Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some socio-spatial aspects of low-income family housing, Culloden Court : a case study Patti, Muddu Gopal Rao 1972

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A7_3 P38.pdf [ 7.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101570.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101570-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101570-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101570-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101570-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101570-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101570-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101570-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101570.ris

Full Text

SOME SOCIO^SPATIAL ASPECTS OF LOW-INCOME FAMILY HOUSING, . . CULLODEN  COURT:  A CASE STUDY  byMUDDU GOPAL RAO PATTI B. A r c h . (Hons.), I n d i a n I n s t i t u t e o f Technology,  A THESIS SUBMITTED' IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE  i n the School of Architecture  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e r e q u i r e d standard  -THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1972  1966  In p r e s e n t i ng. th i s t h e s i .  in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  make  it freely available  f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n  for  scholarly  this  written  thesis  for  for  It  financial  gain s h a l l  A£Tl4[PCHZTU  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  Date  /  Columbia  I agree  that  r e f e r e n c e and study.  e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s  i s understood that  permission.  Department o f  for  Columbia,  purposes may be granted by the Head of  by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . of  British  thesis  my Department o r  copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n  not be allowed without my  ABSTRACT  This t h e s i s stems from three separate but i n t e r r e l a t e d questions on p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s :  l ) do f a m i l i e s that are  p o t e n t i a l residents of p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s , l i v i n g i n the' communi t y a t • l a r g e , f e e l s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d , and i s t h e i r sense of i s o l a t i o n a l l e v i a t e d by l i v i n g i n the project?  2 ) what are the e f f e c t s on  these f a m i l i e s - o f l i v i n g i n a project w i t h s i m i l a r type (socioeconomic) of residents and the p r o v i s i o n of common f a c i l i t i e s ? 3)  what are the various forms of designed provisions that can be  introduced t o overcome s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n and improve community integration?  "Culloden Court," one of the public housing projects i n Vancouver, has been chosen as the case study f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A s e r i e s of unstructured  interviews were conducted with:  1 - residents of the Culloden Court p r o j e c t ; requesting  Group  Group 2 - applicants  accommodation i n p u b l i c housing projects (future r e s i -  dents); and Group 3 - the f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n the immediate neighbourhood of the Culloden Court p r o j e c t .  S t a t i s t i c a l data on the  f i r s t two groups were derived from the f i l e s of the B. C. Housing Management.  The questioning  d i r e c t e d i t s e l f t o f i n d i n g ( l ) the personal  - i i7  r e l a t i o n s h i p of the residents ..to ' each other, (2)-',how t h e ' d i f f e r e n t types of resident groups r e l a t e d to. each., other,. (-3.) how the proj e c t residents'and.people from project neighbourhood area r e l a t e themselves t o the'housing and project f a c i l i t i e s , a n d ' f i n a l l y (h) the Kinds-of households that should be provided i n the p r o j e c t .  The f i n d i n g s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d that the future residents (Group 2) f e l t s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d i n the community and were looking forward t o l i v i n g i n projects, among a s i m i l a r type of family. The response pattern a l s o shows that p r o j e c t residents are g e n e r a l l y more s a t i s f i e d i n the way they l i v e now than the way they l i v e d before moving i n t o the p r o j e c t . . The r o l e of the recreation-room was frequently mentioned i n discussing s a t i s f a c t i o n with the project.  S o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n between the community residents and the  neighbourhood of the p r o j e c t ,JjGroup 3) and p r o j e c t residents was :;  found t o be l a c k i n g , although p r o j e c t residents attach great importance t o t h i s  aspect.  I t i s hoped that t h i s study may help i n providing guidel i n e s i n designing future housing layouts f o r people who, f i n d themselves i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s .  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page ABSTRACT  •..  •  .'  . . .  TABLE OF CONTENTS . . .  •  TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF• TABLES  . . . ...ii  •  . . .  '  •  . . . .  •  •  '  •  •. . . v i '  •... v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Chapter • •.  .•. . i x  <•  1. • INTRODUCTION A.  .•.  ......  •  1  '  OBJECTIVES ( 1 )  B. . OUTLINE OF THESIS 2.  iv  METHODOLOGY  (6)  .•  8  . ...  •A., .METHOD OF STUDY ( 8 ) B.  SELECTION OF A PROJECT FOR CASE STUDY ( 8 )  C. SELECTION OF RESPONDENT GROUPS . FOR INTERVIEW ( 1 5 )  3.  D.  DATA COLLECTION ( l ? )  E.  INTERVIEWS ( 2 0 ) .  F.  ANALYSIS OF DATA ( 2 2 )  ANALYSIS OF PROJECT, RESPONDENTS AND ' A.  k.  DESCRIPTION OF CULLODEN  COURT ( 2 6 )  B.  SAMPLE GROUPS AND AREAS (33)  C.  INTERVIEWED  SAMPLE  AREAS......26  {^h) 65  ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION. ........... A.  PRIMARY REASONS FOR MOVING TO A PROJECT  B.  WAY  OF L I F E BEFORE MOVING TO A PROJECT  (65) (75)  5•  C.  WAY  OF L I F E AFTER MOVING TO A PROJECT (85)  D.  RESIDENTS OPINIONS ON PROJECT FACILITIES  E.  PREFERENCES FOR THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT IN THE GENERAL AREA OF VANCOUVER (103)  F.  PREFERENCES FOR OVERALL MIX OF THE PROJECT RESIDENTS (117)  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  •  (95)  .... 126  BIBLIOGRAPHY  139  APPENDICES  Ih2  A.  CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT RESIDENTS SAMPLE GROUP - 1 (lh2) CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE RESIDENTS . SAMPLE GROUP - 2 (1^3) CHARACTERISTICS OF SUNSET AREA RESIDENTS SAMPLE GROUP - 3 (ihk) CENSUS TRACT Nj?. 1+7  (1966)  BOUNDARIES  (lU6)  B.  SOCIO-ECONOMIC .RANKING OF LOCAL AREAS ( l U 7 )  C.  SCHEDULE FOR INTERVIEWS (148)  , . D.  LETTER OF INTRODUCTION (1^9) IMPRESSIONS ON PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS IN VANCOUVER - A VISUAL SURVEY (150)  - v -  TABLE). OF ILLUSTRATIONS  Page.  1.  Locations  of e x i s t i n g public  housing .{'lh  p r o j e c t s i n Vancouver 2.  Community f a c i l i t i e s  3.  Project  k.  Accommodation  5.  Types o f o r i e n t a t i o n s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s :  i n p r o j e c t a r e a ..............  - 29  f a c i l i t i e s : C u l l o d e n Court types:  C u l l o d e n Court  C u l l o d e n Court  28  30  ............  31  6;  V i s u a l and P h y s i c a l B a r r i e r s : C u l l o d e n Court  32  7.  F u t u r e R e s i d e n t s : where do t h e y l i v e  3^  8.  L o c a l area boundaries  35  9.  Location  .............................  .......... 36  o f community f a c i l i t i e s  10.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f sample group: p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s  ... ^-3  11.  P r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s : where t h e y came from .. ......... hh  12.  F a m i l y t y p e , sample group: p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s  13.  . D i s t r i b u t i o n , o f a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n : p r o j e c t  •. 45  he  residents lk.  I n t e r v i e w e d sample: f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s  15.  First  16.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of interviewed Court  17.  group o f p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s  •  •  for.interviews....  59  sample: C u l l o d e n •  •  I n t e r v i e w e d sample - neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s  - vi —  ....... 56  \J$0 .• 62  LIST OF TABLES  Table  Page  I.  Breakup o f Sample Groups  -18  ..............  IIA - IIH. Future Residents ............ 37  IIA.  Age groups among spouses  IIB.  M a r i t a l status  IIC.  Number o f c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d s  IID.  AdulJ7children r a t i o  IIE.  Family s i z e  IIF.  Income l e v e l s .............................. 39  IIG.  Employment  IIH.  Household l o c a t i o n b y l o c a l a r e a  •ILIA - I I I H .  • 37  .............  38 ' 38-  •  •  ......'.........739  •  •  -...'UO hO  Project Residents • *+7  IIIA.  Age groups among spouses  IIIB.  M a r i t a l status  IIIC.  Number o f c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d s  h8 •  HID.  Adult/children  •  k8  HIE.  Family s i z e  ...  . ^9  IIIF.  Income l e v e l s f o r low-income f a m i l i e s  ^9  IIIG.  Employment  50  IIIH.  L o c a t i o n s o f former r e s i d e n c e s o f  •  •  ............  ratio  .'  project residents  by l o c a l a r e a s  ...  •  Vf  51'  IVA - IVB. Neighbourhood-'Residents IVA.  M a r i t a l status  53  IVB.  Number o f c h i l d r e n p e r f a m i l y  53  "vi i - . -  List  V. VI.  of Tables, cont"d  Breakup o f I n t e r v i e w e d Sample .............. Responses t o Primary Reasons f o r Moving t o a P r o j e c t  VII.  Responses t o : Way  Responses t o : Way to Project  IX.  of L i f e  Before ,..•  .......... 83  o f L i f e A f t e r Moving  ............................  93  Responses t o : R e s i d e n t s O p i n i o n s on Project F a c i l i t i e s  X.  72  •  Moving t o P r o j e c t VIII.  55  •  ....... T<32  Responses t o : P r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e L o c a t i o n o f the P r o j e c t  i n the G e n e r a l  A r e a o f Vancouver .......................... 115 XI.  Responses t o : P r e f e r e n c e s f o r O v e r a l l Mix-of the P r o j e c t Residents  - viii  -  ......124  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I wish t o express'my. sincere appreciation t o a l l those whose i n t e r e s t and a c t i v e help have made t h i s study p o s s i b l e .  I particularly  acknowledge with; gratitude the direction,- c r i t i c i s m and counsel of the ' f o l l o w i n g persons and organisations.  Mr. T. P. M o r r i s , Branch A r c h i t e c t ,  C e n t r a l .Mortgage and Housing Corporation-and Mr. C. R. Hennessy, S o c i a l Development O f f i c e r , C.M.H.C.,'to Mr. C. G. Sutherland, Manager, B. C. Housing -and Management Commission f o r making -available information -on Culloden Court project residents and applicants t o p u b l i c housing accommodation.To Professors Wolfgang Gerson and Henry Elder of the School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , U.B.C., are due my s p e c i a l thanks f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t , c r i t i c i s m and guidance.  To Verena Siegenthaler who helped me throughout  the preparation-of t h i s study, typed and edited the d r a f t s .  To John McKay  f o r a s s i s t i n g me i n preparation of i l l u s t r a t i o n s , and t o Kathy P l e t t f o r : typing the t h e s i s i n a short time. I t has been a great p r i v i l e g e t o have worked under the d i r - . e c t i o n of Prof.. W. Gerson, without whose patient guidance and generous assistance t h i s study would not have been possible . 1  ix -  - 1 -  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .  A  OBJECTIVES:  In recent years there has been much discussion on the issue of p u b l i c housing.  The e x i s t i n g program has come under a  great amount of c r i t i c i s m , so much so that some people f e e l i t should be abolished, and an a l l o c a t i o n of income, subsidies s u b s t i t u t e d or o t h e r - r a d i c a l changes made.  Very few serious studies-of p u b l i c  housing projects which are concerned with the s o c i a l problems of low-income families-have been done, t o our knowledge, i n Western Canada.  This t h e s i s , t h e r e f o r e , i s an attempt t o f i n d out what  both future and present residents of p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s f e e l about l i f e i n - p r o j e c t s , and, thereby., t o discover some i m p l i c a t i o n s for future housing projects..  This t h e s i s i s based on the premise that ibher.e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a s p i r a t i o n s , preferences, and behaviour of the residents of the p r o j e c t , and the l o c a t i o n and design decisions i n p u b l i c housing projects." " 1  (See Michelson, Merton, Sommers,  Lipman.) To study consumer preferences  i n p u b l i c housing i s of  p a r t i c u l a r importance because i t s very purpose a t t r a c t s a number of i s o l a t e d people and f a m i l i e s from the community who are, one might say, forced t o l i v e i n these p r o j e c t s .  The residents.of these  p r o j e c t s are attracted' t o them i n the f i r s t i n s t a n t , not because of t h e i r personal preferences, but because of economic  circumstances.  - 2 -  The  r e s i d e n t s . o f p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s . a t present  have v e r y  o p p o r t u n i t y - t o • c h o o s e whether t o l i v e i n a p r o j e c t , l i t t l e t u n i t y t o choose' which pr§ject^-they w i l l l i v e i n , and no :  little  opporopportunity  2 t o choose where i n a g i v e n p r o j e c t they w i l l l i v e . study, we found t h a t t h e r e were other reasons f o r b e i n g  Later m  this  i m p o r t a n t , b u t secondary,  a t t r a c t e d t o p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s .  p o r t a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t , needs and v a l u e s  The im-  of the residents of  p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s i s summed up by Hartman: "A g r e a t e r concern and u n d e r s t a n d i n g must be shown, f o r the p r e f e r r e d , l i f e ^ - s t y l e s o f working c l a s s f a m i l i e s . .. p h y s i c a l spaces,, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s , communityf a c i l i t i e s and. the. r o l e . o f t h e t e n a n t , must a l l be r e examined and r e v i s e d t o meet t h e needs o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o j e c t s a r e i n t e n d e d t o serve."3  There i s an e x t e n s i v e patterns  l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o the behaviour  o f r e s i d e n t s o f low-income f a m i l y housing and slums a v a i l a b l e  (See b i b l i o g r a p h y ) , but many questions are many schools  o f thought r e g a r d i n g  a r e s t i l l unanswered.  There  the s i z e o f a p r o j e c t and t h e  i n t e g r a t i o n o r i s o l a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t i n the neighbourhood (see Bradley).^' pertinent  These i s s u e s concern the h o u s i n g o f f i c i a l s , who l a c k  information  of t h i s information  on which t o base major d e c i s i o n s .  The absence  i s d i s c u s s e d by Merton:  " S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y , h a v i n g only, r e c e n t l y and b e l a t e d l y t r a i n e d i t s . s i g h t s upon the' f i e l d o f h o u s i n g , has y e t t o accumulate a c o m f o r t a b l e b a c k l o g o f p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s which-can be taken' i n t o account by makers o f p o l i c y . " 5  - 3 -  Nearly a l l studies'. concern, themselves .with:.the experience's of those l i v i n g i n the project.. One group of residents who', have .' "been l a r g e l y ignored t o date, i s the' study of future residents of p u b l i c housing projects.. To" make" a judgment on the' effectiveness of p r o j e c t s , we should know what the expectations are of those who w i l l be residents of these p r o j e c t s i n the f u t u r e . live?  What' are t h e i r characteristics?'  they b r i n g t o a project?  Where do they  What a s p i r a t i o n s w i l l  What are t h e i r expectations?  present housing p o l i c i e s take them i n t o account?  Do the  What i s the l e v e l  of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the: way of l i f e of those low-income f a m i l i e s who f i n d themselves l i v i n g at random i n the' community?  Studies i n d i c a t e that completely random placements of working c l a s s residents among middle class neighbours r e s u l t s i n the i s o l a t i o n of the former.^  Gutman-found that working c l a s s  wives had considerable tr.ouble i n adjusting t o a mixed class suburb. They simply hadn't the s o c i a l s k i l l s necessary t o i n t e r a c t on a free and'easy basis with the middle class women around.''' I t i s important, t h e r e f o r e , that the future residents of the p u b l i c housing projects be studied and t h e i r preferences  and a s p i r a t i o n s  be taken i n t o account when b u i l d i n g new homes f o r them.  A public housing project by i t s - n a t u r e brings  together  people i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s - people of low income, people with poor accommodation.  This s i t u a t i o n of only s i m i l a r types of people  1+ -  -  i n a p r o j e c t c o u l d , and has---been, q u e s t i o n e d . ful,  l i v i n g communityi p r o v i d i n g a f u l l  c l a i m s t h a t b o t h middle  Does i t form a s u c c e s s -  enough s o c i a l l i f e ?  c l a s s and working  s o c i a l , l i f e when t h e y are among t h e i r own..  Keller  c l a s s people have a We  s h a l l attempt  fuller to  d i s c o v e r i f t h i s i s t r u e , and i f so, t o what e x t e n t .  In  recent, y e a r s , some p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s have.been  p r o v i d e d w i t h - s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s which -are not a v a i l a b l e t o the f a m i l i e s -who  live  i n the community a t l a r g e . ^  C u l l o d e n C o u r t , t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s s t u d y , has We  such p r o v i s i o n s .  would l i k e - t o f i n d what e f f e c t t h e p r o v i s i o n - o f t h e s e  facilities  has on the s o c i a l - l i f e o f t h e s e people when they become r e s i d e n t s of  the p r o j e c t , and t o what extent t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s meet t h e  needs o f the v a r i o u s age groups and f a m i l y t y p e s . t h a t comes t o mind i s . whether t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s  Another  quest-ion •  s h o u l d be used  by  p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s o n l y , or whether t h e y s h o u l d be open t o b o t h p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s and neighbourhood  residents.  Would.it h e l p t o  i n t e g r a t e the p r o j e c t and neighbourhood  r e s i d e n t s i f the  were opened t o the whole neighbourhood,  and how  facilities  could t h i s  be  done e f f e c t i v e l y ?  Many such q u e s t i o n s were asked i n the p r o c e s s o f f o r m u l a t i n g the o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h i s - t h e s i s . of-life  These q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e t o t h e  o f the r e s i d e n t s b e f o r e a a n d  a f t e r moving, i n t o a p u b l i c  h o u s i n g p r o j e c t , the e f f e c t on these r e s i d e n t s o f l i v i n g among  way  - 5 -  s i m i l a r types'of f a m i l i e s , and the r o l e of common f a c i l i t i e s i n providing f o r the' s o c i a l and.recreational needs of the residents and'their e f f e c t on the'way o f l i f e of project r e s i d e n t s .  Many  types of information -were sought i n t h i s study t o f i n d answers t o . these questions.  The objectives of t h i s t h e s i s , then, are t o f i n d  answers t o three  questions:  1..  Do f a m i l i e s who are p o t e n t i a l residents o f p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s , now l i v i n g i n the community at l a r g e , f e e l s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d , and. i s t h e i r sense of i s o l a t i o n a l l e v i a t e d by l i v i n g i n a project?  2.  What are the e f f e c t s .on these f a m i l i e s of l i v i n g i n a project with s i m i l a r types (socio-economic) of residents and the p r o v i s i o n of common f a c i l i t i e s ?  3.  What are the various forms of designed provisions that can be introduced t o overcome s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n and improve community i n t e g r a t i o n ?  These three questions are separate, but r e l a t e d t o each other.  This t h e s i s attempts t o explore them, and t o f i n d answers  i n an attempt t o provide guidelines f o r designing future p u b l i c housing projects..  -6 -  B  OUTLINE OF THESIS:  The second chapter of t h i s study describes the methods adopted f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  I t o u t l i n e s how and why Culloden Court  p r o j e c t was chosen f o r the case study.  I t a l s o t e l l s which groups  were interviewed, how the data was c o l l e c t e d f o r the case study, what resources were used, how the data i s analyzed, and i n what format the information i s presented.  The t h i r d chapter consists of d e s c r i p t i o n s and an ana l y s i s of data gathered.  I t describes the major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s •  of the samples chosen, and gives a comparative a n a l y s i s of them. I t then discusses how the interviewed sample was chosen, and i n cludes an .analysis of t h e i r major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  The fourth chapter c o n s i s t s of the f i n d i n g s of the f i e l d study.  I t comprises of a d i s c u s s i o n on each of the issues chosen  among the various respondent groups.  I t then compares the various  responses between groups, and the p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s i n g out of these f i n d i n g s i s discussed.  The f i f t h and f i n a l chapter contains a summary of the major -findings, and the conclusions a r r i v e d a t .  -  7 -  FOOTNOTES:.' Chapter. 1  JHilliam..Miehelson., Man and, h i s Urban Environment, (Reading, Mass., Addison-WesTey, 1 9 7 0 ) . , c o n t a i n s d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n s on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f people t o t h e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f p h y s i c a l environment. C l a r e C. Cooper, "Some S o c i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s o f House and S i t e P l a n D e s i g n - a t E a s t e r H i l l V i l l a g e " , (An u n p u b l i s h e d t h e s i s , Berkeley, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 5. • C h e s t e r Hartman, "The. L i m i t a t i o n s o f P u b l i c Housing", J o u r n a l o f t h e American Ihstl-tufre:..6f P l a n n e r s , v o l . 29 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , no. k, pp. 2 8 3 - 9 6 . ^Robert B. B r a d l e y , " P u b l i c Housing f o r t h e F u t u r e " , Urban Renewal and Low-Income R o u s i n g , v . 6 , no. h, p . 8 - 1 0 . ^Robert K. Merton, "The S o c i a l Psychology., o f Housing", C u r r e n t Trends i n S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , ed. Wayne Dennis ( P i t t s b u r g h , U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g h P r e s s , 1 9 4 8 ) , p. 1 6 3 - 2 1 7 . ^ W i l l i a m M i c h e l s o n , op. c i t . , p. 1 9 4 . ^Robert Gutman, " P o p u l a t i o n M o b i l i t y i n t h e American M i d d l e C l a s s " , The Urban C o n d i t i o n , e d , Leonard D u h l , (N.Y. , B a s i c Books, 1 9 6 3 ) , p. 1 7 2 - 1 8 4 , as c i t e d i n W i l l i a m M i c h e l s o n , op. c i t . , p. 1 2 1 . 8 Suzanne K e l l e r , " S o c i a l C l a s s i n P h y s i c a l P l a n n i n g " , I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i a l . S c i e n c e J o u r n a l , v o l . 1 8 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 5 0 4 . % h e p r o v i s i o n f o r s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s i n b o t h new and e x i s t i n g p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s was i n t r o d u c e d on A p r i l 2 1 , 1 9 7 0 through a statement on p u b l i c h o u s i n g program i n t h e House o f Commons.  - 8 -  CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY A.  METHOD OF STUDY The method adopted i n t h i s study was conducted b r i e f l y as follows: 1.  A v i s u a l survey was conducted among eleven e x i s t i n g p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s i n Vancouver i n order t o select a project f o r case study.  Culloden Court pro-  j e c t was selected f o r study as a r e s u l t of t h i s survey. 2.  Written and recorded data relevant t o the p r o j e c t , the project area, and general areas of Vancouver were gathered and analyzed.  3.  A s e r i e s of interviews were conducted among p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s , future r e s i d e n t s , and residents from the neighbourhood  surrounding Culloden Court.  These stages of i n v e s t i g a t i o n are f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d under the sections i n t h i s chapter. BB.  SELECTION OF PROJECT FOR CASE STUDY In order t o choose a project f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n among the' e x i s t i n g p u b l i c housing projects i n Vancouver, a v i s u a l suitvey of these projects was undertaken. p r o j e c t s i n the c i t y of Vancouver.' .in order t o evaluate them.  There e x i s t twelve p u b l i c housing 1-  I v i s i t e d a l l twelve p r o j e c t s  The f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a were used as  guidelines f o r evaluation and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e - p r o j e c t :  - 9 -  1.  General impressions of the o v e r a l l area w i t h i n which the project exists.  2.  The general atmosphere of the p r o j e c t .  3.  The project i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the immediate surrounding areas.  h.  The v a r i e t y of accommodation provided and. the pattern of i t s distribution.  5.  Common areas and common f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n the p r o j e c t .  6.  Common f a c i l i t i e s i n the immediate surroundings.  7.  General a c t i v i t y (at the time of my v i s i t ) i n the p r o j e c t area.  8.  Evidence of community organization-and. p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n the project.  With t h i s guideline of c r i t e r i a i n mind, the v i s i t s t o a l l projects were made.  I t i s important t o note here that the t o t a l ex-  perience of the projects was my personal impression .of them.  I  d i d not go i n t o any of the p r i v a t e u n i t s -and had no background to the design program of any of the projects.' I s t r o l l e d through the project community areas, spoke t o occasional residents i n conversations of a general nature, went t o lounges, read the various notices posted on b u l l e t i n boards, noted the contents of the lounges, on one occasion played f o o t b a l l with the k i d s , and generally absorbed the ambience of the p r o j e c t s .  To observe the e f f e c t s of various C.M.H.C. design concepts applied to the development of these p r o j e c t s , .1 v i s i t e d them  -10-  i n the c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r . o f t h e i r , c o n s t r u c t i o n d a t e s , t h e o l d e s t being v i s i t e d f i r s t .  The weather was  u s u a l l y good on the  occasions  I v i s i t e d the p r o j e c t s .  My  e v a l u a t i o n of the twelve p r o j e c t s i n terms of t h e i r  s i z e , accommodation t y p e s , v a r i e t y - o f p r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s , i n the neighbourhood, l e d me  Group. 1  Large  and' s e t t i n g  t o c l a s s i f y them, i n t o f o u r groups:  ( l o w - d e n s i t y ) p r o j e c t s , , not w e l l - i n t e g r a t e d w i t h  the  neighbourhood: a.  L i t t l e Mountain  b.  Orchard.Park  c.  K i l l a r n e y Garden.  Group 2.. Large  ( h i g h - d e n s i t y ) p r o j e c t s , dominant i n neighbourhood:  a. C Maclean Park  Group 3  b.  Skeena T e r r a c e  c.  Raymur P l a c e  Medium s i z e , p h y s i c a l l y w e l l - i n t e g r a t e d with-neighbourhood a. . Grandview T e r r a c e '  Group k  b.  Culloden  Court  One  building block projects  a.  N i c h o l s o n Tower  b.  W a l l and  c.  C a r o l i n a and  Oxford 6th  Avenue  - 11 -  (The  accompanying c h a r t g i v e s my d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n s  on a l l twelve  projects).  I f e l t - t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a p r o j e c t f o r t h e case, study s h o u l d nor  come.from Group 3, as t h e s e p r o j e c t s a r e n e i t h e r  s m a l l i n size,- are w e l l - i n t e g r a t e d w i t h t h e i r  are w e l l - d e s i g n e d ,  large  neighbourhoods,  and seem t o be s u c c e s s f u l .  IMPRESSIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS. IN VANCOUVER OVER. TWENTY YEARS:  1.  There seemed t o be a s h i f t  o f p r o j e c t l o c a t i o n .from p r e d o m i n a n t l y  r e s i d e n t i a l areas t o i n d u s t r i a l cum slum a r e a s . values  2.  •o  Perhaps l a n d  .  e x p l a i n this.. .  The atmosphere c r e a t e d by t h e p r o j e c t s improved s u b s t a n t i a l l y from v e r y d e p r e s s i n g  t o one o f a homely, warm f e e l i n g .  Perhaps  i n c r e a s i n g awareness o f improving p u b l i c h o u s i n g -projects t o a healthy  3.  l i v a b l e community e x p l a i n  The f i r s t two p r o j e c t s  3. this.  ( L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard P a r k ) ,  stand  i n i s o l a t i o n and a r e much poorer t h a n t h e i r s u r r o u n d i n g d e v e l o p ment.  Then we see a s e r i e s o f v e r y  dominant p r o j e c t s f a r •  b e t t e r t h a n t h e immediate s u r r o u n d i n g developments.  The l a s t  four p r o j e c t s are very w e l l i n t e g r a t e d , e s p e c i a l l y Nicholson Tower and C a r o l i n a & 6th Avenue, as i n t h e s e two p r o j e c t s , t h e  -  12  -  land-use and. treatment of the housing i s s i m i l a r t o .that of the. surrounding  developments.  The f i r s t p r o j e c t , L i t t l e Mountain, seems t o provide uniform accommodation.  Then we see a l i m i t e d v a r i e t y of accommodation ,  -in the second' and t h i r d p r o j e c t s , and l a t e r p r o j e c t s provide a wide v a r i e t y of accommodation.  Culloden Court shows a marked  change i n concept which i s followed by l a t e r p r o j e c t s a l l prov i d i n g uniform accommodation.-  The layout of projects changes .  from.the use of i s o l a t e d blocks i n the e a r l i e r p r o j e c t s t o the use of courts and c l u s t e r e d u n i t s i n the l a t e r p r o j e c t s .  Culloden  Court has a good d i s t r i b u t i o n of housing u n i t s over the s i t e . Cozy courts are created.  Later projects show a greater v a r i e t y of communal p r o v i s i o n s . The people i n projects seemed t o make a greater use of these common f a c i l i t i e s and show more a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  I n these  l a t e r p r o j e c t s there i s a greater v a r i e t y of spaces from more informal open space, with l i m i t e d s e r v i c e s , t o more formally o r ganized c o u r t s , walkways and extensive s e r v i c e s , i n c l u d i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l help ( l e g a l aid) as seen.at Skeena.  Common f a c i l i t i e s i n the project neighbourhoods v a r i e d , and a general trend was not very apparent.  I n a broad sense, though, .-  i t v a r i e d from w e l l f a c i l i t a t e d areas t o l e s s d e s i r a b l e areas.  - 13 -  7.  A c t i v i t y i n the project area increases from the e a r l i e r to the later projects.  8.  Evidence of r e s i d e n t s ' organization and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n proj e c t a c t i v i t i e s v a r i e d among the-twelve projects.- Larger projects seemed t o have more organized a c t i v i t i e s .  Raymur Place  and  Culloden Court seemed t o he doing -y|eVy w e l l .  CHOICE^E''CULLODEN COURT:  Culloden Court project from Group 3 was chosen as a s u i t a b l e case study f o r the, f o l l o w i n g reasons:  1.  I t i s a medium s i z e d project that show's 'a t r a n s i t i o n between large and small p r o j e c t s b u i l t i n Vancouver.  2.  I t appears to be p h y s i c a l l y w e l l - i n t e g r a t e d with the surrounding  3.  r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhood.  The author was  impressed with the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y  of a r c h i t e c t u r a l design: and the s i t e layout.  k.  The area i n which i t i s located has neither the highest socio-economic ranking, nor the lowest, of the areas i n which p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s are located i n the c i t y of Vancouver.  -IS-  C'  SELECTION.OF RESPONDENT- GROUPS- FOR INTERVIEWS  As t h e i s s u e s on which t h i s study i s based i n v o l v e life  family  b e f o r e and a f t e r moving i n t o a p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t , I f e l t -  that future residents c a n t s on t h e w a i t i n g  (Group 2) o f p u b l i c h o u s i n g , t h a t i s , a p p l i list  w i t h t h e B.C. Housing Management, would  p r o v i d e an e x c e l l e n t sample group t o compare w i t h t h e r e s i d e n t s o f the p r o j e c t and  (Group l ) .  discover  the v a r i o u s  I n t h i s way, we c o u l d compare t h e responses  t h e t r e n d s and t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o f a t t i t u d e s towards, a s p e c t s o f housing.-  I wanted t o measure t h e e f f e c t on  f a m i l i e s o f l i v i n g i n a p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t among s i m i l a r t y p e s o f f a m i l i e s (with t h e p r o v i s i o n - o f two  common f a c i l i t i e s ) , by  studying  s i m i l a r groups o f p e o p l e , whose o n l y d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t one  group l i v e s  i n such a p r o j e c t , and t h e other does n o t y e t l i v e i n  a-project.  In t h i s c a s e , b o t h groups o f r e s p o n d e n t s , p r o j e c t r e -  s i d e n t s and f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s , share s i m i l a r l i f e are a t t h e same stage i n t h e i r l i f e opportunities sufficient living  s t y l e s and v a l u e s ,  cycle,' are l o o k i n g  for similar  f o r i n d i v i d u a l and c o l l e c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . -  Given  c o n t r o l over a l l v a r i a b l e s , o t h e r than t h e i r exposure t o  i n a p r o j e c t and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y - o f common f a c i l i t i e s , one  would then a t t r i b u t e any d i f f e r e n c e s found i n t h e responses o f t h e two  groups t o t h e e f f e c t on f a m i l i e s t o p r o j e c t  project f a c i l i t i e s . ^  living  and s h a r i n g  Essentially, then, future residents  a r e viewed  as a c o n t r o l group t o a s s e s s t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e responses o f t h e p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s , t o d i s c o v e r which d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two groups (Group 1 & 2) can be a t t r i b u t e d t o p r o j e c t l i v i n g , and t o f i n d  -  which-aspirations  The  16 -  t h e y were b r i n g i n g - t o t h e p r o j e c t .  t h i r d , group chosen f o r i n t e r v i e w s  bourhood surrounding  comes from t h e n e i g h -  the p r o j e c t , and.the purpose o f i n t e r v i e w i n g -  t h i s group i s t o d i s c o v e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e p r o j e c t and i t s r e s i d e n t s t o t h e surrounding  neighbourhood from t h e i r p o i n t o f view.-  T h i s s t u d y , t h e r e f o r e , i n c l u d e s t h r e e group's o f r e s p o n d e n t s :  Group' 1:  Residents  Group 2:  Future  Group 3:  Residents  of Culloden  residents  Court.  ( c o n t r o l group).  o f t h e surrounding  neighbourhood  area of the p r o j e c t .  The  first  ( p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s ) and second ( f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s )  groups share s i m i l a r socio-economic problems, w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n c e s being that the f i r s t  group l i v e s among s i m i l a r t y p e s o f f a m i l i e s ,  whereas t h e second group l i v e s  i n t h e community a t l a r g e .  group has t h e use of-ithe d e s i g n e d p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p r o j e c t  The f i r s t (housing,  open spaces and community f a c i l i t i e s ) and t h e second group does n o t .  The  first  and t h i r d groups s h a r e . t h e same 'geographical  l o c a t i o n , and, therefore-, have t h e same. a v a i l a b i l i t y o f community facilities,  and t h e v a r i o u s  o p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d by t h e l o c a l  -  a r e a , but the own  D  17  -  d i f f e r e n c e between the two  socio-economic  groups i s one  of t h e i r  status.  DATA COLLECTION  Three forms o f .data were c o l l e c t e d :  1.  I n f o r m a t i o n - on p r o j e c t . .  2.  I n f o r m a t i o n on p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s and  3.  I n f o r m a t i o n from f i e l d work.  INFORMATION ON  future  PROJECT:  A l l relevant  data regarding-the  p r o j e c t was  C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n .  The  and  detailed plans,  s e c t i o n s , and  obtained  data includes  p r o j e c t l a y o u t , the types of accommodation p r o v i d e d , provided,  residents.  the  elevations  of  from  the  facilities the  project.  INFORMATION ON  PROJECT.RESIDENTS AND  A l l the  FUTURE RESIDENTS:-  d a t a on the r e s i d e n t s and  p r o j e c t accommodation was Housing.Management.  The  d e r i v e d from the d a t a i n c l u d e d age,  the applicant's f o r f i l e s of B r i t i s h  Columbia  sex, m a r i t a l s t a t u s ,  -  18  -  TABLE I  : BREAKUP'' OF SAMPLE ' GROUPS  Type  Families with children  Pensioners  Total  Future Residents  hk  11  55  Project  kk  11  55  88  22  Total  Residents  110  - 19 -  income, and source o f income, f a m i l y s i z e , number o f c h i l d r e n and t h e i r ages, t h e i r a d d r e s s , and l e n g t h o f . r e s i d e n c e .  To o b t a i n a  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p r o f i l e o f p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s and f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s a sample o f 50% o f f a m i l i e s , and 25% o f p e n s i o n e r s r e s i d e n t s was t a k e n .  among p r o j e c t  A l l the s t a t i s t i c a l p r o f i l e s p r e s e n t e d i n  t h i s t h e s i s a r e based on t h i s s,ample group.  The n e c e s s i t y o f such  a sample group arose as no comprehensive data was a v a i l a b l e i n a s i n g l e form. personal  Much time was needed t o d e r i v e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n  files  o f each o f t h e f a m i l i e s i n t h e p r o j e c t .  88. u n i t s f o r f a m i l i e s w i t h and  from  There a r e  c h i l d r e n , and kk u n i t s f o r p e n s i o n e r s ,  t h e r e f o r e , t h e sample group was l i m i t e d t o kk f a m i l i e s w i t h  c h i l d r e n , and 11 p e n s i o n e r  households, t o t a l l i n g  55 households.  S i m i l a r l y , f o r u n i f o r m i t y o f comparison, t h e sample group from' t h e a p p l i c a n t s t o t h e p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s  (which number about  four  t o s i x thousand) was l i m i t e d t o kk households among f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , and.11 households o f p e n s i o n e r s , holds  also t o t a l l i n g  55 house-  in a l l .  INFORMATION FROM FIELD STUDY:  The main source o f d a t a t o e v a l u a t e  the three  i s s u e s on  which .this t h e s i s i s based i s from t h e d i s c u s s i o n s on each o f the. i s s u e s , during  i n d i v i d u a l interviews  conducted among p r o j e c t  dents, future r e s i d e n t s , and.residents bourhood o f t h e p r o j e c t .  The p r o c e s s  from t h e s u r r o u n d i n g  resineigh-  o f i n t e r v i e w i n g and t h e methods  used t o c o l l a t e . d a t a i s d i s c u s s e d under S e c t i o n E -  "Interviews".  - 20 -  Written  and r e c o r d e d  d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e l o c a l areas i n which  the  sample group o f f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s l i v e , and where the sample group of p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s l i v e d before- moving i n t o the p r o j e c t was'/Obt a i n e d from the  f o l l o w i n g sources:  . _  •  Canadian Census T r a c t s  L o c a l Areas of Vancouver - Report  Annual Report:  Parks 8B R e c r e a t i o n  D i r e c t o r y of S e r v i c e s of G r e a t e r  (Mayhew)  '72,  4,71 >• Vancouver  by U n i t e d Community S e r v i c e s  VAncduver.  INTERVIEWS  The  i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s and  r e s i d e n t s were' conducted i n two mally  stages.  future  F i r s t , I interviewed  a s m a l l group t o f a m i l i a r i z e .myself w i t h the g e n e r a l  p a t t e r n , and the v a r i o u s  i s s u e s of importance t o t h e  infor-  response  respondents.  Then, based on these i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s , a schedule f o r more comprehensive  i n t e r v i e w s was  The of study and  prepared.  f i n a l schedule was  put t o g e t h e r  a f t e r s e v e r a l weeks  p e r u s a l of p r e l i m i n a r y schedules of i n t e r v i e w s ,  s e s s i o n s w i t h t h e s i s advisers. then p r e - t e s t e d .  The  and  t e n t a t i v e d r a f t of schedules  A f t e r some r e v i s i o n s i n the  schedule,  was  I conducted  -21 -  the f i n a l interviews.  The interviews were unstructured, and l a s t e d approximately 25-HO minutes.  A tape recorder was used t o document a l l interviews.  Later I compiled the relevant responses i n t o w r i t t e n form.  Both groups, project residents as w e l l as future r e s i d e n t s , responded with - enthusiasm (and, h o p e f u l l y , candour .). 1  A l e t t e r of  i n t r o d u c t i o n from Professor Gerson, on u n i v e r s i t y s t a t i o n e r y , was i n i t i a l l y used f o r the' f i r s t group of respondents, the project residents/*  Most' of them, were happy t o t a l k t o someone, and l i k e d  the idea that someone.was i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r opinions.  My heing  a student (and neither a s o c i a l worker nor from t h e i r housing' management), and the fact that t h e i r information was t o he used as s t a t i s t i c a l data, and t h e r e f o r e , anonymously, made i t easier f o r the respondents t o he u n i n h i b i t e d i n t h e i r r e p l i e s .  Only one r e -  spondent refused an interview a f t e r she had accepted an appointment I had arranged.  The interviews were conducted e i t h e r i n the  l a t e afternoons or on weekends.  Type of information sought during' interviews:  1.  Reasons f o r moving t o the p r o j e c t .  2.  Response t o t h e i r way of l i f e before moving t o the project.  - 22 -  3.  P r e f e r e n c e s f o r l o c a t i o n and s e t t i n g o f t h e p r o j e c t i n t h e l o c a l a r e a s o f Vancouver.  Response t o t h e i r way o f l i f e a f t e r - moving t o pr,6j;ect.  Residents'  6.  opinions  on p r o j e c t  facilities.  'Preferences f o r o v e r a l l mix o f p r o j e c t  residents.  D e t a i l e d s c h e d u l e s f o r i n t e r v i e w s used f o r d i s c u s s i o n s  with  each o f t h e t h r e e groups o f r e s p o n d e n t s a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e a p p e n d i c e s .  F  ANALYSIS OF DATA  The case s t u d y p r o j e c t and d e s c r i b e d  by o r g a n i z i n g  (Culloden  Court)' has been a n a l y z e d  d a t a i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g framework: . f i r s t ,  a d e s c r i p t i o n o f i t s l o c a t i o n and t h e t y p e o f accommodation-it p r o v i d e s , t h e n a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l a y o u t with-emphasis on t h e number o f b u i l d i n g b l o c k s , f o l l o w e d by t h e groupings, o f t h e b l o c k s and t h e v a r i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n s ' o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s , and a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s  finally,  provided.  The two sample groups c h o s e n , f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s and p r o j e c t residents, are.described  i n terms o f t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e i r  i n t h e l o c a l areas o f Vancouver.  residence  ( T h i s , of course, r e f e r s t o the  former l o c a t i o n s o f p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s . )  The'characteristics of  - 23  these of the is  f a m i l i e s are d e s c r i b e d and families living  situated.  summarized.  The The  compared w i t h the  characteristics  i n t h e Sunset -area i n which C u l l o d e n  d e s c r i p t i o n s i n c l u d e o n l y the main p o i n t s a n a l y s i s and  m a r i t a l s t a t u s , age  from Census T r a c t s .  comparisons i n c l u d e the  Court briefly  location,  groups,, number of c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y , income,  l e v e l s , employment, and  found i n t h e  -  length of residence.  The  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n came  d e t a i l e d t a b l e s f o r these  f a m i l i e s -are  appendices..  The documented and  areas w i t h i n which these analyzed  sample groups e x i s t have been  to give:  1.  Comparative socio-economic r a t i n g . ^  2.  The  3.  Relevant  The  i n t e r v i e w e d f a m i l i e s were chosen t o be  l o c a t i o n of these  of t h e i r sample groups.  local  The  areas  i n r e l a t i o n t o each  other.  facilities.  representative  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s -of t h e s e  f a m i l i e s are  compared and the l o c a t i o n of t h e i r . r e s i d e n c e d e s c r i b e d .  The cussions following  general format:for  documenting t h e responses and  from- the i n t e r v i e w s conducted i s o r g a n i z e d way:  i n the  dis-  - 2k  1.  S u b j e c t of  2.  Discussions The  -  discussion.  on the  subject  among the' groups  interviewed.  o r d e r i n which the groups appear i s f u t u r e  project residents  and,  residents,  where a p p l i c a b l e , community r e -  sidents.  3.  Response p a t t e r n  - the v a r i o u s  responses of each group  are t h e n compared w i t h each o t h e r and uate the under  k.  analyzed to  a t t i t u d e s of each g r o u p towards the  issue  discussion.  Implications:  S o c i a l and  Spatial —  the  of the- responses which r e l a t e t o the  implications  s o c i a l or  groupings of p e o p l e , b u i l d i n g s , or f a c i l i t i e s p r o j e c t , are  •5.  eval-  physical in a  summarized.  T a b l e s of d e t a i l e d responses - t a b l e s a n a l y z i n g various  responses oh t h e  f r e q u e n c y of  occurrence.  subject,  and  their  the.  comparative  FOOTNOTES:  Chapter.2  ^The twelve p r o j e c t s and t h e i r d a t e s . o f eomp&'ffitji-on are. as. follows: ( l ) L i t t l e - M o u n t a i n 1954,- ( 2 ) Orchard Park- 1 9 5 9 , ( 3 ) Maclean Park 1 9 6 3 , (h) Skeena Terrace. 1 9 6 3 , ( 5 ) Raymur P l a c e 1 9 6 7 , ' ( 6 ) Grandview T e r r a c e 1 9 6 9 , ( 7 ) C u l l o d e n Court 1 9 6 9 , ("8")-Nicholson Tower 1 9 6 9 , ( 9 ) Maclean Park 1 9 7 0 , ( 1 0 ) C a r o l i n a & 6 t h 1970', ( l l ) W a l l & O x f o r d 'A' 1 9 7 0 , ( 1 2 ) W a l l & Oxford- 'B* 1970'. ;  ^Though f i g u r e s ' on l a n d .values are not. a v a i l a b l e , , i t can be s a f e l y assumed t h a t p r e d o m i n a n t l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas would.be of h i g h e r v a l u e s than i n d u s t r i a l cum slum a r e a s . •^It was . l a t e r l e a r n e d t h a t C e n t r a l Mortgage., and Housing Corp o r a t i o n was proud o f C u l l o d e n Court p r o j e c t and c o n s i d e r e d i t as the most s u c c e s s f u l p r o j e c t . ^Appendix C .^Appendix. C. ^Mayhew, op. c i t . , p r e s e n t s a socio-economic p r o f i l e f o r each .of the l o c a l areas o f Vancouver so t h a t i n d i v i d u a l l o c a l areas may;'h^ be compared, one w i t h a n o t h e r , or a n y l o c a l area.may be compared w i t h • the average c o n d i t i o n s found, throughout t h e c i t y . These r a t i n g s are based on s i x v a r i a b l e s : .owner occupancy, unemployment, f a m i l y income, occupation , index, f e r t i l i t y r a t i o and f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n . Highest r a n k i n g i s 8.!+. f o r Shaughnessy and lowest r a n k i n g i s 117..0 f o r S t r a t h cona. Lower numbers i n r a t i n g i n d i c a t e h i g h e r ranking.- See Appendix B f o r a t a b l e showing socio-economic r a n k i n g s o f v a r i o u s l o c a l areas o f Vancouver. -  J  l  7 These i n c l u d e post o f f i c e , secondary s c h o o l , community park, l o c a l movie t h e a t r e , community c e n t r e , p u b l i c l i b r a r y , s u p e r v i s e d p l a y ground and d i s t r i c t ' S h o p p i n g c e n t r e . See I l l u s t r a t i o n on p. 3 6 ,  T  26. -  CHAPTER I I I  ANALYSIS OF PROJECT, RESPONDENTS AND  A  AREAS  DESCRIPTION OF CULLODEN COURT  C u l l o d e n Court i n Vancouver.  I t was  i s t h e e i g h t h p u b l i c housing  built  in 1967-68.  c i t y b l o c k s i n the south-east  1  I t o c c u p i e s two  square  south s i d e s , and  Knight S t r e e t s on the west and e a s t s i d e s i ~  Inverness  households i n t h r e e b u i l d i n g t y p e s - town-  The t w o - s t o r e y  o n l y , b o t h s i n g l e and  apartment  apartment b l o c k accommodates  pensioners  c o n t a i n s kk u n i t s .  A l l other  c o u p l e s , and  b u i l d i n g s accommodate f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n .  The  units for  f a m i l i e s , w i t h c h i l d r e n range from two-bedroom u n i t s t o units.  and  The p r o j e c t p r o v i d e s  house b l o c k s , back t o back row-house b l o c k s , and t w o - s t o r e y blocks.--  U5th  s e c t i o n of t h e c i t y ,• bounded by  and -Vfth Avenues on the n o r t h and  accommodation ,for 132  project built  There a r e 88 u n i t s i n a l l f o r f a m i l i e s w i t h  five-bedroom  children.  F o l l o w i n g i s the breakdown of t h i s number: 2 Br".  48 u n i t s  3 Br.  2k. u n i t s  k Br..  12  units'  5 Br.  k units  Total  88 u n i t s  These accommodations are p r o v i d e d i n e l e v e n b u i l d i n g b l o c k s . The b u i l d i n g b l o c k s a r e grouped around t h r e e i n t e r i o r c o u r t s >  !  Units  -  27 -  i n t h e p r o j e c t have one o f t h r e e o r i e n t a t i o n s - f r o n t i n g on o u t s i d e s t r e e t s , f a c i n g i n t e r i o r c o u r t s , or b o t h .  (Some townhouses b o t h  face  3 an i n t e r i o r c o u r t and f r o n t  on an o u t s i d e s t r e e t . )  The breakdown  of t h e v a r i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n s i s as f o l l o w s : Orientation  Families  Facing outside Facing i n t e r i o r  street courts  Pensioners  20  28  52  16  16  None  88  kk  F a c i n g i n t e r i o r c o u r t s as w e l l as f r o n t i n g an o u t s i d e s t r e e t  Total  Among t h e common f a c i l i t i e s p r o v i d e d i n t h e p r o j e c t a r e landscaped  open space, p a r k i n g , p l a y a r e a s , and a m u l t i - p u r p o s e and  k administration building/.  There a r e t h r e e separate p a r k i n g  p r o v i d i n g a t o t a l o f 80 s t a l l s .  The r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e  areas  (multi-purpose  and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b l o c k ) i s l o c a t e d i n one o f t h e t h r e e c o u r t s , surrounded  by f a m i l y u n i t s and t h e p e n s i o n e r s ' b l o c k .  d e t a i l e d plan of the r e c r e a t i o n centre.)  Behind t h i s  (See t h e c e n t r e and  next t o t h e p e n s i o n e r s ' b l o c k i s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p l a y a r e a .  Walls  are e x t e n s i v e l y used t o e n c l o s e p a r k i n g areas and t h e yards o f i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s , c r e a t i n g almost  a v i s u a l b a r r i e r between t h e  i n s i d e and o u t s i d e o f t h e p r o j e c t .5"' The p r o j e c t i s l o c a t e d i n t h e Sunset a r e a , which i s a  1£ 5s-  o  - 33 -  r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a o f p r e d o m i n a n t l y s i n g l e - f a m i l y detached  housing.  SAMPLE GROUPS AND AREAS  The t a b l e s i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e b a s i c b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a o f t h e sample groups w i l l be found i n t h i s s e c t i o n .  The main p o i n t s  i n t h e s e t a b l e s a r e summarized h e r e .  FUTURE RESIDENTS:  L o c a t i o n — G e n e r a l l y t h e y a r e d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e n o r t h - e a s t and c e n t r a l (east) p a r t s o f Vancouver^  N e a r l y h a l f o f them l i v e i n a  d i s t r i c t c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e Grandview-Woodland, K e n s i n g t o n , and Mt. P l e a s a n t l o c a l a r e a s . (See T a b l e I I H )  M a r i t a l s t a t u s - N e a r l y t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e f a m i l i e s i n t h e sample group a r e s i n g l e - p a r e n t f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , and a t h i r d comprised o f husband and w i f e w i t h c h i l d r e n . (See T a b l e I I B )  Ages - Of t h e t o t a l o f 6 l p a r e n t s among kk f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , k3 p a r e n t s are between t h e ages o f 21-kO. i n t h e 21-30 group.  The m a j o r i t y o f them a r e  The average age o f p a r e n t s i s 31.2 y e a r s .  (See T a b l e I I A )  Number o f c h i l d r e n p e r f a m i l y - The average number o f c h i l d r e n i s 3 (13k c h i l d r e n f o r kk f a m i l i e s ) .  Of t h e kk f a m i l i e s i n t h i s sample,  - 37 -  TABLE IIA TO I I H  CHARACTERISTICS OF. FUTURE RESIDENTS-  TABLE I I A : AGE GROUPS AMONG SPOUSES  Age Groups - Years  Numbers  20 and under  Percentage  5  3  21-30  27  1+1+  31-HO  16  26  1+1-50  11  18  1+  Over 50  61  Total Average Age of. Parents  100%  31.2 y e a r s .  TABLE IIB::  Type  7  MARITAL STATUS  Numbers of. F a m i l i e s  Percentage  ' Two-parent' f a m i l i e s  17  • 39  One-parent f a m i l i e s  27  6l  1+1+  100%  Total  -  TABLE I I C :  38  -  NUMBER OF.CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLDS  No. of C h i l d r e n  No. o f ' F a m i l i e s  1 or none  .  Percentage  16  J  2  12  27  3  9  21  k  9  21  5  k"  9  1.  2  7  1  2  8  1  2  6  •  Total  TABLE IID:  • Qft  100%  ADULT-CHILDREN RATIO.  ' 61  31%  T o t a l No. of C h i l d r e n  131+  69%  Total  195  100%  T o t a l Number•of  Population  Adults  '  - 39 -  TABLE H E :  Number -of Persons  FAMILY SIZE  i n Family.  Number o f F a m i l i e s  Percentage.  2  7  16  3  6  11+  h  ip- .'•  23  5  13  30  6  •  1+ ,  9  7.  1  2'  8  1 • -  2  9  1  2  10 .  1  2  Total  44  '  TABLE I I F :  • ' 100*  INCOME LEVELS  Income Range (per month)  Number o f F a m i l i e s  $200  7 '  16  30 ,  68  L e s s than  $200 - $400 More t h a n  $1+00  7 44  Total  for No. o f F a m i l i e s  44  Percentage  16 100$  TABLE I I G : EMPLOYMENT  Percentage  Numbers  Type  Working  families  ( f u l l time)  9  19  Working  families  (part time)  h  9  31 -  72  Non-working f a m i l i e s  Total  TABLE IIH::  kk  100$ -  . '  HOUSEHOLD LOCATION BY AREA  $-  Local, A r e a Socio-economic  Name  West end  r a t i n gI  Iv  . ^3.5 .  CBD  No. o f F a m i l i e s •  % 7  2 .  •, 1 0 9 - 0 117.0  3  108.0  8•  100.5  k  7  89.3  2  k  100.3  11  19  Mount P l e a s a n t  95.0  8  15  Riley  70.7  6  10  Fairview  71.2  3  5  Kitsilano  U8.0  1  2  Arbutus Ridge  11.3  1  2  Sunset  78.0  1  2  1  2  Strath'oona Grandview  Woodland  Hastings Sunrise Renfrew C o l l i n g w o o d Kensington  Park  Victoria  Fairview  80.6  .  Total  55  5 16  100%  - hi -  h3% o f t h e f a m i l i e s have 1 o r 2 c h i l d r e n , , and a n o t h e r h0% have 3-h children.  The maximum.number o f c h i l d r e n i n one f a m i l y ' i s 8.  (See T a b l e I I C )  A d u l t - C h i l d r e n ratio.-y- Among t h e hh . f a m i l i e s , t h e r e a r e 6 l a d u l t s and 13h c h i l d r e n , w h i c h i s a r a t i o o f 1:2.2. i s 4.5 p e o p l e among f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n .  The a v e r a g e . f a m i l y s i z e (See T a b l e s I I D & E)  Income - The average g r o s s income f o r a f a m i l y i s $312 p e r month. 68% o f t h e f a m i l i e s . h a v e an income o f $ 2 0 0 - $ 4 0 0 .  Of t h e r e s t , 16% •  have an income o f l e s s t h a n $200 a month, and a n o t h e r lG% have an income o f more t h a n $400 p e r month. (See T a b l e I I F )  Employment - T h r e e - f o u r t h s o f t h e sample f a m i l i e s a r e on some form of a s s i s t a n c e ( w e l f a r e , unemployment i n s u r a n c e , e t c . ) and a r e not working.  About o n e - f i f t h work f u l l t i m e , and about 10% work p a r t  t i m e -and a l s o r e c e i v e a s s i s t a n c e . (See T a b l e I I G )  PROJECT RESIDENTS:  '• " •  L o c a t i o n o f former r e s i d e n c e - The former homes o f p r o j e c t  residents  i s much more w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d t h a n t h e homes o f t h e f u t u r e r e sidents  N e a r l y h a l f o f them (23 out o f hh f a m i l i e s ) came from an  a r e a c o n s i s t i n g o f Mt. P l e a s a n t , K e n s i n g t o n , Sunset and R i l e y P a r k . The o t h e r h a l f was d i s t r i b u t e d among the- n o r t h - e a s t , and west p a r t s o f t h e c i t y . - (See T a b l e I I I H )  -  1+2  -  P r e s e n t l o c a t i o n of families'.:- S i n c e the  sample was  t a k e n at random  f o r h a l f o.f the u n i t s p r o v i d e d f o r f a m i l i e s -with - c h i l d r e n , t h e ;  t r i b u t i o n d i d not  t u r n out t o be  i n any  p a r t i c u l a r proportion  disto  -8- .  t h e accommodation types}--'  M a r i t a l status  - T w o - t h i r d s of the p r o j e c t  with children)  are  of the  sample c o n s i s t s  the  age  group between 21-1+0.  (See  Table  The  y e a r s o l d , and  r e s t , about o n e - t h i r d ,  are over 1+1 y e a r s  sample g r o u p , w h i c h i s , 3.2  ll+3 c h i l d r e n among 1+1+  c h i l d r e n per  t o t a l number o f c h i l d r e n . o n  about 2 9 0 - c h i l d r e n w i t h i n 2 square c i t y b l o c k s .  F a m i l y s i z e - T h r e e - f o u r t h s o f the p e r s o n s per h o u s e h o l d .  8 p e r s o n s , and t h e with a child).  age,  IIIA)  estimate f o r the  between 3-5  IIIB)  twenty-one of them  family.  S i n c e t h i s sample i s h a l f o f the number o f f a m i l i e s i n t h e the  Table  sample f a m i l i e s have p a r e n t s i n  Number of c h i l d r e n per h o u s e h o l d - There are f a m i l i e s -of t h e  (See  There are none under 20 y e a r s of  t w e n t y of them are between 21-30 31-1+0 y e a r s o l d .  One-third  o f husband and w i f e w i t h c h i l d r e n .  of spouses - T w o - t h i r d s o f the  old.  (among f a m i l i e s  single-parent' f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n .  Age  are  residents  (See  project,  the p r o j e c t w i l l (See  be  T a b l e s I I I C & E) .  f a m i l i e s i n t h i s sample have The,maximum s i z e of f a m i l y  is  s m a l l e s t , f a m i l y s i z e i s 2 p e r s o n s ( s i n g l e mother Table  HIE)  s oo  -  1+7. -  TABLE I I I A TO.IIIH  SAMPLE GROUP/PROJECT  TABLE I I I A :  RESIDENTS  AGE GROUPS AMONG SPOUSES  Age Group - Years  Numbers  Percentage  20 and Under  None  None  21-30  20  31+  31-1+0  21  36  1+1-50  9  15  Over 50  9  15  Total Average age o f spouses  59  100%  3l+ Years  TABLE T U B :  MARITAL STATUS .  Type  Number o f F a m i l i e s  Percentage  Two-parent  families •  15  . 31+  One-parent  families  29  66  1+1+  100%  Total  -  TABLE I I I C :  kQ Q  NUMBER OF CHILDREN. IN HOUSEHOLDS  Number o f C h i l d r e n  Number ,of F a m i l i e s  .  - Percentage  1  k  9  2  11  25  3  12  27  4  " ''8  18  5  5  12  6  k  9  7  8  •  Total'  TABLE H I D :  T o t a l Number o f A d u l t s  kk  100%  ADULT-CHILDREN RATIO  59  T o t a l Number o f C h i l d r e n  lk3  T o t a l Family  202  Population  -  .  30% 10%  100%  -  49 -  TABLE-HIE:. FAMILY, SIZE-  Number o f Persons •in F a m i l y -  Number o f F a m i l y •••  2  2  3  10  23  1+  11  25  5  12  27  6  3  7  7  3  7  8  3  7  9  -  -  10 -  -  -  1+1+  100 %  Total  TABLE I I I F :  1+  INCOME LEVELS FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES  Income Range (per. month)  Number o f F a m i l i e s  Less than $200  Over $1+00  Total  Percentage  None  None  From $200 t o $1+00  Note:  Percentage  1  8  12  92  13  100 %  S o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e and w e l f a r e amounts a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e . T h e r e f o r e , o n l y working f a m i l i e s ' incomes'are The o t h e r 31 f a m i l i e s -are non-working  included.  and a r e on a s s i s t a n c e .  TABLE IIIG:  "xype  Type  EMPLOYMENT  Numbers  Percentage  Working f a m i l i e s ( f u l l time)  10  23  Working f a m i l i e s (part time)  3  7  31  70  kk  100%  Non-working f a m i l i e s  Total  -  51 -  TABLE'IIIH:. FORMER LOCATIONS. CF RESIDENCES OF PROJECT RESIDENTS: BY AREAS  L o c a l Area Name.  Socio-economic r a t i n g  No. of Families  %  West end  43.5  1  2  Victoria-Fraserview •  80.6  1  2  Mount Pleasant  95.0  6  ih  Riley-Park  70.7  5  11  Fairview  71.2  2  5  South-Cambie  'iJQQO .  1  2  100.3  6  ik  Renfrew-Collingwood .'  '89-3  2  5  Sunset  78.0  . 6  14  Killarney  57-0  1  2  Marpole  56.1  3  7  Kitsilano  48.0  3  7  Arbutus Ridge  11.3  2  4  . 8 . 6  1  2  4  9  Kensington  Kerr i s dale G-randview-Woodland,  108.0  Total  UJ4  100%  - 5% -  Employment - H a l f of t h e f a m i l i e s , are non-working and-, on welfare-. Only o n e - t h i r d o f them are.working - f u l l time.. Three f a m i l i e s a r e on a s s i s t a n c e and working  Length  o f Residence  - The p r o j e c t  part time.  o f the  kk  (See T a b l e  IIIG)  i s about t h r e e y e a r s o l d , a n d i t  appears t h a t n e a r l y h a l f o f the f a m i l i e s have been t h e r e from t h e start.  An almost e q u a l number have been l i v i n g  more.than a y e a r .  Turnover  i n the p r o j e c t f o r  -q i n t e n a n t s i s v e r y minimals----^  Income - Income f i g u r e s f o r o n l y low-income f a m i l i e s were a v a i l a b l e . The- lowest income among the working  f a m i l i e s i s $375 per month.  The r e s t were a l l above $400. per month. have t h e i r r e n t s based on f a m i l y s i z e .  A l l the welfare r e c i p i e n t s The  f i g u r e s on t h e a s s i s t a n c e  p r o v i d e d t o t h e s e f a m i l i e s are not a v a i l a b l e . -  (See T a b l e I I I F )  SUNSET AREA RESIDENTS:  Socio-economic  r a n k i n g - Sunset .area ranks 14th out o f 22 l o c a l  o f Vancouver (the h i g h e s t r a n k i n g i s l ) .  I t i s surrounded by  areas  areas  with' higher, r a n k i n g s on the west and n o r t h , and w i t h lower r a n k i n g areas on the east and n o r t h .  I t i s predominantly  M a r i t a l s t a t u s - More than 9k% parent f a m i l i e s .  ' • ' no. residential'.M'  of. the f a m i l i e s i n t h i s a r e a are  The remaining '6% i n c l u d e s i n g l e s , p e n s i o n e r s ,  and s i n g l e - p a r e n t f a m i l i e s .  (See T a b l e  IVA)  two-  -  53 -  TABLE IV-A AND,IV-B SUNSET 'AREA: RESIDENTS  TABLE IV-A:  MARITAL STATUS  Type .  No. o f F a m i l i e s  Percentage  Two-parent  families  2,231'  9k  One-parent  families  141  6  Total  2,3.7,2  100 '%  TABLE IV-B: NO. OF CHILDREN PER FAMILY  No. o f C h i l d r e n i n F a m i l y  No  No. o f F a m i l i e s  children  Percentage'  784  33  1-2  children  1,089  46  3-4  children  415  18  84  3  5 children  Total  '-  2,372  100 %  -  Family  s i z e . - The  average i s 3.2 have one  54  -  average f a m i l y size' i s 3.5  persons.  Vancouver's  More t h a n 65% of the f a m i l i e s i n t h i s  persons.  or more' c h i l d r e n . " ^  Number of c h i l d r e n - N e a r l y h a l f of t h e f a m i l i e s i n the Sunset have 1-2 1-4  c h i l d r e n . . Out  children.  children.  The  of 2,372 f a m i l i e s , t w o - t h i r d s  area  of them have  average'number o f c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y i s  (See T a b l e  Income - The  1.5  IVB)  average income per f a m i l y -is • $435 per month  Employment - Unemployment i s o n l y k% f a m i l i e s are working and  C  area  f o r t h i s area.. N e a r l y . a l l  e a r n i n g wages  INTERVIEWED "SAMPLE  Out  of the sample groups f o r f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s and p r o j e c t  r e s i d e n t s , respondents f o r i n t e r v i e w s were chosen.  Whereas t h e  groups i n d i c a t e t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two p e o p l e , the i n t e r v i e w e d  sample was  major i s s u e s of d i s c u s s i o n d u r i n g  sample  groups of  used t o o b t a i n responses on  the  interviews.  FUTURE RESIDENTS:  On .the b a s i s of i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from h o u s i n g f i l e s , I chose t o c o n t a c t on t h e i r  management  a p p l i c a n t s whose phone numbers appeared  i n f o r m a t i o n cards•••  Out  of the l i s t  of about t h i r t y numbers  TABLE V  BREAKUP OF INTERVIEWED 'SAMPLES  Type  Families with c h i l d r e n -  Pensioners  Total  Future Residents  15  5  20  Project Residents  15  5  20  Neighbourhood R e s i d e n t s  10  -  10  Totals  kO  10  50  -  57 -  o n l y s i x had e i t h e r t h e i r phone numbers c o r r e c t , had t h e i r phones connected, or were a v a i l a b l e a t the numbers. three and  attempts were made at d i f f e r e n t times  A maximum number o f (twice  i n the  once i n -the l a t e evening) t o r e a c h them by phone.  afternoon  The majority,  of the c a l l s ended i n r e c o r d e d  messages:  reached i s not i n s e r v i c e . . . "  Some phones rang a l l t h e time without  any  one answering.  of the names. was o b t a i n e d  Some had people answering who were not aware  Then ,a supplementary l i s t from management  of t h e a p p l i c a n t s .  "... t h e number you have  files.  Though I i n t e n d e d  of.applicants  ( r e c e n t ones)  T h i s time I c o u l d r e a c h most t o interview  f a m i l i e s on t h e  b a s i s of f a m i l y s i z e , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , employment, e t c . , i n t h e same proportion-as out t h a t way.  t h e y appear i n t h e sample groups, i t d i d not come Many working couples were e i t h e r not c o o p e r a t i v e - (once  they knew I' was a s t u d e n t ) or were not a v a i l a b l e when c a l l e d a t home at  appointed times.  A t f i r s t i n e v e r y c a l l I made I i d e n t i f i e d  s e l f , s a y i n g t h a t I was a student doing a study on and t h a t calls,  my-  public/housing,  I had t h e i r phone number from housing.management. ;  In l a t e r  I d i d not v o l u n t a r i l y - t e l l them t h a t I was a student and o n l y  mentioned t h a t I got t h e i r name and phone number from h o u s i n g management and am d o i n g r e s e a r c h . o n p u b l i c h o u s i n g and t h a t and  management  C.M.H.C. were i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e study.  helped and I c o u l d get a l a r g e r number o f i n t e r v i e w s  This  t h a t way ( i n  c o n t r a s t t o p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s who were more w i l l i n g t o t a l k t o me as a s t u d e n t ) .  T h e - f i n a l number o f r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e n , c o n s i s t o f  those who were w i l l i n g t o be i n t e r v i e w e d s e n t a t i o n of t h e sample.  and i s a - f a i r l y good r e p r e -  PROJECT. RESIDENTS':  F i r s t , I obtained a l i s t of 13 residents from management for informal interviews.  As can be seen on the drawing, most of them  are l i v i n g i n corner u n i t s  I do not know whether i t was intended  that way.or-the management gave only those names who were not complainants and are considered good r e s i d e n t s .  Two people  contacted  from t h i s l i s t refused outright when t o l d about- discussions on the f.f-;  project.  -  One gave a long l e c t u r e on research done": s6r--frequently  on p u b l i c housing, and s a i d that they should not be t r e a t e d as "subject matter" f o r research.  I never contacted t h i s person again,  whereas I had the phone numbers of f a m i l i e s among future residents from management, I could not obtain the same f o r project r e s i d e n t s . The p o l i c y seems t o be not t o give phone numbers under any circumstances, and many of the names among the project residents are also not l i s t e d i n the telephone d i r e c t o r y . numbers and some do not have telephones. '.put , i t i s sometimes out of s e r v i c e .  I t seems some have u n l i s t e d Others ftq\frave •§ "telephone-  Under these circumstances,  I  could only contact seven of the 13 names provided, i n i t i a l l y , by the management. One respondent, a pensioner, p r e f e r r e d t o t a l k w i t h me only on the phone as she was. i l l . -  The r e s t of the interviews  were conducted i n person. These i n i t i a l interviews were very informal and gave me an opportunity t o acquaint myself with-the'project and the major issues involved i n the p r o j e c t .  The f i n a l s e l e c t i o n of respondents  was made more d e l i b e r a t e l y . I obtained a l i s t of project residents  1  -tf  f 5 ^ Iff fPi "!" 5  ® ® ©@  -  and  61  -  checked them out i n the t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t o r y and s e l e c t e d a l i s t  of r e s i d e n t s  that  I could  contact.  d i v i d e d i n t o groups on the b a s i s types: and  those f a c i n g o u t s i d e  list  o f names then were  of t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n s  (namely t h r e e  s t r e e t s , those f a c i n g i n t e r i o r  t h o s e who were f a c i n g o u t s i d e  t h e i r accommodation t y p e s  This  s t r e e t s and i n t e r i o r  courts,  courts),  (2 B r . , 3 B r . , h B r . , 5 B r . , Bach., and  1 B r . ) , b u i l d i n g b l o c k (A,B,C,D,E,F,Etc.), and t h e i r l o c a t i o n the b l o c k ( i n t e r i o r , c o r n e r ) . the  A f t e r a great  f i n a l s e l e c t i o n was made.  amount o f d e l i b e r a t i o n  At l e a s t one f a m i l y  from each b u i l d i n g  b l o c k and a t l e a s t 10% from each accommodation type was A t o t a l number of 15 r e s i d e n t s residents  within  interviewed.  among f a m i l i e s w i t h ^ c h i l d r e n  from t h e p e n s i o n e r s b l o c k were s e l e c t e d  and 5  and interviewed^"'"^  RESIDENTS FROM SUNSET AREA:  The  t h i r d group o f respondents i n t e r v i e w e d  immediate s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a . residents The  list  at random w i t h i n  At f i r s t , I intended t o a h a l f mile radius  were from t h e interview  from t h e p r o j e c t .  of names was o b t a i n e d from the c i t y d i r e c t o r y and t h e r e s i d e n t s  were c o n t a c t e d at random by phone.  A f t e r i d e n t i f y i n g m y s e l f as a  student a t U.B.C.conducting a survey on t h e p u b l i c housing in  t h e i r a r e a , I asked them f o r an i n t e r v i e w  (Culloden that  Court), w i t h them.  the project  A f t e r s e v e r a l c o n t a c t s i t became  o n l y those people who were w i t h i n  project.  t o discuss  project  evident  203 b l o c k s were aware o f the  Others thought i t was a p r i v a t e development p r o j e c t .  I c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h o s e r e s i d e n t s who were l i v i n g  Then  close t o the project  <3  - 63 -  (Maximum o f t h r e e b l o c k s ) . giving interviews  Many were not v e r y  cooperative i n  or even t o d i s c u s s i o n on t h e phone.  p e o p l e were c o n t a c t e d ' t o  obtaining  eight interviews.  About 35 Two names  were suggested by t h e r e s i d e n t s themselves'*. These two f a m i l i e s l i v e - a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t from t h e - p r o j e c t as a b a b y - s i t t e r .  and use one o f t h e r e s i d e n t s  I n a l l , t e n f a m i l i e s were i n t e r v i e w e d ;  The  i n t e r v i e w s were l i m i t e d - t o d i s c u s s i n g some o f t h e i s s u e s a r i s i n g out of interviews personal  w i t h p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s and f u t u r e residents'.  No  i n f o r m a t i o n was g a t h e r e d ( f o r example, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , income,  number o f c h i l d r e n , e t c . ) P-T T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d from t h e census t r a c t s f o r t h e whole a r e a . w i l l not be a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  I t i s assumed t h a t t e n f a m i l i e s  sample f o r the' a r e a .  Also,  since  t h e s e f a m i l i e s were not v e r y e n t h u s i a s t i c about d i s c u s s i n g t h e p r o j e c t , the i n t e r v i e w s we're kept t o v e r y only.  essential  information  - 6h -  FOOTNOTES:  Chapter. 3 '.  "'"First group of tenants, moved i n August 1 9 6 9 . . ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n showing project f a c i l i t i e s -on p. 29". 3 ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n showing three types of o r i e n t a t i o n s f o r • i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s on p. 31. ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n on p. 2 9 . . . ^ i l l u s t r a t i o n showing v i s u a l b a r r i e r s and the range of view from outside t o i n s i d e - o f the project on p. 32.:  ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n showing the' d i s t r i b u t i o n of future r e sidents of p u b l i c housing projects i n Vancouver on p. 3V.. ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n showing, the' l o c a t i o n of former, resideneesojf of project residents i n Vancouver on p. kk'.8  I l l u s t r a t i o n -on. p. k3 -showing the' d i s t r i b u t i o n -of sample group i n the Culloden Court. . 9 " • ' • • ' ' Appendix A. •^Sunset area i s surrounded by V i c t o r i a - F r a s e r v i e w , Kensington, R i l e y Park, Oakridge & Marp'ole. See Appendix B f o r the socio-economic ranking of'these. "'""'"Appendix A. . 12  Appendix A.  13 . ' Some of these applicants are'on w a i t i n g l i s t s f o r 2-3 years and have moved from the l o c a t i o n shown i n f i l e s . -^Map showing the l o c a t i o n of families'suggested by the housing management f o r interviews on p. 5 9 . " ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n showing the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the i n t e r viewed sample i n p r o j e c t , p. 6 0 . If?  on p. 5 5 .  -Table showing the breakup of interviewed sample  -^Appendix A.  - 65-  CHAPTER IV ISSUES FOR DISCUSSIONS  A  PRIMARY REASONS FOR MOVING TO PROJECT FUTURE RESIDENTS: Nearly a l l respondents gave economic reasons f o r moving to a p r o j e c t .  The explanation f o r t h i s i s twofold.  F i r s t , due t o t h e i r l i m i t e d incomes, they- have l e s s money to spend on housing, and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e i r present accommodations are too crowded f o r the family size.-  Those of the respondents who  do spend a considerable part of t h e i r income on housing f i n d that for the same money they could get b e t t e r (and l a r g e r ) accommodation i n a p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t .  They would have more money t o spend  on other things than s h e l t e r to. improve t h e i r standard of l i v i n g . Second, the respondents f e l t that moving t o a p r o j e c t would give -them an opportunity t o l i v e among f a m i l i e s w i t h the same problems or i n a s i m i l a r socio-economic s i t u a t i o n .  Presently,  though l i v i n g i n inadequate accommodations, most residents l i v e i n good r e s i d e n t i a l areas, but f e e l s o c i a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y i s o l a t e d from the surrounding neighbourhood and community at l a r g e . Very few of them'have f r i e n d s i n t h e i r v i c i n i t y (except f o r "babys i t t e r " r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) , but often v i s i t some of the p r o j e c t s , where many have f r i e n d s . Perhaps t h i s i s why, when asked about the advantages of l i v i n g among f a m i l i e s i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s , many said that they could make many f r i e n d s i n the p r o j e c t .  One t y p i c a l  66 -  response was, " I t i s easier t o make f r i e n d s , and I f e e l free while t a l k i n g t o them because we have so much i n common." Another respondent said','' • "We have the same problems and we can t a l k about them." In many cases, these respondents got the idea of moving to a project a f t e r seeing t h e i r f r i e n d s i n p r o j e c t s .  They were  impressed w i t h accommodations and the low r e n t , and f e l t they were missing out on something.  As one.respondent  put.it,  "I never.thought much of these p r o j e c t s before, but when one of my f r i e n d s moved i n t o t h i s project ( K i l l a r n e y ) , I v i s i t e d her, and got myself l i s t e d . " A mother of two s a i d , " I have been w a i t i n g f o r more than a year now (to move to a p r o j e c t ) and I'm l o o k i n g forward t o i t . " The other reasons f o r wanting t o move t o a project were r e l a t e d i n one way or another t o e i t h e r cheaper rent or being among their friends.  Some of them a r e ,  " L i v i n g i n a p r o j e c t , I could save enough money t o go t o a v o c a t i o n a l school." " I f e e l so l o n e l y here. Wo one t o t a l k t o . A l l my neighbours here t r e a t me as i f I'm a s o c i a l o u t c a s t . " "My only acquaintance here i s my b a b y - s i t t e r from next door."  f  -67  -  "I never had a home of my own." "The project i s so much b e t t e r . " The adults f e l t l o n e l y and i s o l a t e d s o c i a l l y and thought the project would provide f r i e n d s f o r themselves and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . One respondent f e l t that herfyteenage sons do not have any•problems, but her two younger c h i l d r e n , four and s i x years o l d , have no company. "A project w i l l have l o t s of c h i l d r e n f o r them t o play with." S t i l l another put i t d i f f e r e n t l y , "My c h i l d r e n aren't dressed up as n i c e l y as other c h i l d r e n i n the area. Maybe that's the reason my neighbours won't allow t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o play with ours. I n a proj e c t t h i s wouldn't be the case."  PROJECT RESIDENTS:,  L i k e t h e i r counterparts.in the w a i t i n g l i s t , residents f e l t that low rent was the main reason f o r being i n the p r o j e c t , though they d i d not emphasize t h i s as strongly.  Perhaps t h i s i s  because the many other advantages of l i v i n g i n a project were not so evident t o these f a m i l i e s before.  For instance, nearly a l l  the residents l i k e d l i v i n g i n a gooa area among higher income groups without being i s o l a t e d among these groups. was not mentioned by the future r e s i d e n t s .  This f a c t o r  Culloden Court i s  -  68 -  located i n the Sunset, area, which i s 15th i n the socio-economic ranking o f the 22 l o c a l areas o f Vancouver (see "Local Areas of Vancouver".,-'by B.W. Mayhew). • Perhaps the resident's of Culloden Court f e e l that compared to'most of the other p r o j e c t s (which are a l l l o c a t e d i n lower ranking areas)., t h e i r s i s i n a better r e s i - . dential location. " L i v i n g i n t h i s project we l i v e i n a clean neighbourhood." "Compared t o the slum (Hastings) area we were l i v i n g i n before, t h i s i s so much b e t t e r , and that's why we are i n a project." "This i s a nice area and we have better accommodation than before." "We are much happier here. This area i s so much better than our f i r s t project (Maclean Park)." When asked what they meant by "clean" area, " n i c e r " area, the residents stated that i t ' s not a "slum" area (a general r e ference t o the East Hastings area by the m a j o r i t y , who would not l i k e t o l i v e i n a project t h e r e ) , that "people are better here", and that "there's no bumsyor drunks i n t h i s area", e t c .  Another reason given by the r e s i d e n t s , also'.not mentioned by future r e s i d e n t s , was that l i v i n g i n a project provides an easier a v a i l a b i l i t y of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s , welfare s e r v i c e s , etc.  This may  be because a project i d e n t i f i e s a concentration of problem f a m i l i e s or f a m i l i e s needing these s e r v i c e s .  Perhaps because there i s such  - 69 -  a concentration, s o c i a l agencies pay more a t t e n t i o n t o these f a m i l i e s .  Making f r i e n d s among project residents much more e a s i l y than before was not mentioned by most residents v o l u n t a r i l y , but when asked about f r i e n d s , they a l l said they have more f r i e n d s now than before.  Other advantages mentioned by project residents i n l i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t are the r e c r e a t i o n room and the c h i l d r e n ' s play area.  Most o f those who gave these advantages d i d not have these  f a c i l i t i e s before, and f e l t them t o be u s e f u l . "My c h i l d r e n were p l a y i n g i n the s t r e e t s before - now they have a safe area t o play i n , and I can watch them too." "The r e c r e a t i o n room i s very handy - I made a l l my contacts among residents there." " I met most of my f r i e n d s i n the r e c r e a t i o n room." L i v i n g among f a m i l i e s i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s was mentioned as an advantage.  One woman s a i d ,  "Most of us (women) have so much spare time here, so we get together t o t a l k • or play cards. I couldn't do t h i s before. . I used t o l i v e four -blocks from here, and didn't know many people t o v i s i t . "  -  70  -  RESPONSE PATTERN:  The low rent i n project l i v i n g i s the most evident reason given among both groups of respondents.  Though the emphasis put  on l i v i n g among f a m i l i e s i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s v a r i e d i n the  two  groups, i t became evident that l i v i n g i n a project with s i m i l a r (socio-economic) f a m i l i e s provides more f r i e n d s and spare time occupations.  Adults and c h i l d r e n have companionship i n the p r o j e c t ,  which to a c e r t a i n extent removes the s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n or l o n e l i ness f e l t by the residents before moving i n t o the p r o j e c t .  It  appears from the responses that residents f e e l the l o c a t i o n of the project i n a d e s i r a b l e area (better than the run-down areas of Vancouver) i s important to them.  A l s o , because of i t s concentration  of s i m i l a r types of f a m i l i e s , the project provides an easier access to agency s e r v i c e s .  The project f a c i l i t i e s are seen as an added  advantage f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l , as w e l l as s o c i a l , reasons.  IMPLICATIONS:  1.  SOCIAL AND  SPATIAL:  A project i s conceived f o r increased f r i e n d s h i p s and  social  life.  2.  The l o c a t i o n of a project -like t h i s i n the community i s seen as an improved socio-economic s e t t i n g f o r f a m i l i e s .  3.  Project p r o v i s i o n s f o r outdoor and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i s  -  71  -  h i g h l y valued.  k.  L i v i n g i n a project i s r e l a t e d t o increased a v a i l a b i l i t y of social services.  5.  Low rent i n the project means that there i s more money t o improve the standard of l i v i n g .  -  72  11.  -  TABLE VI  PRIMARY REASONS FOR MOVING TO! A PROJECT  No. Responded  1.  Economic Reasons  2.  L i v i n g With Families I n Similar Situations  3.  30:  21  100  "  70  For Increased Friendships, Companionship  4.  Percentage  Other Reasons  2k  80  2k  80  Total No. of Responses T o t a l No. of Families Responded 30' *Most Respondents Gave More Than One Reason  - 73 -  FURTHER BREAKDOWN IE TERMS OF.REMARKS  1.  Remarks on "Economic Reasons"  No. Responded  Cheaper than present rent  Ik  Low rent f o r better accommodation  6  . Better'Accommodation for--the present rent  5  With low r e n t , money w i l l be a v a i l a b l e for other things  3  Could make savings l i v i n g i n .project  2  T o t a l No. of Families .Responded  2.  30  Remarks on " L i v i n g with Families in Similar Situations" We have so much i n common  No. Responded '  8  We can help each other and discuss our problems  5  We can make house v i s i t s  3  Do not have t o pretend and l i v e a phony l i f e among s i m i l a r type of f a m i l i e s You f e e l you•are not alone  (n«30)  T o t a l No. of Families Responded  3 2  21  - 7k -  3.  Remarks on "For Increased Friendships, Wo. Responded  Companionships" Easier t o make f r i e n d s among f a m i l i e s i n . similar situations Adult company f o r gossip, card games, e t c .  6  More c h i l d r e n t o play with f o r our c h i l d r e n  k  Increased s o c i a l l i f e  2  Do not f e e l l i v i n g i n I s o l a t i o n -  2  More f r i e n d l y atmosphere i n project  2  (n i 30)  k.  8  T o t a l Wo. of Families Responded  Remarks on "Other Reasons"  2k  Wo. Responded  L i v i n g i n p r o j e c t makes-it p o s s i b l e t o l i v e i n a "clean" ( b e t t e r j nice) neighbourhood To have a house of our own  3  To a v a i l project f a c i l i t i e s To get out of "slum" area.  6  "3 This i s the only  way we can do i t  6  L i v i n g i n project helps i n a v a i l i n g s o c i a l s e r v i c e s , helps i n welfare, e t c . You f e e l part of community Total Wo. of Families Responded T o t a l Wo. of Respondents T o t a l Wo. of Reasons Given  30 99  k  2 2k  - 75 -  WAY OF LIFE- BEFORE MOVING TO"A PROJECT  FUTURE RESIDENTS:  Having discussed at some length the main reasons f o r moving t o a project,, we must now consider the general s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the way of l i f e of the respondents i n the general community before moving t o the p r o j e c t .  As i t became evident i n the l a s t  chapter, a l a c k of f r i e n d s i n and around the neighbourhood was a problem most frequently encountered.  When questioned on the  s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e i r way of l i f e , nearly a l l respondents, espec i a l l y s i n g l e mothers, said that l i f e generally could be very s a t i s f a c t o r y but f o r two things - money and l o n e l i n e s s .  Regarding  l o n e l i n e s s , most f e l t that l i v i n g i s o l a t e d i n the community i s , the main drawback.  As one respondent put i t ,  "Most of my long-time f r i e n d s a r e . e i t h e r i n p r o j e c t s or f a r away from here. I don't have a car... I haven't been able t o make f r i e n d s here - people are s u p e r f i c i a l . I would l i k e to move from here so that I could be close to people I could be f r i e n d l y " with. Right now, I f e e l I am cut o f f from the world." Another s a i d , "Being s i n g l e and l i v i n g i n i s o l a t i o n from your f r i e n d s or other s i n g l e mothers i s d i f f i c u l t . You f e e l so lonely." An• i n t e r e s t i n g point mentioned by the same woman, and •VBtifaPtfy  fest^her^s  t n a ^ h e l ^  -  76  -  at s i n g l e s c l u b s , which t h e y f e e l t o be t h e i r o n l y s o c i a l T h i s i s p r o b a b l y why  outlet.  a l o t o f t h e s i n g l e mothers know o t h e r  mothers, though t h e y l i v e f a r from each o t h e r .  One  thought  single, that  when she moves i n t o a p r o j e c t she w i l l i n i t i a t e a s i n g l e s c l u b there.  As she  said,  " T h i s i s p r o b a b l y what we miss the most. We need t o meet men and we are l o n e l y . T h i s i s the b a s i s o f most o f our problems. E s p e c i a l l y i n p r o j e c t s you see so many s i n g l e mothers, and we want t o s o c i a l i z e . An o r g a n i z e d s i n g l e s c l u b is-what y o u - r e a l l y need t h e r e . . . "  One  particular  s i n g l e mother i n her e a r l y t w e n t i e s  said,  " I l i v e here a l o n e w i t h my c h i l d . .1 come from t h e E a s t and don't have any f r i e n d s i n the c i t y . I met some o f my neighbours i n t h e c o r n e r s t o r e but t h e y keep t h e i r d i s t a n c e , so I keep t o m y s e l f and don't mix."  " T h i s a r e a i s v e r y good t o l i v e i n i f you're m a r r i e d , but T t h i n k i n my p a r t i c u l a r case a p r o j e c t may be-a b e t t e r p l a c e - I would get t o know o t h e r s l i k e me."  None o f the s i n g l e mothers, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r age, any c o m p l a i n t s r e g a r d i n g any o f t h e community f a c i l i t i e s the s i n g l e s c l u b .  D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n thus c e n t r e d on t h e  and t h e i s o l a t i o n from o t h e r p e o p l e .  T h i s was  had  except f o r  loneliness,  true of children  t o o , though the problem i s l e s s acute i f t h e r e i s more t h a n  one  c h i l d i n the f a m i l y , p r o v i d i n g some company f o r each o t h e r , even i f limited.  The  c h i l d r e n , however, even i f t h e y are o n l y c h i l d r e n ,  seem'much more c a p a b l e o f h a n d l i n g l o n e l i n e s s than t h e i r  parents,  but n e a r l y a l l p a r e n t s s a i d t h e y wished t h e r e would be more company f o r t h e i r  children.  -  77--  On the other hand, f a m i l i e s w i t h older c h i l d r e n found that t h e i r own c h i l d r e n had no such problems, as they had f r i e n d s from school and d i d not encounter much d i f f i c u l t y .  I t appears  that f o r older c h i l d r e n i t i s neither an advantage nor a disadvantage t o l i v e i n a p r o j e c t , at l e a s t s o c i a l l y , as they make t h e i r f r i e n d s from the community at l a r g e , and not j u s t from the immedi a t e neighbourhood.  Apart from the improved accommodation i n the p r o j e c t , the parents from such f a m i l i e s f e l t , however, that they themselves had very l i m i t e d s o c i a l l i v e s .  They were also very concerned w i t h  the external things such as c l o t h i n g , and f u r n i s h i n g s , and have withdrawn themselves t o a c e r t a i n extent from t h e i r neighbours. As a mother of two teenage boys put i t , "My k i d s aren't as dressed up as the others i n t h i s area, and I f e e l that i f we l i v e d i n a p r o j e c t , there'd be more money f o r things l i k e clothes.", • Another respondent who was concerned about the l a c k of proper f u r n i s h i n g s conceded, " I t ' s d i f f i c u l t t o make.friends here as I'm not up t o the standards of the others (neighbours)... even i f I do make f r i e n d s , I can't ask them t o v i s i t my place. I'm.quite ashamed about the emptiness i n t h i s house."  - 78 -  PROJECT RESIDENTS:  I t i s evident that the e a r l i e r group put emphasis on " l o n e l i n e s s " and "lack of f r i e n d s " while d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r overa l l / s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r present mode of l i v i n g , and t h i s l e d to f i n d i n g out what p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s now f e e l , a f t e r l i v i n g i n the project f o r some time, about t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r place of l i v i n g , and the community i n general before l i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t . I t became evident i n these discussions that g e n e r a l l y they are much happier than before, though there was s t i l l  dissatisfaction  w i t h many t h i n g s . Most f r e q u e n t l y , they mentioned that though they have an improved s o c i a l l i f e , the improvement was not as great as they would have wished. type was stressed.  I n t e g r a t i o n w i t h others than t h e i r own  This w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l i n another  d i s c u s s i o n , but what i s important i s that they viewed an improved s o c i a l l i f e as a more s a t i s f a c t o r y elementpin t h e i r l i v e s .  It  appears that s a t i s f a c t i o n before p r o j e c t l i v i n g was very low.  Fre-  quently mentioned was that i n t h e i r s o c i a l l i f e before, they f e l t more i s o l a t e d and l o n e l y than they do now.  Another important  element mentioned was that they are somewhat more s a t i s f i e d with f a c i l i t i e s than before.  Many c i t e d a l a c k of play areas, poorer  accommodation and f a c i l i t i e s , l o n e l i n e s s and s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n as the c h i e f reasons f o r a much l e s s e r degree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r way of l i f e before l i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t .  - 79 -  Many discussed p a s t . s a t i s f a c t i o n of l i v i n g i n the community i n terms of awareness and a v a i l a b i l i t y now of present s a t i s f a c t o r y elements'.  Perhaps t h i s apparent anomaly i s due t o  the fact that many other f a c t o r s l e a d i n g t o s a t i s f a c t i o n other than s o c i a l l i f e and a l a c k of f r i e n d s were not so obvious before. The f r e q u e n t l y mentioned aspects such as b e t t e r f a c i l i t i e s , accommodation, e t c ; , are seen as an o v e r a l l improvement i n l i f e , and thus, have an e f f e c t on o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n .  A respondent who l i v e d i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s before, and moved out v o l u n t a r i l y , then a f t e r a couple o f years moved back to the p r o j e c t (Culloden Court on her preference), s a i d , "I can say I have l i v e d and know both sides of the p i c t u r e ( s i c ) (meaning, l i v i n g i n and outside o f p r o j e c t s ) . . L i f e i n general i s much happier i n the p r o j e c t than outside. For one t h i n g , i t gives you the s a t i s f a c t i o n of l i v i n g i n decent accommodations, and f e e l i n g l i k e part of a s i m i l a r group o f people... you have much more spare money... l i f e i s more comfortable here. There i s a r e c r e a t i o n room here. The area i s n i c e , there's l o t s of open space f o r c h i l d r e n t o play i n , and though you get fed up with seeing and l i v i n g w i t h the same problem f a m i l i e s , y o u ' s t i l l go f o r p r o j e c t s . L i f e here i s not great ( s i c ) but i t ' s .far b e t t e r than before. That's why I came back t o the p r o j e c t . Of course, Culloden Court i s not l i k e the p r o j e c t s i n the East Hastings area." Perhaps because o f Culloden Court's r e l a t i v e l y smaller s i z e and n i c e r r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n , the p h y s i c a l aspects of the project were stressed more than the s o c i a l aspects, or perhaps the p h y s i c a l aspects do complement • the s o c i a l ' a s p e c t s ' o f l i v i n g . I t nevertheless underlines the importance respondents gave t o . _":  -  80 -  improved s o c i a l a n d . p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g s as a measure f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e and t h e way  people l i v e .  One  respon-  dent p l a c e d much importance on the type o f accommodation she  had  b e f o r e moving i n t o C u l l o d e n C o u r t .  she  was  b e f o r e , she  D i s c u s s i n g how  satisfied  said,  " I had a much b e t t e r p l a c e b e f o r e , a c o u r t y a r d , e t c . . . t h e o n l y reason I l e f t was the r e n t was k i l l i n g me ( s i c ) . I was v e r y f r i e n d l y w i t h my neighbours b e f o r e , but now I moved h e r e , which i s o n l y f o u r b l o c k s from where I l i v e d b e f o r e , I l o s t my f r i e n d s . Maybe i t ' s the f a c t t h a t I l i v e i n a p r o j e c t and t h e y don't want t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h me any more. I am moving out v e r y soon, even i f i t t a k e s a l l my w e l f a r e money. I ' l l be much h a p p i e r . "  Another respondent before  (when her husband was  p u b l i c housing,  who  l i v e d i n a p r i v a t e housing p r o j e c t  a l i v e ) and whose c i r c u m s t a n c e s  l e d to  commented,  " L i f e r e a l l y was n i c e b e f o r e . I had my f a m i l y and t h e people i n the p r o j e c t were v e r y f r i e n d l y . I'm not the type t o mix f r e e l y , and don't p a r t i c i p a t e i n the r e c r e a t i o n room meetings. In t h a t p r i v a t e p r o j e c t I made most o f my f r i e n d s h i p s i n the l a u n d r y room, but h e r e , o t h e r than the r e c r e a t i o n room you don't meet p e o p l e any o t h e r way."  RESPONSE PATTERN:  Measures f o r e x p r e s s i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h l i v i n g  are  l o n e l i n e s s or a l a c k o f f r i e n d s , accommodation q u a l i t y , s o c i a l ganization  ( l i k e singles c l u b s ) , s o c i a l integration with  or-  higher  income groups, a w e l l d e s i g n e d p r o j e c t arid i t s s c a l e , p h y s i c a l facilities,  e t c . , a l l mentioned f r e q u e n t l y among the  respondents.  -  81  -  0  F u t u r e r e s i d e n t s , though, put more emphasis on only  ( l o n e l i n e s s and  social  aspects  a lack of friends i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n ) f o r  d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n , or the l a c k o f i t .  The  project  r e s i d e n t s put  a l o t o f emphasis on p h y s i c a l a s p e c t s which t h e y  enjoy now  d i d not  and  accommodation, p r o j e c t  have the  opportunity  t o use  before  (better  f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . ) when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r  s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r way  of l i f e  before.  Social satisfaction i s  seen as more important t h a n lower r e n t or s a v i n g money when meas u r i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the way most evident  IMPLICATIONS:  deterrent  of l i f e ,  to achieving  SOCIAL AND  and  t h a t l o n e l i n e s s i s the  a s a t i s f a c t o r y way  life.  SPATIAL:  1. • Whereas s o c i a l a s p e c t s become measurements f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the way o n l y l i v e d i n the  of  describing  o f l i v i n g f o r respondents who  general  have  community, p h y s i c a l a s p e c t s  become measurements f o r respondents who  have e x p e r i e n c e d  project l i v i n g , i n describing t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n i n l i v i n g before.  2.  L i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t  i s c o n c e i v e d o f as an "improvement over  the p r e v i o u s way- o f l i f e .  The  p r o j e c t appears t o a c e r t a i n  extent t o s a t i s f y s o c i a l as w e l l as p h y s i c a l needs.  3.  P r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s and mentary t o each  other.  s o c i a l a s p e c t s o f l i v i n g are  comple-  As a measurement of s a t i s f a c t i o n of l i v i n g i n a general community, s o c i a l aspects are important.  Project l i v i n g leads t o an important r o l e f o r p h y s i c a l aspects, i n measuring community/satisfaction.  -  83 -  TABLE V I I  WAY OF L I F E BEFORE MOVING TO PROJECT  No.. Responded  1. U n s a t i s f a c t o r y  Percentage  in-terms of - '. 38  95  27  68  3. S a t i s f a c t o r y  3  8  k. Economic reasons  2  5  5- No p a r t i c u l a r o p i n i o n s  2  5  s o c i a l aspects 2. U n s a t i s f a c t o r y i n terms of physical  aspects  T o t a l No. o f Responses*.  T o t a l No. o f Respondents  '72  kO  *Some respondents mentioned more t h a n one aspect  - 84 -  1.  Breakdown  of S o c i a l A s p e c t s  No. Responded  13  A. L o n e l i n e s s  1+  B. Need f o r s o c i a l c l u b s C. S o c i a l i s o l a t i o n from  11  neighbourhood  D. S o c i a l i s o l a t i o n from f a m i l i e s  i n similar  state  2  E. Others  (n^ho)  2.  Total  Breakdown o f P h y s i c a l  A. Q u a l i t y  No. Responded  Aspects  12  B. Common f a c i l i t i e s  7  C. L o c a t i o n i n neighbourhood  5  D.  3  Others  Total  Satisfied-With  A.  L i v i n g Before  No. Responded  Project  2  Social  1  T o t a l . N o . Responded  . Total No'Opinions,  Indifferent  3  No. Responded  Economic Reasons  A. S a t i s f ied-r/before- except f o r h i g h r e n t  5.  27  No. Responded  B. P e r s o n a l  h.  38  No. Responded  o f accommodation  • if  3.  8  No. Responded  2  2  85  -  C  WAY  -  OF•LIFE AFTER MOVING TO A PROJECT  Having discussed how respondents reacted t o l i f e before moving to a p r o j e c t , t h e i r s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n and the economics of l i v i n g i n the community, we must now consider how they react to l i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t .  There were many degrees of s a t i s f a c t i o n  • found and they g e n e r a l l y r e l a t e d t o e i t h e r the l o c a t i o n of t h e i r u n i t i n the p r o j e c t i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to outside s t r e e t s and i n s i d e f a c i l i t i e s , or the f a m i l y type.  F i r s t we w i l l discuss the r e a c t i o n  among f a m i l i e s w i t h respect to t h e i r p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g or l o c a t i o n regarding the o u t s i d e , common f a c i l i t i e s , etc.  Among respondents, f a m i l i e s l i v i n g on the outer periphery of the project seemed to be the most s a t i s f i e d .  They faced an out-  side s t r e e t , and v i s u a l l y r e l a t e d t o the surrounding neighbourhood. They s a i d they d i d not f e e l as "trapped" as the f a m i l i e s f a c i n g i n s i d e the p r o j e c t , they do not have to look i n t o each other's u n i t s , they have more p r i v a c y , and f e e l themselves belonging to the outside neighbourhood, rather than j u s t the p r o j e c t .  Some remarks were: "There i s too much noise i n s i d e . . . 'here, we face out... t h i s way we don't have to mix w i t h the others a l l the time." " I t ' s so much b e t t e r on the outside. Inside the p r o j e c t you f e e l so "trapped". We've l i v e d i n other p r o j e c t s and t h i s i s the best l o c a t i o n . . . •" -  -  86 -  "I wouldn't l i k e t o l i v e i n s i d e . . . " " L i v i n g here on the outside we don't have too much t o do with the others in. the p r o j e c t . We meet others i n the r e c r e a t i o n room meetings. That's enough f o r me. I don't l i k e much s o c i a l i z i n g with others i n the p r o j e c t . " One c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the f a m i l i e s f a c i n g outside that was  quite evident was that they preferred a degree o f aloofness  from project, residents as a whole, s o c i a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y .  This,  a t t i t u d e was shared by many f a m i l i e s with older c h i l d r e n presently l i v i n g i n s i d e the p r o j e c t , but who would have p r e f e r r e d having a u n i t f a c i n g outside.  Of the eleven b u i l d i n g b l o c k s , seven blocks  are on the periphery, and f a c i n g outside.  Of the 132 u n i t s i n  the eleven b l o c k s , 62 u n i t s of the seven outside blocks face outside the p r o j e c t .  One of the respondents with young c h i l d r e n , ,  however, does not l i k e l i v i n g i n a u n i t f a c i n g outside the p r o j e c t . As she put s i t , "My c h i l d r e n are always on the s t r e e t . I f I send them to play i n the i n s i d e c o u r t s , I can't watch them. I'd prefer l i v i n g i n a u n i t f a c i n g the court. I t ' d be better for my c h i l d r e n . " Among the preliminary.interviews conducted, many of the f a m i l i e s l i v e d i n the corner u n i t s of the b u i l d i n g blocks.  (The  l i s t o f these f a m i l i e s was supplied by B.C. Housing Management). They a l l preferred t h i s l o c a t i o n , without exception. given as the reason. corner u n i t s .  Privacy was  Even f a m i l i e s with young c h i l d r e n preferred  - 87  -  Among the f a m i l i e s l i v i n g the  c o u r t s , the m a j o r i t y  i n s i d e the p r o j e c t f a c i n g  o f them l i k e d  the  s e t t i n g , hut  o f the l a c k o f p r i v a c y and.the l a c k o f e n c l o s e d and-bigger) f r o n t yards. all  complained  (or more p r i v a t e  Regarding the open space or c o u r t s ,  f e l t t h a t i t would be much b e t t e r i f t h e y c o u l d a l s o see  Some u n i t s have f r o n t and s t r e e t , and  back y a r d s - t h e y f r o n t on an  have y a r d s at the r e a r .  Some o f the  nearly out.  outside  f a m i l i e s pointed  out t h a t l i v i n g i n such u n i t s would be much b e t t e r t h a n j u s t f a c i n g i n t o the c o u r t s . enclosed  N o i s e was  another f a c t o r a g a i n s t  by the b u i l d i n g b l o c k s .  In general,  courts  families l i v i n g i n -  s i d e the p r o j e c t e x h i b i t e d mixed f e e l i n g s r e g a r d i n g project.  h a v i n g the  l i v i n g i n the  Some remarks were:  " I t ' s n i c e t o have an open area i n the f r o n t , s p e c i a l l y f o r the k i d s , but you f e e l k i n d o f " t r a p p e d " surrounded by o n l y f a m i l i e s w i t h problems... i t ' d be n i c e t o be on the o u t s i d e . "  " I l i k e i t h e r e . There's so much a c t i v i t y , c h i l d r e n p l a y i n g , p e o p l e coming and g o i n g . . . out i n the f r o n t you -see c a r s "going by."  "I don't l i k e i t v e r y much here. I'd r a t h e r l i v e somep l a c e where t h e r e ' s peace, and not so many p e o p l e . I f e e l very l i m i t e d here."  When asked what she meant by  " l i m i t e d " , she  said,  "You see the same p e o p l e a l l the t i m e , n o i s e i n t h e c o u r t s , k i d s hanging around, the m i s c h i e f t h e y get into, etc."  - 88 -  Other t h a n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s a t i s f a c t i o n o f project  l i v i n g and t h e s e t t i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l household u n i t s and  f a m i l y type i n terms o f c h i l d r e n , t h e m a j o r i t y were much h a p p i e r now t h a n before-.  o f them f e l t  they  Many reasons were g i v e n .  Most  n o t a b l e among them were t h a t t h e y were f i n a n c i a l l y b e t t e r o f f , , had  b e t t e r accommodation, more s o c i a l l i f e ,  and a b e t t e r  location  i n t h e community.  Many r e l a t e d t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h p r o j e c t l i v i n g t o i t s location.-  T h i s aspect was v e r y much emphasized.  Many s a i d i t  was much b e t t e r l o c a t e d t h a n o t h e r s i n t h e downtown a r e a . a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n t o good d e s i g n .  Others  As one respondent  said,  " I t ' s so much b e t t e r l o o k i n g than o t h e r p r o j e c t s . I t l o o k s l i k e a p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y , except i t ' s not as w e l l k e p t , and d i s c i p l i n e among some f a m i l i e s and c h i l d r e n i s just deplorable."  In g e n e r a l ,  the project  seems t o f u l f i l l t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s  t h a t t h e s e respondents had b e f o r e moving i n t o t h e p r o j e c t . problems o f i s o l a t i o n and p o v e r t y f a c e d living  by t h e f u t u r e  The  residents  i n t h e g e n e r a l community seem t o be a l l e v i a t e d by p r o j e c t  living.  N e g a t i v e a s p e c t s mentioned i n p r o j e c t l i v i n g r e l a t e d t o f e e l i n g s o f i s o l a t i o n from t h e s u r r o u n d i n g neighbourhood. f e l t that  living  i n a project  Many  l i m i t e d them t o b e i n g w i t h t h e same  - 89-  type o f people with.no v a r i e t y .  A l l a r e low-income f a m i l i e s ,  and t h e r e are t o o many c h i l d r e n , e t c .  As we have seen  earlier,  f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s s t r e s s e d l i v i n g among s i m i l a r t y p e s o f f a m i l i e s f a c i n g t h e same problems, as a major r e a s o n f o r wanting t o l i v e i n a p r o j e c t , but once t h e s e same f a m i l i e s a c t u a l l y p r o j e c t l i v i n g , f e e l t h a t , though p r o j e c t l i v i n g ment over t h e i r l i f e  experience  i s an improve-  b e f o r e , t h e y s h o u l d be r e l a t e d t o a m i d d l e -  income, r a t h e r than a low-income group.  T h i s a t t i t u d e has  formed a c e r t a i n h e i r a r c h y between low-income and w e l f a r e  families,  s i n g l e parent and two parent f a m i l i e s , and a g e n e r a l s t r i v i n g f o r upward m o b i l i t y .  However, v e r y few wanted t o l e a v e t h e p r o j e c t .  Among t h e e l d e r l y , t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t i n a good r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a and b e i n g p a r t o f a f a m i l y environment, were t h e p o s i t i v e reasons g i v e n f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e p r o j e c t . specifically,  More  t h e y l i k e d b e i n g i n a p r o j e c t f o r f a m i l i e s , but i n  a b u i l d i n g block e x c l u s i v e l y f o r pensioners. t i o n e d were p r o j e c t s o f t h e t y p e . d e v o t e d  F r e q u e n t l y men-  e x c l u s i v e l y t o pensioners  ( N i c h o l s o n Tower), and t h e l a c k o f f a m i l y atmosphere.  Many a l s o  s a i d t h e y r e c e i v e much h e l p from t h e younger women i n t h e p r o j e c t , who shop f o r them, e t c .  They f e l t  that l i v i n g alone i n a c i t y i s  not good f o r t h e i r age group, t h a t l i v i n g among a group was the--" answer, and t h a t . s u c h a g r o u p i n g  should be p a r t o f a f a m i l y s e t t i n g .  The n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s o f l i v i n g i n such a- p r o j e c t  setting  as C u l l o d e n C o u r t , t h e y f e l t , a r e problems w i t h c h i l d r e n i n t h e  - 90 -  l4-l8  age group, i n terms o f m i s c h i e f , b r e a k - i n s ,  and n o i s e .  On t h e whole, however, t h e responses i n d i c a t e s a t i s f a c t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , among t h e e l d e r l y l i v i n g i n t h e p r o ject.  •  RESPONSE PATTERN:  The  p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s gave many reasons t o i n d i c a t e  why t h e y a r e h a p p i e r l i v i n g for  i n t h e p r o j e c t than b e f o r e .  t h i s comparison was made on improved accommodation, b e t t e r  budget due t o lower r e n t , i n c r e a s e d good, l o c a t i o n o f r e s i d e n c e , use  of f a c i l i t i e s ,  etc.  social l i f e  and r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,  improved a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s o c i a l  services,  These, t h e n , a r e t h e measurements used  by p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s t o compare t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f l i f e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e y f i n d themselves. It  The b a s i s  i n the  How, t o how t h e y l i v e d  before.  i s important t o note here t h a t no mention was made o f s o c i a l  i s o l a t i o n as such, though r e s i d e n t s f e e l t h a t t h e i r  social  i s now l i m i t e d t o s i m i l a r t y p e s o f f a m i l i e s i n t h e p r o j e c t P e n s i o n e r s on t h e other  life only.  hand, f e l t t h a t i n terms o f improved a c c o -  mmodation a n d - l i v i n g i n company o f o t h e r p e n s i o n e r s i n a s e t t i n g o f a f a m i l y environment i s an improvement compared t o t h e i r before. proximity block  life  T h e i r most frequent:'compM.ints r e l a t e d t o c h i l d r e n .  The  o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n room and p l a y area t o t h e p e n s i o n e r s  i s t h e cause f o r so much n o i s e , as w e l l as m i s c h i e f and  t h e f t s from o l d e r c h i l d r e n .  Another aspect o f s a t i s f a c t i o n i s t h e degree o f improvement w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t  itself.  As seen i n t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s ,  two l o c a t i o n s most r e s i d e n t s p r e f e r r e d were c o r n e r u n i t s and on the outer periphery.  Corner l o c a t i o n o f a u n i t  i s seen more as  an aspect o f p r i v a c y , and h a v i n g o n l y one neighbour Many r e s i d e n t s have g i v e n t h i s as an important  on t h e s i d e .  factor.  Living  on t h e o u t e r p e r i p h e r y i s seen more as a c e r t a i n degree o f i s o l a t i o n from t h e p r o j e c t and relating..more t o t h e immediate n e i g h borhood.  I n t h i s study i t was found t h a t people l i v i n g on t h e  o u t e r p e r i p h e r y were more c o n t e n t w i t h l i f e t h a n t h e r e s i d e n t s living  i n t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e p r o j e c t who complained  of being  trapped, l a c k of privacy, e t c .  IMPLICATIONS:  1.  SOCIAL AND SPATIAL:  L i v i n g among s i m i l a r t y p e o f p e o p l e  ( t o an e x t e n t ) i s seen  as an improvement i n l i f e than l i v i n g i n i s o l a t i o n i n t h e community.  2.  L o c a t i o n o f u n i t on t h e o u t e r p e r i p h e r y o f t h e p r o j e c t i s p r e f e r r e d more than t h e one i n t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e p r o j e c t .  3. • P r o j e c t l i v i n g p r o v i d e s more s o c i a l l i f e than l i v i n g i n t h e community.  alone  Improved accommodation, lower r e n t , l o c a t i o n o f a v a i l a b i l i t y of services  project,  and f a c i l i t i e s are seen as measuring  t o o l s t o compare the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f l i f e . -  - 93 -  TABLE  yill  WAY OF LIFE. AFTER. MOVING TO PROJECT  AS COMPARED TO LIVING IN. COMMUNITY AT LARGE  RESPONDENT GROUP: FAMILIES. WITH CHILDREN  Response  No. Responded  More s a t i s f i e d - than b e f o r e Same l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n  13  86  1  7  1  7  as b e f o r e  Worse than b e f o r e  T o t a l Responded  Reasons.Given for•"More  Percentage  15  S a t i s f i e d Than B e f o r e "  100%  No. Responded  B e t t e r accommodation t h a n beforeFinancially  13  better o f f  9  More s o c i a l l i f e  11  Better location  6  Use o f f a c i l i t i e s Increased  2  *  (easier) a v a i l a b i l i t y of services  7 8  I n c r e a s e i n income ( a s s i s t a n c e )  (n  13)  *Respondents gave more than one answer  Total"Responded*  :  ' 52  -'9k  -  RESPONDENT.. GROUP: PENSIONERS  More- s a t i s f i e d t h a n b e f o r e  k  80  Indifferent  1  20  5  100%  T o t a l Responded  Reasons f o r '"More S a t i s f i e d Than B e f o r e "  No. Responded  B e t t e r accommodation •  k  L i v i n g among other p e n s i o n e r s  k  Help from p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s  2  (n«4)  10  T o t a l Responded  Note-: More t h a n one r e a s o n was g i v e n .  Negative Aspects of Project L i v i n g  No. Responded  Too n o i s y  -  2  M i s c h i e f and t h e f t  (n*5) Note: More than one answer was g i v e n .  5  T o t a l Responded  7  - 95 -  RESIDENTS' OPINIONS. ON PROJECT FACILITIES  C u l l o d e n Court i s p r o v i d e d c h i l d r e n play areas, parking As we have d i s c o v e r e d  w i t h a r e c r e a t i o n room,  s p a c e s , and (open space) i n t e r i o r  e a r l i e r , t h e m a j o r i t y o f f r i e n d s h i p s were  s t a r t e d a t r e c r e a t i o n room a c t i v i t i e s . opinions  When asked about t h e i r  on t h e p r o v i s i o n o f such a f a c i l i t y  respondents pointed  courts  i n - t h e p r o j e c t , many  out t h a t t h e r e c r e a t i o n room i s i n t e n d e d f o r  t h e u s e o f t h e immediate s u r r o u n d i n g n e i g h b o u r h o o d , as w e l l as for  p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s , b u t i s o n l y used by t h e r e s i d e n t s . f  l  Many  -  f e l t t h a t when t h e p r o j e c t f i r s t s t a r t e d , r e s i d e n t s t o o k  great  i n t e r e s t i n i t , b u t due t o t h e l a c k o f p r o p e r o r g a n i z a t i o n and. poor h a n d l i n g , many o f t h e f u n c t i o n s and i d e a s never m a t e r i a l i z e d , o r were p o o r l y a t t e n d e d .  One woman, who a p p a r e n t l y  i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e c r e a t i o n room a c t i v i t i e s ,  showed much  said,  "I'm i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n s t r u c t i v e groups. These women don't do a n y t h i n g i n t e r e s t i n g . They're a b i g b o r e . . . "  A f r e q u e n t l y mentioned problem a t t a c h e d  t o r e c r e a t i o n room  a c t i v i t i e s was e i t h e r t h e l a c k o f p r o f e s s i o n a l ( o r e x p e r i e n c e d ) organizers, or various activities. discussed  f a c t i o n a l groups who do not share s i m i l a r  These two a s p e c t s o f t h e p r o b l e m w i l l be f u r t h e r ' separately.  What i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e I n t h e d i s c u s s i o n i s t h a t , , given c e r t a i n conditions  ( o r g a n i z a t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n ) ,  nearly  -  96  -  a l l respondents showed a p o s i t i v e i n c l i n a t i o n f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n r e c r e a t i o n room a c t i v i t i e s .  They wanted t o use t h e i r spare time  more c o n s t r u c t i v e l y , to meet people, to s o c i a l i z e , t o add to t h e i r knowledge of matters of i n t e r e s t , or j u s t to "see what's going on".  When asked about the kind of a c t i v i t i e s they are i n t e r e s t e d  i n , s u r p r i s i n g l y many showed i n t e r e s t i n educational or c r a f t oriented a c t i v i t i e s , such as cooking c l a s s e s , health care, l i b r a r y , t y p i n g , workshops, e t c . The p r o v i s i o n of a l i b r a r y . i n the proj e c t was the most frequently mentioned f a c i l i t y l a c k i n g i n the project at present. The l a c k of an organized s o c i a l evening was often complained about.  Asked about the e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t y f o r  s o c i a l evenings (recreation room), and why i t was not used f o r them, the f o l l o w i n g remarks were made: "For a s o c i a l evening we should have a more v a r i e t y of people... ' i t ' s always the same few of us i n the p r o j e c t . People from outside the project should be involved, too." • " I t should be properly organized. I don't t h i n k any of the people here can organize anything s u c c e s s f u l l y . . . I've stopped going t o any of these." " I used to gov;, but nothing happens nowadays... " Many f e l t that i f c e r t a i n classes are held, residents would be ready to p a r t i c i p a t e , and i t would also involve people from outside the p r o j e c t . . There are many among the respondents who are involved i n toy-making, p a i n t i n g , e t c . , who would welcome the opport u n i t y to teach c l a s s e s , but who would need help t o organize them.  And nearly a l l the respondents would l i k e to see the r e -  c r e a t i o n room being used f o r such a purpose.  -  97' -  Some organized a c t i v i t i e s are needed t o i n v o l v e both proj e c t r e s i d e n t s and others. s t a f f can f i l l the need.  Perhaps outside o r g a n i z e r s , or an agency Outside supervision would also break  down the d i s t r u s t and hesitance project r e s i d e n t s f e e l i n accept i n g t h e i r neighbours as organizers and teachers.  Another problem associated w i t h the use of the r e c r e a t i o n room i s the formation of a group a t t i t u d e towards i t . v  The e l d e r l y ,  parents, older c h i l d r e n , a l l want i t f o r ' t h e i r own exclusive use. At  f i r s t the use of the r e c r e a t i o n room was' unstructured, but i t  became evident very soon that no one group was s a t i s f i e d , and a c e r t a i n m i l i t a n c e developed between them.  Then, p a r t i c u l a r time  periods were a l l o c a t e d t o each group, but t h i s was not s u c c e s s f u l , as no group appeared t o be organized t o use i t s a l l o c a t e d time effectively.  Now, though the time periods s t i l l a p p l i e d , the r e -  c r e a t i o n room appeared t o be locked at a l l t i m e s , and not used at a l l .  I t was learned that the "man i n charge of t h i s arrangement  was i l l i n h o s p i t a l , and nobody seemed'to know what t o do, and f e l t vaguely g u i l t y about wasting t h i s f a c i l i t y .  The core of the  problem i s that b a s i c a l l y the r e c r e a t i o n centre i s one room, about 3 5 ' x ' ^ 8 ' , which can be used f o r only one a c t i v i t y at - a time, which i s too l a r g e f o r small group a c t i v i t i e s , and which i s too small f o r dances, general meetings, e t c . I t i s too general i n nature, too amorphous.  A pensioner s a i d ,  • "The r e c r e a t i o n room should be used f o r very general a c t i v i t i e s which the whole project shares l i k e meetings,  - 98 -  o r g a n i z e d c l a s s e s , l i b r a r y , and maybe p r o v i s i o n s f o r i n d i v i d u a l groups m a d e . s e p a r a t e l y . "  Other r e s i d e n t s had s i m i l a r 'opinions ,r  "The r e c r e a t i o n room s h o u l d have s e p a r a t e areas f o r d i f f e r e n t groups o f p e o p l e here. There should a t l e a s t be an a r e a j u s t f o r u s . "  " I t ' d be n i c e t o have a s m a l l room,in our b l o c k . . . j u s t t o s i t around, watch T.V.,' p l a y c a r d s . . . j u s t t h e people here i n t h i s b l o c k .  The  e l d e r l y and.the teenagers  p l a c e o f t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r l y . .  emphasized t h e need f o r a  Teenagers, however, wanted a  c o f f e e shop - t h e r e i s none convenient t h e y f e e l t h e y have nowhere t o go.  t o t h e p r o j e c t a r e a , and  T h i s k i n d o f response  questions  the v e r y r o l e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e i n a p r o ject.  Does i t s a t i s f y a l l t h e groups i n the p r o j e c t ?  p r o v i d e space f o r such groups when r e q u i r e d without w i t h o t h e r groups?  Does i t  interfering  Or should t h e c e n t r e f o r t h e p r o j e c t be v e r y  g e n e r a l i n nature and not c a t e r t o t h e s p e c i f i c needs o f any p a r t i c u l a r group, as t h e ^present c e n t r e i n C u l l o d e n Court signed?  Or s h o u l d t h e r e be, as many respondents  i s de-  expressed,  several  s m a l l e r areas s c a t t e r e d i n t h e p r o j e c t f o r v a r i o u s groups, w i t h t h e main c e n t r e b e i n g used o n l y f o r n o n - s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e whole p r o j e c t and t h e s u r r o u n d i n g  neighbourhood?  1  These q u e s t i o n s b r i n g up t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e v e r y  location  o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e i n t h e p r o j e c t , whether t h i s s h o u l d be on  - 99 -  the s i t e , outside-of the p r o j e c t , on the periphery of the p r o j e c t , f a c i n g ah;-outside " s t r e e t , or where i t i s now - l o c a t e d i n the i n ;  t e r i o r of the p r o j e c t .  When nearby r e s i d e n t s were asked what they  thought of the r e c r e a t i o n centre i n the p r o j e c t , they s a i d , . "What centre?" "But t h a t s not f o r us... " 1  "Nobody t o l d us i t ' s f o r everybody." Those who thought i t was a good idea t o have a c t i v i t i e s i n the centre f o r a l l i n the area (as management intended), thought i t should at l e a s t be v i s i b l e t o them and should be c l e a r l y marked as a r e c r e a t i o n centre. • As discussed e a r l i e r , r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g only up t o 2-3 blocks 'from the p r o j e c t r e a l i z e d that i t was, i n f a c t , a p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t , and f e l t i t had any e f f e c t on them or t h e i r property.  Any f a c i l i t i e s " intended t o i n v o l v e the  surrounding community should concentrate on t h i s area of.2-3 blocks surrounding the proj ect.  Children p l a y areas are p r e s e n t l y l o c a t e d i n two areas. One of them i s near the r e c r e a t i o n room, next t o the pensioners' block.  A l l pensioners'interviewed said that i t i s very noisy.  The other problem mentioned was that many f a m i l i e s w i t h young c h i l d r e n l i v e i n u n i t s which have no p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the l o c a t i o n of the play areas.  Some mothers complained that they  cannot supervise t h e i r young c h i l d r e n when they are i n these p l a y  -  areas.  100  -  Some f a m i l i e s without young c h i l d r e n , but l i v i n g close t o  these play areas, were not happy i n these l o c a t i o n s because o f the noise.  The l o c a t i o n o f f a m i l i e s i n the project w i t h respect  to f a c i l i t i e s should be more d e l i b e r a t e , as many f a m i l i e s w i t h older c h i l d r e n p r e f e r t o face the outside s t r e e t rather than the i n t e r i o r c o u r t s , while f a m i l i e s w i t h young c h i l d r e n p r e f e r t o l i v e i n the i n t e r i o r of the p r o j e c t , f a c i n g play areas..  Pensioners  would rather be away from noisy play areas.  There are three communal parking areas i n the p r o j e c t , and i n d i v i d u a l spaces are not a l l o c a t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i e s . From observation, i t appears that residents p r e f e r t o park near t h e i r u n i t s on an outside s t r e e t , than use the parking areas.  RESPONSE PATTERN:  I t became apparent that various age groups should be provided w i t h t h e i r "own" f a c i l i t i e s .  F a c i l i t i e s provided  should  be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the people who use them, such as the l o c a t i o n o f f a m i l i e s with young c h i l d r e n t o play areas, the l o c a t i o n of the r e c r e a t i o n centre so that i t r e l a t e d t o p r o j e c t residents as- w e l l as the neighbourhood.  The responses also showed that  there i s a need f o r common areas at c l u s t e r or block l e v e l .  People  preferred t o park as close as p o s s i b l e t o t h e i r u n i t s , rather than use the common parking areas. kept away from pensioners'  Children's play areas should be  areas..  - 101 -  IMPLICATIONS: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL:  1.  Project f a c i l i t i e s ' should he provided f o r various age groups.  2.  There should he a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between project prov i s i o n s and the.users,- f o r example, f a m i l i e s w i t h young c h i l d r e n f r o n t i n g on play areas. .  3.  Project f a c i l i t i e s could be a melting pot f o r neighbourhood i n t e g r a t i o n with project, r e s i d e n t s .  k.  F a c i l i t i e s f o r the use of a l l of the p r o j e c t residents should be s o c i a l and educational centres.  5.  There i s a need f o r f a c i l i t i e s at c l u s t e r and block l e v e l s which could be used f o r small group gatherings, f o r l e i s u r e and f o r common services ( l i k e laundry).  6.  F a c i l i t i e s at various l e v e l s are needed from block l e v e l to c l u s t e r t o p r o j e c t and at neighbourhood l e v e l .  7-  People,relate-much easier to f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n v i s u a l and p h y s i c a l reach.  Hence there i s a greater need f o r providing  f a c i l i t i e s at c l u s t e r l e v e l s .  - 102 -  TABLE IX  RESIDENTS OPINIONS ON PROJECT FACILITIES  PREFERENCE FOR PROJECT FACILITIES  Response  No.  Responded  Percentage  At p r o j e c t  level  6  30  At  level  11  55  3  15  cluster  Indifferent/no  opinion  T S t a l l R e s p p n d e d d 20  100%  RECREATION CENTRE FOR USE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD  No.  F o r use b y p r o j e c t  residents  Responded  Percentage  li-  55  lt  20  5  25  and. neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s For p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s Indifferent/no  only  opinion-  T o t a l Responded  20  100%  - 103  -  PREFERENCES'IN THE .LOCATION OF THE PROJECT IN THE GENERAL AREA OF VANCOUVER .  FUTURE RESIDENTS:  During the unstructured interviews i t hecame obvious that most respondents had c e r t a i n preferences i n the l o c a t i o n of the project i t s e l f .  Some even d r i f t e d i n t o d i s c u s s i n g how p a r t i c u l a r .  l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n ^ c i t y areas would complement t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s . Some gave p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n a l preferences to housing management (even though the p a r t i c u l a r forms used have no space a l l o t t e d f o r such requests).  A.few even mentioned, that i f space was not a v a i l -  able i n t h e i r p r e f e r r e d l o c a t i o n , they would not accept p u b l i c housing.  In such strong preferences of t h i s kind regarding  l o c a t i o n , i t appeared, at l e a s t at f i r s t glance, that the l o c a t i o n of the p r o j e c t has a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p to a t t i t u d e s regarding many of the issues being discussed i n t h i s study.  For those  who  did not have strong preferences, or never mentioned them volunt a r i l y during i n t e r v i e w s , the d i s c u s s i o n d i r e c t e d i t s e l f to the q u a l i t i e s they a t t r i b u t e to the l o c a t i o n and t h e i r choices should these be a v a i l a b l e .  In t h i s way we could get a measure of the  q u a l i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the l o c a t i o n of p r o j e c t s i n determining respondents'" preferences.  The l a r g e s t group of respondents  (over  2.0'.%)  wanted t o  - 10k -  l i v e away from "slum" Csic)'. areas.  On f u r t h e r questioning i t  was found that "slum area" u s u a l l y meant anywhere close t o East Hastings, north of hth Avenue, hut also r e f e r r e d t o other known run-down areas o f Vancouver. for t h i s .  There were many.reasons given  One was that they d i d not want t o associate themselves  w i t h a "slum area" i f they could help i t , e i t h e r because they wanted t o improve'their l i f e - s t y l e or because they f e l t that public housing l i v i n g i s an improvement over t h e i r present state i n l i f e . • As one respondent put i t , "We are f i n e the way things are ( s i c ) . . . the whole idea of applying f o r a project u n i t i s t o l i v e i n a b e t t e r area with good'people around... I l i k e that p r o j e c t on 4 7 t h (Culloden Court). That's the one I'd l i k e t o get i n t o . . . we're doing our best t o b e t t e r ourselves... " Some other remarks were, "There's no way I'm going t o l i v e i n Maclean or Raymur p r o j e c t s . . . i t ' s awful there. I'd much rather l i v e r i g h t here (Mt..• Pleasant) even i f i t ' s hard t o manage . (financially)." •• • "The new p r o j e c t s I've seen are away from downtown and I'd prefer t h a t . Of course, I wouldn't mind g e t t i n g i n any of them as I can't a f f o r d anything b e t t e r outside..." I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note that though the p r o j e c t s are generally not i n proximity t o each other, they are l i m i t e d t o the north-east and south-east  areas of the c i t y .  This may have i n -  fluenced the respondents (who are f a m i l i a r with the p r o j e c t s ) i n t h e i r preferences or with the whole idea o f making choices.  Some  - 105 -  of them made p a r t i c u l a r choices.  Of these, Culloden Court Cor  "project on h7th", "project on Knight", etc.) was the most f r e quently mentioned one.  Some had negative choices, such a s ,  "...  anywhere hut i n Baymur... "  "...  except f o r Skeena... "  "Not i n Raymur or Maclean... " This may, of course, be due t o the fact that these p r o j e c t s have been i n the news media f o r one reason or another.  One impor-  tant point i s that many f e l t they should be part of a middlec l a s s population, not "low-class" ( s i c ) population, as one admitted (who had a f a m i l y of f o u r , and whose husband works at the airport), "I don't t h i n k we should be part of these low-class people, I mean drunks, welfare cases, etc. We are l i k e m i d d l e - c l a s s . f a m i l i e s and I t h i n k they should have proj e c t s f o r f a m i l i e s l i k e us i n good areas with decent people... " This was the way most responded, e i t h e r mentioning proj e c t s i n middle-class neighbourhoods or p r o j e c t s i n clean areas. The only other point r a i s e d was that the p r o j e c t should be close t o schools.  This was g e n e r a l l y pointed out as a second c r i t e r i o n ,  rather than a f i r s t .  Perhaps t h i s i s because schools are generally  always w i t h i n reach i n Vancouver, or because they value "respectable" or "clean" neighbourhoods most i n the l o c a t i o n of a p r o j e c t .  -  106  -  Amenities (other than.schools) were not mentioned v o l u n t a r i l y as a reason f o r choosing a l o c a t i o n . When s p e c i f i c a l l y asked about t h i s , the t y p i c a l answer, was that i t i s a good idea being close to s t o r e s , bus l i n e s , e t c . , but they are not the most important c r i t e r i o n i n choosing a l o c a t i o n .  I t may  be-be-  cause bus l i n e s are g e n e r a l l y w i t h i n reach i n the denser parts of the c i t y , or because by choice or by coincidence, they do l i v e close to major bus l i n e s , and i t d i d not occur to them as an portant aspect.  im-  Later issues discuss shopping and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p  to r e s i d e n t i a l proximity i n d e t a i l .  For the present d i s c u s s i o n , i t  appears from responses that i t does not play a v i t a l r o l e i n preferences f o r the l o c a t i o n of a p r o j e c t .  Another aspect that influenced the choices made was  that  many of these respondents have f r i e n d s i n p r o j e c t s , and t h e r e f o r e , have first-hand.impressions of these p r o j e c t s , and also become fami l i a r with the problems and stigmas that go along with some of the projects.  As -one respondent s a i d , ' " I know three of these p r o j e c t s because I've got f r i e n d s l i v i n g i n them. I f I have a choice, I ' l l p i c k the ones i n south-east Vancouver... f o r one t h i n g , they're l o cated i n a nice area, and where normal f a m i l i e s l i v e . "  PROJECT RESIDENTS:  In order to t r y and determine what the residents f e l t about the l o c a t i o n of- the p r o j e c t , and whether they had any 1  pre-  -  107  -  ferences ."before .moving into: the' project,'..it was necessary to see i f they were presently s a t i s f i e d ' w i t h the project l o c a t i o n .  It  i s important to note here that because they are already l i v i n g i n a project i n a p a r t i c u l a r area, they have become influenced by t h i s experience, and have become aware of the many v a r i a b l e s that a f f e c t a project l o c a t i o n .  Nearly a l l of them f e l t that  Culloden Court i s located i n the r i g h t area, and compared to the other p r o j e c t s i t has the best l o c a t i o n .  This point becomes im-  portant, as many of them have compared the l o c a t i o n of Court to the l o c a t i o n of other p r o j e c t s .  Culloden  The responses, t h e r e f o r e ,  could be seen as a comparison-rather than as a preference among free choices.  The reasons given f o r mentioning that  Culloden  Court i s ^in the " r i g h t " l o c a t i o n are the b a s i c a l l y f a m i l i a r ones the future residents gave.  For example, one respondent i n t e r -  viewed with her husband s a i d , "For one t h i n g , i t ' s a respectable part of the. c i t y , or at l e a s t better than most other areas i n the east end of the. city.. I t ' s close, to schools, stores and everything that we look fori) We f e e l more comfortable here than where we l i v e d before (very close to Raymur p r o j e c t ) . I t ' s not j u s t the schools, and.everything, but where i t is... " ~ Her husband put i t d i f f e r e n t l y , "Well, i t ' s better than Raymur, but i t ' s f a r from my work (downtown) but I'd s t i l l rather l i v e here, even though the former place was more, convenient f o r me to get to work. I t ' s a b e t t e r address."  - 108 -  Other remarks.were, "... I t ' s not an area where bums hang around... "• " I t ' s not part of the i n d u s t r i a l or downtown area. l i k e l i v i n g i n quiet r e s i d e n t i a l areas." "I l i k e t h i s area because most of my f r i e n d s l i v e " I l i v e d most of my l i f e i n t h i s  I  nearby."  neighbourhood."  "My k i d s go t o school,here, so'T'moved here..." (This family l i v e d s i x blocks away from the.project and have two teenage sons) Other than these answers a few mentioned that l o c a t i o n i s primary,to t h e i r husbands and the women d i d not have any part i c u l a r preferences other than being i n a s i m i l a r or b e t t e r neighbourhood.  One respondent  s a i d that the l o c a t i o n wouldn't  be important i f the areas around project s i t e s were improved too. This l e d t o a d i s c u s s i o n on what k i n d of improvements she had i n mind f o r a p r o j e c t s i t e such as Raymur (which was f a m i l i a r t o her).  She s a i d , "They could do many things l i k e , along w i t h the Raymur project they could improve the e x i s t i n g houses and i n i t i a t e p r i v a t e p r o j e c t s nearby, clean up the area of tenement houses. Take Maclean Park, w i t h a l l those tenements and shacks around i t . I t h i n k surroundings are very imp o r t a n t , at l e a s t t o me." In other words, you don't n e c e s s a r i l y b u i l d the p r o j e c t  i n a good area, but can a l s o b u i l d a good area around the p r o j e c t .  -  109  -  Surrounding • environments..thus ."become .very important.  Respondents  want to.remove themselves from l e s s desired elements.  These could  be people (.such as the f r e q u e n t l y mentioned bums, drunks, e t c . ) , the p h y s i c a l condition o f houses, or the general standard o f l i v i n g of the people.  Regarding the l o c a t i o n o f Culloden Court i t s e l f ,  one woman s a i d , "This i s - a good l o c a t i o n , but more of these p r o j e c t s i n t h i s area wouldn't be a good t h i n g , or i f Knight i s turned i n t o a freeway the l o c a t i o n won't be as good."  GENERAL COMMUNITY:  During the i n i t i a l stages of the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f Culloden Court, there were c e r t a i n p r o t e s t s from property owners i n the Sunset area, and news media paid much a t t e n t i o n t o these p r o t e s t s . I t i s of great importance t o study p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s from the tenants' point o f view, but i t i s o f equal importance t o f i n d out how the surrounding community f e e l s about a p r o j e c t , and t o discover t h e i r concerns:  i s i t the idea o f a low-income project  close t o them?, or the people? physically? (size, scale, etc.).  or the way p r o j e c t s are conceived To f i n d the opinions o f these  people regarding the l o c a t i o n o f such p r o j e c t s . i n the c i t y , and w i t h respect t o t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s , i s the concern of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n .  Two-thirds of the f i r s t  l i s t of respondents l i v e more  than two or three blocks away from the p r o j e c t , but w i t h i n a h a l f -  -  110  -  mile radius of the' study area, and none of them e i t h e r r e a l i z e d that Culloden Court i s a p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t , or f e l t that i t had any.impact on them.  Most of them had l i t t l e t o say and I f e l t  that Interviews were not worthwhile.' A t y p i c a l a t t i t u d e was, "I've, never given a thought t o low-income f a m i l y projects." Other remarks, which l e d t o changing the sample t o w i t h i n a 2-3 block radius of the project were, "I haven't seen any public-housing p r o j e c t s and so don't have anything t o say." " I don't know anyone l i v i n g i n such p r o j e c t s and never came across such people. I guess i t ' s p r e t t y hard t o l i v e on a low budget." "... haven't been t o such areas where these ..projects are and have no idea... " A f t e r p o i n t i n g out that Culloden Court i s such a p r o j e c t , she said, "Oh, w e l l , that doesn't, look that bad. I don't go that way. I t ' s l o c a t i o n doesn't bother me." I was surprised t o note that a few of these houses were neither well-kept or better furnished than those of the project residents who were ashamed of the state of t h e i r u n i t s and f u r n i s h i n g s .  Among the f i n a l survey l i s t of t e n f a m i l i e s w i t h i n 2-3  - I l l -  blocks ,of the p r o j e c t : s i t e , . t h e majority,of them f e l t that the l o c a t i o n of such p r o j e c t s close t o them w i l l a f f e c t t h e i r property values.  As one respondent l i v i n g across the road from the p r o j e c t  said, "I don't have anything against t h i s p r o j e c t , but i t does a f f e c t the value of our property." Another s a i d , " I f I would have known that they were going t o have.proj e c t s next door I wouldn't have bought my house here." And s t i l l another s a i d , " i t hurts when you f i n d the value of your property goes down with these p r o j e c t s nearby." Other comments on the proximity of p r o j e c t s regarded c h i l d r e n . Many f e l t that too many c h i l d r e n from the project hung around the neighbourhood.  Some comments were,-  "A project so close t o me wouldn't bother me otherwise, i f i t didn't have-such a gang of k i d s hanging around." "They should have more o l d people i n t h i s p r o j e c t , not f a m i l i e s with so many c h i l d r e n . " " A l l these kids make too much noise and we've got enough vandalism without them." One apparent a t t i t u d e common t o a l l residents was that they didn't have any objections t o any pensioners l i v i n g close t o t h e i r houses.  Some f e l t that these are a quiet group of people,  -  f  112  -  • -  and that .their l i v i n g close i n a project wouldn't hurt t h e i r property:values.  Others said i t gives them pleasure to see senior  c i t i z e n s around the neighbourhood.  Others f e l t that a project  looks so gloomy - no "trees, u n i f o r m i t y , e t c . , and others didn't l i k e having "such people" ( s i c ) i n t h e i r neighbourhood. RESPONSE PATTERN  Among future residents and project r e s i d e n t s , the  ma-  j o r i t y of respondents stressed the socio-economic ranking of the neighbourhood f o r the l o c a t i o n .  Generally, i t i s seen by them as  being part of a "healthy" and "normal" community., rather than l i v i n g i n an area of " t h e i r own k i n d " , without being among these "healthy" and "normal" people.  isolated  These consisted mostly  of low-income two-parent f a m i l i e s , f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r e a r l y teens, or f a m i l i e s who  suddenly found t h e m s e l v e s ' f i n a n c i a l l y  deprived through a death, d i v o r c e , desertion or i l l n e s s .  It  also appears.that these f a m i l i e s do not l i k e to be l o c a t e d i n areas or p r o j e c t s which become known f o r low-income f a m i l i e s , slum areas, etc.  This shows that a c e r t a i n amount of anonymity i s pre-  f e r r e d by low-income f a m i l i e s .  Regarding the l o c a t i o n of the project  and.its proximity to amenities, school i s the only facility.  outstanding  Other amenities are.preferred, but not stressed.  Where-.,  as future residents look at the project as advantageous f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n , and'moving to b e t t e r accommodations, the project residents  -  saw i t  i n terms  of improved  physical  qualities  however,  saw t h e  as  a threat  towards other  to  2..-  of  good r e s i d e n t i a l  proj-ects  because  objections,  of  Improvements  Schools vital of not  and  to  stores as  of  towards as  of  projects  physical)  reason.  for  coolness  T h e r e were  the presence of  family  will  located  a  no large  prerequisite  housing.  greatly  in  a  areas  improwe'.e t h e  w i t h low  atti-  socio-economic  rankings.  places  the l o c a t i o n and o t h e r  their  and p h y s i c a l l y ' i s  surroundings  social  of  areas  SPATIAL:  low-income  location  Most  community,  families.  to  well  in  this  except  socially  the  the  The g e n e r a l  their property values.  S O C I A L AND  s t a t u s ' and  surroundings.  A good environment  (as  k.  socio-economic  c h i l d r e n and w e l f a r e  tudes  3.  the  location  substantial  IMPLICATIONS:  1.  of  t h e p r o j e c t was  number o f  113--  of  i n the  immediate  neighbourhood  t h e p r o j e c t s , whereas  community  facilities  are  the  are  convenience  desirable,  but  stressed.  Socio-economic %esidents  influences  (outside  of  are  felt  the p r o j e c t )  by the up t o  surrounding only  2-3  city  reblocks.  -  114  -  Any improvements desired f o r s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n i s to focussed on the neighbourhood comprising of 2-3 blocks outside of p r o j e c t s .  - 115 -  TABLE X  PREFERENCES FOR LOCATION. OF PROJECT IN GENERAL AREAS OF VANCOUVER  No. Responded Good r e s i d e n t i a l environment .  Percentage  1^  hi  South-part of Vancouver  5  16  Away from central-east part of Vancouver  6  20  Other's  3  10  2  7  30  100%  Indifferent  '  :  T o t a l Responded  1.  Remarks on "Good R e s i d e n t i a l Environment"' Areas where respectable  people l i v e  Areas, with no undesirables Areas where middle-class  No. Responded  (drunks, bum's}, etc.)  people l i v e -'  h  2 2  Good (clean, n i c e , normal f a m i l i e s ) neighbourhood area  6  T o t a l Responded  lh  -  2.  11/6 -  Remarks on "South P a r t o f Vancouver" •  The a r e a we a r e l i v i n g  No'. Responded  i n (Residents of 3  South Vancouver)  2  South Vancouver  T o t a l Responded  3.  Remarks on "Away from C e n t r a l - E a s t  '5'  Part No. Responded  of Vancouver"  Away from- East H a s t i n g s a r e a  2  Away from.Raymur, Maclean or Skeena p r o j e c t s  3  Not i n Strathcoria a r e a  1  T o t a l Responded  6  No. Responded  Remarks on "Others"  C l o s e . t o where my f r i e n d s l i v e • 2  ( K e r i s d a l e a r e a - 1, Near U . B . C - l )  1  Same a r e a as I am l i v i n g now (Grandview a r e a )  T o t a l Responded  5.  No. Responded  Remarks on " I n d i f f e r e n t "  No p a r t i c u l a r Anywhere  3  1  choice  p r o j e c t accommodation-is a v a i l a b l e . 1  A r e a doesn't b o t h e r me;"\  T o t a l Responded  2  -  117  -  PREFERENCES.FOR OVERALL MIX OF THE RESIDENTS  FUTURE RESIDENTS:  Despite the reservations that many respondents had about p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s , n e a r l y a l l of them p r e f e r r e d t h e i r immediate neighbours  t o be f a m i l i e s i n a s i m i l a r state o f l i f e ( s i m i l a r s o c i o -  economic t y p e ) .  There were many reasons given f o r t h i s , c h i e f l y ,  however, that they i d e n t i f y w i t h a c e r t a i n group, f e e l more secure i n the community being part o f that group, and f e e l they could share s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s , and be of mutual b e n e f i t .  One great f e a r , how-  ever, was that there i s a stigma attached t o l i v i n g i n a p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t . One woman s a i d , "Everybody t h i n k s only welfare people l i v e i n these proj e c t s and low-class ( s i c ) people. I wish they had a l l kinds of people, from d i f f e r e n t backgrounds so I wouldn't be branded when I go l i v e t h e r e . " Some other remarks were, "I'm sure there's other f a m i l i e s l i k e ours here, but how can y o u - t e l l who they are. I don't know any of them... In -a project you know other people are there f o r the same reasons... " " I ' t h i n k there should be other people on welfare i n the p r o j e c t , l i k e our f a m i l y , and maybe we can make some f r i e n d s t h e r e , because we face the same problems. But i f everybody i n the p r o j e c t i s as poor as my f a m i l y , i t ' l l be depressing. Just people with problems. There should r e a l l y be a l l kinds of people."  -118  -  One woman, who .presently l i v e s , i n a tenement house with f i f t e e n other f a m i l i e s on welfare s a i d , "I l i k e the arrangement here - we. s i t and p l a y cards, and t a l k , we a l l have l o t s of spare time, and we a l l know each other. The problem i s , we don't know anybody else. That's why I'm moving t o a proj ect, apart from g i v i n g me a b e t t e r place to l i v e i n , I'd meet more people, not n e c e s s a r i l y a l l on welfare. I wish they would have more v a r i e t y though." One woman, l i v i n g i n a p r i v a t e housing project s a i d , "Generally there's so many kids i n a p u b l i c p r o j e c t . But here, we don't have so many, because there's f a m i l i e s without k i d s and s i n g l e people, and young couples without c h i l d r e n , so i t ' s not as f u l l of k i d s here. Maybe a proj e c t l i k e that should be something l i k e t h i s one here, and maybe then you couldn't t e l l j u s t by l o o k i n g at i t that i t ' s a p u b l i c p r o j e c t . " As f o r the o v e r a l l mix of the p r o j e c t , h a l f o f the respondents f e l t that a general mix of the community would be very good.  Some of  them'felt that i f enough f a m i l i e s of a s i m i l a r type l i v e d i n a p r o j e c t , they would have enough courage t o be f r i e n d l y w i t h other f a m i l y types i n the p r o j e c t .  Others f e l t that a,mix of other than  low-income f a m i l i e s i n a project would add a v a r i e t y o f backgrounds and p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and be more i n t e r e s t i n g .  Some thought  that just the fact of l i v i n g i n a project would make people f r i e n d l i e r and more h e l p f u l .  Remarks t o t h i s V e f f e e t were,  " I f these same people, (from, the blocli) were l i v i n g w i t h me i n the project they'd be f r i e n d l i e r . . . " "Having other than low-income f a m i l i e s w i l l add v a r i e t y . You could meet d i f f e r e n t kinds of people than your own... "  -  119  -  PROJECT RESIDENTS:  Most p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s had q u i t e d e f i n i t e remarks r e g a r d i n g t h e mix  o f t h e p r o j e c t and t h e way  tones o f group f e e l i n g s .  i t should be.  There were o v e r -  The most o u t s t a n d i n g came from  income two-parent f a m i l i e s , w i t h t h e husband working.  low-  They  felt  t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d be more twb;-parent f a m i l i e s , and t h a t one-parent f a m i l i e s were on w e l f a r e , and always.at  home d o i n g n o t h i n g o r  h a v i n g p a r t i e s , and keep t h e i r p l a c e s d i r t y .  In many o f t h e s e  d i s c u s s i o n s , t h i s group made v e r y b i t t e r remarks r e g a r d i n g w e l f a r e r e c i p i e n t s , and wanted more low-income f a m i l i e s i n t h e p r o j e c t . There were many reasons  g i v e n , which were sometimes not v e r y  clear,  but the, "-undertones o f t h e i r remarks t e l l a s t o r y .  "We l i k e more normal ( s i c ) f a m i l i e s around us. s h o u l d have more o f us... "  A project  "We are working people and do our b e s t . They s i t at home and get w e l f a r e . . . t h e y ' r e a bad example. I certainly f e e l t h a t w e l f a r e f a m i l i e s should be l e s s i n number."  Other than the economic type o f d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e r e another  which was  i s the age  most o u t s t a n d i n g among a l l t h e groups, and t h a t  groupings.  B a s i c a l l y , t h e r e are t h r e e groups d i v i d e d  by age, namely, c h i l d r e n , a d u l t s , and t h e e l d e r l y . t h e economic o r f a m i l y t y p e , a l l t h e f a m i l i e s f e l t should have more a d u l t s than c h i l d r e n . only families with children is felt  was  Regardless  of  that a.project  The p r o j e c t accommodates  (except f o r the p e n s i o n e r s ) , but i t  by t h e r e s i d e n t s t h a t s i n g l e s , d i v o r c e d p e o p l e , o r  couples  - 120.  -  with no c h i l d r e n should he encouraged..  Giving .accommodation t o  the e l d e r l y i n the project was approved  unanimously.  When I asked the c h i l d r e n  (l4-l8  years old) what they  thought of the number of c h i l d r e n i n the p r o j e c t , and. what they d i d , they s a i d , "Yes, there are more of us than grown-ups i n a small block l i k e t h i s . I t doesn't bother us. I t wouldn't bother them i f we had some place to go, but we haven't... We'd sure l i k e a coffee shop." The e l d e r l y , on the other hand, f e l t that too many teenagers are quite a problem.  They were f u l l of complaints about teenagers'  behaviour, such as n o i s e , t h e f t and rowdyism, e t c .  They f e l t that  s t r i c t d i s c i p l i n e should p r e v a i l i n the p r o j e c t , and without t h a t , the e l d e r l y shouldn't be part of a project w i t h such a l a r g e number of teenagers.  When one-parent f a m i l i e s were asked about the mix of the p r o j e c t , respondents f e l t that the general mix d i d not bother them, adding that a mix i n c l u d i n g f a m i l i e s other than low income f a m i l i e s would be much b e t t e r .  I f e l t that these respondents were quite  i s o l a t e d w i t h i n the project s o c i a l l y , and d i d not show much enthusiasm towards project f r i e n d s h i p s .  One said that s i n g l e mothers were  a t h r e a t .("supposedly"',') she added) to insecure housewives.  Others  s a i d they were not as w e l l o f f as the women w i t h husbands, at l e a s t i f the husband was working.  - 121 -  Two-parent f a m i l i e s (at l e a s t the wives) f e l t a mix  o f a g e n e r a l k i n d , t h a t the one-parent and  should  he  separated  either  in  two-parent f a m i l i e s  into d i f f e r e n t b u i l d i n g blocks.  respondents d i d n ' t c a r e  that  One-parent  way.  RESPONSE PATTERN:  F u t u r e r e s i d e n t s v i s u a l i z e d a p r o j e c t as c o n s i s t i n g o f two  groups - the  f i r s t , s i m i l a r t y p e s o f f a m i l i e s as t h e i r  i a t e neighbours and  second, a g e n e r a l mix,  as the remainder o f p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s . other age  hand, c o n c e i v e d  (working and  the p r o j e c t was  The  the most o u t s t a n d i n g  e l d e r l y i n the mix  o b j e c t i o n i n the mix.  blocks  Generally,  the b a s i s o f f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e , o c c u p a t i o n ,  Though b o t h f u t u r e and the p r o j e c t p r o v i d e d (not  The  immediate  type,  on  o r source o f income.  Most respondents thought t h a t p e o p l e from the g e n e r a l i n the p r o j e c t would be  occu-  a l l groups  or at l e a s t t h e i r  n e i g h b o u r s , t o be as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e o f t h e i r own  living  by  l a r g e number o f c h i l d r e n i n  were a c c e p t e d by a l l .  p r e f e r r e d r e s i d e n t s o f t h e i r own  the  (one-parent, t w o - p a r e n t ) ,  ( w e l f a r e , low-income), and  non-working).  groups,  P r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s on  groups by f a m i l y t y p e  group, by economic s t a t u s  pation  or u n s p e c i f i e d  immed-  community  desirable.  present  residents f e l t that i f  accommodation f o r a wider v a r i e t y o f p e o p l e  j u s t low-income f a m i l i e s or w e l f a r e  recipients), residen-  - 122 -  tial  environment o f t h e p r o j e c t would' be-improved'.,  o f mix d e s i r e d v a r i e d among t h e two groups. not  The  variations  Future residents d i d  l i m i t t h e mix t o any economic r a n g e , but p r o j e c t  residents  were  more s p e c i f i c , wanting fewer c h i l d r e n and w e l f a r e r e c i p i e n t s i n the p r o j e c t .  They would r a t h e r  r e l a t e more t o middle-income groups.  IMPLICATIONS:  SOCIAL AND  1.  should c o n s i s t o f v a r i o u s groups based on  A project  SPATIAL:^  family  s t r u c t u r e , age groups, and s o u r c e s o f income, as c o n c e i v e d by  residents.  2. • These p a r t i c u l a r groups t e n d t o p r e f e r t h e i r own t y p e as immediate n e i g h b o u r s .  3.  A project  Many problems a r i s e from t h e l a r g e number  o f c h i l d r e n compared  t o a much s m a l l e r group o f a d u l t s , p a r -  d i s c i p l i n a r y problems.  The p r o j e c t  s h o u l d p r o v i d e f o r young c o u p l e s without c h i l d r e n ,  s i n g l e s , and t h e e l d e r l y , who may be  5.  t o the  adult-child ration.  ticularly  h.  should be more b a l a n c e d w i t h r e s p e c t  a l s o have a low-income  and  needy.  Middle-income f a m i l i e s should a l s o be p r o v i d e d w i t h accommodation  i n the p r o j e c t  - p h y s i c a l l y s e p a r a t e d from ( i n s e - •  - 123 -  parate b u i l d i n g b l o c k s ) , but s o c i a l l y integrated w i t h i n the designed environment of the p r o j e c t .  -  124 -  TABLE XI  PREFERENCES .FOR OVERALL MIX. OF THE-PROJECT RESIDENTS  Preferences  No. Responded  Percentage  G e n e r a l mix o f wide v a r i e t y o f F a m i l i e s , Accommodations and Income L e v e l s  l4  47  8  27  Other t h a n Predominantly Low-Income '  and W e l f a r e F a m i l i e s The Way i t i s (Present P r o j e c t M i x ) I n d i f f e r e n t / N o Opinions  T o t a i Responded  . 3  9  5  . 17  30  100%  -  125 -  FURTHER. BREAKDOWN.' OF. PREFERENCES  1..  No. Responded  Remarks on "General Mix" •  Middle-income  f a m i l i e s (predominantly) 8  as p a r t o f mix More s m a l l f a m i l i e s • ( s i z e )  2  Variety.of  1,'  accommodation  F a m i l i e s without c h i l d r e n as p a r t o f mix  1  S i n g l e s as p a r t o f mix  2  T o t a l Responded  2.  Remarks'on  "Other Than Predominantly;-.."  Ik  No. Responded  To i n c l u d e more working people i n t h e 3  project To i n c l u d e middle-income  families •  To i n c l u d e more two-parent  families -  T o t a l Responded  1 k  8  -  '  .  126 -  CHAPTER V  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  Throughout t h e s i x s e c t i o n s p r e s e n t e d response p a t t e r n s  o f the - p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r , I  and t h e p o s s i b l e s o c i a l and s p a t i a l i m p l i -  c a t i o n s o f each o f t h e i s s u e s under d i s c u s s i o n .  In t h i s f i n a l  (  chapter,  I s h a l l c o l l a t e . t h e f i n d i n g s thus a r r i v e d a t and t h e n suggest recommendations  on t h e l o c a t i o n o f a p r o j e c t , s i t e l a y o u t , mix and accommodation -  types f o r a p r o j e c t , s i z e o f t h e p r o j e c t , and l e v e l s o f f a c i l i t i e s t o be ' provided  f o r t h e p r o j e c t , based on t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study.  s h a l l suggest t h e p o s s i b l e d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s t h a t  I  c o u l d be undertaken  i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g some o f t h e a s p e c t s o f low-income f a m i l y housing that  I have brought out i n t h i s study.  FINDINGS: •  1.  Project l i v i n g  i s c o n c e i v e d by b o t h groups  ject residents) as-providing social life  Project  f o r increased  among people i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s .  among the: i n t e r v i e w e d living  an o p p o r t u n i t y  (future residents  sample ( p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s )  i s a considerable  f r i e n d s h i p s and  The response  pattern  indicates that  project  improvement over t h e p r e v i o u s way o f life.-"*"  l i v i n g appears t o s a t i s f y a s o c i a l need o f low-income f a m i l i e s .  L i v i n g among a s i m i l a r t y p e - o f people i s c o n s i d e r e d as more d e s i r a b l e t h a n l i v i n g This  and p r o -  by t h e respondents  i n i s o l a t i o n i n t h e community a t l a r g e .  study found t h a t t h e f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s f e l t t h a t t h e y had a v e r y  l i m i t e d s o c i a l l i f e - i n v o l v i n g t h e i r neighbours..  F u t u r e r e s i d e n t s as  w e l l as p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s have f r i e n d s who a r e i n s i m i l a r socio-economic  - 127 -  situations.  Both.the'groups lacked s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the community 3  although they, desired.such.relationships.  The l a c k of. such r e l a t i o n s h i p s  was explained' by', them to.be a r e s u l t ' of t h e i r d i f f e r i n g l i f e s t y l e s and. economic s i t u a t i o n s , causing them to f e e l i n f e r i o r and s e l f - c o n s c i o u s . ^ 2.  Respondents f e l t that r e s i d i n g i n a project provides them with an i n - •  c r e a s e d ' a v a i l a b i l i t y of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s .  These include v i s i t s from s o c i a l -  workers, and increased welfare b e n e f i t s .  Residents also f e l t that a'  management o f f i c i a l • (manager) should r e s i d e on the p r o j e c t . a strong preference  They expressed  f o r t h i s , and f e l t that the presence of a manager on  the s i t e controls the mischief of teenagers (who bother young c h i l d r e n and pensioners), and,the breaking of project property.. 3.  L i v i n g i n a project means that the lower rent gives the residents an  opportunity to spend more money on other n e c e s s i t i e s of l i f e , thus improving t h e i r standard of l i v i n g .  Many respondents f e l t that f o r the same  rent they could get b e t t e r and l a r g e r accommodation i n the p r o j e c t . h.  Whereas f o r future r e s i d e n t s , s o c i a l aspects ( f r i e n d s h i p s among  s i m i l a r types of f a m i l i e s , l o n e l i n e s s ) become measurements f o r describing s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r way  of l i f e , the project residents described  satis-  f a c t i o n on d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r way of l i f e -before moving t o the proj e c t i n terms of p h y s i c a l aspects (poor accommodation, high r e n t , l o c a t i o n of residence and s e r v i c e s ) .  Thus, project l i v i n g leads to a greater  awareness of p h y s i c a l aspects i n describing - s a t i s f a c t i o n with a way life.''  of  Project residents f e l t that Culloden Court i s the r i g h t s i z e r e -  garding the number of people i t accommodates, and that the area i t occupies i s the maximum a project should cover.  Project residents as w e l l as future  -  128  -  residents' d i d n o t . l i k e - t h e projects', which-physically dominate the dings (higher'density.-than  surroundings).  They f e l t that a project  he s i m i l a r i n s c a l e , t o that of the development of the area.. t h i s seemed t o he t h e i r d i s l i k e of being conspicuous,  surrounshould  The reason f o r  and.a'desire-for  anonymity. 5.  Respondents stressed that a good'environment ( s o c i a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y )  i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e - f o r the l o c a t i o n of a low-income family  housing-project.  The l o c a t i o n of the project i s seen by both groups as an improved s o c i o economic s e t t i n g f o r t h e i r residence.  The interviewed sample p r e f e r r e d  to be located away.from known run-down or."slum" areas of Vancouver, and i n a "good" r e s i d e n t i a l area.^  Respondents considered "slum" areas t o be  the downtown-Hastings_Strathcona areas, and "good"'areas to be r e s i d e n t i a l areas.  middle-class  Respondents would also l i k e t o be located away from  areas where concentrations  of p u b l i c housing projects e x i s t .  They f e l t  that such areas become known as the areas where p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s and low-income, f a m i l i e s -are located.  Both project residents and future  residents p r e f e r r e d a project to be i n a middle-class r e s i d e n t i a l area. Responses to the l o c a t i o n of a project with respect to community-facilities i n d i c a t e that schools and " s o c i a l " centres (recreation centre f o r the general community, s i n g l e s c l u b s , etc.) are v i t a l to the l o c a t i o n of the p r o j e c t s , whereas the proximity of stores and other f a c i l i t i e s are d e s i r a b l e , but not emphasized strongly.  A l l the respondent f a m i l i e s have school-  age c h i l d r e n , and'for t h i s reason the l o c a t i o n of the project close to. schools i s stressed so much. As many of these f a m i l i e s are one-parent f a m i l i e s , s o c i a l centres such as "clubs" become important, e s p e c i a l l y , as the responses i n d i c a t e , they l a c k f r i e n d s from outside of the p r o j e c t .  -  129  -  They f e l t that t h i s wals one of t h e i r few ways . of meeting outside -people. Teenagers and young adults;wanted a'coffee' shop or s i m i l a r f a c i l i t y - n e a r the p r o j e c t where they could gather, as they now wander around with-no place t o go. 6.  The project r e c r e a t i o n centre was  found to be the major source of.  s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , and the place where residents met friends.  each other and made  Project f a c i l i t i e s f o r various age groups are desired, and  i s a need f o r providing f a c i l i t i e s f o r small groups of r e s i d e n t s .  there  Such,  f a c i l i t i e s are conceived by the interviewed sample f o r - s m a l l group gatheri n g s , l e i s u r e , and f o r services such as laundry.  Project residents f e l t  that the f a c i l i t i e s f o r s o c i a l i z i n g with -similar•types of f a m i l i e s should be provided at a small group l e v e l ( b u i l d i n g block and c l u s t e r ) , and  the  project r e c r e a t i o n centre should be used f o r large gatherings and educ a t i o n a l programs, and should be a neighbourhood centre used by both project residents and neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s . ^  A c t u a l l y , the project  r e c r e a t i o n centre i s intended to be used by both groups, only the neighbourhood residents are not aware of t h i s .  The centre i s l o c a t e d i n the i n -  t e r i o r of the project and i s not c l e a r l y marked - perhaps that i s why  the  neighbourhood residents do not know that i t i s f o r t h e i r use as w e l l .  They  thought that perhaps a project could be b u i l t near an e x i s t i n g community centre.  In t h i s way, because the neighbourhood residents would already  be using the community centre, the desired i n t e r a c t i o n between the  two  groups would take place n a t u r a l l y . Families with young c h i l d r e n f e e l that they should be located near the play area, so that they can supervise the c h i l d r e n at play,-  - 130 -  rather than, as i s often.the c a s e b e i n g located away from the play area. Pensioners f e e l that the present l o c a t i o n of the' children's play area so close to t h e i r block Is not d e s i r a b l e becaus'e ' of ^-the noise. •' They would :  :  ;  l i k e more peace and quiet.Project residents p r e f e r r e d to park t h e i r cars on the s t r e e t close to t h e i r u n i t s , rather than use the parking areas provided i n the p r o j e c t , p a r t l y f o r convenience, and p a r t l y so that they can keep an eye on them. 7.  This study found that the respondents preferred a d i f f e r e n t mix  of  residents i n the project than the present mix of only low-income f a m i l i e s with a predominance of one-parent f a m i l i e s . They would l i k e t o have more middle-income f a m i l i e s -and two-parent f a m i l i e s included i n the project mix.  The high-proportion of c h i l d r e n to adults was not l i k e d by r e s i d e n t s ,  and they f e l t that there should be more adults than there are now p r o j e c t , thus lowering the a d u l t - c h i l d r a t i o somewhat.  i n the  Residents f e l t  that the high proportion of c h i l d r e n , coupled with a large number of  one-  parent f a m i l i e s , i s the cause of many problems, such as m i s c h i e f , t h e f t , rowdyism, that a r i s e i n the p r o j e c t .  Though the interviewed sample pre-  f e r r e d a general mix of residents i n the project based on income l e v e l s , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , a d u l t - c h i l d r a t i o n , age groups, the responses i n d i c a t e that the respondents preferred t o have t h e i r own type of f a m i l y (e.g., parent, one-parent, small f a m i l y , large f a m i l y j low-income or welfare r e c i p i e n t ) , as t h e i r immediate neighbours i n the same b u i l d i n g block. • 8.  The respondents r e s i d i n g i n the u n i t s f a c i n g the outside of the-  project were more s a t i s f i e d with project l i v i n g than those'respondents  two-  - 131 -  r e s i d i n g in,the'-interior b u i l d i n g blocks (or facing i n t e r i o r c o u r t s ) . The-residents:facing  outside s a i d they could r e l a t e to:the neighbourhood  as w e l l as t o the' project group, whereas the r e s i d e n t s ' i n the i n t e r i o r blocks f e l t that they were "trapped"  (meaning that they see only p r o j e c t  people and the i n s i d e of the p r o j e c t ) . They would p r e f e r l i v i n g i n u n i t s • facing outside of the project so that v i s u a l l y they could r e l a t e t o the outside.  Another i n t e r e s t i n g point that came up i s that those r e s i d i n g •  on the outer periphery of the p r o j e c t , and f r o n t i n g on outside s t r e e t s , showed l i t t l e or no i n t e r e s t i n project- a c t i v i t i e s , and d i d not desire very much t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n project l i f e ;  Among the f a m i l i e s i n i n d i v i d u a l  b u i l d i n g b l o c k s , those l i v i n g i n corner u n i t s showed a greater l e v e l • o f s a t i s f a c t i o n than those f a m i l i e s with neighbours on both s i d e s .  Those  f a m i l i e s not l i v i n g i n corner units-would have p r e f e r r e d t o l i v e i n cornerunits. 9.  The study found that the awareness of the l o c a t i o n of a p u b l i c housing  p r o j e c t i s shown by the surrounding 2-3 c i t y blocks.  neighbourhood residents up t o only  Beyond t h i s distance from the project s i t e , people d i d  not have any objections t o the l o c a t i o n of a project i n t h e i r neighbourhood area.  Many were not even aware of the existence of the project i n t h e i r  own neighbourhood.  Among the residents of the- immediate  surrounding,  neighbourhood of the p r o j e c t , fear of the e f f e c t of the p r o j e c t on property values and the presence of a large number of c h i l d r e n i n the project were the main reasons f o r not l i k i n g the l o c a t i o n of a p r o j e c t so close t o them. These f i n d i n g s show s u f f i c i e n t evidence concerning,  ( l ) the  r e l a t i o n s h i p of residents t o each other, (2) r e l a t i o n s h i p s among project  - 132 -  residents.and.those  from the' surrounding  neighbourhood area, of t h e - p r o j e c t ,  (3) t h e ' r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e ' p r o j e c t ' f a c i l i t i e s ' t o the'resident groups and t o the people from outside of the p r o j e c t , and (h). the k i n d of mix of the residents that the respondents envisage i n the project- make i t p o s s i b l e t o draw more general conclusions.  These f i n d i n g s provide some measure  for evaluating-the s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the way of l i f e i n project l i v i n g , - the s e t t i n g of a project i n the neighbourhood and the p r o v i s i o n of f a c i l i t i e s for the p r o j e c t .  On the basis of the evidence thus a r r i v e d a t , I conclude  that the low-income f a m i l i e s who  f i n d themselves l i v i n g i n the community •  at large (outside of a p r o j e c t ) f e e l s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d from the  surrounding  neighbourhood residents and from people i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . Project l i v i n g provides f o r opportunities -to l i v e among s i m i l a r types of people and services that such f a m i l i e s l a c k i n the community.  The r e c r e a t i o n  centre i n the project has an important r o l e i n bringing, people together, both those who  l i v e outside and those who  l i v e i n s i d e the p r o j e c t .  The  project i s seen as a community of people, rather than as improved accommodation at low. rent only.  Hence i t i s necessary to see that a project  should have a balanced mix of people i n terms of age-, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , s i z e , employment.  F a c i l i t i e s should be provided to meet the needs of variuus  age groups ( a d u l t s , c h i l d r e n , teenagers, pensioners), t o meet the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l needs, of family groups ( s i n g l e mothers, s i n g l e m e n , married, couples, men,  women, low-income families,- welfare r e c i p i e n t s , pensioner  couples, pensioner s i n g l e s ) , t o bring, the neighbourhood residents  and  p r o j e c t residents together f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , and. t o provide educ a t i o n a l programs (cooking c l a s s e s , low-budget l i v i n g courses, etc.) f o r the r e s i d e n t s .  The l o c a t i o n of the project i n the l o c a l areas of the  - 133 -  city- becomes very- important. as . lower ^-income families; want.tp.be p a r t . of a middle-class'•residential environment and would l i k e , to move away from slum or run-down areas-, p a r t i c u l a r l y from areas-.where p r o j e c t s o• already e x i s t which are known t o the general p u b l i c . I s h a l l now l i s t a number of my recommendations f o r low-income housing as guidelines f o r future p r o j e c t s : LAYOUT: The project layout'should r e f l e c t the various preferences and i m p l i c a t i o n s of the a s p i r a t i o n s of the residents which i t accommodates. Every e f f o r t should be made to.: 1.  .  o r i e n t a l l i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g blocks t o face out of the p r o j e c t , avoid i n t e r i o r b u i l d i n g blocks which dp not provide v i s u a l r e l a t i o n ship t o the outside of the p r o j e c t , avoid enclosed courts.  Courts  on which the b u i l d i n g blocks f r o n t could be open on one end t o the outside.  In short, I am recommending e x t e r i o r courts i n preference  to i n t e r i o r courts.  The only exception i s the childrensspplaysarea,  which should be enclosed. 2.  break the monotony of streamlined f r o n t s of blocks by c r e a t i n g corners, thus providing more privacy and i d e n t i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s .  3.  provide parking spaces as close t o u n i t s as p o s s i b l e , p r e f e r a b l y next to the s t r e e t on the periphery of the project s i t e , l o c a t e f a c i l i t i e s i n such a way that the intended users could c l e a r l y r e l a t e t o them, and r e l a t e a l l u n i t s t o the project open space.  Care .should be taken  -  13h  -  to see that . s.ome i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s are.not r e l a t e d t o the outside o f the project only.  The r e s i d e n t s of -units f a c i n g outside-the p r o j e c t  only and f r o n t i n g on :outside s t r e e t s tend t o d i s s o c i a t e themselves from project a c t i v i t i e s . k.  avoid p l a c i n g the childrenijs.splay area close t o the pensioners' blocks and provide usable play areas f o r c h i l d r e n i n each c l u s t e r of blocks that accommodates f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n .  SIZE, AREA AND DENSITY: New p r o j e c t s should be the s i z e of Culloden Court  (approximately  1 0 © f a m i l i e s , or more i f pensioners and s i n g l e s accommodations are i n cluded).  Two square c i t y blocks i s the optimum area f o r a p r o j e c t .  A  project * should be of a density not d i f f e r i n g too g r e a t l y from the development i n the project area. ACCOMMODATION AND MIX OF RESIDENTS: Future p r o j e c t s should c o n s i s t of accommodations f o r s i n g l e a d u l t s , and young couples with no c h i l d r e n .  Types of accommodation t o be  provided should be such that a better balance of adults and c h i l d r e n i s maintained i n the p r o j e c t .  A p o s s i b l e mix of middle-class f a m i l i e s and  low-income f a m i l i e s should be considered f o r future p r o j e c t s . FACILITIES: Future p r o j e c t s should provide shared f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n the b u i l d i n g block, e.g., laundry and workshop area; i n each c l u s t e r , e.g., multi-purpose room f o r p l a y i n g cards, T.'V. ,• etc. ; and a project r e c r e a t i o n  - 135 -  centre,.-. .The. p r o j e c t r e c r e a t i o n centre, . sjhould .h.e..logated i n a p l a c e t h a t is- a c c e s s i h l e and c l e a r l y - v i s i b l e t o both, p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s and s u r r o u n d i n g neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s .  T suggest t h a t  i f t h e p r o j e c t accommodates o n l y  low-income f a m i l i e s t h e n t h e p r o j e c t r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e immediately o u t s i d e  of the project  site,, and i f t h e p r o j e c t accommodates  a mix o f income l e v e l s , then t h e c e n t r e on t h e o u t e r p e r i p h e r y centre and  o f the s i t e .  should be on t h e s i t e and l o c a t e d  In a l l cases, a p r o j e c t  should be l o c a t e d on t h e outer p e r i p h e r y  neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s  s h o u l d be l o c a t e d  recreation  of the project  site,  should be encouraged t o use i t . A c o f f e e  shop s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e i n t h e neighbourhood, f o r t h e use o f t h e young people  especially.  MANAGEMENT:  Every p r o j e c t  s h o u l d have a management o f f i c i a l r e s i d i n g i n t h e  p r o j e c t , and r e s i d e n t s . s h o u l d decisions regarding  be encouraged t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e management  the proper f u n c t i o n i n g of the p r o j e c t .  LOCATION:  Future p r o j e c t s concentrations  of projects.  west o f Main S t r e e t . Marpole.l...  I f e e l t h a t new p r o j e c t s  should be l o c a t e d  The p o s s i b l e areas a r e K i t s i l a n o , K e r r i s d a l e , and  Maps showing t h e l o c a t i o n s o f p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s  concentration residents  should be planned i n areas away from p r e s e n t  o f these p r o j e c t s  i n t h e east p a r t o f Vancouver.  show a The p r o j e c t  come from a l a r g e number o f areas i n c l u d i n g t h e west p a r t o f  Vancouver.  There i s , t h e r e f o r e , n o r e a s o n f o r a c o n c e n t r a t i o n  of projects  i n t h e east  o f Vancouver.. The socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l o c a l  - 136 -  areas .of Vancouver... s,hpuld..b„e, c o n s i d e r e d for  new-projects.-.  b.efore . s e l e c t i n g . p o t e n t i a l sites,  I f p o s s i b l e , p r o j e c t s should be l o c a t e d c l o s e t o an  e x i s t i n g community- c e n t r e , and i n a p r e d o m i n a n t l y middles-class . r e s i d e n t i a l area.  T h i s would enable t h e low-income f a m i l i e s t o be p a r t o f a  middle-class  environment.  An a l r e a d y  e x i s t i n g community c e n t r e would p r o -  v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o take an a c t i v e p a r t i n community l i f e . suggest t h a t no more l a r g e s i z e p r o j e c t s should  be b u i l t  I strongly  east o f Main  S t r e e t i n Vancouver.  CULLODEN COURT:  I f e e l that various o f t h e p r o j e c t c o u l d be t r i e d .  forms o f changes i n t h e e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n As v a c a n c i e s  occur i n C u l l o d e n  Court and  u n i t s become a v a i l a b l e f o r a p p l i c a n t s t o t h e p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s , a two-bedroom u n i t c o u l d be shared by two s i n g l e mothers w i t h one young c h i l d each, or two a d u l t s  (students?)  couple w i t h no c h i l d r e n .  A recreation co-ordinator  for  could  t h e p r o j e c t , who c o u l d h e l p o r g a n i z e  and.teenagers.  share a u n i t , or a young should be  provided  a s t i m u l a t i n g program f o r a d u l t s  Many i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs (cooking  d a n c i n g , p a i n t i n g c l a s s e s , e t c . ) c o u l d be o r g a n i z e d  c l a s s e s , yoga, b e l l y and i n i t i a t e d f o r t h e  p r o j e c t and e f f o r t s must be d i r e c t e d t o i n t e r e s t i n g s u r r o u n d i n g n e i g h b o u r hood r e s i d e n t s t o t a k e p a r t i n t h e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e  activities.  Many  such programs p r e s e n t l y h e l d elsewhere i n t h e c i t y c o u l d be h e l d i n t h e p r o j e c t r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e , a t low c o s t t o t h e p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s . vacancies  occur i n t h e p r o j e c t , new.tenants should  When  be o f t h e same t y p e as  the n e i g h b o u r s . ( t w o - p a r e n t , one-parent, low-income, or w e l f a r e r e c i p i e n t families).  - 137 -  - RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR FUTURE STUDIES.;  I n t h i s - . study-, I; have e x p l o r e d many- p o i n t s r e g a r d i n g f a m i l y h o u s i n g f o r w h i c h d e t a i l e d . s t u d i e s c o u l d "be u n d e r t a k e n .  loy^income I would  b r i e f l y make t h e f o l l o w i n g recommendations on t h e t y p e s o f s t u d i e s I f e e l would be d e s i r a b l e : 1.  The r o l e o f neighbourhood f a c i l i t i e s i n p r o v i d i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s between p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s and neighbourhood r e s i d e n t s .  2.  C r i t e r i a f o r t h e l o c a t i o n o f f u t u r e low-income h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s i n the l o c a l areas o f the c i t y .  3.  The k i n d o f "mix" o f r e s i d e n t s i n a p r o j e c t .  h.  Levels  5.  C r i t e r i a f o r optimum s i z e o f a p r o j e c t .  (and t y p e s ) o f p r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s t h a t s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d .  I f e e l t h a t C.M.H.C. and Housing Management s h o u l d o f t h e p o i n t s I have e x p l o r e d  c o n s i d e r 'some  i n t h i s t h e s i s i n improving the e x i s t i n g  p r o j e c t s , and I hope t h a t t h i s s t u d y may h e l p i n p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s i n designing  future p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s .  -  FOOTNOTES:  138  -  Chapter:5  K. W .Bacfe',-.. op. c i t . , f e e l s that a major change in. housing conditions i m p l i e s - a major adjustment-of a person's self-concept (his place i n the' community, h i s r o l e , h i s s t a t u s , and h i s s t y l e of l i f e ) . ^Suzanne K e l l e r , op. c i t . , . claims that b o t h middle-class and working-class people have a . f u l l e r s o c i a l l i f e when they are among t h e i r own, p. 50k. 3  ^William Michelson, op. c i t . , found that completely random placement of working c l a s s residents among middle-class neighbours r e s u l t s i n the i s o l a t i o n of the former, p. 19^. ^Robert Gutman, op. c i t . , found that-working c l a s s wives had considerable trouble i n a d j u s t i n g t o a mixed, c l a s s suburb. They simply hadn't the s o c i a l . s k i l l s necessary.to i n t e r a c t on a free and easy basis with the middle c l a s s women around, p. 121. ^L. Festinger. et a l , op. c i t . , w r i t e s : " C l e a r l y the a r c h i t e c t and the planner are s o c i a l "planners as w e l l ... s i t e plans may influence the s o c i a l l i f e , behavior and s a t i s f a c t i o n of people t o an extent not f u l l y appreciated up t o now'J'j' p. 179See Chapter k, Section E, p. ^U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, A Study of Community F a c i l i t i e s and Programs Serving Residents of Low-Rent P u b l i c Housing, (Washington, D.C, June 1967), gives d e t a i l e d i n formation on types of f a c i l i t i e s that should be provided i n p r o j e c t s . Q  Leo Kuper, op. c i t . , found that there were many more changes of tenancy and i n s t a b i l i t y among the houses f a c i n g -onto a c e n t r a l court than among those i n other l o c a t i o n s . 9che s t e r Hartman, op. c i t . , w r i t e s : " P h y s i c a l spaces, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s , community f a c i l i t i e s , and the role, of the tenant, must a l l be re-examined and.revised t o meet the needs of the population that the p r o j e c t s are intended t o serve."  -  139  -  BIBLIOGRAPHY.  Back, K. W. Slums, Projects and People. Press,' 1962.'  Durham, N.D., Duke U n i v e r s i t y  Bradley, Robert B. "Public Housing f o r the Future"' i n Urban Renewal and Low-Income Housing, v.6, no. k Canadian -Welfare Council. - I n t e g r a t i o n of P h y s i c a l and Social/Planning Report US., j y Ottawa, 1967. Canadian-Welfare Council. S p e c i a l P r o j e c t i o n S o c i a l Aspects of Low-Income Housing. Ottawa, 1967Caplow, T. and-R. Forman. "Neighbourhood I n t e r a c t i o n i n a Homogenous Community", i n American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, v o l . 15 (1955), pp. 357366.  Cooper, Clare C. "Some S o c i a l Implications of House and S i t e Plan Design • at Easter H i l l V i l l a g e : a case study." An unpublished t h e s i s , . Berkeley, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1966. Council f o r C u l t u r a l Co-operation of the Council of Europe. F a c i l i t i e s . Strasbourg, 1965F e s t i n g e r , L., S. Schachter, and K. Back. S o c i a l Pressures Groups. New York, Harper Brothers, 1950.  Leisure-Time •  i n Informer  Foley, D. L. "The Use of L o c a l F a c i l i t i e s i n a M e t r o p o l i s " , i n Hatt and R e i s s , C i t i e s and Society. New York, The Free Press, 1957. pp. 6 0 7 - l 6 . Goffman, E r v i n g . I n t e r a c t i o n R i t u a l . Books), 1967.  Garden C i t y * N.Y., Doubleday (Anchor  Gutman, Robert. "Population M o b i l i t y i n the American Middle Class" i n Leonard Duhl, ed. , The Urban Condition. - N.Y. ,• B a s i c Books, 1963.  - 140 -  Gutman, -Robert.: " S i t e : Planning and S o c i a l Behavior" i n J o u r n a l 'Social I s s u e s , - v o l . 22. (Oct'.:1966), pp. 103-115 ;  Hartman, Chester. "The'Limitations of P u b l i c - H o u s i n g — R e l o c a t i o n Choices i n a-Working Class Community", i n J o u r n a l of the- American I n s t i t u t e of Planners;, v o l . 2 9 . ( 1 9 6 3 ) , no. 4 .  K e l l e r , Suzanne. " S o c i a l Class i n P h y s i c a l Planning", i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i a l Science J o u r n a l , v o l . 18 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Kriesberg,.Louis. "Neighbourhood S e t t i n g and'the R e l o c a t i o n of P u b l i c Housing Tenants", i n J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, v o l . 3 4 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 1*3-1+9 '' Kuper, Leo. "Blueprint -for L i v i n g Together", i n L i v i n g i n Towns. The Cresset Press, 1 9 5 3 .  London,  Langdon, F. J . "The S o c i a l and P h y s i c a l Environment: A S o c i a l S c i e n t i s t ' s View", i n J o u r n a l of the Royal I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h A r c h i t e c t s , v o l . 73 1 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 460-64. " Lipman, M a r v i n " H o u s i n g and Environment", i n H a b i t a t , v o l . 1 2 , (1969') no.2 , l  pp. 2 - 6 . (llMaso i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, Nov. 1 9 6 7 )  Mayhew, B. W. L o c a l Areas of Vancouver. Greater Vancouver Area', Jan. 1 9 7 0 .  United Community Services .of the  Merton, Robert K. "The Social.Psychology of Housing", i n Wayne Dennis, ed., Current Trends i n S o c i a l Psychology. P i t t s b u r g h , U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s burgh Press, 1 9 4 8 , p. 1 6 3 - 2 1 7 . :  Michelson, W i l l i a m . Man and h i s Urban Environment: Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1 9 7 0 . Pawley, M a r t i n .  A r c h i t e c t u r e Versus Housing.  a S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach.  N.Y., Praeger, 1 9 7 1 -  Rainwater, Lee. "Fear, and the House-As-Haven i n the Lower' C l a s s " , i n J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, v o l . 32 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 2 3 31.  - lhl -  Rosow, I r v i n g . . "The: S o c i a l • E f f e c t s , o f t h e P h y s i c a l Environment", i n J o u r n a l o f the'American I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s , • v o l . • 2 5 . { 1 9 6 J ) , pp. 127-133.'  S e a r l e s , Harold.'  The. Nori-r Human. E n v i r o n m e n t .  N.Y.,  TUP, i 9 6 0 . .  Sommer, R o b e r t . "Designed f o r F r i e n d s h i p " , Canadian ' A r c h i t e c t , Feb. 1 9 6 1 , pp. 5 9 - 6 1 .  Sommer., R o b e r t .  P e r s o n a l Space.  Hew J e r s e y , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1 9 6 9 -  T e r e n c e , L e e . "Urban Neighbourhood as a S o c i o - S p a t i a l - S c h e m a " i n Human R e l a t i o n s , v o l . 2 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 2 ^ 1 - 2 6 7 .  U. S. Department o f Housing and Urban Development. A•Study o f Community F a c i l i t i e s -and Programs S e r v i n g R e s i d e n t s o f Low-Rent P u b l i c Housing. Washington, D . C , June 1 9 6 7 ~ "  Vancouver T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board. R e p o r t on t h e L o c a t i o n o f LowD e n s i t y - M u l t i p l e Housing i n t h e Suburban P a r t s o f Vancouver. Vancouver, 1 9 6 9 .  !  - 142 -  APPENDIX.A CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT RESIDENTS:  Family No. Income, Dollars/Month (S - on S o c i a l Assistance, and Figures Not A v a i l a b l e ) : Employment (W - Working NW - Not working PW - Part time working)  SAMPLE GROUP - 1  ... 1... 2 . 3 .. .4.. 5- .  6  7  .8  .9  -LU }  12  13  Ik  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  2k  25  26  27  1  28  29  30 ... 31 ..-32 '. 33- . 3 4 ' . ...35.  3o •- 37- •33  39  ...40- ,  1*1.. 42 ,.43.  .S  S  S  580  S  NW  W  NW  44  j  1 f  S  . S 28?  kok  ..s  588  •S  S  S  s  s  S  S  s  S  s  s  375  s  S  439  S  640  S  S  544  s  s  S  S  S  504  476  S  - S  S  S  NW  NW  NW  NW  NW  W  w  NW  NW  NW  NW  NW  NW  ' 2 ~1  1  2 ' 1  2  2  2  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  .2  1  k  3  3  3  3  2  2  ' 4  3  3  k  3  3  2  5  1  5  k  5  4  5  4  4  k  k  5  k  4  3  7  2  1/ 2/ 2 10  2/ 10  3/ 1  2/ 0  2/ 0  2/ 0  2/ 8  1/ 1  2/ 8  3/ 0  1/ •3  3/ 1  B  N  B  N  N  B  B  B  B  B  B  B  65  55  55  120  115  93  55 107  55  60  55  135  S  639  i _.NW  NW  NW  NW  'NW  NW  NW  w  PW  NW  W  PW  NW  NW  NW  w  NW  1  1  1  2  1  1  1  _1  1  1  1  1  1  2  1  2  1  1  6  2  3  1  3  4  k  4  k  2  2  2  2  2  5  2  2  3  5  8  8  3  k  2  5  5  5  5  5  3  3  3  3  3  7  3  4  k  6  0/ 5  2/ 9  1/ 0  1/ 2  1/ 8  1/ 2/ 1 10  0/  3/ 2/ 1 10  1/ 1  1/ 2  2/ 4  2/ 2/ 4 10  1/ 9  0/  NW  NW  NW  w  NW  W  W  NW  NW  NW  No. of Adults i n Family  2  1  1  2  1  2  2  2  2  No. of Children i n Family  6  5  k  1  6  5  1  6  No. of Persons i n Family  8  6  5  3  7  7  3  2/ 2/ 0 10  1/ 0  1/ 2  0/ 5  1/ 1  2/ 1  Length of Residence i n Culloden Court, Year/Month  11  r  2/ 5 . 10  1  2/  10  3/ 2  3  ' 2/ . 0  5.  £  TJ  3/ 2/ 2/ • 4 10 10  r Family Type (N - Two-parent f a m i l i e s B - One-parent f a m i l i e s )  N  B  B  N  B  N  N  N  N  B  B  B.  B  o  Project Rent (In Dollars/Month)  TO  65  55  99  70  137. 102  75  150  50  .50  50  77  N . l i  85  B  B  B  B  B  B  B  B  N  B  N  B  B  ^ B I  B  B  N  E  59 135  63  ! I  6o  56  60  71  71  70  87  50 150  77  106  130  ! 65  !6o 1  95  - Ik3 -  i  APPENDIX A  •  •  i !  '  i i , ?  i CHARACTER I ST ICS OF FUTURE RESIDENTS: .SAMPLE .GROUP..- 2  I I  Family No.  T ... 2.. ..  3•  .1*  5 .... 6 .. .7  8  9  10  12..  !  .13  .. l'V...15 . ..  15..  ..IT  .18.  .19 .  20  .21  22  .. 23.  . 2lf.. .25  26  27 ; 28  100  257  280  390  290  318  1*00  270  385  Uoo  215  32  265  186  33 . . 3V- - 35  36  - • 3 7 •' • • 3 8 -  .. 39..  ...1*1.. ...1*2- • U3  1+1*  270  330  3h2  290  588  376 >50 . 307  1+33  17b  233  280  180  2T5 _  210  21+8  1*60  228  195  . NW  NW  NW  290  516  U56  135  196  373  200  232  206  303  W  PW  1IW  NW  NW  NW  IN  NW  W  185  361*  m  PW  . ,  ! 1 W  NW  NW  NW  W  w  NW  NW  NW  No. of Adults i n Family  2  1  2  2  1  2  1  1  1  1  NW  2  2  k  7  3  1  2  1*  1*  1*  T o t a l No. of Persons i n Family  3  k  5  9  5  2  U  5  5  5  . N  N  B  N  B  B  B  NW i PW  2  1  2  NW  NW  NW..  1  1  1  2  2  1  1  2  1  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  1  5  1  3  k  2  1  2  5  k  1  2  3  -  3  5  3  2  6  2  5  6  3  2  1*  6  5  2  3  1*  2  5  B  B  B  B  B  N  N  B  B  N  B  B  . B  B  B  H  B  36  •26/  52  23/ 22  31  31  21  36  U7  62/ 62  28/ 2U  w  NW  W  W  NW  NW  NW  NW  irw  NW  2  2 . 2  1  2  2  1  2  1  1  1  1  1  1  h  2  3  2  5  5  8  2  2  3  6  3"  u  3  1  3  k  2  h  3  7  6  10  k  1+  1*  8  5  5  5  2  1+  5  3  B  B  N  B  N  N  N  B  N  B  N  B•  B  B  30  38/ 38  28  31/ 31  22/ 22  22/ 20  26  h2/ k2  ;  .KW..  w  1  1  1  No. of C h i l d r e n i n Family  Age of Spouses (Years, Husband/Wife) .  31  i 1  Employment (W - Working NW - Non-working PW - Part time working) - NW  Family Type (N - Two-parent families B - One-parent families )  30 '  t  ;  Income Dollars/Month  29  y  B  1*5  N  21/' 20  38  50/ 27/ 1*2 2 3  21  35/  32  IT  25/ 1*0  16  22  27  29  36/ 3U  26  '  B  ;  \ t  5W 23  22  32  1*9. •  25 . 1*6.  28 \  \  I 0  1  23  50 .  35/ 23  h3  - 11+1+  i  -  APPENDIX A CHARACTERISTICS. OF SUNSET AREA RESIDENTS: SAMPLE GROUP - 3 (FROM CENSUS TRACT #1+7,' 1966)  Characteristics  Vancouver area-  . Sunset area  Population 1966  1+10,375  9,211  1961  381+,522  8,61+8  Males  201,026'  L,5U9  Females  209,31+9  l+,662  M a r i t a l Status: Males Single  Married Widowed Females Single. Married Widowed Families (Total)  96,176  2,192  96,336 6,361+  2,231 112  81+, 572  1,908  96,387  2,266  2l+,6l8  1+25  99,^29  2,372  1+1,278 39,9^2 15,221+ 2,985 .  781+ 1,089 1+15 8U  No. of Children/Family 0 1-2 3-!+ 5 or more  Persons/Family Children/Familyy - .  3.2 1.3  3.5 1.5  - iVS -  APPENDIX B C H A R A C T E R p ^ I C S O ^ SUNSET A R . M u  1 :  ^ i i ^ . T & r ; S ) ^ L E GROUP - 3  (from Mayhew: L o c a l Areas of Vancouver)  - .1U7  -  APPENDIX B .. SOCIO-ECONOMIC RANKING OF LOCAL AREAS*  Shaughnessy  -  8.U  Kerrisdale.  -  8.6  Arbutus-Ridge  -  r-11.3  West Point -Grey  -  12.1  Dunbar-Southlands  -  11^.7  Oakridge  -  29.1  West End  -  ^3.5  Kitsilano  -  1+8.0  Marpole  -  56.1  Killarney  -  57.0  South Cambie  - 'fSoQO  R i l e y Park  -  70.7  Fairview  -  71.2  Sunset  -  78.0  Victoria-Fraserview •  -  80.6  Renfrew-Collingwood  -  89.3  Mount Pleasant  -  95.0  Cedar Cottage-Kensington  -  100.3  Hastings-Sunrise  -  100.5  Grandview-Woodland Park.  - ."3108.0  CBD  -  1(09 • 0  Strathcona  -  117.0  * Lower numbers indicate* higher, ranking.-  - ll+8 -  APPENDIX.C  SCHEDULE FOR INTERVIEWS  Primary reasons for. moving t o a p r o j e c t . S a t i s f a c t i o n i n "way of l i v i n g "before moving t o a p r o j e c t . Preferences f o r l o c a t i o n -of project i n general area of Vancouver. Preferences f o r l o c a l area f a c i l i t i e s and community f a c i l i t i e s . Preferences f o r o v e r a l l mix of the project r e s i d e n t s . Willingness or general a t t i t u d e towards p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n project a c t i v i t i e s ,. use of common f a c i l i t i e s , community a c t i v i t i e s , - cooperative ventures , voluntary work, e t c . Integration or i s o l a t i o n of project with surrounding community.General s a t i s f a c t i o n i n l i f e a f t e r moving t o project-. Project f a c i l i t i e s and spaces at b l o c k , c l u s t e r and project l e v e l . Problems and needs of various age groups i n p r o j e c t . R e l a t i o n s h i p and a t t i t u d e between project and community-residents. Extent and l o c a t i o n - o f f r i e n d s . P o s i t i v e and negative aspects of l i v i n g i n p r o j e c t . Recreation H a l l . Major Problems, issues and concerns.  - ih9 -  APPENDIX C  The' U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Vancouver 8,  Columbia  Canada  November 2 9 , '  School of A r c h i t e c t u r e  TO  THE  MANAGER AND  THE  RESIDENTS OF  1971  CULLODEN COURT  T h i s i s t o introduce. Mr. P a t t i M . G . Rao who i s a graduate student at our School of A r c h i t e c t u r e • He i s - now p r e p a r i n g a master t h e s i s i n which he wishes t o f i n d out how the r e s i d e n t s t h a t l i v e i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s f e e l about the f a c i l i t i e s and p r o v i s i o n s i n the project. He has chosen C u l l o d e n Court as an example. In p a r t i c u l a r he i s i n t e r e s t e d i n what e f f e c t common f a c i l i t i e s community a c t i o n has on the r e s i d e n t s .  and  I t i s our hope t h a t h i s f i n d i n g s may h e l p t o improve d e s i g n of f u t u r e housing developments, and a s s i s t present management when changes and a d d i t i o n s become p o s s i b l e . I s h o u l d l i k e - t o ask f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n comes t o i n t e r v i e w you.  when Mr.  P a t t i M.G.  Yours s i n c e r e l y ,  Mr. ¥. Gerson, P r o f e s s o r i n charge o f Graduate-. S t u d i e s .  WG:lac  Rao  ISO'  APPENDIX D: IMPRESSIONS ON PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT IN VANCOUVER: A VISUAL SURVEY  A. LITTLE MOUNTAIN  C,I, 9 MACLEAN PARK  B. ORCHARD PARK  D. •SKEENA TERRACE  E. KILLARNEY GARDENS  F. RAYMUR PLACE  G. GRANDVIEW TERRACE  H. CULLODEN COURT  Very homely and warm.  Does not give the. im- Does not look, l i k e a p r o j e c t , l i v e l y and pression of a cheerwarm. f u l atmosphere. No b a l c o n i e s .  Reasonably i n t e g r a t e d Gives the impression of an i s o l a t e d project , though much b e t t e r than surroundings, but but a great improvement over the does not stand out. surroundings.  Well i n t e g r a t e d .  Very w e l l i n t e g r a t e d .  V a r i e t y of accommoV a r i e t y of accommodation and w e l l dations, large and small courts and w e l l planned, though too distributed. compact an area.  Reasonably good s i z e c o u r t s , w e l l done. Uniformity of accommodation.  Predominantly r e s i d e n t i a l I n d u s t r i a l and slum Good f a c i l i t i e s and areas. s m a l l houses.  Very depressing.  L i t t l e b e t t e r than L i t t l e Mountain.  Very impressive, cong e n i a l , and cheerful.  I n t e r e s t i n g w i t h slopes and good p r i v a c y .  Very neat and c l e a n , probably the best of a l l but area looked unlived i n .  3. The p r o j e c t i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the immediate surrounding areas.  Surrounding u n i t s are single-family p r o j e c t , 2-3 s t . blocks.  Reasonably good. One-half of p r o j e c t b e t t e r done.  In i s o l a t i o n as proj e c t stands out with slums and low b u i l dings a l l around.  Though much b e t t e r than surrounding, but d i d not stand out i n i s o lation.  Well i n t e g r a t e d .  k. The v a r i e t y of accommodation provided and the pattern of i t s distribution.  No groupings. Uniform accommodation.  V a r i e t y of accommoL i m i t e d v a r i e t y of d a t i o n , l a r g e grouaccommodation. pings , and w e l l Too many g r o u p i n g s — planned courts. hence no l a r g e play area  V a r i e t y of accommodation. Linear spines of b l o c k s . N i c e l y done.  Two l i n e a r blocks with common areas i n between and s e r v i c e s i n basement .  5. Common areas and common f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n the p r o j e c t .  Only s e r v i c e area. Large open space around b l o c k s .  S e r v i c e s , small group areas.  Day care and s i t t i n g areas, playgrounds, etc., good f a c i l i ties .  Linear spines with t e r r a c e d platforms r e s u l t e d i n no l a r g e play areas, f a c i l i t i e s , -professional help.  Reasonably good f o r the type of p r o j e c t .  Very good. From i corridors-balconies to landscaped courts and s e r v i c e s .  Seemed reasonably good l i k e any other housing p r o j e c t .  Seemed very good. A common h a l l and r e creational f a c i l i t i e s .  6. Common f a c i l i t i e s i n immediate surroundings .  Parks, schools, commercial. No l a r g e food s t o r e .  Good areas with a l l community f a c i l i t i e s .  Not very s u b s t a n t i a l .  Not substantial..-.in f a c t poor f a c i l i t i e s .  Reasonably good.  • Not very s u b s t a n t i a l .  Reasonably good.  Substantial.  None whatsoever.  j Very a c t i v e .  Active,  Very a c t i v e .  Not very apparent, but seemed there may be an e f f o r t .  Very good.  2. General atmosphere of the p r o j e c t .  1  7. General a c t i v i t y (at the time of v i s i t ) i n the p r o j e c t area.  Some c h i l d r e n p l a y i n g near the s t r e e t s . Adults were cleaning cars on the s t r e e t .  C h i l d r e n , housewives, e l d e r l y i n and around u n i t s .  A l l age groups were seen throughout the proj e c t — a c t i v e .  8. Evidence of community organization and part i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n the project.  None.  None.  Very good.  j• Very a c t i v e .  Not very apparent but gives organized effort.  Does not appear t o be any.  Reasonably good, r e s i d e n t i a l area.  High density l i v i n g .  Depressing slum area Project i s enclosed on w i t h i n d u s t r i e s , raw one side by r e s i d e n t s t r a c k s , and highways. and the other by indust r y and highway.  Good r e s i d e n t i a l area.  K. CAROLINA & 6th AVE.  Good r e s i d e n t i a l area.  Reasonably good r e s i d e n t i a l area.  1. General impression of the o v e r a l l area w i t h i n which the project exists.  J. NICHOLSON TOWER  G e n e r a l l y , area seemed b e t t e r than others.  Very impressive, coVery i n t e r e s t i n g , l o r f u l and a c t i v e , good, compact, and but gives the impres s i o n of c o l l e g e homely. residences. Too many paved areas.  Very impressive.  L.M. WALL & OXFORD Industrial Residential  Same as K.  Very w e l l i n t e g r a t e d .  Same as K.  Uniform accommodation s i n g l e block l i k e the surroundings.  Same as K.  Nothing v i s i b l e .  Good as any p r i v a t e apartment b l o c k s .  Same as K.  Reasonably good.  Reasonably good.  Same as K.  I Not very apparent.  As l i v e l y as an apartment block could be.  Same as K.  . Not very apparent.  Do not know.  Same as K.  Uniformity s i n g l e 1 block high r i s e .  i '• •  

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.831.1-0101570/manifest

Comment

Related Items