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 by-MUDDU GOPAL RAO PATTI B. Arch. (Hons.), Indian I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED' IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE i n the School of Architecture We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard -THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1972 In present i ng. th is thes i . in p a r t i a l f u l f i lmen t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the Un iver s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ib ra ry sha l l make i t f r ee l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extensive copying o f th i s thes i s for s cho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representat ives . It is understood that copying or pub l i c a t i on of th i s thes i s for f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion. Department of A £ T l 4[PCHZTU The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date / ABSTRACT This thesis stems from three separate but inter r e l a t e d questions on public housing projects: l ) do families that are potential residents of public housing projects, l i v i n g i n the' commun-i t y at•large, 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 effects on these families-of l i v i n g i n a project with similar type (socio-economic) of residents and the provision 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 to 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 for t h i s investigation. A series of unstructured interviews were conducted with: Group 1 - residents of the Culloden Court project; Group 2 - applicants requesting accommodation i n public housing projects (future r e s i -dents); and Group 3 - the families l i v i n g i n the immediate neigh-bourhood of the Culloden Court project. 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 directed i t s e l f to finding ( l ) the personal - i i 7 relationship of the residents ..to ' each other, (2)-',how the'different types of resident groups related to. each., other,. (-3.) how the pro-ject residents'and.people from project neighbourhood area relate themselves to the'housing and project f a c i l i t i e s , and'finally (h) the Kinds-of households that should be provided i n the project. The findings c l e a r l y indicated that the future residents (Group 2) f e l t s o c i a l l y isolated i n the community and were looking forward to l i v i n g i n projects, among a similar type of family. The response pattern also shows that project residents are generally 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 into the project. . The role of the recreation-room was frequently mentioned i n discussing s a t i s f a c t i o n with the pro-j e c t . Social integration between the community residents and the neighbourhood of the project :;,JjGroup 3) and project residents was found to be lacking, although project residents attach great im-portance to t h i s aspect. I t i s hoped that t h i s study may help i n providing guide-l i n e s i n designing future housing layouts for people who, f i n d them-selves i n similar situations. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT •.. • .' . . . . . . . . . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . • ' • i v TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS • • • ' •. . . v i LIST OF• TABLES . . . . . . . • ' •... v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .•. . i x Chapter • <• •. 1. • INTRODUCTION .•. ...... • ' 1 A. OBJECTIVES (1) B. . OUTLINE OF THESIS (6) 2. METHODOLOGY .• . ... 8 •A., .METHOD OF STUDY (8 ) B. SELECTION OF A PROJECT FOR CASE STUDY (8) C. SELECTION OF RESPONDENT GROUPS . FOR INTERVIEW (15) D. DATA COLLECTION ( l ? ) E. INTERVIEWS ( 2 0 ) . F. ANALYSIS OF DATA (22) 3 . ANALYSIS OF PROJECT, RESPONDENTS AND AREAS......26 ' A. DESCRIPTION OF CULLODEN COURT (26) B. SAMPLE GROUPS AND AREAS (33) C. INTERVIEWED SAMPLE {^h) k. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION. ........... 65 A. PRIMARY REASONS FOR MOVING TO A PROJECT (65) B. WAY OF LIFE BEFORE MOVING TO A PROJECT (75) C. WAY OF LIFE AFTER MOVING TO A PROJECT (85) D. RESIDENTS OPINIONS ON PROJECT FACILITIES (95) 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) 5 • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • .... 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 (lU7) C. SCHEDULE FOR INTERVIEWS (148) , . LETTER OF INTRODUCTION (1^9) D. 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 projects i n Vancouver .{'lh 2. Community f a c i l i t i e s i n project area .............. 28 3 . Project f a c i l i t i e s : Culloden Court - 29 k. Accommodation types: Culloden Court 30 5. Types of orientations f o r i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s : Culloden Court ............ 31 6; V i s u a l and Physical B a r r i e r s : Culloden Court 32 7. Future Residents: where do they l i v e 3^ 8. Local area boundaries ............................. 35 9. Location of community f a c i l i t i e s .......... 36 10 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of sample group: project residents ... -^3 1 1 . Project residents: where they came from .. ......... hh 12 . Family type, sample group: project residents •. 45 13. .Distribution, of adults and c h i l d r e n : project residents he lk. Interviewed sample: future residents ....... 56 1 5 . F i r s t group of project residents for.interviews.... 59 1 6 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of interviewed sample: Culloden Court • • • • \J$0 17 . Interviewed sample - neighbourhood residents .• 62 - v i — LIST OF TABLES Table Page I . Breakup of Sample Groups .............. -18 IIA - IIH. Future Residents IIA. Age groups among spouses ............ 37 I I B . M a r i t a l status ............. • 37 IIC. Number of c h i l d r e n i n households 38 ' IID. AdulJ7children r a t i o • 3 8 -I I E . Family s i z e • . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . 7 3 9 I I F . Income l e v e l s .............................. 39 IIG. Employment • • -...'UO IIH. Household l o c a t i o n by l o c a l area hO •ILIA - I I I H . P r o j e c t Residents I I I A . Age groups among spouses • • *+7 I I I B . M a r i t a l s t a t u s • ............ • Vf I I I C . Number of c h i l d r e n i n households h8 • H I D . A d u l t / c h i l d r e n r a t i o • k8 H I E . Family s i z e ... . ^9 I I I F . Income l e v e l s f o r low-income f a m i l i e s ^9 I I I G . Employment .' . . . 50 I I I H . Locations of former residences of p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s by l o c a l areas 5 1 ' IVA - IVB. Neighbourhood-'Residents IVA. M a r i t a l status 53 IVB. Number of c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y 53 "vi i - . -L i s t of Tables, cont"d V. Breakup of Interviewed Sample .............. 55 VI. Responses to Primary Reasons f o r Moving to a Project • 72 VII. Responses t o : Way of L i f e Before Moving to Project ,..• .......... 83 VIII. Responses t o : Way of L i f e A f t e r Moving to Project ............................ 93 IX. Responses t o : Residents Opinions on Project F a c i l i t i e s • ....... T<32 X. Responses t o : Preferences i n the Location of the Project i n the General Area of Vancouver .......................... 115 XI. Responses t o : Preferences f or Overa l l Mix-of the Project Residents . . . . . . 1 2 4 - v i i i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to express'my. sincere appreciation to a l l those whose interest and active help have made t h i s study possible. I p a r t i c u l a r l y acknowledge with; gratitude the direction,- c r i t i c i s m and counsel of the ' following persons and organisations. Mr. T. P. Morris, Branch Arc h i t e c t , Central .Mortgage and Housing Corporation-and Mr. C. R. Hennessy, Social Development O f f i c e r , C.M.H.C.,'to Mr. C. G. Sutherland, Manager, B. C. Housing -and Management Commission for making -available information -on Culloden Court project residents and applicants to public housing accommodation.-To Professors Wolfgang Gerson and Henry Elder of the School of -Architecture, U.B.C., are due my special thanks for 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 drafts. To John McKay for 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 to Kathy P l e t t for : typing the thesis i n a short time. I t has been a great p r i v i l e g e to have worked under the d i r - . ection of Prof.. W. Gerson, without whose patient guidance and generous assistance t h i s study would not have been possible 1. i x -- 1 -CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . A OBJECTIVES: In recent years there has been much discussion on the issue of public housing. The existing 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 all o c a t i o n of income, subsidies substituted or other-radical changes made. Very few serious studies-of public housing projects which are concerned with the s o c i a l problems of low-income families-have been done, to our knowledge, i n Western Canada. This t h e s i s , therefore, i s an attempt to f i n d out what both future and present residents of public housing projects f e e l about l i f e in-projects, and, thereby., to discover some implications for future housing projects.. This thesis i s based on the premise that ibher.e i s a r e -lationship between the aspirations, preferences, and behaviour of the residents of the project, and the location and design decisions i n public housing projects." 1" (See Michelson, Merton, Sommers, Lipman.) To study consumer preferences i n public housing i s of part i c u l a r importance because i t s very purpose attracts a number of isolated people and families from the community who are, one might say, forced to l i v e i n these projects. The residents.of these projects are attracted' to them i n the f i r s t instant, not because of t h e i r personal preferences, but because of economic circumstances. - 2 -The residents.of public housing projects.at present have very l i t t l e opportunity-to•choose whether to l i v e i n a pro j e c t , l i t t l e oppor-t u n i t y to choose' which pr§ject^-they: w i l l l i v e i n , and no opportunity 2 to choose where i n a given project they w i l l l i v e . Later m t h i s study, we found that there were other important, but secondary, reasons f o r being a t t r a c t e d to public housing pr o j e c t s . The im-portance of the different, needs and values of the residents of public housing projects i s summed up by Hartman: "A greater concern and understanding must be shown, f o r the preferred, l i f e ^ - s t y l e s of working cl a s s f a m i l i e s . .. ph y s i c a l spaces,, administrative regulations, community-f a c i l i t i e s and. the. r o l e . o f the tenant, must a l l be r e -examined and revised to meet the needs of the population that the projects are intended to serve."3 There i s an extensive l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the behaviour patterns of residents of low-income family housing and slums a v a i l a b l e (See bibliography) , but many questions are s t i l l unanswered. There are many schools of thought regarding the size of a project and the in t e g r a t i o n or i s o l a t i o n of the project i n the neighbourhood (see Bradley).^' These issues concern the housing o f f i c i a l s , who lack pertinent information on which to base major decisions. The absence of t h i s information i s discussed by Merton: "S o c i a l psychology, having only, recently and bel a t e d l y t r a i n e d i t s . sights upon the' f i e l d of housing, has yet to accumulate a comfortable backlog of pertinent findings which-can be taken' into account by makers of 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 largely ignored to date, i s the' study of future residents of public housing projects.. To" make" a judgment on the' effectiveness of projects, we should know what the expectations are of those who w i l l be residents of these projects i n the future. Where do they l i v e ? What' are t h e i r characteristics?' What aspirations w i l l they bring to a project? What are t h e i r expectations? Do the present housing p o l i c i e s take them into account? 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 families who f i n d themselves l i v i n g at random i n the' community? Studies indicate that completely random placements of working class residents among middle class neighbours results i n the i s o l a t i o n of the former.^ Gutman-found that working class wives had considerable tr.ouble i n adjusting to a mixed class suburb. They simply hadn't the s o c i a l s k i l l s necessary to interact on a free and'easy basis with the middle class women around.''' I t i s important, therefore, that the future residents of the public housing projects be studied and t h e i r preferences and aspirations be taken into account when building new homes for them. A public housing project by its-nature brings together people i n similar situations - people of low income, people with poor accommodation. This s i t u a t i o n of only similar types of people - 1+ -i n a project could, and has---been, questioned. Does i t form a success-f u l , l i v i n g communityi providing a f u l l enough s o c i a l l i f e ? K e l l e r claims that both middle class and working class people have a f u l l e r social, l i f e when they are among t h e i r own.. We s h a l l attempt to discover i f t h i s i s t r u e , and i f so, to what extent. In recent, years, some public housing projects have.been provided with -social 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 to the f a m i l i e s -who l i v e i n the community at l a r g e . ^ Culloden Court, the subject of t h i s study, has such p r o v i s i o n s . We would l i k e - t o f i n d what e f f e c t the provision-of these f a c i l i t i e s has on the s o c i a l - l i f e of these people when they become residents of the p r o j e c t , and to what extent these f a c i l i t i e s meet the needs of the various age groups and family types. Another quest-ion • that comes to mind is. whether these f a c i l i t i e s should be used by project residents only, or whether they should be open to both project residents and neighbourhood residents. Would.it help to integrate the project and neighbourhood residents i f the f a c i l i t i e s were opened to the whole neighbourhood, and how could t h i s be done e f f e c t i v e l y ? Many such questions were asked i n the process of formulating the objectives f o r t h i s - t h e s i s . These questions r e l a t e to the way o f - l i f e of the residents beforeaand a f t e r moving, into a public housing p r o j e c t , the e f f e c t on these residents of l i v i n g among - 5 -similar types'of f a m i l i e s , and the role of common f a c i l i t i e s i n providing for the' s o c i a l and.recreational needs of the residents and'their effect on the'way of l i f e of project residents. Many types of information -were sought i n t h i s study to f i n d answers to . these questions. The objectives of t h i s t h e s i s , then, are to f i n d answers to three questions: 1.. Do families who are potential residents of public housing projects, now l i v i n g i n the community at large, 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 effects .on these families of l i v i n g i n a project with similar types (socio-economic) of residents and the provision 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 to overcome s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n and improve community integration? These three questions are separate, but related to each other. This thesis attempts to explore them, and to f i n d answers i n an attempt to provide guidelines for designing future public housing projects.. - 6 -B OUTLINE OF THESIS: The second chapter of t h i s study describes the methods adopted for investigation. I t outlines how and why Culloden Court project was chosen for the case study. I t also t e l l s which groups were interviewed, how the data was collected for 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 descriptions and an an-a l y s i s of data gathered. I t describes the major characteristics • of the samples chosen, and gives a comparative analysis of them. It then discusses how the interviewed sample was chosen, and i n -cludes an .analysis of t h e i r major ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The fourth chapter consists of the findings of the f i e l d study. I t comprises of a discussion on each of the issues chosen among the various respondent groups. I t then compares the various responses between groups, and the possible implications a r i s i n g out of these findings 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 arrived at. - 7 -FOOTNOTES:.' Chapter. 1 JHilliam..Miehelson., Man and, h i s Urban Environment, (Reading, Mass., Addison-WesTey, 1970)., contains d e t a i l e d discussions on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of people to the various as-pects of p h y s i c a l environment. Clare C. Cooper, "Some S o c i a l Implications of House and Sit e Plan Design-at Easter H i l l V i l l a g e " , (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 , 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 5. • Chester Hartman, "The. Limitations of Public Housing", Journal of the American Ihstl-tufre:..6f Planners, v o l . 29 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , no. k, pp. 2 8 3 - 9 6 . ^Robert B. Bradley, "Public Housing f o r the Future", Urban Renewal and Low-Income Rousing, v. 6 , no. h, p. 8 - 1 0 . ^Robert K. Merton, "The S o c i a l Psychology., of Housing", Current Trends i n S o c i a l Psychology, ed. Wayne Dennis (Pittsburgh, U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh Press, 1 9 4 8 ) , p. 1 6 3 - 2 1 7 . ^William Michelson, op. c i t . , p. 194 . ^Robert Gutman, "Population M o b i l i t y i n the American Middle Class", The Urban Condition, ed, Leonard Duhl, (N.Y. , Basic Books, 1 9 6 3 ) , p. 1 7 2 - 1 8 4 , as c i t e d i n William Michelson, op. c i t . , p. 1 2 1 . 8 Suzanne K e l l e r , " S o c i a l Class i n Phy s i c a l Planning", International Social.Science Journal, v o l . 18 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 504. % h e p r o v i s i o n for 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 both new and e x i s t i n g public housing projects was introduced on A p r i l 2 1 , 1970 through a statement on public housing program i n the House of 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 existing public housing projects i n Vancouver i n order to select a project for case study. Culloden Court pro-ject was selected for study as a result of t h i s survey. 2. Written and recorded data relevant to the project, the project area, and general areas of Vancouver were gathered and analyzed. 3. A series of interviews were conducted among project residents, future residents, and residents from the neighbourhood surrounding Culloden Court. These stages of investigation are further detailed under the sections i n t h i s chapter. BB. SELECTION OF PROJECT FOR CASE STUDY In order to choose a project for t h i s investigation among the' existing public housing projects i n Vancouver, a v i s u a l suitvey of these projects was undertaken. There exist twelve public housing projects i n the c i t y of Vancouver.'1- I v i s i t e d a l l twelve projects .in order to evaluate them. The following c r i t e r i a were used as guidelines for evaluation and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the-project: - 9 -1. General impressions of the o v e r a l l area within which the project e x i s t s . 2. The general atmosphere of the project. 3. The project i n i t s relationship to the immediate surrounding areas. h. The variety of accommodation provided and. the pattern of i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n . 5. Common areas and common f a c i l i t i e s within the project. 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 project area. 8. Evidence of community organization-and. p a r t i c i p a t i o n within 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 to a l l projects were made. It i s important to note here that the t o t a l ex-perience of the projects was my personal impression .of them. I did not go into any of the private units -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 to occasional residents i n con-versations of a general nature, went to 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 ab-sorbed the ambience of the projects. To observe the effects of various C.M.H.C. design con-cepts applied to the development of these projects, .1 v i s i t e d them - 1 0 -i n the chronological order.of their , construction dates, the oldest 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 evaluation of the twelve projects i n terms of t h e i r s i z e , accommodation types, v a r i e t y - o f project f a c i l i t i e s , and' s e t t i n g i n the neighbourhood, l e d me to c l a s s i f y them, in t o four groups: Group. 1 Large (low-density) projects,, not well-integrated with 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 (high-density) p r o j e c t s , dominant i n neighbourhood: a. C Maclean Park b. Skeena Terrace c. Raymur Place Group 3 Medium s i z e , p h y s i c a l l y well-integrated with-neighbourhood a. . Grandview Terrace' b. Culloden Court Group k One b u i l d i n g block projects a. Nicholson Tower b. Wall and Oxford c. C a r o l i n a and 6th Avenue - 11 -(The accompanying chart gives my d e t a i l e d evaluations on a l l twelve p r o j e c t s ) . I fe l t - that the s e l e c t i o n of a project for the case, study should come.from Group 3, as these projects are neither large nor small i n size,- are well-integrated with t h e i r neighbourhoods, are well-designed, and seem to be successful. IMPRESSIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS. IN VANCOUVER OVER. TWENTY YEARS: 1. There seemed to be a s h i f t of project l o c a t i o n .from predominantly r e s i d e n t i a l areas to i n d u s t r i a l cum slum areas. Perhaps land •o . values explain this.. . 2 . The atmosphere created by the projects improved s u b s t a n t i a l l y from very depressing to one of a homely, warm f e e l i n g . Perhaps increasing awareness of improving public housing -projects to a 3. healthy l i v a b l e community explain t h i s . 3. The f i r s t two projects ( L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard Park), stand i n i s o l a t i o n and are much poorer than t h e i r surrounding develop-ment. Then we see a series of very dominant projects f a r • better than the immediate surrounding developments. The l a s t four projects are very w e l l integrated, e s p e c i a l l y Nicholson Tower and Carolina & 6th Avenue, as i n these two p r o j e c t s , the - 12 -land-use and. treatment of the housing i s similar to .that of the. surrounding developments. The f i r s t project, L i t t l e Mountain, seems to provide uniform accommodation. Then we see a li m i t e d variety of accommodation , -in the second' and t h i r d projects, and l a t e r projects provide a wide variety of accommodation. Culloden Court shows a marked change i n concept which i s followed by l a t e r projects a l l pro-viding uniform accommodation.- The layout of projects changes . from.the use of isolated blocks i n the e a r l i e r projects to the use of courts and clustered units i n the l a t e r projects. Culloden Court has a good d i s t r i b u t i o n of housing units over the s i t e . Cozy courts are created. Later projects show a greater variety of communal provisions. The people i n projects seemed to make a greater use of these common f a c i l i t i e s and show more active p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In these l a t e r projects there i s a greater variety of spaces from more informal open space, with l i m i t e d services, to more formally or-ganized courts, walkways and extensive services, including professional help (legal aid) as seen.at Skeena. Common f a c i l i t i e s i n the project neighbourhoods varied, and a general trend was not very apparent. In a broad sense, though, .-i t varied from w e l l f a c i l i t a t e d areas to less desirable 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 l a t e r projects. 8. Evidence of residents' organization and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n pro-ject a c t i v i t i e s varied among the-twelve projects.- Larger projects seemed to have more organized a c t i v i t i e s . Raymur Place and Culloden Court seemed to he doing -y|eVy w e l l . CHOICE^E''CULLODEN COURT: Culloden Court project from Group 3 was chosen as a suitable case study for the, following reasons: 1. I t i s a medium sized project that show's 'a t r a n s i t i o n between large and small projects b u i l t i n Vancouver. 2. I t appears to be physically well-integrated with the surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhood. 3. The author was impressed with the o v e r a l l quality of architectural 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 public housing projects are located i n the c i t y of Vancouver. - I S -C' SELECTION.OF RESPONDENT- GROUPS- FOR INTERVIEWS As the issues on which t h i s study i s based involve family l i f e before and a f t e r moving into a public housing p r o j e c t , I felt -that future residents (Group 2) of public housing, that i s , a p p l i -cants on the waiting l i s t with the B.C. Housing Management, would provide an excellent sample group to compare with the residents of the project (Group l ) . In t h i s way, we could compare the responses and discover the trends and the differences of attitudes towards, the various aspects of housing.- I wanted to measure the e f f e c t on fam i l i e s of l i v i n g i n a public housing project among s i m i l a r types of f a m i l i e s (with the provision-of common f a c i l i t i e s ) , by studying two s i m i l a r groups of people, whose only d i f f e r e n c e i s that one group l i v e s i n such a p r o j e c t , and the other does not yet l i v e i n a-project. In t h i s case, both groups of respondents, project r e -sidents and future residents, share s i m i l a r l i f e s t y l e s and values, are at the same stage i n t h e i r l i f e cycle,' are looking for s i m i l a r opportunities for 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 s u f f i c i e n t c o n t r o l over a l l variables, other than t h e i r exposure to l i v i n g i n a project and the 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 differences found i n the responses of the two groups to the e f f e c t on families to project l i v i n g and sharing project f a c i l i t i e s . ^ Essentially, then, future residents are viewed as a co n t r o l group to assess the v a l i d i t y of the responses of the project residents, to discover which differences between the two groups (Group 1 & 2) can be a t t r i b u t e d to project l i v i n g , and to f i n d - 16 -which-aspirations they were bringing-to the project. The third, group chosen f o r interviews comes from the neigh-bourhood surrounding the p r o j e c t , and.the purpose of interviewing -t h i s group i s to discover the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the project and i t s residents to the surrounding neighbourhood from t h e i r point of view.-This study, therefore, includes three group's of respondents: Group' 1: Residents of Culloden Court. Group 2: Future residents (control group). Group 3: Residents of the surrounding neighbourhood area of the project. The f i r s t (project residents) and second (future residents) groups share s i m i l a r socio-economic problems, with the differences being that the f i r s t group l i v e s among s i m i l a r types of f a m i l i e s , whereas the second group l i v e s i n the community at large. The f i r s t group has the use of-ithe designed provisions of the project (housing, open spaces and community f a c i l i t i e s ) and the second group does not. The f i r s t and t h i r d groups share.the same 'geographical l o c a t i o n , and, therefore-, have the same. a v a i l a b i l i t y of community f a c i l i t i e s , and the various opportunities provided by the l o c a l - 17 -area, but the difference between the two groups i s one of t h e i r own socio-economic status. D DATA COLLECTION Three forms of .data were c o l l e c t e d : 1. Information - on p r o j e c t . . 2. Information on project residents and future residents. 3. Information from f i e l d work. INFORMATION ON PROJECT: A l l relevant data regarding-the project was obtained from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The data includes the project layout, the types of accommodation provided, the f a c i l i t i e s provided, and d e t a i l e d plans, sections, and elevations of the project. INFORMATION ON PROJECT.RESIDENTS AND FUTURE RESIDENTS:-A l l the data on the residents and the applicant's f o r project accommodation was derived from the f i l e s of B r i t i s h Columbia Housing.Management. The data included age, sex, m a r i t a l status, - 18 -TABLE I : BREAKUP'' OF SAMPLE ' GROUPS Type Families with children Pensioners T o t a l Future Residents hk 11 55 Project Residents kk 11 55 T o t a l 88 22 110 - 19 -income, and source of income, family s i z e , number of c h i l d r e n and t h e i r ages, t h e i r address, and length of.residence. To obtain a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p r o f i l e of project residents and future residents a sample of 50% of fam i l i e s , and 25% of pensioners among project residents was taken. A l l the s t a t i s t i c a l p r o f i l e s presented i n t h i s thesis are based on t h i s s,ample group. The necessity of such a sample group arose as no comprehensive data was a v a i l a b l e i n a single form. Much time was needed to derive t h i s information from personal f i l e s of each of the f a m i l i e s i n the project. There are 88. units f o r f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , and kk units f o r pensioners, and therefore, the sample group was l i m i t e d to kk f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , and 11 pensioner households, t o t a l l i n g 55 households. S i m i l a r l y , f o r uniformity of comparison, the sample group from' the applicants to the public housing projects (which number about four to s i x thousand) was l i m i t e d to kk households among f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , and.11 households of pensioners, also t o t a l l i n g 55 house-holds i n a l l . INFORMATION FROM FIELD STUDY: The main source of data to evaluate the three issues on which .this t h e s i s i s based i s from the discussions on each of the. issues, during i n d i v i d u a l interviews conducted among project r e s i -dents, future r e s i d e n t s , and.residents from the surrounding neigh-bourhood of the project. The process of interviewing and the methods used to c o l l a t e . d a t a i s discussed under Section E - "Interviews". - 20 -Written and recorded data regarding the l o c a l areas i n which the sample group of future residents l i v e , and where the sample group of project residents l i v e d before- moving i n t o the project was'/Ob-tained from the following sources: . _ • Canadian Census Tracts Local Areas of Vancouver - Report (Mayhew) Annual Report: Parks 8B Recreation 4,71 >• Vancouver Directory of Services ' 7 2 , by United Community Services of Greater VAncduver. INTERVIEWS The interviews with the project residents and future residents were' conducted i n two stages. F i r s t , I interviewed i n f o r -mally a small group to f a m i l i a r i z e .myself with the general response pattern, and the various issues of importance to the respondents. Then, based on these informal discussions, a schedule for more com-prehensive interviews was prepared. The f i n a l schedule was put together a f t e r several weeks of study and perusal of preliminary schedules of interviews, and sessions with t h e s i s advisers. The t e n t a t i v e dr a f t of schedules was then pre-tested. A f t e r some rev i s i o n s i n the schedule, I conducted - 2 1 -the f i n a l interviews. The interviews were unstructured, and lasted approximately 25-HO minutes. A tape recorder was used to document a l l interviews. Later I compiled the relevant responses into written form. Both groups, project residents as wel l as future residents, responded with - enthusiasm (and, hopefully, candour1.). A l e t t e r of introduction from Professor Gerson, on university stationery, was i n i t i a l l y used for the' f i r s t group of respondents, the project residents/* Most' of them, were happy to t a l k to someone, and l i k e d the idea that someone.was interested 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' mana-gement), and the fact that t h e i r information was to he used as s t a t i s t i c a l data, and therefore, anonymously, made i t easier for the respondents to he uninhibited i n t h e i r r e p l i e s . Only one re-spondent refused an interview after she had accepted an appoint-ment I had arranged. The interviews were conducted either i n the late afternoons or on weekends. Type of information sought during' interviews: 1. Reasons for moving to the project. 2. Response to t h e i r way of l i f e before moving to the project. - 22 -3. Preferences f o r l o c a t i o n and s e t t i n g of the p r o j e c t i n the l o c a l areas of Vancouver. Response t o t h e i r way of l i f e after- moving t o pr,6j;ect. Residents' opinions on p r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s . 6. 'Preferences f o r o v e r a l l mix of p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s . D e t a i l e d schedules f o r in t e r v i e w s used f o r d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h each of the three groups of respondents are i n c l u d e d i n the appendices. F ANALYSIS OF DATA The case study p r o j e c t (Culloden Court)' has been analyzed and described by or g a n i z i n g data i n t o the 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 of i t s l o c a t i o n and the type of accommodation-it pro-v i d e s , then a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the layout with-emphasis on the number of b u i l d i n g b l o c k s , f o l l o w e d by the groupings, of the bl o c k s and the v a r i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n s ' o f the i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s , and f i n a l l y , 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 provided. The two sample groups chosen, 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 , are.described i n terms of the l o c a t i o n of t h e i r residence i n the l o c a l areas of Vancouver. ( 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 of p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s . ) T h e ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of - 23 -these f a m i l i e s are described and compared with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n the Sunset -area i n which Culloden Court i s s ituated. The descriptions include only the main points b r i e f l y summarized. The analysis and comparisons include the l o c a t i o n , m a r i t a l status, age groups,, number of c h i l d r e n per family, income, l e v e l s , employment, and length of residence. This information came from Census Tracts. The d e t a i l e d tables for these f a m i l i e s -are found i n the appendices.. The areas within which these sample groups e x i s t have been documented and analyzed to give: 1. Comparative socio-economic r a t i n g . ^ 2. The l o c a t i o n of these areas i n r e l a t i o n to each other. 3. Relevant l o c a l f a c i l i t i e s . The interviewed f a m i l i e s were chosen to be representative of t h e i r sample groups. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s -of these f a m i l i e s are compared and the l o c a t i o n of their.residence described. The general format:for documenting the responses and d i s -cussions from- the interviews conducted i s organized i n the following way: - 2k -1. Subject of discussion. 2. Discussions on the subject among the' groups interviewed. The order i n which the groups appear i s future r e s i d e n t s , project residents and, where ap p l i c a b l e , community re -sidents. 3. Response pattern - the various responses of each group are then compared with each other and analyzed to e v a l -uate the attitudes of each group towards the issue under discussion. k. Implications: S o c i a l and S p a t i a l — the implications of the- responses which r e l a t e to the s o c i a l or p h y s i c a l groupings of people, b u i l d i n g s , or f a c i l i t i e s i n a p r o j e c t , are summarized. •5. Tables of d e t a i l e d responses - tables analyzing the. various responses oh the subject, and t h e i r comparative frequency of occurrence. FOOTNOTES: Chapter.2 ^The twelve projects and t h e i r dates.of eomp&'ffitji-on are. as. follows: ( l ) Little-Mountain 1954,- (2) Orchard Park- 1 9 5 9 , (3) Maclean Park 1963 ; , (h) Skeena Terrace. 1 9 6 3 , (5 ) Raymur Place 1967, ' (6) Grand-view Terrace 1 969 , (7) Culloden Court 1 969 , ("8")-Nicholson Tower 1 9 6 9 , (9 ) Maclean Park 1 970 , (10) Carolina & 6 t h 1970', ( l l ) Wall & Oxford 'A' 1970 , (12) Wall & Oxford- 'B* 1970'. ^Though figures' on land .values are not. available,, i t can be s a f e l y assumed that predominantly r e s i d e n t i a l areas would.be of higher values than i n d u s t r i a l cum slum areas. •^It was . l a t e r learned that Central Mortgage., and Housing Cor-poration was proud of Culloden Court project and considered i t as the most successful p r o j e c t . ^Appendix C .-^Appendix. C. ^Mayhew, op. c i t . , presents a socio-economic p r o f i l e f o r each .of the l o c a l areas of Vancouver so th a t i n d i v i d u a l l o c a l areas may;'h^ be compared, one with another, or a n y - l o c a l area.may be compared with • the average conditions found, throughout the c i t y . These ratings are based on s i x v a r i a b l e s : .owner occupancy, unemployment, family income, occupation J, lindex, f e r t i l i t y r a t i o and f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n . Highest ranking i s 8.!+. for Shaughnessy and lowest ranking i s 117..0 for Strath-cona. Lower numbers i n r a t i n g i n d i c a t e higher ranking.- See Appendix B for a table showing socio-economic rankings of various l o c a l areas of Vancouver. 7 These include post o f f i c e , secondary school, community park, l o c a l movie theatre, community centre, public l i b r a r y , supervised play-ground and d i s t r i c t ' S h o p p i n g centre. See I l l u s t r a t i o n on p. 36, T 26. -CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF PROJECT, RESPONDENTS AND AREAS A DESCRIPTION OF CULLODEN COURT Culloden Court i s the eighth public housing project b u i l t i n Vancouver. It was b u i l t i n 1 9 6 7 - 6 8 . 1 It occupies two square c i t y blocks i n the south-east section of the c i t y ,• bounded by U5th and -Vfth Avenues on the north and south sides, and Inverness and Knight Streets on the west and east s i d e s i ~ The project provides accommodation ,for 132 households i n three b u i l d i n g types - town-house blocks, back to back row-house blocks, and two-storey apartment blocks.-- The two-storey apartment block accommodates pensioners only, both si n g l e and couples, and contains kk u n i t s . A l l other buildings accommodate fam i l i e s with c h i l d r e n . The units for families, with c h i l d r e n range from two-bedroom units to five-bedroom u n i t s . There are 88 units i n a l l for f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n . Following i s the breakdown of t h i s number: 2 Br". 48 units 3 Br. 2k. units k Br.. 12 units' 5 Br. k units T o t a l 88 units These accommodations are provided i n eleven b u i l d i n g blocks. The b u i l d i n g blocks are grouped around three i n t e r i o r courts >! Units - 27 -i n the project have one of three orientations - fr o n t i n g on outside s t r e e t s , facing i n t e r i o r courts, or both. (Some townhouses both face 3 an i n t e r i o r court and front on an outside street.) The breakdown of the various orientations i s as follows: Orientation Families Pensioners Facing outside street Facing i n t e r i o r courts Facing i n t e r i o r courts as w e l l as fronti n g an outside st r e e t 20 52 16 28 16 None To t a l 88 kk Among the common f a c i l i t i e s provided i n the project are landscaped open space, parking, play areas, and a multi-purpose and k administration building/. There are three separate parking areas providing a t o t a l of 80 s t a l l s . The recreation centre (multi-purpose and administration block) i s located i n one of the three courts, surrounded by family units and the pensioners' block. (See the det a i l e d plan of the recreation centre.) Behind t h i s centre and next to the pensioners' block i s the children's play area. Walls are extensively used to enclose parking areas and the yards of i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s , creating almost a v i s u a l b a r r i e r between the inside and outside of the project .5"' The project i s located i n the Sunset area, which i s a 1 £ 5 s -o - 33 -r e s i d e n t i a l area of predominantly 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 the b a s i c b i o g r a p h i c a l data of the 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 these t a b l e s are summarized here. FUTURE RESIDENTS: Lo c a t i o n — Ge n e r a l l y they are d i s t r i b u t e d i n the north-east and c e n t r a l (east) p a r t s of Vancouver^ Nearly h a l f of 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 of the Grandview-Woodland, Kensington, and Mt. Pleasant l o c a l areas. (See Table IIH) M a r i t a l status - Nearly two-thirds of the f a m i l i e s i n the sample group are single-parent 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 of husband and wif e w i t h c h i l d r e n . (See Table IIB) Ages - Of the t o t a l of 6 l parents among kk f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , k3 parents are between the ages of 21-kO. The m a j o r i t y of them are i n the 21-30 group. The average age of parents i s 31.2 years. (See Table IIA) Number of c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y - The average number of 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 the kk f a m i l i e s i n t h i s sample, - 37 -TABLE IIA TO IIH CHARACTERISTICS OF. FUTURE RESIDENTS-TABLE IIA: AGE GROUPS AMONG SPOUSES Age Groups - Years Numbers Percentage 20 and under 3 5 21-30 27 1+1+ 31-HO 16 26 1+1-50 11 18 Over 50 1+ 7 T o t a l 61 100% Average Age of. Parents 31.2 years. TABLE IIB: : MARITAL STATUS Type Numbers of. Families Percentage ' Two-parent' f a m i l i e s 17 • 39 One-parent f a m i l i e s 27 6 l T o t a l 1+1+ 100% - 38 -TABLE IIC: NUMBER OF.CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLDS No. of Children No. of'Families . Percentage 1 or none J 16 2 12 27 3 9 21 k 9 21 5 k" 9 6 • 1 . 2 7 1 2 8 1 2 T o t a l • Qft 100% TABLE IID: ADULT-CHILDREN RATIO. T o t a l Number•of Adults ' ' 61 31% T o t a l No. of Children 131+ 69% T o t a l Population 195 100% - 39 -TABLE H E : FAMILY SIZE Number -of Persons i n Family. Number of Families 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 T o t a l ' 44 • ' 100* TABLE IIF: INCOME LEVELS Income Range (per month) Number of Families Percentage Less than $200 7 ' 16 $200 - $400 30 , 68 More than $1+00 7 16 T o t a l 44 100$ for No. of Families 44 Type TABLE IIG: EMPLOYMENT Numbers Percentage Working f a m i l i e s ( f u l l time) 9 19 Working f a m i l i e s (part time) h 9 Non-working f a m i l i e s 31 - 72 T o t a l kk . ' 100$ -TABLE IIH: : HOUSEHOLD LOCATION BY AREA $ -Local, Area Name Socio-economic rating I No. of Fam i l i e s • % West end . ^3 .5 Iv 7 CBD . •, 109 -0 2 . Strath'oona 117 .0 3 5 Grandview Woodland 108.0 8 • 16 Hastings Sunrise 100 .5 k 7 Renfrew Collingwood 89 .3 2 k Kensington 100 .3 11 19 Mount Pleasant 95 .0 8 15 R i l e y Park 70 .7 6 10 Fairview 71 .2 3 5 K i t s i l a n o U8.0 1 2 Arbutus Ridge 11 .3 1 2 Sunset 78 .0 1 2 V i c t o r i a Fairview 80 .6 . 1 2 T o t a l 55 100% - hi -h3% of the f a m i l i e s have 1 or 2 c h i l d r e n , , and another h0% have 3-h c h i l d r e n . The maximum.number of c h i l d r e n i n one family' i s 8. (See Table IIC) A d u l t - C h i l d r e n ratio.-y- Among the hh . f a m i l i e s , there are 6 l a d u l t s and 13h c h i l d r e n , which i s a r a t i o of 1:2.2. The average.family s i z e i s 4.5 people among f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n . (See Tables IID & E) Income - The average gross income f o r a f a m i l y i s $312 per month. 68% of the fa m i l i e s . h a v e an income of $200 -$400. Of the r e s t , 16% • have an income of l e s s than $200 a month, and another lG% have an income of more than $400 per month. (See Table I I F ) Employment - Three-fourths of the sample f a m i l i e s are on some form of a s s i s t a n c e ( w e l f a r e , unemployment insurance, etc.) and are not working. About o n e - f i f t h work f u l l time, and about 10% work part time -and a l s o r e c e i v e a s s i s t a n c e . (See Table IIG) PROJECT RESIDENTS: '• " • Lo c a t i o n of former residence - The former homes of p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s i s much more w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d than the homes of the f u t u r e r e -side n t s Nearly h a l f of them (23 out of hh f a m i l i e s ) came from an area c o n s i s t i n g of Mt. P l e a s a n t , Kensington, Sunset and R i l e y Park. The other h a l f was d i s t r i b u t e d among the- north-east, and west p a r t s of the city.- (See Table IIIH) - 1+2 -Present l o c a t i o n of families'.:- Since the sample was taken at random f o r h a l f ;o.f the u n i t s provided f o r f a m i l i e s -with - c h i l d r e n , the d i s -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 p r o p o r t i o n t o -8- . the accommodation types}--' M a r i t a l s t a t u s - Two-thirds of the p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s (among f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n ) are single-parent' f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n . One-third of the sample c o n s i s t s of husband and w i f e w i t h c h i l d r e n . (See Table I I I B ) Age of spouses - Two-thirds of the sample f a m i l i e s have parents i n the age group between 21-1+0. There are none under 20 years of age, twenty of them are between 21-30 years o l d , and twenty-one of them are 31-1+0 years o l d . The r e s t , about o n e - t h i r d , are over 1+1 years o l d . (See Table I I I A ) Number of c h i l d r e n per household - There are ll+3 c h i l d r e n among 1+1+ f a m i l i e s -of the sample group, which i s , 3.2 c h i l d r e n per f a m i l y . Since t h i s sample i s h a l f of the number of f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t , the estimate f o r the t o t a l number of c h i l d r e n . o n the p r o j e c t w i l l be 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 . (See Tables I I I C & E) . Family s i z e - Three-fourths of the f a m i l i e s i n t h i s sample have between 3-5 persons per household. The,maximum s i z e of f a m i l y i s 8 persons, and the smallest, f a m i l y s i z e i s 2 persons ( s i n g l e mother w i t h a c h i l d ) . (See Table H I E ) o o s - 1+7. -TABLE IIIA TO.IIIH SAMPLE GROUP/PROJECT RESIDENTS TABLE IIIA: 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 T o t a l 59 100% Average age of spouses 3l+ Years TABLE TUB: MARITAL STATUS . Type Number of Families Percentage Two-parent f a m i l i e s • 15 . 31+ One-parent f a m i l i e s 29 66 T o t a l 1+1+ 100% - kQ Q TABLE IIIC: NUMBER OF CHILDREN. IN HOUSEHOLDS Number of Children Number ,of Families . - Percentage 1 k 9 2 11 25 3 12 27 4 " ' '8 18 5 5 12 6 k 9 7 8 • -Total' kk 100% TABLE HID: ADULT-CHILDREN RATIO T o t a l Number of Adults 59 . 30% T o t a l Number of Children lk3 10% T o t a l Family Population 202 100% - 49 -TABLE-HIE:. FAMILY, SIZE-Number of Persons •in Family - Number of Family ••• Percentage 2 2 1+ 3 10 23 1+ 11 25 5 12 27 6 3 7 7 3 7 8 3 7 9 - -10 - - -T o t a l 1+1+ 100 % TABLE IIIF: INCOME LEVELS FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES Income Range (per. month) Number of Families Percentage Less than $200 None None From $200 to $1+00 1 8 Over $1+00 12 92 T o t a l 13 100 % Note: S o c i a l assistance and welfare amounts are not a v a i l a b l e . Therefore, only working f a m i l i e s ' incomes'are included. The other 31 fa m i l i e s -are non-working and are on assistance. TABLE IIIG: EMPLOYMENT "xype Type Numbers Percentage Working families ( f u l l time) 10 23 Working families (part time) 3 7 Non-working families 31 70 Total kk 100% - 51 -TABLE'IIIH:. FORMER LOCATIONS. CF RESIDENCES OF PROJECT RESIDENTS: BY AREAS Local Area Name. Socio-economic rating 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 7 1 . 2 2 5 South-Cambie 'iJQQO . 1 2 Kensington 100.3 6 ik Renfrew-Collingwood .' '89-3 2 5 Sunset 78 .0 . 6 14 K i l l a r n e y 57 -0 1 2 Marpole 56 .1 3 7 K i t s i l a n o 48.0 3 7 Arbutus Ridge 11.3 2 4 Kerr i s dale . 8 . 6 1 2 G-randview-Woodland, 108 .0 4 9 Total U J 4 100% - 5% -Employment - Half of the families, are non-working and-, on welfare-. Only one-third of them are.working - f u l l time.. Three of the kk f a m i l i e s are on assistance and working part time. (See Table IIIG) Length of Residence - The project i s about three years o l d , a n d i t appears that nearly h a l f of the fa m i l i e s have been there from the s t a r t . An almost equal number have been l i v i n g i n the project f o r -q more.than a year. Turnover i n tenants i s very minimals----^ Income - Income figures for only 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. A l l the welfare r e c i p i e n t s have t h e i r rents based on family s i z e . The figures on the assistance provided t o these fa m i l i e s are not available.- (See Table IIIF) SUNSET AREA RESIDENTS: Socio-economic ranking - Sunset .area ranks 14th out of 22 l o c a l areas of Vancouver (the highest ranking i s l ) . I t i s surrounded by areas with' higher, rankings on the west and north, and with lower ranking ' • ' no. areas on the east and north. I t i s predominantly residential'.M' M a r i t a l status - More than 9k% of. the f a m i l i e s i n t h i s area are two-parent f a m i l i e s . The remaining '6% include singles , pensioners , and single-parent f a m i l i e s . (See Table IVA) - 53 -TABLE IV-A AND,IV-B SUNSET 'AREA: RESIDENTS TABLE IV-A: MARITAL STATUS Type . No. of Families Percentage Two-parent f a m i l i e s 2,231' 9k One-parent f a m i l i e s 141 6 T o t a l 2,3.7,2 100 '% TABLE IV-B: NO. OF CHILDREN PER FAMILY No. of Children i n Family No. of Families Percentage' No chi l d r e n 784 33 1-2 c h i l d r e n 1,089 46 3-4 c h i l d r e n 415 18 5 c h i l d r e n 84 3 T o t a l '- 2,372 100 % - 54 -Family s i z e . - The average family size' i s 3.5 persons. Vancouver's average i s 3.2 persons. More than 65% of the families i n t h i s area have one or more' ch i l d r e n . " ^ Number of children - Nearly h a l f of the families i n the Sunset area have 1-2 c h i l d r e n . . Out of 2,372 f a m i l i e s , two-thirds of them have 1-4 c h i l d r e n . The average'number of c h i l d r e n per family i s 1.5 c h i l d r e n . (See Table IVB) Income - The average income per family -is • $435 per month Employment - Unemployment i s only k% for t h i s area.. N e a r l y . a l l fa m i l i e s are working and earning wages C INTERVIEWED "SAMPLE Out of the sample groups f o r future residents and project residents, respondents for interviews were chosen. Whereas the sample groups indicate the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two groups of people, the interviewed sample was used to obtain responses on the major issues of discussion during interviews. FUTURE RESIDENTS: On .the basis of information obtained from housing management f i l e s , I chose to contact applicants whose phone numbers appeared on t h e i r information 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 T o t a l Future Residents 1 5 5 2 0 Project Residents 1 5 5 2 0 Neighbourhood Residents 1 0 - 1 0 Totals kO 1 0 50 - 57 -only six had either 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 at the numbers. A maximum number of three attempts were made at d i f f e r e n t times (twice i n the afternoon and once i n -the l a t e evening) to reach them by phone. The majority, of the c a l l s ended i n recorded messages: "... the number you have reached i s not i n s e r v i c e . . . " Some phones rang a l l the time without any one answering. Some had people answering who were not aware of the names. Then ,a supplementary l i s t of.applicants (recent ones) was obtained from management f i l e s . This time I could reach most of the applicants. Though I intended to interview f a m i l i e s on the basis of family s i z e , m a r i t a l status, employment, et c . , i n the same proportion-as they appear i n the sample groups, i t d i d not come out that way. Many working couples were either not cooperative - (once they knew I' was a student) or were not a v a i l a b l e when c a l l e d at home at appointed times. At f i r s t i n every c a l l I made I i d e n t i f i e d my-s e l f , saying that I was a student doing a study on public/housing, and that I had t h e i r phone number from ;housing.management. In l a t e r c a l l s , I d i d not v o l u n t a r i l y - t e l l them that I was a student and only mentioned that I got t h e i r name and phone number from housing mana-gement and am doing research.on public housing and that management and C.M.H.C. were interes t e d i n the findings of the study. This helped and I could get a la r g e r number of interviews that way ( i n contrast to project residents who were more w i l l i n g to t a l k to me as a student). T h e - f i n a l number of respondents, then, consist of those who were w i l l i n g to be interviewed and i s a - f a i r l y good repre-sentation of the sample. 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 units I do not know whether i t was intended that way.or-the management gave only those names who were not com-plainants and are considered good residents. 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 lecture on research done": s6r--frequently on public housing, and said that they should not be treated as "subject matter" for research. I never contacted t h i s person again, whereas I had the phone numbers of families among future residents from management, I could not obtain the same for project residents. The policy seems to be not to give phone numbers under any circum-stances, and many of the names among the project residents are also not l i s t e d i n the telephone directory. I t seems some have unlisted numbers and some do not have telephones. Others ftq\frave •§ "telephone-'.put , i t i s sometimes out of service. 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, preferred t o t a l k with me only on the phone as she was. i l l . - The rest 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 to acquaint myself with-the'project and the major issues involved i n the project. The f i n a l selection of respondents was made more deliberately. I obtained a l i s t of project residents 1 - t f f 5 ^ Iff fPi5"!" ® ® ©@ - 61 -and checked them out i n the telephone d i r e c t o r y and selected a l i s t of residents that I could contact. This l i s t of names then were divided i n t o groups on the basis of t h e i r orientations (namely three types: those facing outside s t r e e t s , those facing i n t e r i o r courts, and those who were facing outside streets and i n t e r i o r c o u r t s ) , t h e i r accommodation types (2 Br., 3 Br., h Br., 5 Br., Bach., and 1 B r . ) , b u i l d i n g block (A,B,C,D,E,F,Etc.), and t h e i r l o c a t i o n within the block ( i n t e r i o r , corner). A f t e r a great amount of d e l i b e r a t i o n the f i n a l s e l e c t i o n was made. At least one family from each b u i l d i n g block and at l e a s t 10% from each accommodation type was interviewed. A t o t a l number of 15 residents among fam i l i e s with^children and 5 residents from the pensioners block were selected and interviewed^"'"^ RESIDENTS FROM SUNSET AREA: The t h i r d group of respondents interviewed were from the immediate surrounding area. At f i r s t , I intended to interview residents at random within a h a l f mile radius from the project. The l i s t of names was obtained from the c i t y d i r e c t o r y and the residents were contacted at random by phone. A f t e r i d e n t i f y i n g myself as a student at U.B.C.conducting a survey on the public housing project i n t h e i r area, I asked them for an interview to discuss the project (Culloden Court), with them. A f t e r several contacts i t became evident that only those people who were within 203 blocks were aware of the project. Others thought i t was a pri v a t e development pr o j e c t . Then I concentrated on those residents who were l i v i n g close to the project <3 - 63 -(Maximum of three blocks). Many were not very cooperative i n giv i n g interviews or even to discussion on the phone. About 35 people were contacted'to obtaining eight interviews. Two names were suggested by the residents themselves'*. These two fa m i l i e s l i v e - a c r o s s the street from the-project and use one of the residents as a ba b y - s i t t e r . In a l l , ten fam i l i e s were interviewed; The interviews were li m i t e d - t o discussing some of the issues a r i s i n g out of interviews with project residents and future residents'. No personal information was gathered (for example, m a r i t a l status, income, number of c h i l d r e n , etc. ) P-T This information was c o l l e c t e d from the census t r a c t s for the whole area. I t i s assumed that ten f a m i l i e s w i l l not be a representative sample for the' area. A l s o , since these f a m i l i e s were not very enthusiastic about discussing the pr o j e c t , the interviews we're kept to very e s s e n t i a l information only. - 6h -FOOTNOTES: Chapter. 3 '. "'"First group of tenants, moved i n August 1969 . . ^ 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 orientations for • indivi d u a l units on p. 31. ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n on p. 29 . . . ^ i l l u s t r a t i o n showing v i s u a l barriers and the range of view from outside t o inside-of 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 re-sidents of public housing projects i n Vancouver on p. 3V.. ^ I l l u s t r a t i o n showing, the' location 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 Victoria-Fraserview, Kensington, R i l e y Park, Oakridge & Marp'ole. See Appendix B for the socio-economic ranking of'these. "'""'"Appendix A. . 1 2Appendix A. 13 . ' Some of these applicants are'on waiting l i s t s for 2-3 years and have moved from the location shown i n f i l e s . -^Map showing the location of families'suggested by the housing management for interviews on p. 59. " ^ 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 project, p. 6 0 . If? -Table showing the breakup of interviewed sample on p. 5 5 . -^Appendix A. - 6 5 -CHAPTER IV ISSUES FOR DISCUSSIONS A PRIMARY REASONS FOR MOVING TO PROJECT FUTURE RESIDENTS: Nearly a l l respondents gave economic reasons for moving to a project. The explanation for t h i s i s twofold. F i r s t , due to t h e i r l i m i t e d incomes, they- have less money to spend on housing, and, therefore, t h e i r present accommodations are too crowded for 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 better (and larger) accommodation i n a public housing project. They would have more money to spend on other things than shelter to. improve t h e i r standard of l i v i n g . Second, the respondents f e l t that moving to a project would give -them an opportunity t o l i v e among families with the same problems or i n a simi 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 physically i s o -lated from the surrounding neighbourhood and community at large. -Very few of them'have friends i n t h e i r v i c i n i t y (except for "baby-s i t t e r " relationships ) , but often v i s i t some of the projects, where many have friends. Perhaps t h i s i s why, when asked about the advantages of l i v i n g among families i n simi l a r s i t u a t i o n s , many said that they could make many friends i n the project. One t y p i c a l 66 -response was, "It i s easier to make friends, and I f e e l free while t a l k i n g to 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 after seeing t h e i r friends i n projects. They were impressed with accommodations and the low rent, and f e l t they were missing out on something. As one.respondent p u t . i t , "I never.thought much of these projects before, but when one of my friends moved into 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 said, "I have been waiting for more than a year now (to move to a project) and I'm looking forward to i t . " The other reasons for wanting to move to a project were related i n one way or another to either cheaper rent or being among th e i r friends. Some of them are, "Living i n a project, I could save enough money to go to a vocational school." "I f e e l so lonely here. Wo one to t a l k to. A l l my neigh-bours here treat me as i f I'm a so c i a l outcast." "My only acquaintance here i s my baby-sitter from next door." f - 6 7 -"I never had a home of my own." "The project i s so much better." The adults f e l t lonely and isolated s o c i a l l y and thought the project would provide friends for themselves and t h e i r children. One respondent f e l t that herfyteenage sons do not have any•problems, but her two younger children, four and s i x years o l d , have no company. "A project w i l l have l o t s of children for them to play with." S t i l l another put i t d i f f e r e n t l y , "My children aren't dressed up as ni c e l y as other children i n the area. Maybe that's the reason my neighbours won't allow t h e i r children to play with ours. In a pro-ject t h i s wouldn't be the case." PROJECT RESIDENTS:, Like t h e i r counterparts.in the waiting l i s t , residents f e l t that low rent was the main reason for being i n the project, though they did 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 to these families 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 isolated among these groups. This factor was not mentioned by the future residents. Culloden Court i s - 68 -located i n the Sunset, area, which i s 15th i n the socio-economic ranking of the 22 l o c a l areas of 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 projects (which are a l l located i n lower ranking areas)., t h e i r s i s i n a better r e s i - . d ential location. "Living i n t h i s project we l i v e i n a clean neighbourhood." "Compared to the slum (Hastings) area we were l i v i n g i n before, t h i s i s so much better, 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, "nicer" area, the residents stated that i t ' s not a "slum" area (a general re-ference to the East Hastings area by the majority, who would not l i k e to l i v e i n a project there), that "people are better here", and that "there's no bumsyor drunks i n t h i s area", etc. Another reason given by the residents, also'.not mentioned by future residents, 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 services, welfare services, etc. This may be because a project i d e n t i f i e s a concentration of problem families or families needing these services. Perhaps because there i s such - 69 -a concentration, so c i a l agencies pay more attention to these families. Making friends among project residents much more eas 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 friends, they a l l said they have more friends now than before. Other advantages mentioned by project residents i n l i v i n g i n the project are the recreation room and the children's play area. Most of those who gave these advantages did not have these f a c i l i t i e s before, and f e l t them to be useful. "My children were playing i n the streets before - now they have a safe area to play i n , and I can watch them too." "The recreation room i s very handy - I made a l l my contacts among residents there." " I met most of my friends i n the recreation room." Living among families i n similar situations was mentioned as an advantage. One woman said, "Most of us (women) have so much spare time here, so we get together to t a l k • or play cards. I couldn't do t h i s before. . I used to l i v e four -blocks from here, and didn't know many people to 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 families i n similar situations varied i n the two groups, i t became evident that l i v i n g i n a project with similar (socio-economic) families provides more friends and spare time occupations. Adults and children have companionship i n the project, which to a certain 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 into the project. I t appears from the responses that residents f e e l the location of the project i n a desirable area (better than the run-down areas of Vancouver) i s important to them. Also, because of i t s concentration of similar types of f a m i l i e s , the project provides an easier access to agency services. The project f a c i l i t i e s are seen as an added advantage for recreational, as well as s o c i a l , reasons. IMPLICATIONS: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL: 1. A project i s conceived for increased friendships and s o c i a l l i f e . 2. The location of a project -like t h i s i n the community i s seen as an improved socio-economic setting for families. 3. Project provisions for outdoor and recreational a c t i v i t i e s i s - 71 -highly valued. k. Living i n a project i s related to increased a v a i l a b i l i t y of soc i a l services. 5. Low rent i n the project means that there i s more money to improve the standard of l i v i n g . - 72 -11. TABLE VI PRIMARY REASONS FOR MOVING TO! A PROJECT No. Responded Percentage 1. Economic Reasons 30: 100 2. Living With Families In Similar Situations 21 " 70 3. For Increased Friendships, Companionship 2k 80 4. Other Reasons 2k 80 Total No. of Responses Total 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 for better accommodation 6 . Better'Accommodation for--the present rent 5 With low rent, money w i l l be available for other things 3 Could make savings l i v i n g i n .project 2 Total No. of Families .Responded 30 2. Remarks on "Living with Families i n Similar Situations" No. Responded We have so much i n common ' 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 to pretend and l i v e a phony l i f e among similar type of families 3 You f e e l you•are not alone 2 (n«30) Total No. of Families Responded 21 - 7k -3. Remarks on "For Increased Friendships, Companionships" Wo. Responded Easier to make friends among families i n . similar situations 8 Adult company for gossip, card games, etc. 6 More children to play with for our children 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 Is 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) Total Wo. of Families Responded 2k k. Remarks on "Other Reasons" Wo. Responded Living i n project makes-it possible to l i v e i n a "clean" (better j nice) neighbourhood 6 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 "3 To get out of "slum" area. This i s the only way we can do i t 6 Living i n project helps i n a v a i l i n g s o c i a l services, helps i n welfare, etc. k You f e e l part of community 2 Total Wo. of Families Responded 2k Total Wo. of Respondents 30 Total Wo. of Reasons Given 99 - 75 -WAY OF LIFE- BEFORE MOVING TO"A PROJECT FUTURE RESIDENTS: Having discussed at some length the main reasons for moving to 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 to the project. As i t became evident i n the l a s t chapter, a lack of friends 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, espe-c i a l l y single mothers, said that l i f e generally could be very satisfactory but for two things - money and loneliness. Regarding loneliness, most f e l t that l i v i n g isolated i n the community i s , the main drawback. As one respondent put i t , "Most of my long-time friends are.either i n projects or far away from here. I don't have a car... I haven't been able to make friends 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 friendly" with. Right now, I f e e l I am cut o f f from the world." Another said, "Being single and l i v i n g i n i s o l a t i o n from your friends or other single mothers i s d i f f i c u l t . You f e e l so lonely." An• interesting point mentioned by the same woman, and •VBtifaPtfy fest^her^s t n a ^ h e l ^ - 76 -at singles clubs, which they f e e l to be t h e i r only s o c i a l o u t l e t . This i s probably why a l o t of the single mothers know other single, mothers, though they l i v e f a r from each other. One thought that when she moves into a project she w i l l i n i t i a t e a singles club there. As she s a i d , "This i s probably what we miss the most. We need to meet men and we are l o n e l y . This i s the basis of most of our problems. E s p e c i a l l y i n projects you see so many single mothers, and we want to s o c i a l i z e . An organized singles club is-what y o u - r e a l l y need there..." One p a r t i c u l a r s i n g l e mother i n her e a r l y twenties s a i d , "I l i v e here alone with my c h i l d . .1 come from the East and don't have any friends i n the c i t y . I met some of my neighbours i n the corner store but they keep t h e i r distance, so I keep to myself and don't mix." "This area i s very good to l i v e i n i f you're married, but T think i n my p a r t i c u l a r case a project may be-a better place - I would get to know others l i k e me." None of the si n g l e mothers, regardless of t h e i r age, had any complaints regarding any of the community f a c i l i t i e s except f o r the singles club. D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n thus centred on the l o n e l i n e s s , and the i s o l a t i o n from other people. This was true of c h i l d r e n too, though the problem i s l e s s acute i f there i s more than one c h i l d i n the family, providing some company f o r each other, even i f l i m i t e d . The c h i l d r e n , however, even i f they are only c h i l d r e n , seem'much more capable of handling l o n e l i n e s s than t h e i r parents, but nearly a l l parents said they wished there would be more com-pany f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . - 77--On the other hand, families with older children found that t h e i r own children had no such problems, as they had friends from school and did not encounter much d i f f i c u l t y . I t appears that for older children i t i s neither an advantage nor a disadvan-tage to l i v e i n a project, at least s o c i a l l y , as they make t h e i r friends from the community at large, and not just from the immed-iat e neighbourhood. Apart from the improved accommodation i n the project, the parents from such families 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 with the external things such as cloth i n g , and furnishings, and have withdrawn themselves to a certain extent from t h e i r neighbours. As a mother of two teenage boys put i t , "My kids 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 project, there'd be more money for things l i k e clothes.", • Another respondent who was concerned about the lack of proper furnishings conceded, " I t ' s d i f f i c u l t to make.friends here as I'm not up to the standards of the others (neighbours)... even i f I do make friends, I can't ask them to v i s i t my place. I'm.quite ashamed about the emptiness i n t h i s house." - 78 -PROJECT RESIDENTS: It i s evident that the e a r l i e r group put emphasis on "loneliness" and "lack of friends" while discussing t h e i r over-a 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 led to finding out what project residents now f e e l , after l i v i n g i n the project for some time, about t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with 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 project. I t became evident i n these discussions that generally they are much happier than before, though there was s t i l l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with many things. Most frequently, 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. Integration with others than t h e i r own type was stressed. This w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l i n another discussion, but what i s important i s that they viewed an improved so c i a l l i f e as a more satisfactory elementpin t h e i r l i v e s . I t appears that s a t i s f a c t i o n before project 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 isolated and lonely 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 cit e d a lack of play areas, poorer accommodation and f a c i l i t i e s , loneliness and s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n as the chief reasons for a much lesser degree of 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 project. - 79 -Many discussed past.satisfaction 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 satisfactory elements'. Perhaps t h i s apparent anomaly i s due to the fact that many other factors leading to 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 lack of friends were not so obvious before. The frequently mentioned aspects such as better f a c i l i t i e s , acco-mmodation, etc;, are seen as an ov e r a l l improvement i n l i f e , and thus, have an effect on ove 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 public housing projects before, and moved out v o l u n t a r i l y , then after a couple of years moved back to the project (Culloden Court on her preference), said, "I can say I have l i v e d and know both sides of the picture (sic) (meaning, l i v i n g i n and outside of projects). . L i f e i n general i s much happier i n the project than outside. For one thing, 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 feel i n g l i k e part of a similar group of people... you have much more spare money... l i f e i s more comfortable here. There i s a recreation room here. The area i s nice, there's l o t s of open space for children to play i n , and though you get fed up with seeing and l i v i n g with the same problem f a m i l i e s , y o u ' s t i l l go for projects. L i f e here i s not great (sic) but i t ' s .far better than before. That's why I came back to the project. Of course, Culloden Court i s not l i k e the projects i n the East Hastings area." Perhaps because of Culloden Court's r e l a t i v e l y smaller size and nicer r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n , the physical aspects of the project were stressed more than the s o c i a l aspects, or perhaps the physical aspects do complement • the social'aspects'of l i v i n g . I t nevertheless underlines the importance respondents gave to . _": - 80 -improved s o c i a l and.physical settings as a measure for s a t i s f a c t i o n with the place of residence and the way people l i v e . One respon-dent placed much importance on the type of accommodation she had before moving into Culloden Court. Discussing how s a t i s f i e d she was before, she sa i d , "I had a much better place before, a courtyard, etc... the only reason I l e f t was the rent was k i l l i n g me ( s i c ) . I was very f r i e n d l y with my neighbours before, but now I moved here, which i s only four blocks from where I l i v e d before, I l o s t my f r i e n d s . Maybe i t ' s the fact that I l i v e i n a project and they don't want to assoc-i a t e with me any more. I am moving out very soon, even i f i t takes a l l my welfare money. I ' l l be much happier." Another respondent who l i v e d i n a p r i v a t e housing project before (when her husband was a l i v e ) and whose circumstances l e d to public housing, commented, " L i f e r e a l l y was nice before. I had my family and the people i n the project were very f r i e n d l y . I'm not the type to 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 -creation room meetings. In that p r i v a t e project I made most of my friendships i n the laundry room, but here, other than the r e c r e a t i o n room you don't meet people any other way." RESPONSE PATTERN: Measures f o r expressing s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i v i n g are l o n e l i n e s s or a lack of f r i e n d s , accommodation q u a l i t y , s o c i a l o r -ganization ( l i k e singles c l u b s ) , s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n with higher income groups, a well designed project arid i t s scale, p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s , e tc., a l l mentioned frequently among the respondents. 0 - 81 -Future r e s i d e n t s , though, put more emphasis on s o c i a l aspects only (loneliness and 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 describing t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n , or the lack of i t . The project residents put a l o t of emphasis on p h y s i c a l aspects which they enjoy now and did not have the opportunity to use before (better accommodation, project f a c i l i t i e s , etc.) when describing 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. S o c i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i s seen as more important than lower rent or saving money when mea-suring s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the way of l i f e , and that l o n e l i n e s s i s the most evident deterrent to achieving a s a t i s f a c t o r y way of l i f e . IMPLICATIONS: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL: 1. • Whereas s o c i a l aspects become measurements f o r describing s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the way of l i v i n g f o r respondents who have only l i v e d i n the general community, ph y s i c a l aspects become measurements for respondents who have experienced 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 project i s conceived of as an "improvement over the previous way- of l i f e . The project appears to a c e r t a i n extent to s a t i s f y s o c i a l as well as p h y s i c a l needs. 3. Project f a c i l i t i e s and s o c i a l aspects of l i v i n g are comple-mentary to each other. 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, so c i a l aspects are important. Project l i v i n g leads to an important role for physical aspects, i n measuring community/satisfaction. - 83 -TABLE VII WAY OF LIFE BEFORE MOVING TO PROJECT No.. Responded Percentage 1. Unsatisfactory in-terms of - '. s o c i a l aspects 38 95 2. Unsatisfactory i n terms of p h y s i c a l aspects 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 opinions 2 5 T o t a l No. of Responses*. '72 T o t a l No. of Respondents kO *Some respondents mentioned more than one aspect - 84 -1. Breakdown of S o c i a l Aspects No. Responded A. Loneliness B. Need for s o c i a l clubs C. S o c i a l i s o l a t i o n from 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 s i m i l a r state E. Others 13 1+ 11 8 2 (n^ho) T o t a l No. Responded 38 2. Breakdown of Physical Aspects No. Responded A. Quality of accommodation B. Common f a c i l i t i e s C. Location i n neighbourhood D. Others 12 7 5 3 • if T o t a l No. Responded 27 3. Satisfied-With L i v i n g Before Project No. Responded A. S o c i a l B. Personal 2 1 Total.No. Responded 3 h. Economic Reasons No. Responded A. S a t i s f ied-r/before- except for high rent 2 5. . To t a l No. No'Opinions, I n d i f f e r e n t Responded 2 - 85 -C WAY OF•LIFE AFTER MOVING TO A PROJECT Having discussed how respondents reacted to l i f e before moving to a project, 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 project. There were many degrees of s a t i s f a c t i o n • found and they generally related to either the location of t h e i r unit i n the project i n relationship to outside streets and inside f a c i l i t i e s , or the family type. F i r s t we w i l l discuss the reaction among families with respect to t h e i r physical setting or location regarding the outside, common f a c i l i t i e s , etc. Among respondents, families 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 street, and v i s u a l l y related to the surrounding neighbourhood. They said they did not f e e l as "trapped" as the families facing inside the project, they do not have to look into each other's u n i t s , they have more privacy, and f e e l themselves belonging to the outside neighbourhood, rather than just the project. Some remarks were: "There i s too much noise inside... 'here, we face out... t h i s way we don't have to mix with the others a l l the time." "It ' s so much better on the outside. Inside the project you f e e l so "trapped". We've l i v e d i n other projects and t h i s i s the best location... •" -- 86 -"I wouldn't l i k e to l i v e inside... " "Living here on the outside we don't have too much to do with the others in. the project. We meet others i n the recreation room meetings. That's enough for 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 project." One characteristic of the families facing outside that was quite evident was that they preferred a degree of aloofness from project, residents as a whole, s o c i a l l y and physically. This, attitude was shared by many families with older children presently l i v i n g inside the project, but who would have preferred having a unit facing outside. Of the eleven building blocks, seven blocks are on the periphery, and facing outside. Of the 132 units i n the eleven blocks, 62 units of the seven outside blocks face out-side the project. One of the respondents with young children,, however, does not l i k e l i v i n g i n a unit facing outside the project. As she put s i t , "My children are always on the street. I f I send them to play i n the inside courts, I can't watch them. I'd prefer l i v i n g i n a unit facing the court. I t ' d be better for my children." Among the preliminary.interviews conducted, many of the families l i v e d i n the corner units of the building blocks. (The l i s t of these families 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. Privacy was given as the reason. Even families with young children preferred corner units. - 87 -Among the f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n s i d e the project f a c i n g the courts, the majority of them l i k e d the s e t t i n g , hut complained of the l a c k of privacy and.the lack of enclosed (or more p r i v a t e and-bigger) front yards. Regarding the open space or courts, nearly a l l f e l t that i t would be much better i f they could also see out. Some units have front and back yards - they front on an outside s t r e e t , and have yards at the rear. Some of the f a m i l i e s pointed out that l i v i n g i n such u n i t s would be much better than just f a c i n g into the courts. Noise was another factor against having the courts enclosed by the b u i l d i n g blocks. In general, f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n -side the project exhibited mixed f e e l i n g s regarding l i v i n g i n the project. Some remarks were: "It ' s nice to have an open area i n the f r o n t , s p e c i a l l y for the k i d s , but you f e e l kind of "trapped" surrounded by only f a m i l i e s with problems... i t ' d be nice to be on the outside." "I l i k e i t here. There's so much a c t i v i t y , c h i l d r e n playing, people coming and going... out i n the front you -see cars "going by." "I don't l i k e i t very much here. I'd rather l i v e some-place where there's peace, and not so many people. 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 s a i d , "You see the same people a l l the time, noise i n the courts, kids hanging around, the mischief they get i n t o , e t c . " - 88 -Other than the 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 of project l i v i n g and the s e t t i n g of i n d i v i d u a l household u n i t s and family type i n terms of c h i l d r e n , the majority of them f e l t they were much happier now than before-. Many reasons were given. Most notable among them were that they were f i n a n c i a l l y better off,,-had better accommodation, more s o c i a l l i f e , and a better l o c a t i o n i n the 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 with project l i v i n g to i t s location.- This aspect was very much emphasized. Many said i t was much better located than others i n the downtown area. Others 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 to good design. As one respondent s a i d , " I t ' s so much better looking than other pr o j e c t s . I t looks l i k e a p r i v a t e property, except i t ' s not as well kept, 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 jus t deplorable." In general, the project seems to f u l f i l l the expectations that these respondents had before moving into the project. The problems of i s o l a t i o n and poverty faced by the future residents l i v i n g i n the general community seem to be a l l e v i a t e d by project l i v i n g . Negative aspects mentioned i n project l i v i n g r e l a t e d to fe e l i n g s of i s o l a t i o n from the surrounding neighbourhood. Many f e l t that l i v i n g i n a project l i m i t e d them to being with the same - 8 9 -type of people with.no v a r i e t y . A l l are low-income f a m i l i e s , and there are too many c h i l d r e n , etc. As we have seen e a r l i e r , future residents stressed l i v i n g among s i m i l a r types of f a m i l i e s f a c i n g the same problems, as a major reason f o r wanting to l i v e i n a p r o j e c t , but once these same f a m i l i e s a c t u a l l y experience project l i v i n g , f e e l t h a t , though project l i v i n g i s an improve-ment over t h e i r l i f e before, they should be r e l a t e d to a middle-income, rather than a low-income group. This a t t i t u d e has formed a c e r t a i n heirarchy between low-income and welfare f a m i l i e s , single parent and two parent f a m i l i e s , and a general s t r i v i n g f o r upward mo b i l i t y . However, very few wanted to leave the project. Among the e l d e r l y , the l o c a t i o n of the project i n a good r e s i d e n t i a l area and being part of a family environment, were the p o s i t i v e reasons given f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n with the project. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , they l i k e d being i n a project 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. Frequently men-tioned were projects of the type.devoted e x c l u s i v e l y to pensioners (Nicholson Tower), and the lac k of family atmosphere. Many also said they receive much help from the younger women i n the p r o j e c t , who shop f or them, etc. 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, that l i v i n g among a group was the--" answer, and that.such a grouping should be part of a family s e t t i n g . The negative aspects of l i v i n g i n such a- project s e t t i n g as Culloden Court, they f e l t , are problems with c h i l d r e n i n the - 90 -l 4 - l 8 age group, i n terms of mischief, break-ins, and noise. On the whole, however, the responses i n d i c a t e s a t i s f a c t i o n , rather than d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , among the e l d e r l y l i v i n g i n the pro-j e c t . • RESPONSE PATTERN: The project residents gave many reasons to in d i c a t e why they are happier l i v i n g i n the project than before. The basis for t h i s comparison was made on improved accommodation, better budget due to lower rent, increased s o c i a l l i f e and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , good, l o c a t i o n of residence, improved 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 , use of f a c i l i t i e s , etc. These, then, are the measurements used by project residents to compare the s a t i s f a c t i o n of l i f e i n the circumstances they f i n d themselves. How, to how they l i v e d before. It i s important to note here that no mention was made of s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n as such, though residents f e e l that t h e i r s o c i a l l i f e i s now l i m i t e d to s i m i l a r types of f a m i l i e s i n the project only. Pensioners on the other hand, f e l t that i n terms of improved acco-mmodation an d - l i v i n g i n company of other pensioners i n a s e t t i n g of a family environment i s an improvement compared to t h e i r l i f e before. Their most frequent:'compM.ints r e l a t e d to ch i l d r e n . The proximity of the recreation room and play area to the pensioners block i s the cause f o r so much noise, as well as mischief and t h e f t s from older c h i l d r e n . Another aspect of s a t i s f a c t i o n i s the degree of improve-ment within the project i t s e l f . As seen i n these discussions, two lo c a t i o n s most residents preferred were corner u n i t s and on the outer periphery. Corner l o c a t i o n of a unit i s seen more as an aspect of privacy, and having only one neighbour on the side. Many residents have given t h i s as an important f a c t o r . L i v i n g on the outer periphery i s seen more as a c e r t a i n degree of i s o -l a t i o n from the project and relating..more to the immediate neigh-borhood. In t h i s study i t was found that people l i v i n g on the outer periphery were more content with l i f e than the residents l i v i n g i n the i n t e r i o r of the project who complained of being trapped, l a c k of privacy, etc. IMPLICATIONS: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL: 1. L i v i n g among s i m i l a r type of people (to an extent) 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 the community. 2. Location of unit on the outer periphery of the project i s preferred more than the one i n the i n t e r i o r of the project. 3. • Project l i v i n g provides more s o c i a l l i f e than l i v i n g alone i n the community. Improved accommodation, lower rent, l o c a t i o n of p r o j e c t , a v a i l a b i l i t y of services and f a c i l i t i e s are seen as measuring t o o l s to compare the s a t i s f a c t i o n of l i f e . -- 93 -TABLE y i l l WAY OF LIFE. AFTER. MOVING TO PROJECT  AS COMPARED TO LIVING IN. COMMUNITY AT LARGE RESPONDENT GROUP: FAMILIES. WITH CHILDREN Response No. Responded Percentage More s a t i s f i e d - than before 13 86 Same l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n as before 1 7 Worse than before 1 7 To t a l Responded 15 100% Reasons.Given for•"More S a t i s f i e d Than Before" No. Responded Better accommodation than before- 13 F i n a n c i a l l y better o f f 9 More s o c i a l l i f e 11 Better l o c a t i o n 6 Use of f a c i l i t i e s * 2 Increased (easier) a v a i l a b i l i t y of services 7 Increase i n income (assistance) 8 (n 13) Total"Responded* : ' 52 *Respondents gave more than one answer -'9k -RESPONDENT.. GROUP: PENSIONERS More- s a t i s f i e d than before k 80 I n d i f f e r e n t 1 20 T o t a l Responded 5 1 00% Reasons for '"More S a t i s f i e d Than Before" No. Responded Better accommodation • k L i v i n g among other pensioners k Help from project residents 2 (n«4) T o t a l Responded 10 Note-: More than one reason was given. Negative Aspects of Project L i v i n g No. Responded Too noisy - 5 Mischief and t h e f t 2 ( n * 5 ) T o t a l Responded 7 Note: More than one answer was given. - 95 -RESIDENTS' OPINIONS. ON PROJECT FACILITIES Culloden Court i s provided w i t h a r e c r e a t i o n room, c h i l d r e n p l a y areas, parking spaces, and (open space) i n t e r i o r c ourts As we have discovered e a r l i e r , the m a j o r i t y of f r i e n d s h i p s were s t a r t e d at r e c r e a t i o n room a c t i v i t i e s . When asked about t h e i r opinions on the p r o v i s i o n of such a f a c i l i t y i n - t h e p r o j e c t , many respondents pointed out that the r e c r e a t i o n room i s intended f o r the use of the immediate surrounding neighbourhood, as w e l l as f o r p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s , but i s only used by the r e s i d e n t s . Many fl -f e l t t h a t when the 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 took great i n t e r e s t i n i t , but due t o the l a c k o f proper o r g a n i z a t i o n and. poor h a n d l i n g , many of the f u n c t i o n s and ideas never m a t e r i a l i z e d , or were p o o r l y attended. One woman, who apparently showed much i n t e r e s t i n the r e c r e a t i o n room a c t i v i t i e s , s a i d , "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 anything i n t e r e s t i n g . They're a b i g bore... " A f r e q u e n t l y mentioned problem attached 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 the l a c k of p r o f e s s i o n a l (or experienced) o r g a n i z e r s , or v a r i o u s f a c t i o n a l groups who do not share s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s . These two aspects of the problem w i l l be further' discussed s e p a r a t e l y . What i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note I n the d i s c u s s i o n i s t h a t , , given c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s ( o r g a n i z a t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n ) , n e a r l y - 96 -a l l respondents showed a positive i n c l i n a t i o n for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n recreation room a c t i v i t i e s . They wanted to use t h e i r spare time more constructively, to meet people, to s o c i a l i z e , to add to t h e i r knowledge of matters of i n t e r e s t , or just to "see what's going on". When asked about the kind of a c t i v i t i e s they are interested i n , s urprisingly many showed interest i n educational or cr a f t oriented a c t i v i t i e s , such as cooking classes, health care, l i b r a r y , typing, workshops, etc. The provision of a l i b r a r y . i n the pro-ject was the most frequently mentioned f a c i l i t y lacking i n the project at present. The lack of an organized s o c i a l evening was often complained about. Asked about the existing f a c i l i t y for so c i a l evenings (recreation room), and why i t was not used for them, the following remarks were made: "For a s o c i a l evening we should have a more variety of people... ' i t ' s always the same few of us i n the project. People from outside the project should be involved, too." • " I t should be properly organized. I don't think any of the people here can organize anything successfully... I've stopped going to any of these." "I used to gov;, but nothing happens nowadays... " Many f e l t that i f certain 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 out-side the project. . There are many among the respondents who are involved i n toy-making, painting, etc., who would welcome the oppor-tuni t y to teach classes, but who would need help to organize them. And nearly a l l the respondents would l i k e to see the re-creation room being used for such a purpose. - 97' -Some organized a c t i v i t i e s are needed to involve both pro-ject residents and others. Perhaps outside organizers, or an agency s t a f f can f i l l the need. Outside supervision would also break down the di s t r u s t and hesitance project residents f e e l i n accep-t i n g t h e i r neighbours as organizers and teachers. Another problem associated with the use of the recreation room v i s the formation of a group attitude towards i t . The el d e r l y , parents, older children, 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 recreation 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 certain militance developed between them. Then, pa r t i c u l a r time periods were allocated to each group, but t h i s was not successful, as no group appeared to be organized to use i t s allocated time e f f e c t i v e l y . Now, though the time periods s t i l l applied, the re-creation room appeared to be locked at a l l times, 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 ho s p i t a l , and nobody seemed'to know what to 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 recreation centre i s one room, about 35 ' x ' ^ 8 ' , which can be used for only one a c t i v i t y at - a time, which i s too large for small group a c t i v i t i e s , and which i s too small for dances, general meetings, etc. I t i s too general i n nature, too amorphous. A pensioner said, • "The recreation room should be used for very general a c t i v i t i e s which the whole project shares l i k e meetings, - 98 -organized c l a s s e s , l i b r a r y , and maybe provisions f o r i n d i v i d u a l groups made.separately." Other residents had si m i l a r 'opinions ,r "The r e c r e a t i o n room should have separate areas f o r d i f f e r e n t groups of people here. There should at l e a s t be an area just f o r us." "It' d be nice to have a small room,in our block... just to s i t around, watch T.V.,' play cards... just the people here i n t h i s block. The e l d e r l y and.the teenagers emphasized the need f o r a place of t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r l y . . Teenagers, however, wanted a coffee shop - there i s none convenient to the project area, and they f e e l they have nowhere to go. This kind of response questions the very r o l e of the p r o v i s i o n of a re c r e a t i o n centre i n a pro-j e c t . Does i t s a t i s f y a l l the groups i n the project? Does i t provide space f o r such groups when required without i n t e r f e r i n g with other groups? Or should the centre f o r the project be very general i n nature and not cater to the s p e c i f i c needs of any p a r t i c u l a r group, as the ^ present centre i n Culloden Court i s de-signed? Or should there be, as many respondents expressed, several smaller areas scattered i n the project f o r various groups, with the main centre being used only f o r non-specific a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to the whole project and the surrounding neighbourhood? 1 These questions bring up the subject of the very l o c a t i o n of the recr e a t i o n centre i n the p r o j e c t , whether t h i s should be on - 99 -the s i t e , outside-of the project, on the periphery of the project, facing ;ah;-outside "street, or where i t i s now - located i n the i n -t e r i o r of the project. When nearby residents were asked what they thought of the recreation centre i n the project, they said, . "What centre?" "But t h a t 1 s not for us... " "Nobody t o l d us i t ' s for everybody." Those who thought i t was a good idea to have a c t i v i t i e s i n the centre for a l l i n the area (as management intended), thought i t should at least be v i s i b l e to them and should be c l e a r l y marked as a recreation centre. • As discussed e a r l i e r , residents l i v i n g only up to 2-3 blocks 'from the project re a l i z e d that i t was, i n fa c t , a public housing project, and f e l t i t had any effect on them or t h e i r property. Any f a c i l i t i e s " intended to involve the surrounding community should concentrate on t h i s area of.2-3 blocks surrounding the proj ect. Children play areas are presently located i n two areas. One of them i s near the recreation room, next to the pensioners' block. A l l pensioners'interviewed said that i t i s very noisy. The other problem mentioned was that many families with young children l i v e i n units which have no physical relationship to the location of the play areas. Some mothers complained that they cannot supervise t h e i r young children when they are i n these play - 100 -areas. Some families without young children, but l i v i n g close to these play areas, were not happy i n these locations because of the noise. The location of families i n the project with respect to f a c i l i t i e s should be more deliberate, as many families with older children prefer to face the outside street rather than the i n t e r i o r courts, while families with young children prefer to l i v e i n the i n t e r i o r of the project, facing play areas.. Pensioners would rather be away from noisy play areas. There are three communal parking areas i n the project, and i n d i v i d u a l spaces are not allocated to ind i v i d u a l families. From observation, i t appears that residents prefer to park near t h e i r units on an outside street, than use the parking areas. RESPONSE PATTERN: I t became apparent that various age groups should be provided with 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 related to the people who use them, such as the l o c a -t i o n of families with young children to play areas, the location of the recreation centre so that i t related to project residents as- well as the neighbourhood. The responses also showed that there i s a need for common areas at cluster or block l e v e l . People preferred to park as close as possible to t h e i r u n i t s , rather than use the common parking areas. Children's play areas should be kept away from pensioners' areas.. - 101 -IMPLICATIONS: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL: 1. Project f a c i l i t i e s ' should he provided for various age groups. 2. There should he a direct relationship between project pro-visions and the.users,- for example, families with young children fronting on play areas. . 3. Project f a c i l i t i e s could be a melting pot for neighbourhood integration with project, residents. k. F a c i l i t i e s for the use of a l l of the project residents should be s o c i a l and educational centres. 5. There i s a need for f a c i l i t i e s at cluster and block l e v e l s which could be used for small group gatherings, for l e i s u r e and for common services ( l i k e laundry). 6. F a c i l i t i e s at various levels are needed from block l e v e l to cluster to project and at neighbourhood l e v e l . 7- People,relate-much easier to f a c i l i t i e s within v i s u a l and physical reach. Hence there i s a greater need for providing f a c i l i t i e s at cluster 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 l e v e l 6 30 At c l u s t e r l e v e l 11 55 Indifferent/no opinion 3 15 TStallResppndedd 20 100% RECREATION CENTRE FOR USE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD No. Responded Percentage For use by project residents l i - 55 and. neighbourhood residents For project residents only lt 20 Indifferent/no opinion- 5 25 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 certain preferences i n the location of the project i t s e l f . Some even d r i f t e d into discussing how p a r t i c u l a r . locations w i t h i n ^ c i t y areas would complement t h e i r aspirations. Some gave pa 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 par t i c u l a r forms used have no space a l l o t t e d for 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 preferred l o c a t i o n , they would not accept public housing. In such strong preferences of t h i s kind regarding l o c a t i o n , i t appeared, at least at f i r s t glance, that the location of the project has a strong relationship to attitudes 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 volun-t a r i l y during interviews, the discussion directed i t s e l f to the qual-i t i e s they attribute to the location and t h e i r choices should these be available. 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 location of projects i n determining respondents'" preferences. The largest group of respondents (over 2.0'.%) wanted to - 10k -l i v e away from "slum" Csic)'. areas. On further questioning i t was found that "slum area" usually meant anywhere close to East Hastings, north of hth Avenue, hut also referred to other known run-down areas of Vancouver. There were many.reasons given for t h i s . One was that they did not want to associate themselves with a "slum area" i f they could help i t , either because they wanted to 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 fine the way things are ( s i c ) . . . the whole idea of applying for a project unit i s to l i v e i n a better area with good'people around... I l i k e that project on 4 7 t h (Culloden Court). That's the one I'd l i k e to get into. . . we're doing our best to better ourselves... " Some other remarks were, "There's no way I'm going to l i v e i n Maclean or Raymur projects... 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 to manage . ( f i n a n c i a l l y ) . " • • • "The new projects I've seen are away from downtown and I'd prefer that. Of course, I wouldn't mind getting i n any of them as I can't afford anything better outside..." I t i s interesting to note that though the projects are generally not i n proximity to each other, they are l i m i t e d to the north-east and south-east areas of the c i t y . This may have i n -fluenced the respondents (who are fa m i l i a r with the projects) i n t h e i r preferences or with the whole idea of making choices. Some - 105 -of them made par 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 as, "... anywhere hut i n Baymur... " "... except for Skeena... " "Not i n Raymur or Maclean... " This may, of course, be due to the fact that these projects have been i n the news media for one reason or another. One impor-tant point i s that many f e l t they should be part of a middle-class population, not "low-class" (sic) population, as one ad-mitted (who had a family of four, and whose husband works at the a i r p o r t ) , "I don't think we should be part of these low-class people, I mean drunks, welfare cases, etc. We are l i k e middle-class.families and I think they should have pro-jects for families l i k e us i n good areas with decent people... " This was the way most responded, either mentioning pro-jects i n middle-class neighbourhoods or projects i n clean areas. The only other point raised was that the project should be close to schools. This was generally 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 within reach i n Vancouver, or because they value "respectable" or "clean" neighbourhoods most i n the location of a project. - 106 -Amenities (other than.schools) were not mentioned v o l -u n t a r i l y as a reason for choosing a location. 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 stores, bus l i n e s , etc., but they are not the most important c r i t e r i o n i n choosing a location. I t may be-be-cause bus l i n e s are generally within 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 did not occur to them as an im-portant aspect. Later issues discuss shopping and i t s relationship to r e s i d e n t i a l proximity i n d e t a i l . For the present discussion, i t appears from responses that i t does not play a v i t a l r o l e i n pre-ferences for the location of a project. Another aspect that influenced the choices made was that many of these respondents have friends i n projects, and therefore, have first-hand.impressions of these projects, and also become fam-i l i a r with the problems and stigmas that go along with some of the projects. As -one respondent said, ' "I know three of these projects because I've got friends l i v i n g i n them. I f I have a choice, I ' l l pick the ones i n south-east Vancouver... for one thing, they're l o -cated i n a nice area, and where normal families l i v e . " PROJECT RESIDENTS: In order to t r y and determine what the residents f e l t about 1 the location of- the project, and whether they had any pre-- 107 -ferences ."before .moving into: the' project,'..it was necessary to see i f they were presently satisfied'with the project location. I t 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 variables that affect a project location. Nearly a l l of them f e l t that Culloden Court i s located i n the right area, and compared to the other projects i t has the best location. This point becomes im-portant, as many of them have compared the location of Culloden Court to the location of other projects. The responses, therefore, could be seen as a comparison-rather than as a preference among free choices. The reasons given for mentioning that Culloden Court i s ^ in the " r i g h t " location 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 said, "For one thing, i t ' s a respectable part of the. c i t y , or at least 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 project). I t ' s not just the schools, and.everything, but where i t i s . . . " ~ 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 far 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 for me to get to work. I t ' s a better 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. I 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 friends l i v e nearby." "I l i v e d most of my l i f e i n t h i s neighbourhood." "My kids go to 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 location i s primary,to t h e i r husbands and the women did not have any par-t i c u l a r preferences other than being i n a similar or better neighbourhood. One respondent said that the location wouldn't be important i f the areas around project sit e s were improved too. This led to a discussion on what kind of improvements she had i n mind for a project s i t e such as Raymur (which was fa m i l i a r to her). She said, "They could do many things l i k e , along with the Raymur project they could improve the existing houses and i n -i t i a t e private projects nearby, clean up the area of tene-ment houses. Take Maclean Park, with a l l those tenements and shacks around i t . I think surroundings are very im-portant, at least to me." In other words, you don't necessarily b u i l d the project i n a good area, but can also b u i l d a good area around the project. - 109 -Surrounding • environments..thus ."become .very important. Respondents want to.remove themselves from less desired elements. These could be people (.such as the frequently mentioned bums, drunks, e t c . ) , the physical condition of houses, or the general standard of l i v i n g of the people. Regarding the location of Culloden Court i t s e l f , one woman said, "This is- a good l o c a t i o n , but more of these projects i n th i s area wouldn't be a good thing, or i f Knight i s turned into a freeway the location won't be as good." GENERAL COMMUNITY: During the i n i t i a l stages of the construction of Culloden Court, there were certain protests from property owners i n the Sunset area, and news media paid much attention to these protests. It i s of great importance to study public housing projects from the tenants' point of view, but i t i s of equal importance to f i n d out how the surrounding community feels about a project, and to discover t h e i r concerns: i s i t the idea of a low-income project close to them?, or the people? or the way projects are conceived physically? ( s i z e , scale, etc.). To f i n d the opinions of these people regarding the location of such projects.in the c i t y , and with respect to t h e i r properties, i s the concern of t h i s discussion. 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 project, but within a h a l f -- 110 -mile radius of the' study area, and none of them either r e a l i z e d that Culloden Court i s a public housing project, or f e l t that i t had any.impact on them. Most of them had l i t t l e to say and I f e l t that Interviews were not worthwhile.' A t y p i c a l attitude was, "I've, never given a thought to low-income family projects." Other remarks, which led to changing the sample to within a 2-3 block radius of the project were, "I haven't seen any public-housing projects and so don't have anything to say." "I don't know anyone l i v i n g i n such projects and never came across such people. I guess i t ' s pretty hard to l i v e on a low budget." "... haven't been to such areas where these ..projects are and have no idea... " After pointing out that Culloden Court i s such a project, she said, "Oh, w e l l , that doesn't, look that bad. I don't go that way. I t ' s location doesn't bother me." I was surprised to 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 units and furnishings. Among the f i n a l survey l i s t of ten families within 2-3 - I l l -blocks ,of the project:site,.the majority,of them f e l t that the location of such projects close to them w i l l affect t h e i r property values. As one respondent l i v i n g across the road from the project said, "I don't have anything against t h i s project, but i t does affect the value of our property." Another said, " I f I would have known that they were going to have.pro-jects next door I wouldn't have bought my house here." And s t i l l another said, " i t hurts when you f i n d the value of your property goes down with these projects nearby." Other comments on the proximity of projects regarded children. Many f e l t that too many children from the project hung around the neighbourhood. Some comments were,-"A project so close to me wouldn't bother me otherwise, i f i t didn't have-such a gang of kids hanging around." "They should have more old people i n t h i s project, not families with so many children." " A l l these kids make too much noise and we've got enough vandalism without them." One apparent attitude common to a l l residents was that they didn't have any objections to any pensioners l i v i n g close to t h e i r houses. Some f e l t that these are a quiet group of people, - 112 -f • -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, uniformity, etc., and others didn't l i k e having "such people" (sic) i n t h e i r neighbourhood. RESPONSE PATTERN Among future residents and project residents, the ma-j o r i t y of respondents stressed the socio-economic ranking of the neighbourhood for the location. 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 "their own kind", without being isolated among these "healthy" and "normal" people. These consisted mostly of low-income two-parent f a m i l i e s , families with children i n t h e i r early teens, or families who suddenly found themselves'financially deprived through a death, divorce, desertion or i l l n e s s . I t also appears.that these families do not l i k e to be located i n areas or projects which become known for low-income f a m i l i e s , slum areas, etc. This shows that a certain amount of anonymity i s pre-ferred by low-income families. Regarding the location of the project and.its proximity to amenities, school i s the only outstanding f a c i l i t y . Other amenities are.preferred, but not stressed. Where-., as future residents look at the project as advantageous for t h e i r children, and'moving to better accommodations, the project residents - 1 1 3 - -saw i t i n t e rms o f i m p r o v e d s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s ' and t h e p h y s i c a l q u a l i t i e s o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g s . The g e n e r a l communi ty , however , saw t h e l o c a t i o n o f p ro j - ec t s i n good r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s as a t h r e a t t o t h e i r p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . Most o f t h e i r c o o l n e s s towards t h e p r o j e c t was becau se o f t h i s r e a s o n . T h e r e were no o t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l o b j e c t i o n s , e x c e p t f o r t h e p r e s e n c e o f a l a r g e number o f c h i l d r e n and w e l f a r e f a m i l i e s . IMPLICATIONS: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL: 1. A good env i ronment 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 t o t h e l o c a t i o n o f l ow - i ncome f a m i l y h o u s i n g . 2..- Improvements o f s u r r o u n d i n g s w i l l g r e a t l y improwe'.e t h e a t t i -t u d e s towards p r o j e c t s l o c a t e d i n a r e a s w i t h l ow s o c i o - e c o n o m i c (as w e l l as p h y s i c a l ) r a n k i n g s . 3. S c h o o l s and s o c i a l p l a c e s i n t h e immediate n e i g h b o u r h o o d a r e v i t a l t o t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t s , whereas t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f s t o r e s and o t h e r community f a c i l i t i e s a r e d e s i r a b l e , bu t not as s t r e s s e d . k. S o c i o - e c o n o m i c i n f l u e n c e s a r e f e l t by t h e s u r r o u n d i n g r e -% e s i d e n t s ( o u t s i d e o f t h e p r o j e c t ) up t o o n l y 2-3 c i t y b l o c k s . - 114 -Any improvements desired for s o c i a l integration i s to focussed on the neighbourhood comprising of 2-3 blocks outside of projects. - 115 -TABLE X PREFERENCES FOR LOCATION. OF PROJECT IN GENERAL AREAS OF VANCOUVER No. Responded Percentage Good r e s i d e n t i a l environment . 1^ hi South-part of Vancouver 5 16 Away from central-east part of Vancouver 6 20 Other's 3 10 Indifferent ' : 2 7 Total Responded 30 100% 1. Remarks on "Good Residential Environment"' No. Responded Areas where respectable people l i v e h Areas, with no undesirables (drunks, bum's}, etc.) 2 Areas where middle-class people l i v e -' 2 Good (clean, nice, normal families) neighbourhood area 6 Total Responded lh - 11/6 -2. Remarks on "South Part of Vancouver" • No'. Responded The area we are l i v i n g i n (Residents of South Vancouver) South Vancouver 3 2 T o t a l Responded '5' 3. Remarks on "Away from Central-East Part of Vancouver" No. Responded Away from- East Hastings area Away from.Raymur, Maclean or Skeena projects Not i n Strathcoria area 2 3 1 T o t a l Responded 6 Remarks on "Others" No. Responded Close.to where my friends l i v e • (Kerisdale area- 1, Near U.B.C- l ) Same area as I am l i v i n g now (Grandview area) 2 1 T o t a l Responded 3 5. Remarks on " I n d i f f e r e n t " No. Responded No p a r t i c u l a r choice Anywhere project accommodation-is a v a i l a b l e . 1 Area doesn't bother me;"\ 1 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 public housing projects, nearly a l l of them preferred t h e i r immediate  neighbours to be families i n a similar state of l i f e (similar socio-economic type). There were many reasons given for t h i s , c h i e f l y , however, that they i d e n t i f y with a certain group, f e e l more secure i n the community being part of that group, and f e e l they could share similar i n t e r e s t s , and be of mutual benefit. One great fear, how-ever, was that there i s a stigma attached to l i v i n g i n a public housing project. One woman said, "Everybody thinks only welfare people l i v e i n these pro-jects and low-class (sic) people. I wish they had a l l kinds of people, from different backgrounds so I wouldn't be branded when I go l i v e there." Some other remarks were, "I'm sure there's other families 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 for the same reasons... " "I'think there should be other people on welfare i n the project, l i k e our family, and maybe we can make some friends there, because we face the same problems. But i f everybody i n the project i s as poor as my family, 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." - 1 1 8 -One woman, who .presently lives, i n a tenement house with f i f t e e n other families on welfare said, "I l i k e the arrangement here - we. s i t and play 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 to a proj ect, apart from giving me a better place to l i v e i n , I'd meet more people, not necessarily a l l on welfare. I wish they would have more variety though." One woman, l i v i n g i n a private housing project said, "Generally there's so many kids i n a public project. But here, we don't have so many, because there's families without kids and single people, and young couples without children, so i t ' s not as f u l l of kids here. Maybe a pro-ject 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 just by looking at i t that i t ' s a public project." As for the ov e r a l l mix of the project, half of 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 families of a similar type l i v e d i n a project, they would have enough courage to be f r i e n d l y with other family types i n the project. Others f e l t that a,mix of other than low-income families i n a project would add a variety of back-grounds and per s o n a l i t i e s , and be more interesting. 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 he l p f u l . Remarks to thisVeffeet were, " I f these same people, (from, the blocli) were l i v i n g with me i n the project they'd be f r i e n d l i e r . . . " "Having other than low-income families w i l l add variety. You could meet different kinds of people than your own... " - 119 -PROJECT RESIDENTS: Most project residents had quite d e f i n i t e remarks regarding the mix of the project and the way i t should be. There were over-tones of group f e e l i n g s . The most outstanding came from low-income two-parent f a m i l i e s , with the husband working. They f e l t that there should be more twb;-parent f a m i l i e s , and that one-parent f a m i l i e s were on welfare, and always.at home doing nothing or having p a r t i e s , and keep t h e i r places d i r t y . In many of these discussions, t h i s group made very b i t t e r remarks regarding welfare 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 the project. There were many reasons given, which were sometimes not very c l e a r , but the, "-undertones of t h e i r remarks t e l l a story. "We l i k e more normal ( s i c ) f a m i l i e s around us. A project should have more of us... " "We are working people and do our best. They s i t at home and get welfare... they're a bad example. I c e r t a i n l y f e e l that welfare f a m i l i e s should be l e s s i n number." Other than the economic type of d i f f e r e n c e s , there was another which was most outstanding among a l l the groups, and that i s the age groupings. B a s i c a l l y , there are three groups divided by age, namely, c h i l d r e n , adults, and the e l d e r l y . Regardless of the economic or family type, a l l the f a m i l i e s f e l t that a.project should have more adults than c h i l d r e n . The project accommodates only f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n (except for the pensioners), but i t i s f e l t by the residents that s i n g l e s , divorced people, or couples - 120. -with no children should he encouraged.. Giving .accommodation to the elderly i n the project was approved unanimously. When I asked the children ( l 4 - l 8 years old) what they thought of the number of children i n the project, and. what they did, they said, "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 noise, theft and rowdyism, etc. 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 project, and without that, the elderly shouldn't be part of a project with such a large num-ber of teenagers. When one-parent families were asked about the mix of the project, respondents f e l t that the general mix did not bother them, adding that a mix including families other than low income families would be much better. I f e l t that these respondents were quite isolated within the project s o c i a l l y , and did not show much enthusiasm towards project friendships. One said that single mothers were a threat .("supposedly"',') she added) to insecure housewives. Others said they were not as well o f f as the women with husbands, at least 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 that i n a mix of a general kind, that the one-parent and two-parent f a m i l i e s should he separated into d i f f e r e n t b u i l d i n g blocks. One-parent respondents didn't care either way. RESPONSE PATTERN: Future residents v i s u a l i z e d a project as c o n s i s t i n g of two groups - the f i r s t , s i m i l a r types of f a m i l i e s as t h e i r immed-i a t e neighbours and second, a general mix, or unspecified groups, as the remainder of project residents. Project residents on the other hand, conceived groups by family type (one-parent, two-parent), age group, by economic status (welfare, low-income), and by occu-pation (working and non-working). The large number of c h i l d r e n i n the project was the most outstanding objection i n the mix. The e l d e r l y i n the mix were accepted by a l l . Generally, a l l groups preferred residents of t h e i r own blocks or at l e a s t t h e i r immediate neighbours, to be as c l o s e l y as possible of t h e i r own type, on the basis of family structure, occupation, or source of income. Most respondents thought that people from the general community l i v i n g i n the project would be de s i r a b l e . Though both future and present residents f e l t that i f the project provided accommodation for a wider v a r i e t y of people (not just low-income f a m i l i e s or welfare r e c i p i e n t s ) , residen-- 122 -t i a l environment of the project would' be-improved'., The v a r i a t i o n s of mix desired v a r i e d among the two groups. Future residents d i d not l i m i t the mix to any economic range, but project residents were more s p e c i f i c , wanting fewer c h i l d r e n and welfare r e c i p i e n t s i n the project. They would rather r e l a t e more to middle-income groups. IMPLICATIONS: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL:^ 1. A project should consist of various groups based on family structure, age groups, and sources of income, as conceived by residents. 2. • These p a r t i c u l a r groups tend to prefer t h e i r own type as immediate neighbours. 3. A project should be more balanced with respect to the a d u l t - c h i l d r a t i o n . Many problems a r i s e from the large number of c h i l d r e n compared to a much smaller group of adults, par-t i c u l a r l y d i s c i p l i n a r y problems. h. The project should provide f o r young couples without c h i l d r e n , s i n g l e s , and the e l d e r l y , who may also have a low-income and be needy. 5. Middle-income f a m i l i e s should also be provided with accommo-dation i n the project - p h y s i c a l l y separated from ( i n se- • - 123 -parate building blocks), but s o c i a l l y integrated within the designed environment of the project. - 124 -TABLE XI PREFERENCES .FOR OVERALL MIX. OF THE-PROJECT RESIDENTS Preferences No. Responded Percentage General mix of wide v a r i e t y of Fami l i e s , Accommodations and Income Levels l 4 47 Other than Predominantly Low-Income and Welfare Families ' 8 27 The Way i t i s (Present Project Mix) . 3 9 Indifferent/No Opinions 5 . 17 T o t a i Responded 30 100% - 125 -FURTHER. BREAKDOWN.' OF. PREFERENCES 1.. Remarks on "General Mix" • No. Responded Middle-income f a m i l i e s (predominantly) as part of mix 8 More small f a m i l i e s •(size) 2 Variety.of accommodation 1,' Families without c h i l d r e n as part of mix 1 Singles as part of mix 2 T o t a l Responded Ik 2. Remarks'on "Other Than Predominantly;-.." No. Responded To include more working people i n the project 3 To include middle-income f a m i l i e s • 1 To include more two-parent f a m i l i e s - k T o t a l Responded 8 - 126 -' . CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Throughout the s i x sections of the - preceding chapter, I presented response patterns and the possible s o c i a l and s p a t i a l i m p l i -cations (of each of the issues under discussion. 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 findings thus a r r i v e d at and then suggest recommen-dations on the l o c a t i o n of a pr o j e c t , s i t e layout, mix and accommodation -types f o r a pr o j e c t , s i z e of the pro j e c t , and l e v e l s of f a c i l i t i e s to be ' provided f o r the pr o j e c t , based on the findings of t h i s study. I s h a l l suggest the possible d e t a i l e d studies that could be undertaken i n understanding some of the aspects of low-income family housing that I have brought out i n t h i s study. FINDINGS: • 1. Project l i v i n g i s conceived by both groups (future residents and pro-j e c t residents) as-providing an opportunity f o r increased friendships and s o c i a l l i f e among people i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . The response pattern among the: interviewed sample (project residents) indicates that project l i v i n g i s a considerable improvement over the previous way of life.-"*" Project l i v i n g appears to s a t i s f y a s o c i a l need of low-income f a m i l i e s . L i v i n g among a si m i l a r type-of people i s considered by the respondents as more desirable than l i v i n g i n i s o l a t i o n i n the community at large. This study found that the future residents f e l t that they had a very l i m i t e d s o c i a l l i f e -involving t h e i r neighbours.. Future residents as wel l as project residents have friends who are i n s i m i l a r socio-economic - 127 -situations. Both.the'groups lacked s o c i a l relationships with the community 3 although they, desired.such.relationships. The lack of. such relationships was explained' by', them to.be a result' of t h e i r d i f f e r i n g l i f e s t yles and. economic situations, causing them to f e e l i n f e r i o r and self-conscious.^ 2. Respondents f e l t that residing i n a project provides them with an i n - • creased'availability of s o c i a l services. These include v i s i t s from s o c i a l -workers, and increased welfare benefits. Residents also f e l t that a' management o f f i c i a l • (manager) should reside on the project. They expressed a strong preference for 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 children and pensioners), and,the breaking of project property.. 3. Living i n a project means that the lower rent gives the residents an opportunity to spend more money on other necessities of l i f e , thus im-proving t h e i r standard of l i v i n g . Many respondents f e l t that for the same rent they could get better and larger accommodation i n the project. h. Whereas for future residents, s o c i a l aspects (friendships among similar types of f a m i l i e s , loneliness) become measurements for 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 s a t i s -faction 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 to the pro-ject i n terms of physical aspects (poor accommodation, high rent, location of residence and services). Thus, project l i v i n g leads to a greater awareness of physical aspects i n describing -satisfaction with a way of l i f e . ' ' Project residents f e l t that Culloden Court i s the right size re-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' did not.like-the projects', which-physically dominate the surroun-dings (higher'density.-than surroundings). They f e l t that a project should he similar i n scale,to that of the development of the area.. The reason for t h i s seemed to he t h e i r d i s l i k e of being conspicuous, and.a'desire-for anonymity. 5. Respondents stressed that a good'environment ( s o c i a l l y and physically) i s a prerequisite-for the location of a low-income family housing-project. The location of the project i s seen by both groups as an improved socio-economic setting for t h e i r residence. The interviewed sample preferred 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 to be the downtown-Hastings_Strathcona areas, and "good"'areas to be middle-class r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Respondents would also l i k e to be located away from areas where concentrations of public housing projects e x i s t . They f e l t that such areas become known as the areas where public housing projects and low-income, families -are located. Both project residents and future residents preferred a project to be i n a middle-class r e s i d e n t i a l area. Responses to the location of a project with respect to community-facilities indicate that schools and " s o c i a l " centres (recreation centre for the general community, singles clubs, etc.) are v i t a l to the location of the projects, whereas the proximity of stores and other f a c i l i t i e s are desir-able, but not emphasized strongly. A l l the respondent families have school-age children, and'for t h i s reason the location of the project close to. schools i s stressed so much. As many of these families are one-parent f a m i l i e s , s o c i a l centres such as "clubs" become important, especially, as the responses indicate, they lack friends from outside of the project. - 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 si m i l a r f a c i l i t y - n e a r the project where they could gather, as they now wander around with-no place to go. 6. The project recreation 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 each other and made friends. Project f a c i l i t i e s for various age groups are desired, and there i s a need for providing f a c i l i t i e s for small groups of residents. Such, f a c i l i t i e s are conceived by the interviewed sample for-small group gather-ings, l e i s u r e , and for services such as laundry. Project residents f e l t that the f a c i l i t i e s for s o c i a l i z i n g with -similar•types of families should be provided at a small group l e v e l (building block and c l u s t e r ) , and the project recreation centre should be used for large gatherings and edu-cational programs, and should be a neighbourhood centre used by both project residents and neighbourhood residents.^ Ac t u a l l y , the project recreation centre i s intended to be used by both groups, only the neighbour-hood residents are not aware of t h i s . The centre i s located 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 for 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 existing community centre. In t h i s way, because the neighbourhood residents would already be using the community centre, the desired interaction between the two groups would take place naturally. Families with young children f e e l that they should be located near the play area, so that they can supervise the children 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 location of the' children's play area so close to t h e i r block Is not desirable becaus'e:':of ^-the; noise. •' They would l i k e more peace and quiet.-Project residents preferred to park t h e i r cars on the street close to t h e i r u n i t s , rather than use the parking areas provided i n the project, p a r t l y for 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 different mix of residents i n the project than the present mix of only low-income families with a predominance of one-parent fam i l i e s . They would l i k e to have more middle-income families -and two-parent families included i n the project mix. The high-proportion of children to adults was not l i k e d by residents, and they f e l t that there should be more adults than there are now i n the project, thus lowering the a d u l t - c h i l d r a t i o somewhat. Residents f e l t that the high proportion of children, 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 mischief, t h e f t , rowdyism, that arise i n the project. Though the interviewed sample pre-ferred a general mix of residents i n the project based on income l e v e l s , marital status, a d u l t - c h i l d r a t i o n , age groups, the responses indicate that the respondents preferred to have t h e i r own type of family (e.g., two-parent, one-parent, small family, large familyj 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 building block. • 8. The respondents residing i n the units facing 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 - 131 -residing in,the'-interior building blocks (or facing i n t e r i o r courts). The-residents:facing outside said they could relate to:the neighbourhood as w e l l as to the' project group, whereas the residents'in the i n t e r i o r blocks f e l t that they were "trapped" (meaning that they see only project people and the inside of the project). They would prefer l i v i n g i n units • facing outside of the project so that v i s u a l l y they could relate to the outside. Another interesting point that came up i s that those residing • on the outer periphery of the project, and fronting on outside streets, showed l i t t l e or no interest i n project- a c t i v i t i e s , and did not desire very much to participate i n project l i f e ; Among the families i n in d i v i d u a l building blocks, those l i v i n g i n corner units showed a greater l e v e l • o f s a t i s f a c t i o n than those families with neighbours on both sides. Those families not l i v i n g i n corner units-would have preferred to l i v e i n corner-units. 9. The study found that the awareness of the location of a public housing project i s shown by the surrounding neighbourhood residents up to only 2-3 c i t y blocks. Beyond t h i s distance from the project s i t e , people did not have any objections to the location 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 project, fear of the effect of the project on property values and the presence of a large number of children i n the project were the main reasons for not l i k i n g the location of a project so close to them. These findings show s u f f i c i e n t evidence concerning, ( l ) the relationship of residents to each other, (2) relationships among project - 132 -residents.and.those from the' surrounding neighbourhood area, of the-project, (3) the'relationship 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 to the people from outside of the project, and (h). the kind of mix of the residents that the respondents envisage i n the project- make i t possible to draw more general conclusions. These findings 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 living,- the setting of a project i n the neighbourhood and the provision of f a c i l i t i e s for the project. On the basis of the evidence thus arrived at, I conclude that the low-income families who f i n d themselves l i v i n g i n the community • at large (outside of a project) 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 similar situations. Project l i v i n g provides for opportunities -to l i v e among similar types of people and services that such families lack i n the community. The recreation centre i n the project has an important role i n bringing, people together, both those who l i v e outside and those who l i v e inside the project. The project i s seen as a community of people, rather than as improved accommo-dation 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-, marital status, 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 (adults, children, teenagers, pensioners), to meet the s o c i a l and physical needs, of family groups (single mothers, singlemen, 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 ) , to bring, the neighbourhood residents and project residents together for s o c i a l interactions, and. to provide edu-cational programs (cooking classes, low-budget l i v i n g courses, etc.) for the residents. The location 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 part. 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 projects o • already exist which are known to the general public. I s h a l l now l i s t a number of my recommendations for low-income housing as guidelines for future projects: LAYOUT: The project layout'should r e f l e c t the various preferences and implications of the aspirations of the residents which i t accommodates. Every eff o r t should be made to.: . 1. orient a l l i n d i v i d u a l building blocks to face out of the project, avoid i n t e r i o r building blocks which dp not provide v i s u a l r e l a t i o n -ship to the outside of the project, avoid enclosed courts. Courts on which the building blocks front could be open on one end to the outside. In short, I am recommending exterior 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 fronts of blocks by creating cor-ners, thus providing more privacy and id e n t i t y for i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s . 3. provide parking spaces as close to units as possible, preferably next to the street on the periphery of the project s i t e , locate 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 relate to them, and relate a l l units to the project open space. Care .should be taken - 13h -to see that . s.ome ind i v i d u a l units are.not related to the outside of the project only. The residents of -units facing outside-the project only and fronting on :outside streets tend to dissociate themselves from project a c t i v i t i e s . k. avoid placing the childrenijs.splay area close to the pensioners' blocks and provide usable play areas for children i n each cluster of blocks that accommodates families with children. SIZE, AREA AND DENSITY: New projects should be the size of Culloden Court (approximately 1 0 © f a m i l i e s , or more i f pensioners and singles accommodations are i n -cluded). Two square c i t y blocks i s the optimum area for a project. A project * should be of a density not d i f f e r i n g too greatly from the develop-ment i n the project area. ACCOMMODATION AND MIX OF RESIDENTS: Future projects should consist of accommodations for single adults, and young couples with no children. Types of accommodation to be provided should be such that a better balance of adults and children i s maintained i n the project. A possible mix of middle-class families and low-income families should be considered for future projects. FACILITIES: Future projects should provide shared f a c i l i t i e s within the building block, e.g., laundry and workshop area; i n each c l u s t e r , e.g., multi-purpose room for playing cards, T.'V. ,• etc. ; and a project recreation - 135 -centre,.-. .The. project r e c r e a t i o n centre, . sjhould .h.e..logated i n a place that is- accessihle and c l e a r l y - v i s i b l e to both, project r e s i d e n t s and surrounding neighbourhood residents. T suggest that i f the project accommodates only low-income f a m i l i e s then the project recreation centre should be located immediately outside of the project site,, and i f the project accommodates a mix of income l e v e l s , then the centre should be on the s i t e and located on the outer periphery of the s i t e . In a l l cases, a project r e c r e a t i o n centre should be located on the outer periphery of the project s i t e , and neighbourhood residents should be encouraged to use i t . A coffee shop should be av a i l a b l e i n the neighbourhood, f o r the use of the young people e s p e c i a l l y . MANAGEMENT: Every project should have a management o f f i c i a l r e s i d i n g i n the proj e c t , and residents.should be encouraged to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the management decisions regarding the proper functioning of the project. LOCATION: Future projects should be planned i n areas away from present concentrations of projects. I f e e l that new projects should be located west of Main Street. The possible areas are K i t s i l a n o , K e r r i s d a l e , and Marpole.l... Maps showing the locations of public housing projects show a concentration of these projects i n the east part of Vancouver. The project residents come from a large number of areas i n c l u d i n g the west part of Vancouver. There i s , therefore,no reason f o r a concentration of projects i n the east of Vancouver.. The socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l o c a l - 136 -areas .of Vancouver... s,hpuld..b„e, considered b.efore . s e l e c t i n g .potential sites, for new-projects.-. I f po s s i b l e , projects should be located close to an e x i s t i n g community- centre, and i n a predominantly middles-class .residen-t i a l area. This would enable the low-income f a m i l i e s to be part of a middle-class environment. An already e x i s t i n g community centre would pro-vide opportunities to take an act i v e part i n community l i f e . - I strongly suggest that no more large s i z e projects should be b u i l t east of Main Street i n Vancouver. CULLODEN COURT: I f e e l that various forms of changes i n the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n of the project could be t r i e d . As vacancies occur i n Culloden Court and units become ava i l a b l e f o r applicants to the public housing p r o j e c t s , a two-bedroom unit could be shared by two single mothers with one young c h i l d each, or two adults (students?) could share a u n i t , or a young couple with no c h i l d r e n . A re c r e a t i o n co-ordinator should be provided for the p r o j e c t , who could help organize a stimulating program for adults and.teenagers. Many i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs (cooking c l a s s e s , yoga, b e l l y dancing, p a i n t i n g c l a s s e s , etc.) could be organized and i n i t i a t e d f o r the project and e f f o r t s must be dire c t e d to i n t e r e s t i n g surrounding neighbour-hood residents to take part i n the re c r e a t i o n centre a c t i v i t i e s . Many such programs presently held elsewhere i n the c i t y could be held i n the project r e c r e a t i o n centre, at low cost to the project residents. When vacancies occur i n the pro j e c t , new.tenants should be of the same type as the neighbours.(two-parent, one-parent, low-income, or welfare r e c i p i e n t f a m i l i e s ) . - 137 -- RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR FUTURE STUDIES.; In th i s -. study-, I; have explored many- p o i n t s r e g a r d i n g loy^income f a m i l y housing f o r which d e t a i l e d . s t u d i e s could "be undertaken. I would b r i e f l y make the f o l l o w i n g recommendations on the types of stu 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 of 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 the l o c a t i o n of f u t u r e low-income housing p r o j e c t s i n the l o c a l areas of the c i t y . 3. The k i n d of "mix" of r e s i d e n t s i n a p r o j e c t . h. Levels (and types) of p r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s t h a t should be provided. 5. C r i t e r i a f o r optimum s i z e of a p r o j e c t . I f e e l t h a t C.M.H.C. and Housing Management should consider 'some of the p o i n t s I have explored 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 th a t t h i s study may help i n p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s i n designing f u t u r e p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s . - 138 -FOOTNOTES: Chapter:5 K. W .Bacfe',-.. op. c i t . , feels that a major change in. housing conditions implies-a major adjustment-of a person's self-concept (his place i n the' community, his r o l e , his status, and his style of l i f e ) . ^Suzanne K e l l e r , op. c i t . , . claims that both 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 class residents among middle-class neighbours results 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 class wives had considerable trouble i n adjusting to a mixed, class suburb. They simply hadn't the s o c i a l . s k i l l s necessary.to interact on a free and easy basis with the middle class women around, p. 121. ^L. Festinger. et a l , op. c i t . , writes: "Clearly the architect and the planner are s o c i a l "planners as we 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 to an extent not f u l l y appreciated up to now'J'j' p. 179-See 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  Public Housing, (Washington, D.C, June 1967), gives detailed i n -formation on types of f a c i l i t i e s that should be provided i n projects. 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 facing -onto a central court than among those i n other locations. 9che ster Hartman, op. c i t . , writes: "Physical spaces, administrative regulations, 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 to meet the needs of the population that the projects are intended to serve." - 139 -BIBLIOGRAPHY. Back, K. W. Slums, Projects and People. Durham, N.D., Duke University Press,' 1962.' Bradley, Robert B. "Public Housing for the Future"' i n Urban Renewal and  Low-Income Housing, v.6, no. k Canadian -Welfare Council. - Integration of Physical and Social/Planning  Report US., j y Ottawa, 1967. Canadian-Welfare Council. Special Projection Social Aspects of Low-Income  Housing. Ottawa, 1967-Caplow, T. and-R. Forman. "Neighbourhood Interaction i n a Homogenous Community", i n American Sociological Review, v o l . 15 (1955), pp. 357-366. Cooper, Clare C. "Some Social Implications of House and Site 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, University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1966. Council for Cultural Co-operation of the Council of Europe. Leisure-Time • F a c i l i t i e s . Strasbourg, 1965-Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. Back. Social Pressures i n Informer  Groups. New York, Harper Brothers, 1950. Foley, D. L. "The Use of Local F a c i l i t i e s i n a Metropolis", i n Hatt and Reiss, C i t i e s and Society. New York, The Free Press, 1957. pp. 6 0 7 - l 6 . Goffman, Erving. Interaction R i t u a l . Garden C i t y * N.Y., Doubleday (Anchor Books), 1967. 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. ,• Basic Books, 1963. - 140 -Gutman, -Robert.: "Site: Planning and Social Behavior" i n Journal 'Social  Issues,-vol. ; 22. (Oct'.:1966), pp. 103-115 Hartman, Chester. "The'Limitations of Public-Housing—Relocation Choices i n a-Working Class Community", i n Journal 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. "Social Class i n Physical Planning", i n International  Social Science Journal, v o l . 18 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Kriesberg,.Louis. "Neighbourhood Setting and'the Relocation of Public Housing Tenants", i n Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, v o l . 34 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 1*3-1+9 '' Kuper, Leo. "Blueprint -for Living Together", i n Living i n Towns. London, The Cresset Press, 1953. Langdon, F. J . "The Social and Physical Environment: A Social Scientist's View", i n Journal of the Royal I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Architects, v o l . 73 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 460-64. 1 " Lipman, M a r v i n " H o u s i n g and Environment", i n Habitat, v o l . 1 2 , (1969') lno.2 , pp. 2 - 6 . (llMaso i n Arc h i t e c t u r a l Review, Nov. 1967) Mayhew, B. W. Local Areas of Vancouver. United Community Services .of the Greater Vancouver Area', Jan. 1970. Merton, Robert K.: "The Social.Psychology of Housing", i n Wayne Dennis, ed., Current Trends i n Social Psychology. Pittsburgh, University of P i t t s -burgh Press, 1 9 48 , p. 1 6 3 - 2 1 7 . Michelson, William. Man and his Urban Environment: a Sociological Approach. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1970 . Pawley, Martin. Architecture Versus Housing. N.Y., Praeger, 1971-Rainwater, Lee. "Fear, and the House-As-Haven i n the Lower' Class", i n Journal 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, Ir v i n g . . "The: S o c i a l •Effects, of the Physical Environment", i n Journal of the'American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, • v o l . • 25. { 1 9 6 J ), pp. 127 -133 . ' Searles, Harold.' The. Nori-r Human. Environment. N.Y., TUP, i 9 6 0 . . Sommer, Robert. "Designed f o r Friendship", Canadian 'Architect, Feb. 1 9 6 1 , pp. 5 9 - 6 1 . Sommer., Robert. Personal Space. Hew Jersey, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1969-Terence, Lee. "Urban Neighbourhood as a Socio-Spatial-Schema" i n Human Relations, v o l . 21 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 2 ^1 -267 . 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 Public Housing. Washington, D.C, June 1967- ~ " Vancouver Technical Planning Board. Report on the Location of Low- Density-Multiple Housing i n the Suburban Parts of Vancouver. Vancouver, 1 969 . - 142 - ! APPENDIX.A CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT RESIDENTS: SAMPLE GROUP - 1 Family No. ... 1.. . 2 . 3 .. .4.. . 6 .8 11 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. 44 5- 7 . 9 -LU } j Income, Dollars/Month 1 f (S - on Social Assistance, and Figures Not Available): 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 S 504 476 S - S S S . S S 639 S 580 S Employment (W - Working i NW - Not working PW - Part time working) NW NW NW w NW W W NW NW NW _.NW NW NW NW 'NW NW NW w PW NW W PW NW NW NW w NW NW NW NW NW NW W w NW NW NW NW NW NW TJ NW W NW No. of Adults i n Family 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 _1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 ' 2 ~ 1 1 2 ' 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .2 1 No. of Children i n Family 6 5 k 1 6 5 1 6 6 2 3 1 3 4 k 4 k 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 3 5 3 k 3 3 3 3 2 2 ' 4 3 3 k 3 3 2 5 1 No. of Persons i n Family 8 6 5 3 7 7 3 8 8 3 k 2 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 4 k 6 5 k 5 4 5 4 4 5. k k 5 k 4 3 7 2 Length of Residence i n Culloden Court, Year/Month 2/ 0 2/ 10 1/ 0 1/ 2 0/ 5 1/ 1 2/ 1 0/ 5 2/ 9 1/ 0 r 1/ 2 1/ 8 1/ 1 2/ 10 0/ 5 2/ . 10 3/ 1 2/ 10 1/ 1 1/ 2 2/ 4 2/ 4 2/ 10 1/ 9 0/ 1 2/ 10 3/ 2 ' 2/ . 0 £ r 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 3/ 4 2/ 10 2/ • 10 Family Type (N - Two-parent families B - One-parent families) N B B N B N N N N o B B B. B N . l i B B B B B B B B N B N B B ^ B I ! I B B N B N N B B B B B B B B N E Project Rent (In Dollars/Month) TO 65 55 99 70 137. 102 75 150 50 .50 50 77 85 6o 56 60 71 71 70 87 50 150 77 106 130 65 ! !6o 1 95 65 55 55 120 115 93 55 107 55 60 55 135 59 135 63 - Ik3 -i • • i APPENDIX A ! ' i i i , CHARACTER I ST ICS OF FUTURE RESIDENTS: .SAMPLE .GROUP..- 2 I ? Family No. T ... 2.. .. 3 • .1* 5 .... 6 .. .7 8 9 10 I ! 12.. .13 .. l'V ...15 . .. 15.. ..IT .18 . .19 . 20 .21 22 .. 23. . 2lf.. .25 26 27 ; 28 29 30 ' 31 32 33 . . 3V- - 35 36 -•37 '•• •38- .. 39.. ...1*1.. ...1*2- • U3 1+1* ; t Income Dollars/Month 100 257 280 390 290 318 1*00 270 385 215 Uoo 270 330 3h2 290 588 376 >50 . 307 1+33 17b 233 280 180 2T5 210 i 1 21+8 1*60 228 195 265 186 290 516 U56 135 196 373 200 232 206 303 185 361* _ . , Employment (W - Working NW - Non-working PW - Part time working) - NW W NW NW NW W w NW NW NW NW NW i PW NW NW w w NW W W NW NW NW NW irw ! 1 NW . NW NW NW .KW.. NW.. W PW 1IW NW NW NW IN NW W m PW No. of Adults i n Family 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 ; 1 2 2 2 . 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 No. of Children i n Family 2 2 k 7 3 1 2 1* 1* 1* 1 2 3 2 5 5 8 2 2 3 6 3 " u 3 1 3 k 2 h 2 1 5 1 3 k 2 1 2 5 k 1 2 3 - 3 Total No. of Persons i n Family 3 k 5 9 5 2 U 5 5 5 h 3 7 6 10 k 1+ 1* 8 5 5 5 2 1+ 5 3 5 3 2 6 2 5 6 3 2 1* 6 5 2 3 1* 2 5 Family Type (N - Two-parent families B - One-parent families ) B y N . N N B N B B B IT B B N B N N N B N B N B • B B ' B ; \ B B B B B N N B B N B B . B B B H B Age of Spouses (Years, Husband/Wife) . 1*5 21/' 20 38 50/ 1*2 27/ 23 21 35/ 32 1*0 16 27 25/ 22 I 29 30 38/ 38 0 28 3 1 / 31 22/ 22 22/ 20 26 h2/ k2 36/ 3U 26 5W 23 22 32 1*9. • t 52 1 36 25 . 1*6. 28 \ \ •26/ 23 23/ 22 50 . 23 35/ h3 31 31 21 36 U7 62/ 62 28/ 2U - 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 96,176 2,192 Married 96,336 2,231 Widowed 6,361+ 112 Females Single. 81+, 572 1,908 Married 96,387 2,266 Widowed 2l+,6l8 1+25 Families (Total) 99,^29 2,372 No. of Children/Family 0 1+1,278 781+ 1-2 39,9^2 1,089 3-!+ 15,221+ 1+15 5 or more 2,985 . 8U Persons/Family 3.2 3.5 Children/Familyy - . 1 .3 1.5 - iVS -APPENDIX B CHARACTERp^ ICS uO^ SUNSET A R . M 1 : ^ i i ^ . T & r ; S ) ^ L E GROUP - 3 (from Mayhew: Local 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 K i t s i l a n o - 1+8.0 Marpole - 56.1 K i l l a r n e y - 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 to a project. Satisfaction i n "way of l i v i n g "before moving to a project. Preferences for location -of project i n general area of Vancouver. Preferences for 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 for o v e r a l l mix of the project residents. Willingness or general attitude 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 ac t i v i t i e s , - co-operative ventures , voluntary work, etc. 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 after moving to project-. Project f a c i l i t i e s and spaces at block, cluster and project l e v e l . Problems and needs of various age groups i n project. Relationship and attitude between project and community-residents. Extent and location-of friends. Positive and negative aspects of l i v i n g i n project. 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 Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada School of Architecture November 29, ' 1971 TO THE MANAGER AND THE RESIDENTS OF CULLODEN COURT This i s to introduce. Mr. P a t t i M . G . Rao who i s a graduate student at our School of Architecture• He i s - now preparing a master t h e s i s i n which he wishes to f i n d out how the residents that l i v e i n public housing projects f e e l about the f a c i l i t i e s and provisions i n the project. He has chosen Culloden 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 and community action has on the residents. I t i s our hope that h i s f i n d i n g s may help to improve design of future housing developments, and a s s i s t present management when changes and additions become po s s i b l e . I should l i k e - t o ask f o r your cooperation when Mr. P a t t i M.G. Rao comes to interview you. Yours s i n c e r e l y , Mr. ¥. Gerson, Professor i n charge of Graduate-. Studies. WG:lac I S O ' APPENDIX D: IMPRESSIONS ON PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT IN VANCOUVER: A VISUAL SURVEY A. LITTLE MOUNTAIN B. ORCHARD PARK C,I, 9 MACLEAN PARK D. •SKEENA TERRACE E. KILLARNEY GARDENS F. RAYMUR PLACE G. GRANDVIEW TERRACE H. CULLODEN COURT J. NICHOLSON TOWER K. CAROLINA & 6th AVE. L.M. WALL & OXFORD 1. General impression of the ov e r a l l area within which the pro-ject e x i s t s . 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. Depressing slum area with i n d u s t r i e s , raw tracks, and highways. Project i s enclosed on one side by residents and the other by indus-t r y and highway. Predominantly r e s i d e n t i a l Good f a c i l i t i e s and small houses. I n d u s t r i a l and slum areas. Generally, area seemed better than others. Good r e s i d e n t i a l area. High density l i v i n g . Reasonably good, r e s i d e n t i a l area. I n d u s t r i a l Residential 2. General atmosphere of the project. Very depressing. L i t t l e better than L i t t l e Mountain. Very impressive, con-g e n i a l , and cheer-f u l . Interesting with slopes and good privacy. Very neat and clean, probably the best of a l l but area looked unlived i n . Very impressive, co-l o r f u l and ac t i v e , but gives the impre-ssion of college residences. Too many paved areas. Very i n t e r e s t i n g , good, compact, and homely. Very homely and warm. Does not give the. im-pression of a cheer-f u l atmosphere. No balconies. Does not look, l i k e a project, l i v e l y and warm. Same as K. 3. The project i n i t s relationship to the immediate surrounding areas. Surrounding units are single-family project, 2-3 s t . blocks. Reasonably good. One-half of project better done. In i s o l a t i o n as pro-ject stands out with slums and low b u i l -dings a l l around. Though much better than surrounding, but did not stand out i n i s o -l a t i o n . Well integrated. Gives the impression of an is o l a t e d project but a great improve-ment over the surroundings. Reasonably integrated , though much better than surroundings, but does not stand out. Well integrated. Very well integrated. Very w e l l integrated. Same as K. k. The variety of accommodation provided and the pattern of i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n . No groupings. Uniform accommodation. Limited v a r i e t y of 1 accommodation. Too many groupings— hence no large play area Variety of accommo-dation, large grou-pings , and w e l l planned courts. Variety of accommo-dation. Linear spines of blocks. Nicely done. Two li n e a r blocks with common areas i n between and services i n base-ment . Variety of accommo-dations, large and small courts and w e l l distributed. Variety of accommo-dation and wel l planned, though too compact an area. Reasonably good s i z e courts, w e l l done. Uniformity of accommo-dation. Uniformity single 1 block high r i s e . Uniform accommodation single block l i k e the surroundings. Same as K. 5. Common areas and common f a c i l i t i e s with-i n the project. Only service area. Large open space around blocks. Services, small group areas. Day care and s i t t i n g areas, playgrounds, etc., good f a c i l i -t i e s . Linear spines with terraced platforms re-sulted i n no large play areas, f a c i l i t i e s , -professional help. Reasonably good for the type of project. Very good. From i corridors-balconies to landscaped courts and services. Seemed reasonably good l i k e any other housing project. Seemed very good. A common h a l l and re-creational f a c i l i t i e s . Nothing v i s i b l e . Good as any private apartment blocks. Same as K. 6. Common f a c i l i t i e s i n immediate surroun-dings . Parks, schools, commercial. No large food store. Good areas with a l l community f a c i l i t i e s . Not very substantial. Not substantial..-.in fact poor f a c i l i t i e s . Reasonably good. • Not very substantial. Reasonably good. Substantial. Reasonably good. Reasonably good. Same as K. 7. General a c t i v i t y (at the time of v i s i t ) i n the project area. Some children playing near the streets. Adults were cleaning cars on the street. Children, housewives, elderly i n and around un i t s . A l l age groups were seen throughout the proj e c t — a c t i v e . j • Very active. None whatsoever. j Very active. Active, Very active. I Not very apparent. As l i v e l y as an apartment block could be. Same as K. 8. Evidence of community organization and par-t i c i p a t i o n within the project. None. None. Very good. Not very apparent but gives organized e f f o r t . Does not appear to be any. Very impressive. Not very apparent, but seemed there may be an e f f o r t . Very good. . Not very apparent. i '• • Do not know. Same as K. 

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