various l i f e s t y l e s . Since there i s greater freedom f o r i n d i v i d u a l persons today, and each one i s encouraged to develop himself and to work out h i s own problems i n h i s own way, there i s a greater expectation of personal happiness ( D u v a l l , 1967, 64; K i r k -p a t r i c k , 1955, 136). The nature of happiness as a family goal i s seen by Seeley and his colleagues as "... a blend of m a t e r i a l w e l l - b e i n g , success, s o c i a l s t a t u s , good p h y s i c a l and mental h e a l t h , " with family l i f e an e s s e n t i a l element i n the attainment of happiness (Seeley et a l , 1956, 218). With the goal of i n d i v i d u a l i s m , i t i s regarded as more important f o r the person to f i n d happiness than f o r the family to do so. However, Martinson p o i n t s out that i t i s debatable whether or not personal happiness can be achieved at the expense of the family (Martinson, 1970, 129). With the change from f a m i l i a l goals to those of an 48. i n d i v i d u a l , there tends to be a more democratic i n t e r a c t i o n between fami l y members. The a u t h o r i t y i n the contemporary fami l y i s u s u a l l y no longer i n v e s t e d i n one person. Instead, there i s a more democratic approach to decision-making through family d i s c u s s i o n ( D u v a l l , 1967, 62). Quite often the power to make d e c i s i o n s and pass judgments i s given to the family member, who, i n the opinion of a majority of the f a m i l y , i s the most competent i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . In other words, the a u t h o r i t y i n a democratic family i s delegated on the basis of consensus and competence. With t h i s system, the family member who i s most competent i n c e r t a i n matters may not n e c e s s a r i l y be the most competent i n others. Therefore, a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s type of f a m i l y tends to be delegated to more than one person at a time, with each person being r e s -ponsible f o r d e c i s i o n s regarding d i f f e r e n t matters (Lantz and Snyder, 1 969 , 52) . D. Functions of the Family During the l a s t years of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century, there have been major changes i n the f u n c t i o n s of the North American f a m i l y . In p a r t i c u l a r , many t r a d i t i o n a l f a m i l y f u n c t i o n s have been taken over by or are i n the process of t r a n s f e r to other s p e c i a l i z e d and d i s -t i n c t i n s t i t u t i o n s or agencies, such as the p o l i c e f o r c e and the s c h o o l , which may i n v o l v e planners (Cavan, 1969, 524; Kephart, 1966, 247, 248). Many p r e v i o u s l y home-centered 4 9 . f u n c t i o n s a r e t h u s r e d u c e d b y t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f f a m i l y m e m b e r s , e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l l y o r c o l l e c t i v e l y , i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s w h o s e m e m b e r s h i p e n c o m p a s s e s n o n - f a m i l y m e m b e r s , a n d w h o s e l o c a t i o n i s n o r m a l l y o u t s i d e o f t h e h o m e . T h e s e s p e c i a l i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s a l s o o f t e n m a k e c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s w i t h t h e f a m i l y f o r t h e t i m e , m o n e y a n d e n e r g y r e s o u r c e s o f f a m i l y m e m b e r s , s i n c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s u s u a l l y i n d i v i d u a l r a t h e r t h a n f a m i l -i a l ( M o o r e , 1 9 6 8 , 4 7 ) . T h i s t r a n s f e r o f f u n c t i o n s i s o f t e n v i e w e d a s a l o s s o f f a m i l y f u n c t i o n s , a n d r e g a r d e d a s i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e f a m i l y . H o w e v e r , t h e t r a n s f e r o f f u n c t i o n s r e l i e v e s t h e f a m i l y o f b u r d e n s i t c a n n o t c o p e w i t h i n a n i n d u s t r i a l i z e d a n d u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t . T h i s r e l e a s e o f f u n c t i o n s t h u s m a k e s p o s s i b l e a m o r e c o m p l e t e f u l f i l l m e n t o f f u n c t i o n s t h a t a r e s t i l l r e t a i n e d , a n d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f u n d e r t a k i n g n e w o n e s ( C a v a n , 1 9 6 9 , 5 2 4 ) . 1. E c o n o m i c F u n c t i o n E c o n o m i c a l l y , t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y h a s c h a n g e d , s i n c e f e w f a m i l i e s p r o d u c e a n y t h i n g a s a n e c o n o m i c u n i t ( K e p -h a r t , 1 9 6 6 , 2 4 8 ; K i r k p a t r i c k , 1 9 5 5 , 1 2 3 ) . I n s t e a d , m o n e y i s e a r n e d t o b u y t h e g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s w h i c h p r o v i d e m o s t o f t h e n e c e s s i t i e s a n d l u x u r i e s o f t h e a v e r a g e c o n t e m p o r a r y N o r t h A m e r i c a n f a m i l y ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1 9 5 5 , 1 2 3 ) . T h e r e f o r e , t h e e c o n o m i c f u n c t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y , w h i c h w a s p r e v i o u s l y b a s e d o n p r o d u c t i o n , h a s c h a n g e d t o a n e c o n o m i c f u n c t i o n b a s e d o n 50. consumption (Vincent, 1967, 26). 2. S t a t u s - C o n f e r r i n g Function In the e a r l y North American f a m i l y , a person was more a member of a family and l e s s an i n d i v i d u a l . Since the reverse i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the contemporary f a m i l y , there i s a change i n the source of p r e s t i g e and statu s (Dgburn, 1968, 59). Today, with the emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l i s m , the passing on of a fami l y t r a d i t i o n i s of l e s s importance to parents than i s the f r e e i n g of t h e i r c h i l d r e n to create t h e i r own l i f e s t y l e (Martinson, 1970, 127). A c h i l d i s no longer expected to fa l l o w i n h i s f a t h e r ' s f o o t s t e p s , but i n s t e a d i s encouraged to f i n d h i s own i n t e r e s t s and t a l e n t s , and to choose a vocat-ion that i s meaningful to him ( D u v a l l , 1967, 64, 65). With t h i s a t t i t u d e of s o c i e t y , personal achievement i s f r e q u e n t l y recognized more than fam i l y name (Goode, 1968, 115). I t i s thus g e n e r a l l y true i n North America that the occ u p a t i o n a l system i s the major source of p r e s t i g e and statu s f o r the family (Winch, 1952, 476). It i s a l s o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of many contemporary f a m i l i e s that personal achievement r e p l a c e s c o l l e c t i v e pride:'.in poss-essions that have been accumulated f o r generations. As a consequence, the family i s ' l e s s i n t e g r a t e d by the bond of a common i n t e r e s t i n t a n g i b l e property, such as a family home-stead ( K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 133). Today, too, the i n h e r i t a n c e of property often tends to occur when the o f f s p r i n g have 51 . reached the peak of t h e i r own earnings. Therefore, property i n h e r i t a n c e seldom a s s i s t s the young family, who often have l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l resources and could b e n e f i t from r e c e i v i n g an i n h e r i t a n c e . T h i s timing occurs because o f f s p r i n g now marry and bear t h e i r c h i l d r e n at an e a r l i e r age and parents have long l i f e expectancies (Moore, 1968, 51). Even at times when help i s needed, p a r t i c u l a r l y of a f i n a n c i a l nature, the contemporary family w i l l l e s s f r e q u e n t l y seek support from other family members. I f money i s o f f e r e d from parents, the c h i l d r e n of today often renounce t h i s econ-omic a s s i s t a n c e . This a t t i t u d e r e l a t e s to the f e e l i n g that i n d i v i d u a l s should be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own destiny (Goode, 1968, 115; K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 135). 3. E d u c a t i o n a l Function For the contemporary f a m i l y , the formal, s e c u l a r and moral e d u c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between parents and t h e i r c h i l d r e n , which p r e v i o u s l y took place i n the home, have d e c l i n e d (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 466; K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 132). One reason f o r the d e c l i n e i s that i n a t e c h n o l o g i c a l age very few parents are able to prepare t h e i r c h i l d r e n f o r the vocat-ions i n which they w i l l earn t h e i r l i v i n g (Klemer, 1970, 27). Moreover, i n North America, by the twentieth century, fr e e p u b l i c education was one of the major b u i l d i n g blocks of demo-cracy (Kephart, 1966, 249). As a r e s u l t , formal education has been turned over to the various l e v e l s and types of schools, 5 2 . a n d t o e m p l o y e r s ( K l e m e r , 1 9 7 0 , 2 7 ) . H o w e v e r , t h e e d u c a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n h a s n o t s i m p l y b e e n t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m t h e h o m e t o t h e s c h o o l , a s t h e r e h a s b e e n a m a j o r c h a n g e i n t h e m a g n i t u d e o f e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y ( M o o r e , 1 9 6 8 , 4 8 ) . T h e e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s m a y n o w o f f e r s u c h s e r v i c e s a s g u i d a n c e c o u n s e l l -i n g , m e d i c a l a n d d e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n s , a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d p s y c h i a t r i c a s s i s t a n c e a s w e l l a s - c l u b s a n d w o r k s h o p s ( K e p h a r t , 1 9 6 6 , 2 4 9 ) . T h e l e n g t h o f t o d a y ' s e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e i s a l s o p r o l o n g e d f o r m o s t i n d i v i d u a l s . I n r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e r e h a s a l s o b e e n t h e e x p a n s i o n o f e d u c a t i o n i n t o t h e p r e s c h o o l l e v e l . T h e r e h a s b e e n a n i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r o f n u r s e r y s c h o o l s , w h i c h n o w t a k e c h i l d r e n o f y o u n g e r a g e s o u t o f t h e h o m e . T h e f a m i l y h a s t h u s h a d m u c h o f i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e t r a i n -i n g o f t h e c h i l d d u r i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f h i s l i f e r e d u c e d . H o w e v e r , t h e f a m i l y i s s t i l l i m p o r t a n t i n t r a n s m i t t i n g b a s i c h a b i t s o f l a n g u a g e , m a n n e r s a n d m o r a l s ( B u r g e s s a n d L o c k e , 1 9 6 0 , 4 6 7 , 4 6 8 ; K i r k p a t r i c k , 1 9 5 5 , 1 3 2 ) . 4 . R e l i g i o u s F u n c t i o n I n c o n t e m p o r a r y N o r t h A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y , r e l i g i o n d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e a s i m p o r t a n t i n f a m i l y m a t t e r s a s i n t h e e a r l y f a m i l y ( O g b u r n , 1 9 6 9 , 5 9 ) . T o d a y , i f a c h i l d r e c e i v e s a n y r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g , i t i s p r i m a r i l y f r o m t h e c h u r c h , r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e h o m e ( K l e m e r , 1 9 7 0 , 2 7 ) . T h e r e f o r e , r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g i s u s u a l l y d e v o i d o f a n y f a m i l y c o n n o t a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , i t i s n o w l e s s c u s t o m a r y f o r a f a m i l y , a s a w h o l e , 5 3 . t o b e t h e u n i t o f c h u r c h p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( K e p h a r t , 1 9 6 6 , 2 5 0 ) . 5 . R e c r e a t i o n a l F u n c t i o n T h e p u r s u i t o f r e c r e a t i o n a l a n d o t h e r l e i s u r e t i m e a c t i v i t i e s i s a f o r m e r f a m i l i a l a n d h o m e - c e n t e r e d f u n c t i o n w h i c h h a s d i m i n i s h e d a s a f a m i l y f u n c t i o n i n c o n t e m p o r a r y s o c i e t y . F o r t h e e a r l y N o r t h A m e r i c a n f a m i l y , t h e r e w a s u s u a l l y l i t t l e t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s . H o w e v e r , w i t h i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , t h e r e h a s b e e n a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e a m o u n t o f l e i s u r e t i m e ( K e p h a r t , 1 9 6 6 , 2 5 0 ) . D u r i n g t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n -t u r y , t h e r e h a s b e e n a s i g n i f i c a n t d e c r e a s e i n t h e n u m b e r o f h o u r s w o r k e d e a c h w e e k . T h i s h a s b e e n r e d u c e d f r o m a p p r o x -i m a t e l y s i x t y h o u r s a w e e k t o o f t e n l e s s t h a n " f o r t y h o u r s a w e e k . A c c o m p a n y i n g t h i s r e d u c t i o n , t h e r e h a s b e e n a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e l e n g t h o f v a c a t i o n s ( D u v a l l , 1 9 6 7 , 5 9 ; K l e m e r , 1 9 7 0 , 2 8 ; M o o r e , 1 9 6 9 , 4 8 ) . I n a d d i t i o n t o a c q u i r i n g m o r e d i s c r e t i o n a r y t i m e , t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y f a m i l y a l s o h a s m o r e m o n e y t o s p e n d t h a n m o s t o f t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s ( D u v a l l , 1 9 6 7 , 5 9 ; K l e m e r , 1 9 7 0 , 2 8 ; M a r t i n s o n , 1 9 7 0 , 1 2 9 ) . A n o t h e r c h a n g e d u r i n g t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y w h i c h h a s a f f e c t e d t h e f a m i l y ' s r e c r e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n i s t h e i m p r o v e m e n t a n d i n c r e a s e d a v a i l a b i l i t y o f b o t h p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( K e p h a r t , 1 9 6 6 , 2 5 0 ; K l e m e r , 1 9 7 0 , 2 8 ) . T h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e f a m i l y t o w a r d s r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v -i t i e s a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t h a s a l s o u n d e r g o n e c h a n g e . F o r m e r l y , 54. through family p a r t i c i p a t i o n , they produced most of t h e i r own entertainment and made t h e i r own r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . Today, however, r e c r e a t i o n and entertainment i s regarded as a s e r v i c e which i s bought. As a consequence, entertainment, f o r the most part, i s passive i n nature. That i s , people are sp e c t a t o r s , r a t h e r than p a r t i c i p a n t s . Today, then, c a t e r i n g to l e i s u r e time p u r s u i t s i s a giant business, since commercial e n t e r p r i s e s supply forms of amusement broad enough to meet a v a r i e t y of demands (Kephart, 1966, 250, 251). In a d d i t i o n , commercial e n t e r p r i s e s u s u a l l y c a t e r to large numbers of people at the same time (Cavan, 1969, 525). For in s t a n c e , there are t h e a t r e s , movies, operas, symphony concerts, race t r a c k s , bowling a l l e y s , swimming pools, s k a t i n g r i n k s , g o l f courses, bridge clubs and many other f a c i l i t i e s and a c t i v i t i e s (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 468; Kephart, 1966, 250). Today, there i s al s o an i n c r e a s i n g trend f o r community agencies, such as park boards, schools and a r t g a l l e r i e s , to sponsor organ-i z e d recreational'programs (Cavan, 1969, 525). More opport-u n i t i e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s , such as s k i i n g , f i s h i n g , hunting, boating, swimming, water s k i i n g and camping, are als o provided by various - l e v e l s of government and p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e s , and f r e q u e n t l y i n v o l v e planners, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the a l l o c a t i o n of space and resources. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that today's North American f a m i l i e s pursue l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t i e s "with a vengeance." Studies i n d i c a t e that attendance at s p o r t i n g and other enter-tainrnent events i s high, and vast expenditures of money are made f o r the equipment and s e r v i c e s required to perform many a c t i v i t i e s ( D u v a l l , 1967, 61; Klemer, 1970, 28; Martinson, 1970, 129). The i n c r e a s e i n l e i s u r e time a v a i l a b l e to the contem-porary f a m i l y has increased the p o t e n t i a l f o r f a m i l i a l or at l e a s t home-centered a c t i v i t y (Moore, 1968, 48, 49). However, l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t i e s have spread f a r beyond the family and the home, since more family members seek these p u r s u i t s from commercial e n t e r p r i s e s (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 468; Cavan, 1969, 525; K i r k p a t r i c k , 1955, 132; Klemer, 1970, 28). Klemer notes that "various family s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d that the *most enjoyable" 1 r e c r e a t i o n f o r the family i s r e c r e a t i o n out-side the home" (Klemer, 1970, 28). In a d d i t i o n , today the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the fami l y as a group i s minimized (Kephart, 1966, 251). One reason i s because the fami l y i s u s u a l l y a r e s i d u a l claimant on the time of i t s members who have various e x t r a f a m i l i a l o b l i g a t i o n s to outside o r g a n i z a t i o n s whose schedules are seldom synchronized with that of the family (Moore, 1968, 49, 50). Also, even though an i n d i v i d u a l may spend a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of h i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y time i n some a c t i v i t y w i t h i n the bounds of the home, s e v e r a l family members i n the home at the same time may not be spending that time together (Moore, 1968, 49). For i n s t a n c e , they may be viewing d i f f e r e n t t e l e v i s i o n programs, each with a d i f f e r e n t set i n separate rooms, or they may be pursuing separate hobbies 56. (Klemer, 1970, 28). Another reason f o r the decrease i n family p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a group i s the increased emphasis on i n d i v i d -ual independence and personal achievement. As a consequence, the d i f f e r e n t age groups wit h i n the fami l y tend to segregate themselves, and a s s o c i a t e most f r e q u e n t l y with t h e i r peer group during d i s c r e t i o n a r y time periods (Moore,,1968, 50). As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, i n the contemporary North American house there i s often a separate bedroom f o r each c h i l d , and al s o both a fami l y room and a l i v i n g room f o r entertainment and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . An i n d i c a t o r of the tendency f o r young contemporary parents to engage i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s outside of the home, and on an adult r a t h e r than a t o t a l f amily b a s i s , i s the r a p i d r i s e i n the use of b a b y s i t t e r s i n recent years (Moore, 1968, 51). 6. P r o t e c t i v e and S e c u r i t y Function In a comparison between the e a r l y North American and the contemporary f a m i l i e s , i t i s found that some aspects of the p r o t e c t i v e and s e c u r i t y f u n c t i o n have been l o s t , some dimished, while one aspect has been g r e a t l y strengthened. Today, f o r i n s t a n c e , the various l e v e l s of government supply p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n , and i t i s customary f o r communities to have p r o f e s s i o n a l or volunteer f i r e departments (Kephart, 1966, 251). Thus, the fami l y has l o s t these aspects of our p h y s i c a l p r o t e c t i o n . Health p r o t e c t i o n and care by family members i s an aspect 57. which has been reduced, since i t i s now shared with a number of agencies. For i n s t a n c e , p u b l i c health agencies provide f o r c o n t r o l of contagious disease and conformity to s a n i t a r y standards; schools provide p h y s i c a l education programs, and often medical and dental i n s p e c t i o n s , and n u t r i t i o u s lunches; various types of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e h o s p i t a l s care f o r the i l l and i n f i r m ; and doctors and nurses with many s p e c i a l i t i e s assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the dia g n o s i s and treatment of the i l l (Cavan, 1969, 525; Kephart, 1966, 251). For many North American f a m i l i e s and f o r most Canadian f a m i l i e s today, there i s a l s o the assurance that medical care can'-be f i n a n c i a l l y a f f o r d e d . This i s because today there are governmental and p r i v a t e , i n d i v i d u a l or group insurance plans which cover e i t h e r h o s p i t a l care, doctors' fees, or both. In many i n s t a n c e s , membership i n these plans i s compulsory. Even i f an i n d i v i d u a l or f a m i l y has i n s u f f i c i e n t funds to pay the insurance premiums, medical care i s u s u a l l y s u b s i d i z e d or paid e n t i r e l y by the government, a welfare or s o c i a l agency (Cavan, 1969, 526,527). The o b l i g a t i o n of mature c h i l d r e n to provide s e c u r i t y f o r t h e i r parents has al s o diminished. Quite often there i s a view that a s s i s t a n c e should be provided i f urgently needed, but only without s e r i o u s s a c r i f i c e to one's "own" f a m i l y . It i s thus customary today f o r the aged to maintain t h e i r own residence, i f i t i s at a l l f e a s i b l e (Moore, 1968, 52). I t has become customary i n North America, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n recent years, f o r accomodation to be planned and b u i l t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the use of s e n i o r c i t i z e n s . Three movements have developed 58 . i n recent years which help to provide i n d i v i d u a l s with s u f f i c i e n t funds f o r l i v i n g . One development i s toward compulsory savings, f o r instance through a p r i v a t e or govern-ment pension plan, or both. A second development i s toward the assumption by employers of f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s toward t h e i r employees, not only during periods when they are working, but a l s o during periods of unemployment and a f t e r r e t i r e m e n t . A t h i r d development i s d i r e c t r e l i e f from the government upon reaching a designated age, or evidence of need (Burgess and Locke,t96B, 466; Cavan, 1969, 525, 526; Moore, 1968, 52). The one aspect of t h i s f u n c t i o n which has been g r e a t l y strengthened i n the contemporary urban s o c i e t y i s the f e e l i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s e c u r i t y which i s based on a sense of belonging (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 470; Martinson, 1970, 127). The s e c u r i t y given by the fam i l y may take the simple form of p r o v i d i n g food, c l o t h i n g and s h e l t e r . Frequently, though, the fa m i l y a l s o provides s e c u r i t y based on emotional i n v o l v e -ment. Therefore, f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s are important i n the s e c u r i t y f u n c t i o n since they tend to f u l f i l l an i n d i v i d u a l ' s need f o r a f f e c t i o n , l o v e , s o l a c e , comfort and acceptance (Klemer, 1970, 29; Martinson, 1970, 127; Winch, 1952, 479). The importance of the house and the home environment, where companionship and other aspects of the s e c u r i t y f u n c t i o n are sought, has been p r e v i o u s l y mentioned. 59. Summary Changes i n f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e , the p u r p o s e , g o a l s and f u n c t i o n s have o c c u r r e d o v e r t i m e , a l o n g w i t h the change from a r u r a l t o an urban s o c i e t y . The e a r l y N o r t h American f a m i l y , which was an e x t e n d e d one, emphasized economic a s p e c t s r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f goods and s e r v i c e s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e i r s u r v i v a l . T h i s emphasis was r e f l e c t e d i n the c r i t e r i a f o r mate s e l e c t i o n , which s t r e s s e d h a v i n g a s t u r d y c o n s t i t u t i o n and good work h a b i t s . The g o a l o f the f a m i l y was a f a m i l i s t i c one, meaning t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f the f a m i l y were o f prime i m p o r t a n c e . In t h i s t y p e of f a m i l y , the r o l e s o f f a m i l y members were w e l l d e f i n e d , and a u t h o r i t y was g i v e n t o one p e r s o n , u s u a l l y the e l d e s t male. The f u n c -t i o n s r e q u i r e d by the f a m i l y were s u p p l i e d p r i m a r i l y by f a m i l y members i n t h e home e n v i r o n m e n t . The c o n t e m p o r a r y N o r t h American f a m i l y , now u s u a l l y a n u c l e a r one, v a r i e s from the e a r l i e r form i n t h a t i t s economic i m p o r t a n c e i s based on t h e con s u m p t i o n o f goods and s e r v i c e s which a r e p r o d u c e d o u t s i d e o f the home. S i n c e p r o -d u c t i o n i s no l o n g e r so i m p o r t a n t , the c r i t e r i a o f mate s e l e c t i o n has changed. Now the c h o i c e o f a m a r r i a g e p a r t n e r s t r e s s e s r o m a n t i c l o v e and c o m p a n i o n s h i p . In a d d i t i o n , t h e g o a l s o f the f a m i l y have changed. I n s t e a d o f a g r o u p ^ c e n t e r e d f a m i l y , t h e r e i s a p e r s o n - c e n t e r e d f a m i l y w i t h the emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l i s m r a t h e r t h an f a m i l i s m . Today, the f a m i l y i s more o r i e n t e d t o t h e p e r s o n a l needs and d e s i r e s o f each member, b u t t o t h e c h i l d i n p a r t i c u l a r . T h e r e i s a l s o a g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e p l a c e d on a c h i e v i n g h a p p i n e s s . Few t r a -d i t i o n a l r o l e s o f f a m i l y members a r e m a i n t a i n e d . The f a m i l y i s a l s o a more d e m o c r a t i c i n s t i t u t i o n s i n c e f a m i l y members d e s i g n a t e a u t h o r i t y on t h e b a s i s o f c o n s e n s u s and c o m p e t e n c e . Many a s p e c t s o f t h e f o r m e r f u n c t i o n s o f t h e f a m i l y have been t r a n s f e r r e d i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s t o o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s and a g e n c i e s w h i c h a r e o u t s i d e o f t h e home. P a r s o n s n o t e s t h a t t h e r e i s t h e " . . . b e g i n n i n g o f t h e r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i z a t i o n o f a new t y p e o f f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e , i n a new r e l a t i o n t o a g e n e r a l s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , one i n w h i c h t h e f a m i l y i s more s p e c i a l i z e d t h a n b e f o r e , b u t n o t i n any g e n e r a l s e n s e l e s s i m p o r t a n t , b e c a u s e t h e s o c i e t y i s d e p e n d e n t more e x c l u s i v e l y on i t f o r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f c e r t a i n o f i t s v i t a l f u n c t i o n s . " ( P a r s o n s , 1968b, 100) CHAPTER III THE FAMILY'S HOUSING Introduction In the previous chapter, changes that have occurred in the characteristics of the family as an i n s t i t u t i o n in our society were described. Since the characteristics of the family's house have also changed over time, a similar survey of domestic architecture w i l l be undertaken in this chapter. The characteristic houses of the early North American family of the mid-seventeenth century to the early eighteenth cen-tury w i l l be described, as well as the houses of the comtem-porary family of the twentieth century. Also included is a survey of the domestic architectural styles during the trans-i t i o n a l years between the two forms of families in the above time periods. The period of the eighteenth century and the nineteenth century includes the most typi c a l architectural styles of the t r a n s i t i o n a l years during which the character-i s t i c s of the early North American family were dominant. The housing characteristics of the t r a n s i t i o n a l period from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth century are examined in more d e t a i l than the e a r l i e r t r a n s i t i o n a l years. This period i s important as i t was during these l a t e r years that rapid growth in i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and urbanization, which have been responsible for the greatest changes in the family, took place. It was, therefore, during these years that many 6 2 . of the features which characterize the twentieth century began to appear more strongly. Although several forms of dwelling unit type, such as single family detached, or row housing may be alternatives for the family during some of the architectural periods, the survey in this paper i s re s t r i c t e d to a description of the single family detached house. Frequently, the architectural historians are primarily concerned with the most outstanding examples of domestic architecture of a s p e c i f i c period, which are usually the houses of the wealthy families. In general, however, the basic characteristics of a particular style are evident in the houses of a l l but the lowest classes of the society. In this paper, therefore, the description of the various architectural styles i s pertinent to the houses of the middle class families, unless noted otherwise. In surveying the various periods of North American housing, the characteristics described w i l l include the phy-s i c a l attributes such as shape, size, plan, exterior and i n t e r i o r design, and equipment, as well as the attitude towards functionalism, the source of the architectural design, and the source of labor for construction. To understand why certain forms of housing are popular for awhile and then change, i t i s necessary to know mare about the society than just the architectural characteristics of their buildings. Gowans stresses that "Affected by economic conditions, s o c i a l structure, climate, technology, religious b e l i e f s , and t i d e s of fash i o n a b l e t a s t e ... a r c h i t e c t u r e ... i s h i s t o r y i n i t s most t a n g i b l e form" (Gowans, 1964, x i v ) . House forms thus grow from and express the fundamental char-a c t e r , b e l i e f s and a s p i r a t i o n s of the p a r t i c u l a r people who made them and l i v e d i n them. Preceding a d e s c r i p t i o n of each s t y l e of housing, t h e r e f o r e , i s a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of the s o c i a l h i s t o r y of the pe r i o d . Emphasis has been placed on the s o c i e t y ' s a t t i t u d e to nature and t h e i r immediate environment, which i n c l u d e s the house. Through t h i s d i s -cussion an attempt i s made to provide reasons which j u s t i f y a p a r t i c u l a r form of housing as the s t y l e considered v a l i d by the f a m i l i e s of the pe r i o d . With t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n the planner can thus evaluate various c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of housing i n terms of t h e i r v a l i d i t y as an expression of a f a m i l y ' s b e l i e f s , and with respect to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l needs of the r e s i d e n t households. While there i s l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y r e l a t i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the famil y to the design of the house, the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n i s intended to o u t l i n e some of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . E a r l y North American Housing A. Medieval House - Mid Seventeenth Century to E a r l y Eighteenth Century  As mentioned i n Chapter I I , the majority of the s e t t l e r s to the eastern coast of the United 5tates and Canada were from the middle and lower c l a s s e s of European s o c i e t y . From the " f o l k " l e v e l , they brought with them an outlook which was p r i m a r i l y medieval.. Therefore, the medieval world which produced great c a t h e d r a l s , i l l u m i n a t e d manuscripts, e s o t e r i c t r e a t i s e s on d i v i n e geometry, and the cosmic nature of beauty was l a r g e l y unknown to them. Thevaart and a r c h i t e c t u r e of these s e t t l e r s was that of the l a t e Gothic s t y l e s of Western Europe even though t h i s s t y l e was already outmoded i n the a r i s t o c r a t i c p o p u l a t i o n of t h e i r home c o u n t r i e s . The emi-grants to the North American c o l o n i e s could thus a s p i r e to equal the farmhouses and houses of the towns from which most of them came. This i s due to the f a c t that t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r a l t a s t e was e s t a b l i s h e d by seeing the b u i l d i n g s that surrounded them as they grew up, and which they l i v e d i n and loved as home (Gowans, 1964, 3, 109, 110; Gowans, 1966, 12, 14, 15; Mendelowitz, 1960, 66, 67; Morrison, 1969, 5, 6). With respect to t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r e i n the new s e t t l e -ment, the e a r l y f a m i l i e s not only lacked the time, the s k i l l , the a r c h i t e c t u r a l knowledge, the m a t e r i a l s , and the money to d u p l i c a t e the great Gothic and new Renaissance b u i l d i n g s of t h e i r homelands; they lacked even the d e s i r e (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 532). The general a t t i t u d e of Medieval s o c i e t y toward nature was that i t e x i s t e d f o r man's use, but not f o r h i s enjoyment. Medieval man f e l t that nature should be i n t e r f e r e d with no more than was necessary. This a t t i t u d e was based on a f e e l i n g 65. that man must not take d e s t i n y i n t o one's own hands, but that a l l things worked together with good r e s u l t s f o r those who loved God. Therefore, man should not d e l i b e r a t e l y p i t him-s e l f against the order o f nature. I f t h i s was done and there was an e x p l o i t a t i o n o f n a t u r a l resources, he b e l i e v e d that t h i s could only lead to r u i n . He a l s o f e l t that one should not force m a t e r i a l s to appear u n n a t u r a l l y , but that one should work i n the nature o f the m a t e r i a l . As a r e s u l t o f t h i s a t t i t u d e Medieval man took no s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a d e s i r e to master . nature. He was i n t e r e s t e d , however, i n c o n t r o l l i n g h i s environment f o r p r a c t i c a l purposes (Gowans, 1964, 110,111). 1. C o l o n i a l House - Mid-Seventeenth Century to E a r l y Eighteenth Century  The term " C o l o n i a l " i s a p p l i e d to the s t y l e of housing that comprised the f i r s t permanent form o f residence f o r the s e t t l e r s of North America. For the purpose of t h i s paper, the housing o f the French, E n g l i s h and Dutch who s e t t l e d along the North-eastern seaboard of the United States and the area along.the St. Lawrence River of Canada w i l l be discussed. The c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e i r b u i l d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g the house, was undertaken by the f a m i l i e s themselves. The m a t e r i a l s used were those which were a v a i l a b l e l o c a l l y . Many o f the m a t e r i a l s were used i n t h e i r n a t u r a l s t a t e , while others were a l t e r e d somewhat by simple o p e r a t i o n s . In the New England c o l o n i e s where b u i l d i n g stone was l a c k i n g and lime was scarce, timber was the primary b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l . In the St. Lawrence River 66 . a r e a , h o w e v e r , t h e r e was an a b u n d a n t s u p p l y of f i e l d s t o n e s , w h i c h had t o be removed f r o m t h e f i e l d s , and l i m e was i n good s u p p l y . T h e r e f o r e , s t o n e h o u s e s were most common i n t h i s a r e a ( G o w a n s , 1964, 4 , 5 ; Gowans , 1966, 10 ; M o r r i s o n , 1969 , 15 ; T r a q u a i r , 1947 , 8, 1 2 ) . In t h e a c t u a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n , s i m p l i c i t y and p r a c t i c a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e C o l o n i a l b u i l d i n g s . T h e i r homes were a d i r e c t o u t g r o w t h o f u r g e n t p r a c t i c a l n e c e s s i t i e s , and t h e i r a t t i t u d e t o t h e use o f m a t e r i a l s . The o n l y p u r p o s e o f t h e house was f o r p h y s i c a l u s e . I t f u l f i l l e d l i t t l e more t h a n t h e b a s i c r e q u i r e m e n t - o f s h e l t e r f o r t h e f a m i l y . I t a l s o p r o v i d e d a p l a c e i n w h i c h t o c a r r y o u t some o f t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s u c h as p r e -s e r v i n g f o o d and m a k i n g c l o t h i n g , and f o r s t o r i n g s u c h p r o -d u c t s ( F a u l k n e r and F a u l k n e r , 1968 , 532 ; F o o t e e t a l , 1960 , 83 ; M o r r i s o n , 1969 , 6, 7 ) . The d o m i n a n t t y p e o f d w e l l i n g u n i t f o r r u r a l f a m i l i e s o f modest means o f t e n began as a r e c t a n g u l a r s h a p e o f one s t o r e y o r one and a h a l f s t o r i e s . In s i z e , the house was b u i l t no l a r g e r t h a n n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e b a s i c n e e d s p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d ( F a u l k n e r and F a u l k n e r , 1968, 532 ; S c u l l y , 1969 , 3 6 ; W h i f f e n , 1969 , 4 ) . H o w e v e r , t h e h o u s e was t h o u g h t o f as a f a m i l y h o m e s t e a d , t o l a s t f o r s e v e r a l g e n e r a t i o n s . In o r d e r t o a c c oiamo.dat e t h e s u b s e q u e n t e x t e n d e d f a m i l y g r o u p , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o i n c r e a s e t h e s p a c e i n t h e h o u s e s e v e r a l t i m e s . T h u s , t h e i n i t i a l b u i l d -i n g was n o t c o n c e i v e d as a s e l f - c o n t a i n e d w h o l e , c o m p l e t e once and f o r a l l . I n s t e a d , h o u s e s t o o k f o r m , as n e e d s c h a n g e d , by 67. a s e r i e s of a d d i t i o n s , with l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the o v e r a l l e f f e c t . This a d d i t i o n of space was accomplished i n s e v e r a l ways, f o r example: by the coversion of the a t t i c to a f u l l -s i z e d room; by the b u i l d i n g of an a d d i t i o n a l room on the other side of the chimney; or by the a d d i t i o n of a lean-to a cross the back. As a r e s u l t of t h i s approach to housing the f a m i l y , the r e s u l t i n g rambling, i r r e g u l a r shape of the e x t e r -i o r i s probably one of the most t y p i c a l f e a t u r e s of C o l o n i a l houses (Beyer, 1965, 8; Gowans, 1966, 10, 16; Mendelowitz, 1960, 72, 74). The e a r l y b u i l d e r s c a r e f u l l y r e l a t e d the e x t e r i o r design of t h e i r dwellings to the c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the heavy s n o w f a l l s . Thus, a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e i r homes was a steep r o o f . For houses of wooden c o n s t r u c t i o n , the severe climate a l s o n e c e s s i t a t e d the use of an outer l a y e r of clapboard s i d i n g . In a d d i t i o n , the houses were often placed near the roads, and r a i s e d three to four f e e t above the ground (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 533; T r a q u a i r , 1947, 60). The design of the facade was a frank and honest statement of i n t e r i o r uses and s t r u c t u r a l n e c e s s i t i e s , as there was l i t t l e concern f o r the formal q u a l i t i e s of design such as balance and p r o p o r t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , i f of n e c e s s i t y one room was r e q u i r e d to be l a r g e r than the adjacent one, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n s i z e would be r e f l e c t e d i n the asymmetrical arrangement of the facade. Doors and windows were a l s o i n s e r t e d where they came most n a t u r a l l y , r a t h e r than having 68. t h e i r placement d i c t a t e d by some a e s t h e t i c p r i n c i p l e (Gowans, 1964, 110; Gowans, 1966, 17; Morrison, 1969, 6, 7). In the o r i g i n a l house of the r u r a l f a m i l i e s , the dwell-ing u n i t often c o n s i s t e d of only one room and a l o f t , or a t t i c . The room was a multi-purpose one that served as a k i t c h e n , storage room, d i n i n g room, l i v i n g room and bedroom. This room, which had a low c e i l i n g , was dominated by a l a r g e f i r e -place that served f o r heating, l i g h t i n g and cooking. The one d i v i s i o n i n the room would be a small entrance area. I f the house had an upper l o f t or p a r t i a l s t orey, a small stairway would a l s o be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s area. The l o f t or a t t i c of the house a l s o served as a s l e e p i n g area, u s u a l l y f o r s e v e r a l c h i l d r e n i n the one room, and as a storage place f o r food and household s u p p l i e s . When lean-tos were added, cooking and some other household a c t i v i t i e s , such as candle-making, were t r a n s f e r r e d there (Beyer, 1965, 8, 9; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 532, 533; Mendelowitz, 1960, 71; S c u l l y , 1969, 37). Lat e r , as the fami l y grew or resources i n c r e a s e d , a second room was added at the other side of the entrance. In some i n s t a n c e s , a two-room house was b u i l t i n i t i a l l y . One room u s u a l l y served f o r general l i v i n g purposes, as i n the house p r e v i o u s l y mentioned. The other room was the p a r l o r , which was only used on s p e c i a l occasions, such as r e c e i v i n g import-ant guests, or f o r important f a m i l y gatherings (Beyer, 1965, 9). In the f l o o r plan of t h i s s i z e of house, the entrance 69 would u s u a l l y be l o c a t e d between the two rooms. I f a l e a n -to was b u i l t on the back, there might be a c e n t r a l passage through the middle of the house (Beyer, 1965, 9; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 532; Mendelowitz, 1960, 72; Whiffen, 1960, 4). The e a r l y North American farmhouses were a l s o e n t i r e l y unpretentious, as they had very l i t t l e a p p l i e d ornament. There was some s t r u c t u r a l and t e x t u r a l enrichment derived d i r e c t l y from the m a t e r i a l s used, or from the b u i l d i n g pro-cesses. I t was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to leave many s t r u c t u r a l elements, both i n s i d e and out, p l a i n l y i n view. For instance i n the i n t e r i o r , the c e i l i n g s had exposed, heavy beams, and the walls had rough p l a s t e r , v e r t i c a l boards, or both, used as sheathing. In general, the char a c t e r can be described as having "... s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , vigorous s o l u t i o n s of problems; strengt h and d i r e c t n e s s akin to medieval houses" (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 532, 533; Gowans, 1964, 110, 111; Mendel-owitz, 1960, 76; Morrison, 1969, 7, 16; S c u l l y , 1969, 37). T r a n s i t i o n a l North American Housing A. C l a s s i c a l House - Eighteenth Century The C o l o n i a l form of housing continued to be b u i l t as th f i r s t permanent homes of some of the s e t t l e r s moving westward However, i n the o r i g i n a l settlement areas, a f t e r two or three generations of " p i o n e e r i n g , " there was inc r e a s e d p r o s p e r i t y f o r most of the po p u l a t i o n . In general, the task of p r o v i d i n 70. the e s s e n t i a l s f o r s u r v i v a l was an e a s i e r one. The s i z e of the population was enlarged and i t s c h a r a c t e r was changed by an i n f l u x of immigrants who were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of more spec-i a l i z e d trades and p r o f e s s i o n s . A new l e i s u r e c l a s s was now more evident as there were merchants, ship owners, manorial l o r d s and r o y a l governors. In t h i s p o p u l a t i o n , c l a s s d i s -t i n c t i o n s became i n c r e a s i n g l y important. With a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e way of l i f e , t h e r e f o r e , there began to be manifest a c u l t u r e held i n common by wide segments of the s o c i e t y (Beyer, 1965, 9, 25; Gowans, 1964, 149, 217; Gowans, 1966, 40; Morrison, 1969, 271, 272; Mendelowitz, 1960, 105, 106, 110). With a more di v e r s e s o c i a l m i l i e u there was a d e s i r e among some f a m i l i e s f o r greater elegance and refinement i n t h e i r house. The a t t i t u d e of the family towards t h e i r house was, t h e r e f o r e , undergoing change. They were no longer s a t -i s f i e d with the c o l o n i a l a t t i t u d e of i m i t a t i n g the a r c h i t -e c t u r a l forms which were n o s t a l g i c a l l y remembered from t h e i r homeland, or of c o n s i d e r i n g houses from only a f u n c t i o n a l point of view. There was now an i n t e r e s t i n the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s of the house. In p a r t i c u l a r , there was an i n c r e a s -ing d e s i r e to l i v e i n a house whose s t y l e was considered f a s h i o n a b l e at that p e r i o d of time. However, there were d i f f -erences i n the a b i l i t i e s of f a m i l i e s to a t t a i n a house which was i n vogue. Only a small p r o p o r t i o n of the houses con-s t r u c t e d were great mansions whose designs were outstanding examples of the s t y l e . Most of the c o n s t r u c t i o n was f o r the 71 . middle c l a s s , which c o n s i s t e d of tradesmen, a r t i s a n s and many farmers. T h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r e was p r i m a r i l y of simpler, more unpretentious b u i l d i n g s that followed the lead of t h e i r " b e t t e r s . " There was often a time l a g of as much as t h i r t y to f i f t y years, however, between the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a p a r t " i c u l a r s t y l e f o r the upper c l a s s and houses with s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r the lower populace. Throughout the a r c h i t e c t u r e of the time, t h e r e f o r e , there were s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the houses. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f a m i l i e s ' s o c i a l c l a s s would be n o t i c e a b l e i n such f a c t o r s as the l o c a t i o n of the house, and i t s s i z e , m a t e r i a l s , and amount and a u t h e n t i c i t y of ornament. In the middle and lower c l a s s houses, the c u r r e n t - s t y l i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a l s o often intermixed with ones which were v e s t i g a l sur-v i v a l s of the medieval t r a d i t i o n (Beyer, 1965, 9; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1966, 535; Gowans, 1964, 149, 209). During the eighteenth century i n the New England area of the United States the c o l o n i e s were united under E n g l i s h r u l e . The E n g l i s h were a l s o the conquerors i n Canada and, t h e r e f o r e , most of the immigrating peoples were of E n g l i s h o r i g i n . A l -though the area along the St. Lawrence River was s t i l l pre-dominantly French, there was a strong E n g l i s h community being e s t a b l i s h e d along the Southern Great Lakes by immigrants from both the United States and B r i t a i n . For i n s p i r a t i o n i n t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r e , they looked to the a r i s t o c r a t i c and urban world of England, which was, at t h i s time, concerned with the concepts 72. and philosophy of l i f e r e f e r r e d to as " c l a s s i c a l . " This meant that i n t h e i r b u i l d i n g s there was some basic r e l a t i o n -ship to the a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms of Greece and Rome (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 535; Gowans, 1966, 39, 4Q; Mendelowitz, 1960, 105; Morrison, 1969, 271, 272). There was now a d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e to l i f e based on an ev o l v i n g and d i f f e r e n t concept of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and nature. Man was now beginning to r e a l i z e the poss-i b i l i t y of ord e r i n g the world i n terms of his own experience, c a p a b i l i t i e s and s c a l e . He held c o n v i c t i o n s that: the world has a b a s i c immutable order; men by powers of reason can d i s -cover what that order i s ; and upon d i s c o v e r i n g the order, they can c o n t r o l the environment as they w i l l . In a phase of i d e a l i s m , man t h e o r i z e s about a r t and l i f e as i t might, and ought to be, ra t h e r than a r t and nature as i t i s . In t h i s way man recognizes the supremacy of man, i n which there i s a r i g i d e x c l u s i v e n e s s , a love of order, of symmetry, and of d e f i n i t e l i m i t s . The medieval acceptance of nature taking i t s course i s gone, along with, i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , the a d d i t i v e composition of b u i l d i n g s , and the exposed c o n s t r u c t i o n . In i t s i ; place there i s a strong sense of d i s c i p l i n e . As a r e s u l t , t h i s emphasis f o s t e r s the p r i n c i p l e that a l l forms of a r t and a r c h i t e c t u r e should be composed according to a d e f i n i t e system, so that the form i s immediately and s e l f - e v i d e n t l y compre-hensible to the i n d i v i d u a l human mind (Gowans, 1964, 116-120). In a r c h i t e c t u r e , t h e r e f o r e , the "supreme example" of the 73. c l a s s i c a l mind i s : "... the c e n t r a l - t y p e b u i l d i n g , wherein a l l parts are c l e a r l y and comprehensibly r e l a t e d to a c e n t r a l point or element, and the b u i l d i n g as a whole i s p r e c i s e l y cut o f f from i t s surrounding environment and horizon ..." (Gowans, 1964, 175). 1. C o l o n i a l Georgian House - Eighteenth Century The c l a s s i c a l s t y l e of a r c h i t e c t u r e which followed the C o l o n i a l i s r e f e r r e d to p r i m a r i l y as " C o l o n i a l Georgian." In place of the rambling spontaneity of the C o l o n i a l house, these houses were designed with a sense of d i s c i p l i n e based on symm-e t r i c a l balance, p r i n c i p l e s of pr o p o r t i o n and order. There was the d e l i b e r a t e r e p e t i t i o n of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c elements at r e g u l a r and d e f i n i t e i n t e r v a l s . The r e s u l t i n g f o r m a l i t y was one of =- the most notable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p e r i o d . For the proport-ions of the b u i l d i n g s , c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given to the s c a l e of humans. There was also the extensive use of decorative d e t a i l s from the ancient Roman and Grecian a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms, such as t r i a n g u l a r and segmental pediments, columns and p i l -a s t e r s , balustrades and urns (Gowans, 1964, 120; Gowans, 1966, 43) . In the C o l o n i a l house, needs of the i n t e r i o r were the primary i n f l u e n c e on the e x t e r i o r massing and treatment of the facade. This was r a r e l y the case i n C o l o n i a l Georgian houses, where the shape, s i z e and placement of i n t e r i o r spaces were a f f e c t e d by the design treatment of the facade, and the general p r o p o r t i o n s and shape of the house. These features were e s t -a b l i s h e d by gu'ides f o r composition. The f u n c t i o n and design, 74. t h e r e f o r e , were often considered to be i r r e l e v a n t to each other (Morrison, 1969, 300). Information about t h i s s t y l e was r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to most c l a s s e s of the population from b u i l d e r ' s handbooks and a r c h i t e c t u r a l design books which had e x p l i c i t plans and d e t a i l s . These p u b l i c a t i o n s were very popular among the home owners and l o c a l carpenters who were u s u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r house con-s t r u c t i o n (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 533; Gowans, 1966, 47; Whiffen, 1969, 8). These people were no longer medieval b u i l d e r s or t r a d -i t i o n a l a r t i s a n s who were working withrrmaterials i n a n a t u r a l way. Instead,they were men with a new f e e l i n g of confidence i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to impose t h e i r w i l l on the environment and to create order. As a r e s u l t , there was a new emphasis on the c o n t r o l of the m a t e r i a l s which were a v a i l a b l e . The concern f o r the d i r e c t and n a t u r a l expression of m a t e r i a l s thus became obsol e t e . The c l a s s i c a l p r a c t i c e of i m i t a t i n g the e f f e c t of one m a t e r i a l i n another r e f l e c t e d the new a t t i t u d e of c o n t r o l l -ing m a t e r i a l s . For i n s t a n c e , wood was cut and painted to look l i k e a s h l a r masonry, p l a s t e r was cast i n forms appropriate to wood c a r v i n g , and b r i c k s were moulded and rubbed to i m i t a t e stone (Gowans, 1964, 130, 141, 142; Gowans, 1966, 17). The houses were now l a r g e r i n s i z e when i n i t i a l l y b u i l t and were u s u a l l y two rooms deep and two, or two and one h a l f , s t o r i e s i n height. The houses f r e q u e n t l y had four rooms to 75. each f l o o r , with each room occupying one corner of the house. The house shape was simple i n mass,and a r e c t a n g u l a r form was d e l i b e r a t e l y chosen. Small houses were squarish i n p l a n , while l a r g e r ones were elongated r e c t a n g l e s . I t was custom-ary f o r the long side of the r e c t a n g l e to face the road or s t r e e t (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 536; Mendelowitz, 1961, 108; Whiffen, 1969, 8). The facade was b i s y m m e t r i c a l l y composed i n an ordered rhythm and according to p r i n c i p l e s of p r o p o r t i o n . The doorway was centered and often emphasized with s e v e r l elements, such as simple mouldings, p i l a s t e r s , columns, a pediment, or a small porch. The windows were often emphasized by mouldings, ped-iments and s h u t t e r s . The commonest type of house had two windows on each side of the door and f i v e i n the storey above. They were placed i n a r e g u l a r p a t t e r n so that there was order i n the appearance of the e x t e r i o r . The f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n -ship of the windows to the i n t e r i o r spaces was not considered to be as important as the formal appearance of the e x t e r i o r design (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 536, 540, 541; Gowans, 1964, 131, 142, 143, 158; Morrison, 1969, 300; S c u l l y , 1969, 41; Whiffen, 1 969, 8) . Since houses of t h i s p e r i o d were l a r g e r i n s i z e , the i n t e r i o r s were more spacious. In comparison with the C o l o n i a l house, which was f i r s t b u i l t with one multi-purpose room or two rooms, these houses had more separate rooms, often with spec-i a l i z e d f u n c t i o n s . There may have been a separate l i v i n g 76. room, d i n i n g room, and k i t c h e n , f o r i n s t a n c e , with the kitchen at the back of the house. C i r c u l a t i o n throughout the house was g r e a t l y improved by a spacious c e n t r a l h a l l and l a r g e r open-ings between rooms (Beyer, 1965, 9, 10; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 536, 538; Mendelowitz, 1960, 114, 117). B. C l a s s i c a l R e v i v a l House - Late eighteenth Century to Mid-Nineteenth Century  By the turn of the nineteenth century, the reference to c l a s s i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms no longer expressed s e l f - e v i d -e n t l y good, and unquestioningly accepted p r i n c i p l e s of l i f e , but, r a t h e r , became ends i n themselves. Unlike the c l a s s i c -i s t s of the eighteenth century, these people were no longer as concerned with the general p r i n c i p l e s of design that were conceived to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the timeless appeal of the Greek and Roman b u i l d i n g s . In the new approach to c l a s s i c i s m , the c o r r e c t n e s s of d e t a i l was most important. This emphasis was stimulated by s c i e n t i f i c a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s , such as the excavations of Pompeii, which were widely p u b l i c i z e d . In the United S t a t e s , which was now independent of England, there was an obsession among the leaders f o r the symbolism of Rome, and l a t e r , of Greece. There was an emphasis on regarding a r c h t e c t u r e as a means of communicating i d e a s . As a r e s u l t , a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms were chosen f o r t h e i r symbolic i m p l i c a t i o n s r a t h e r than f o r t h e i r f i t n e s s f o r p a r t i c u l a r b u i l d i n g uses. In p a r t i c u l a r , there was an i n t e r e s t i n the r e p u b l i c a n i n s t i t u t -ions of Rome as w e l l as i n the r a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h i e s of 77. c l a s s i c a l times. Ancient Greece was of i n t e r e s t because i t seemed synonymous with democratic i d e a l s . I t was the b e l i e f of the i n t e l l e c t u a l and p o l i t i c a l l eaders that the new United States nation was " l i v i n g proof of the c l a s s i c a l c o n v i c t i o n that men could c o n t r o l t h e i r d e s t i n i e s and mould worlds to t h e i r w i l l . . . " (Gowans, 1964, 164, 243-250, 268; Gowans, 1966, 65-71, 86; Mendelowitz, 1960, 191, 202; Morrison, 1969, 574, 575) . In Canada, which was s t i l l under B r i t i s h c o n t r o l , there were not the strong f e e l i n g s f o r the symbolic a s s o c i a t i o n s of freedom and democracy with ancient Greek and Roman b u i l d i n g s . There was the claim, however, that c l a s s i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r e was al s o "best" or " r i g h t " i n a moral sense. The s o c i e t y f e l t , t h e r e f o r e , that c l a s s i c a l forms could i n f l u e n c e the people who l i v e d i n them, or around them, towards a conduct that was c o r r e c t , and towards a way of t h i n k i n g that was c l e a r and r a t i o n a l . As a r e s u l t of t h i s a t t i t u d e , there was some accept-ance of the C l a s s i c a l R e v i v a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms i n Canada. The primary examples of these s t y l e s , however, were b u i l t by c o l o n i s t s from the United States and the B r i t i s h c o l o n i a l upper c l a s s . The C l a s s i c a l R e v i v a l i n Canada was thus not as widespread as the c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n of the C o l o n i a l Georgian i n the United States (Gowans, 1966, 68, 71, 79). 78. 1. Federal House - Late Eighteenth Century to E a r l y Nineteenth Century Following the American Revolution there was l i t t l e con-s t r u c t i o n i n the United States f o r s e v e r a l years. When l a r g e -s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n began again, s t y l e s based on a c l a s s i c a l r e v i v a l , which was we l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Europe, were des i r e d by the new r e p u b l i c a n s . The i n f l u e n c e of Rome preceded that of Greece. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e based on Rome was known as the " F e d e r a l " s t y l e . The c h i e f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s s t y l e was the attempt to d u p l i c a t e Roman b u i l d i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the temples. When t h i s was not p o s s i b l e , elements from Roman b u i l d i n g s were used "as pro p e r l y as p o s s i b l e . " Again, books on a r c h i t e c t u r a l design were i n v a l u a b l e to the customers and carpenters f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of houses (Faulkner and Faulk-ner, 1968, 540; Mendelowitz, 1960, 189, 191). It was p r i m a r i l y the p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s of the new govern-ment, and the houses of a few of the p o l i t i c a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l l eaders that d u p l i c a t e d Roman ones most c l o s e l y . The upper c l a s s e s of merchants, manufacturers and p r o f e s s i o n a l s , however, b u i l t houses i n a simpler s t y l e , which were a l s o based on Roman c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For the majority of the population the con-s t r u c t i o n of a l a t e C o l o n i a l Georgian type of domestic arch-i t e c t u r e continued f o r many years. A f t e r the turn of the cen-tury, however, the general c h a r a c t e r of the Federal houses of the upper c l a s s appeared i n most houses, p a r t i c u l a r l y the middle c l a s s ones, which were constructed across the country 79. (Gowans, 1964, 164, 165; Mendelowitz, 1960, 192, 207, 208, 212) . In the a r c h i t e c t u r e of t h i s p e r i o d , the basic c l a s s i c a l p r i n c i p l e s of the C o l o n i a l Georgian s t y l e , such as symmetry and order, were r e t a i n e d . Another s i m i l a r i t y was that f u n c t -i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were almost completely s a c r i f i c e d . Now, however, the inconveniences that arose were j u s t i f i e d by the symbolic value which was achieved. In the b u i l d i n g s which d u p l i c a t e d the ancient Roman temples most c l o s e l y , the commonly used f e a t u r e s were domes, v a u l t s , arches, columns, and a pro-j e c t i n g p o r t i c o on the main facade, which was colonnaded and topped by a t r i a n g u l a r pediment (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 541; Gowans, 1964, 166, 245; Mendelowitz, 1960, 191, 198; Whiffen, 1969, 31). Most of the domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e of t h i s period i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d by i t s r e l a t i v e s i m p l i c i t y and refinement. D e l i c a c y i s perhaps the most obvious c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . In com-parison to the C o l o n i a l p e r i o d , the m a t e r i a l s were smoother and f i n e r i n texture; the shapes were smaller i n s c a l e ; and the c o l o r s were l i g h t e r . The s i z e of the Federal house was often l a r g e r than the C o l o n i a l Georgian one. The more imposing s t r u c t u r e s were three s t o r i e s i n height with low hipped r o o f s almost hidden by c o r n i c e s and b a l u s t r a d e s . The facade was a simple r e c t a n g u l a r u n i t , symmetrical i n design. In most houses, the c h i e f f o c a l point of the facade was the entrance which often had a one-storey porch, u s u a l l y s e m i c i r c u l a r i n shape BO. and supported by columns (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1969, 542; Gowans, 1964, 166; Mendelowitz, 1960, 208, 210; Whiffen, 1969, 23) . In the i n t e r i o r , there were no r a d i c a l innovations from the previous C o l o n i a l Georgian s t y l e regarding the p l a c e -ment of rooms. In general, the plan of four rooms to a f l o o r , arranged around a c e n t r a l h a l l and s t a i r c a s e was r e t a i n e d . However, v a r i a t i o n s i n the plan which provided f o r more p r i v a c y , comfort and ease of management, began to appear. More rooms were planned f o r s p e c i f i c purposes^and they a l s o v a r i e d i n s i z e according to t h e i r f u n c t i o n (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 542, 543; Gowans, 1964, 116; Mendelowitz, 1960, 208, 240, 241; Whiffen, 1969, 23). 2. Greek R e v i v a l House - E a r l y to Mid-Nineteenth Century The s t y l e known as "Greek R e v i v a l " followed the Federal s t y l e . It came to i t s height i n the decades between 1820 and 1850. As i n the Federal s t y l e , the temple form was the primary reference f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms. The s t r i c t e s t d u p l i c a t i o n of these ancient b u i l d i n g s was undertaken i n the p u b l i c b u i l d -i n g s . As i n the previous s t y l e , however, c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c f e a t u r e s of the ancient Greek b u i l d i n g s became an i n t e g r a l part of the domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e being b u i l t during the p e r i o d (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 544; Mendelowitz, 1960, 191, 202; Whiffen, 1969, 38, 45). During the years of the Greek R e v i v a l there were a few 81 . p r o f e s s i o n a l l y t r a i n e d a r c h i t e c t s i n the United S t a t e s . Arch-i t e c t s were s t i l l f a i r l y r a r e , however, and, as a r e s u l t , the p o p u l a r i t y of the s t y l e was spread across the country by the continued a v a i l a b i l i t y of b u i l d e r ' s guide books (Gowans, 1964, 270, 271; Mendelowitz, 1960, 210, 211). The domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e of t h i s p e r i o d showed greater d i v e r s i t y and o r i g i n a l i t y . Both a T-shaped and an L-shaped plan evolved f o r c i t y and modest farm houses, f o r example, and the p r i n c i p l e of symmetry was, t h e r e f o r e , weakened. The e x t e r i o r facades were a l s o more v a r i e d i n the treatment of the temple type, which had colonnades on a l l four s i d e s . Numerous houses, f o r i n s t a n c e , had only a p o r t i c o across the e n t i r e f r o n t and simpler houses dispensed with the columns and used only small p i l a s t e r s and r e s t r a i n e d mouldings at the entrance. I f a p o r t i c o did not dominate the f r o n t of the house, a ped-imented gable u s u a l l y ran across i t . The temples were a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s i n g l e storey and no windows, and were thought to have been made of white marble. Since most of the houses were of two s t o r i e s , an attempt was made to make them appear only one storey high, as the o r i g i n a l temples. To achieve t h i s e f f e c t , two storey colonnades were used and windows were made as inconspicuous as p o s s i b l e . I r r e s p e c t i v e of the b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s used f o r the e x t e r i o r , they were f i n i s h e d to look l i k e white stone, as i n the o r i g i n a l temples, i f at a l l p o s s i b l e . For example, the wooden houses were i n v a r -i a b l y painted white and wal l surfaces were as smooth as p o s s i b l e 82. and g e n e r a l l y severe and unadorned. In c o n t r a s t to the C o l o n i a l Georgian houses, these s t r u c t u r e s had t h e i r longest dimension running from the f r o n t to the back. With t h i s s i t i n g of the s t r u c t u r e , the house i n an urban area could be accommodated on a narrower l o t (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 544, 545; Mendelowitz, 1960, 191, 203; Whiffen, 1969, 38). The i n t e r i o r s .;were s i m i l a r to those of the Federal s t y l e s i n c e basic room planning was not g r e a t l y changed. One d i f f e r e n c e i n the i n t e r i o r s was the sc a l e of the d e t a i l and decoration since a f e e l i n g of heaviness and grandeur was now i n vogue (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 545; Mendelowitz, 1960, 247-249) . C. V i c t o r i a n House - Mid-Nineteenth Century to E a r l y Twentieth Century The study of the V i c t o r i a n period has p a r t i c u l a r s i g n -i f i c a n c e i n t h i s paper, since many of the causes of change i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f a m i l y , mentioned i n Chapter I I , occurred during t h i s p e r i o d . At t h i s time there was a renewed f e e l i n g of p r o s p e r i t y and progress. The b e l i e f i n progress was expressed through an enthusiasm f o r sc i e n c e , education, innovations and i n v e n t -i o n s , and many types of s o c i a l reform. The period i s notable f o r i t s t e c h n i c a l achievement, m a t e r i a l advances, and the accumulation of great f o r t u n e s . The e f f e c t s of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , which was p r i m a r i l y c e n t r a l i z e d i n major c i t i e s , were beginn-ing to be apparent (Gowans, 1964, 282, 300; Mendelowitz, 1960, 83. 216, 357, 358; Mumford, 1955, 23, 24). In the decades toward the end of the nineteenth cen-tury, the great commercial empires of wheat and beef, i r o n and copper,railways and steamships, r e a l estate and banking were e s t a b l i s h e d . Great gains i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n were made i n both the United States and Canada, by the c o n s t r u c t i o n of t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l r a i l w a y s . I n d u s t r i e s also boomed, p a r t i c -u l a r l y i n the north east and midwest of the United 5 t a t e s . There was s i g n i f i c a n t growth i n the s t e e l m i l l s , stockyards and many types of f a c t o r i e s . In a d d i t i o n , there was the mechanization of a g r i c u l t u r e . New i n v e n t i o n s included such items as the telephone, the e l e c t r i c l i g h t , the phonograph, the t y p e w r i t e r , the gas engine, modern plumbing and c e n t r a l heating. As w e l l as a great increase i n the types of m a t e r i a l goods a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c , there was the development of the trade union movement. Change- i n education was a l s o evident. The p u b l i c school system took form and the growth of u n i v e r s i t i e s was renewed. The primary i n t e r e s t i n higher education was i n s c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s . How-ever, the researchers were u s u a l l y s p e c i a l i s t s who were con-cerned only with t h e i r own work. As a r e s u l t there was often ignorance regarding r e l a t i o n s h i p s within f i e l d s of study (Gowans, 1964, 282, 298; Mendelowitz, 1960, 357, 358; Mumford, 1955, 5-7, 17, 23, 33-36, 39, 42). In general, there was a f e e l i n g of confidence throughout the p o p u l a t i o n which was a s s o c i a t e d with the above advances i n 84. i n d u s t r y , s c i e n c e , and education. There was a l s o great optimism f o r the f u t u r e . These a t t i t u d e s of confidence and optimism were accompanied by a re-awakened i n t e r e s t i n the past. In p a r t i c u l a r , there was an i n t e r e s t i n archeology, h i s t o r y and r e l i g i o n due to the b e l i e f that lessons learned from the past would provide a guide to the f u t u r e . At t h i s time the securing of f i r s t - h a n d knowledge of the past was f a c i l i t a t e d f o r wealthy f a m i l i e s by the greater ease i n t r a v e l l i n g abroad, while f o r the general population there was an i n c r e a s e i n the a t t a i n a b i l i t y of t r a v e l books (Gowans, 1964, 339; Gowans, 1966, 88; Mendelowitz, 1960, 216, 217; Mumford, 1955, 37). The p u b l i c r e a l i z e d that with i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , i n c r eased u r b a n i z a t i o n and the growth of business e n t e r p r i s e s across the country, l i f e was becoming more complex. With t h i s development there was the knowledge that the c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t -i o n , based on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l and mould his world, was d e t e r i o r a t i n g . The i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f - s u f f i c -iency which c h a r a c t e r i z e d the previous r u r a l generations, t h e r e f o r e , was being decreased (Gowans, 1964, 309). Accompanying changes i n a t t i t u d e of the s o c i e t y , there were changes i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . By about the e i g h t e e n - f o r t i e s , the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Greek R e v i v a l was being c r i t i c i z e d by many members of the i n t e l l e c t u a l and a r t i s t i c community. It was considered to be e s s e n t i a l l y un-American, p r i m a r i l y because the temple form was i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r domestic pur-85 . poses. There was a l s o the f e e l i n g that the c l a s s i c a l sym-bolism i n a r c h i t e c t u r e had an a r t i f i c i a l , pompous a n d ' f u t i l e q u a l i t y . Moreover, the use of a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements f o r symbolic a s s o c i a t i o n was now considered to be a sentimental and romantic concept r a t h e r than a c l a s s i c one (Gowans, 1964, 272-274; 282; Gowans, 1966, 86; Mendelowitz, 1960, 217). In the current s o c i e t y which considered emotion and sentiment more important than l o g i c and r a t i o n a l i t y , there was the romantic longing f o r the o l d , the d i s t a n t and the emotionally e x c i t i n g . D i v e r s i t y was valued f o r i t s own sake. The d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of other c u l t u r e s and epochs was a l s o valued i n t h i s romantic movement. Instead of the concept of a b s t r a c t beauty, which was c e n t r a l to c l a s s i c i s m , the romant-i c i s t s maintained that forms seemed b e a u t i f u l only because of thoughts which arose i n the mind of the sp e c t a t o r ( E a r l y , 1965, 27-36). During the previous c l a s s i c a l era, a r t i s t i c expression had focussed on the r a t i o n a l by emphasizing the ordered, the balanced and the c o n t r o l l e d . In the s o c i e t y of the l a s t h a l f of the nineteenth century which experienced the progress of free e n t e r p r i s e , however, there was a stronger d e s i r e f o r human adventure and i n d i v i d u a l i s m that i n f l u e n c e d c r e a t i v e expression. Now, a r t i s t i c expression encouraged the dominance of f e e l i n g over reason, and a r e l i a n c e on personal t a s t e and i n t u i t i o n r a t h e r than on t r a d i t i o n a l concepts. In some i n s t a n c e s , 86. t h i s a t t i t u d e to a r t i s t i c expression was r e i n f o r c e d by an a n t a g o n i s t i c f e e l i n g towards the s c i e n t i f i c developments and the i n d u s t r i a l technology of the peri o d (Mendelowitz, 1960, 217, 218; Mumford, 1955, 5). During the V i c t o r i a n p e r i o d , another change i n the a t t i t u d e to nature occurred. There was no longer the c l a s s -i c a l a t t i t u d e toward nature as something to be conquered, d i s c i p l i n e d and shut out. The V i c t o r i a n i d e a l was to have elements drawn from the world of nature i n t o the o r d e r l y a r c h i t e c t u r a l world of men. Therefore, there was the d e s i r e to have nature and a r c h i t e c t u r e complement each other to produce the e f f e c t of a s i n g l e co-ordinated whole (Gowans, 1964, 287, 288, 309, 310; Mendelowitz, 1960, 218, 219). The leaders of the community u s u a l l y wished to escape from the d e t e r i o r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n the c i t i e s which had been brought about by t h e i r r a p i d growth during i n d u s t r i a l -i z a t i o n . Instead of taking p o s i t i v e a c t i o n about such con-d i t i o n s as.-slums, they tended to ignore them and r e t r e a t to nature and t h e i r suburban v i l l a . They accepted the concept of a l lowing nature to take i t s course i n the growth of c i t i e s as i t does i n the woods and h i l l s of the countryside (Gowans, 1964, 310). As with the previous s t y l e s , the V i c t o r i a n began f i r s t i n Europe and then appeared i n North America. Due to i n d u s t -r i a l expansion during t h i s time there was a s i g n i f i c a n t 87. in c r e a s e i n the number of wealthy people. Unlike the recent generations which had p r i m a r i l y i n h e r i t e d t h e i r f ortunes, there was a new wealthy s o c i a l c l a s s of f a m i l i e s who had made money themselves as independent c a p i t a l i s t entrepreneurs. Among the many nouveau-riche , there was u s u a l l y a strong d e s i r e to show o f f t h e i r wealth. One of the ways of doing t h i s was to i m i t a t e the mansions c u r r e n t l y being b u i l t i n Europe. The lower economic c l a s s e s of f a m i l i e s were l i k e w i s e i m i t a t o r s of the wealthy c l a s s . Hence, there was a widespread accept-ance of V i c t o r i a n s t y l e s . Due to the stronger n a t i o n a l nature of both the United States and Canada during t h i s p e r i o d , brought about by e a s i e r communication, V i c t o r i a n ideas and a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms were i n evidence thoughout most of t h e i r populated regions (Gowans, 1964, 288; Gowans, 1966, 126; Mendelowitz, 1960, 253, 362; Mumford, 1955, 33). Accompanying the expansion of i n d u s t r y there was an enormous growth i n the population of c i t i e s due to the i n f l u x of people from r u r a l areas, and immigrants from Europe. As a r e s u l t there was an urgent need f o r housing. With the crowding of the e x i s t i n g areas of c i t i e s there was a strong d e s i r e to move to the o u t l y i n g areas. As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , the wealthy f a m i l i e s were i n t e r e s t e d i n a " r e t r e a t " i n a n a t u r a l s e t t i n g . As a r e s u l t there was the growth of suburbs primar-i l y f o r the wealthy. Planners were u s u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the design of these new communities. The romantic impulse was evident, since the " n a t u r a l , " meaning the i n f o r m a l and i r r e g u l a r , 88. was favored. Mumford s t a t e s that "the p r i n c i p l e of l a i s s e z -f a i r e was a p p l i e d by the new urban planners to both the envirnoment and the b u i l d i n g s of man" (Mumford, 1961, 489). In the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p a t t e r n , the s t r e e t s avoided s t r a i g h t l i n e s , even when no curves were given by nature. This was done f o r the sake of the i r r e g u l a r i t y which they produced. The c o n t r i v e d curves of the s t r e e t s a l s o allowed the user to view the b u i l d i n g s over a period of time, and from a v a r i e t y of angles. This approach was considered picturesque by the V i c t o r i a n s . F u n c t i o n a l and p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , how-ever, were often put i n t o p r a c t i c e . For example, the suburban house was often c o n s c i o u s l y s i t e d f o r s u n l i g h t , f o r breezes, and a view (Mendelowitz, 1 960, 228, 361; Mumdord, 1961, 488-490; S c u l l y , 1969, 88). Towards the l a t t e r part of the nineteenth century there was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n the p r o f e s s i o n s and trades r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of housing, as was evidenced by the sepa r a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t from the engineer, and f r e q u e n t l y the sepa r a t i o n of these two from the b u i l d e r . In general, the p r o f e s s i o n a l a r c h i t e c t was t r a i n e d as an a r t i s t according to the conventions and i d e a l s of e a r l i e r ages. The engineer was concerned with developing a science of c o n s t r u c t i o n which u t i l i z e d the new i n d u s t r i a l m a t e r i a l s and processes, and which was s u i t e d to the needs of the s o c i e t y of that time. The b u i l d e r was a dual f i g u r e . He was a combination of the 89. businessman who engaged i n c o n s t r u c t i o n , as a money-making a c t i v i t y , and the carpenter who d i r e c t e d the a c t u a l con-s t r u c t i o n of the b u i l d i n g . T h i s group was l a r g e l y educated i n the carpenter-handbook t r a d i t i o n . As i n the e a r l i e r times, the handbooks supplied the b u i l d e r s with the plans and e x t e r i o r designs that they used f o r the majority of houses. The houses of the wealthy were an exception, however, as they were designed mainly by a r c h i t e c t s (Mendelowitz, 1 960, 361 , 362) . 1. Picturesque Revivalism and E c l e c t i c i s m - Mid-Nineteenth Century to E a r l y Twentieth Century In t h i s p e r i o d , when s o c i e t y valued the aura of assoc-i a t i o n s surrounding p a r t i c u l a r a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms more than the forms themselves, a showy, t h e a t r i c a l q u a l i t y developed i n t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r e . The a r c h i t e c t now considered a b u i l d -i n g e s s e n t i a l l y as a system of p i c t o r i a l symbolism. The task was to match appropriate images with s p e c i f i c i d e a s . There was thus a strong d e s i r e to arrange v i s u a l compositions on i n t e l l e c t u a l grounds r a t h e r than according to f u n c t i o n a l convenience. As a r e s u l t there was an e c l e c t i c approach to designing ( E a r l y , 1965, 27-36; Gowans, 1964, 287, 291). In a r c h i t e c t u r e , the e a r l y years of the V i c t o r i a n p e r i o d served as a t r a n s i t i o n between the extremes of the preceding c l a s s i c i s t s and the l a t e r years of the r o m a n t i c i s t s . These years were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the c o n t i n u a t i o n of " r e v i v a l s " 90. based on t h e i r symbolic values. The primary i n t e n t i n t h e i r E l e c t i o n was to evoke a mood of romantic n o s t a l g i a f o r the past. One v a r i a t i o n from previous periods was that no s i n g l e s t y l e was dominant. Instead, there was almost complete f r e e -dom of choide. A "good" a r c h i t e c t was expected to know the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h a l f a-dozen or more s t y l e s fromi'the past. Quite often there would be i m i t a t i o n s of b u i l d i n g s or monuments from a d i v e r s i t y of places and times. Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Gothic, Romesque, Moorish, Hindu and Chinese sources were a l l used. 5ome s t y l e s , such as the Gothic and I t a l i a n a t e s t y l e s of the Middle Ages, were f a r more popular than others. An important custom, which d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h i s phase of the V i c t o r i a n s t y l e from the l a t e r one, was that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the various h i s t o r i c s t y l e s were not mixdd i n the same b u i l d i n g ( E a r l y , 1965, 27-36, 39, 47, 60; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 547; Gowans, 1964, 287, 291; Gowans, 1966, 86-88; Mendelowitz, 1960, 217; Whiffen, 1969,37). Soon a f t e r the Gothic and I t a l i a n a t e R e v i v a l s t y l e s r eplaced the C l a s s i c a l R e v i v a l houses, the r e l i a n c e on only one medieval s t y l e f o r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a b u i l d i n g began to break down. The mixing of s t y l e s on one b u i l d i n g became common, and then p r a c t i c a l l y o b l i g a t o r y (Gowans, 1964, 287). The primary q u a l i t y that was being sought by the r o m a n t i c i s t s i n domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e was "picturesqueness" 91 . which meant, e x p l i c i t l y , " l i k e a p i c t u r e . " The image that was d e s i r e d was one r e l a t e d to the passage of time. For i n s t a n c e , a r u i n or an i m i t a t i o n of a r u i n which brought to mind a p i c t u r e of time's i n e v i t a b l e d e s t r u c t i o n would be considered p i c t u r e s q u e . There was thus a d e s i r e f o r some-thing other than the order and symmetry of the c l a s s i c a l mode. In general, a " p i c t u r e s q u e " q u a l i t y was achieved through i r r e g u l a r i t y i n place of symmetry; i n f o r m a l i t y i n s t e a d of f o r m a l i t y ; and exuberance i n the use of decorat-ion r a t h e r than r e s t r a i n t (Gowans, 1966, 107; Mendelowitz, 1960, 218, 219). Due to the importance now placed on i r r e g u l a r i t y , i n f o r m a l i t y and the new a t t i t u d e to nature, a r u s t i c appear-ance was i n vogue. V a r i e t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n o u t l i n e , massing and texture were considered e s s e n t i a l to the picturesque s t y l e . T h i s e f f e c t was achieved by the use of broken, jagged,-and v a r i e g a t e d o u t l i n e s , c o n t r a s t s of t e x t u r e s , f r e e p l a n t -ings around foundations, i n t e r r u p t e d v i s t a s , and uneven l a n d -scape s e t t i n g s . D i v e r s i t y through c o n t r a s t was thus c o n s i d -ered an asset i n t h i s s t y l e ( E a r l y , 1965, 60; Gowans, 1966, 107, 121). The h i s t o r i c a r c h i t e c t u r e which had the greatest appeal to the V i c t o r i a n s , as p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, was the r u r a l a r c h i t e c t u r e of the Tudor Gothic and the I t a l i a n v i l l a s t y l e s . The primary reason f o r t h e i r appeal was t h e i r i r r e g u l a r i t y i n both plan and s i l h o u e t t e . This i r r e g u l a r i t y was admired 92. i n i t s e l f and because i t seemed to fo l l o w the scheme of nature which thus enabled a b u i l d i n g to fuse more e a s i l y with i t s n a t u r a l surroundings. These s t y l e s were a l s o admired because'they produced jagged patterns of l i g h t and shade which softened the three dimensional mass of the s t r u c t u r e . This e f f e c t a l s o v a r i e d at d i f f e r e n t times of the day, and from the d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s from which the b u i l d i n g could be viewed ( E a r l y , 1965, 60, 61; Gowans, 1966, 87; S c u l l y , 1969,88). The domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e of the small town, the' r u r a l , and suburban middle c l a s s cottages i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by many of the f o l l o w i n g common f e a t u r e s : increased height; a v e r t i c a l emphasis; i r r e g u l a r i t y i n massing, s i l h o u e t t e and surface treatment; asymmetry of facade and plan; and a c a l c u l a t e d r e s t l e s s n e s s . The use of steep pointed gables, a tower, t u r r e t s or s p i r e s , b u t t r e s s e s and chimneys of the Gothic s t y l e gave the i l l u s i o n of added height to the b u i l d i n g . In a d d i t i o n , they created an i r r e g u l a r s i l h o u e t t e . Columns, towers, and gables were used f o r t h i s purpose i n the I t a l i a n v i l l a s t y l e . V a r i e t y i n the shapes and s i z e s of the windows, which were often f i l l e d with mullions or t r a c e r y , was a l s o used to r e l i e v e the monotony of p l a i n , broad wall s u r f a c e s . I r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the massing of b u i l d i n g s were achieved by b u t t i n g together varying shapes and s i z e s of w e l l - d e f i n e d r e c t i l i n e a r blocks, and by the p r o j e c t i o n of various elements from the wa l l s u r f a c e s . Verandahs were p r a c t i c a l l y always used, as were bay windows, 93. b a l c o n i e s and extended eaves. As a r u l e , the i n d i v i d u a l blocks of the b u i l d i n g were grouped asymmetrically. For ins t a n c e , the tower u s u a l l y stood o f f - c e n t e r , near a corner. However, symmetry was u s u a l l y evident i n the e l e v a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g blocks. Some houses, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the Gothic s t y l e , were s t i l l symmetrical. In general, t h i s was more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the houses of the middle and lower c l a s s e s , and houses of the small-town and r u r a l areas. To a c e r t a i n extent, t h i s was a carry-over of the c l a s s i c a l t r a d -i t i o n . The most f r e q u e n t l y used decorative features were supporting brackets, bargeboards, columns, and^balustrades. These served the purposes of achieving i r r e g u l a r i t y and a f e e l i n g of r e s t l e s s n e s s . To add to the picturesque charact-e r i s t i c s of the house and al s o r e l a t e i t to nature, the walls were often covered i n vines ( E a r l y , 1965, 61-65; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 547; Gowans, 1964, 309, 319, 322, 323; Gowans, 1966, 103, 106, 107; Mendelowitz, 1960, 219, 226, 228, 229; Whiffen, 1969, 53, 69, 87). Many of the houses, p a r t i c u l a r l y those of the middle c l a s s , appear t a l l and narrow. Unlike the majori t y of the e a r l i e r houses, these V i c t o r i a n ones were designed with the narrower dimension f a c i n g the s t r e e t . This type of plan was r e l a t e d to the narrow l o t s which were common at that time. In general, the houses were at l e a s t two storeys i n height. The d e s i r e f o r picturesqueness and i r r e g u l a r i t y was s t r e s s e d i n the i n t e r i o r plan and dec o r a t i o n , as we l l as i n the e x t e r i o r 94. design. (Mew arrangements in the floor plans were thus introduced. Instead of the symmetry of the former periods, which r e s t r i c t e d the development of e f f i c i e n t plans, there was a freedom and f l e x i b i l i t y in the size, shape and locat-ion of the various rooms. In the homes of the general population, however, the rooms tended to be small. Basically, the i n t e r i o r consisted of small isolated cubicles with windows opening to the outdoors and doors opening into h a l l s . Some features common to most houses included high c e i l i n g s ; steep, narrow and dark stairways; long h a l l s ; and high, narrow windows covered with heavy curtains and draperies, which allowed l i t t l e l i g h t to enter. The front door was usually o f f to one side. The entrance area consisted of a long h a l l , and a stairway to the second floor was beside i t . Opening off to one side of the;entrance h a l l was the parlor. As in the early Colonial house, this room was reserved for special family occasions and the entertainment of guests. It was customarily the dining room which served as the main l i v i n g area for the family. Here the family was together for meals, and for various a c t i v i t i e s in the evening (Gowans, 1966, 123— 126; Mendelowitz, 1960, 219, 228, 229, 251, 362, 363). Although, in general, the plan of the house was more functional, functionalism was not always the primary concern. One example of an inconvenient arrangement was the frequent placement of the kitchen in the basement or in another location 95. somewhat removed from the d i n i n g room, where a l l meals were eaten. For the majority of middle c l a s s f a m i l i e s , however, t h i s was not considered as an inconvenience since servants were r e t a i n e d to perform household d u t i e s . In many of the middle c l a s s V i c t o r i a n homes, there were a l s o rooms f o r a v a r i e t y of s p e c i a l purposes, such as a l i b r a r y and conservat-ory (Foote et a l , 1960, 84; Gowans, 1966, 126; Mendelowitz, 1960, 362, 363). Contemporary North American Housing A. Contemporary House - Mid Twentieth Century In both the United States and Canada V i c t o r i a n ideas and picturesque houses su r v i v e d u n t i l around the nineteen-t h i r t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y among the f a m i l i e s of the middle and lower c l a s s e s . At t h i s time, a new a t t i t u d e to North American l i v i n g was accepted and a new set of premises e s t a b l i s h e d which a f f e c t e d the a r c h i t e c t u r e of the p e r i o d . The new ideas thus c o n s t i t u t e d another change of t r a d i t i o n comparable to the s h i f t from Medieval to C l a s s i c a l , and from C l a s s i c a l to V i c t -o r i a n (Gowans, 1964, 287, 288, 417, 428; Gowans, 1966, 132; Mendelowitz, 1960, 391, 524). Gowans gives three p r i n c i p l e reasons f o r the change from the V i c t o r i a n era. One reason was that i t became obsolete a e s t h e t i c a l l y "...because there i s a l i m i t to how long you can go on responding to the v i s u a l excitement of eye-catching forms; sooner or l a t e r the t h r i l l must be gone" (Gowans, 1966, 132). Secondly, i t became obsolete t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y because a s t y l e based on e c l e c t i c borrowings from the past could not make good use o f the new m a t e r i a l s and techniques that were the r e s u l t of recent s c i e n t i f i c i n v e n t i o n s . F i n a l l y , i t l o s t i t s symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e o f r e p r e s e n t i n g the past i n a romantic manner when knowledge o f the past was expanded by i n t e n s i v e h i s t o r i c a l research and more frequent f o r e i g n t r a v e l (Gowans, 1964, 339; Gowans, 1966, 132). The c o l l a p s e o f V i c t o r i a n s o c i e t y was a l s o p r e c i p i t a t e d by events o f the F i r s t World War, and the Depression which began i n 1929. The war was s i g n i f i c a n t s i n c e , as a r e s u l t of i t , many o f the younger generation, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Europe, began to go against V i c t o r i a n a t t i t u d e s which most o f the o l d e r generation s t i l l b e l i e v e d to be v a l i d . The Depression brought about a d e c i s i v e end to the V i c t o r i a n era when .the s o c i a l and economic world, which provided the basis of V i c t o r -ianism, c o l l a p s e d almost completely (Gowans, 1966, 146, 147). Again, however, around the turn of the twentieth cen-tury, there was a group o f North American i n d i v i d u a l s who c r i t i c i z e d the V i c t o r i a n s t y l e s o f a r c h i t e c t u r e . They f e l t that the ideas and a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms had become inadequate as they ceased to be u s e f u l , a p p r o p r i a t e , p r a c t i c a l or even very w e l l understood. These " r a d i c a l " i n d i v i d u a l s who worked on what they c a l l e d " p r o g r e s s i v e " p r i n c i p l e s wanted to use the t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances that made p o s s i b l e r a d i c a l l y new 97. types of s t r u c t u r e s . They a l s o wanted to express the s o c i o l -o g i c a l changes that were transforming the previous i n d i v i d -u a l i s t i c s o c i e t y i n t o a more impersonal one c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l a r g e c o r p o r a t i o n s and i n s t i t u t i o n s . They argued f o r the "honest" expression of m a t e r i a l s , and " c l e a n " l i n e s , or " n a t u r a l " and "organic" s t r u c t u r e . What the " p r o g r e s s i v e s " intended was to use the b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s , such as s t e e l and concrete, i n a way which r e f l e c t e d t h e i r unique q u a l i t i e s ; to design shapes and plans which were s u i t e d to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the m a t e r i a l s ; and to create forms r e l a t e d to human needs. T h e i r i d e a s , however, were i n t e r p r e t e d by the V i c t o r i a n p u b l i c and the academically t r a i n e d a r c h i t e c t s , who were proponents of picturesque a r c h i t e c t u r e , as being restatements, i n d i f f -erent terms, of the i n t e n t of the previous c l a s s i c i s t s and r e v i v a l i s t s . These s o - c a l l e d " r e b e l s , " t h e r e f o r e , were not g e n e r a l l y accepted at t h i s time, and there i s l i t t l e evidence that many of them had much impact on the a r c h i t e c t u r e of North America during t h e i r l i f e t i m e (Gowans, 1964, 288, 389, 402, 406, 429; Gowans, 1966, 132, 148; Mendelowitz, 1960, 391; S c u l l y , 1969, 90, 91, 105; Whiffen, 1969, 152). In a r c h i t e c t u r e , by the end of the n i n e t e e n - t h i r t i e s and throughout the n i n e t e e n - f o r t i e s when the V i c t o r i a n r a t i o n a l e was f i n a l l y shaken, North Americans did not look as much to t h e i r "pioneers" of a modern a r c h i t e c t u r a l movement as to the a r c h i t e c t s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t y l e which emanated from Europe. Since there was l i t t l e b u i l d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y , except of a m i l i t a r y nature, during the Second World War, 98. there was no s i g n i f i c a n t development of a new a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e , i n that decade. The p o l i t i c a l events i n Europe pre-ceding t h i s war, however, are important to North American a r c h i t e c t u r e since many of the leaders and progr e s s i v e a r c h i -t e c t s of the European modern movement f l e d from Europe to the United States where some of them accepted high p o s i t i o n s i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l schools. As a r e s u l t , the I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t y l e continued as an a r c h i t e c t u r a l i n f l u e n c e . In general then, the forms of North American houses which have been con-s t r u c t e d s i n c e the b u i l d i n g boom of the n i n e t e e n - f i f t i e s have been derived from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t y l e (Foote et a l , 1960, 7; Gowans, 1964, 417, 432, 433, 447; Mendelowitz, 1960, 508, 514; S c u l l y , 1969, 178, 180. This s t y l e had a great impact on the a r c h i t e c t u r e of North America due to the f a c t that i t s premises seemed to correspond with the a n t i - V i c t o r i a n f e e l i n g s of the population during t h i s time. Thus the acceptance of many of the char-a c t e r i s t i c s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t y l e was due to an i n t u i t i v e and emotional response based on a f e e l i n g of r e v u l s i o n towards a l l V i c t o r i a n things and ide a s . Among the i n t e l l e c t u a l leaders during the nineteen-twenties and n i n e t e e n - t h i r t i e s and f o r the majority of the population by the n i n e t e e n - f o r t i e s , there was l i t t l e d e s i r e f o r "the o l d " i n general. These people f e l t no a s s o c i a t i o n s with the past as the V i c t o r i a n s had. The contemp-orary person f e l t that he was not so much j u s t a part of h i s t o r y , as he was the maker of h i s t o r y . As a r e s u l t of t h i s a t t i t u d e 99. there was scorn f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l forms that were borrowed from the past or were i n any way dependent upon i t (Gowans, 1964, 433, 435, 438; Gowans, 1966, 149). In North America, during the period f o l l o w i n g the Second World War, there was a f e e l i n g of unl i m i t e d wealth, resources and technology. A tremendous change i n man's a t t i t u d e to nature had a l s o occurred again. No longer was nature, as i n the C l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n , a c h a o t i c element to be contrasted with the ordered a r c h i t e c t u r e of man, or as to the V i c t o r i a n s , a romantic place to r e t r e a t from i n d u s t r i a l i z e d s o c i e t y . Man now f e l t that his c o n t r o l of nature was more complete due to his s u p e r i o r knowledge i n many f i e l d s of pure and a p p l i e d science such as chemistry, p h y s i c s , medicine and psychology. Man thus envisioned himself as "... r i s i n g triumphant over a l l n a t u r a l l i m i t a t i o n s " (Gowans, 1964, 441, 450, 460, 461, 470, 471; Gowans/, 1966, 156, 157). The population was, however, aware of many strong t a n g i b l e and i n t a n g i b l e f o r c e s , such as p o l i t i c a l , e c o n o m i c and s o c i a l ones, which c u r t a i l e d i n d i v i d u a l freedom and which often l e d to conformity. An important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of contemporary t h i n k i n g that has i n f l u e n c e d a r c h i t e c t u r e i s the emphasis placed on economics. For in s t a n c e , i n s i t u a t i o n s where a s e l -e c t i o n must be made from s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s , economic f a c t o r s are f r e q u e n t l y of greatest concern i n making the d e c i s i o n . Also, i n the p r o v i s i o n of housing today, there are a v a r i e t y of 100. business enterprises and public agencies involved, such as lending i n s t i t u t i o n s , subcontractors, permit and inspection o f f i c e r s , and real estate personnel. A l l of these, in vary-ing degrees, have an influence on the form of architecture. The financiers, in particular, have a great deal of influence since they are interested in a "good r i s k . " This frequently means that approval i s given only to architectural forms which have already proved to be acceptable by the public. Due to this conservatism, previous architectural forms are perpet-uated. Thus, many of the actions and choices of contemporary society are conditioned by economic forces. Along with this emphasis on economics, which i s often associated with the economy of expenditures, there i s the desire for ef f i c i e n c y . This desire i s also reinforced by the expectation that with current s c i e n t i f i c and technological advances, a better s o l -ution to a problem can be discovered and u t i l i z e d (Gowans, 1964, 440, 443, 462, 464). Many of the i n d u s t r i a l and technological advances of the Victorian era have been s i g n i f i c a n t l y accelerated during the twentieth century. For instance, there i s a greater stand-ardization in the production and supplying of goods and ser-vices. More services are also provided outside of the home, as was noted in Chapter II. In addition, many new appliances and materials have f a c i l i t a t e d the performance of many tasks, which, i f done by the t r a d i t i o n a l method, would be considered as "chores." Another development of importance to housing, in 1 01 . t h i s century, i s the growth i n ownership of the automobile. Changes i n the fam i l y which are r e l a t e d to i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and u r b a n i z a t i o n have a l s o i n f l u e n c e d house design. For i n s t a n c e , the contemporary fam i l y i s u s u a l l y a nuclear f a m i l y , which can l i v e i n a smaller house than the extended fam i l y of previous generations. Also, with the s h i f t from a pre-dominantly r u r a l to urban s o c i e t y , as was noted i n Chapter I I , there has been the se p a r a t i o n of the place of work from the residence and i t s immediate environment. Accompanying t h i s change has been the change i n the fam i l y from a production u n i t , which r e q u i r e d the co-operation of a l l family members, to a consumption u n i t , with members of the fam i l y as i n d i v i d -u a l s . With regard to house design, space i s no longer r e q u i r e d f o r the home production of most household s u p p l i e s , food and c l o t h i n g , as was necessary f o r e a r l i e r f a m i l i e s . Also, with the change from the goal of familism to i n d i v i d u a l i s m , more pr i v a c y and independence f o r each family member i s sought. In the c i t i e s , too, where most contemporary f a m i l i e s r e s i d e , there i s an i n c r e a s i n g involvement with a p r i m a r i l y man-made environment (Foote et a l , 1 960 , 85 , 86; Gowans, 1 964, 409; Gowans, 1966, 157; Mendelowitz, 1960, 495; S c u l l y , 1969, 111; Winnick, 1957, 71). 1. Modern Home - Mid-twentieth Century The change i n many a t t i t u d e s of s o c i e t y since the V i c t -o r i a n era i s r e f l e c t e d i n a contemporary a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e which, i n many elements, i s the reverse of the previous 102. picturesque one. This i s one reason f o r the general appeal of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t y l e . Contemporary houses, which show i n f l u e n c e s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l r a t h e r than the V i c t o r i a n s t y l e can be described as having: a h o r i z o n t a l emphasis i n s t e a d of a v e r t i c a l one; simple i n s t e a d of complex massing; severe f l a t planes i n s t e a d of bulging o u t l i n e s ; smooth and p l a i n t e xtures i n s t e a d of rough and patterned ones; the absence of ornament i n s t e a d of an abundance of i t ; an emphasis on l i g h t n e s s and transparency through the use of f i n e , r e f l e c t i v e s u r f a c e s i n s t e a d of the emphasis on s o l i d i t y and bulk; the i n t e g r a t i o n and flow of undefined spaces i n s t e a d of i s o l a t e d , confined c u b i c l e s ; f u s i o n between the i n t e r i o r and the outdoors i n s t e a d of i s o l a t i o n ; and inc r e a s e d l i g h t i n s t e a d of darkness. In modern houses, t h e r e f o r e , the great-est changes are i n the use of space, s u r f a c e , l i g h t , and the r e l a t i o n to the outdoors. In a d d i t i o n , the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of new t e c h n o l o g i c a l d i s c o v e r i e s i n s t r u c t u r a l design, i n m a t e r i a l s and i n the p r o v i s i o n of basic equipment i n contemporary houses i s an important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 4, 5; Foote et a l , 1960, 92, 265; Gowans, 1964, 433, 438, 441, 447, 460; Gowans, 1966, 148, 151, 153, 156; Whiffen, 1969, 241 , 243). The concept of f u n c t i o n a l i s m has al s o been s t r e s s e d to an unprecendented degree i n mid-twentieth century North Amer-ic a n housing. A f u n c t i o n a l l y designed house as defined by Beyer i s one that i s "... so planned and b u i l t that i t w i l l 103. accommodate i n the best manner p o s s i b l e a l l the a c t i v i t i e s that', go on i n i t " (Beyer, 1 965, 280). To the general p u b l i c however , j v f unc t i o n a l i s m i s broader i n scope as i t r e f e r s to the u t i l i t y and economy of resources, p a r t i c u l a r l y those of time, energy end m a t e r i a l s (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 10, 78) . Since few houses today are-custom b u i l t , as was char^ a c t e r i s t i c of the previous periods, an attempt i s now made to design basic houses s u i t e d to the most common home-centered a c t i v i t i e s of a l l f a m i l i e s , which i n c l u d e : meal p r e p a r a t i o n and e a t i n g ; s l e e p i n g ; l e i s u r e and entertainment; personal hygiene; and c l e a n i n g . Many p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs of i n d i v i d u a l family members, such as p r i v a c y , are a l s o considered more important i n domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e today. In general, the contemporary house i s considered to have four major zones as d i s t i n c t areas f o r the above a c t i v i t i e s : the entrance, the group l i v i n g zone; the p r i v a t e l i v i n g zone; and the house-keeping zone. With an emphasis on e f f i c i e n c y as w e l l , r e -l a t i o n s h i p s between the rooms i n which these a c t i v i t i e s are pursued and the r e s u l t i n g c i r c u l a t i o n patterns are of more importance than i n the previous a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e s . The s e l e c t i o n of m a t e r i a l s which are easy to maintain and the p r o v i s i o n of many mechanical conveniences are a l s o items that the contemporary consumer expects to f i n d i n new houses. For the contemporary f a m i l y , i t i s noted that such house-centered a c t i v i t i e s as meal p r e p a r a t i o n and c l e a n i n g are g r e a t l y s i m p l i f i e d , i n comparison with previous generations, due to the current a v a i l a b i l i t y of ready-made products, which can be purchased; i n s t e a d of made, by the f a m i l y . To-day's f a m i l y , compared to the e a r l y North American f a m i l y , as noted i n Chapter I I , i s p r i m a r i l y a consumption unit f o r goods and s e r v i c e s , r a t h e r than a production one (Beyer, 1965, 2B1, 284-294; Foote et a l , 1960, 92; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 8, 19; T y l e r , 1957, 11). In the twentieth century the production of s i n g l e - f a m i l y dwellings has al s o changed. No longer do most f a m i l i e s r e l y on t h e i r own labour, or l o c a l tradesmen, to provide a house, b u i l t t o a fa m i l y ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , on t h e i r p l o t of land. Instead, there i s the growth of c o n s t r u c t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s which b u i l d houses on t h e i r own land, and then market them to f a m i l i e s . Today, then, the fami l y u s u a l l y buys a ready-b u i l t house, as a consumer, r a t h e r than being i n v o l v e d i n i t s p roduction, as were the e a r l i e r North American f a m i l i e s . Since the primary motive of c o n s t r u c t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s to make a p r o f i t from t h e i r e n t e r p r i s e , there i s a great deal of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n i n houses which reduces the cost f o r the b u i l d e r (Beyer, 1965, 212; Foote et a l , 1960, 84, 87; Gowans, 1964, 471; T y l e r , 1957, 12). In domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e today there are c e r t a i n common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n s p i t e of a great d e s i r e f o r i n d i v i d u a l i t y as expressed by d i v e r s i t y i n d e t a i l s . The most t y p i c a l con-temporary house, p a r t i c u l a r l y of suburban developments, i s a 105. one storey or s p l i t l e v e l house. However, with the increased cost of land, the two storey house i s now being constructed more frequently. The house became smaller during the e a r l i e r part of this century, but has increased in size s l i g h t l y since around the ni n e t e e n - f i f t i e s . The decrease in size may be attributed to several factors, such as the decrease in family size due to the change from an extended to a nuclear family form as mentioned in Chapter II; the increased cost of providing housing which includes more mechanical devices; and the increased cost of serviced land. It i s estimated that about one-third of the cost of contemporary houses i s attributable to mechanical equipment considered "necessary" by today's families, but which was uncommon or nonexistent f i f t y years ago. With less space in the house, i t was typical to eliminate the dining room as a separate room by combining i t with either the l i v i n g room or the kitchen. The kitchen area and the bathroom were also reduced in size, and houses with only one or two bedrooms became common. Changes were also made to the exterior to reduce costs. Verandahs, for instance, were frequently reduced to small stoops. The garage, which had become part of the housing complex around the nine-teen- twenties , was also changed. At f i r s t i t was a separate building located at the back of the l o t , on the alle y . In an attempt to reduce housing costs i t was then either eliminated or reduced to a carport attached to the side of the house. With the increased prosperity of families during the nineteen-1 06. f i f t i e s , however, the house was increased s l i g h t l y i n s i z e . The d i n i n g room began to appear again; a second l i v i n g area, the " f a m i l y " room was i n c l u d e d ; and more than one bathroom and at l e a s t three bedrooms became common. The kitchen was a l s o f r e q u e n t l y enlarged to i n c l u d e laundry f a c i l i t i e s which had p r e v i o u s l y been i n the basement. An outside p a t i o , as an extension of the house, was now a feature of most new houses. The garage, too, was again enclosed, but as an i n t e g r a l part of the house c o n s t r u c t i o n (Beyer, 1965, 127; Foote et a l , 1960, B, 85, 238; Gowans, 1964, 422, 424; Mendelowitz, 1960, 514; T y l e r , 1957, 13, 14, 17; Wheeler, 1969, 79, 267; Whiffen, 1969, 217; Winnick, 1957, 9, 71, 72, 77, 78). The i n t e r i o r of the contemporary house i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the segregation of p a r t i c u l a r zones, as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y . Due to the emphasis on f u n c t i o n a l i s m , w i t h i n each zone there i s u s u a l l y d i r e c t c i r c u l a t i o n between areas that are r e l a t e d i n a c t i v i t y . The k i t c h e n , i n c o n t r a s t to i t s placement i n the V i c t o r i a n house, i s now most f r e q u e n t l y l o c a t e d adjacent to the d i n i n g area. When the house has a separate d i n i n g room, however, i t i s u s u a l l y used only when the family enter-t a i n s guests or c e l e b r a t e s a s p e c i a l occasion. The p r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n f o r the f a m i l y room i s a l s o adjacent to the kitchen and an attempt i s made to have i t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to an out-door p a t i o . This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d e s i r a b l e f o r the family 1 07. with young c h i l d r e n since the parents can supervise t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s more e a s i l y . Due to t h e ' d e s i r e f o r a f e e l i n g of more f o r m a l i t y and qu i e t i n the l i v i n g room, and i n f o r m a l i t y and l i v e l y a c t i v i t y i n the fa m i l y room, the two rooms are purposely separated. This separation i s a l s o i n t e n t i o n a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n f a m i l i e s with o l d e r c h i l d r e n , since i t f a c i l -i t a t e s the pursual of d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s by the two gener-a t i o n s without i n t e r f e r e n c e . In contemporary houses, as compared with e a r l i e r ones, the placement of the l i v i n g room and kitchen i s f r e q u e n t l y reversed. The l i v i n g room may open onto the garden at the rear of the l o t , while the kitchen faces the s t r e e t . There has a l s o been a major change i n the use of bedrooms. Now they serve as multi-purpose rooms f o r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members, p a r t i c u l a r l y c h i l d r e n . In a d d i t -ion to being used f o r s l e e p i n g , they are a l s o used as play, hobby and study areas and f o r the entertainment of f r i e n d s . There i s thus a tendency f o r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members to have more personal and p r i v a t e spaces f o r a wider v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s than was the case i n e a r l i e r f a m i l i e s (Beyer, 1965, 2B4-294; Faulkner and Faulkner, 1968, 19-67; Foote et a l , 1960, 349-360; T y l e r , 1957, 14, 17, 18). R e l a t i o n s h i p Between the Family and the House P r i o r to the mid-nineteenth century, the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e North American dwelling unit was the farmhouse, and the t y p i c a l f a m i l y was a r u r a l one. A century l a t e r , the majority of 108. f a m i l i e s were urban. Accompanying t h i s change there has been a r e v e r s a l i n the importance of the house and the land surrounding i t . To the r u r a l f a m i l y , the house was considered a b a s i c part of the farm. The e a r l y North Americans were p r i m a r i l y concerned with the q u a l i t y of the land from which they obtained t h e i r means of s u r v i v a l . The f a m i l y , t h e r e f o r e , did not place as high a p r i o r i t y on the a c q u i s i t i o n of a house as on the farmland, which may al s o have in c l u d e d a house, or on which one would be con s t r u c t e d . The contemp-orary f a m i l y , i n c o n t r a s t , places a great deal of importance on the house i t s e l f , p a r t i c u l a r l y the i n t e r i o r , and the general c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood, p a r t i c u l a r l y the people. Today land i s seldom important i n urban housing areas as a source of l i v e l i h o o d f o r the f a m i l y . An important f a c t o r i n the a t t i t u d e of the fami l y to t h e i r housing has thus been the removal of economic production, which s u p p l i e s the means of o b t a i n i n g the n e c e s s i t i e s and l u x u r i e s of l i f e , from the housing environment (Foote et a l , 1960, 83, 85; Moore, 1968, 48). The e a r l y North American house, i t s e l f , was al s o import-ant to the economic bas i s of the fami l y as a place f o r pro-ducing goods since many a c t i v i t i e s r e q u i r e d f o r s u r v i v a l were undertaken i n the l i v i n g q u a r t e r s . These i n c l u d e d the prep-1 Housing preferences w i l l be discussed i n Chapter IV, 109. a r a t i o n , p r e s e r v a t i o n and storage of food, the c o n s t r u c t i o n of c l o t h i n g , and the manufacture of household products, such as candles. The contemporary f a m i l y , i n comparison, i s p r i m a r i l y a consumption unit which buys goods and s e r v i c e s outside of the house. For many of these f a m i l i e s the dwell-ing u n i t i s used p r i m a r i l y as a place to s l e e p , eat some meals, obtain p r i v a c y , r e l a x a t i o n and intimate companionship, and to s t o r e a r t i f a c t s (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 486; D u v a l l , 1967, 58; Martinson, 1970, 114; Seeley et a l , 1956, 43). When the e a r l y f a m i l y needed more space i n t h e i r home, i t was customary to a l t e r the e x i s t i n g dwelling unit i n some way. In general, houses during the t r a n s i t i o n a l period were i n i t i a l l y b u i l t l a r g e enough to accommodate a la r g e f a m i l y , which was u s u a l l y an extended one. Today, however, when f a m i l i e s change i n s i z e they tend to move to a d i f f e r e n t house that f u l f i l l s t h e i r s p a t i a l needs more adequately. As a r e s u l t , previous f a m i l i e s remained i n one l o c a t i o n , perhaps fo r s e v e r a l generations, whereas today's fam i l y i s a mobile one (Blood, 1972, 241). In Foote et a l , an a n a l y s i s of the "housing c y c l e " of the median United States family of the mid-twentieth century, i n r e l a t i o n to the stages of the family l i f e c y c l e , i s provided. The f a m i l y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as having s i x to seven d i f f e r e n t dwelling u n i t s which range from a one to three roomed, rented, dwelling unit i n the c e n t r a l c i t y , to a s i x roomed, owned, house i n the suburbs (Foote et a l , 110. 1960, 97-118). The houses constructed before the twentieth century were thus u s u a l l y l a r g e r i n s i z e and b u i l t to l a s t . They were conceived as "...a permanent abode, a l i f e t i m e investment and a f a m i l y haven" (Beyer, 1965, 127; Foote et a l , 1960, 84). The a c t u a l house s t r u c t u r e has a l s o changed with respect to the equipment provided. Whereas the house previous to the twentieth century was b a s i c a l l y a s h e l l , with a heating device i n c l u d e d , the contemporary house i s expected to have a v a r i e t y of mechanical equipment as a part of i t s s t r u c t u r e . The i n -c r e a s i n g d e s i r e f o r labour--and time-saving appliances i s p a r t l y due to the f a c t that contemporary f a m i l i e s u s u a l l y spend l e s s time i n the dwelling unit and the f a c t that more emphasis i s placed on i n d i v i d u a l expression through r e c r e a t -i o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s (Beyer, 1965, 37, 40, 127, 281 ) . The e a r l i e s t form of North American housing was a l s o constructed with primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n given to the p h y s i c a l needs of the f a m i l y . Although t h i s general a t t i t u d e continued to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of subsequent periods, there was the growth of other needs, such as p r i v a c y , s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e , a s s o c i a t e d with the house. The contemporary owned house i s also often important as an economic investment and source of economic gain (Beyer, 1965, 212; Federal Task Force, 1969, 17). The plan of the house and the use of i n t e r i o r spaces 111. also r e f l e c t s changes in the family. In the early family, for instance, the use of one room for most house-related a c t i v i t i e s f a c i l i t a t e d the achievement of the goal towards familism. The presence of a l l family: members during non-working or sleeping hours in the one room also encouraged the participation of the family as a whole in recreational pur-suits and religious observances and training. The a t t i t u d -i n a l and vocational education of the g i r l s was also more easily transferred from the mother when both generations were together almost constantly. Throughout the t r a n s i t i o n a l period of the house, trends toward the use of space for specialized functions and increased privacy were evident. It was s t i l l customary, however, for the family to spend much time together, p a r t i c u l a r l y at meals, and in the evening. The preferred location for family gatherings was the dining room. The con-temporary house, in contrast, r e f l e c t s the importance of the goal of individualism, the attainment of personal happiness through s e l f expression and select companionship, and the emphasis on children. It i s now customary for each child to have a separate bedroom in which he pursues many of the activ-i t i e s , such as studying, that would have previously been accomplished around the dining room table, in the presence of other family members. With separate rooms, too, children are frequently allowed to create their own visual environment. This i s also where they may retreat for privacy or entertain 112. their peers, without the interference of brothers, s i s t e r s , or parents. The popularity of the family room .also r e f l e c t s the emphasis on f a c i l i t i e s for children. The simultaneous use of this room by children, and the l i v i n g room by adults allows the two generations to seek pleasure in their own choice of independent a c t i v i t i e s when desired. In many instances, however, the family room i s used by the family as a whole. The decreased importance and use of . the dining room r e f l e c t s the changing custom of family members eating together. This i s p a r t i a l l y due to the fact that the schedules of family members are more d i f f i c u l t to synchronize when so many a c t i v i t i e s take place outside of the house. The asymme-t r i c a l external design and i n t e r i o r plan of today's house i s also indicative of the informality characteristic of most contemporary l i v i n g patterns. The increase in the number and kinds of mechanical equip-ment, which are considered aan essential part of the contem-porary house, also tends to reduce the amount of time required for household tasks. In addition, the materials used in con-temporary houses frequently require less maintenance. With these conveniences, many more women are able to work outside of the home, as was noted in Chapter II. Also, as noted in Chapter II, the roles of husbands and wives have changed some-what, with husbands now performing more household duties which were t r a d i t i o n a l l y female oriented. With the above'changes in equipment and materials, household tasks are generally easier to perform by a l l family members. U3 CHAPTER IV THE FAMILY'S HOUSING BEHAVIOR AND EXPRESSED PREFERENCES Intxoduction The previous two chapters of this paper; have provided soci o l o g i c a l information about certain aspects of the family: information concerning some soc i a l beliefs which have influenced the physical form of North American domestic architecture; ;and an outline of the major styles of housing that have been popular during various periods of North American history between the mid-seventeenth and twentieth centuries. It has been noted in Chapter II that although there are general characteristics which typify the contemporary North American family, there are differences among individual house-holds. They vary, for instance, in their needs, preferences, and a b i l i t i e s to obtain suitable housing, which are factors that usually tend to change during the lifetime of the family. It i s evident in Chapter III that the preferences of a society regarding housing characteristics also undergo change. In this chapter an attempt i s made to provide the planner with information concerning the contemporary family's hous-ing behavior, their expressed preferences for housing, and their stated causes of sat i s f a c t i o n and di s s a t i s f a c t i o n with their r e s i d e n t i a l environment. This information w i l l provide the planner with additional knowledge for use in determining guidelines for characteristics of a re s i d e n t i a l environment 1 s u i t e d to the contemporary f a m i l y ' s needs and d e s i r e s . In our twentieth century North American s o c i e t y "... m o b i l i t y i s the mechanism by which a fa m i l y ' s housing i s brought i n t o adjustment to i t s housing needs" (Rossi, 1955, 178). Many research s t u d i e s provide i n f o r m a t i o n on r e s i d -e n t i a l behavior, a t t i t u d e s and preferences; the incide n c e of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y ; the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mobile house holds; the causes of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y ; the c r i t e r i a sought i n a subsequent dwelling u n i t ; and the family' s hous-ing c y c l e . Studies on home ownership of a s i n g l e family detached housel a l s o i n d i c a t e many of the f a m i l y ' s p r e f e r -ences f o r housing. In order to provide the planner with a be t t e r understanding of the family as a housing consumer t h i s chapter presents a l i t e r a t u r e survey on r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and the de s i r e f o r ownership of a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house. RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY AND THE DESIRE FOR HOME OWNERSHIP A. Incidence 1 . R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y Contemporary North American households are considered to be extremely t r a n s i e n t , due to the f a c t that they f r e q -uently move from one dwelling u n i t to another (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 486). Many f a m i l i e s , t h e r e f o r e , do not l i v e i n _ f u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e s to "home ownership" i n t h i s paper r e f e r to ownership i n fee simple of a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house. 115. the same dwelling u n i t f o r the complete l i f e c y c l e from the formation of the fami l y through marriage to the death of the partners ( T r o e l s t r u p , 1965, 263). In comparison with the e a r l y North American fam i l y form, there are s e v e r a l changes i n the contemporary family which f a c i l i t a t e r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . For i n s t a n c e , as was noted i n Chapter I I , the change i n the economic f u n c t i o n of the fa m i l y from a production u n i t to one that i s based on consumption has been p a r t i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the sepa r a t i o n of the place of work away from the residence. This l o s s of a t i e to the house has c o n t r i b u t e d to the ease of m o b i l i t y of today's f a m i l i e s (Rapoport and Rapoport, 1968, 55; Vincent, 1967, 26). Also noted i n Chapter II was the change i n the family from an extended form i n e a r l y North American s o c i e t y to the nuclear one of today. Goode has observed that the smaller nuclear f a m i l y , which e s t a b l i s h e s an independent household, i s f r e e r to move, p h y s i c a l l y , from one residence to another (Goode, 1968b, 65). Associated with the above change i n the s t r u c t u r e of the f a m i l y , the decreased importance of the a n c e s t r a l home, which had formerly been passed from one generation of the famil y to the next, was also discussed i n Chapter I I . The emotional t i e s to the house as an object i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d to the fami l y over a long p e r i o d of time have th e r e f o r e 116. d e c l i n e d to a c e r t a i n extent. This change i n a t t i t u d e has a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d to the greater ease of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y (Burgess and Locke, 1960, 486, 489). I n d i v i d u a l research s t u d i e s provide the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on the rate of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . Data obtained by Whitney and Grigg between 1947 and 1952, which sought migration h i s t o r i e s f o r the previous twenty years, i n d i c a t e s that the mean number of moves f o r respondents was 1.8. Thirty-one per cent of the families did not move at a l l ; twenty-five per cent moved only once; forty-two per cent moved between two and seven times; and an a d d i t i o n a l two per cent moved eight to fourteen times (Whitney and Grigg, 1958, 644, 645). More recent research i n d i c a t e s the f o l l o w i n g r a t e s of m o b i l i t y . Rossi's study, i n the e a r l y n i n e t e e n - f i f t i e s , of four areas i n P h i l a d e l p h i a , found that m o b i l i t y , as i n d i c a t e d by the p r o p o r t i o n of households l i v i n g i n the area f o r l e s s than twenty-three months, v a r i e d as f o l l o w s : s i x t e e n and t h i r t y per cent i n two "high s t a t u s " areas; and fourteen and forty-one per cent i n two low s t a t u s areas ( R o s s i , 1955, 23). In Deutschman's study between 1960 and 1963, he found that 19.5 per cent of the households changed t h e i r residences (Deutschman, 1972, 351). During a s i m i l a r time period Lansing, Mueller and Barth found that among the group of metropolitan area f a m i l i e s s t u d i e d , f i f t y - t w o per cent had moved during 117. the previous f i v e years (Lansing, Mueller and Barth, 1964, 18). For the whole pop u l a t i o n , i t i s stated by Rossi that during a one year p e r i o d one person i n every f i v e moves from one dwelling unit to another (Rossi, 1955, 1). This rate of m o b i l i t y i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i g u r e of twenty per cent moves per year which i s often used i n Census r e p o r t s , which i n c l u d e s a l l persons of age one and over. The Bureau of the Census of the United States, i n r e p o r t i n g m o b i l i t y rates by year from 1947 to 1967, s t a t e s that the pr o p o r t i o n of population moving ranges from 18.6 to 21.0 per cent (United States Census, 1966, 1). Rossi estimates that over a ten year p e r i o d , 1940 to 1950, about three quarters of urban c i t i z e n s moved from one place of residence to another (Rossi, 1955, 1). From Canadian census i n f o r m a t i o n , i t was found that between 1950 and 1961, the t o t a l number of i n t e r n a l migrants c o n s t i t u t e d 42.4 per cent of the t o t a l population aged f i v e and over i n 1961 (George, 1970, 185). Other s t u d i e s i n both the United 5tates and Canada i n d i c a t e that on the average one family i n f i v e moves each year (Deutschman, 1972, 349; Simmons and Simmons, 1969, 145). Rossi comments thaf'America 1s c i t y dwellers change t h e i r housing, i t seems, almost as often as they change t h e i r cars "(Rossi, 1 955 , 1 ). In some s t u d i e s , researchers are seeking information on the type of move i . e . l o c a l or d i s t a n c e . Between 1947 and 1958, the United States Census information shows that about 118. two t h i r d s of the migration i s wit h i n the same county; about one f i f t h i s wit h i n the s t a t e or between contiguous s t a t e s ; and the remainder tends to be moves f a r t h e r than to a con-tiguous s t a t e (United States Census, 1958, 8-9). In Canada, of the i n t e r n a l migrants between 1956 and 1961, s i x t y per cent were i n t r a m u n i c i p a l , t h i r t y - t w o per cent were i n t r a -p r o v i n c i a l and eight per cent were i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l migrants (George, 1970, 185). Whitney and George report that l o c a l moves account f o r a greater rate of movement than does i n - m i g r a t i o n . F i f t y -seven per cent of the moves were l o c a l changes of residence, whereas migration i n t o another county was found to be r e s -ponsible f o r f o r t y - t h r e e per cent of the moves. I t was a l s o suggested by t h e i r data that when a fami l y undertakes one or more distance moves, the l a s t d i s t a nce move i s followed by l o c a l changes of residen c e . They report that f i f t y - o n e per cent of the f a m i l i e s experienced only l o c a l moves; t h i r t y -two per cent combined distance and l o c a l moves, and seventeen per cent made only distance moves (Whitney and Grigg, 1959, 647, 648). Other researchers have been concerned with the type of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y of f a m i l i e s i n c e r t a i n l o c a t i o n s of a community. This often i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n regarding the l o c a t i o n of the family.'s previous residence. Kalbach, Meyers and Walker, i n t h e i r research, studied the incide n c e of 119. m o b i l i t y among f a m i l i e s from d i f f e r e n t areas of a c i t y : the c e n t r a l area; an i n d u s t r i a l suburb; and a r e s i d e n t i a l suburb. T h e i r f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e a greater r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y among middle c l a s s f a m i l i e s i n r e s i d e n t i a l suburbs, both i n the percentage of mobile f a m i l i e s and the frequency of m o b i l i t y , than among the f a m i l i e s r e s i d i n g i n the c e n t r a l c i t y or i n the i n d u s t r i a l suburb. The r e s i d e n t i a l suburbs c o n s i s t e n t l y were comprised of a greater p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s moving two to f i v e times. I t was a l s o found that f a m i l i e s i n r e s i d e n t i a l suburbs had a higher p r o p o r t i o n experiencing: only a long distance move or a sequence of long distance moves; i n t e r s t a t e moves followed by i n t r a c o u n t y moves; and i n t r a c o u n t y moves. Of a l l the mobile f a m i l i e s i n the sample, approximately f i f t y per cent of the most recent moves were made w i t h i n the same metropolitan area. The population of both types of suburban areas, however, was comprised of more f a m i l i e s who had moved there from outside of the metropolitan area than from the c e n t r a l c i t y (Kalbach, Myers and Walker, 1964, 312, 314). In the e v a l u a t i o n of rates of m o b i l i t y , however, i t has been demonstrated that high average m o b i l i t y r a t e s are i n part due to a l i m i t e d number of households i n the population who make frequent moves while the m a j o r i t y of the population remains more s t a b l e ( G o l d s t e i n , 1959, 231; Lansing and Mueller, 1967, 53). Evidence of t h i s occurence was mentioned above i n the s t u d i e s of Whitney and Grigg, and Kalbach, Myers and Walker. 1 20. 2. Desire For Home Ownership North American s o c i e t y i s al s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a high rat e of home ownership, which has been t r a d i t i o n a l i n Canada and the United S t a t e s . Beyer poin t s out i n 1965 that i n the United States "There has never been a year, since housing c o n s t r u c t i o n has been recorded, that homes b u i l t f o r owner-ship have not outnumbered those b u i l t f o r re n t " (Beyer, 1965, 249). The percentage of t o t a l United States housing that i s owner occupied has al s o increased ( T r o e l s t r u p , 1965, 263). Beyer s t a t e s that i n 1890, f o r t y - e i g h t per cent of the occupied dwelling u n i t s were occupied by owners; f o r t y - s i x per cent i n 1920; f o r t y - e i g h t per cent i n 1930; f o r t y - f o u r per cent i n 1940; and f i f t y - f i v e per cent i n 1950 (Beyer, 1965, 119). By 1960 and 1964 i t was estimated that 61.9 and 62 per cent, r e s p e c t i v e l y , of a l l occupied houses were owner occupied (Grose and C r a n d a l l , 1963, 401; T r o e l s t r u p , 1965, 263). In Canada, as w e l l , r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s p r i m a r i l y f o r •:• owner occupancy, and, as a r e s u l t , i t i s considered as "... a nation of homeowners" (Wheeler, 1969, 139). K e l l y notes that since the depression, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s who own t h e i r own home has been r i s i n g s t e a d i l y ( K e l l y , 1969, 468). This i s p r i m a r i l y due to the f a c t that near the end of World War II there were major l e g i s l a t i v e changes i n housing p o l i c i e s made by the govern-ments of the United States and Canada, which made home owner-121 . ship a t t a i n a b l e f o r a great many more f a m i l i e s ( T y l e r , 1957, 12; Wheeler, 1969, 67). The endorsement of home ownership, as opposed to r e n t a l tenure, by p o l i t i c i a n s i s evident i n the statement of Beyer that " . . . i t must be recognized that our (United States) p u b l i c p o l i c y has, f o r many years, en-couraged ownership" (Beyer, 1965, 249). This a t t i t u d e of government o f f i c i a l s i s al s o a p p l i c a b l e to Canada, since l e g -i s l a t i o n has been passed i n favor of home ownership. For in s t a n c e , the 1944 to 1954 housing p o l i c y of the Federal government i n c l u d e d the d i r e c t l e n d i n g of twenty-five per cent of the c a p i t a l amount of an approved N a t i o n a l Housing Act mortgage loan at a r e l a t i v e l y low i n t e r e s t rate of three per cent, which was a lower rate than a v a i l a b l e on the conventional market (Wheeler, 1969, 67). I t was t h i s p o l i c y which stim-ulated the d e s i r e f o r home ownership,and which-was a l s o intended to b e n e f i t the economy since many jobs were created i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y . The emphasis of the Canadian f e d e r a l government on promoting home ownership was s t i l l appar-ent i n the Nat i o n a l Housing Act of 1954. Many p o l i c i e s were changed, with the e f f e c t that home ownership was now a t t a i n -able by f a m i l i e s of lower income. One of the changes i n v o l v e d the d i s c o n t i n u a t i o n of d i r e c t mortgage lendi n g at a s u b s i d i z e d rate of i n t e r e s t , which was replaced by mortgage loan guar-antees f o r mortgages from p r i v a t e lending i n s t i t u t i o n s . Other changes i n c l u d e d an increase i n the amount of the loan, a decrease i n the down payment r e q u i r e d , and an increase i n the 1 22. period of amo r t i z a t i o n (Wheeler, 1969, 68, 85). As a r e s u l t of p o l i c i e s which encouraged ownership there was a b u i l d i n g boom which c o n s i s t e d almost e x c l u s i v e l y of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of s i n g l e family detached houses (Foote et a l , 1960, 190). Many authors have observed the preference of the majority of f a m i l i e s f o r home ownership. Woodbury comments that "... the d e s i r e to own one's own home i s both wide-spread and deepseated i n American c u l t u r e " (Woodbury, 1953, 322). Abu— Lughod and Foley observe i n Foote et a l that "...owning a home ... i s a basic part of the American dream of the good l i f e " (Foote et a l , 1960, 190). E a r l y s t u d i e s , reported i n 1948 by Rosow, estimate the a s p i r a t i o n to own one's home as varying between s i x t y - f i v e and eighty-nine per cent of the popul a t i o n , depending on the sample t e s t e d and the s t r u c t u r e of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n (Rosow, 1948, 751). Caplow found i n h i s n i n e t e e n - f o r t i e s ' research of Minneapolis households that 91.1 per cent of the respondents f e l t that most f a m i l i e s should own t h e i r own homes. His research i n d i c a t e s that 73.4 per cent of re n t e r s r e p l i e d "yes" when asked i f they would p r e f e r to own t h e i r home and make monthly payments on the purchase p r i c e i n s t e a d of paying rent; and that 86.7 per cent of owners r e p l i e d "no" when asked i f they would p r e f e r to occupy t h e i r present home as a rente r on a long term lease at reasonable rent (Caplow, 1948, 725, 726). A more recent study by Lansing and Hendricks i n a D e t r o i t 1 2 3 . a r e a s u r v e y f o u n d t h a t e i g h t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n -d e n t s d e s i r e d t h e o w n e r s h i p f o r m o f t e n u r e ( L a n s i n g a n d H e n d r i c k s , 1 9 6 7 , 3 4 ) . T h e m o s t c o m m o n l y c i t e d r e a s o n f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e c o n d o m i n i u m r o w h o u s e , a s g i v e n b y C a n a d i a n r e s i d e n t s i n t h e l a t e n i n e t e e n - s i x t i e s , w a s t h e d e s i r e f o r h o m e o w n e r s h i p , w h i c h t h e p u r c h a s e r s c o u l d n o t a f f o r d i n t h e f o r m o f a s i n g l e f a m i l y d e t a c h e d h o u s e ( C o n d o m i n i u m R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s , 1 9 7 D , 9 ) . T h e d e s i r e f o r a r e s i d e n c e i n t h e f o r m o f a s i n g l e f a m i l y d e t a c h e d h o u s e i s e v i d e n t i n b o t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d C a n a d a . L a n s i n g a n d H e n d r i c k s n o t e t h a t : " N o m a t t e r h o w t h e d a t a o n p r e f e r e n c e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d , t h e m a i n c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t , i f t h e y c o u l d d o a s t h e y p l e a s e d , m a n y m o r e p e o p l e w o u l d l i k e t o l i v e i n s i n g l e f a m i l y h o u s e s t h a n d o l i v e i n t h e m " ( L a n s i n g a n d H e n d r i c k s , 1 9 6 7 , 3 6 ) . A s i m i l a r p r e f e r e n c e i s c o m m o n i n C a n a d a , a s e x p r e s s e d b y L i p m a n , a s c i t e d i n W h e e l e r : " I t i s w i d e l y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f C a n a d i a n s s t i l l r e g a r d t h e s i n g l e -f a m i l y h o u s e a s t h e m o s t d e s i r a b l e f o r m o f a c c o m m o d a t i o n " ( W h e e l e r , 1 9 6 9 , 1 7 4 ) . T h e r e s e a r c h o f L a n s i n g , M u e l l e r a n d B a r t h o f f a m i l i e s l i v i n g w i t h i n S t a n d a r d M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n d i c a t e t h a t s i x t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n l i v e d i n s i n g l e f a m i l y h o u s e s , b u t e i g h t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t w o u l d p r e f e r t h i s t y p e o f d w e l l i n g u n i t . T h e g r o u p w h o w o u l d l i k e t o s h i f t f r o m a m u l t i p l e f a m i l y u n i t t o a s i n g l e f a m i l y o n e c o m p r i s e d 1 24. twenty per cent of f a m i l i e s r e s i d i n g i n metropolitan areas, while the group wanting to make the opposite kind of move incl u d e d only three per cent of f a m i l i e s (Lansing, Mueller and Barth, 1964, 46). A l a t e r study by Lansing and Hendricks revealed that s l i g h t l y more respondents, eighty-seven per cent, favored a s i n g l e f a m i l y house. This study a l s o found that nearly two-thirds of the f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n m u l t i p l e family u n i t s expressed preference f o r l i v i n g i n a p r i v a t e house (Lansing and Hendricks, 1967, 33, 34). Michelson notes that, from the survey f i n d i n g s of Lans-ing's l a t t e r study, seventy per cent of the sample already l i v e d i n s i n g l e family homes (Michelson, 1968, 39). Mi c h e l -son a l s o found that the f i f t e e n per cent of f a m i l i e s who did not choose to l i v e i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y home i n the future opted f o r a duplex., t r i p l e x , or row house. I t was observed that no one wanted to l i v e i n a m u l t i - f a m i l y walkup apartment. In the same study, i n response to photographs of a s i n g l e f a m i l y house, a town house, a maisonette, and an u n f a m i l i a r " f u t u r -i s t i c " m u l t i p l e dwelling (of equal s i z e i n t e r n a l l y and the same cost to buy or rent, as d e s i r e d ) , e i g h t y - t h r e e per cent of respondents chose the s i n g l e f a m i l y house, with most of the remaining choices going to the town house (Michelson, 1970a, 190, 191). The choice of a condominium house, as mentioned prev-i o u s l y , was al s o found to be an attempt of the fami l y to 125. approximate a s i n g l e f a m i l y , detached house which was owned. Three out of every four respondents, however, expressed a preference to own a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house i n the f u t u r e . T h e i r current form of housing, t h e r e f o r e , was considered as a temporary type of dwelling u n i t i n the f a m i l y ' s housing c y c l e (Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , 1970, 10). B. M o t i v a t i o n a l Factors A f f e c t i n g R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y and the d e s i r e f o r Home Ownership R e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and the d e s i r e f o r home ownership can be a t t r i b u t e d to s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . Many of the st u d i e s have attempted to determine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the household which cause the family to move. Some f a c t o r s which have been found to r e l a t e to m o b i l i t y are: age of household head; stage i n the fami l y l i f e c y c l e ; type of dwelling u n i t tenure; occupation; income; d e s i r e f o r s t a t u s ; d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s with the house and/or neighborhood; and r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n . In the f o l l o w i n g l i t e r a t u r e review, i t w i l l be noted that some of the above f a c t o r s are i n t e r - r e l a t e d . . For in s t a n c e , the age of the head of the household i s often a s s o c i a t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r stage i n the family l i f e c y c l e . An increase i n income and/or an advancement i n oc c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n i s al s o often r e f l e c t e d i n the d e s i r e f o r a more p r e s t i g i o u s dwelling u n i t or l o c a t i o n . There i s a l s o seen to be some d i f f e r e n c e s i n household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which cause moves, between f a m i l i e s that make l o c a l moves, and those that move longer d i s t a n c e s . 1 26. Some st u d i e s have also been concerned with the features which are p r e f e r r e d i n the ownership of a s i n g l e family detached house. I t i s observed, however, that many of the reasons given f o r r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y are r e l a t e d to the de s i r e to move from a rented dwelling u n i t to one which i s owned, As a r e s u l t , many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s sought i n home ownership appear i n the l i t e r a t u r e on r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . L e s l i e and Richardson point out that the same f a m i l i e s who f i n d a dwelling unit s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r a time may become d i s s a t i s f i e d with i t as the circumstances of the family change ( L e s l i e and Richardson, 1961, 901). One example i s the i n f l u e n c e of the various stages of the famil y l i f e c y c l e which cause changes i n the s i z e of the f a m i l y . Rossi and Spears both note that households i n the e a r l y stages of the family l i f e c y c l e u s u a l l y have many demands on t h e i r f i n a n c i a l resources which a f f e c t t h e i r a b i l i t y to br i n g housing requirements i n t o l i n e with t h e i r needs, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r space. Young married couples u s u a l l y do not have s u f f i c i e n t funds to obtain hous-ing that f u l f i l l s t h e i r needs much i n advance of the time when the famil y s i z e i n c r e a s e s . ( R o s s i , 1955, 72; Spears, 1970, 457). The famil y may al s o consider t h e i r housing incon-gruent with t h e i r socioeconomic stat u s as a r e s u l t of an increased income or higher p o s i t i o n from job r e l a t e d f a c t o r s , or from an i n h e r i t a n c e , and thus move to bri n g these f a c t o r s i n t o l i n e with each other. 127. Rossi has described the migration process as c o n s i s t i n g of "push" and " p u l l " f o r c e s which u s u a l l y operate.together. The household may experience c e r t a i n "push" f a c t o r s which tend to create a d e s i r e to move out of the current dwelling u n i t , and c e r t a i n " p u l l " f a c t o r s which are the d e s i r e d c h a r a c t e r i s t -i c s p e r t a i n i n g to a v a i l a b l e places to which the household may move. They tend to r e i n f o r c e the "push" f a c t o r s . From the r e s u l t s of h i s research Rossi noted that the more numerous the complaints mentioned by a household concerning t h e i r present residence, the more l i k e l y was the d e s i r e to move. Among voluntary movers, i . e . households who have a c l e a r choice between s t a y i n g and moving, the " p u s h - p u l l " f o r c e s are operat-i v e . With i n v o l u n t a r y movers, however, the "push" element u s u a l l y has not been formulated through the buildup of m o b i l i t y d e s i r e s . Examples of i n v o l u n t a r y moves in c l u d e those brought about by e v i c t i o n or d e s t r u c t i o n of the dwelling unit by n a t u r a l elements or man. They may also occur as the r e s u l t of other d e c i s i o n s made by the household, such as to accept or to seek a job i n a d i f f e r e n t area. Influences outside of the family may a l s o cause a temporary or permanent income l o s s which may a l s o mean an i n v o l u n t a r y move to a l e s s expensive dwelling unit (Armiger, 1966, 23; Lansing, C l i f t o n and Morgan, 1969, 26; R o s s i , 1955, 7y,8, 9). According to Abu-Lughod and Foley, c i t e d i n Foote et a l , approximately s i x t y per cent of moves are the r e s u l t of a voluntary d e c i s i o n on the part of the household to seek a new r e s i d e n c e . These households would 1 2 8 . t h u s p r o b a b l y g o t h r o u g h t h e " p u s h - p u l l " p r o c e s s o f f o r m i n g m o b i l i t y d e s i r e s b e f o r e a c t u a l l y l o o k i n g f o r a n e w h o m e ( F o o t e e t a l , 1 960, 1 5 5 ) . C h e v a n p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e r e m a y b e f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o t h e f a m i l y , s u c h a s s o c i a l c l a s s , r a c i a l a n d e t h n i c c o n s i d -e r a t i o n s , a n d a d e q u a c y o f f a m i l y f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t h a t t e n d t o m o d i f y t h e n e e d s , d e s i r e s , o r a b i l i t y o f t h e f a m i l y t o f i n d s u i t a b l e h o u s i n g ( C h e v a n , 1 9 7 1 , 4 5 1 ) . T h e r e a r e o t h e r c o n s t r a i n t s , a s w e l l , w h i c h t e n d t o a l t e r t h e c r i t e r i a s o u g h t i n a n e w d w e l l i n g u n i t , a n d w h i c h m a y b e e v i d e n t i n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e r e s i d e n c e s e l e c t e d , i f a m o v e i s p o s s i b l e . T h r e e e x a m p l e s a r e : t h e h o u s i n g m a r k e t ; t h e c o n -s u m e r ' s k n o w l e d g e o f a v a i l a b l e u n i t s ; a n d t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . I n t h e s e a r c h f o r a n e w r e s i d e n c e t h e h o u s e h o l d u s u a l l y e v a l u a t e s a l t e r n a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s b e f o r e m a k i n g a c h o i c e . D u r i n g t h i s p r o c e s s t h e c o n s u m e r r a r e l y f i n d s e v e r y t h i n g h e d e s i r e s i n o n e d w e l l i n g u n i t . A s p a r t o f t h e s e l e c t i o n p r o -c e s s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e h o u s i n g c o n s u m e r e x p e r i e n c e s t r a d e o f f s i n w h i c h c e r t a i n f a c t o r s b e c o m e o f p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e , w h i l e s t i l l o t h e r f a c t o r s a r e s a c r i f i c e d a l t o g e t h e r . A b u - L u g h o d a n d F o l e y , c i t e d i n F o o t e e t a l , s t a t e t h a t : " T h u s , t h e h o u s i n g c h o i c e i s n o t o n l y a c o m p r o m i s e a m o n g l o c a t i o n , t e n u r e , a n d d w e l l i n g , i t i s a l s o a c o m p r o m i s e w i t h i n d w e l l i n g a m o n g e q u i p m e n t , d e s i g n , s t a t e o f r e p a i r , a n d s p a c e - w i t h c o s t t h e c o m p a r a t i v e l y i n f l e x i b l e l i m i t i n g f a c t o r w h i c h m a k e s t h e o t h e r c h o i c e s n e c e s s a r y . . . 129. Stated preferences may be and often are s e v e r e l y modified on the housing market" (Foote et a l , 1960, 219). With regard to the e v a l u a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e d e s c r i b i n g s t a t e d preferences f o r a r e s i d e n t i a l environment, Lamanna notes that often the things that one i s accustomed to having are taken f o r granted, and t h e r e f o r e , are not mentioned as requirements. Other d e s i r e s which are r e l a t i v e l y absent from one's l i f e experience, however, are apt to be given a great deal of importance in:• s t a t e d preferences (Lamanna, 1964, 321 ). 1. Stage i n Family L i f e Cycle/Age of Head of Household In Rossi's c l a s s i c study of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n P h i l a d e l p h i a , i t was found that the major s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c which d i s t i n g u i s h e d mobile households from s t a b l e ones were v a r i a b l e s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e . Most moves were made by a f a m i l y w i t h i n a decade a f t e r i t s formation, when space requirements changed as did the d e s i r e d s o c i a l environment. M o b i l i t y , t h e r e f o r e , i s u s u a l l y greatest during the p e r i o d when f a m i l i e s are experiencing t h e i r greatest growth, which i s when they r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l space. Rossi notes that the younger the f a m i l y , and the l a r g e r i t s s i z e , the more i n c l i n e d i t i s towards moving. The s i z e of the f a m i l y , however, i s not always r e l a t e d to the l i f e c y c l e , but again the m o b i l i t y d e s i r e i s p r i m a r i l y a response to the need f o r more space i n the dwelling u n i t (Rossi, 1 955 , 6 , 9 , 1 0, 71 , 73) . 1 3D. The formation of a family through marriage i s charact-e r i z e d , i n contemporary s o c i e t y , by the a c q u i s i t i o n ofka separate dwelling u n i t (Foote et a l , 1960, 97; Rossi, 1955, 2). G l i c k and Parke report that " a l l but t h i r t e e n per cent of the married couples i n 1960 who had been married l e s s than a year had e s t a b l i s h e d a separate home" ( G l i c k and Parke, 1965, 198). The t y p i c a l contemporary family thus places a high value on having a separate dwelling unit f o r the nuclear f a m i l y (Beresford and R i v l i n , 1966, 247). Rossi notes that r e s i d e n t i a l s h i f t s are al s o often the r e s u l t of a change i n m a r i t a l s t a t u s brought about by se p a r a t i o n , d i v o r c e , or the death of a family member. The d i s s o l u t i o n of households, however, does not as c o n s i s t e n t l y r e s u l t i n moves as does the formation of new houeholds ( R o s s i , 1955, 2). The a n a l y s i s of the housing c y c l e f o r the median fami l y by Abu-Loghod and Foley, as c i t e d i n Foote et a l , i n d i c a t e s r e s i d e n t i a l moves f o r f i v e of the s i x stages of the fami l y c y c l e : p r e - c h i l d , c h i l d - b e a r i n g ; c h i l d - r e a r i n g ; c h i l d - l a u n c h -i n g ; widowed. As i n Rossi's r e s u l t s , m o b i l i t y i s highest during the c h i l d - b e a r i n g stage, when two or three moves are t y p i c a l (Foote et a l , 1960, 99). Whitney and Grigg found that r e c e n t l y formed f a m i l i e s with the husband and wife i n the younger age groups d i s p l a y e d r e l a t i v e l y high m o b i l i t y rates when compared with f a m i l i e s with teen-age c h i l d r e n . T h e i r data point to the r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y of the middle years of the fami l y l i f e c y c l e with respect to place of residence 131 . (Whitney and Grigg, 1958, 646). In the study of a c e n t r a l area i n Boston by Ross, he found that f a m i l i e s moving within the l o c a l area c i t e d f e a t u r e s of the house and changes i n the fami l y ' s s i z e and composition as the primary causes of moving (Ross, 1962, 262). The research by Lansing, Mueller and Barth of i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i e s moving wit h i n Standard Metropolitan Areas of the United States r e p o r t s that moves were f r e q u e n t l y made due to changes i n the fami l y s i z e and composition, f o r i n s t a n c e , marriage, b i r t h s , death or d i v o r c e , which a l t e r e d the r e q u i r e -ments f o r space (Lansing, Mueller and Barth, 1964, 20). Spears, i n h i s r e s u l t s on m o b i l i t y between 1948 and 1967 f o r Rhode Island r e s i d e n t s , s t a t e s that "Apparently the resettlement process which i s i n i t i a t e d with marriage i s often, not completed with the o r i g i n a l move to e s t a b l i s h a new home f o r the newly married couple." The r e s u l t s of the st u d i e s of Rossi and Abu-Lughod and Foley are again confirmed, since m o b i l i t y i s high during the e a r l y stages of the family l i f e c y c l e , p a r t i c -u l a r l y when c h i l d r e n are born, and then d e c l i n e during the middle stages of c h i l d - r e a r i n g and c h i l d launching. 5peare's r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e , however, that persons who marry e a r l i e r than average and those who have c h i l d r e n e a r l i e r than average appear to have higher m o b i l i t y rates than average, while those who marry l a t e r and have c h i l d r e n l a t e r have lower m o b i l i t y r a t e s . It i s a l s o noted again that, when death of one marriage partner occurs a f t e r the p o s t c h i l d stage of the fami l y l i f e c y c l e , the 1 32 . p r o b a b i l i t y o f m o v i n g i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e d , and t h a t a move i s u n d e r t a k e n by a t l e a s t one p a r t n e r when s e p a r a t i o n o r d i v o r c e b r e a k s t h e m a r r i a g e u n i o n ( S p e a r e , 1970, 4 5 3 , 4 5 4 ) . The s t u d y c o n d u c t e d by C h e v a n , i n t h e e a r l y n i n e t e e n -s i x t i e s , o f r e s i d e n t i a l h i s t o r i e s f o r h o u s e h o l d s w i t h i n t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a and T r e n t o n S t a n d a r d M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l A r e a s , a l s o s u p p o r t s the e f f e c t o f an i n c r e a s e i n f a m i l y s i z e on m o b i l i t y . He n o t e s t h a t i n any g i v e n p e r i o d t h e b i r t h o f c h i l d r e n i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h e r r a t e s o f m o b i l i t y f o r t h a t p e r i o d , and t h e more c h i l d r e n b o r n , t h e h i g h e r t h e r a t e s o f m o v i n g . T h i s i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n o f f a m i l y members i n c r e a s e s t h e p r e s s u r e on t h e a v a i l a b l e h o u s i n g s p a c e . H i s d a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t r a t e s o f m o b i l i t y a r e h i g h d u r i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f m a r r i a g e , and t h e n d e c l i n e d u r i n g s u b s e q u e n t y e a r s ( C h e v a n , 1971 , 4 5 3 , 454 , 4 5 6 ) . The 1963 s t u d y by D e u t s c h m a n o f h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e New Y o r k M e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a i n d i c a t e s t h a t an i n c r e a s e i n f a m i l y s i z e i s r e l a t e d t o m o b i l i t y . He f o u n d t h a t t h e g r o u p most a f f e c t e d .was t h e two p e r s o n f a m i l y i n c r e a s i n g t o t h r e e p e r s o n s When t h e f a m i l y s i z e r e m a i n e d c o n s t a n t w i t h two p e r s o n s t h e r a t e o f m o b i l i t y was t w e n t y p e r c e n t , The r a t e r o s e f r o m 2 . 3 t o 3 .4 t i m e s t h i s f i g u r e , h o w e v e r , when t h e f a m i l y i n c r e a s e d i n s i z e ( D e u t s c h m a n , 1972, 3 5 3 ) . The age o f t h e head o f the h o u s e h o l d i s a l s o an i n d i c a t o r o f t h e t e n d e n c y t o move. As p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , t h e d i f f e r -1 33. ent ages are often a s s o c i a t e d with s p e c i f i c stages of the family l i f e c y c l e . In the study by Abu-Lughod and Foley, m o b i l i t y i s highest when the husband's age i s between twenty-five and t h i r t y - f o u r (Foote et a l , 1960, 99). It has been noted i n Rossi's study, a l s o , that households with a head under t h i r t y -f i v e years of age has the highest m o b i l i t y . Rossi s t a t e s that " i t (the e a r l y stages of family l i f e c y c l e ) i s the period i n which the household, because of the f i n a n c i a l demands made upon i t by these r a p i d changes i n s i z e and composition, i s l e a s t l i k e l y to be able to bring housing i n t o l i n e with i t s needs" (R o s s i , 1955, 72, 73). The study by B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van A r s d o l concluded that the age of the household head d i f f e r e n t i a t e d movers from nonmovers more f r e q u e n t l y than other v a r i a b l e s ( B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van A r s d o l , 1963/64, 150). C l i c k , f r o m data of the nineteen f i f t y United 5tates census, notes that the m o b i l i t y r a t e was twice as high i n f a m i l i e s where the head was under t h i r t y -f i v e years of age as i n those where he was from t h i r t y - f i v e to f o r t y - f o u r years o l d , and f i v e times higher than when he had reached the age of s i x t y - f i v e '(Glick, 1 957, 79). The study by Speare i n 1968 a l s o confirms the r e l a t i o n -ship betwees m o b i l i t y and age. The m o b i l i t y rates are highest f o r the eighteen to twenty-four age group. They d e c l i n e u n t i l the f o r t y - f i v e to f i f t y - f o u r age group, a f t e r which he found, i n c o n t r a s t to some s t u d i e s , that m o b i l i t y rates remained approximately constant. From the r e s u l t s of h i s research 1 34 . Speare s t r e s s e s the f a c t that persons of the same l i f e c y c l e stage but of d i f f e r e n t ages e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t m o b i l i t y r a t e s ; and persons of the same age but at d i f f e r e n t l i f e c y c l e stages are often quite d i f f e r e n t i n t h e i r m o b i l i t y behavior (Speare, 1970, 453, 457). Deutschman notes that the average household headed by a man i n h i s e a r l y t h i r t i e s would have two times the probab-i l i t y of moving as compared to the household headed by a man i n h i s e a r l y f o r t i e s ; and three times the p r o b a b i l i t y to move as a household headed by a man of f i f t y years (Deutschman, 1972, 350). The d e s i r e f o r , and degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n with home ownership a l s o v a r i e s with stages i n the famil y l i f e c y c l e and the age of the household head. Branch found that the greatest d e s i r e f o r , or s a t i s f a c t i o n with home ownership (seventy-eight per cent) was expressed by household heads under t h i r t y and by f a m i l i e s with young c h i l d r e n . The l e a s t s a t i s f a c t i o n with home ownership ( s i x t y - s e v e n per cent) was found among the age group over f i f t y . Only twenty-five per cent of the younger group were a c t u a l l y home owners, whereas t h i r t y - t h r e e per cent of the ol d e r group owned homes (Branch, 1942, 21). In the more recent study by Lansing and Hendricks approximately n i n e t y - f i v e per cent of married couples with c h i l d r e n , who l i v e d i n rented m u l t i p l e f a m i l y accomodation expressed a d e s i r e f o r a s i n g l e family house, due to the 1 35. i n c r e a s e i n f a m i l y s i z e a s s o c i a t e d with the family l i f e c y c l e (Lansing and Hendricks, 1967, 35). 2. Tenure Many st u d i e s of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y show that the type of tenure of the dwelling u n i t i s a major determinant i n the d e c i s i o n to move. Renters are found to be more mobile than owners, p a r t i c u l a r l y r e n t e r s who seek ownership. Rossi's study i n d i c a t e s that r e n t e r s who p r e f e r to own are c o n s i d e r -ably more mobile than r e n t e r s p r e f e r r i n g to r e n t . He found that f o r t y - s e v e n per cent were anxious to move to an owned dwelling u n i t , whereas twenty-one per cent were anxious to move to other rented accommodation. His study also shows that sixty-one per cent of r e n t e r s wanted to move, whereas only t h i r t y - t h r e e per cent of owners had that d e s i r e ( R o s s i , 1955, 68-70). The study by Whitney and Grigg a l s o confirms the higher rates of m o b i l i t y among ren t e r s as compared to home-owners (Whitney and Grigg, 1958, 646). Lansing, Mueller and Barth also found that one of the major reasons given f o r moving was that f a m i l i e s wanted to become home owners (Lansing, Mueller and Barth, 1964, 20). In a study by Brademas the respondents gave the d e s i r e f o r home ownership as the reason f o r l e a v i n g t h e i r previous neighborhood i n twenty per cent of the r e l o c a t i o n cases i n t e r -viewed (Brademas, 1956, 79). 1 36. It was found by Lansing, C l i f t o n and Morgan that there may be an a t t i t u d e of "temporary" towards a r e n t a l type of tenure, as compared to home ownership, which caused a d e s i r e to move (Lansing, C l i f t o n and Morgan, 1969, 26). Lansing and Mueller note that, of recent movers, about three out of ten owned t h e i r homes before they moved, and about four out of ten owned t h e i r homes a f t e r they moved (Lansing and Mueller, 1967, 152). B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van Arsdol found that over f i f t y per cent of a l l the previous r e n t e r s i n t h e i r sample changed to ownership i n t h e i r most recent move ( B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van A r s d o l , 1969, 2). 5pearefe study i n d i c a t e s that, on the average, r e n t e r s were four to f i v e times more l i k e l y to move than home owners (Speare, 1970, 457). This rate of m o b i l i t y was found to be lower i n the research of Deutschman. He notes that the l i k e l i h o o d of r e n t e r s moving i n a given time period i s two times greater than that of ^  owners (Deutschman, 1972, 352). A primary motive f o r the preference of owned tenure over rented i s due to the i n c r e a s e d opportunity f o r i n d i v i d -u a l i t y and independence when t i t l e to the residence i s held by the occupants. Although the owner has c e r t a i n l e g a l con-s t r a i n t s on h i s property, such^as municipal by-laws r e l a t i n g to zoning, he i s not r e s t r i c t e d i n his a c t i v i t i e s by a land-l o r d . One of the expressed advantages of ownership i s the f a c t that a l t e r a t i o n s may be made to the residence as d e s i r e d by the f a m i l y . The property can, t h e r e f o r e , be modified to 1 37. f u l f i l l the needs of the family more s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , f o r ins t a n c e , by adding rooms or e n l a r g i n g e x i s t i n g ones and by pr o v i d i n g play equipment f o r c h i l d r e n . I n d i v i d u a l i t y can also be achieved through s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n by p a i n t i n g walls any c o l o r d e s i r e d , or by c o n s t r u c t i n g b u i l t - i n f u r n i t u r e . The f a m i l y can, t h e r e f o r e , create an environment that i s s u i t e d to t h e i r t a s t e s (United States Savings and Loan League, 1964, 29). A recent study by Michelson notes that of four d i f f e r e n t housing types, s i n g l e f a m i l y , row house, walk up, and high r i s e , t h e highest percentage of respondents c i t e d i n d i v i d u a l i s m as a value a s s o c i a t e d with a s i n g l e f a m i l y house (Michelson, 1970b, 143). It i s al s o recognized that another reason f o r the pre-ference of owned tenure, as opposed to r e n t a l tenure, may be due to some tax p r o v i s i o n s that encourage home ownership (Beyer, 1965, 361). For ins t a n c e , i n the United States, there are p o s s i b l e income tax advantages f o r home purchasers, which are not a p p l i c a b l e to r e n t e r s , since taxes and i n t e r e s t charges on the loan f o r the purchase of the dwelling u n i t may be deducted f o r income tax purposes ( T r o e l s t r u p , 1965, 268). In Canada, a l s o , there are c e r t a i n tax advantages a s s o c i a t e d with home ownership. In B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r ins t a n c e , p r o v i s i o n s are made f o r a rebate on property taxes f o r home owners (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1960, Chapt. 308). L e g i s l a t o r s , t h e r e f o r e , encourage home ownership through tax p r o v i s i o n s , as we l l as through mortgage lendi n g p o l i c i e s , 1 38. as p r e v i o u s l y mentioned i n t h i s chapter. 3 . Economic/Status Economic f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g to jobs are a l s o an import-ant i n f l u e n c e on r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r long distance moves. Changes i n a job or o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n are often accompanied by an i n c r e a s e i n income and/or a higher p o s i t i o n . Such changes f r e q u e n t l y r e f l e c t an increase i n s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e which not only creates a d e s i r e , but may a l s o provide the resources f o r a " b e t t e r " dwelling u n i t , or dwelling unit l o c a t i o n . Lansing and Mueller s t a t e that " i t i s c l e a r that members of the l a b o r force move l a r g e l y f o r economic reasons: s i x t y -one per cent mentioned economic reasons only." I t should be noted, however, that the respondents were p r i m a r i l y persons who had made long distance moves, thus the moves were motivated by job r e l a t e d f a c t o r s . P r o f e s s i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l people, i n p a r t i c u l a r , moved f o r economic reasons (Lansing and Mueller, 1967, 59). Anderson a l s o r e p o r t s that, among migrants, an i n c r e a s e i n education also tends to increase the propensity to move. She found that the best-educated group has the*! highest r a t e of migration, and that the., c o l l e g e educated people tend to dominate the long distance migratory movements. It i s thus the p r o f e s s i o n a l and s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l employees who are the most mobile (Anderson, 1966, 32). Lansing, Mueller and Barth found that moving plans vary l i t t l e by income group, 1 39. but i n c r e a s e i n frequency with higher education (Lansing, Mueller and Barth, 1964, 18). In the study by Whitney and Grigg, however, i t appeared that f a m i l i e s with below average incomes,and those who held b l u e - c o l l a r and c l e r i c a l jobs, r a t h e r than managerial and p r o f e s s i o n a l p o s i t i o n s , had a higher m o b i l i t y rate (Whitney and Grigg, 1958, 646). Deutschman's study i n d i c a t e s that unemployed workers show a high m o b i l i t y rate due to the f a c t that they move to seek b e t t e r employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Laborers were found to have the highest rate of movement f o r the study p e r i o d . P r o f e s s i o n a l workers a l s o e x h i b i t e d a very high rate o f r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . The occupation of "managers, o f f i c i a l s and p r o p r i e t o r s , " as w e l l as r e t i r e d workers, had the lowest rate of r e s i d e n t i a l movements. This study also reports that the i n f l u e n c e of a new job on a new residence i s evident i n approximately one-quarter of a l l moves (Deutsch-man, 1972, 351, 352). I n c o n g r u i t i e s between the household's perception of t h e i r socio-economic status and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and/or l o c a t i o n of t h e i r present dwelling u n i t i s f r e q u e n t l y a reason f o r moving. Rossi found that the d e s i r e f o r a p a r t -i c u l a r l o c a t i o n was second i n importance when lo o k i n g f o r a new dw e l l i n g . He f e l t that the i n t e r e s t i n s p e c i f i c neigh-borhoods was r e l a t e d to the f a c t that the area symbolized an e s p e c i a l l y d e s i r e d " s o c i a l c l i m a t e " (Rossi, 1955, 153, 155). 140. Beyer, Mackesey and Montgomery found i n t h e i r study of household's i n B u f f a l o that movement to suburban areas was p a r t l y a desire', to be with the " r i g h t s o r t of people" (Beyer, Mackesey and Montgomery, 1955, 32). Paxton's study of households, whose reason f o r moving was to buy a house, i n d i c a t e s that the d e s i r e f o r a "good" l o c a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y one where the neighbors would be con g e n i a l , was of s i g n i f i c a n t importance (Paxton, 1955, 15). Whitney and Grigg's data shows that ninety per cent of l o c a l moves were c a t e g o r i z e d as status reasons (Whitney and Grigg, 1958, 650). The 1958 research of Lamanna i n Greensboro, North C a r o l i n a , i n d i c a t e s that the s o c i a l a t t r i -butes of the r e s i d e n t i a l environment, p a r t i c u l a r l y s t a t u s , i ; e . "the r i g h t kind of people", ranked second and t h i r d out of a p o s s i b l e t h i r t e e n v a r i a b l e s . The l e a s t d e s i r a b l e feature of a community was the heterogeneity of types of persons (Lamanna, 1964, 318). B e l l ' s study a l s o i n d i c a t e s that households d e s i r e a neighborhood with " p e o p l e - l i k e - Q u r s e l v e s " ( B e l l , 1968, 236). Pape notes, from his research of middle management personnel i n Vancouver, that a majority of moves i n t o t h e i r present or previous residences were made i n order to adjust residence requirements to the f a m i l y ' s sta t u s and p r e s t i g e needs as they changed with employment p o s i t i o n (Pape, 1959, i i i , i v ) . The r e s u l t s of the study by Ross i n d i c a t e that status reasons are important i n moving, p a r t i c u l a r l y among households 141 . d e s i r i n g to move from the c e n t r a l c i t y to a p e r i p h e r a l urban area (Ross, 1962, 262). L e s l i e and Richardson found i n t h e i r study of households r e s i d i n g i n a r e l a t i v e l y new urban sub-d i v i s i o n that upward s o c i a l m o b i l i t y f a r outweighed a l l other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n producing r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . Of f o r t y -four households who moved during one year, forty-two were judged tohave done so as part of the process of upward s o c i a l m o b i l i t y ( L e s l i e and Richardson, 1961, 899). Evidence of s o c i a l m o b i l i t y i s al s o apparent i n the research of B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van A r s d o l . T h e i r f i n d i n g s suggest that, among persons d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r neighborhoods, those who per-ceive neighborhood l o c a t i o n as being i n d i c a t i v e of statu s are more l i k e l y to be movers than those who do not ( B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van A r s d o l , 1963/64, 148). With respect to both the incidence of home ownership and the d e s i r e f o r i t , there are al s o d i f f e r e n c e s among the population sub-groups which r e l a t e to socio-economic s t a t u s . Meyerson et a l note from a study of home ownership by the Bureau of Labor S t a t i s t i c s , that the degree of preference f o r home ownership v a r i e s markedly by income group: i n the upper-income group i t i s approximately eighty per cent, s e v e n t y - f i v e per cent i n the middle-income group; and s i x t y - s i x per cent i n the low-income group (Meyerson et a l , 1962, 56, 57, 85). Abu-Lughod and Foley, c i t e d i n Foote et a l , note the f a c t that those o c c u p a t i o n a l groups which s t r i v e the greatest f o r middle c l a s s a t t r i b u t e s , have the greatest p o s i t i v e motivation 142. f o r home ownership. This d e s i r e , t h e r e f o r e , i s stronger i n the w h i t e - c o l l a r c l a s s than among u n s k i l l e d or s e m i s k i l l e d workers (Foote et a l , 1960, 191). Dean observes that the des i r e f o r ownership between these groups i s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t reasons: " . . . w h i t e - c o l l a r workers are drawn toward homeownership by ... the de s i r e f o r a be t t e r neighborhood and a more up-to-date house...while having a place f o r t h e i r old age appeals more to wage earners" (Dean, 1951, 66). The quest f o r s e c u r i t y through home ownership, which assures a home f o r old age, i s noted i n an e a r l i e r study ("The A Urge to Own", 1937, 374). This a t t i t u d e was confirmed i n the e a r l y study by Branch, as i n d i c a t e d by the f a c t that the most important reason why renters wanted to own was f o r s e c u r i t y or s t a b i l i t y reasons (Branch, 1942, 15). Reasons r e l a t e d : t o s e c u r i t y , again f o r old age, and a source of s t a b i l i t y f o r the family i n contemporary s o c i e t y were also evident i n Rosow's f i n d i n g s (Rosow, 1948, 753). The above d e s i r e f o r s e c u r i t y and s t a b i l i t y i s l a r g e l y r e l a t e d to p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s . The f e e l i n g of " s e c u r i t y " , however, can be based on f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . In general there i s the b e l i e f that ownership of a dwelling u n i t , as opposed to r e n t i n g , i s more economical and w i l l lead to an incr e a s e d r e t u r n of the investment on r e s a l e . This b e l i e f , author unknown 1 43. although not n e c e s s a r i l y v a l i d f o r a l l households, i s con-firmed i n many s t u d i e s . Research f i n d i n g s which were reported i n 1937 give the reasons of "more economical i n long run" and "good investment" as the second and t h i r d most important reasons f o r p r e f e r r i n g to own ("Urge to Own", 1937, 374). Paxton found that the reasons given f o r buying a home that were " f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s " r e f e r r e d to: the investment aspect of buying; higher r e n t a l payments than f o r a house; and s e c u r i t y i n owning a home (Paxton, 1955, 10). Rosow found that there was the f o l l o w i n g a t t i t u d e toward the secur-i t y aspect of home ownership: "Presumably by purchasing a home, rent payments become a type of "savings" since property i s being acquired rather than payments being made f o r the p r i v i l e g e of tenancy. This r e a l property i s p o t e n t i a l l y a l i q u i d asset of n e c e s s i t y , whereas rent (as use payment) i s noncumulative and, hence, no a s s e t " (Rosow, 1948, 753, 754). Greenwald s t a t e s that one of the advantages of owning i s that i t provides a saving i n c e n t i v e , and that i t i s p o s s i b l e to b e n e f i t c o n s i d e r a b l y when house p r i c e s are i n c r e a s i n g i f one s e l l s a house, p r o v i d i n g that a new one can be acquired at a reasonable cost (Greenwald, 1958, 75). The 1969 Canadian Federal Task Force s t a t e s that: "People seem almost to have accepted c o n t i n u i n g i n f l a t i o n as away of economic l i f e , and, having done so, they are look-ing more and more to investment sources f o r t h e i r earnings and savings which seem to o f f e r p r o t e c t i o n against d e c l i n i n g purchasing power. In the recent years at l e a s t , there have been fewer b e t t e r sources than s i n g l e family dwellings, p r i c e s of 144 . which g e n e r a l l y have been r i s i n g i n a supply-short market, at rates s u f f i c i e n t to cover o f f even the worst i n f l a t i o n a r y l o s s . S i n g l e - f a m i l y dwellings then i n c r e a s i n g l y have become not only a place to l i v e , but a good investment as w e l l " (Federal Task Force, 1969, 17). The ownership of a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house i s a l s o considered to be a source of p r e s t i g e . Abu-Lughod and Foley, i n Foote et a l , s t a t e that the house assumes "...a symbol of economic achievement and s o c i a l standing" (Foote et a l , 1960, 111). Rosow's study i n d i c a t e s that s t a t u s - p r e s t i g e d e s i r e s ranked second i n importance i n the motive f o r home ownership (Rosow, 1948, 752). Meyerson et a l note the f a c t that: "... homeownership seems to give many people a l a r g e r measure of p r e s t i g e and s o c i a l status than they obtain through r e n t a l tenure. These people b e l i e v e , that, i n the eyes of the community, they become s t a b l e and dependable c i t i z e n s when they become home owners" (Meyerson et a l , 1962, 85). 4 . R e s i d e n t i a l Environment The degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n / d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the r e s i d e n t i a l environment, which, f o r the purposes of t h i s paper i n c l u d e s the dwelling u n i t i t s e l f and the neighborhood charact-e r i s t i c s , i s another f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g the m o b i l i t y of f a m i l -i e s and t h e i r d e s i r e f o r home ownership. Meyerson et a l point out that the housing consumer cannot s e l e c t housing apart from a package of r e l a t e d goods and s e r v i c e s : "With the house go schools, churches, shops, v i s u a l environment, places to play, neighbors, stat u s a t t r i b u t e s , a municipal adminstration, a journey to 145. - work ( p e r h a p s w i t h a commitment t o a p a r t i c u l a r f o r m o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) , and even an o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l and c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s - i n s h o r t , a way o f l i f e " ( M e y e r s o n e t a l , 1962, 5 ) . Some s t u d i e s have a t t e m p t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f t h e r e s i d e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t w h i c h c a u s e moves. In g e n e r a l , d w e l l i n g u n i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e f o u n d t o be s t r o n g e r m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s t h a n n e i g h b o r h o o d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . D w e l l i n g u n i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e a l s o f o u n d t o be more i m p o r t -an t i n t h e c h o i c e o f a r e s i d e n c e . Brown and Moore n o t e , how-e v e r , t h a t c e r t a i n n e i g h b o r h o o d s a r e e l i m i n a t e d f r o m c o n s i d -e r a t i o n b e f o r e t h e s e a r c h f o r a new d w e l l i n g u n i t b e g i n s , b a s e d on t h e h o u s e h o l d ' s knowledge o f r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s and t h e c r i t e r i a d e s i r e d i n t h e new l o c a t i o n . The s e a r c h f o r a s u i t a b l e d w e l l i n g u n i t , t h e r e f o r e , i s r e s t r i c t e d t o c e r t a i n g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s o f t h e community (Brown and Moore, 1 9 7 1 , 2 0 7 ) . I t i s a l s o o f t e n e v i d e n t t h a t c a u s e s o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e d w e l l i n g u n i t i n w h i c h t h e f a m i l y i s l i v i n g a r e r e -f l e c t e d i n t h e c r i t e r i a s o u g h t i n t h e new d w e l l i n g u n i t . As p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , t h e r e a r e f r e q u e n t l y t r a d e o f f s e n c o u n t -e r e d d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h p r o c e s s w h i c h a l t e r t h e h e i r a r c h y o f p r e f e r e n c e s . R o s s i f o u n d i n h i s s t u d y t h a t c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t t h e s p a c e w i t h i n t h e d w e l l i n g were most i m p o r t a n t i n d i s t i n g u i s h -i n g between m o b i l e and s t a b l e h o u s e h o l d s . T h i s d i s s a t i s f a c t -i o n was f o l l o w e d by c o m p l a i n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d , and t h e c o s t 146. a s s o c i a t e d with the dwelling u n i t . Complaints about the journey to work, and about the distance from f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s were found to be only s l i g h t l y r e l a t e d to m o b i l i t y d e s i r e s . The c r i t e r i a sought i n choosing the new home, i n rank order, were: space i n the dwelling u n i t , p a r t i c u l a r dwelling design f e a t u r e s , dwelling l o c a t i o n , and f i n a l l y c o s t. Cost, however, appeared as the major c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the a c t u a l choice, followed by space, l o c a t i o n and neighborhood c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Rossi, 1955, 154, 164). f a c t o r households would s a c r i f i c e f e a t u r e s of the house f i r s t : u s u a l l y one l e s s room, and l e s s expensive d e t a i l s , such as f i r e p l a c e s and b u i l t - i n equipment; and next they would s a c r i -f i c e l o c a t i o n , as respondents would choose a l e s s expensive-s i t e (Paxton, 1955, 16). d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the current residence i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the ma j o r i t y of d e c i s i o n s to move with i n the same community. The major sources of complaint, which confirm Rossi's f i n d i n g s , are summarized by Abu-Lughod and Foley i n descending order of t h e i r importance f o r c r e a t i n g m o b i l i t y d e s i r e s : i n s u f f i c i e n t space wi t h i n the dwelling; an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s o c i a l composition of the neighborhood surrounding the dwelling; a too high cost of housing, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to the value r e c e i v e d ; and poor design and layout of the dwelling u n i t (Foote et a l , Paxton notes that when p r i c e becomes a ' c o n s t r a i n i n g Abu-Lughod and Foley, c i t e d i n Foote et a l , note that 1960, 155, 156). 147. The reasons given i n Dewey's study f o r moving from the urban center to the periphery of Milwaukee are p r i m a r i l y r e l a t e d to the d e s i r e f o r a b e t t e r environment f o r c h i l d r e n . This d e s i r e accounts f o r eightyeone per cent of the responses given as the reason f o r moving (Dewey, 1948, 121). The study of Ross i n Boston i s a l s o concerned with the reasons f o r d e s i r i n g to move to and from a c e n t r a l c i t y area. The reasons given by l o c a l movers are p r i m a r i l y r e l a t e d to f e a t u r e s of the house, p a r t i c u l a r l y the lack of space. The q u a l i t y of the neighborhood i s l e s s important, and convenience of l o c a t i o n i s l e a s t important. For distance movers, however, l o c a t i o n i s most important, and i s followed by features of the house and s t a t u s reasons (Ross, 1962, 262). In the r e s u l t s of the study by Whitney and Grigg i t was found that with l o c a l moves only nine per cent of the reasons f o r moving were a s s o c i a t e d with non-status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the dwelling u n i t . Moves to a " b e t t e r " house, to a " b e t t e r " s t r e e t , or to a "more d e s i r a b l e " neighborhood, which r e f l e c t neighborhood and housing d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s , were c a t e g o r i z e d as sta t u s reasons (Whitney and Grigg, 1958, 650). The r e s u l t s of the research by B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van Arsdol i n d i c a t e that, i n e v a l u a t i n g environmental f a c t o r s as the causes of moves, housing u n i t d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s are of more importance than neighborhood c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ( B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van A r s d o l , 1963/64, 151). 148. Lansing, Mueller and Barth found that for households who had moved within the past five years the primary factors in the moving decision were: the house i t s e l f , thirty-two per cent; neighborhood considerations, twenty-two per cent; nearness to place of work, thirteen per cent; other location-considerations, eighteen per cent; cost considerations, four-teen per cent. In expressed reasons for plans to move, the characteristics of the house were again the most important. This study, therefore, again indicates the important role of the degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n / d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the dwelling unit in the moving decision (Lansing, Mueller-and Barth, 1964, 21). The importance of the dwelling unit i s confirmed in the 1964 study by Weiss, Kenny and Stiffens of middle class fam-i l i e s residing in newly constructed, suburban, single family houses around Greensboro, North Carolina. The six most import-ant factors in choosing present and future r e s i d e n t i a l units indicate that the characteristics of the individual dwelling unit are most important. The provision of s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r i o r storage space and rooms ranks f i r s t , and the arrangement of rooms ranks sixth. The cost of the dwelling unit and l o t , which ranks t h i r d , indicates, as in Rossi's results, that this aspect of housing i s a major factor. The desire for a large lot ranks f i f t h . Both physical and social characteristics of the neighborhood are important factors. The quality and char-acter of the homes ranks second while the desire for a neigh-borhood with a good reputation and prestige ranks fourth. It 149. i s important to note, however, that each of the above items was ranked f i r s t by at l e a s t twenty-eight per cent, and up to s i x t y - n i n e per cent of the respondents (Weiss, Kenny and S t e f f e n s , 1966, 27-29). Lamanna's research f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e that the p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the neighborhood, with the exception of "good roads and sidewalks", which ranked f i r s t , were c l u s t e r e d towards the bottom of the sc a l e (Lamanna, 1 964 , 31 8). The data from a study by Greenbie of f a m i l i e s i n Madison al s o confirms the f i n d i n g s of other researchers that reasons r e l a t i n g to the house predominate over neighborhood reasons f o r moving. In the two areas from which he drew h i s sample, the c i t y centre and a suburb, the respondents i n d i c a t e d that f o r both t h e i r previous and present residence, the house was more important than the neighborhood. The l a r g e s t percentage of responses (forty-one and f o r t y - t h r e e per cent) to the quest-ion of why they moved from t h e i r previous home was a de s i r e f o r a bigger house. In r e p l y to a question as to whether the family would have stayed i n t h e i r former neighborhood i f i t was p o s s i b l e to replace the house there i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, there were a s i g n i f i c a n t number of respondents (forty-two and f o r t y per cent) who answered "yes." When asked i f they would r e p l a c e , i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, t h e i r present house on the same s i t e with a more s u i t a b l e one, there was again a s i m i l a r response. This i n d i c a t e s that many f a m i l i e s would remain i n a neighborhood i f they could improve t h e i r dwelling u n i t (Greenbie, 1968, 77, 79, 80, 84). 1 50. A m o b i l i t y study during the n i n e t e e n - s i x t i e s by B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van Arsdol of households i n f o r t y - t h r e e metropolitan areas across the Unites States reports housing and neighborhood preferences. A dwelling u n i t that has a nice appearance i n s i d e and a l e s s d e s i r a b l e outside appearance, i s overwhelmingly p r e f e r r e d to a place that presents a very nice outside appear-ance but l e s s d e s i r a b l e appearance i n s i d e . The i n t e r i o r char-a c t e r i s t i c s of the dwelling u n i t , t h e r e f o r e , are of more importance than those of the e x t e r i o r . A b e t t e r neighborhood q u a l i t y with e i t h e r a l e s s d e s i r a b l e housing unit or a l e s s a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n i s al s o overwhelmingly p r e f e r r e d to a l e s s d e s i r a b l e neighborhood with e i t h e r a b e t t e r housing u n i t or be t t e r a c c e s s i b i l i t y . This l a s t preference i s i n co n t r a s t to the prime importance given to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the dwell-ing u n i t as expressed i n many of the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned s t u d i e s ( B u t l e r , Sabagh and Van Ar s d o l , 1969, 2). Beyer con-firms the observations of B u t l e r et a l , as he st a t e s that features of the l o c a t i o n have precedence over the dwelling unit design: "... the most s a t i s f a c t o r i l y designed house or apartment can become an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y place to l i v e i f i t i s not i n a d e s i r a b l e l o c a t i o n . In f a c t , i f a choice i s required between a house that l a c k s c e r t a i n design q u a l i t i e s but which i s s i t u a t e d i n a d e s i r -able l o c a t i o n and one that i s we l l designed bu;t s i t u a t e d i n an undesirable l o c a t i o n , most f a m i l i e s probably would choose the former" (Beyer, 1965, 313). In Michelson's recent study of housing expectations of households moving, and int e n d i n g to move wi t h i n a suburban 151 . s i n g l e f a m i l y housing area, and a h i g h - r i s e c e n t r a l c i t y area of Greater Toronto, he found that s e v e r a l dwelling u n i t charact-e r i s t i c s were s l i g h t l y more important than the neighborhood. The general c a t e g o r i e s of main reasons given by both wives and husbands f o r the move away from the current home are ranked as f o l l o w s : dwelling u n i t ; u n i t i n t e r i o r s i z e and l a y -out; e x t e r i o r s e t t i n g ; family composition; and neighborhood. The general c a t e g o r i e s of main reasons given by both wives and husbands f o r the choice of a-new residence are ranked as f o l l o w s : u n i t i n t e r i o r s i z e and layout; neighborhood; e x t e r -i o r s e t t i n g ; access; and dwelling u n i t . It i s noted that d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s causing the "push" are often r e l a t e d to the f a c t o r s c r e a t i n g the " p u l l . " The p r i o r i t y of the f a c t o r s operating i n the " p u s h - p u l l " f o r c e s , however, often are not i d e n t i c a l . T h i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n the increased importance of neighborhood c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n the choice of a new residence, as w e l l as access (Michelson, 1972, 85, 88). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l o c a t i o n of the residence and some other f a c t o r s , such as place of work and proximity to f r i e n d s does not appear to be a p a r t i c u l a r l y important con-s i d e r a t i o n i n the choice of a dwelling u n i t . Rossi's f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e the b e l i e f that a d e s i r a b l e " s o c i a l c l i m a t e " has greater p r i o r i t y than the convenience to t h e i r jobs, or to f r i e n d s ( Rossi, 1955, 155). Lamanna found that respondents i n hi s study gave a low rank to the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of various a c t i v i t i e s , s e r v i c e s and the closeness to f r i e n d s (Lamanna, 1964, 318). 1 52. Wolforth i n his Vancouver study of the place of work-residence r e l a t i o n s h i p concludes that t h i s distance appears to be a l e s s important determinant of r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n than the costs of housing (Wolforth, 1965, i v ) . Beyer, Mac-kesey, and Montgomery found that the closeness to work was one of the f a c t o r s often s a c r i f i c e d i n " t r a d e - o f f s . " : "Though i t i s g e n e r a l l y assumed that people would l i k e to l i v e where they can get to work as cheaply, q u i c k l y , and conveniently as p o s s i b l e , they ( f a m i l i e s ) w i l l forego these conven-iences i n favor of c e r t a i n other con-s i d e r a t i o n s . .. " (Beyer, Mackesesy and Montgomery, 1955, 36). Lansing, Mueller and Barth found that l i v i n g c l o s e to the place of work was of "no importance at a l l " to f o r t y per cent of recent movers, and only "somewhat important" to another twenty-five per cent. These responses were p a r t i c u l -a r l y evident among married couples with c h i l d r e n (Lansing, Mueller and Barth, 1964, 38). Deutschman s t a t e s that the young married couple without c h i l d r e n seeks to maximize the i n t e r a c t i o n of the nearness to work and entertainment. They, t h e r e f o r e , u s u a l l y l o c a t e i n the c i t y c entre. When c h i l d r e n are added to the household the famil y goes through a t r a n s i t -i o n a l p e r i o d . The d e s i r e f o r closeness i n time, cost and convenience to the worksite and entertainment d e c l i n e s , and i s replaced by the need f o r an increased amount of l i v i n g space, proximity to playgrounds and parks, and nearness to schools (Deutschman, 1972, 350). The de s i r e f o r nearness to schools was evident i n the study of the home purchase d e c i s i o n 1 53. by Weiss, Kenny and St e f f e n s as respondents ranked t h i s f a c t o r as seventh i n importance, from a l i s t of approximately f o r t y items, i n choosing present and future r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n s . It i s noted that the majority of respondents had school-aged c h i l d r e n (Weiss, Kenny and S t e f f e n s , 1966, 27). The preference of f a m i l i e s f o r a s i n g l e family detached house i s a l s o p r i m a r i l y r e l a t e d to s t r u c t u r a l features of the dwelling u n i t and the l o t . In general, the s i z e of detached homes, as compared with apartments, i s l a r g e r , as the former u s u a l l y has both a l a r g e r amount of f l o o r space and number of rooms (Foote et a l , 1960, 200; Winnick, 1957, 78). This pro-vides the family with a greater opportunity to a t t a i n p r i v a c y f o r i n d i v i d u a l members, as w e l l as a place f o r them to pursue hobbies and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s with l e s s i n t e r f e r e n c e to others. These are aspects regarded as important to the con-temporary fa m i l y (Beresford and R i v l i n , 1966, 247; Winnick, 1957, 7). The increased f e e l i n g of p r i v a c y with respect to neigh-bors i s al s o an important aspect of the detached house,as com-pared to a row house or apartment which has common w a l l s . The de s i r e f o r a large l o t i s al s o r e l a t e d to p r i v a c y , as t h i s provides greater distance from neighbors. Paxton's study i n d i c a t e s that one of the reasons why home buyers moved from t h e i r former dwellings was due to t h e i r d e s i r e f o r p r i v a c y . It i s reported that three out of ten buyers wanted a l a r g e r l o t (Paxton, 1955, 10, 16). Weiss, Kenny and S t e f f e n s a l s o found 1 54 . that among home;buyers the d e s i r e f o r a large l o t ranked f i f t h as a f a c t o r of importance i n choosing present and future dwellings (Weiss, Kenny and S t e f f e n s , 1966, 27). The greater preference f o r a l a r g e l o t over a small one was expressed by married couples with c h i l d r e n i n the research by Michelson (Michelson, 1 968 , 41 ). The d e s i r e f o r private;, outdoor space was also confirmed by Lansing and Hendricks (Lansing and Hen-d r i c k s , 1967, 59). The primary concern f o r pr i v a c y i s due to the p o t e n t i a l disturbance caused by noise. Lansing and Hendricks note that respondents f e e l that s i n g l e f a m i l y homes are l e s s noisy than m u l t i p l e u,nits (Lansing and Hendricks, 1 967, 81 ). Raven notes that while people i n apartments s u f f e r more from noise d i s - ' turbances than people i n detached houses, the more important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n p r i v a c y i s the r e s t r i c t i o n which people f e e l on making noise themselves. As a r e s u l t , i n d i v i d u a l and family hobbies and l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s tend to be more pass i v e , such as viewing t e l e v i s i o n (Raven, 1967, 236). The detached home i s considered b e t t e r f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d -ren, sin c e c h i l d r e n l i k e to make noise, both v o c a l l y and through strenuous a c t i v i t i e s , and t h i s form of dwelling i s considered to allow them more freedom. Michelson comments that there i s a general a t t i t u d e that: "Where a fa m i l y shares walls with l e s s than p e r f e c t soundproofing with other f a m i l i e s , though, t h i s noise must con-t i n u a l l y be nipped i n the bud l e s t one antagonize the neighbors or i n v i t e r e t a l i a t i o n " (Michelson, 1970b, 99). 1 55. The p r i v a t e outdoor space at ground l e v e l which i s adjacent to the detached house i s another feature p r e f e r r e d by f a m i l i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those with c h i l d r e n . The primary reason f o r t h i s preference by parents i s due to the greater ease i n s u p e r v i s i n g the a c t i v i t i e s of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , since they can u s u a l l y be seen and heard. It i s , t h e r e f o r e , e a s i e r to attend to c h i l d r e n when problems a r i s e (Michelson, 1970b, 97). Thi s outdoor space i s a l s o considered d e s i r a b l e s i n c e i t allows a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s to be performed by various fa m i l y members. This may in c l u d e hobbies such as gardening or b u i l d i n g a boat; r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s such as sp o r t s ; and household f u n c t i o n s such as drying laundry. The enter-tainment of guests may a l s o be t r a n s f e r r e d from the i n s i d e of the dwelling u n i t to the outdoors, as evidenced by the i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a r i t y of "barbeques." (Foote et a l , 1960, 259, 260). Lansing, Mueller and Barth note that: "... people, and p a r t i c u l a r l y young people with c h i l d r e n , do attach a p o s i t i v e value to closeness to the out-of-doors, open spaces .and in f o r m a l l i v i n g . . . " (Lansing, Mueller and Barth, 1964, 37). C. Housing Cycle Related to Family L i f e Cycle As noted i n the previous chapter, the contemporary family i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as l i v i n g i n s i x to seven d i f f e r e n t dwelling u n i t s during the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e (Foote et a l , 1960, 97-118). Meyerson et a l observe that the family may l i v e i n f i v e to eight d i f f e r e n t dwelling u n i t s due to changes i n the fami l y 1 56. l i f e c y c l e (Meyerson et a l , 1962, 94). Simmons has a t t r i b -uted f i v e of the eight or nine expected l i f e t i m e moves of the f a m i l y to events a s s o c i a t e d with the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e (Simmons , 1 968 , 630) . Abu-Lughod and Foley, i n Foote, summarize the housing c y c l e as f o l l o w s : In the " p r e - c h i l d " stage, the couple l i v e s i n a rented dwelling u n i t of one to three rooms i n the c i t y c entre. During the " c h i l d - b e a r i n g " stage, when the family s i z e i s expanding, there are two or three moves to rented dwelling u n i t s of three to four rooms, which i s l o c a t e d i n the middle or outer r i n g s of the c i t y centre. The " c h i l d -r e a r i n g " stage, with a constant family s i z e , i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by one move to an owned house of s i x rooms, l o c a t e d at the periphery of the c i t y or i n the suburbs. In the next stage, that of " c h i l d - l a u n c h i n g " , the f a m i l y s i z e begins to d e c l i n e . There i s u s u a l l y one move, again to an owned, s i x room house, but the l o c a t i o n i s i n the suburbs. In the " p o s t c h i l d " p e r i o d the couple i s u n l i k e l y to move (Foote et a l , 1960, 99). Meyerson et a l note a s i m i l a r pattern of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y r e l a t e d to the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e of the "normal" housing consumer which i s described as f o l l o w s : The f a m i l y , when f i r s t married, moves to an apartment where they l i v e f o r a year or so, during which time t h e i r f i r s t c h i l d i s born. They then move to a l a r g e r apartment-which they occupy f o r the next three years. At the end of t h i s time period a second c h i l d i s born. The f a m i l y now d e s i r e s a l a r g e r dwelling u n i t , 157. and outdoor play space, adjacent to the residence, f o r the f i r s t c h i l d . Since the family s t i l l l acks s u f f i c i e n t funds to buy a house, they rent an ol d e r home, near the edge of the c i t y , f o r two years. When the t h i r d c h i l d i s expected, a small new suburban house i s purchased. Approximately twelve years l a t e r the fami l y income has increased sub*-s t a n t i a l l y , and a l a r g e r house i s purchased, i n which they plan the stay " f o r the r e s t of our l i v e s . " Most couples do continue to occupy t h i s residence as t h e i r "permanent" home. For other f a m i l i e s , the l i k e l i h o o d i s that the family w i l l remain i n the second owned home f o r only twelve to f i f t e e n years. I f the family income i n c r e a s e s , the tendency i s to move to a more p r e t e n t i o u s home or a b e t t e r neighborhood. Other f a m i l i e s , when the c h i l d r e n have l e f t home, move to the greater convenience of an apartment or a smaller house. Following the death of one partner, the remaining one may move to a small apartment, or i n t o the home of a married c h i l d . The housing c y c l e i s , t h e r e f o r e , comprised of two to four apartments, one rented house, and two to three owned houses during the fami l y l i f e c y c l e (Meyerson et a l , 1962, 93, 94). Summary In the review of l i t e r a t u r e , the st u d i e s have documented the degree of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and d e s i r e f o r owned, sin_gle f a m i l y detached housing which c h a r a c t e r i z e s the contemporary North American f a m i l y . The consumer's reasons f o r l e a v i n g a 1 58. r e s i d e n c e , and h i s p r e f e r e n c e s i n s e e k i n g a new one a r e sought by r e s e a r c h e r s , as a r e the m o t i v e s f o r home o w n e r s h i p . I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t the consumers v a r y i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f h o u s i n g which cause d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , as w e l l as i n t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s and m o t i v e s f o r an a l t e r n a t e form. I t i s a l s o f ound t h a t many f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the consumer's behav-i o r and a t t i t u d e s toward r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and the d e s i r e f o r o w n e r s h i p o f a d e t a c h e d d w e l l i n g u n i t a r e ' i n t e r r e l a t e d . These a r e a s o f s t u d y , as a r e s u l t , a r e v e r y complex, and a summary, t h e r e f o r e , s u g g e s t s o n l y a few d i r e c t cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h e r e a r e , however, some g e n e r a l t e n d -e n c i e s o f f a m i l i e s which are e v i d e n t from the p r e v i o u s s u r v e y o f l i t e r a t u r e . R e s e a r c h e r s have not e d t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y w i t h i n a m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a i s u n d e r t a k e n by f a m i l i e s p r i m a r i l y t o b r i n g t h e i r h o u s i n g needs i n t o l i n e w i t h changes i n f a m i l y s i z e d u r i n g t h e v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e . In g e n e r a l , the g r e a t e s t r a t e o f m o b i l i t y i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h young f a m i l i e s (age o f head o f h o u s e h o l d under t h i r t y - f o u r y e a r s ) which a r e e x p e r i e n c i n g growth d u r i n g the c h i l d b e a r i n g s t a g e o f the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e , and who, t h e r e f o r e , need more s p a c e . The young f a m i l i e s , i n the f a m i l y f o r m a t i o n s t a g e , a r e a l s o u s u a l l y r e n t i n g t h e i r accommodation. S i n c e t h e s e f a m i l i e s move f r e -q u e n t l y , the m o b i l i t y r a t e s o f r e n t e r s a r e fo u n d t o be h i g h e r than t h a t o f owners. The move from r e n t e d t o owned t e n u r e o c c u r s o f t e n , due t o the f a c t t h a t home o w n e r s h i p o f a s i n g l e 1 59. family detached house i s considered the ultimate goal of a majority of households. Residential mobility i s also often the result of dissat-isf a c t i o n s with the current dwelling unit and/or neighborhood due to the feeling that the characteristics of the r e s i d e n t i a l environment are incongruent with the socio-economic status of the family. A move, therefore, frequently occurs to bring these two factors into li n e with one another. Long distance moves, in contrast, are most often assoc-iated with job related factors. It has been noted in several studies, however, that long distance moves are frequently followed by l o c a l moves. The desire for home ownership i s expressed by a majority of respondents in the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed. Home ownership of a single family detached house i s f e l t to be the best form of house for f u l f i l l i n g the needs of a family, p a r t i c u l a r l y one with children. Research studies have indicated that the great-est degree'of s a t i s f a c t i o n among home owners i s evident among the group of young families with children present. A primary motive for home ownership, however, i s the desire for outside space adjacent to the dwelling unit. This i s due to the desire for privacy from neighbors, p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to noise, and for child-related reasons, such as the ease in supervising play a c t i v i t i e s . The opportunity to a l t e r the structural and decorative features of an owned home are considered important. The ownership of the dwelling unit, as opposed to rental tenure, i s valued as a source of i n d i v i d u a l i t y and of a feeling 1 60. of independence. The economic aspects of home ownership, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to lower monthly payments as com-pared with rents, and the expectation of economic gain on resale, are considered important, but less so than the previously mentioned factors. Home ownership i s also assoc-iated with increased prestige, as there i s an attitude that home-owners are "better c i t i z e n s " in comparison with renters. In the selection of a new residence and the desire for home ownership the characteristics of the dwelling unit are generally considered most important. Df primary concern i s the amount of i n t e r i o r space. The soc i a l characteristics of the neighborhood, however, are also very important. In some studies this was given precedence over the dwelling unit attributes. The attributes of the house and location as i n d i -cators of status and prestige have been cited as major factors in r e s i d e n t i a l choice and the desire for home ownership. The physical q u a l i t i e s of the area are of less importance, as i s the accessability to other things, p a r t i c u l a r l y the place of work and friends. 161 . CHAPTER V: IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING Introduction The primary intent of this paper has been to provide the planner with s o c i o l o g i c a l information concerning the family; knowledge of their s o c i a l beliefs which influence domestic architecture and a brief outline of the housing styles; and the expressed housing preferences of households, as well as information on their housing behaviour. From the description of the contemporary North American family; their current hous-ing characteristics; and the l i t e r a t u r e on re s i d e n t i a l mobil-i t y and the desire for ownership of a single family detached house, which was undertaken in the previous three chapters, several implications for the planning of a more satisfactory form of housing environment are evident. Residential Mobility A. Rate of Residential Mobility With respect to the high rates of re s i d e n t i a l mobility in North America which were noted in Chapter IV, there i s the observation by some authors that most families do not l i k e to move. Those who do move, however, often do so reluctantly, with the hope that the disadvantages and inconveniences of moving w i l l be outweighed by economic or other gains. There i s a concern by sociologists, for instance, that geographic mobility places a strain on families, p a r t i c u l a r l y when so c i a l t i e s within a community are severed (Blood, 1972, 241, 242). 1 62. R e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y may also r e s u l t i n changes i n the char-a c t e r i s t i c s of communities, which may i n v o l v e the planner i n p r o v i d i n g d i f f e r e n t types or numbers of community s e r v i c e s , such as schools and s t r e e t s . Since c o n s i d e r a b l e c a p i t a l investment i s u s u a l l y i n v o l v e d with community f a c i l i t i e s , changes i n t h e i r requirements may thus create extra burdens on the municipality(Simmons and Simmons, 1969, 87, 87, 111, 112).As a r e s u l t there i s a f e e l i n g by many people that the rate of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y should be decreased. 1. Consumer Information There are some steps which i n v o l v e planners which may tend to decrease t h i s r a t e . For i n s t a n c e , the r e s u l t s of s e v e r a l s t u d i e s reviewed i n Chapter IV, such as those by Whitney and Grigg, and Kalbach, Myers and Walker, i n d i c a t e d that long distance moves were f r e q u e n t l y followed by l o c a l moves. I t has been suggested that some f a m i l i e s who make more than one move may have s e l e c t e d a l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y dwelling u n i t . This may be due to the f a c t that they were aware of only a f r a c t i o n of the housing a v a i l a b l e because of i n s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n of the housing market and/or the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of areas, or i n s u f f i c i e n t time to search f o r a residence (Simmons and Simmons, 1969, 146, 147). The planner could thus provide a valuable s e r v i c e by c o n t r i b u t i n g to the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to the household i n a form of use to them. For i n s t a n c e , he could compile p r o f i l e s on the various neighborhoods within a metropolitan area which could i n c l u d e 1 63. demographic information on residents, condition reports on existing housing, a s i t e plan, as well as current and proposed plans for altering the area. Such a service could be a v a i l -able at a central location, perhaps as part of an information bureau at the municipal building. 2. Housing Construction and Design A second implication for planners with regard to a re-duction in mobility rates i s to assist in a l l e v i a t i n g one of the primary causes of r e s i d e n t i a l mobility - the adequacy of i n t e r i o r space. Within the house i t s e l f , the space require-ments, as mentioned previously, vary among families, and with-in families during different stages of the family l i f e cycle. From the r e s i d e n t i a l mobility studies reviewed in Chapter IV i t was found that one of the primary reasons for moving was given as a need for a different amount of space (usually more). It i s evident that for the contemporary North American family the most frequent way of bringing the family's space require-ments into li n e with i t s needs i s to move. This i s in con-trast to the behaviour of the early North American families as described in Chapter III. During the Colonial period, for instance, i t was customary to accommodate an expanding family size by constructing additions to the i n i t i a l house. In the following t r a n s i t i o n a l periods, however, the house, when f i r s t constructed, was large enough for the anticipated size of the family. There are other .solutions to this problem, however, which could be pursued by planners, architects and engineers. 1 64. One p o s s i b i l i t y i s to provide moveable partitions as walls in the i n t e r i o r of the house, in place of the r i g i d walls which are almost universally i n s t a l l e d . With moveable part-i t i o n s the family could alter the size, shape, placement and number of rooms so as to better accommodate the household members. A p o s s i b i l i t y for changing the size of the entire house would be through the use of prefabricated, modular com-ponents that could be added or taken away as needed by the family. With the use of prefabricated units, there i s also the p o s s i b i l i t y that the family could exchange units as needs changed. For instance, a nursery could be replaced by a family room for older children. Greenbie 1s study, noted in Chapter IV, indicated that a large proportion of his respondents preferred to stay in the same neighborhood i f satisfactory housing could be provided in a reasonable manner. The use of prefabricated housing, therefore, may eliminate the necessity of moving, as the family could have a more f l e x i b l e housing design. 3. Financial Assistance a ; Purchase of a Large Sized House Another means of decreasing the number of moves created by an increase in family size involves the p o s s i b i l i t y of hav-ing families move into a dwelling unit large enough to accomo-date an anticipated increase in family size over a period of several years. It was pointed out in Chapter IV, however, that few young families can afford a large dwelling unit much 1 65. i n advance of the time r e q u i r e d . This f i n a n c i a l problem could be a l l e v i a t e d to a c e r t a i n extent by the a v a i l i b i l i t y of f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , perhaps i n the form of a housing supplement or subsidy. b. Purchase of E x i s t i n g Housing I f f a m i l i e s did not move from one neighborhood to another so f r e q u e n t l y the area would be a more s t a b l e commun-i t y . Peter Mew points out that the s t a b i l i t y of a community and the f e e l i n g of community depends on d e c i s i o n s of i n d i v i d -uals to stay i n the community and i n t e r a c t with f e l l o w c i t i z e n s , and, t h e r e f o r e , to preserve the q u a l i t y of the environment (New et a l , 1965, 5). Some r e s i d e n t i a l movement i s d e s i r a b l e , however, as when f a m i l i e s move i n t o an area and stay, the neighborhood tends to be r e v i t a l i z e d . This would be an advant-age since the balance i n the demand f o r e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s such as schools would be maintained. For i n s t a n c e , i n many older areas of a c i t y there were once young f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n present, f o r which schools and other s e r v i c e s were provided. When the c h i l d r e n completed t h e i r s c h o o l i n g t h i s f a c i l i t y would no longer be r e q u i r e d unless young f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n again moved i n t o the area. Because of t h i s , f a m i l i e s i n the e a r l y stages of the family l i f e c y c l e should be encouraged to move i n t o e s t a b l i s h e d neighborhoods. However, govern-ment mortgaging p o l i c i e s tend to encourage the ownership of new housing, as mentioned i n Chapter IV, which i s u s u a l l y i n suburban areas due to the lack of space i n . c i t i e s (Wheeler, 1969, 67). T h i s s i t u a t i o n could be a l l e v i a t e d with government 1 66 incentives for the purchase of existing houses, such as providing funds for mortgages, and for renovations and repairs. Satisfaction With Housing Environment A. House 1. Design Greater s a t i s f a c t i o n with forms of housing other than the owned, single family detached dwelling unit could also be provided by planners and architects. It would be valuable, however, to -have further information concerning the heirarchy of features desired in the structural design of the single family detached house, and the characteristics of the l o t . Most of the l i t e r a t u r e on preferred housing characteristics i s evaluated according to the frequency of response for items. Therefore, knowledge of the heirarchy of preferences in "tradeo situations, as mentioned in Chapter IV, would be helpful to the planner and architect in providing satisfactory forms of a l t e r -nate housing types. For this reason, further research into the preferences for.the dwelling unit and l o t could be under-taken. For instance, i f i t was found, as indicated in the studies reviewed, that the desire for outdoor space adjacent to the residence was s t i l l of primary importance, and would, therefore, not be "traded o f f " , since i t was valued as a place for children to play under easy supervision of a parent, then this feature could be incorporated in an alternate form of housing. As a passible improvement for a low r i s e multi-unit building, an individual entrance and stairway for each unit or group of units would provide easier access for both parents 1 67. and c h i l d r e n to the out s i d e . An enlarged e x t e r n a l entrance area, s i m i l a r to a "porch" would also provide a play area f o r c h i l d r e n i n clo s e proximity to the dwelling u n i t . I f i t was found that a l a r g e l o t was d e s i r a b l e since i t provided more p r i v a c y from noise between neighbors, t h i s problem could a l s o be somewhat a l l e v i a t e d by b e t t e r sound p r o o f i n g m a t e r i a l s , and the use of n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l s , such as shrubs and t r e e s , which tend to b u f f e r noises (Lynch, 1962, 100). 2. Jenure Further i n f o r m a t i o n on the aspects of home ownership which are given high p r i o r i t y by f a m i l i e s would also provide the planner with knowledge of features p r e f e r r e d by f a m i l i e s i n a l t e r n a t e forms of tenure. I f i t was found that the des i r e f o r i n d i v i d u a l i t y and independence was of primary importance, some means of p r o v i d i n g f o r t h i s i n r e n t a l tenure would pro-vide greater s a t i s f a c t i o n to the fa m i l y . For example, i n a land l o r d - t e n a n t s i t u a t i o n , a co n t r a c t concerning decorative or s t r u c t u r a l changes of the accommodation could be entered i n t o by the two p a r t i e s , so that the tenant could a l t e r his s u i t e under c e r t a i n circumstances. 3. Greater Number of A l t e r n a t e Forms A greater v a r i e t y of housing types and s i z e s w i t h i n a neighborhood may a l s o provide greater housing s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r many f a m i l i e s . For in s t a n c e , there are f r e q u e n t l y a number of households who do not wish to leave t h e i r neighborhood, even though t h e i r house i s l a r g e r than r e q u i r e d . I f an a l t e r n a t e 1 6B . form of housing was available there would be a greater poss-i b i l i t y of the household moving and this would provide a larger house for a family experiencing growth. B. Neighborhood 1. Diversity in Resident Households As noted in Chapter IV, the qualities of the neighborhood are important to families, p a r t i c u l a r l y the soc i a l character. There i s the concern for "the right kind of people" and "people l i k e ourselves," Although the precise meaning of these terms i s unknown, in general they usually refer to people having a sim-i l a r way of l i f e , which includes similar attitudes and values. There i s , therefore, a range of other household characteristics, such as age and stage in family l i f e cycle, which could vary, and s t i l l be considered the "right kind of people." However, in many neighborhoods there tends to be l i t t l e diversity in the ages of the households and the stage in the family l i f e cycle. With regard to the family's desire for i n d i v i d u a l i t y of each member, as expressed in Chapter II, there would be a greater variety in neighborhood experiences i f a greater diversity existed in the resident households. This could be accomplished by planners i f r e s i d e n t i a l developments were designed with alternate types of housing units, such as size variations. The provision of small units, as well as large ones could accommodate families in various stages of the family l i f e cycle in the same area. 1 69. Meed f o r Research and 5upport A. R e l a t i v e Importance of Housing From the d e s c r i p t i o n :of the contemporary North American fami l y i n Chapter I I , i t i s al s o evident that the fami l y i s a person-centered f a m i l y , r a t h e r than a group centered one. There i s also an emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l i s m , with the f u l f i l l -ment of the personal needs and d e s i r e s of each member being considered important. Within the fa m i l y , however, i n d i v i d -uals seek happiness through an intimate companionship with t h e i r spouse, and c h i l d r e n , or parents and brothers and s i s t e r s . The house i s important to the family as the place where phy-s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs are f u l f i l l e d . The house u s u a l l y becomes a "home" as a r e s u l t of the many family exper-ien c e s , a s s o c i a t e d with a c t i v i t i e s i n the a c t u a l p h y s i c a l b u i l d i n g , that are the source of memories. The dwelling unit i s , t h e r e f o r e , important to the contemporary f a m i l y . However, the degree of importance of the house with respect to other things which the famil y considers important, such as r e c r e a t -i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and education, i s unknown to planners. 5everal authors have expressed the concern that the housing consumer may have changed h i s t a s t e s with regard to the h e i r -archy of his values. Winnick notes that : "There i s al s o reason to b e l i e v e that the reduction i n the amount of "house" people buy i s not e n t i r e l y due to i t s high r e -l a t i v e cost but i s the r e s u l t of changing consumer t a s t e s . The competition of other expensive consumer durables, the high cost of domestic s e r v i c e , and the s h i f t of many family a c t i v i t i e s away from the home are among the f a c t o r s which caused pinching on housing space" (Winnick, 1967, 8). 1 70. It has already been noted in Chapter III that the components of the contemporary house are very different than those of the early one, since much mechanical equipment i s now provided in contemporary houses as "necessities." Meyerson observes from some of Winnick's research that the proportion of family incomes allocated to housing expend-itures has dwindled steadily for some years. It i s noted, however, that budget allocations to necessities tend to f a l l r e l a t i v e l y as real incomes r i s e , whereas expenditures on luxuries r i s e . Winnick attributes much of the decrease in housing expenditure to the increase in housing costs, which the consumer does not feel are reflected in increased s a t i s -faction with the dwelling unit. It i s stated that: "Thus, the consumer not only gets unduly less house for his money, but his aware-ness of the shrinking satisfactions so derived discourages him further...from making compensatory upward adjustments in his housing expenditure. His thoughts turn toward alternative expenditures from which he can gain more additional s a t i s -faction from applying extra dollars than he can from applying extra dollars to improved housing" (Foote et a l , 1960, xx, xxi). With the increased cost of housing today, the above obser-vation of Winnick may s t i l l be v a l i d . For this reason, i t i s important for planners to undertake consumer studies in order to determine the current r e l a t i v e importance of housing to the household. It would also be of value to the planner to know the minimum requirements of a dwelling unit which would be considered satisfactory to the residents, as well as the 1 71 . characteristics of the accommodation currently on the market which households consider superfluous. With this information for particular sub-groups of the population, the planner would have knowledge of a range of housing characteristics desired, as necessities, by families, and some information on families' housing standards. B. Preferred Characteristics of Housing Environment Many of the consumers' l i k e s , d i s l i k e s and preferences in his re s i d e n t i a l environment are already known from research studies reviewed in Chapter IV. It i s important to note, how-ever, that changes in the purpose, goals and functions of the family change over time, and, therefore, their attitudes and preferences for housing may also change. In addition, many of today's families who are in the early stages of the family l i f e cycle have had a different pattern of housing cycle than the older households who represent part of the sample in many of the;surveys undertaken ten or more years ago. This factor may also affect the attitudes of the housing consumer. For instance, the young households who spend several years in an apartment, with many services supplied, such as the maintenance of grounds, and plumbing and e l e c t r i c a l repairs, may not desire some features of the owned, detached house as i t existed for an older generation. Younger families may, therefore, be s a t i s f i e d with a small l o t , and a cluster form of housing, for which there i s a manager to supervise and/or carry out maintenance. The increased participation of married women in 1 72. the l a b o r f o r c e , as i n d i c a t e d by the s t a t i s t i c s i n Chapter I I , may a l s o be an important i n f l u e n c e on the p r e f e r r e d c h a ract-e r i s t i c s of the housing environment, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r a red-uction i n home-centered tasks. The changing r o l e of husband and wife i n the performance of household tasks, which often occur when both partners are employed outside of the home, was mentioned i n Chapter I I . This may al s o be an i n f l u e n c e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r changes i n housing p r e f e r e n c e s . As a r e s u l t , p e r i o d i c surveys of the consumers housing behavior and preferences should be under-taken by planners. C. Government Support f o r Innovative Housing In c o n s i d e r i n g a l t e r n a t e forms of housing, the consumer u s u a l l y bases h i s opinion on experience with which he i s f a m i l i a r . Innovative forms of housing, t h e r e f o r e , need to be constructed so that consumers can evaluate them more adequately and r e a l i s t i c a l l y . Since p r i v a t e developers and f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s who lend money f o r housing c o n s t r u c t i o n are u s u a l l y r e l u c t a n t to sponsor a new type of p r o j e c t without assurance that i t i s a good r i s k , i n n o v a t i v e forms of housing are iseldom undertaken as mentioned i n Chapter III (Wheeler, 1969, 50). For i n s t a n c e , with respect to the i n i t i a l con-s t r u c t i o n of condominium row houses, many developers encount-ered d i f f i c u l t y i n securing mortgage money from the f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s due to the f a c t that the consumer response to t h i s form of residence was unknown (Ryan, 1969, 17). With 1 73. this attitude of builders and lenders, who are responsible for housing, the government should consider,to a greater extent, the i n i t i a t i o n and support of programs for innovative forms of housing. 1 74. BIBLIOGRAPHY Agan, T e s s i e and E l a i n e Luchsinger. The House: P r i n c i p l e s . Resources. Dynamics. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J.B. L i p p i n c o t t Company, 1965. Anderson, I s a b e l B. I n t e r n a l Migration i n Canada. 1921-1961. S t a f f 5tudy No. 13, Economic Council of Canada, March, 1966. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r and C o n t r o l l e r of S t a t i o n e r y , 1966. Armiger, Louis E., J r . Toward a Model of the R e s i d e n t i a l L ocation D e c i s i o n Process. Unpublished Master's T h e s i s . Chapel H i l l : U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a , 1966. B e l l , Wendell. " S o c i a l Choice, L i f e 5 t y l e s , and Suburban Residence," i n W i l l i a m M. Dobriner (ed.) The'Suburban  Community. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1968, 225-247. Beresford, John C. and A l i c e M. R i v l i n . " P r i v a c y , Poverty, and Old Age," Demography. V o l . 3, No. 1 (1966), 247-258. Beyer, Glenn H., Thomas W. Mackesey and James E. Montgomery Houses are f o r People. Research P u b l i c a t i o n No. 3. Ithaca, New York; C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Housing Research Center, 1955. Beyer, Glenn H. "Housing and Personal Values," Ithaca, New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Experimental S t a t i o n , New York State College of Home Economics Memoir 364, J u l y , 1959. Beyer, Glenn H. Housing and S o c i e t y . New York: Macmillan, 1965. Blood, Robert 0., J r . "Impact of Urbanization on American S t r u c t u r e and Func t i o n i n g , " i n Winch, Robert F., and Louis Wolf Goodman (eds.) Selected Studies i n Marriage  and the Family, 3rd'ed, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, 554-562. Blood, Robert 0., J r . The Family. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Brademas, Thomas B. "Fringe L i v i n g A t t i t u d e s , " JAIP , V o l . 22, No. 2 (Spring, 1956), 75-82. Branch, M e l v i l l e C. Urban Planning and P u b l i c Opinion. P r i n c -eton, New Jersey: Bureau of Urban Research, 1942. Brown, Lawrence A. and E r i c G. Moore. "The Ultra-Urban Mig-r a t i o n Process: A. P e r s p e c t i v e , " i n Bourne, Larry S. (ed.) I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e of the C i t y . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1971, 200-209. 1 Burgess, Ernest W. and Harvey J. Locke. The Family. New York: American Book Company, 1960. B u t l e r , Edgar W., Georges Sabagh and Maurice D. Van A r s d o l . "Demographic and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l Factors i n Resid-e n t i a l M o b i l i t y , " Sociology and S o c i a l Research. V o l . 48 (1963/64), 139-154. B u t l e r , Edgar W., F. Stuart Chapin, J r . , George C. Hammond, Edward J. Kais e r , Michael A.Stegman, and 5 h i r l e y F. Weiss. Moving Behavior and R e s i d e n t i a l Choice. National Highway Research Board, 1969. Caplow, Theodore. "Home Ownership and Location Preferences i n a Minneapolis Sample," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. Vol . T3, No. 6 (December, 1948, 725-730). Cavan, Ruth Shonle. The American Family. 4th ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Company, 1969. Chevah, A l b e r t . "Family Growth, Household'Density and Moving, Demography. V o l . 8, No. 4 (November, 1971), 451-458. Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s . N a t i o n a l Survey of Condomin-ium Owners. Toronto, 1970. Dean, John. "The Ghosts of Home Ownership," The Journal of  S o c i a l Issues. V o l . 7, Nos. 1, 2. (1951), 59-68. Deutschman, Harold D. "The R e s i d e n t i a l Location D e c i s i o n : Study o f ' R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y , " Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. V o l . 6, No. 4 (August, 1972), 349-364. Dewey, Richard. " P e r i p h e r a l Expansion i n Milwaukee County," American Journal of Socio l og y . V o l . 54-, No. 2 (September 1948), 118-125. Donaldson, 5. The Suburban Myth. New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. Du v a l l , Evelyn M i l l i s . Family Development. 3rd e d i t i o n . P h i l -a d e l p h i a : J.B. L i p p i n c o t t Company, 1967. E a r l y , James. Romanticism and American A r c h i t e c t u r e . New York A.S. Barnes and Company, Inc., 1965. Er i c k s o n , E. Gordon. Urban Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1954. Faulkner, Ray and Sarah Faulkner. Inside Today's Home. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. 176. Federal Task Force. Report of the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1969. Foote, Nelson N., Janet Abu-Lughod, Mary Mix Foley, and Louis Winnick. Housing Choices and Housing C o n s t r a i n t s . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. George, M.V. I n t e r n a l Migration i n Canada: Demographic Analyses. Ottawa: The Queen's P r i n t e r f o r Canada, 1970. G l i c k , Paul C. American F a m i l i e s . New York: John Wiley &. Sons, 1 957. G l i c k , P a u l C. and Robert Parke, J r . "New Approaches i n Study-ing the L i f e Cycle of the Family," Demography. V o l . 2 (1965), 187-202. G o l d s t e i n , Sidney. Patterns of M o b i l i t y 1910-1950. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania Press, 1958. Goode, W i l l i a m J . " I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and Family S t r u c t u r e , " i n B e l l , Norman W. and Ezra F. Vogel, Modern'Introduct-ion to the Family, New York: The Free Press, 1968a, 113-120. Goode, W i l l i a m J. "The Role of the Family i n I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , " i n Winch, Robert F. and Louis Wolf Goodman, (eds.) Se l e c t e d Studies i n Marriage and the'Family. 3rd e d i t i o n . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969b.,64-70. Gowans, Ala-n. Images of American L i v i n g . New York: J.B. L i p p -i n c o t t Company, 1964. Gowans, Alan. B u i l d i n g Canada: An A r c h i t e c t u r a l H i s t o r y of Canadian L i f e . Toronto: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1966. Greenbie, B a r r i e B. New House or New Neighborhood? Madison, W i s e : U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Environmental'Sciences and Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 1968. G r e e n f i e l d , Sidney. "Love and Marriage i n Modern America: A F u n c t i o n a l A n a l y s i s , " i n Hadden, J e f f r e y K.'and Marie L. Borgatta Marriage.and the Family; I t a s c a , I l l i n o i s : F.E. Peacock P u b l i s h e r s , Inc., 1969, 244-253. Greenwald,'William I. Buy or Rent? New York: Twayne P u b l i s h e r s , Inc., 1958. Gross, Irma H. and E l i z a b e t h Walbert C r a n d a l l . Management f o r  Modern F a m i l i e s . 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-C r o f t s , 1963. 1 77. Kalbach, Warren E., George C. Myers, and John R. Walker. "Metropolitan Area M o b i l i t y : A Comparative A n a l y s i s of Family S p a t i a l M o b i l i t y i n a C e n t r a l C i t y and Selected Suburbs," S o c i a l Forces. V o l . 42, No. 3 (March, 1964), 310-314. K e l l y , Robert K. Courtship. Marriage and the Family. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1969. Kephart, W i l l i a m M. The Family, Society and the I n d i v i d u a l . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1966. K i r k p a t r i c k , C l i f f o r d . The Family as Process and I n s t i t u t i o n . New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955. Klemer, Richard H. Marriage and Family R e l a t i o n s h i p s . New York: Harper and Row, P u b l i s h e r s , 1970. Kluckhohn, Florence R. and Fred L. Strodtbeck. V a r i a t i o n i n  Value O r i e n t a t i o n s . Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Row, Peterson and Company, 1961. Lamanna, R.A.' "Value Consensus'Among Urban Residents," JAIP, V o l . 30, No. 4, (November, 1964), 317-23. Lansing, John B., Eva Mueller and Nancy Barth. R e s i d e n t i a l  L ocation and Urban M o b i l i t y . Survey Research Center, I n s t i t u t e f o r S a c i a l Research, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, June, 1964. Lansing, John B. and G. Hendricks. L i v i n g Patterns and  A t t i t u d e s i n the D e t r o i t Region. T e c h n i c a l Report, D e t r o i t M e t r o p o l i t a n Area Regional Planning Commission, January, 1967. Lansing, John B. and Eva Mueller. The Geographical M o b i l i t y of Labor. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1967. Lansing, John B., Charles W. C l i f t o n and James N. Morgan. New Homes and Poor People. Ann Arbor, Mich.: I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, the U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1969. Lantz, Herman R. and E l o i s e C. Snyder. Marriage. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969. L e s l i e , Gerald B. and Arthur H. Richardson. " L i f e - C y c l e , Career P a t t e r n , and' the D e c i s i o n to Move," American;: S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 26, No. 6 (December, 1961X 894-902. 1 78. Lynch, Kevin. S i t e Planning. Cambridge, Mass., The M.I.T. Press, 1962. Martinson, Floyd M a n s f i e l d . Family i n S o c i e t y . New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1970. Mendelowitz, Daniel M. A H i s t o r y of American A r t . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960. Meyerson, Martin, Barbara T e r r e t t and W i l l i a m L.C. Wheaton. Housing. People and C i t i e s . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Michelson,'William. "Most People Don't Want What A r c h i t e c t s Want," T r a n s - a c t i o n . V o l . 5, No. 8 (July/August, 1 968), 37-43. Michelson, W i l l i a m . " A n a l y t i c Sampling f o r Design Information: A Survey of Housing Experience," EDRA. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Environmental Design Research A s s o c i a t i o n Conference, 1969. Henry S a n o f f a n d 5idney Cohn, (eds.) North C a r o l i n a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1970a. Michelson, W i l l i a m . Man and His Urban Environment. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press, 1970b. Michelson, W i l l i a m . Environmental Choice: A Draft Report on  the S o c i a l Basis of Family Decisions on Housing Type and Location i n Greater Toronto. Ottawa: M i n i s t r y of State f o r Urban A f f a i r s , 1972. Moore, Wilb e r t E. "The Family," i n Sussman, Marvin B. Sourcebook i n Marriage and the Family. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1968, 4 6-53. Morrison, Hugh. E a r l y American A r c h i t e c t u r e . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. Mumford, Lewis. The Brown Decades. New York: Dover P u b l i c a t -ions , Inc., 1955. Mumford, Lewis. The C i t y i n H i s t o r y . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961. New, P e t e r Kong-Ming, Bernard L. Mausner, Maurice A. Shapriro. The Gray Area Delemma: A Study of A t t i t u d e s Toward  Housing. P i t t s b u r g h , Pennsylvania: Graduate 5chool of P u b l i c Health and Graduate School of P u b l i c and I n t e r -n a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g , 1965. 1 79. Ogburn, W i l l i a m F. "The Changing Functions of the Family," i n Winch, Robert F. and Louis Wolf Goodman (eds.) 5elected Studies i n Marriage and the Family. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, 58-63. Osgood, Charles E . , George J . Suci and Percy H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Univer-s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, 1957. Pape, S i e g f r i e d W. Status and P r e s t i g e : M o t i v a t i o n a l Factors  i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y . Unpublished T h e s i s . The Univ-e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1959. Parsons, T a l c o t t . "The Normal American Family," i n Sussman, Marvin B. Sourcebook i n Marriage and the Family. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1968a, 36-46. Parsons, T a l c o t t . " T h e ' S t a b i l i t y of the American Family System," i n B e l l , Norman W. and Ezra F. Vogel (eds.) A Modern I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Family. New York: The Free Press, 1968a, 97-101. Paxton, Edward. What People Want When They Buy a House. Washington, D.C.: Housing and Home Finance Agency, 1955. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. The P r o v i n c i a l Home Owners  Grant Act. R.S.B.C.. 1 960. Chapt. 308. V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1971. Rapoport, Robert and Rhona'Rapoport. "Work and Family i n Contemporary S o c i e t y , " i n Sussman, Marvin B. Sourcebook  i n Marriage and the Family. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1968, 53-65. Raven, John. " S o c i o l o g i c a l Evidence on Housing 2: The House Environment," The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, V o l . 142, No. 847 (September, 1967), 236-240. Rosow, I r v i n g . "Home Ownership Motives," American Socio-l o g i c a l Review. V o l . 13, No. 6 (December, 1968), 751-756. Ross, H. Lawrence. "Reaons for'Moves to' a n d'from a C e n t r a l C i t y Area," S o c i a l Forces. V o l . 40, No-. 3 (March, 1 962), .261-263. Ros s i , Peter H. Why Fa m i l i e s Move. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1955. Ryan , R.T. "The Lender's View 1," Habitat. V o l.XII, Nos. 4-5 (1969), 17-18. 1 80. 5 c h l e s i n g e r , Benjamin. "The Family L i f e Cycle i n Canada," i n Under One Roof. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1964 Conference on Family L i f e , 3-11. S c u l l y , Vincent. American A r c h i t e c t u r e and Urbanism. New York: F r e d e r i c k A. Praeger, P u b l i s h e r s , 1969. Seeley, John R., R. Alexander Sim and E l i z a b e t h W. Loosley. Crestwood Heights. New York: Basic Books, Inc., P u b l i s h e r s , 1956. Simmons, James W. "Changing Residence i n the C i t y : A Review of Interurban M o b i l i t y , " The Geographical Review. Vo l . 58, No. 4 (October, 1968), 622-651. Simmons, James and Robert Simmons. Urban Canada. The Copp Clark P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1969. Speare, Alden, J r . "Home Ownership, L i f e Cycle Stage, and R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y , " Demography, V o l . 7, No. 4 (November, 1970), 449-458. Stone, Leroy 0. Urban Development i n Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1967. "The Urge to Own." A r c h i t e c t u r a l Forum. V o l . 67, No. 5 (November, 1937), 370-378. T r a q u a i r , Ramsay. The Old A r c h i t e c t u r e of Quebec. Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Li m i t e d , 1947. Triandia., Harry C. A t t i t u d e and A t t i t u d e Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971. T r o e l s t r u p , Arch W. Consumer Problems and Personal Finance. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965. T y l e r , Poyntz. C i t y and Suburban Housing. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1957. United States Savings and Loan League. Human Needs i n Housing Report on a Round Table Conference. Occasional Paper No. 4. Chicago, 1964. United States'Census. Current Population Reports. 5 e r i e s P-20, No. 85. Washington D.C. 1958. 1 81 . United States Census. Current Population Report. S e r i e s P-20 No. 150. Washington, B.C. 1966. Vincent, Clark E. "Mental Health and the Family," Journal of Marriage and the Family.Vol. 29 (February,1967) 18-39. Weiss, 5 h i r l e y F., Kenneth B. Kenny and Roger C. S t e f f e n s . "Consumer Preferences i n R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n : A Pr e l i m i n a r y I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Home Purchase D e c i s i o n , " Research Previews. V o l . 13, No. 1 ( A p r i l , 1966, 1-32. Wheeler, Michael (ed.). The Right to Housing. Montreal: Harvest House, 1969. Whiffen, Marcus. American A r c h i t e c t u r e Since 1780: A Guide  to the 5 t y l e s . Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1969. Whitney, Vincent M. and Charles M. Grigg. "Patterns of M o b i l i t y Among a Group of Fa m i l i e s of College Students." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. V o l . 23, No. 6 (December, 1958), 643-652. Winch, Robert F. The Modern Family. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1952. Winnick, Lou i s . American Housing and I t s Use. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957. Wolforth, John R. Work-Residence R e l a t i o n s i n Vancouver. Unpublished M.A. Thesis , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965. Women's Bureau, Labour Canada. Women i n the Labour Force, 1971: Facts and Figu r e s . Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada, 1971. Woodbury, Coleman. The Future of C i t i e s and Urban Redevel-opment . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1953. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101455/manifest

Comment

Related Items