UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Mixing of housing types : a study of selected social issues Earl, Darwin DeVoe 1970-05-18

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A6_7 E37.pdf [ 17.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102087.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102087-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102087-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102087-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102087-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102087-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102087-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102087-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102087.ris

Full Text

THE MIXING OP HOUSING TYPES: A STUDY OP SELECTED SOCIAL ISSUES by DARWIN DeVOE EARL B.SC., Brigham Young University, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in the School ' of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OP BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1970 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree tha permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of <t>~>A fe^g^M. 1 The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was made possible by the contributions of many generous people. The assistance and advice provided by Associate Professor Brahm Wiesman of the School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, during the progress of this study, is gratefully acknowledged. The author also acknowledges the advice and constructive criticism given by Dr. R. Collier, Assistant Professor of the same school. Hals study would not have been possible without the assistance and co-operation of the various planning departments throughout Metropolitan Vancouver. The author is especially indebted to Martin Chesworth and Ered Sigurjonsson of the North Vancouver District Planning Department and also Tom Becker and Pat Dove of the Surrey Planning Department for their help in gathering data, and their generosity in providing maps and reports needed for the study. The author expresses his gratitude to the homeowners in the District of North Vancouver and in Surrey for their co-operation in answering the questionnaire. Lastly, the author is grateful for the help and encouragement given him, by his wife, Jeanette. iii ABSTRACT Associated with the rapid increase in the proportion of multiple-family dwellings in Canada during the 1960's, was the practice of locating apartments in single-family residential areas. As suburban apartments increased, homeowners became more vocal in their opposition to mixed housing. Problems arose over mixed housing due to the fact that homeowners, developers and local government officials all had their own ideas as to where apartments should be located. As there was not adequate data on the subject to unequivocably state the correctness of one point of view over another, much more information was needed regarding the economic, political and the social implications of mixed housing. This study focuses on some of the social implications of locating apartments in single-family residential areas. Emphasis is placed on the examination of four issues related to this topic. They arei. (1) The role of single-family housing and its environment in providing for the housing needs of a large segment of the housing market. (2) The growth of multiple-family housing and the need for effective apartment location policies and practices. (3) The feasibility of mixing people who possess different social and demographic characteristics in the same neighbourhood. (4) The validity of homeowners' opposition to mixed housing. Itoe method used in this study is a combination of the library research approach, and a sample survey of homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing. The first three issues were examined by the library research approach while the fourth was examined by the sample survey approach. The interview schedule was administered in three survey areas iv located in two Metropolitan Vancouver municipalities. These municipalities were North Vancouver District and Surrey. The findings show, first of all, that there is a need to conserve some single-family housing areas as they play an invaluable role in providing a type of housing for persons who want to purchase their own home, want a high degree of privacy, prefer to live among people with similar interests and backgrounds, want a large open play space for their children and who desire some degree of exclusiveness. Secondly, apartment location policies must be formulated and adhered to to reduce homeowner opposition to mixed housing by providing some degree of assurance that apartments will or will not be constructed in their neighbourhoods. These policies must not only articulate what is commonly referred to as "the good of the whole community", but also reflect the attitudes and values of smaller groups of residents who form an integral part of the community. Thirdly, while it is theor etically appealing to think of the benefits to be gained by mixing people of differing economic status and demographic characteristics, the findings of studies on this topic indicate that in no case have the ends to be achieved by a social mix ever been accomplished. The usual result has been the social isolation of persons or groups in the minority by those forming the majority. Lastly, the findings of the sample survey show that in mixed housing situations, homeowners generally approve of the appearance and type of apartments built in their neighbourhoods, and they do not perceive them to be the cause of the most of the problems normally associated with apartments. An inconsistency appears in the homeowners' attitudes in that homeowners who were living in the areas when apartments were built, continued to oppose mixed housing, while homeowners who had moved into the area after the apartments were built, approved of mixed housing. TABLE OP CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .... ii ABSTRACT. iiTABLE OP CONTENTS... v LIST OP TABLES ... ix LIST OP FIGURES.. xi LIST OF PLATES xiCHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 THE PROBLEMIMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY. ... 2 HYPOTHESES OP THE STUDY 4 THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY.METHODOLOGY . 6 DEFINITIONS...... 7 ORGANIZATION 9 II PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. . ... ... ...... ..... 12 INTRODUCTION 1THE TRADITION OP THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND 3 Private Property in America 16 Through the lcBoo's to World War II 20 RESTRICTIONS TO THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 22 Zoning and the Single-Family Home........ 24 Segregation of Housing Types......... 25 vi CHAPTER PAGE New Threats to Single-Family Housing..... 31 SUMMARY 35 III GROWTH AND LOCATION OF MULTIPLE-FAMILY HOUSING... 41 INTRODUCTION .. 41 APARTMENT- TYPES 42 The High-Rise Apartment... 42 The Low-Rise or Walk-Up Apartment........ 46 The Garden Apartment 47 GROWTH OF MULTIPLE-FAMILY HOUSING IN CANADA.. 48 REASONS FOR APARTMENT GROWTH 56 APARTMENTS IN THE SUBURBS 6l APARTMENT LOCATION POLICIES FOR METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER 69 Municipal Apartment Location Policy 69 North Vancouver District and Surrey Apartment Location Policy 71 SUMMARY. 75 IV A RESIDENTIAL HOUSING MIX. . . . 82 INTRODUCTION 8A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES 83 EXAMPLES OF HOUSING MIXES 5 Vancouver City 8Lethbridge, Alberta 86 Surrey Study Area 90 North Vancouver Study Area..... 92 THE BALANCED COMMUNITY. 99 vii CHAPTER PAGE HETEROGENEITY VS HOMOGENEITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 100 Suburban Heterogeneity 101 Theories of Neighbourhood Interaction..... 103 HOUSING MIX COST - REVENUE ANALYSIS 109 Philadelphia Study 110 Stamford, Connecticut Study Ill Bucks County, Pennsylvania Study.......... 112 Rutgers, Garden Apartment Study..... 114 SUMMARY.. • * H6 V EXPLORITORY SURVEY OF HOMEOWNER ATTITUDES TOWARDS A RESIDENTIAL MIX 122 INTRODUCTION..... , 122 DETERMINATION OF SURVEY AREAS 123 Limitations 12Methodology 4 Municipal Survey Results 126 HOMEOWNER ATTITUDE STUDY: PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SURVEY. 129 Interview Schedule Formulation 130 The Form of the Questions 133 The Interview and Its Limitations. 134 The Sample 135 Limitations of Sample Survey... 142 Pre Test 143 Procedure of Questionnaire Administration. 144 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE 145 i viii CHAPTER PAGE General Characteristics.... 146 Validity of Homeowners Opposition 156 Attitude Change.......................... 172 SUMMARY 175 VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 179 RELEVANCE OP THE STUDY 17SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS l80 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH l86 APPENDIX 188 APPENDIX A: ATTITUDINAL SURVEY - FOR HOMEOWNERS 189 APPENDIX B: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY 197 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 3-1 Total Dwelling Units by Type-Proportion Multiple Housing Census. Years 1921-1966 (Canada) . 49 3-2 Dwelling Starts by Type 1951-1965 In Canada In Centres of 5,000 Population and.Over 51 3-3 Housing by Type, Location and Per Cent Distribution Census Years 1941 to 1966 52 3-4 Per Cent Distribution of Occupied Dwellings By Type for Canada and The Provinces 1961... 55 3-5 Income-Cost Trends for New Housing Financed Under NHA, Canada, 1959-1967 59 5-1 Length of Residence in Home by. Number and Per Cent 147 5-2 Estimated Value of Home by Number and Per Cent (In Thousands). 148 5-3 Criteria Used for Purchase of Home by Number and Per Cent 150 5-4 Knowledge of Apartments at Time of Home Purchase by Number and Per Cent 151 5-5 Belief in Future Apartment Development by Number and Per Cent 154 5-6 Reasons for Wanting to Move, by Number and Per Cent.... 155 5-7 Factors That Would Make It Difficult To Sell Home by Number and Per Cent 157 5-8 Areas Experiencing A Tax Increase and Reasons For The Increase, by Number and Per Cent 159 5-9 How Homeowners Perceive Tenants by Number and Per Cent l6l X TABLE PAGE 5-10 Respondents Who Pelt View Had Been Cut Off by Apartments by Number and Per Cent 163 5-11 Homeowners' Perception of Increased Traffic Caused by Apartments by Number and Per Cent. 164 5-12 Where Children Who Live In Apartments Play By Number and Per Cent 167 5-13 Do Apartments Detract Prom The Character of Residential Areas by Number and Per Cent. 169 5-14 Type of Attitude Change Toward Apartments by Number and Per Cent 173 5-15 Comparison of Knowledge of Apartments at Time Home Was Purchased With Attitude Toward Mixed Housing: By Number and Per Cent 174 LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 3-1 North Vancouver District Apartment Location Policy. 72 3-2 Location of Mixed Housing in North Vancouver District......;.'...... 74 3-3 District of Surrey Apartment Location Policy 76 3- 4 Location of Mixed Housing in the District of Surrey... 7 4- 1 Picture-Number Guide Queen's Road Survey Area 93 4- 2 Picture-Number Guide"Berkley Road Survey Area 96 5- 1 Hilton Road Survey Area, Population Sample 135-2 Hilton Road Survey Area, Survey Sample 137 5-3 Queen's Road Survey Area, Population Sample.. 138 5-4 Queen's Road Survey Area, Survey Sample 139 5-5 Berkley Road Survey Area, Population Sample............ 140 5-6 Berkley Road Survey Area, Survey Sample 141 xii LIST OF PLATES PLATE PAGE I Types of Apartments 43 II Viewing the Suburbs From A New Perspective 84 III Photo Study of Mixed Housing In Lethbridge 7 IV Photo Study of Mixed Housing In Surrey 91 V Photo Study of Queen's Road Survey Area..... 94 VI Photo Study of Berkley Road Survey Area..... 97 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM Lawyers, Babock and Bosselroan in discussing the importance of the problem of constructing apartments in what have been traditionally single-detached housing areas, make the following statement: The dominant single-family dwelling pattern of most suburban communities faces a major challenge. The homogeneous suburb having endured the attacks of social critics faces a far more formidable opponent in the developer who sees an opportunity to profit from the construction of apartment buildings outside the central city. During the decade of the sixties, there will be unprecedented pressure to permit construction in suburban areas of multi-family units... (As a result) bitter legal and political struggles will confront the supreme courts of the more populous states with such a multitude of zoning cases as to displace - at least - the ubiquitous gas station. Apart from the legal and political importance of mixed housing, this problem is of greater importance to the proper planning of the physical and social structure of the cities. Physically, it means that suburban residential areas would be more compact, and that instead of rows and rows of individual houses all the same height, size and set-2 back, there would be some variety. This has serious implications for planning. While it is a relatively simple task to plan public services, schools, parks, roads, etc., for a homogeneous area of single-family homes, planning for a mixture of housing types and population densities becomes more tenuous. Planning authorities suggest that it is not a good practice to introduce higher densities into an existing residential area as facilities such as parks, schools and utility lines were designed with a particular capacity, and to increase the demand on them would 3 result in costly rebuilding. Very little is actually known about the social implications of mixed housing. The following questions need answering: "Do tenants and homeowners associate with one another because of the close proximity of the buildings in which they live?" Do homeowners perceive tenants as belonging to another social class?" and "Does the presence of apartments result in greater mobility among homeowners in mixed housing areas?" Until these questions are answered, it would seem that extreme caution should be exercised by public officials before creating new mixed housing situations. IMPORTANCE OP THE STUDY ' The main decision in the past to allow apartments to be built in single-family residential areas has been based, to a large extent, on the financial costs and benefits accruing to the municipality, whereas, little, if any, attention has been given to the social implications of such development. This is largely accounted for by the fact that there is only a small amount of scattered data available on some of the social aspects of mixed housing. This study attempts to find out If homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing change once the apartments are built and in use. To date, no record of a similar study being carried out has been found. Homeowners' objections to mixed housing are fairly standard and have been enumerated by many authors. The following is a typical list of objections: 1. Multiple-family housing In single-family residential areas destroys the character of the neighbourhood making it a less desirable place to live. 2. Multiple-family housing generates traffic and creates parking problems that are injurious to neighbourhood character and public safety. 3. Multiple-family housing generates increased demands for community services such as schools and recreation areas, the costs of which are reflected in increased local tax rates. These same authors never state if after the apartments are built and in use, whether the homeowners still perceive the apartments as causing the problems. If after the apartments are built no problems arise and the homeowners accept them as part of the neigh bourhood, their opposition to them could, to a large extent, be considered invalid. However, if the homeowners continue to perceive the apartments as causing problems then public officials should take notice; as people who are dissatisfied with a neighbourhood are likely 4 5 to move. The result Is unnecessary mobility and the possible premature deterioration of the area. :By studying homeowners' attitudes after the construction of apartments, some of the consequences of mixed housing can be assessed. HYPOTHESES OP THE STUDY The main hypotheses to be tested in this study are: Homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing are not changed by living in close proximity to apartments and in a mixed housing situation, homeowners perceive apartments to be the cause of parking problems, depreciated property values, increased traffic and noise, higher taxes, loss of privacy, loss of view and other problems usually attributed to apartments. The hypotheses will be tested through personal interviews with homeowners living in mixed housing situations. It must be emphasized that the survey of homeowners' attitudes will be only one of four issues related to mixed housing to be examined In this study. THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY Very little has been written on the subject of mixed housing in the context that will be used In this study. This is due partly to the Innumerable combinations of possible mixed housing situations that range all the way from a mixture of different single-detached dwellings differing In age, style, price, size, etc., to a mixture of single-detached dwellings and different types of apartments. "Mixed housing" as it will be used in this study refers to situations where r low-density multiple-housing is built in close proximity to single-detached housing. This study will also be limited to an examination of some of the social issues related to mixed housing. Some of these issues are 1. Should single-family residential areas be separated from other types of housing as they have been in the past? In this regard, single-family housing will be examined to determine if it serves any useful function in an Increasing urbanized world, and whether or not single-family housing as a traditional institution should be preserved. 2. What is the role of multiple-family housing and where should it be located? Canadian census data will be used to trace the growth of apartments in Canada. Apartment location policies for Metropolitan Vanoouver will be examined to determine the extent to which local governments advocate mixed housing. An effort will be made to compare apartment location policies with apartment location practices. 3. Does mixed housing imply a social mix also, and if it does, what are the implications of a social mix? 4. Do homeowners living in mixed housing situations perceive the apartments as causing those problems that are usually attributed to multiple-family dwellings? Do homeowner's attitudes towards mixed housing change as a consequence of living in close proximity to apartments? The sample survey technique will be used to determine homeowners' attitudes with regards to these issues. Three specific survey areas having different mixed housing characteristics have been chosen in which to administer a questionnaire. METHODOLOGY The approach used in this study will be a combination of the following: (1) analysis of literature relevant to mixed housing (2) examination of actual mixed housing situations and (3) sample survey of homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing. The analysis of the literature will form the basis for discussion of particular issues related to mixed housing such as the history and role of the single-family home, and the feasibility of a social mix. Interviews with local planning officials will be used to accomplish .two goals. The first will be to choose the mixed housing situations in which to administer a questionnaire to determine homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing. The second goal will be to examine mixed housing situations in Metropolitan Vancouver. At the same time, an analysis of apartment location policies and practices will be undertaken. An interview schedule will be drawn up to test the validity of homeowners' opposition to mixed housing, and also to determine if living in close proximity to apartments changes homeowners' attitudes towards then. A field survey of mixed housing situations will be completed, and those meeting certain pre-determined conditions will be chosen as test cases in which to administer the questionnaire. DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise clarified in the text of this study, the following definitions will apply: APARTMENT AND MULTIPLE-DWELLINGS will be used Interchangeably, and will refer to buildings containing three or more dwelling units. No distinction is made as to whether the units are arranged horizontally or vertically. The building and the individual dwelling units inside the building will be referred to as apartments or multiple-dwellings. CLOSE PROXIMITY means the distance relationship between single-detached dwellings and apartments, and will refer to cases in which the property line of the lot on which a single-detached dwelling Is situated, abuts the property line of the lot on which an apartment is situated. It will also refer to a situation where an apartment is In direct line of vision of persons living in single-detached dwellings. People who live in the homes that meet this criteria, will be considered as living In close proximity to the apartments. HOMEOWNER means a person who holds title to the home in which he is living or a person who Is in the process of buying the home in which he lives. For the purpose of the survey, homeowner will refer to either the husband or the wife. MIXED HOUSING refers to a situation where multiple-dwellings and single-detached dwellings exist in close proximity to each other In an area zoned as single-family residential, SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING: SINGLE-DETACHED HOUSING: SINGLE-DETACHED DWELLING and SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING refer to one family single-detached home or homes, and therefore, the terms will be used interchangeably, "Single-detached" means a single house adjoining no other structure. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA means a district In which only single-detached homes are located, and which is zoned for one-family single-detached homes• STUDY AREAS refer to those municipalities chosen for detailed study of mixed housing situations. SURVEY AREA refers to the small areas within the study areas where homeowners will be surveyed. TEST CASE refers to mixed housing situations which meet the three criteria of: 1. Documented homeowner opposition to the construction of apartments in single-family residential areas. 2. Construction of the apartments that caused the opposition. 3. Apartments located in close proximity to single-detached housing. 9 ORGANIZATION Tiie overall format of this study will be to devote a separate chapter to each of the chosen social issues related to mixed housing. Chapter II will deal with the history of the tradition of private ownership of land and single-family housing* The purpose of this chapter will be to show that controls over man's use of his land were devised to protect and to conserve the environment and property values in single-family residential areas. The main hypothesis of this chapter will be that single-detached housing and the environment of single-family residential areas play an important role in satisfying the needs of a large segment of the population, and therefore should be protected from the infringement of multiple-family dwellings. Conversely, Chapter III will examine the growth of multiple-family dwellings in Canada• Apartment looation policies and practices will also be examined to determine the methods by which mixed housing situations are brought about. The hypothesis for this chapter will be that as cities have grown in size and complexity, and as the population's interests have become more diversified, the housing industry has provided a greater variety in the type and location of housing. Chapter IV will delve more deeply into the social implications of a housing mix. The basic assumption of this chapter will be that a housing mix implies a social mix. This chapter will attempt to determine the feasibility of a social mix by relying on the findings of sociological studies carried out on this topic. Chapter V will deal with the methodology of the questionnaire formulation and administration. This chapter will also be devoted to the results and analysis of the questionnaire. The purpose of the survey will be to determine the validity of homeowner's opposition to the construction of apartments in residential areas, and to determine whether or not living in close proximity to apartments results in a change in attitude on the part of the homeowners towards mixed housing. The correlation of the various social issues related to mixed housing will be accomplished in Chapter VI. This chapter will also contain some recommendations for further research in the area of mixed housing. FOOTNOTES Richard F. Babock and Fred P. Bosselman, "Suburban Zoning and the Apartment Boom", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, III (June, 1963), p. 1040. 2 "A Case for Higher Density Housing", House and Home, (April 1962), pp, 133-141. o Community Builder's Council of Urban Land Institute, The  Community Builders Handbook, (Washington, D.C., 1968), p. 119. 4 Metropolitan Washington Council of Government, Housing in the Metropolitan Washington: Today and Tommorrow, p. 30. c Peter Rossi, Why Families Move, (Gleneoe: Free Press, 1955). Dennis Chapman, The Home and Social Status, (New York: Grove Press, .1955). Both authors state that people who are not satisfied with their neighbourhood tend to move more frequently than do those who express satisfaction with their neighbourhood. CHAPTER II PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PRODUCTION The scope of this chapter is broad and deals with the private ownership of land and the single-family home In a North Amer lean context* It is recognized that there have been and are at present, important differences existing between the land and housing policies of Canada and the United States. However, for the purpose of this study certain experiences are taken as being roughly interchangeable, and having application to both countries. Throughout this chapter an attempt is made to distinguish which country is being referred to when a particular topic is being discussed. The first part of this chapter outlines the history of private ownership of land In North America. The discussion of this topic has filled many volumes, therefore, only a few of the basic concepts will be discussed with the purpose of showing that the desire for land ownership has been a motivating force among the inhabitants of North America for over the past three and a half centuries. The second part of this ohapter deals with the history of single-family housing in North America, The purpose of this discussion is to show that the traditions of private property and home ownership have developed together, and are deeply engrained in the social and cultural fabric of both Canada and the United States* Although these traditions have undergone some modifications, they must be considered when proposing any change in the traditional system of housing, namely, the placement of apartments in single-family residential areas. Forming an integral part of this chapter is a discussion of the various restrictions that have been placed on the use of privately owned land. One of the major restrictions—zoning, is dealt with at length regarding its protection of single-family residential areas from the intrusion of other land uses. THE TRADITION OF THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAUD Private ownership of land is a North Amerloan tradition that has developed and evolved from the time the first colonists arrived on the Atlantic seaboard in the early loOO's. To understand the importance of the development of this tradition, an examination of the conditions existing in Northern Europe, particularly in England prior to colonization in the seventeenth century, is in order. From the mid-fourteenth century to the beginning of the seventeenth century, a slow but very real economio revolution took place in England that by the early l60O*s produced both economic and social cowditioaa conducive to the colonization of North Amerioa, This deep-seated economic revolution witnessed the gradual dis integration of the English feudal system. Feudalism was a form of land tenure. True feudal tenures in England at the height of their development were either free or villein tenures. The former included all tenures based on services considered proper for a ^freen man to render to the lord, while the latter included those based on menial services of a low character involving the cultivation of the lord's land, or similar work, under particular and often oppressive conditions of servitude,1 The breakdown of this system was favorable to the rise of capitalism, the creation of a free market for the production and sale of 2 commodities. Of importance in bringing about this result, was the enclosure movement whioh began in the second half of the fourteenth century. This was a movement by landlords and wealthy farmers to evict the peasants from the land in order to increase their own personal wealth and prestige. It was marked by three characteristics: (1) the disappearance of the open field system which was characterized by scattered strips, communal meadows and pastures, and joint tillage (2) the conversion of arable land into pasture land and (3) the forceful eviction of the peasantry from the soil.*' The movement was given a direot impetus by the rapid development of the Flemish cloth industry which In turn resulted In the rise of the price of wool in England. Higher wool prices induced English landlords to consolidate small into large holdings, and transform farmland into sheep walks. !5 Enclosures were further stimulated by the Reformation, and the rising cost of living. When Henry VIII broke away from Rome in 1534, monasteries were closed and church property confiscated. These estates were then presented to the king's friends or sold to landlords and merchants. Often the ensuing result was the enclosure of the lands and the hereditary tenants being driven out. Despite repeated attempts by both the peasantry and the king, landlords continued to enclose estates. As a result, evictions grew, and there appeared a large number of free and "unattached" labourers, most of whom were unable to find Jobs. Confronted with the possibility of starvation, these labourers congregated in the towns and cities, became beggers, and were accordingly treated as criminals.^ During this same period, with the emphasis turning from agriculture to the raising of sheep on the large enclosed estates, there arose also a group of manufacturers and traders. The domestic system of manufacturing wool and worsted goods expanded and eventually these goods were used in overseas trade. Along with the nobility, the businessmen became wealthy. Local and private traders began to organize themselves into Joint-stock companies in order to take advantage of increased trading opportunities. Prom 1553 to 1680, forty-nine Joint stock enterprises were founded with capital invest ments raising from 10,000 pounds in 1558 to over 4,000,000 pounds In 1695.^ Among the most important Joint stock syndicates formed during 16 this period was the Virginia Company formed in I606 and organized for the purpose of colonizing part of the New World. With the gradual disintegration of the feudal system, and the emergence of a money based national economy, England, by the opening of the seventeenth century possessed the three elements necessary for 7 colonization--promoters, capital and settlers. The presence of all three of these elements was largely due to the profound changes that had occured in English life from the middle of the fourteenth century to the end"of the seventeenth century. The revolution in agriculture and in industry had brought in its wake a large number of yeomen and household manufacturers as well as a considerable number of farm labourers and artisans. Many of them were discontented and restless with the political, religious and economic conditions under which they were,forced to live; and they were looking abroad for an opportunity to begin anew. To all of these, America was the land of unlimited 8 opportunity. Similarly, the economic revolution had produced an abundant supply of capital. By the opening of the seventeenth century, wealthy landlords and merchants were looking to America to invest their surplus 9 for the purpose of obtaining larger returns. Private Property in America With the discovery of America, vast land resources came into the possession of various European monarchs who claimed ownership rights to the land in the New World chiefly by discovery and settlement. When the English colonists landed at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, their concepts of land tenure were strictly English. All rights to the land in the New World were held by the English King who had in turn granted the land to large trading companies to corporate groups, and to prominent individuals. These in turn, regranted rights in the land to settlers. In numerous instances, Maryland and Pennsylvania, for example, the grantors were given a right which was no longer permitted in England; namely, the right to establish lessor manors or 10 the right of subinfeudation. However, because the receivers of these large land grants were typically absentee owners, because the lands were virtually valueless unless manpower could be made available, and especially because the resources were part of a vast, unexplored wilderness occupied by un civilized peoples, it turned out to be very difficult to transplant feudal institutions in America. Morals1'1' makes the following observations concerning the inability of the large land companies to establish feudalism in America. Three factors weighed against the establishment of feudalism in seventeenth oentury America. In the first place, land was so plentiful that it could be had for the asking. Thus, few settlers were willing to become or remain serfs. Since an adequate supply of serf labour was lacking, manorialism-the economic base of feudalism, was Impossible. Secondly, the character of the settlers was not such as to favour the Imposition of outmoded institutions. Those who came to the New World were on the contrary recruited mainly from the very classes which were attempting to escape feudal exploitation. And, finally, the proprietors were them selves too practical minded to Jeopardize their chances of making money by attempting to Impose a system their settlers were unwilling to accept.12 Although feudalism itself was not established in America, some stages of feudalism did make their way into the colonial system. 13 Among these were primogeniture, entail and quitrents. The first of these gave the eldest son the sole right to inherit his father's estate; the second prevented anyone from bequeathing land to unspecified heirs; and the last freed the landholder from all services to the landlord except for the payment of a nominal sum. It was not until the American Revolution that the states abolished quitrents along with the other outmoded practices of primogeniture and entail. A steady movement towards freer tenure conditions existed In America from the early l600's, but it was the American Revolution that completed the work. After the war, the land that belonged to the British crown went to the thirteen states which in turn, formed a Federalist government. England continued to rule their possessions to the North in similar manner as they had done in the past up to the passing of the British North America Act in 1867. One of the prime considerations in the minds of the framers of the American Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, was the protection of an individual's right to private property. Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence substituted "pursuit of happiness" for "property" as a result of controversy that ( arose between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted to leave any mention of property out of the Bill of Rights because it reminded them of the fact that in England the landed Aristocracy were the ones who ruled. The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, insisted on a guarantee of the rights of nature,. life, liberty and property. The result was the Fifth amendment to the Bill of Rights stating that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private „ 14 property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Land ownership as it is known today in the United States was instigated after the American Revolution. The highest form of land tenure was ownership, and was evidenced by title which gave the owner the right to transfer all rights in land excepti;the right of reversion to another. The right of reversion was the right retained by federal land state (provincial) governments that land automatically reverted back to the state (the crown in the case of Canada) when certain situations developed such as when the conditions are not met under which the land was granted, when taxes went unpaid, or where the 15 grantee died Intestate. Confederation also marked the beginning of the public domain in the United States. There was no question as to the right of the individual states to the unsettled land within their boundaries, but under their original charters from the English crown, seven of the original thirteen states held sea to sea grants. After twenty years and much bickering between the states, these lands outside the state 20 boundaries were ceded to the federal government. This original public domain was enlarged by several purchases and annexations until it included a total of 1.2 billion acres or about two-thirds the entire land area of the United States.1^ Through the l800's to World War II From l800 to 1934, the focus of government land'policy in the United States was on the disposal of public lands. The goals of this policy were twofold; to raise revenue to pay debts incured by the government, and to get the West settled quickly. Under the numerous Homestead and Exemption laws passed during this period, it was possible to buy land for $1.25 per acre. Other laws made land available at 12.5 cents per acre after it had been on the market for thirty years. The Homestead law of 1862 went even further by making 160 acre tracts of land available to settlers if they would live on them and cultivate 17 them for five years. All government policies were directed to the ownership of land, and it was made especially available to the farmer and not only to the wealthy as was the case in feudal England. Everyone could be landowners in America. The immense attraction that free or nearly free land had to immigrants from Europe cannot be over looked or underestimated. The attitudes of the immigrant towards ownership of land in America are appropriately expressed by Charles Abrams. 1 21 They had crossed the ocean to seek better fortune, and the spirit of self-help was strong in them. They had come to root themselves in the free soil, their own soil. The ownership of land to them meant liberty itself. Here was virgin soil, amply and gratefully yielding rich sustenance. Here were rivers stocked with fish, untrodden woods full of game, and none to forbid the hunt... The early settlers drove deep into the forests with the passion of freedom, and the freehold system dominant in their every thought and action.*9 This period was also characterized by rapid technicalogical advances and the emergence and growth of industry in the Western world. The result was that the emphasis of the national economies of Canada ' and the United States shifted from that of agriculture to that of industry. By the end of this period, there were more people living in the large cities and towns in North America than were living in the rural or farm areas. The cities grew rapidly particularly those located on the eastern seaboard as people flowed in from the farms and from Europe to work in the factories. Immigration from the poorer European countries was encouraged because it was felt that these people, accustomed to poor working conditions, would be satisfied to work for lower wages, 20 and thus provide cheap labour. The result was that the large cities of the east coast and Great Lakes region were flooded with immigrants, in a new land with no place to live. They came in such large numbers that housing them became a major problem. As a temporary measure, to re lie*-the housing shortage, tenements were built. They were low rental, multiple-family units especially designed to house the immigrants 22 21 until they could find a hone of their own. Up to this time, it could be said that the single-family home was the major form of housing in North America. Even though over 50# of the homes at that time were rented, no rental housing on the scale or poor quality of the tenements 22 had ever been attempted in North America. With the introduction of apartments, a new form of tenure was developed which in later years was to play an essential role in providing housing for the urban dweller. The single-family home and home ownership continued' to exist as the American ideal, but with the growth of cities and the increasing costs of urban land, building materials and labour, this ideal grew more remote to the average city dweller. RESTRICTIONS TQ THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY When population was small and the distance between farms was great, there was little need for restrictions on the use of privately owned land. But as farms developed next to one another, and as towns and cities grew in size and number, the possibilities for conflict between adjoining land users increased. While there has been a trend towards making cheap land available to everyone, especially in the United States, there has also been a counter trend towards making the original "bundle of rights" that an owner had in land, smaller and smaller. The general rule that governed the use of land on the frontier was as follows: 23 The owner of the land was presumed to own everything "up to the sky and down to the center of the earth.,. The owner in fee simple was in possession of, and therefore entitled to, any chattel not the property of any known person which is found under or attached to his land... An owner could if he wished, divide his land horizontally or in any other way... He could in general use his property in the natural course of use in any way he thought fit. He could waste or dispoil the land as he pleased, and he was not normally liable merely because he neglected it.2' With time and with the increasing problems connected with "dose living", the absolute freedom of landowners was qualified in a number of ways. In the last century and particularly during the past fifty years, there has been much legislation imposing on land owners, restrictions and liabilities in the public interest. There have been statutes enacted which have made the landowner subject to what is called "eminent domain", which is the power of Parliament to authorize the compulsory acquisition of a person's land by some government department, public authority or public utility company." Unlike the powers of eminent domain exercised during the enclosure movement, compensation is given to the landowners. Under numerous Public Health Acts, local councils have been given the authority to make by-laws regulating such matters as the construc tion, materials, height, lighting, ventilation, sanitation and size of 25 rooms of new buildings. These regulations are normally included in the building codes of local areas. Housing Acts have given local authorities power to require the landowner to repair and Improve defective houses, to demolish unsanitary or obstructive houses, to clear his land of buildings, or in default, to convey it to the local authority for clearance and redevelopment. Of all the statutes regulating an owner's use of bis land, Community Planning Acts have been some of the most restrictive. The Official Community Plan, together with zoning by-laws, form the basis of land-use control. Councils have not only been given the specific right to regulate land-use, but also the powers to prohibit any 27 particular use in any zone. Zoning by-laws regulate the size, shape and siting of buildings and structures within zones. They can also require the owners of any buildings in any zone to provide off-street parking and loading for their buildings. Local authorities are also given the power to classify buildings and differentiate and discriminate between classes 28 with respect to the amount of space to be provided. Zoning and the Single-Family Home 29 „ Bassett has defined zoning as "the regulation by districts under police power of the height, bulk and use of buildings, the use 30 of land, and the density of population". For further clarification, he stated that the purposes of zoning were: to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concen trations of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. In the early days of zoning, many people contended that it violated the rights of private property. The legislators took the view that zoning was necessary for the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the community. The cliche "for the public good" formed the basis of zoning by-laws. While restrictive covenants had been used to achieve the same ends as zoning in residential areas, they were used mainly in the more 32 well-to-do suburban areas. Zoning provided a means whereby all residential areas whether multiple-family or single-family, rich or poor, could be protected from the infringement of improper uses. Zoning attempted to stabilize and preserve homogeneous districts by conserving the value of buildings and preventing premature obsolescence from the infringement of other uses. By dividing the city into districts and regulating the land use in each, the owner of a building was given a degree of assurance that in ten or twenty years, the building would not be obsolete by reason of an unnecessary and un desirable change in the character of the neighbourhood. Segregation of Housing Types Homeowners were not oontent to have a general separation of industrial, commercial and residential. They demanded on the grounds of health and safety that there should also be a separation of multiple-family dwellings and single-family dwellings. In the United States, the courts felt the proof for suoh a separation was sufficient, and recognized as valid the gradations of residential districts accord-33 ing to the number of families per buildinge It can be seen that there has been a conscious effort on the part of homeowners to maintain a separation of single-detached housing from all other land uses. This raises two questions: "Why was it believed that single-detached housing should be separated from all other land uses?" and "Was Single-detached housing fulfilling needs that could not be satisfied by other housing types?" The answer to the first question has already been discussed in part. It was felt that the intrusion of apartments, stores and factories would upset the stability of the neighbourhood, and cause a premature loss in 34 value to the homes. The health and safety of the residents would also be endangered from increased congestion, noise and fumes. To Insure that these conditions did not occur, all other uses were restricted. Daring the early 1920*s and 1930's when zoning was being established, apartments had a bad reputation far housing the lower classes, and for being large and unsightly. Apartments were considered to be a commercial or business venture and generally the standards of building maintenance were not always the same for the entre preneur as they were for the homeowner. For these reasons, however, 27 prejudiced they were, homeowners were opposed to the placement of apartments and single-detached homes in the same district or zone* The answer to the second question as to certain needs being fulfilled by single-detached housing is very subjective as it is related to people's values and attitudes towards housing. Basically, '"''As-. single-detached housing (synonymous with ownership) has been thought to fulfill certain individual needs as well as to fulfil needs related to the nation as a whole, Ruth Anshen suggests six needs related to families and individuals that are fulfilled by single-detached homes 1, The one family single-detached home has been regarded as a status symbol. It is a possession in whioh the "family ego" and a good part of its income can be invested, 2, It is a place where personal tastes can be expressed not only for the world's appreciation, but also for one's own self respect, 3, The home facilitates personal living, disencumbers family activities and lightens the every day routines, 4, It is a retreat for privacy, for spontaneous relaxation, and for unlimited expression of feelings, 5, It is an emotional bulwark against the threats and in securities of a complicated world where men have to compete for a "place in the sun"• The tensions of the Job, and fears of the future are transformed into an extra need for the "home" as a security* 6. The home is a locus for family activities and friendship interaction* The house is the social background within which entire lives or generations of lives are lived, and it is surrounded by an atmosphere of childhood memories, associations with "the old folks" or some other stirring meaning* 36 These have been accepted by many housing authorities as being worthwhile needs to be fulfilled by all housing. Up to the present time, single-detached housing fulfilled these needs more than 37 any other housing type* It is recognized that all people do not have the same housing needs, but for the person who desires privacy, security, stability, responsibility, pleasant surroundings for raising a family, and who exhibits a pride of ownership, a single-detached dwelling would prove most satisfactory for him. In the United States more than In Canada, single-detached housing's contributions to the strengthening of democracy have also been expounded. Some of the statements on this subject" have attributed; unnatural powers to single-family housing to cure all of the national ills. Other statements simply express the importance of good homes and living conditions to the development of strong and responsible citizens. An example of the type of emotionally charged statements that were frequently being made by public officials concerning the importance of single-family housing is as follows: It is doubtful whether democracy is possible where tenants overwhelmingly outnumber homeowners* For democracy is not a privilege, it is a responsibility, and human nature rarely volunteers to shoulder responsibility, but it is driven by the whip of necessity* The need to guard and protect the home is the whip that has proved*•* efficacious in driving men to discharge the duties of self government••• We have concerned ourselves too little with the effect of homeownership on citizenship*.. For the sake of our political institutions and what they mean to our liberties, we should not forget that the obstacles to a much greater percentage of homeownership than_we can now boast, are artificial and capable of removal**8 ^ Home ownership was thought to encourage democracy, and at the same time be the bulwark against the invasion of alien systems of government• Socialism and Communism do not take root in the ranks of those who have their feet firmly embedded in the soil*.* through home ownership* 39 Thus, it was expected that increased homeownership would establish a larger responsible electorate, and bring about increased loyalty on the part of the citizenry. One of the former presidents of the United States made the following statements with regards to homeownership: Certain obligations rest upon us of the present generation. It behooves parents to achieve homeownership so far as they are able. And further: The present large proportion of families who own their homes Is both the foundation of a sound economic and social system, and a guarantee that our society will continue to develop rationally as changing conditions demand* After World War II, the federal governments of both Canada and the United States encouraged homeownership through such devices as tax concessions, homeowner grants, home purchasing grants and special voting privileges. Under these stimuli, the number of single-family homes in Canada Increased by over 2,000,000 units between 1945 to 1966. In 1966, there was a total of 3,234,123 single-family homes in Canada of which 88 per cent were owner occupied. In 1966, single-detached housing accounted for 62 per cent of all housing in Canada. For the census years of 1951 to 1961, the proportion of the housing stock that was both single-detached and owner occupied remained at 56 per cent. The proportion slipped down to 54 per cent in 1966 as a result of a national trend towards the construction of more rental 42 units in urban areas. In comparison, the data for the United States shows a similar increase in home ownership over the corresponding years, in 1940, 44 per cent of the occupied units were owner occupied. By 1950, the number of owner occupied units had increased to 55 per cent. The peak of home ownership was reached in i960 when 62 per cent or approximately 32.8 43 million housing units were owner occupied. A large proportion of the homes constructed after World War II were located in the suburbs. To the middle class family, the suburbs represented the North American ideal of a home in the country. They 31 were located away from the dirt, the noise and the undesirable social conditions that made the central city an unhealthy environment in which to raise a family. The houses in the suburbs were built on large lots with plenty of room for the children to play. It was felt the children would get a better education in the suburbs because the schools were new, and the homeowners were willing to pay the price to make sure that their children were taught by the best teachers. The suburbanites were more at ease with one another because they considered each other as being on the same level or belonging to the same class. But more than anything else, they were away from the hustle and bustle of the fast moving, impersonal city life. New Threats to Single-Family Housing Since the beginning of the 1960's, apartments have been attracted to suburban residential districts by low cost land, rapid transit routes and the quality of amenities found there as compared to the central 44 city. Some of these suburban apartments have been located next to shopping centers and rapid transit routes, but others have been located next toand amongst single-detached homes. Such a mixture of housing types has been advocated by planners and architects for over three decades, much to the dismay of homeowners. One of the Justifications 1 for mixed housing has been the need for more variety in the types of housing, and secondly, the need for more variety in the "suburban scene". To each of these Justifications for more variety, homeowners would 32 generally agree, but arguments would arise as to where apartments should be located in relation to single-family housing. If apartments are to be located next to single-family homes, the result could be: 1. Infringements upon homeowners' privacy caused by apartments built one or even two stories taller than the surrounding homes. 2. Infringements upon the stability of the residential area caused by the speculation of either higher or lower property values in the area. 3. Contradiction to the assurance given to the home purchaser under the original zoning of the area. 4. An action which Infers that there is no longer a need to protect single-family homes from the intrusions of other land uses. Traditional attitudes towards homeownership do not support this point of view. 5« An attempt on the part of government to legislate social' change• Thus, homeowners have opposed the development of multiple-family dwell ings in single-family residential areas. 46 The British Columbia Municipal Act specifically states in Section 702, sub-section (2) that Council when making regulations under the zoning section, shall have due regard for: (a) The promotion of health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the public. 33 (b) The prevention of the overcrowding of land and the preserva tion of the amenities peculiar to any zone. (c) The securing of adequate light, air and access. (d) The value of the land and the nature of its present and prospective use and occupancy. (e) The character of each zone, the character of the buildings already erected, and the peculiar suitability of the zone to particular uses. (f) The conservation of property values. Under sub-sections (d) and (f), the conservation of property values and land values have been specifically mentioned. The courts have in turn interpreted property values to mean the property values of the whole community. The Judgement as to the affect of a particular development is left up to city and municipal councils to decide. In every instance, the "public good" is to prevail. On the whole, these considerations have been broadly interpreted, and have been primarily guidelines for council. The result has been that homeowners have not been able to look to local councils nor to the courts for sympathy, as these bodies have been adverse to perpetuating the status quo of middle class suburbs. Some acknowledgement should be given to the attitudes, the values and the aspirations of the people living in these areas, and of those people who aspire to live there some day. 34 Even though the national governments of both Canada and the United States have supported and encouraged homeownership in the past, the degree to which housing affects the individual's psychological make up, and his level of citizenship, is not known. Studies carried out on this subject have only produced a limited amount of data from which generalizations are not possible. Much of the data comes from surveys similar to one recently carried out in the Eastern United States of garden apartment resident's attitudes. This survey revealed that they did not regard an apartment as a good place to raise children. They did not consider living in an apartment better than owning a home, or an apartment to be a permanent place to live. They felt that a single-family house offered good outside living characteristics, that they were more spacious and comfortable, and were, on the whole, a better invest-47 ment than renting an apartment. Studies, such as the one just referred to, usually show a pre ference for one type of housing over another depending on the person being interviewed. This survey showed that for families, single-detached homes were preferred over other types of housing. The point expressed is that single-detached housing does satisfy the housing needs of certain people. Although the degree to which this form of housing satisfies people is not quantifiable, or has not been to date, it is a fact that over 80 per cent of the people in Canada want 48 to own their own home. 35 Lipman contends that Canada's present housing policy is determined by economic expediency, and that not enough attention has been given to providing the "best" kind of housing for the different segments of the population. It is his feeling that if the different levels of govern ment were to make the decision that single-family housing was the best type of housing for families, then it would not be difficult to extend this choice to all income levels through such devices as a write down in land costs, and a reduction of downpayments. In effect, it would be saying that economic considerations were less important than social considerations in producing the kind of housing environment desired by families. To him, Denmark is one country that has made such a decision. There the trend in apartment living has been reversed. In 1959? over 50 per cent of all dwellings completed were multiple-dwelling units. This percentage steadily diminished so that in 1965 only 30 per cent 49 were multiple-units. SUMMARY The tradition of private ownership of land is truly a North American tradition. The first trading companies to establish colonies in America also attempted to establish a feudalistlc system of land tenure among the colonists. But the abundance of land, the shortage of labour and the colonists desire for freedom and individuality, thwarted all attempts at establishing such a system. 36 While the frontier was expanding and land was plentiful, few if any restrictions were placed on an individual's right to use his land as he pleased. During the latter half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, the Industrial Revolution resulted in the immigration of large numbers of people to North America. Most of these people settled in the cities where jobs were available. As the cities increased in size, and people were forced to live closer and closer together, regulations were placed on land use to protect the health and welfare of the "community". The main purposes of zoning were to preserve and" stabilize homogeneous districts by conserving the value of buildings, and preventing premature obsolescence from the infringe ment of other uses. Evidence seems to indicate that some of the criteria used in the early days of zoning for separating single-detached dwellings from multiple-dwellings are valid today. However, these criteria are very subjective, and are based on homeowners' attitudes and values, and not on pure scientific data nor on the economics of the housing market. By-laws are still used to regulate the location and siting of different types of buildings, but Councils have established by-laws to go outside the by-laws, so to speak. The result has been that development has not always occured in those areas reserved for it, particularly in regards to apartments. Single-family bousing and the environment in which it is placed, has played and will continue to play a significant role in providing for the needs of a large segment of the population. To this end, it is essential that the integrity of single-family housing be preserved. To assure this, there is a need to: 37 1. Examine apartment location policies and practices. 2. Examine more closely, the implications of mixed housing from a sociological point of view, and from the point of view of the economics involved. 3. Determine homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing. Proper location of apartments in single-family residential areas must be based on a knowledge of the sociological and economic implica tions of mixed housing, and with the consent of affected homeowners. 38 FOOTNOTES 1 Marshall Harris, Origin of the Land Tenure System In the United  States, (Iowa State College Press, 1953), p. 27. 2Herbert M. Morals, Struggle for American Freedom, (New York: International Publishers, 1944)7 p. 13. """" 3Ibidt p. 14. p. 256. 5 ^G. R. L. Marriott, Primitive Property, (London: MacMillan, 1878), Ibid, pp. 252-9. 6 Morrais, op. cit., p. 18. 7Ibld, p. 24. arlon Clawson, Man and Land In the United States, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), pp. 11-12. ^Morals, op. cit., p. 24. ^Harris, op. cit., pp. 71-81. 1:LMorais, op. cit. 12Ibid, p. 34. ^Ibld. l4Robert Allen Rutland, The Birth of the Bill of Rights 1776 - 1791» (Chaptel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955)> p. 233. •^^Harris, op. cit., p. 7 Clawsc 17Ibid. I6 , Clawson, op. cit., p. 64. 18 Charles Abrams, Revolution In Land, (New York: Harper Brothers, 1939), 19 Ibid, p. 11. 39 20 George H. Gray, Housing and Citizenship - A Study of Low Cost  Housing, (New York: Relnhold Pub., 1946), p. 5. 21Ibld. ^Abrams, op. cit., pp. 60-77• 23R. E. Megarry and H. W. R. Wade, The Law of Real Property, (London: Stevens and Sons, 1966), p. 70. 2^British Columbia, Municipal Act, (1968), sec. 483. 2^Megarru amd Wade, op. cit., p. 71» 26Brltish Columbia, Municipal Act, (1968), sec. 634. ^Ibld, sec. 702 (1) and (6). 28Ibld, (1) (d). ^Edward M. Bossett, Zoning, (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1936). 30Ibld, p. 45. S^-lbid, p. 52. 32j. B. Milner (ed.), Cases and Materials on the Law and Administra  tion of Community Planning, Revised Temporary Edition, Vol. II, (Toronto: By the Editor (?), 195b"), p. 1. 33sossett, op. cit., p. 64. 34ibid, pp. 45-59. 35Ruth Nanda Anshen, The Family, (New York: Harper Brothers, 1949), p. 306. 3601enn H< Beyer, Housing and Society, (New York: Man Millan, 1965); Charles Abrams, The Future of Housing, (New York: Harper Brothers, 1946); John P. Dean, Homeownership: Is It Sound?, (New York: Harper Brothers, 1945); Foote, Abu-lughod, Foley and Winneck, Housing Choices and Housing  Constraints, (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960). ^Foote, et al., Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), p. 54. 38Dean, op. cit., p. 3. 40 J?Ibid., p. 4. ^Ibid., p. 11. 41 Abrams, The Future of Housing, op. cit., p. 36. 'Wolfgang, M. Illihg, Housing Demand to 1970? (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1964). 43 Beyer, op. cit., p. 119. 44 "Apartments In Suburbia: Local Responsibility and Judicial Restraint", A Symposium, Northwestern Law Review, Vol. 59? (1964), pp. 344-432. ^^Herbert J. Gans, People and Plans, (New York: Basic Cooks, 1968). 46 British Columbia, Municipal Act, op. olt. 47"The Tenantst point of View", Urban Land, Vol. 29, (February, 1970), pp. 3-8. ^Report of the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, Paul T. Hellyer, Minister of Transport (Ottawa, Canada: Queens Printer, 1969), p. 17. 49 Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Maple Ridge Community  Plan, (New Westminster: Municipal Planning Service, 1967)? PP» 334. CHAPTER III GROWTH AND LOCATION OF MULTIPLE-FAMILY HOUSING INTRODUCTION This chapter attempts to outline three basic areas of concern relating to multiple-family housing. The first part of the chapter discusses briefly the different types of multiple-family housing being used today, and the differences between them. The second section sketches the history of the growth of multiple-family housing in Canada. The last section is concerned mainly with the, location of low .-density multiple-family housing in suburban areas. Attention will be focused primarily on the situation existing in the Metropolitan Vancouver area as data is readily available for this area. It is recognized that such an approach necessarily restricts the applicability of the research to other cities, but it is hoped that some of the basic principals presented in this section can be applied to other areas. Data for this chapter has been gathered from both primary and secondary sources. The data used in tracing the growth of apartments in Canada and Vancouver was obtained from Canadian Census figures. 42 Numerous secondary sources (See Bibliography) were used In collecting the Information presented in the rest of the chapter. The basic hypothesis of this chapter is that multiple-family housing has always played an important role in urban housing. As cities have grown in size and complexity, and as people's interests have become more diversified, the housing industry has provided a greater variety in the type and location of housing. APARTMENT TYPES Multiple-family housing can be broken down into three main types. The high-rise apartment building is the most common, and accounts for the largest proportion of multiple-family housing in Canada.1 The two and three story walk-up and the garden apartment have played a less significant role in terms of total housing stock, but in recent years have been growing in importance. The High-Rise Apartment High-rise apartments are multiple story buildings having anywhere from six to forty or more floors. Traditionally, this type of apartment building has been located in or next to the central business district. As a result, they are usually designed as high rental units because of 2 , the high land and construction costs. During the 1960's, apartment locational traditions broke down, and high-rises were not only built in the downtown area, but also around suburban shopping centers, and in PLATE I TYPES OP APARTMENTS I ML Picture 3-1: High-Rise Apartment Building Picture 3-2: Three Story Walk-Up Apartment Building Picture 3-4: Garden Apartments conjunction with large scale housing developments featuring both low-3 rise and high-rise buildings. In Metropolitan Vancouver, all high-rise apartment buildings are built of re-inforced concrete. In 1969* the average cost of construc tion for this type of building was $25.50 per square foot of floor area. In comparison, the cost per square foot for a low-rise wood frame apartment for the same year was only $14.50. Also in Vancouver, the cost of land for high-rise construction in 1969 was approximately $1,100. per square foot or about twice the eost of land for low--rise 5 apartments. These high costs are offset by the higher rental fees charged for high-rise apartments. In Vancouver, for example, rents range anywhere from $115* to over $500. per month depending on the number of bedrooms in the suite, the floor the suite is on, and whether or not there is 6 a pleasing view. The lowest rental fees are for bachelor suites, and the highest are for three bedroom suites and penthouse apartments. In Metropolitan Vancouver, the majority of all apartment units are bf the one bedroom type. In 1967, 62.3 per cent of all apartment suites con tained one bedroom; 18.1 per cent, two bedrooms; 16.4 per cent were 7 bachelor suites, and only 3.2 per cent were three bedroom suites.' The density of high-rise development ranges from 25 to35 units per acre for buildings up to eight stories in height, and from 40 to 8 85 units per acre for buildings over eight stories. These densities have left more open space around the buildings to allow for more light and air, and in general, the creation of a more esthetically pleasing atmosphere. Landscaping is encouraged in the open area, and some developments have used this space to build an outdoor swimming pool. The Low-Rise or Walk-Up Apartment This type of apartment generally consists of two or three floors, and is primarily of wood frame construction. The relatively low cost of construction ($l4.50/sq. foot) makes these apartments particularly desirable investments. Where the cost of construction'and the cost of land is only about two-thirds that of high-rise apartments, the rental fees for these apartments, are on an average only about 5 per cent less. The location of low-rise apartments has traditionally been in areas of old and obsolete single-family dwellings where large areas have been rezoned for medium-density development. This type of apart ment usually covers between 50 to 75 per cent of the site area,1*' and the densities are from 30 to 40 suites per acre.11 Also included In this category of low-rise apartments are town houses or row houses which are single-family attached units with party walls. Some of the main characteristics of the townhouse are that each unit usually has its own front entrance, and the recommended density of between 6 to 14 units per acre is much less than that of 12 the walk-ups. The density for townhouses is relatively low because the units are placed side by side, and are not stacked vertically on the second and third floors. To this extent, townhouses are more like garden apartments than two and three story walk-ups. *7 The Garden Apartment Garden apartments range anywhere from one to three stories in height, and usually feature larger dwelling units with two to three bedrooms. Garden apartments are similar to townhouses except instead of the units fronting on a street, they are grouped in clusters around an amenity or play area with lawns, trees, shrubs and children's play equipment. Garden apartments containing units sharing common walls horizon tally have recommended densities similar to townhouses. However, the three-story garden apartments that share common walls both horizontally and vertically have a recommended density of between 15 to 20 units per 13 acre. Such an arrangement reduces some of the advantages attributed to garden apartments, namely, private front doors, ready accessibility to the garden area for those living on upper floors, and less privacy resulting from higher densities. Because of their land extensive nature (regulations prohibit 14 their construction on sites of less than two acres ) (Appendix V -minimum site size), the most suitable location for garden apartments has been In the suburban areas where large blocks of vacant land are i still available, and where land costs are lower than those In the central city. In a recent study carried out by the Vancouver Planning Department, of the twenty-three low-density townhouse and garden apartment projects studied, four were located in "transitional" zones located between single-family dwelling areas and more Intensive use 15 areas, and nineteen were located in single-family residential areas. 48 Of all the apartment types, townhouses and garden apartments 16 are the most suitable for families with young children. Often these developments incorporate "windows and balconies overlooking the children's play areas so that mothers can watch children playing close 17 by". The large amount of open space around garden apartments, in particular, make them advantageous for family living. Some developments have also added a swimming pool which becomes the envy of every child living in the single-family homes. GROWTH OP MULTIPLE-FAMILY HOUSING IN CANADA Since 1921, multiple-family dwellings have been making up an ever increasing proportion of Canada's total dwelling units. (See Table I) Between the census years 1921 and 1931, the proportion of multiple-family units increased from 15 per eent to 23 per cent. This building boom occured at the end of World War I, and lasted until the depression struck in 1929. Between 1921 and 1925, an average of 35,000 dwelling units were built in Canada per year. This increased to over l8 45,000 units per year between the years 1926 and 1929. Of the total number of dwelling units in 1931, multiple-family units made up of 23 per cent and represented an 8 per cent increase in multiple-dwellings over the ten year period from 1921. Between the years 1931 and 1941, housing construction dropped to an average of only 25,000 units per year. Table 3-1 shows that more multiple-family dwellings were added to the housing stock during this period than single-family homes. Part of this TABLE 3-1 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE-PROPORTION MULTIPLE HOUSING CENSUS YEARS 1921-1966 (CANADA) Census Total Single Single Apartment Other Total Mult. Prop. Mult. Year Dwellings Detached Attached Family Dwellings 1921 1,764,012 1,497,305 222,172 35,095 9,840 257,267 15 P.O. 19311 2,227,000 1,683,023 171,925 342,659 29,393 514,584 23 p.c. 1941 2,573,155 1,817,646 196,874 534,912 23,723 731,786 28 p.c. 1951 3,409,295 2,275,615 237,655 885,565 10,460 1,123,220 33 p.c 1961 4,554,493 2,978,501 404,933 1,151,098 19,961 1,556,031 34 p.c. 1966 5,180,473 3,234,123 401,754 1,516,419 28,177 1,918,173 37 p.c SOURCE: Canada Census - years 1921 to 1966 1. New definitions of "apartment" and "semi-detached dwellings" resulted in a shift in totals of "apartment" and "single-attached" classifications. 50 increase can be accounted for by the fact that a number of single-19 family homes were particioned off to form two and more dwelling units. For the census period 1941 to 1951* the proportion of multiple-family housing increased another 5 per cent bringing the total number to 1,123,220 units. One of the reasons for this Increase was that during the war years large numbers of cheap multiple-family housing units were constructed to house the people moving to the cities. After the war, single-family housing became the prime focus of builders. Over the next ten year period, very little change occured in the proportion of multiple-family units as a result of the boom in suburban single-family home construction. Single detached dwellings outnumbered multiple-family dwellings by 270,075 units as 702,886 single-family homes were added to the housing stock compared to 432,811 mulisiple-family units. Single-family housing accounted for the largest number of housing starts up to the end of 1962. From 1963 on, housing starts for row housing and apartment units have been greater than those of single-family dwellings and duplexes. (See Table 3-2) During the five year period between 1961 and 1966, multiple-family units outnumbered single-family units by 106,520 units (See Table 3-1). Multiple-dwellings are an urban type of housing, so their propor tion to total city housing is much higher than when averaged"over the entire nation. Even though multiple-dwellings have been accounting for an ever increasing proportion of total dwellings in Canada, Table 3-3 shows that the proportion of single-detached and multiple-dwellings TABLE 3-2 DWELLING STARTS BY TYPE 1951-1965 IN CANADA In Centres of 5,000 population and over Year ; Single Family Dwelling & Duplex Row Housing & Apartment TOTAL % in Row Housing & Apartments 1951 38,817 8,557 47,374 18.06 1906 61,757 25,552 67,309 29.27 1961 56,695 36,046 92,741 38.87 1962 : 53,490 43,108 96,598 44.63 1962* 60,386 43,893 104,279 42.09 1963 ^ 59,217 61,733 120,950 51.04 1964 : 59,272 76,934 136,206 56.48 1965 57,960 80,819 188,779 58.24 * Note: 1962 et seq. based on 1961 Census area definitions SOURCE: Canadian Housing Statistics, C.M.H.C. TABLE 3-3 HOUSING BY TYPE, LOCATION AND PER CENT DISTRIBUTION CENSUS YEARS 194l TO 1966 Housing by Type 2 Percentage Distribution Location Total Single Detached Single Attached iApart ment Total Multiple Dwellings Single Detach ed Sin. Att. Apart ment Mult. Family Canada Urban 1966 Rural Non-Farms -Farm 5,180,473 3,944,559 1,239,014 811,776 427,238 3,234,123 2,105,669 1,128,454 715,330 : 413,124 401,754 348,915 52,839 43,832 9,007 1,516,419 1,474,757 41,662 38,316 3,346 1,918,173 1,823,672 94,501 82,148 12,353 62.4 53.4 91.1 88.1 96.7 7.7 8.8 4.3 5.4 2.1 29.2 37.4 3.4 4.7 .8 37.0 46.2 7.6 10.1 2.9 Canada Urban 1961 Rural Non-Farm Farm 4,554,493 3,280,468 1,274,025 824,472 449,553 2,978,501 1,832,468 1,146,033 . 718,474 427,559 404,933 331,699 73,234 : 57,654 15,580 1,151,098 1,108,654 42,444 36,8l8 5,626 1,556,031 1,440,353 115,678 94,472 21,206 65.4 55.9 90.0 87.O 95.1 $.9 10.1 5.7 7.0 3.5 25.3 33.8 3.3 4.5 1.3 34.2 43.9 9.0 11.5 4.8 Canada Urban 1951 Rural Non-Farm Farm 3,409,295 2,155,035 1,254,260 624,475 629,785 2,275,615 1,144,005 1,131,610 538,670 592,940 237,655 178,780 58,675 34,150 24,725 885,565 827,045 58,520 47,915 10,605 1,123,220 1,005,825 117,395 82,065 35,330 66.7 53.1 90.2 86.3 94.1 7.0 8.3 4.7 5.5 3.9 26.0 38.4 4.7 7.7 1.7 33.0 46.7 9.4 13.2 5.6 ro TABLE 3-3 (Contd) Canada 2,575,744 1,853,454 189,256 533,034 722,290 72.0 7.3 20.7 28.0 Urban 1,416,893 764,244 157,020 495,629 652,649 53.9 11.1 35.0 46.1 1941 Rural 1,158,851 1,089,210 32,236 37,405 69,641 94.0 2.8 3.2 6.G Non-Farm 455,069 405,749 20,818 28,502 49,320 89.2 4.5 6.3 10.8 Farm ; 703,782 683,461 11,418 8,903 20,321 97.1 1.6 1.3 2^9 SOURCE: 1941, 1951, 1961, 1966 Canada Census 1. Total muItiple-iWellings are arrived at by adding "Single Attached" and "Apartment" categories. 2. 100 per cent is not obtained by adding the "Single-Detached" and "Multiple-Family" categories as the category for "Mobile Homes" has been left out. 54 In urban areas has remained relatively constant over the 25 year period from 1941 to 1966. In 1966, multiple-dwellings accounted for 46*2 per cent and single-detached dwellings accounted for 53*4 per cent of all urban housing. However, even though these percentages have remained fairly constant for urban areas as a whole, the proportion of dwellings located In urban centers having a population of 5,000 and over has Increased from 55 per cent In 1941 to over 76 per cent In 1966. This data indicates that it Is the more populated urban areas that have experienced the largest amount of growth In both single and multiple-dwelling units. Table 3-4 sheds further light on the distribution of multiple-dwellings In Canada. As has already been mentioned, In 1961, multiple-dwellings accounted for 34.2 per cent of all housing In Canada. Upon examination of the individual provinces, Table 3-4 shows that Quebec Is the only province that exceeds the national average with 60.6 per cent of Its housing stock being in the form of multiple-dwelling units. The province with the next highest proportion is Ontario with 30.2 per cent. These two provinces are the most urbanized, and reflect this In the large proportions of multiple-dwellings. More Important is the fact that the national distribution has been skewed out of proportion by the large concentration of multiple-units In Quebec. If the proportions of multiple-dwellings for Canada were calculated, dis regarding Quebec, the national percentages would be more in line with TABLE 3-4 PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OP OCCUPIED DWELLINGS BY TYPE FOR CANADA AND THE PROVINCES 196l Locality Total : Single Det. , Single Att. Apart ment Total Multiple Units Canada 4,554,493; 65.4 8.9 : 25.3 34.2 Newfoundland 87,940 83.8 ; 10.1 5.9 16.0 Prince Edward Islam 23,9^2 81.1 8.9 : 9.4 18.3 Nova Scotia 175,340! 76.8 ; 8.2 14.4 22.6 New Brunswick 132,714 72.2 7.9 19.5 27.4 Quebec 1,191,368 39.3 11.6 49.0 50.6 Ontario 1,640,750 69.5 10.4 19.8 30.2 Manitoba 239,754 79.3 ; 4.7 15.5 20.2 Saskatchewan 245,424; 85.7 •: 4.3 ; 9.1 13.4 Alberta 349,809 77.8 5.2 15.7 20.9 British Columbia 459,532 80.0: 4.3 ; 14.9 19.2 SOURCE: Canada Census 1961 (General Review) the other provincial figures of about 25 per cent multiple-dwellings, and 75 per cent single-detached dwellings. To summerize, it can be concluded that over the past 45 years, multiple-dwelling units have been accounting for an increasing propor tion of total housing in Canada. Multiple-dwellings are found almost exclusively in urban centers, and as urbanization has increased, so have the number of multiple-dwellings. Up to 1966, the proportion of multiple-dwellings to single-detached dwellings has remained fairly constant in the urban centers, but indications are that by 1971, the proportion of multiple-dwellings will increase. Finally, due to the large number of multiple-dwellings in Quebec, the national average has been pushed out of proportion when compared to the percentages of multiple-dwellings in the other provinces. REASONS FOR APARTMENT GROWTH Data shows that Over the past forty-five years, the proportion of multiple-family housing to the total housing stock, has been in creasing steadily. The most dramatic period of multiple-family housing growth has oecured since 1963 as single family housing has been steadily losing ground to multiple-family housing. Wolfgang Illing in his book 20 Housing Demand to 1970 suggests three reasons for the apartment boom during this period. The first of these reasons is related to demographic factors; the second to the cost of housing and the third to people's changing tastes. 57 Changes in age structure and in household formation have been favorite explanations for the Increase In the number of apartments that have been built. During the 1930*s, birth rates were very low, but during World War II there was an upsurge which continued after the war. The boom In single-family housing In the 1950's was partly attributable to the large number of babies born In the 1920's who were coming Into their late twenties and thirties, the peak ages for buying 21 homes. At the same time, there was a dearth of young married couples and single people in their late teens and early twenties who comprise a large part of the apartment market, and are assumed to spend some years In an apartment until they can afford to buy their own house. Around the late 1950*s, World War II babies started to make their presence felt, and in the early 1960's, began to flood Into apartments. Between 1961 and 1966, there was a 22 per cent Increase In the 15 to 19 year age group, a 23.5 per cent Increase in the 20 to 24 year group, a 2.6 per cent Increase in the 25 to 29 year group, and a 2.4 per cent „ , 22 decrease of those in their 30*s. The elderly also favour apartment living, and they too, comprise a rapidly growing group. If age composition is an Important factor influencing trends In housing types, it is possible to go far in fore casting what will occur in the near future. As babies of the 1940*s continue to come Into the market, they will maintain a strong demand for apartments. Toward the end of the 1960's, they will begin to make their presence felt In the housing market; and in the 1970's will cause a very strong resurgence in the demand for houses. Unless the very recent fall in birth rates affects the numbers of late teenagers, we can expect a continued strong demand for apartments as both the young and the old grow in numbers. Population trends show that people are marrying younger, and thus are leaving the family home at an earlier age. The economic independence of women often inspires them to leave the family house hold even though unmarried, and Job mobility, in addition to moving families about the country, also takes single men and women to new 2 cities where they tend to live alone or with other unmarried persons. The number of households has also grown, as widows and widowers are finding it financially possible, due to increases in incomes and pensions, to live alone rather than with their children. Divorced and separated individuals can also manage to maintain a household rather than return to live with parents or other family members. All of this, newly found independence manifests itself in the increase in the number of non-family and single person households. Between 1951 and 1961, non-family households increased 36 per cent, and the number of single person households increased 40.5 per cent. During the next five year period to 1966, these numbers Increased another 24.6, and 29 24 per cent respectively. The seoond factor contributing to the apartment boom is the increased cost of housing. Table 3-5 shows the cost trends for new housing financed under the National Housing Association between the years 1959 and 1967. In 1961, the average income of borrowers was TABLE 3-5 INCOME-COST TRENDS FOR NEW HOUSING FINANCED UNDER NHAa Canada, 1959 - 1967 1959 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Average Dwelling Cost (Dollars) 14,516 14,380 14,474 14,815 15,229 15,826 16,531 17,945 19,442 Average Down Payment (Dollars) 3,094 3,033 2,475 2,421 2,634 2,700 2,999 3,544 4,312 Land Costb (Dollars) na 2,360 2,453 2,535 2,692 2,813 2,816 3,006 3,155 Average Monthly Debt Service0 (Dollars) 95.83 99.04 104.96 107.12 110.16 114.22 118.55 129.70 143.16 Average Income of Borrowers (Dollars) na na 5,933 6,095 6,244 6,427 6,696 7,360 8,143 Average Down Payment: Borrower Income na na .450 .397 .405 .420 .447 .480 j .530 Debt Service: Borrower Income -.201 .212 .217 .214 .214 .215 .214 .214 .216 SOURCE: CMHC, Canadian Housing Statistics, 1967. w a. includes single-detached, semi-detached and row housing for owner occupancy with each KO? unit financed by separate loan. b. land costs are average for metropolitan areas, regardless of servicing and method of financing e. includes principal, interest and taxes $5,933., but by 1967, Qad Increased to $8,143. This meant that a larger proportion of families In the lower middle and lower income brackets were unable to purchase a home. As Interest rates increased, the monthly payments on the debt service also Increased to the point where these families were priced out of the home ownership market. As a result, these people, who under more favourable conditions would purchase a home, are forced to remain In their rented accommodations for a longer period of time. This, In turn, Increases the demand for apartments because new householders who would normally fill the vacancies, are themselves unable to find suitable rental accommoda tions, but must take what they can find. One of the most Important problems facing the home buyer Is the large amount of capital required for a downpayment. Since 1964, the size of downpayments have Increased 44 per cent each year.2-* The average downpayment in 1964 was $2,700, but by 1967, the average had Increased to $4,312.2^ Although this Increase has not severely affected those purchasing a home for the second and third time, large downpayments have hampered young families In purchasing their first home. As a result, there has been an Increased demand for apartments with the amenities and services found in single-family homes, and which are suitable for families with small children. A third reason for the apartment growth, and much more difficult to quantify, are people's changing tastes In housing. There have been tendencies for people to move back to the cities from single-dwellings 60z in the suburbs, and not to move to single-dwellings at the same rate 27 as in the past. This may reflect, among other things, a certain disenchantment with life in the suburbs, and the availability of apart ment space in the urban centers. 28 According to Neutze more and more people are deciding that the choice between high land prices in the inner suburbs and lOng trips to work from the fringe, do not present alternatives that are as attractive as an apartment which is both convenient and inexpensive for the facilities provided. Other speculations are that the trend towards apartment living indicates city dwellers are coming to grips with city life rather than trying to compromise between urban and rural by living in the suburbs on their own pieces of land. "It is thought that young people now forming families are urban born and reared, and do not look back 29 nostalgically to a childhood in the country". This is merely hypothesis, and it is not known if people are consciously choosing apartment living because they prefer it or if the increase in apartment living is a result of having no other choice. Further research in this area is required. APARTMENTS IN THE SUBURBS For Metropolitan Vancouver, it is difficult to define the true extent to which apartments have been built in the suburbs as this area is made up of some thirteen major autonomous municipalities all claiming to have and to actively support individual town centers. They 62 have also acquired their share of industry, and local governments are geared towards the protection and encouragement of these activities within their boundaries. As a result, the pattern of development for each of these areas repeats itself. Each has a defined commercial core or strip which varies in size according to the size of the municipality, and surrounding It is an area zoned for varying densities of multiple-family dwellings. Extending out from these zones are single-family residential areas which in a number of cases, merge with the residential areas of neighbouring municipalities. In some cases, for example> Richmond and New Westminster, the 30 municipalities are actually older than the City of Vancouver. Over much of their history, they have grown as Individual towns. With the rapid growth of urbanization over the past three decades these towns have merged physically but not politically. There is a question as to whether or not these municipalities can be considered as Vancouver's suburbs or whether the single-family residential districts of each municipality are really the suburbs on a smaller scale. If the municipalities surrounding the City of Vancouver are to be considered the suburbs, then the growth of apartments in these areas would be large, as there is a considerable amount of apartment construction around the commercial centers. On the other hand, if the suburbs are taken to be the single-family residential areas of eaeh municipality, then the growth of suburban apartments would not be as great. Only a very small proportion of new apartment construction is 63 located in the single-family residential areas, but such construction as there is would indicate that some basic changes are taking place in the housing form and composition of suburban single-family residential areas. The latter concept of suburbs is one of major interest in this 31 study. Max Neutze, in his book, The Suburban Apartment Boom in which he examines apartment growth in Montgomery County, Maryland, suggests five reasons why apartment development has been attracted to the sub urban residential areas. The first of these reasons is what he calls the "migrations to the suburbs". To him the reasons that made, first, the single-family homeowner, then the shopping center developer, 'the manufacturer, and more recently, the office occupants migrate to the suburbs, have also induced the apartment dweller to leave the central city. He suggests that each migration re-inforces the others, and that people living in the apartments may be attracted to the suburban areas because they work there, their families or friends may reside there, or they may think that shopping in the suburbs is as good as and much more convenient than downtown. This theory of suburban growth would hold true, much more so, for the newer residential municipalities such as the District of North Vancouver and Richmond than it would for the older, more built up communities of New Westminster and Bumaby. As has already been mentioned, the older municipalities have developed their own manufacturing 64 and commerce base separate from that of the city of Vancouver, whereas, the newer residential municipalities are in the process of developing a broader tax base other than single-family housing. A second reason for suburban apartment development is related to local government zoning policies, and the presence of land speculation. Neutze suggests that land already zoned for apartments is relatively unattractive because the owners put a premium on their selling price, but that land zoned for single-family housing can be bought much" more cheaply even if the purchase is conditional upon rezoning being granted. It was observed in Montgomery County that a3 long as the area could be construed in some sense suitable for apartments, there was a good chance of rezoning being granted. Undoubtedly, this is the case In most of Metropolitan Vancouver's Municipalities. Developers and homeowners alike wanting to reap the capital gains by having property zoned to a higher use is a regular occurence. Rezonlngs for apartments in some of the city of Vancouver's single-family residential areas has met with strong opposition from homeowners, and has led to the city's issuance of an official policy to limit this type of development to certain pre-determining residential 32 areas. North Vancouver City in 1969 received 11 applications for re-zonings to a higher density in single-family residential areas. Of these one was accepted. In such cases, it was possible for the owner of a 70' x 100' lot to increase its market value from about $10,000. to 65 about $49,000. for a capital gain of $39,000. This does not include the increased value of the land as a result of construction of the apartment building. Suburban municipalities such as North Vancouver District and Surrey are especially prone to rezoning to accommodate apartments as 33 they are interested in increasing their tax base. More important, they havelarge areas of vacant land which can be purchased cheaply. This land is ideally suited for the construction of low-density garden apartments and town houses if rezoning from single-family residential or agricultural use can be secured. Other areas such as Richmond and Bumaby, have fairly restrictive zoning by-laws regarding the location of multiple-family housing, and no rezoning applications are granted outside these areas. Large areas in these municipalities, however, have been zoned for multiple-family housing thus giving the developer a wide range of location choices 34 within the constraints of the zoning by-law. A third reason for suburban apartment development is that apart ments are built close to centers of employment. Neutze found that approximately 40 per cent of the employed persons who lived in Montgomery County also worked there and were engaged in such activities as 35 retailing, office work, wholesaling and light manufacturing. This same trend is difficult to document in Metropolitan Vancouver as data for each municipality showing where people both live and work is not readily available. The 1961 Canada Census only gives a breakdown 66 as to city and occupation, and not locality of Job. Other agencies, such as Canada Manpower, are also unable to supply this data. It Is logical to assume, however, that the more developed a municipality is, the more Job opportunities available, and therefore there is a greater likelihood of people living and working In the same area. Apartments are not a result of people living and working In the same municipality as Neutze Infers, but It does follow that if the concentration of employment Is great, then the housing and land market begins to operate. Land next to the employment centers becomes a scarce commodity and Increases in value, and higher density housing results. A fourth reason for suburban apartment development as suggested by Neutze Is that freeways have made areas remote from the central business district easily accessible to it in terms of travel time. He states that: "the traditional picture of apartment dwellers as having few cars and being within walking distance of employment and shops, or close to public transport, has become obsolete... Developers have been catering to families who are as mobile as the homeowner. In fact, they may be much more mobile, since they are not tied to their home by the need to look after house and grounds, and are less likely to be tied to children... These people are inter ested in being able to get quickly to many parts of the city... and are more attracted by access to the freeway than by closeness to shops. They also need parking space, and this can be provided more cheaply where land prices are lower To a limited degree, the above explanation can be applied to the Metropolitan Vancouver situation. Metropolitan Vancouver is noted for the fact that It does not have an urban freeway system. Freeway construction has been confined to about thirty miles of four lane 67 highway consisting of two parts - one running East and West, and the other running South. The freeway characteristics of these highways end at the City of Vancouver boundaries where traffic is fed into local and major arterial streets. Under such circumstances, it can be concluded that freeways have not been a major stimulus in attracting apartments to the suburban municipalities as access to the central business district has not been improved appreciably. On the other hand, Neutze's statement that "developers are catering to families who are as mobile as the houseowner", has validity. Por example, in North Vancouver District an area presently being developed as a medium-density residential area (30 to 40 units per acre) is serviced by public transit only four times daily, twice in the morning and twice in the evening. Added to the lack of adequate public transit, the nearest school is one and a half miles away and it is three miles 37 to the nearest shopping facilities.*" This same situation repeats itself in many of the other municipalities, and supports the argument that suburban apartment dwellers are Just as mobile if not more so than homeowners. Transportation by automobile has been forced upon the* suburban dweller as it is the only reliable and adequate means of travel available to them. The fifth reason relates to the willingness of local governments to extend water and sewer services to proposed apartments in suburban residential areas. In Montgomery County, Neutze found that the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission was more than willing to extend these services to new developments, and in so doing, frequently charged much less than full cost of the service extensions. He also found that once the services were in, it was politically impossible for the local officials to refuse other rezonings for a higher-density use. It is easy to see how such a policy could lead to many adverse affects. In Metropolitan Vancouver, although it is possible for municipal councils to give certain developers preferential treatment, the general procedure is that the developer pays, usually In advance, for any upgrading or extension of public services required by his 38 ' r • project. Also, since 1969, the extension of existing sewer lines has been restricted while new sewerage treatment facilities are being constructed. On the whole, these five explanations of suburban apartment development are somewhat Inadequate to explain why apartments are being built in Vancouver's suburban municipalities. Of the five, only three have any real relevance to the situation existing In Metropolitan Vancouver. These are: migrations to the suburbs, high mobility and reliance on the automobile for transportation of the dweller, and local zoning policies. These reasons do not present a complete picture, as the cost of housing, the cost of land and the availability of land are left out. These aspects of the housing market have been discussed in the section entitled "Reasons for the Apartment Boom", and It would seem that in the case of Metropolitan Vancouver, they are also major reasons for the Increase in the number of apartments in the suburbs. These factors added to the reasons given above give a more complete .69 appraisal of why apartment development has been attracted to the suburban residential areas. APARTMENT LOCATION POLICIES FOR METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER The purpose of this section is to examine policies of apartment location in Metropolitan Vancouver. Chapter V will discuss in greater length the location of multiple-family dwelling in two specific munici palities. Apartment location policy has been spelled out for a number of municipalities in the community studies made by the now defunct, Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Municipal Apartment Location Policy One of the main accomplishments of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was the formulation of an official Regional Plan for British Columbia's Lower Eraser Valley. An integral part of this plan was the "Regional Town" concept which envisioned clusters of urban development, surrounded by agricultural lands, and located at strategic points throughout the valley. Instead of having a continuous mass of urban development, the plan emphasized the growth and support of already existing population centers by encouraging centralization and concentration of land uses. Each regional town has a hierarchy of commercial centers ranked according to the size of their trade area, and retail floor space. The largest is the ^own Center" which serves a large metropolitan area (several town centers in Lower Mainland), and has at least 500,000 70 square feet of retail floor space. The next largest is the "Sub-Center" which serves a smaller area, and has at least 250,000 square feet of retail floor space. The "Neighbourhood Center" serves an even smaller trade area, and has less than 250,000 square feet of retail floor space. The smallest is the "Local Store" which serves a small localized area.39 The general housing policy pursued by the regional plan is to "minimize the conflict between housing types, to respect the character of sound single-family residential areas, and to locate higher density apartment housing In relation to topography, shopping facilities, park tf 4o areas and schools". The apartment location policy is carried even further by the following statement: Key to the success of the commercial centers proposed... will be the building of a local residential trade area through apartment development immediately adjacent to the commercial areas... Studies for urban centers elsewhere in the Lower Mainland indicate that the most important criteria for apartment location was proximity to shopping facilities. Clearly, the single-family house dweller Is content to travel distances to commercial facilities, largely in trade for privacy and an exclusive residential neighbourhood. On the other hand... the apartment resi dent seeks facilities close at hand in exchange for a loss in privacy and amenity. This statement of policy is in direct disagreement with Neutze's statement that apartment dwellers are just as mobile as home owners, and that they are not as dependent on public transit and shopping 42 facilities close at hand as It was once thought. Neutze states that if left to market forces, apartments would become dispersed throughout North Vancouver District APARTMENT LOCATION POLICY LEGEND Community and Retail Centers Apartment Areas FIGURE 3-1 73 policy goes further by suggesting that apartments should also be located next to traffic corridors, community centers, parks and schools, and in areas of difficult terrain. While North Vancouver supports the policy of locating apartments next to commercial centers, its ability to actively pursue this policy is severely limited by the fact that there is no commercial focus for the District. All of the major commercial centers are located to the South in the City of North Vancouver and to the West In West Vancouver. As a result, the few apartments that have been built in North Vancouver to date, have been located in areas of difficult terrain, next to traffic corridors, and to a limited extent, next to small neighbourhood shopping facilities. Figure 3-2 shows the distribution of apartments and surrounding land-use. North Vancouver is primarily a single-family residential area, and for this reason, it Is difficult to reserve suitable apartment loca tions separate from existing single-detached dwellings. While the policy is to locate apartments away from single-family homes, because of pressures from developers and the problems arising from having no town center or central focus In the community, some apartments have been allowed to locate In areas of single-family homes. Surrey's apartment location policy is also In agreement with the town center concept. However, Surrey differs from North Vancouver in that within the Municipality of Surrey, there are at least five major commercial centers. To facilitate the location of apartments, Surrey's FIGURE 3-2 LOCATION OF MIXED HOUSING IN NORTH VANCOUVER DISTRICT 74-75 policy envisions one major town center surrounded by smaller village centers. This policy is illustrated diagramatically in Figure 3-3. Their policy is to locate apartments around the major town center. The village commercial center would provide shopping facilities to the single-family residential areas surrounding it. Apartments generally would not be located around the village center. While this policy makes up part of Surrey's Community Flan that was adopted in 1964, the evidence from apartment construction informa tion over the past six years, indicates that this policy has not been rigidly adhered to. Figure 3-4 shows that apartments in Surrey have not been located in areas that compliment any one commercial center. This map indicates the location of only those apartments completed in Surrey over the past two years. It shows the wide range of locations where apartments are being built as a result of the unwillingness of local government to follow a definite policy with regards to apartment location. As a result, numerous oases of mixed housing have oecured in Surrey. SUMMARY This chapter^ has provided background information and statistics on the growth and location of apartments. Over the past decade, apartments have accounted for more than half of all of the new housing units constructed. The reasons for this growth have been attributed to the favorable financial circumstances surrounding apartment development, 76 DISTRICT OF S U RREY APARTMENT LOCATION POLICY Single-Det ached Housing FIGURE 3-3 j is 4 %r^&24 crt«c»f»llb»ochjy (/ i /TVs btll park • HORTH • gLU FF RP BROWN BO 1 rtdwOOd ijSn pork LOCATION OF MIXED HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OF SURREY LEGEND APARTMENTS SINGLE-DETACHED HOUSING o FIGURE 3-4 SURVEY AREA ® 78 and also a large untapped market of potential apartment dwellers in the form of young single persons, and elderly retired persons. While the traditional location for apartments has been next to the central city core, the last deeade has witnessed the development of the suburban apartment. Some authors suggest that the movement of apartments to the suburban areas has been a result of the general migration of people and activities to these areas. In Metropolitan Vancouver, the construction of apartments in the suburban municipalities has resulted primarily from a ready market for apartment units, lower cost of land and proximity to places of employment. The study of apartment location policies and practices in Metropolitan Vancouver showed a discrepancy between these two concepts. The apartment location policies recognized the need to locate multiple-dwellings next to the town and neighbourhood commercial centers. In practice, new apartments were not always located in areas that would compliment the commercial centers. Policies defined the^commercial areas that were to be encouraged to become the town and neighbourhood centers. Developers and council members, to a certain extent, inter preted this to mean any place where one or two stores were located. The result was spot zoning being approved for the construction of apart ments in single-family residential areas with no real support being given the proposed centers. 79 FOOTNOTES ^Wolfgang M. Illing, Housing Demand, to 1970, (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1964), p. 45. o The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver, Apartment  Study, (Planning Department, May, 1968). -^Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, Real Estate Trends In  Metropolitan Vancouver, (1968), p. B-7. 4 Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, Real Estate Trends - 1969  Supplement, p. 20. 5lbld, p. 18. ^Ibid, p. 16. ^Real Estate Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver, (1968), op. cit. Q Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Site Planning Handbook, (1966), p. 107. %teal Estate Trends - 1969 Supplement, p. 17. 10Technical Planning Board, Policy Report: Low Density Multiple  Housing, (Vancouver, April 1969), Appendix IV. ^Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Maple Ridge Community  Plan, (New Westminster: Municipal Planning Service, 1967), p. 37. •^Site ^Ibid. 19 Site Planning Handbook, op. cit, ^Policy Report: Low Density Multiple Housing, op. cit., Appendix V. ^Ibld, Appendix I, p. 5. •-•^Apartment Study, op. cit., p. 16. 17 Site Planning Handbook, op. cit., p. 132. 18 „ Leonard C. Marsh, "Industrialization and Urbanization in Canada and Their Implications for Housing", Planning Canadian Towns and Cities, (Lecture No. 3 of a series given at the University of Toronto, 1943-1944), p. 10. i 19ibia, p. 11. 20 Illing, op. cit. John P. Dean, Home Ownership; Is It Sound? (New York: Harper Brothers, 1945), p. 147. Discussion of family housing cycle. 22Illing, op. cit. 23poote, and others, Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), p. 72. 24 Canada Census, Housing Type and Tenure, 1951, 1961, 1966. 25 ^Seminar in Governmental Urban Land Policies, Vancouver Housing  Market 1966-1968, (University of British Columbia, May, 1968), p. 12. 26Ibld. 27 Illing, op. cit., p. 20. 2®Max Neutze, The Suburban Apartment Boom, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkings Press, 1968). 29lbid, P. 34. ^Richmond was incorporated in 1879; New Westminster was incorpor ated in i860; the City of Vancouver was incorporated in 1886. -^Neutze, op. cit. 32Pollcy Report: Low Density Multiple Housing, op. cit.' *^In the District of North Vancouver in 1968, there were 34 applications for rezoning of which 18 were approved. Por the same period in Surrey, there were 145 rezoning applications.of which 35 were approved, 74 were held over, 15 were filed and 21 were not approved. -^Refer to the Community Plans for the Municipalities of Richmond and Burnaby. ^Neutze, op. cit., p. 53. 36Ibld, p. 52. 37 Information gathered from personal survey—See Chapter V of this study. -^British Columbia, Municipal Act, (1968), sec. 711 (e). 39 Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Port Moody City Study, (Municipal Planning Service, September, 1966), p. 12. ^Ibid, p. 36. 41 Ibid, p. 21. 42 Neutze, op. cit., p. 52. ^Corporation of the District of North Vancouver, Apartment Study, (Planning Department, May, 1968). 44 Corporation of the District of Surrey, Prefaoe to a Community  Plan, (Planning Division, November, 1964). CHAPTER IV A RESIDENTIAL HOUSING MIX INTRODUCTION One of the results of the increased pressures of greater urbaniza tion is a trend towards more efficient utilization of residential land. Single-family residential areas have been affected the most since developers, In an effort to maximize their profits, favour higher density developments. In Metropolitan Vancouver, as well as In most other urban areas, these pressures have resulted In multiple-dwellings being built In single-family residential areas. A residential housing mix implies two things. The first is a mixture of different architectural styles and housing types. The second is a mixture of different social groups and classes. Very little has been written specifically on these topics, and so the number of secondary sources are limited and sketchy. The main sources used for the analysis of a mixture of housing types are two booklets published by the Canadian Housing Design Council. Herbert J. Gan's People and Plans forms the basis for the discussion of a social mix. To conclude, four apartment 83 cost-revenue studies are reviewed In an effort to evaluate some of the financial implications of a residential housing mix, A MIXTURE OP HOUSING TYPES For a number of years, architects, planners and other persons Interested in the struoture of cities have advocated a mixture of housing types,1 This reaction is mainly in response to what has been 2 referred to as the over homogenization and sterility Of the suburbs. To MaeLenuan, single-family houses in the suburbs are "drably similar or desperately different, and offer no true variety, change of scale, or visual surprise", and result In "a lack of urbanity, a restless expression of an Inherently dull, unrelieved and monotonous concept, „ 3 or lack of concept of community . Other authors have referred to the single-family residential areas of the suburbs as ''the wasteland of our modern society, 'strawberry boxes piled neatly row after row; and as sterile, single-class communities.,• , Their arguments are usually accompanied by an aerial photograph similar to picture 4-1 showing street patterns, and what would appear to be endless rowsAof single-family homes. Such an approach is misleading. What appears to be a monotonous pattern of identical "boxes" from the air, can be a very desirable place to live when brought down to the scale of the individual house on the block. (See picture 4-2) With time all things change, especially residential areas, and as trees and shrubs grow around homes, the character of the home and area improves, (See picture 4-3) PLATE II VIEWING THE SUBURBS PROM A NEW PERSPECTIVE Picture 4-1: From the air a monotonous pattern of identical "boxes Picture 4-2: On the scale of the individual house -more attractive Picture 4-3: With time comes character. 85 Diversity cannot be judged through the eyes of the casual observer. Society is not only a landscape, and it cannot be judged on aesthetic grounds alone. Social change must also be evaluated from the point of view of people - especially those people whose lives and aspirations are the raw material of social change. All single-family residential areas are not the same in regards to the cost of the homes, the social and ethnic structure of the inhabitants, nor the geographical or physical layout of the land. Before a residential mix is advocated for any area, these and numerous other factors must be taken Into account In determining the Immediate and long range affect of different housing types on the area. Apart from the philosophy that a residential mix provides aesthetic variety, the use of a mixture of housing types in reducing suburban 5 sprawl is gaining support. The feeling is that side yards, lanes and wide residential streets use an excessive amount of scarce, high-cost urban land. With the use of such housing types as row-houses, a more efficient use of land can be achieved by eliminating side yards and having smaller front and rear yards. When properly laid out, they can provide plenty of open space, privacy and adequate off-street parking.** EXAMPLES OF HOUSING- MIXES Vancouver City Very few cities actively support policies In favour of residential housing mixes although mixing does occur in communities through "Spot 86 zoning". To date, Vancouver City is the only community in the Metrop-7 olitan area to officially adopt a policy in support of a housing mix. The policy is limited in nature as it restriots the areas of mixed housing to several pre-determined, older single-family housing districts. The policy is also restrictive in that minimum parcel sizes, densities and types of units are closely regulated. Since this policy has only recently been adopted, no development has oceured as a result of It. Lethbrldge, Alberta A more extreme example of an unrestricted residential housing mix is found in Lethbrldge, Alberta. In 1964, S.J. Clarke, then the Director of the Oldman River Regional Planning Commission, set forth a comprehensive policy for a mixture of residential housing types which is as follows: Although it is difficult to ensure a balanced residential development, a positive attitude towards changes in legislation, building controls, and sale agreements on city land Is being pursued by the commission in order to obtain as much of a mixture of housing types as possible. There Is no thought of restrictive residential zoning being  used.8 Since that time this policy has been Implemented in part by the construction of multiple-dwellings side by side with new single-family residences. Pictures 4-4 to 4-9 give some Indication as to the type, size and setting of the apartments. Some of the apartments are smaller, and do not clash with the character of the single-family homes, while others are larger and overshadow the smaller single-family residences. PLATE III PHOTO STUDY OP MIXED HOUSING IN LETHBRIDGE Picture 4-4 Picture 4-5 Pictures 4-4 and 4-5: Some of the apartments are small and do not disrupt the character of the single-family residential area. 3 Pictures 4-6 and 4-7: Other apartments are larger and overshadow the smaller single-family homes. PHOTO STUDY OP MIXED HOUSING IN LETHBRIDGE CONT'D Picture 4-8: No back yard to Picture 4-9: As seen from the backyard play in here. of a single-family home -a little overbearing. 90 In lethbrldge, mixed housing areas are ereated with the use of 9 "special consideration zones". These zones usually cover a whole ; subdivision. This means that every development scheme must be approved by the planning department and City Council. While this procedure enables council to implement its mixed housing policy, recent opposition from homeowners in these areas Indicates that people not only prefer, 10 but demand a more permanent restrictive zoning policy. Surrey Study Area Apartment development in Surrey is scattered throughout single-family residential areas (See figure 3-4) even though the policy is to have them situated next to commercial centers. (See Chapter III — Apartment Location Policy in Surrey) Although policies are different, apartment location in Surrey is similar to what has occured in Lethbridge, primarily as a result of spot zoning. Picture 4-10 shows an 8 unit apartment building on a 50 foot lot adjacent to single-family homes. Such cases indicate that very little control has existed over such developments. Picture 4-11 shows a three story walk-up next to single-family homes. Its height and architectural style are not in harmony with the surrounding buildings. In general, there is a great diversity in the age, size and architectural styles of both the single-family homes and apartments in Surrey. PLATE IV PHOTO STUDY CP MIXED HOUSING IN SURREY Picture 4-10: An 8 unit apartment Picture 4-11: Three story walk-up building located on in single-family a 30 foot lot next residential area, to single-detached housing. H North Vancouver Study Area Apartment developments in North Vancouver tend to be much larger than those in Surrey. Their design and siting show that more control has been exercised in North Vancouver than In Surrey. The developments In North Vancouver have been primarily garden apartments and town houses. Two types of a housing mix were studied in particular. The Queen's Road Apartments (See figure 4-1) are located In an older residential area where the single-family homes are anywhere from five to forty years old. (See pictures 4-12 and 4-13) The multiple-units are two story structures. Evergreens surround the units, and a small stream runs through the center of the development, thus adding to Its character and atmosphere. (See pictures 4-14 and 4-15) The second type of housing mix studied in North Vancouver was in connection with the Blueridge Apartments (See figure 4-2). These apartments were built in an area of new single-family homes. (See picture 4-l6) These are three story units built on the same principal as three story walk-ups. (See pictures 4-17 and 4-l8) None of these units have private front and rear doors leading to the outside. Even though these units have been constructed on a hillside, people living on the third floor are able to see Into the single-family homes. Picture 4-19 shows that some high, sturdy fences have been built to separate the single-family homes from the apartments. r 9 3 Pic . + s s • 1 0 0 0 o o o o 0 o o 0 LU > < QUEENS Apart ments v~r t ROAD EAST Pic. 4—15" s s 3 3 ° o o o o o 29 th STREET EAST QUEEN'S ROAD SURVEY AREA FIGURE 4-1 Picture-Number Guide 1 LEGEND One House, N Service Station o s s SCALE In Inches 1 to 400 PLATE V PHOTO STUDY OF QUEEN'S ROAD SURVEY AREA Picture 4-12: The majority of the homes are older -Picture 4-13: But there are also new homes in the area. PHOTO STUDY OF THE QUEEN'S ROAD AREA CONT'D Picture 4-14 Picture 4-15 Pictures 4-14 and 4-15: Evergreens surround the units, and a small stream runs through the center of the development. 96 < O DC O o o o o Vacant Pic+-i6 v_ BENDALE ROAD Vacant O o o > UJ cc UJ CQ and Apart ments BERKLEY ROAD SURVEY AREA Picture-Number Guide FIGURE 4^2X 1 LEGEND One House N Service Station SS o SCALE In Inches 1 to 400 PLATE VI PHOTO STUDY OP BERKLEY ROAD SURVEY AREA PHOTO STUDY OP BERKLEY ROAD SURVEY AREA CONT'D Picture 4-18: No private front or Picture 4-19: Sturdy fences separ rear doors leading ate single-family to the outside* homes from the apartments. 99 In general, the apartments in North Vancouver are aesthetically more compatible with single-family homes than are the apartments in Surrey. There are three reasons for this: (1) Greater control of design and siting has been exercised in North Vancouver than in Surrey. (2) North Vancouver's hilly terrain has been used to advantage to terrace the apartments so that the single-family homes have not been overshadowed. (3) The use of landscaping and natural foliage in North Vancouver has helped to beautify the appearance of apart ment developments, and to a limited degree, hide them. THE BALANCED COMMUNITY Those advocating a mixture of housing types also insist on the need for a social mix. They believe that people of all classes, ethnic groups, and races should live together in what they call a „ 11 "balanced community". The means by which this balance is to be achieved is through mixed housing as different types of housing attract different kinds of people. Por example, the demand for apartments is determined by the rent level at which they are available, income levels, individual tastes, family formation and composition and the 12 price of alternative types of housing. Taking these factors into consideration, and to use the case of a high rent, high-rise apartment in a suburban area, it is quite likely that the kind of people attracted 100 to it would be the elderly, the childless, the highly mobile and the 13 well-to-do. Essentially, a mixture of housing types does in reality produce a social mixture or heterogeneity of the people. HETEROGENEITY VS HOMOGENEITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Advocates of the balanced community concept suggest four ends to be achieved through population heterogeneity. These are outlined by Gans in his book People and Plans as follows: 1. Heterogeneity adds variety as well as demographic "balance" to an area, and thus enriches the inhabitants lives. Con versely, homogeneity is said to stultify as well as to deprive people of important social resources, such as the wisdom of the older generation in the suburbs. 2. Heterogeneity promotes tolerance of social and cultural differences, thus reducing political conflict and encouraging democratic practices. Homogeneity increases the isolation between area residents and the rest of society. 3. Heterogeneity provides a broadening educational influence on children by teaching them about the existence of diverse types of people, and by creating the opportunity for them to learn to get along with these people. Homogeneity is thought , to limit children's knowledge of diverse classes, ages and races, and to make them less capable of association with others in later years. 4. Heterogeneity encourages exposure to alternative ways of lifej for example, by providing intellectually inclined neighbours for the child from a bookless household, or by offering the mobile working-class family an opportunity to learn middle-class ways. Homogeneity freezes people in 14 present ways of life. There are two underlying assumptions connected with these ends to be achieved through heterogeneity. The first assumption is that the suburbs are overly homogeneous, and therefore need more diversity. The second assumption is that if diverse people live together, they will Inevitably become good neighbours or even friends, and, as a result, learn to respect each other's differences. Data on these subjects indicates that these assumptions are not correct. Suburban Heterogeneity Gans repudiates the first assumption by stating that the suburbs are not all alike. Even though the suburbs are "statistically" more homogeneous than cities as a whole, suburbanites differ as to age, income, occupation, educational level, ethnlo and religious background, regional origin and temperment. In his study of Levittown, New Jersey, Gans found that the residents were similar enough in age, and, to a lesser extent, Income, to enable them to become friendly with their neighbours who had different occupations, religions and ethnic back grounds. He concluded that homogeneity of age and income provides the cultural and social prerequisites which allow people to enjoy their neighbour's heterogeneity. Many authors have written on "the suburban way of life" as though life in these areas is the same no matter where they are 16 found. There is really no suburban way of life, Just as there is no urban way of life. Rather, there are ways of life that are best distinguished by class, and to a lesser extent, by age, and these are 17 found in all settlement types. 1 There are a number of different kinds of suburbs, and these can be broken down as to class. For example, there are the working-class suburbs, the lower-middle class suburbs, the upper-middle class suburbs, and so on. Each of these class based suburbs had some distinguishing characteristics which separate them from one another. Berger found in one working-class suburb that house upkeep was usually poor; that the people had little or no inclination to Join organizations and to attend churches, and whereever possible social life was taken up largely with family and relatives. He also found that the schools were of poorer quality than those found in the middle class suburbs, and that taverns and road 18 houses usually sprung up in the environs of working-class suburbs. In comparison, Gans found in the lower-middle class suburbs that the people were strongly home oriented, and their major interests were connected to the care of the home and children. Their social life was 1G3 focused on friends and neighbours rather than on relatives. They were also characterized by a much higher membership in churches and voluntary organizations. These observations led Gans to conclude that the lower-middle class culture was ideally suited to suburbia because the nuclear 19 family was so important. ^ Gans also found different characteristics existing in the upper-middle class suburbs. Here there was a more extensive and intensive participation in community activities, and fewer ties to relatives. There were more shared activities, as well as partying with friends. Greater demands were placed on the children to do well in school, and 20 there was more interest in culture, and civic affairs. The evidence indicates that the suburbs are more heterogeneous than the mass media and some authors would have us believe. Suburbs possess different and distinctive class characteristics which make it impossible to speak in general terms of the "suburban way of life". It is these class characteristics which produce diversity and heter ogeneity between suburbs. Even though one suburb may be fairly homo geneous statistically with all other suburbs, its class status makes it different. Theories of Neighbourhood Interaction The second assumption that diverse people living together will inevitably become good neighbours and learn to respect each other's differences, has also been challenged. There are two basic theories 104 of neighbourhood interaction. One stresses the importance of 21 propinquity and the other, the importance of similar backgrounds. Propinquity means "nearness". The proponents of a social mix base their argument upon the belief that friendships and neighbourhood Inter action is mainly a result of people living in elose proximity to one another. Propinquity - Initially, propinquity leads to visual contact between neighbours, and is likely to produce face-to-face social contact. This is true if the distance between neighbours is small enough to encourage one or the other to transform the visual contact into a social one. Thus physical distance between neighbours is important. So is the relationship of the dwellings, especially the front and rear doors and the walks and driveways. In this regard, the authors of one study have suggested: The architect who builds a house or designs a site plan, who decides where the roads will and will not go, and who decides whleh directions the houses will face and how close together they will be, also is to a large extent, deciding the pattern of social life among the people who will live in those houses.22 The opportunity for visual and social contact is greater at high densities, but only if neighbours are adjacent horizontally. In apartment buildings those who share common halls are likely to meet while those who live on different floors are less likely to do so. Consequently, propinquity operates most efficiently in single-family and row-house areas. Gens found that friendship formation resulting from propinquity 23 was highest among women and children. Women generally find their female friends nearby, especially if they are mothers and are restrict ed in their movements. Young mothers must be able to find compatible people within a relatively small radius or else they become unhappy, isolated housewives. Children choose playmates on a purely propinqultous basis. Thus, positive relations among neighbours with children of similar age are best maintained if the neighbours are comparatively homogeneous with respect to child-rearing methods. This is why parents who want their children to associate with playmates of similar status and cultural background move to areas where such playmates are close at hand. This is consistant with the findings of studies done in Milwaukee and 2k Philadelphia. In these studies, the foremost motive for moving to the suburbs was the belief that suburban living was beneficial for children. For example, the study in Philadelphia concluded that 80 per cent of those interviewed had moved to give their children better educational and recreational advantages, thus implying social advantages too. The major shortcoming of propinquity as a theory of neighbourhood interaction is that it cannot determine the intensity of the relation ship, this being a function of the characteristics of the people in volved. If neighbours have similar backgrounds and feel themselves to be compatible, there is some likelihood that the relationship will be more intensive, than an exchange of greetings. If neighbours do not have similar backgrounds or feel themselves to be incompatible, the relationship is not likely to be intensive, regardless of the degree of propinquity. Propinquity, may thus be the initial cause of an intensive positive relationship, but it cannot be the final cause. Similarity of Backgrounds - With regards to the second theory of neighbourhood interaction—similarity of backgrounds—little is known about what background characteristics must be shared before people feel themselves to be compatible with others. Sociologists generally agree that behavior patterns, values and interests are important characteristics, but these represent more what people think and do. Gans suggests that the more important characteristics in understanding the pattern of social relationships are life-cycle stage (age of adults, marital status and age of children) and social class. Education is also important because it affects occupational choice, child rearing patterns, leisure time preferences and taste 25 level. It is known when different combinations of these character istics are shared by several Individuals, for example, income and occupation, there is a greater likelihood of friendships resulting than if the individuals had none of these characteristics in common. In a study of housing and social class in England, Chapman found that over two-thirds of the people interviewed preferred to live on single-class streets.2** Informants usually considered themselves of a higher class than those on the street", and they chose to live with the class they rightly belonged with. He also found that there was a 107 tendency towards class segregation in urban areas by voluntary movement and by the restriction of social relationships. There was a general movement from areas of low status to areas of higher status, and a process of residential segregation of status groups. Rossi found similar trends in his study in Philadelphia.2^ His conclusions were: 1. The more mobile the area, the greater the difference per ceived by its residents between themselves and their neighbours. 2. The more mobile the area, the more unfriendly the neighbour hood was perceived to' be. 3. The higher the status of a person, the more likely he is to enter into personal ties with others. The higher the persons status, the greater tendency for them to perceive their neighbours as belonging to the same class. Furthermore, satisfied consumers (mainly homeowners) tended to view neighbourhoods as homogeneous even when they were fairly divers. Conversely, dissatisfied consumers (mainly renters) were more conscious 28 of diversity and saw differences that didn't really matter. 29 Foote substantiates the fact that people living In the so called homogeneous suburbs, are "surprisingly content with their neighbourhoods". He found that among homeowners satisfied with their location, about three-fourths of all homeowners, the chief reason for satisfaction was the social characteristics of the neighbours. Among 108 consumers dissatisfied with their neighbourhood location, the basic cause was again the social characteristics of their neighbours. Good or desirable neighbours were characterized as friendly, kind or neighbourly. Undesirable neighbours were characterized as belonging to a low or uneducated class, as being noisy or as having undesirable (i.e. different racial, ethnic or religious) characteristics. Rosow and Gans both found that when neighbours were perceived to be "different" or of another class, social isolation resulted. Rosow in his study of age integration found that inter-generational conflicts developed, and the younger age groups tended to have little under standing of the elderly. He concluded that segregated housing, defined as a large concentration of housing units for the elderly, appeared to offer the best possibilities and benefits for the elderly. The benefits of segregated housing, as described by Rosow, included economy in building and provision of services, the possibility of new group memberships for support and mutual aid, and the provision of role 30 models for those making the transition into retirement. Also, along these same lines, Gans notes that "a mixing of all age and class groups is likely to produoe at best, a polite but cool social climate lacking the consensus and intensity of relations that are necessary for mutual enrichment. For example, some old people who live in a community of young couples may enjoy their neighbour's children while others will resent the youngster's noise and the destruction they cause to flower beds, etc. Likewise, older residents may be sources of wisdom for their younger neighbours, while others are » 31 insistent advocates of anachronistic ideas . The evidence indicates that in North America there is, in general, a high degree of class consciousness, and because of it there seems to be an inate desire for people to live among those they perceive to be their equals* There is a natural tendency towards homogeneity, and to plan and to legislate for heterogeneity under these circumstances seems presumptuous. In the final analysis, it can be said that a group of heterogeneous people may be forced to live in the same area, but they cannot be forced to interact socially with one another. Indications are that under such circumstances, social isolation would be the result. HOUSING MIX COST - REVENUE ANALYSIS It has often been stated that multiple-dwellings produce more tax revenue for local governments than do single-family homes. This section reviews the findings of four apartment cost-revenue studies to determine whether or not this is the case. Before the studies are reviewed, Ruth Mace mentions three basic limitations to cost-revenue 32 analysis that should be noted. 1. The cost-revenue relationship presents only a partial picture of the net cost of development. It is usually only concerned with direct municipal costs and revenues while Indirect costs and revenues may be equally or more significant to local governments. 2. Cost-revenue analysis is meaningful only if it is developed with, and takes into account a whole range of basic information, 110 such as the economic interdependence of the municipality and the region in which it is located. Land use cannot be encouraged or discouraged simply on the basis of policies tailored to local tax needs. 3. Cost-revenue analysis is an expensive, time-consuming and complicated process. Service costs, revenue structure, municipal policy, economic conditions and tax base, are ever changing variables which make it mandatory for restudy to take place at regular intervals. In practice, because of these limitations, wide variations between studies has occured. The differences have been so great that 33 some officials have taken a dim view of cost-revenue studies. Cost-revenue studies, although they have many shortcomings do bring into the open a number of factors that local governments need to consider when determining apartment size and location. Philadelphia Study In October 196l, a study of high-rent apartments In Philadelphia 34 suburbs was prepared by Anshel Me lamed. The basic technique employed by Melamed was the computation of tax potential of apartment develop ments on a per-acre basis, in relation to tax potential of other land uses. By employing this technique, the study showed that no other land use exceeded the tax potential of apartments. On the expenditure side, Melamed suggested that apartments show up quite favourably in their limited requirements for publie services. Of key importance, the study noted, was the small number of school aged children in such units. Interviews showed that only 7 per cent of the apartments were occupied by householders with children. In none of the high-rental suburban apartment developments were there more than ten school-aged children per 100 dwelling units. This compared with an average of fifty children per 100 single-family dwellings. Since school taxes represented as much as 60 per cent of the total municipal levy in the suburban areas, the study concluded that the relatively low number of sehool-aged children in apartments represented a great savings to the municipality. The actual education cost per apartment unit, however, was not calculated. The second major reason why apartments produced relatively low municipal costs was that they had limited requirements for public service. The study noted that such services as police and fire protec tion, trash collection and disposal, highway maintenance and lighting were less costly per unit for apartments than other uses. Actual cost figures were not given, however. Stamford, Connecticut Study This study,3"* conducted by Dominic Del Guidice in 1963, was con cerned with one basic question: "Does that proportion of high-rise 112 apartment property tax revenues allocatable to education offset the „36 local share of educational costs which results from those apartments?" The answer submitted was "yes". The study concluded that each of the dwelling units in the four high-rise apartments in Stamford produced a surplus of $33.34 per year. That is, each apartment produced this much more education revenue per year than they required of municipal outlay for educating the children in these apartments. As noted in the Philadelphia study, Del Ouidice observed that the high-rise apartment revenue surplus resulted because apartments have relatively few school-aged children. On a city wide basis, the study showed that two single-family homes were required to represent one public school child, but it took 7.6 apartment units to represent one public school child. Although the study offered no statistical calculations, it stated that if costs other than education were analyzed and compared to total tax revenues, high-rise apartments would be even more advantageous. This was because apartments provided many municipal services in a con centrated manner. Bucks County, Pennsylvania Study 37 This study was carried out by the Bucks County Planning Com mission. The following chart was used as a basis for the study, and summarizes the range of ratios of income to service expenditures for residential land. 113 Small Large Suburban Suburban Community Community All Residences .60 - 2.10 .77 - .91 One-Family .78 - 2.28 .66 - 1.40 Two-Family .38 - .69 .66 - .80 Multi-Family .30 - 1.01 .65 - 1.62 INTERPRETATION 1. 1.00 indicates the use is just paying its way. 2. Less than 1.00 indicates the use pays less in taxes than it costs. 3. More than 1.00 indicates the use is contributing a surplus in taxes over the cost of services. This study found that the age structure in recently occupied apartment units in Bucks County varied significantly from the average age structure of the municipalities in which the units were located. Apartment age distribution figures revealed a high percentage of occupants in the 0 to 4 and 15 to 24 age groups. Many multiple-family developments also had significant numbers of tenants in the 55 years and older group. Relatively few apartment residents were in the age groups 5 to 14 and 35 to 44. It was also found that apartment develop ments had fewer school-aged children per unit than single-family dwellings. Even though the number of school-aged children was less per dwelling unit in the apartments than in the single-family homes, the number of school-aged children per acre of land was higher for the apartments. At ten apartment units to the acre and an average of .125 children per unit, it was found that each acre produced 2.5 children. The lowest single-family residential density found in the study area produced approximately .6 public school children per acre, and the highest single-family residential density produced 1.9 children per acre. Rutgers, Garden Apartment Study More than twenty New Jersey communities were involved in this 39 study which was primarily concerned with determining the average number of school-aged children living in apartments. A total of 144 garden apartment developments having a total of 17,682 apartment units were included in the analysis. The number of public school students in these apartments totaled 4,817 or .273 students per apartment. There was a broad variation in students per apartment depending on the size of the development. It was found that the three largest develop ments with some 3,590 units contained more than 40 per cent of the school-aged children in the sample. The conclusion was that with all other factors being equal, as soon as a development reaches the range of four or five hundred units, the proportion of children increases very sharply. A second factor found to be related to the number of sehool-aged children per apartment unit was the rent per room. Low rentals tended to coincide with a higher proportion of children than found in high priced apartments. 115 A third factor that determined the number of school-aged children per apartment unit was the size of the apartment unit. In those apartments surveyed, there were no children in efficiency apartments. In one bedroom apartments, there was an average of .037 public school children per apartment. The figure increased tenfold to .39 in two-bedroom, and in three-bedroom units, tripled to 1.03 students per apartment. In summary, the Philadelphia and Stamford studies dealt with the costs and revenues involved In high-rise development. The analysis was far from complete, but what it does show is that high-rise apart ments in the suburbs produce high revenues and low costs mainly because of the small number of school-aged children living in them. On the other hand, the studies generalize by saying that services provided to a concentrated group of people cost less than If provided to single-family dwellings. But the fact that one, ten or a hundred families live under one roof has no causal relationship to the incidence of crime, fire or unemployment. Also, not considered, was the need for new facilities caused by the higher densities. For example, construction of apartments means that the community must enlarge existing sewer trunk lines, sewage treatment plants and water lines. Sometimes even streets, highways, parks arid schools, must be expanded to meet the needs of new apartment building. This means heavy costs that are often not covered by tax revenues from apartments. U6 The Bucks County and Rutger's studies were mainly concerned with the lower-density type apartments, and with the number of school-aged children. With such a large proportion of the municipal tax dollar going for education, it is important to know the impact of different apartment types on increased school enrolment. The main findings of these studies were: 1. The number of school-aged children per apartment dwelling unit is less than the number of children per single-family home. 2. The number of school-aged children per acre for apartments is higher than it is for single-family dwellings. 3. Large garden apartment developments of 400 units or more have a proportionally higher number of school-aged children than do smaller developments. 4. Low-rent apartments attract a larger proportion of school-aged children than do high-rent apartments. 5. The larger the apartments (1 to 3 bedrooms) the more children there are. SUMMARY It was stated at the beginning of this chapter that a housing mix also implied a social mix. Architects and planners have generally advocated mixed housing for purely aesthetic reasons on the grounds that the suburbs, in particular, were too sterile in appearance. Others u7 who were not fully aware of the consequences of what they were saying, went further, and advocated a social mix. They suggested that by mixing lower class people and middle class people, there would be an infusion of ideas, and the lower class people would acquire middle class ways and thinking; and the middle class people would gain more empathy for the lower class and their problems. Studies carried out in this area indicate, first of all, that those who live In suburban residential areas are generally quite satisfied with their living arrangements indicating that criticism of the suburbs usually comes from people "on the outside looking in". Secondly, all of the evidence points to the fact that people associate with those who they perceive have similar backgrounds and interests. Propinquity results in friendly greetings between neighbours, but if neighbours do not have similar backgrounds, the relationships are not likely to be intensive regardless of the degree of propinquity. Thirdly, If the main purpose of mixed housing is to achieve a social mix, research has clearly shown that more harm than good is achieved by this approach. In the few cases where public housing has been located in middle-class residential areas, the result has been the social isolation of those living in public housing. On the basis of these findings, mixed housing should not be encouraged. Although the financial aspects of mixed housing were not included in the scope of this study, the final section of this chapter on cost-revenue analysis was included to indicate some of the limitations and 118 uses of this approach. The main findings of such studies have indicated that: (1) The major cost to the municipality from apartments are school costs. (2) Apartments with few or no children cost the municipality less than what they pay in taxes. (3) Two bedroom apartments generally fall into the same category as single-detached homes as far as breaking even on costs and revenues to the municipality, whereas apartments with three or more bedrooms usually run up a deficit. 119 FOOTNOTES See Herbert J. Gans, People and Plans, (New York: Basic Books, 1968)1 Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, (New York: Vintage Books, 1961); and Canadian Housing Design Council, Housing in Cities, (Ottawa, 1964). See Marvin Liproan, "Housing and Environment", Habitat, Vol. XII, No. 2, 1969, pp. 4-9; and Ian MaeLennan, The Architecture of Urban  and Suburban Development, (Canadian Housing Design Council, 1964). ^MaeLennan, Ibid, p. 5. 4 Lipman, op. cit., p. 5. c; -'Gans, op. cit., p. 179. 6 Community Builder s Council of Urban Land Institute, The  Community Builder's Handbook, (Washington, D. C, 1968), p. 122. 7 Technical Planning Board, Policy Report: Low-Density Multiple- Housing, (Vancouver, April, 1969). 8 S. J. Clarke, "Experiment in Residential Layout for Lethbrldge", Habitat, November - December, (1964), p. 7« 0. HDldman River Regional Planning Commission, Zoning By-Law No.  2750, (Lethbrldge, 1968). 10See Lethbrldge Herald - March, 1969. 11Gans, op. cit., p. 127. 12 American Society of Planning Officials, Planning for Apartments, (Information Report No. 139, October, I960), p. 12. ^Anshel Melamed, "High-Rent Apartments in the Suburbs", The  Appraisal Journal, XXX (April, 1962), p. 28o. ^Gans, op. cit., p. 169. 15 Herbert J. Gans, The Levittowners, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1967). 16 See the following sources: William H. Whyte Jr., The Organization  Man, (New York: Doubleday, 1956); Glenn H. Beyer, Housing and Society, (New York: MacMillan, 1965); and William M. Dobriner (ed.), The Suburbans'  Community, (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958). 17 Gans, People and Plans, op. eit., p. 138. l8Bennett M. Berger, Working Class Suburb, (Berkley: University of California Press, i960). ^Qans, The Levittowners, op. cit. 2QGans, People and Plans, op. cit., p. 139. 2lIbld, p. 152. 22 Ibid. 23Ibid, p. 158. Oil Poote, and others, Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), p. 194. '. 25Gans, People and Plans, op. cit., p. 157. 2^Dennis Chapman, The Home and Social Status, (New York: Grove Press, 1955), p. 159. 2^Peter Rossi, Why Families Move, (Glencoe: Free Press, 1955), p. 39. 28Ibld, p. 145. 2^Foote, op. cit., p. l8l. 3GI. Rosow, "The Social Effects of the Physical Environment", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVII (May, 196l), pp. 127-133. 31 Gans, People and Plans, op. cit. 32 Ruth L. Mace, Municipal - Cost Revenue Research in the United  States, (Chapel Hill, 1961). 33Ibid, p. 4. 34 Melamed, op. cit. 3-*Doroinic Del Guidiee, "Cost-Revenue Implications of High-Rise Apartments", Urban Land, February, 1963. 36ibid, p. 3. -"Bucks County Planning Commission, Apartments: An Analysis of  Issues and Standards, p. 9. 38 Mace, op. cit. 39 Bureau of Economic Research, The Garden Apartment Development:  A Municipal Cost-Revenue Analysis, (Rutgers, 1964). CHAPTER V EXPLORITORY SURVEY OP HOMEOWNER ATTITUDES TOWARDS A RESIDENTIAL MIX INTRODUCTION The research described In this chapter was carried out in two parts. The first part consisted of a survey of four municipalities in 1 Metropolitan Vancouver to isolate testable mixed housing situations. As a result of this survey, three cases were selected as areas in which an exploritory survey of homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing was carried out. The second part of the chapter deals with the formula tion, administration and results of the exploritory survey. The two hypothesis tested were: Hypothesis I. Homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing are not changed by living in close proximity to apartments. Hypothesis II. In a mixed housing situation homeowners perceive apartments to be the cause of parking problems, depreciated property values, increased traffic and noise, higher taxes, loss of privacy, loss of view and other problems usually attributed to apartments• 123 DETERMINATION OF SURVEY AREAS Limitations The purpose of the municipal survey was to locate areas suitable for carrying out a survey of homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing. Problems were encountered in deciding the best approach to study the homeowners' change of attitude towards apartments as no "before" study had been done as a means of comparison. One approach that can be used under certain conditions is to choose one control area where apartments were proposed but had been turned down due to strong homeowner opposition, and compare the attitudes of these homeowners with the attitudes of homeowners in an area where apartments were built. In using this approach, it is essential that the two areas being compared have certain similarities, such as the age of the single-family homes, income of the homeowners, proposed siting of the apartments, type and number of apartments, availability of services, etc. This approach was not used as each mixed housing situation that was studied was unique, and not comparable in a number of important aspects to other mixed housing situations. A second approach and the one employed in this study, was to locate mixed housing situations where the homeowners' opposition to apartments had been recorded, and use this recorded opposition as a basis of establishing homeowners* attitudes prior to the construction of the apartments. An important limitation to this approach was that 124 the degree to which homeowners opposed mixed housing was unknown. All that was known was that the homeowners had voiced opposition to apartment development in their areas. Another major limitation in selecting survey areas was the fact that the combinations and variations of housing mixes are innumerable. For this reason the study was further limited to locating mixed housing situations where new multiple-dwellings had been constructed in single-detached housing areas—whether old or new—where homeowners had opposed such development. Methodology In order to locate mixed housing situations that qualified as test eases, interviews were held with the planning departments in Bumaby, Richmond, Surrey and North Vancouver District. These municipalities were chosen because they contain large areas of single-family housing, and also because they were dispersed fairly evenly throughout the Metropolitan Vancouver area. The following four questions formed the basis for the interview: 1. HAS YOUR DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT AN APARTMENT STUDY? IF SO, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY? The purpose of this question was to find out if when doing the apartment study, the planning department had examined the potential for mixed housing in their municipality. If such a study had been 125 carried out, it more than likely would have made recommendations for apartment location. It would have also reflected the particular planning department's views on the mixing or segregation of housing types. 2. DOES YOUR ZONING BY-LAW PROVIDE POR THE MIXING OF HOUSING TYPES? IF SO, BY WHAT MEANS? The purpose of this question was to determine if any of the municipalities had any formal policies that would facilitate mixed housing. 3. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY APARTMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING AREAS? IF SO, WHAT OPPOSITION WAS VOICED AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT? This question attempted to isolate those cases in which public opinion opposed rezoning for apartments in single-family areas, and also the cases where rezoning was granted and the apartment constructed. 4. WHERE ARE THE APARTMENTS LOCATED THAT CAUSED THE MOST OPPOSITION? A field examination of each mixed housing situation was used to determine if it conformed to the pre-deterroined definition of a test case. 126 Municipal Survey Results Of the four municipalities, Burnaby and North Vancouver were the only ones with completed apartment studies. Surrey was Just starting preliminary data gathering for an apartment study. Richmond had no plans for doing an apartment study in the near future. The purpose of the two finished studies was similar in that they both attempted to evaluate the present and future demand for multiple-housing in their respective Jurisdictions, and attempted to advise council on the need for further apartment zoning. With regards to apartment location policy, Burnaby's study recommended continued segregation of housing types. North Vancouver's apartment study also recommended that certain areas be zoned exclusively for apartment use, but it also recognized that certain types of low-density multiple-housing could be dispersed throughout single-detached housing areas to encourage variety and add compactness to the suburban areas. Burnaby's recommendations were approved by Council, but North Vancouvers have yet to receive final approval. None of the four municipalities by laws permitted a housing mix, as such, but in every case, spot zoning had been used to a greater or lesser degree depending on the municipality. Of all the municipalities interviewed, Bumaby's apartment zoning policy was the most rigid. According to the planning official inter viewed, no apartments had been constructed outside the apartment zones since the passing of a new zoning by-law in 1966. Applications for re zoning outside of these areas were looked upon with much disfavour by both the Planning Department and Municipal Council. 127 In Richmond, two housing developments had just been finished in which the multiple-units were built facing main traffic arteries, and served as buffers against the noise for the single-family homes located behind them. There was no opposition from the buyers of these new homes because the apartments had already been constructed. However, strong opposition from homeowners did occur as a result of municipal council granting approval of two rezonlng applications for apartments next to single-family residential areas. Spot zoning has been used extensively in Surrey, but it has only been within the last two years that residents have actively opposed this practice. In particular, one lot on Hilton Road was rezoned from single-family to multiple-family even though there was strong opposition from homeowners in the area. (See figure 5-1) By the first of 1970, the new three story walk-up had been completed. Three other sites on Hilton Road were rezoned for apartment use, but no construction has taken place. All other rezonlng applications for this area have been frozen until the planning department makes a more thorough examination of the area. Objections to the rezonlng of this area for apartments were voiced in letters, public meetings and petitions. The following is a statement of the issues expressed in one of the petitions circulated in February of 19&9: In regards to the rezonlng on Hilton Road between Bolivar Crescent and Bently Road, we the property owners, object to 128 spot zoning, allowing apartments to be built next to and across from their property, deflating values of their homes once apartments have been built. We all feel, in order to be fair to the property owners, and at the same time not to stand in the way of progress, this property in this small area must all be purchased before any apartments are built on this street. These small lots of fifty feet also pose a serious parking problem. Hilton Road was chosen as one of the three survey areas because of the recorded strong opposition to spot zoning, and the nature of the mixed housing. The municipality granted a building permit for the construction of a single-detached home on Hilton Road, and four months later approved the rezoning application for the construction of the three story apartment directly across the street. At the time the permit was issued for the new home, the owner upon inquiring as to future development of the area, was assured that no apartments would be constructed on Hilton Road. There are other relatively new homes on Hilton Road, and it would seem that when plans and policies were formulated for this area, little thought was given to existing land use. North Vancouver is primarily a single-family residential area, and for this reason, most of the multiple-dwelling units built there have been located in close proximity to single-detached housing areas. Figure 3-2 shows the areas of all existing apartments to the end of 1969. Although North Vancouver supports the 'Town Center" concept, there are no major commercial shopping centers within the District's boundaries. Therefore, there is no central focus around which multiple-dwellings can be located. 129 Of the five apartment developments studied as possible survey areas in North Vancouver, two were chosen as having the characteristics required to qualify as test cases. (See figure 3-2) One of the develop ments was the Queen's Garden Apartments located East of Lonsdale Avenue on Queen's Road East. (See figure 5-2) These apartments were located in a single-family residential area where the homes ranged in age from five to forty years. The second development was the Blueridge Garden Apartments located next to Mount Seymour Parkway on Berkley Street. (See figure 5-3) Unlike the other two survey areas, the Blueridge Garden Apartments were located in an area of new single-family homes. Objections against the rezonings in North Vancouver appeared in the same form as those in Surrey—letters, minutes of public meetings and petitions, but the theme of the objections differed. In Surrey, the homeowners objected to the spot zoning procedure, and wanted the area to be zoned as single-family residential or multiple-family, not both. In North Vancouver, the homeowners objected to the apartments because it was feared that their view would be obstructed, and that the areas would suffer from loss of character. HOMEOWNER ATTITUDE STUDY: PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SURVEY While the attitudes of homeowners regarding the development of multiple-dwellings in single-family residential neighbourhoods are generally understood, little is known as to whether or not these attitudes change once the apartments are completed and in use. The primary purpose of the survey research was to study homeowners1 attitudes 130 towards apartments in single-family residential areas after the completion of the apartments to determine if, in fact, the level of objection had changed. The scope of the study was, of necessity, limited to the three mixed housing situations chosen as a result of the municipal survey. Recorded opposition to the apartments was used as the basis for determin ing homeowners' attitudes before the apartments were constructed. Although homeowner opposition to the particular apartment developments extended to a radius of as much as ten blocks, the survey concentrated on the attitudes of those homeowners in close proximity to the apartments, and directly affected by them. The attitudes of these homeowners were of prime importance because they would supposedly know the exact state of the situation whereas those living even one or two blocks away could only speculate as to the affect of the apartments on the single-family area. To this extent, it was assumed that the old adage "out of sight, out of mind", was applicable in that the homeowners who could not see the apartments or their supposed affects were not Interested in mixed housing to the same degree as those homeowners who lived in close proximity to the apartments. 2 Interview Schedule Formulation The interview schedule was designed to achieve two goals. The first was to determine the degree to which the homeowners' reasons for objecting to a housing mix were fulfilled after the apartments were built. The second was to determine the extent to which the attitudes 131 of the homeowners changed as a result of living in close proximity to multiple-family dwellings. To achieve the first goal, a list of homeowner objections to apartments in the survey areas was drawn up. Many of the objections were similar for each area, and so a roaster list of the basic objections was drawn up and summarized as follows: 1. Apartments will depreciate the value of the single-detached homes in the area. 2. The presence of apartments will make it difficult to sell the single-detached homes. 3. Property taxes will increase. General thinking on this topic was that the apartments would produce more children in areas where schools were over-crowded, thus requiring costly school expansion. It was also believed that the increased costs for services to the new apartments would Increase property taxes. 4. People who live in apartments are more mobile, and are of a lower class than people who own their own home. 5. Apartments, because of their height will block the views enjoyed by the occupants of the smaller single-detached homes. 6. Apartments cause increased traffic and noise. 7. Apartments cause parking problems. 8. Apartments do not provide adequate play areas, and so the children living In them will play on the streets. 132 9. Children who live in apartments are overly noisy and distracting. 10. Apartments detract from the "character" of single-family residential areas. The interview schedule contained questions dealing with each of the topics mentioned above. In addition, other questions were drawn up to deal with specific objections resulting from the unique situations existing In each study area. For example, In the Hilton Road area, homeowners were concerned with knowing whether the area was going to eventually be all apartments or all single-detached housing whereas in the Queens Road area, the homeowners were primarily concerned with preserving the view and oharacter of the area. In dealing with the questions directed to specific areas, it was assumed that in the areas where the issue was not raised, there would be a lower number of negative responses• The second goal of the questionnaire—to determine if the presence of apartments resulted in a change in homeowner attitudes towards them— was more difficult to determine since no survey of homeowners' attitudes was done prior to the construction of the apartments. This problem was partially overcome by assuming that the objections to apartments voieed In the letters, public meetings and petitions were an expression of all homeowners' attitudes prior to the construction of the apartments. This assumption had a severe limitation in that it was impossible to know if the homeowner surveyed had signed a petition because he was convinced that apartments should not be built in bis neighbourhood or if 133 be had signed because of pressure from his neighbours. In the final analysis, any impression of a change in attitudes could only be arrived at on a very subjective basis after examining the overall responses to the questionnaire. One question did ask respondents specifically if their attitudes towards apartments had changed, but the responses could only be taken at face value because of the lack of specific data to compare the responses with. The Form of the Questions The interview schedule used a combination of both "closed" and "open" questions. The closed questions were used mainly as the intro ductory questions and the open questions used to encourage further elaboration on the topic by the respondent. The open question is one in which the topic is structured for the respondent, but he is given the task of answering in his own words, structuring his answer as he sees fit, and speaking at whatever length he desires. This type of question has many advantages stemming from the fact that the respondent is encouraged to structure his answer as he wishes. The technique provides a means of obtaining information which cannot be obtained adequately by use of a closed question. Another advantage is that the answers indicate not only the respondents attitude, but also his level of information. The relatively free interchange between Interviewer and respondent which is characteristic of the open question permits the interviewer to discover whether the respondent clearly understands the question asked of him.*' 134 On the other hand, the closed question is well adapted to situations in which (1) there Is only one frame of reference from which the respondent can answer the question (2) within this single frame of reference, there is a known range of possible responses and (3) within this range, there are clearly defined choices which accurately represent the position of each respondent. In the closed question, the possible responses are contained in the question so that the respondent selects the category which comes closest to his position. The Interview and Its Limitations *flae interview is a face-to-face interpersonal role situation in which one person, the interviewer, asks a person being Interviewed -the respondent, questions designed to obtain answers pertinent to the purpose of the research problem. There are two broad types of inter view: structured and unstructured. A structured Interview was used in this study. In a structured interview, the questions, their sequence and their wording are fixed. One of the limitations of the personal interview technique is the involvement of the respondent in the data he is reporting, and the consequent likelihood of bias. Even if It is assumed that the respondent is in possession of certain facts, he may withold or distort them because to communicate them would be threatening. Another limitation of the interview is the inability of the respondent to provide certain types of information. If, for example, the respondent has no understanding of the different characteristics 135 of the various types of multiple-housing, he will be unable to answer any questions requiring an evaluation of one apartment type over another. Memory bias is another factor which renders the respondent unable to provide accurate information. Often the only way to get around this problem is to carry out the research over a longer period of time, and 6 do surveys at specific time intervals. The Sample The sample was chosen from a total of 46 homes considered to be located in close proximity to the apartments. The Hilton Road area had 14 homes in this category, the Queens Road area 21, and the Berkely area 11. (See figures 5-1; 5-3; 5-5 for population sample) Since the total number of homes in the survey population was small, a 50 per cent proportionate random sample was chosen from each of the areas. This produced a total sample size of 23 homes of which 7 homes were in the Hilton Road area, 10 were in the Queens Road area and 6 were in the Berkley Road area. (See figures 5-2; 5-4; 5-6 for random sample) Prom this 23 home sample, 20 interview schedules were completed. The three who did not respond were distributed evenly over the three survey areas. The one in the Hilton Road area was a tenant occupied home, and so did not qualify as a respondent. The two other non-responses resulted from the homeowners1 unwillingness to co-operate. The 20 responses accounted for 43 per cent of the homes included in the survey areas, and were considered representative of the homeowners living in the survey areas. 137 J < X o X UJ o cc o UJ o HILTON ROAD SURVEY AREA SURVEY SAMPLE FIGURE 5-2 / A p a LEGEND „ r t m e n t Zoning App |^^>| One House Survey Sample SCALE In Inches 1 to 400 13 6 J S S O o o o BOLIVAR > < I O - X UJ o cc O UJ O O 2 Apart ments OO o o ^^^^ fill ' ooo L Commercial BENTLEY ROAD HILTON ROAD SURVEY AREA POP ULATION SA MPLE FIGURE 5-1 ^ LEGEND / Apartment Zonin g APP ^ One House Population Sample SCALE In Inches 1 to 40 0 1 38 J UJ > < ! 1 _ 1 1 0 non O o o o o o J K 1 N C r i 3 S 1 1 i ROAD E AST 5i oo no D ,0 w p UJ cc o UJ QUEEN'S SURVEY ROAD AREA LEGEND A One House N Service Station o S S FIGURE 5-3 Population Sample o POPULATION SAMPLE SCALE In Inches 1 to 4 0 0 139 I t 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o J I 1 i J KINGS ROAD s s UJ > < UJ _J < Q CO z o EAST H r~ i # O • () 0 o Commercial O s s Apart merits s s n i QUEENS ROAD EAST O UJ > < CO UJ o cc o UJ H CO o 29 th STREET EAST---| r n| i QUEEN'S ROAD SURVEY AREA FIGURE 5-4 SURVEY SAMPLE 1 LEGEND One House Service Station Survey Sample O s s SCALE In Inches 1 to 400 1 4 0 Q < o CC o o o o o Vacant B E N D A L E ROAD V a c a n t \ O O o > UJ cc UJ CQ o o O O O OO O s s Apartments Commercial and Apartments BERKLEY ROAD LEGEND One House o s s SURVEY AREA I N Service Station POPULATION SAMPLE Population Sample o FIGURE 5-5 SCALE In Inches 1 to 4 0 0 141 Q < o CC o o o o o Vacant B E N D A L E ROAD BERKLEY ROAD SURVEY AREA SURVEY SAMPLE FIGURE 5-6 LEGEND One House Service Station SS Survey Sample ^ SCALE In Inches 1 to 400 142 Limitations of Sample Survey Sample surveys have limitations both in precision and adaptability. Any data-gathering project based on a sample is subject to sampling error. This means that all findings coming from such a study must be interpreted in light of this error. However, the sampling error in smaller exploritory and attitudinal studies such as the one at hand, is not a major consideration. The use of the nominal scale Is characteristic of exploritory research where the emphasis is on uncovering a relationship between two characteristics rather than on specifying the mathematical form of the relationship. Por this reason, the use of percentages and proportions are used as the basis of analysis for this study. Another limitation is that every data-gathering instrument has an optimal length for the population to which it will be submitted. Beyond this point, interest begins to lapse and co-operation diminishes. In this respect, the number of questions and topics dealt with in a questionnaire must be limited or else the possibility of receiving in complete and inaccurate answers enters into the analysis. A sample survey designed to represent a population dispersed over a wide geographical area is likely to give an inadequate representation to any population characteristic that is highly localized. The converse is also true that a sample survey designed to represent a highly localized population is likely to give inadequate representation to any population characteristics which are dispersed over a wide geographical area. This means that generalizations from one population to another are 143 not statistically valid, and that care must be taken in the interpreta tion and use of survey data. A fifth limitation is that the survey Interview can temporarily lift the respondent out of his own social context which may make the results of the survey invalid. The respondent may look upon the interview as a special event. This "apartness" may affect the respondent so that he talks to, and interacts with, the interviewer in an unnatural manner. The most obvious limitations of the survey procedure arise from the fact that it almost inevitably requires a considerable investment of manpower and time. Small scale surveys of highly localized and accessible populations can be carried out by a single individual, but more often surveys are conducted by groups of social scientists, and may Include specialists in study design, sampling-questionnaire con struction, interviewing, coding, machine tabulation and statistical 7 analysis. Pre Test The pre test revealed that problems would be encountered with three of the questions. Sections (a), (c) and (d) of question 11 dealt with oriteria for apartment location. The feeling of those who aided in the pre test was that homeowners are generally not aquainted with the criteria used, and the problems involved in determining locations for apartments. The homeowners main concern was in keeping apartments out of his neighbourhood. 1H Question 12 also tended to be over technical. Very few people know the different classification of apartments, and the characteristics that distinguish one apartment from the other. The pre test revealed that people know what high-rise apartments are because they see them in Vancouver's West End, but they are generally unfamiliar with the dif ferent classifications of the lower-density apartment types. The term "character" In question 13 has obviously resulted in ambiguity. The character of a residential area means different things to different people. The architect may see it as variety in housing types and styles whereas the housewife may see it as large backyards for her children to play in, or having other women her own age living nearby. Because of these different perceptions of a neighbourhood's character, the question was not changed and its interpretation was left up to the respondent. The purpose of the question was to determine if a change in neighbourhood character had been noticed, and if the respondent associated the change with the presence of the apartments. Procedure of Questionnaire Administration Letters of introduction were sent out to all of the homeowners in the sample informing them that they had been selected from a random sample, and requesting co-operation in filling out an interview schedule 8 on housing development in their neighbourhood. The letters were typed on the U.B.C. Letterhead, and signed by one of the Planning professors. Two days were allowed for the respondents to receive the letters, and then they were contacted by telephone, and appointments were made to 145 carry out the interviews. Since most of the respondents worked during the day, Interviews were carried out in the evening between 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm. The respondents were unwilling to schedule interviews over the weekend, and so the only nights that interviews could be held were Mondays through Thursdays. The interviews were spread out over a two week period as only two to three interviews could be completed per evening. The length of the interviews ranged from twenty minutes for those who were satisfied with development in their areas, to forty-five minutes for those who were very disgruntled with it. "Homeowner" was defined as either the husband or the wife. Most single-detached homes that are owner occupied are registered in the Land Registry Office under a Joint tenancy agreement between the husband and his wife so that if something was to happen to the husband, the property automatically passes on to the wife. Because of the vested interest both share in the home or their property, it was assumed that both would express basically the same point of view. In this regard, no preference was made as to whether the interview was held with the husband or the wife. Of the twenty respondents, five were female, seven were male and in eight cases, both the husband and wife were present. Where both were present, the husband answered most of the questions with the wives interjecting comments now and again. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE The results of the questionnaire have been broken down into three sections. The first deals with the general characteristics of the 146 survey areas; the second with the validity of homeowners' opposition; and the third with the change in homeowners' attitude towards mixed housing. General Characteristics The general characteristics discussed in this chapter include such topics as length of residence, criteria used for purchasing homes, presence or absence of apartments at the time of purchase and confidence in local governments to control mixed housing. The number of years respondents had resided in their present home was spread out over a twenty year continuum. (See table 5-1) Of the total sample, 50 per cent had resided in their home for five years or less while the other 50 per cent had resided in their home from five to twenty years. The Queens Road area could be considered the oldest since 89 per cent of the sample from that area had resided In their home from five to twenty years. Hilton Road area was the next oldest with 66 per cent of Its sample residing in their home from five to twenty years, followed by the Berkley Road area with 40 per cent of its sample falling into this category. The estimated value of the homes indicated an age breakdown of the survey areas similar to the one mentioned above. (See Table 5-2) Generally the least expensive homes are located in the older areas. The estimated value of 45 per cent of the respondents* homes fell in the category of $15,000 to $25,000. The estimated value of another 35 TABLE 5-1 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN HOME BY NUMBER AND PERCENT 1 year or less % 1 to 2 years % 2 to 5 years % 5 to 10 years * 10 to 15 years % 15 to 20 years % Total Hilton 1 17 1 17 2 33 2 33 6 100 Queens 1 11 3 34 2 22 1 11 2 22 9 100 Berkley 2 40 1 20 1 20 1 20 5 100 Total 4 20 2 10 4 20 4 20 3 15 3 15 20 100 TABLE 5-2 ESTIMATED VALUE OF HOME BY NUMBER AND PERCENT (IN THOUSANDS) 15 to 20 % 21 to 25 % 26 to 30 % 31 to 35 % 36 to 40 % 40 & Over % Don't Know % Total * Hilton 2 33 1 17 1 17 2 33 6 100 Queens 4 44 1 11 1 11 2 22 .1 11 9 100 Berkley 1 20 1 20 3 60 5 100 Total 6 30 3 15 1 5 2 10 3 15 2 10 3 15 20 100 I—' -*=• CD 149 per cent of the homes fell in the $31,000 and over category. Over 80 per cent of the homes in the Berkley Road area were less than five years old. As a result, a large proportion (80 per cent) of these homes fell in the $31,000 to $40,000 category. The estimated value of the homes in the Queens Road area ranged all the way from $15,000 to over $40,000. Fifty-five per cent of the homes were in the category of $15,000 to $25,000, and 33 per cent were in the $31,000 to over $40,000 category. The wide spread in the estim ated value of homes in this area was a result of the number of older homes which would 'account for the low estimated values; plus some new homes and some large old homes located on large lots which would account for the high estimated values. Most of the homes In the Hilton Road area were built during1 the early and mid ,1950's. This was reflected in the generally low and uniform estimated value of the homes. Sixty-seven per cent of the homes fell in the $15,000 to $30,000 category. The respondents living in the other 33 per cent of the homes were unable to estimate the values of their homes. With regards to the reasons why the particular home they were living in had'been purchased, 70 per cent of the respondents stated that location was the prime consideration. (See Table 5-3) Criteria included as important to location were proximity to schools, friends, relatives, shopping facilities and place of employment. Other criteria included the quality of the view and the degree of privacy afforded by the site. Only two (10 per cent) of the respondents indicated that their main TABLE 5-3 CRITERIA USED FOR PURCHASE OF HOME BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Location % Liked Home % Specula tion % No Choice % Total Hilton 4 67 1 1 17 6 100 Queens 6 67 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 9 100 Berkley- 4 80 1 20 5 100 Total 14 70 2 10 1 5 3 15 20 100 o 151 TABLE 5-4 KNOWLEDGE OF APARTMENTS AT TIME OF HOME PURCHASE BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Yes % No; % Total Hilton 6 100 6 100 Queens 6 67 3 33 9 100 Berkley- 3 60 2 40 5 100 Total 9 45 11 55 20 100 152 reason for buying their home was because they liked it. This is 9 significant in that Rossi in his study of three Philadelphia suburbs found that the criteria for choosing a home in order of importance was: first, the particular space dimensions of the home; second, the particular design requirements of the home such as heating, layout and utilities; and third, the location of the home. In his study, only 26 per cent of the respondents stated that location was the major factor in buying a home. Further study in this area would determine if, in fact, homeowners In Vancouver place higher priority on home location than on the particular attributes of the home. In the survey areas, the strong preference for location indicates that a number of the home purchasers were little concerned with the presence of, or the possibility that apartments were to be built In the immediate area. This is especially evident in the comparisons of Tables 5-3 and 5-4. In the Queens Road area six (67 per cent) of the respondents knew of the apartments at the time they purchased their home, and yet they still chose the home primarily because of Its location. This same phenomena occured also in the Berkley Road area. These results indicate that location with regard to services and amenities outweighed any of the negative effects that proximity to apartments might have had. Table 5-5 shows that 90 per cent of the respondents believed that more apartments would be built in their neighbourhoods in the future. Fifteen per cent could not give reasons for their beliefs while 40 per cent stated that apartment development was the trend or that in order to 153 take care of the increased numbers of people, apartments would have to be built. But 45 per cent mentioned lack of confidence in the ability of their local governments to eontrol future development as the main reason why additional apartment development would occur in their neigh bourhoods. Of the three survey areas, the homeowners in the Hilton Road area were, by far, the most sceptical (83 per cent) towards local govern ment. This was indicative to a large extent of the government's un willingness to state an official policy for development in the Hilton Road area, and also of its inability to maintain a consistant policy for apartment location and development throughout the whole municipality. A comparison of Tables 5-5 and 5-6 shows that while 90 per cent of the respondents believed that more apartments would be built in the future (Table 5-5)* 45 per cent of the respondents stated that they had never thought of moving. (Table 5-6) Of the other 55 per cent, only 25 per cent had thought of moving because of the presence of apartments. The indication is that while apartments presently exist in the areas, and it is believed that more will follow, the mixed housing situation has not resulted in a mass exit of homeowners from the areas. However, these figures are deceiving. Table 5-6 shows that 30 per cent of the respondents bad thought of moving for various reasons, and they represent the potential proportion of families who would be the first to move out of the area. Due to the presence of apartments, another 25 per cent of the families become potentially mobile, boosting the proportion of potentially mobile families in the areas from 30 per cent to 55 per cent. TABLE 5-5 BELIEF IN FUTURE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT BY NUMBER AND PERCENT -Apartments Will B< In Area In Future i Built Reason For Belief Yes % No % Don't Know * Lack of Confidence in Loc. Govt* Other % Don't Know % Hilton 6 100 5 83 1 17 Queens 8 89 1 11 2 22 6 27 1 , 11 Berkley 4 80 1 20 2 40 2 40 1 20 Total 18 90 1 5 1 5 9 45 8 40 3 15 TABLE 5-6 REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE BY NUMBER AND PERCENT No Desire To Move % Presence of Apartments % Other % ; Total ; * Hilton 1 17 4 67 1 17 6 100 Queens 6 67 3 33 9 100 Berkley 2 40 1 20 2 40 5 100 Total 9 45 5 25 6 30 20 100 156 While there was no visible or statistical evidence of increased mobility resulting from the presence of apartments, the potential for increased mobility was manifest, and under certain unforeseen market conditions, the high potential mobility in these mixed housing areas could be triggered. Validity of Homeowners Opposition While proceedings were underway to rezone the sites in the survey areas to multiple-dwelling use, the homeowners presented numerous reasons why they felt apartments should not be permitted. (See INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FORMULATION. In this chapter for list of objections) To determine the validity of the objections, they were re-phrased in the form of questions to see if the apartments had oreated all of the undesirable character istics that the homeowners said they would. Since the questions were open, the respondent had complete freedom to implicate apartments or anything else as causing or contributing to any undesirable factors existing in the survey area. The first objection was that the apartments would depreciate the value of the single-family homes, and make them difficult to sell. Table 5-7 shows that 35 per cent of the respondents felt their home would be difficult to sell because of the presence of apartments. Another 50 per cent felt they would have no trouble selling their home. Other factors such as the size, shape and layout of the home was mentioned by 15 per cent of the respondents as factors that would make their home difficult to sell. In reply to whether they knew of anyone who had difficulty in TABLE 5-7 FACTORS THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO SELL HOKE BY NUMBER AND PERCENT No Difficulty % Presence of Apartments % Other % Total % Hilton 2 33 4 67 6 100 Queens 6 67 1 11 2 22 9 100 Berkley 2 40 2 40 1 20 5 100 Total 10 50 7 35 3 15 20 100 158 selling a home because of the presence of apartments, none of the res pondents felt that the presence of apartments could affect the re-sale value of their home, no cases were known where this had occured even though several homes had been sold in these areas over the past two years. The second objection was that taxes would increase due to increased school and servicing costs brought about by the apartments. When asked if property taxes had increased over the past two years, sixteen (80 per cent) of the respondents stated that they had; one stated taxes had remained the same and three did not know If property taxes had increased or not. (See Table 5-8) In giving reasons for the increase in taxes, of importance was the fact that none of the homeowners associated the in crease In taxes to the presence of apartments. In the "other" category, some of the reasons given were: increased costs of general improvements, increased school costs, wage increases for municipal employees, Increases in the number of municipal employees, increases in land values and home improvements. In the Queens Road area where the upgrading of a lane to service the apartments obviously resulted in Increased tax assessments, the home owners did not associate the increase in taxes to the apartment. The homeowners seemed to benefit Just as much from the upgrading of the lane as did the apartment. The lane was widened and paved so that the amount of noise and dust from the land was reduced. The result was that the homeowners were pleased to see the lane paved, and in no way blamed the presence of apartments for increasing their taxes. TABLE 5-8 AREAS EXPERIENCING A TAX INCREASE AND REASONS FOR THE INCREASE BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Reasons for Tax Increase Yes % No % Don't Know % Apart ments Other % Don't Know % Hilton 4 1 17 1 17 5 83 1 17 Queens 9 100 9 100 Berkley 3 60 2 40 3 60 2 40 Total 16 80 1 5 3 15 17 85 3 15 160 The third objection was that people who live in apartments are more mobile, and belong to a lower social class than do homeowners; the implication being that rental units were a blighting influence in single-family residential areas. The homeowner's perception of tenants In the survey areas did not substantiate this argument. The data in Table 5-9 can be summarized by saying that on the whole, homeowners in the survey areas perceived people living in the apartments as young, middle class families who were moderately mobile. Some of the respondents went so far as to say that the tenants were much like themselves. Others stated that the tenants were young professionals just getting started, and that they would have to be making a good wage in order to pay the high apartment rents. Hie large proportion of respondents (between 25 to 30 per eent) who were unable to give an opinion as to the type of people living in the apartments indicated that they were either unwilling to make a per sonal value Judgement about the tenants or they had never really taken notice of the kind of people who were living there. Also, since 20 per cent of the respondents had lived in their home for less than one year, they would not have had time to familiarize themselves with the people living in the apartments. One of the major objections to apartments in the Queens Road and Berkley Road areas was that they would cut off the view of either the mountains or the city (depending on which way the home was facing). TABLE 5-9 HOW HOMEOWNERS PERCEIVE TENANTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT A. Marital Status of Tenants B. Age of Tenants Family % Single Don't % Young % Middle Old % Don't % Know Know Hilton 5 83 1 17 3 50 3 50 Queens 8 89 1 11 7 78 2 22 Berkley 4 80 1 20 3 60 1 20 1 20 Total 17 95 3 15 13 65 1 5 6 30 C. Class Status of Tenants D. MO bili ty of Tenants Lower % Middle % Upper * Don't Know i Stable i Mobile * Don't Know i Hilton Queens Berkley 1 17 3 3 50 60 2 3 2 33 33 40 1 2 17 22 1 5 4 17 56 80 4 2 1 67 22 20 Total •3- 5 12 65 7 35 3 15 10 50 7 35 162 The fact that this was an objection of homeowners in the two North Vancouver survey areas was indicated by the responses in Table 5-10. In the Hilton Road area, the loss of view was not a consideration at all, and even though the owners of two homes directly across the street from the tall, three-story walk-up apartment stated that their privacy had been Interfered with, no mention was made of their view being affected. North Vancouver homeowners are traditionally very sensitive to anything that threatens to obstruct their view. This is understandable as many people locate on the North Vancouver mountainsides primarily to take advantage of the panoramic view of Metropolitan Vancouver. In the two North Vancouver survey areas, only five (36 per cent) of the fourteen respondents mentioned that their view had been affected. In none of the cases, however, was the view interfered with to the extent that home owners were forced to seek compensation from the municipality for "injurious affection". Another objection was that apartments would produce increased traffic and parking problems in residential areas. Tiie results of the survey showed that 75 per cent of the homeowners had noticed an increase in traffic on the road on which their home fronted. (See Table 5-11) However, only 25 per cent suggested that the increase was caused by the apartments. The Hilton Road area accounted for 15 per cent of the complaints. These homeowners were rather biased as Hilton Road has been used for more than a year as one of the major access roads to the Whalley Commercial 163 TABLE 5-10 RESPONDENTS WHO PELT VIEW HAD BEEN CUT OFF BY APARTMENTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Yes % No Total * Hilton 6 100 6 100 Queens 3 33 6 67 9 100 Berkley 2 40 3 60 5 100 Total 5 25 15 75 20 100 TABLE 5-H HOMEOWNERS' PERCEPTION OF INCREASED TRAFFIC CAUSED BY APARTMENTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Noticed Increase Reasons for Increase Yes % No % AptS. % Other % Don't Know * Total % Hilton 5 83 1 17 3 50 2 33 1 17 6 100 Queens 7 78 2 22 1 11 8 89 9 100 Berkley 3 60 2 40 i 20 3 60 1 20 5 100 Total 15 75 5 25 5 25 13 65 2 10 20 100 165 Center. It is doubtful if the Increase in traffic created by the thirteen unit apartment building In this area could be discernible when compared with the total amount of traffic using Hilton Road daily. The increase in traffic In the Queens Road area can be attributed to the upgrading of the lane to provide access to the apartments, and also to the increased use of East 29 Street as an East-West traffic artery through North Vancouver. While the lane would be used extensively by the apartment dwellers, and to this extent, the apartments would certainly cause increased traffic, only one of the nine respondents from this area suggested that the apartments had caused an increase in traffic. Once again, as has been mentioned previously, even though adverse factors were present in these areas which should have been blamed on the apartments, the homeowners did not perceive the apartments to be the cause. The homeowners in the Berkley Road area also noticed an increase in traffic, but only one of the five respondents suggested the apartments as the cause. Aocess to the apartment parking lots docured before the traffic reached the single-detached dwelling areas. Because of this, little apartment traffic passed the homes. Berkley Road was also the only access road to a new subdivision North of the survey area. As people moved into the subdivision, the increased traffic on Berkley Road would be readily noticed. Eighty-five per eent of the respondents did not consider parking to be a problem. This was surprising, especially in the Berkley Road area 166 where only one of the homeowners mentioned there was a parking problem. A casual drive around the apartments would show that not enough parking stalls were provided. Several pleasure boats have been parked among the trees surrounding the apartments, and in the evening ten to fifteen auto mobiles are parked in the boulevards along Berkley Road and Bendell Avenue. The single-family homes' in this area have private driveways, and so are not affected by any parking problems that exist around the apartments. In the Hilton Road area, adequate underground and surface parking have been provided. The parking provided for the apartments in the Queens Road is adequate for the tenants, but one of the homeowners from this area complained that whenever parties are held at the apartments, parking became a problem along Queens Road. The sixth objection to apartments was that the children would be overly noisy, and there would be a lack of play area for them around the apartments. Ninety-five per cent of the homeowners did not consider the children who lived in the apartments to be overly noisy. With regards to where the children play, 50 per cent of the res pondents stated that they had seen the children from the apartments play ing on the streets, in the yards of single-family homes, in school yards and various other places. (See Table 5-12) Another 45 per cent stated that they did not know where the children played.*-? This could be taken to mean that since the respondents had not seen the" children playing in the areas mentioned above, that the children played in and about the apartment buildings. This would1 be especially true of the garden apartments in TABLE 5-12 WHERE CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN APARTMENTS PLAY: BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Around Apartment X On Streets * In Single-Family yards % Other % Don't Know % Total * Hilton 1 2 33 3 6 100 Queens 1 11 4 44 1 11 3 33 9 100 Berkley- 1 20 1 20 3 6o 5 100 Total 1 5 5 25 2 10 3 15 9 45 20 100 168 the North Vancouver survey areas. Both developments have large play areas equipped with such play apparatus as swings, slides and teeter-totters. Each development also has a swimming pool which is in constant use throughout the summer months. Some of the homeowners mentioned that the children were quite noisy when playing around the pools, but not to the point of being disturbing. The seventh and final complaint examined by the questionnaire was that apartments would detract from the character.of the single-family residential areas. (See Table 5-13) Of the twenty respondents, twelve (60 per cent) felt that apartments had not detracted from the character of the areas. Five (25 per cent) of the respondents went so far as to say that the character of the areas had been improved by the apartments. The apartments in the Queens Road area were built on a site where an old, abandoned home had been. In the Hilton Road area, the site on which the apartment building was located had previously been a vacant lot full of tall weeds and shrubs. In the Berkley Road area, the site had previously been a forest. Eight (HO per cent) of the respondents felt that apartments had detracted from the character of the single-family area so that it could no longer be thought of as an exclusive area. Another 15 per cent felt that the construction of the three story units in the Berkley Road and Hilton Road areas had reduced the privacy of the single-family homes. Tenants living in the third floor suites could see directly into the yards and windows of the neighbouring homes. Ten per cent felt apart ments had detracted from the character of the area by blocking the view of the mountains and the city. 169 TABLE 5-13 DO APARTMENTS DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Yes % No % Total Hilton 4 67 2 33 6 100 Queens 2 22 7 78 9 100 Berkley- 2 40 3 60 5 100 Total 8 40 12 60 20 100 170 The findings of the survey regarding the validity of homeowner opposition to the development of multiple-dwellings in single-family residential areas can be summarized as follows: While some of the respondents felt that the presence of apartments would make it difficult for them to sell their home, none of them were aware of any instances where difficulty was encountered in selling a home because of the presence of apartments. The respondents agreed that property taxes had increased, but none blamed this on the presence of apartments. The general opinion of the homeowners was that the apartment dwellers were young, middle-class families, much like themselves. They were thought of as a little more mobile than the homeowners, but some of the respondents were quick to add that some of the tenants had lived in the apartments for as long as they had lived in their home. (50 per cent of the respondents had lived in their home for less than five years.) The view from some of the homes had been affected by the apartments, but on the whole, this was not serious. It usually meant that the scenery changed from a lot full of trees to a few trees and a lot full of apartments. Traffic had increased In all of the areas, but this was not attributed to the presence of apartments. In the one area where increased traffic could be reasonably blamed on the apartments, the homeowners were not perceptive of the causal relationship. 171 None of the respondents reported any parking problems. But again problems did exist in two of the areas which the homeowners either were not aware of or did not care about. Play areas around the apartments were generally considered adequate although the children did not always play in them. The noise created by the children's play had increased. This was especially noticeable when the swimming pools were in use. Once again the homeowners did not consider this to be a problem. A large proportion of the respondents felt the character of the areas had been changed by the presence of the apartments. Whenever any buildings are added or taken away from a residential area, its character changes and it is never the same again. But the fact that the character of the areas were changed from exclusively single-family residential to mixed-residential was significant in that it was related to the home owner's pride and identification with the area. The character of the areas were changed to the extent that 25 per cent of the respondents had thought of moving because of the presence of apartments. On the whole, the results of the survey indicated that the homeowner's attitudes towards apartments changed from very intense opposition before they are built to a high level of complacency after they are built. This does not mean that the homeowners would be compacent to further apartment development in the areas. They are content to get along with what they have. Furthermore, the responses indicate that the apartments caused only minor ill effects to the surrounding residential areas. 172 Prom casual observations in the areas, it was possible to recognize existing problems with regards to parking, privacy, noise, etc., but to the homeowners, these problems were almost non-existent, possibly because they were living too close to the problems. To a large extent, it seemed that they had accepted the conditions around them as being normal and perhaps even desirable. Attitude Change This section examines, first of all, homeowners' change in attitude towards apartments in general, and secondly, homeowners' change in attitude towards mixed-housing. Table 5-14 shows a breakdown by number and per cent of homeowners who expressed a change in attitude towards apartments. No attempt was made to measure the degree of change, and the respondent was asked to state his attitude towards apartments in general. The results show that 35 per cent of the respondents felt their attitudes had changed from being opposed to apartments to being in favour of them. The other 65 per cent stated no change in attitude. Of interest, Is the fact that the seven (35 per cent) respondents who indicated a change in attitude lived in the two North Vancouver survey areas in which the garden apartments were located. The implication.Is that the well designed and landscaped garden apartments are more ac ceptable in single-family residential areas than the other forms of apartment builings. In the Hilton Road area, where the apartment building is a three-story square structure, none of the respondents ~ TABLE 5-14 TYPE OP ATTITUDE CHANGE TOWARD APARTMENTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Against to For % Always For % For to Against % Always Against % Total * Hilton 3 50 3 50 6 100 Queens 5 56 3 33 1 11 9 100 Berkley 2 40 3 60 5 100 Total 7 35 9 45 4 20 20 10Q TABLE 5-15 COMPARISON OP KNOWLEDGE OP APARTMENTS AT TIME HOME WAS PURCHASED WITH ATTITUDE TOWARD MIXED HOUSING: BY NUMBER AND PERCENT A. Apartments Present At Time Home Was Purchased B. Approve of A Housing Mix Yes % No % Total Yes No % Total % Hilton 6 100 6 100 1 17 5 83 6 100 Queens 6 67 3 33 9 100 5 56 4 44 9 100 Berkley 3 60 2 40 5 100 3 60 2 40 5 100 Total 9 45 11 55 20 100 9 45 11 55 20 100 175 Indicated a change In attitude. This would tend to substantiate the above implication. A comparison of Tables 5-14 and 5-15 shows more clearly the respondents' attitudes towards apartments and mixed housing. Table 5-14 shows that 80 per cent of the respondents were in favour of apart ments, but Table 5-15-B shows that only 45 per cent approved of mixed-housing. Also, a comparison of Sections A and B of Table 5-15 shows a marked relationship between those who knew of the apartments at the time they purchased their home, and those who approved of mixed housing. Of the forty, 5 per cent were unaware that apartments would be constructed when they purchased their home, and once again, 90 per cent of these objected to mixed housing. The conclusion Is that homeowners who choose to live in a mixed housing situation of their own free will are usually in favour of mixed housing whereas those who have mixed housing as It were "forced" upon them, usually remain opposed to mixed housing. SUMMARY An extraneous variable not taken into account when the survey hypothesis was drawn up was the large proportion (45 per cent) of home owners who were aware of the apartments at the time they purchased their homes. This unplanned variable, however, did reveal very clearly the fact that homeowners who voluntarily chose to live in close proximity to apartments had very few, if any, complaints about them, and were almost 100 per cent in favour of mixed housing. Conversely, homeowners who had 176 apartments forced upon them remained opposed to mixed housing, and were usually more critical of apartments. This finding lends strong support to the concept that if mixed housing practices are going to persist, the greatest success could be achieved by, incorporating it into new develop ments rather than trying to inject apartments Into existing single-family residential areas. Hypothesis I is valid to the extent that 90 per cent of the home owners who had 'apartments forced upon them continued to oppose mixed housing even after they had lived next to the apartments for over a year. The importance of this finding is that 25 per cent of the total sample had thought of moving because of the presence of apartments. The apart ments did create a higher potential mobility among the homeowners which could have serious repercussions if this increased potential mobility was transmitted into actual movement from the areas. Hypothesis II was not substantiated by the homeowner's perception of problems caused by the apartments. The general impression was that the homeowners paid very little, attention to the apartments, and the activities carried on about them. Lack of adequate play area and the apartment's detraction, from the character of the area were the only complaints where more than 20 per cent of the respondents gave negative responses. At first, what seems to be a contradiction between the answers given in response to the problems created by the apartments and the proportion of respondents who opposed mixed housing, really is not. The 177 fact that the respondents had no complaints about the apartments, and still opposed mixed housing simply means that half of the respondents opposed mixed housing for no other reason than It was against their values and attitudes to accept it* This should not be taken too lightly, as homeowners who are dissatisfied with a neighbourhood tend to move to areas where they feel more comfortable. One other finding of the study was that the amount of homeowner acceptance to mixed housing is also related to the type of apartment developmente Homeowners who lived next to garden apartments made com ments that were, on the whole, very favorable towards them; while those who lived in close proximity to the three-story walk-up expressed a very negative attitude towards them. The height of the apartment buildings Is also a critical factor. In the areas where three-story apartments were located, homeowners expressed a greater concern for loss of privacy than in the area where two-story apartments were looated. 178 FOOTNOTES ^See Chapter I - Definitions. p See Appendix A for copy of questionnaire. 3 Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz, Research Methods in the  Behavioral Sciences, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), P. 352. 4Ibid, p. 351. 5 Pred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p. 469. ^Festinger and Katz, op. cit., p. 330. 7Ibid, pp. 48-51. Q See Appendix B for a copy of the Letter of Introduction. %eter Rossi, Why Families Move, (Glencoe: Free Press, 1955), P. 154. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY At the inception of this study, it was envisioned that the findings would be relevant to the planner, to local councils and to the homeowner. The results of this study are relevant to the planner in that they give some Insight into the attitudes of the people living in the homes that so often are thought of as dots on a map. Since planners have been, to some extent, the forerunners in advocating mixed housing, this study goes one step further to examine the social implications of mixed housing. Tfcis study also re-evaluates the role of the single-family home, and suggests that single-family residential areas should be preserved at a time when many are saying that single-family housing is wasteful of urban land. The relevance of this study to local councils concerns their diligence in formulating and following proper apartment location policies. In most cases, councils agree with the town center concept in which apartments are located around the major commercial centers, but in the l8o final analysis, councils have not followed this location policy, but have allowed apartments to be built in single-family residential areas. This study shows that the mixing of housing types considering the financial aspects only, can result in social imbalance and premature deterioration of an area. This study also shows to the homeowner that under well controlled conditions, apartments can be introduced into residential areas"without causing all of the problems normally associated with apartments. To a certain extent, they can also add character to an area if they replace buildings which have fallen into a state of disrepair and dilapidation. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was primarily an exploritory study in that its purpose was to gain familiarity with the phenomenon of mixed housing, and^ achieve new insights into the problems related to it. For this reason, the research design has been flexible In order to permit the considera tion of many different aspects of mixed housing. An exploritory study was required on this topic due to the lack of material written on mixed housing per se. Chapters II and III provide necessary background information on the importance of both single-family housing and multiple-family housing in providing for the housing needs of the population. Chapter IT focused on the development of the tradition of private property and the single-family home in North America. On the frontier, a man could use his 181 land any way he pleased, but with the growth of the population and the increased closeness in living conditions, it was necessary to place restrictions on how a person used his land. One of the most important devices implemented to control land-use was the zoning by-law. Zoning was seen as a way to protect single-family residential areas from un desirable land-uses and thereby conserve property values. It was recognized that single-family housing played an invaluable role in satisfying the needs of certain people. Specifically, single-family housing satisfied the housing needs of families more than any other type of housing. The single-detached home provides privacy from neighbours. Its size provides for a greater separation of functions and provides greater privacy for individual family members. It is a form of investment, and gives the owner a source of security. It is the locus for family activities, a place to identify with, and It lends itself to personal expression more than any other type of dwelling unit. For these reasons, it was concluded that the single-family home, and its environment is in need of continued conservation, and that infringement from other land-uses should be discouraged. The first part of Chapter III dealt mainly with the growth in the number of apartments in Canada. Data showed that multiple-dwellings have been accounting for an ever increasing proportion of total housing in Canada, and that this growth has occured mainly in urban centers. Reasons for this growth have been due to changes in the age structure of the 182 population, household formation, increased housing costs and peoples changing tastes. Much of the apartment growth in Metropolitan Vancouver has occured in the suburban municipalities. Lower land costs have attracted developers to these areas while increasing employment opportunities in the municipalities have attracted people to live in them. Apartment growth has resulted in increased pressure on more economical use of residential land. It must be kept in mind, however, that the large number of people who are living in apartments at present, will be getting married over the next five years, and they will then be looking for a single-detached home in which to raise their family. The second part of Chapter III dealt with apartment location policies, and practices in Metropolitan Vancouver. Most of the municipalities making up Metropolitan Vancouver Support similar apartment location policies. These policies advocate the placement of apartments around the major commercial centers within the community. In practice, local councils have not always upheld this policy. In their eagerness to have a developer invest money in their community, local councils have often granted rezonings for apartments in areas not related to commercial centers. Under these circumstances, sound apartment location policies have been set aside in favour of financial expediency. The focus of Chapter IV was on the social implications of mixed housing. Architects, planners and other "students" of the urban scene, have been the major advocates of mixed housing. Mixed housing, however, implies a social mix as different types of housing attract people with 183 different social and demographic characteristics. In this regard, mixed housing cannot be reasonably separated from the feasibility of a social mix. Prom the analysis of the so-called "balanced community concept", it was concluded that there is a natural tendency for people to associate with others of similar backgrounds and similar values. Artificially mixing people with differing backgrounds results in social isolation instead of an enrichment of ideas and culture. While a housing mix may be desirable from the point of view of introducing variety into the urban scene, the social makeup of the people living in the different housing types is sure to create forces which will tend to disrupt the social interaction that would otherwise exist if the inhabitants exhibited homogeneous social characteristics.' The purpose of introducing the cost-revenue analysis was to show the affect different types of apartments have on municipal finances. Each apartment type possesses characteristics that cater to the needs of different segments of the population. In determining where to locate apartments, planners and local councils must take into account such things as the height, number of bedrooms, rent and size of the project because each element decides, to a certain extent, the kind of people who will live in the apartments. Chapter V dealt with the formulation and results of the survey research into homeowner's attitudes towards mixed housing. The two hypotheses tested weres 184 HYPOTHESIS I: Homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing are not changed by living in close proximity to apartments. HYPOTHESIS II: In a mixed housing situation homeowners perceive apartments to be the cause of parking problems, depreciated property values, increased traffic and noise, higher taxes, loss of privacy, loss of view and other problems usually attributed to apartments. Hypothesis I was accepted on the grounds that 90 per cent of the home owners who did not know that apartments would be built in the area when they purchased their home, continued to oppose mixed housing a?fter the apartments were constructed, and in use. Conversely, 90 per cent of the homeowners who knew of the apartments at the time they purchased their home were in favour of mixed housing, and had not changed their attitude after living at least one year in close proximity to the apartments. An inconsistency is evident in these responses, as 80 per cent of all homeowners interviewed, stated that they liked the apartments that had been constructed in their neighbourhood, whereas only 45 per cent of total homeowners interviewed, stated that they were in favour of mixed housing. This seems to substantiate the hypothesis that homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing do not change as a result of living in close proximity to apartments. The fact that this basic inconsistency exists, indicates that further research is needed to delineate to a 185 finer degree why homeowners express approval of particular types of apartments constructed in their neighbourhood, and at the same time, oppose mixed housing. Hypothesis II was rejected on the grounds that homeowners generally did not perceive the apartments to be the cause of any serious problems in the areas. This view was strengthened by the fact that even where the existence of problems could be traced to the apartments, the homeowners did not perceive them to be the cause. Even though homeowners do not perceive apartments as causing problems usually attributed to them, the fact that approximately one half of the homeowners interviewed opposed mixed housing, requires further discussion and research. Mixed housing seems to create conflict between two value systems. One suggests a need for variety of housing types, and the other suggests homogeneity of housing types. Who is to say which one is right, and which one is wrong? The evidence does point to the maintenance of some semblance of homogeneity within residential areas. Certainly, the value system of one should not be forced on the other, and this question should not be decided by the economics involved as has occured in the past. One of the important findings of this study was that homeowners who voluntarily chose to live in a mixed housing situation are satisfied with the arrangement. Therefore, if mixed housing is to be practiced, it should be confined to new developments where the purchasers of the single-detached homes are free to choose whether or not they want to live in a mixed housing situation. 186 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH One of the primary purposes of exploritory research is to discover topics suitable for further> more detailed research. While the research possibilities related to the topic of mixed housing are vast, only four possible areas of research will be mentioned. Resources of information in these areas were very limited, and were greatly missed in the formula tion of this study of mixed housing. Of major importance is the need for a survey of homeowners' attitudes before the apartments are constructed, and another survey after they are completed. In the present study, the assumption that all the homeowners opposed the development of apartments in their respec tive neighbourhoods was invalid as some of the homeowners were actually in favour of the development. A second area for further study requires a survey to determine the amount and the kind of social interaction that occurs between home owners and tenants in mixed housing situations. As a means of comparison, the same type of information could be gathered on the social interaction occuring between homeowners in the same area. If it is found that very little interaction takes place between homeowners, a housing mix could not have that much effect on the social interaction of the area. In relation to Rossi's study in Philadelphia, further research into the importance of "location" as a factor in purchasing a home, could be undertaken. From the crude response obtained in this study, "location" seems to be a much more important criteria for purchasing a home in Vancouver, than in Philadelphia. The last suggestion for future research is a study to determine if mobility is higher among homeowners in areas of mixed housing, than in homogeneous single-family residential neighbourhoods. A representative sample of mixed housing situations could be chosen, and then mobility in and out of these areas could be studied over a specified time period. APPENDIX 189 APPENDIX A ATTITUDINAL SURVEY - FOR HOMEOWNERS The purpose of this survey is to determine resident's attitudes toward certain types of housing developments. The questions have been designed to give the respondent the highest degree of freedom to answer in the way his experience, knowledge, and understanding dictates. It must be stressed that there are no right or wrong answers. In reporting the results of this interview, names and specific addresses will not be used. Those who take part in this survey will remain anonymous. In this type of an interview schedule, since the questions must be asked in a predetermined order and form, it will be necessary to complete the interview before answering any questions you might have. How long have you lived in this home? a) Have you thought of moving? Yes No b) If YES: What would be your reasons for moving? Need larger house Would like new house Don't like neighbourhood Move closer to work Other What are the factors that influenced your decision to buy this house? Quality of neighbourhood Location Close to job Good schools Good deal Close to friends Liked home Other a) I have noticed some apartment buildings in this area. Did you know at the time you purchased your home that apartments would be built in this area? b) If you knew what you know now about this area, would you still buy in this location? Yes No Yes No c) If NO: What are your reasons for saying that? 191 3. What do you think is the estimated value of your home? a) To your knowledge, Is there anything about your home or its location that would make it difficult to sell? Apartments present Poor location Quality of surrounding homes Poor design of house Other b) IP BECAUSE OP APARTMENTS: Do you know of anyone who has,had difficulty selling his home because of the presence of apartments? Yes No 4. Have your property taxes increased over the past 2 years? Yes 1 No a) If YES OR GONE DOWN: How do you account for this? 5. To your knowledge, what kind of people are living in these apartments? Families Would you consider them: Single people . Lower class Young Middle class Middle aged___ Upper class Retired Are they: Stable or Mobile 192 Has your view from your home or yard been affected by these apartments? Yes No a) IP YES: In what way has your view been affected? 7o Have you noticed an increase in the amount of traffic using (NAME OF  FRONTING ST.) in the past year? Apartments Other 8. Have you noticed any parking problems in this area? Yes - No a) What are the problems? 9. Where do the children who live in the apartments play? Around the apartment building In street In vacant lots Other 193 a) Are the children noticeably noisy to the point of being disruptive or disturbing? Yes No 10. To your knowledge, has there been any problem with regard to the safety of the children living in the apartments? Yes No a) IP YES: What is the problem? 11. Which of the following amenities and services are present in this area? Paved roads Sidewalks Sanitary sewers Storm sewers Curbing Parks Schools Public transit Shopping area Blocks away Blocks away Blocks away Blocks away a) If the proper services and amenities were provided would you object to having other apartment buildings constructed in this area? Yes No b) IF YES: What are some of the reasons why you would object? 194 c) IP NO: In your opinion, are "proper services and amenities" the most important criteria when determining apartment location? 12. If apartments were to be located in the same general area as single family homes, what kind of apartments do you feel cause the least disruption to community life? High rise 2&3 story walk-up Townhouse or row-house Garden apartments Don't know Other 13. In your opinion have apartments detracted from the character of this area? Yes No 4) IF NO: What are some of the other criteria planners should use when considering sites for apartments? Yes No a) IF YES: In what way? b) IF NO: Have they improved the character of the area? Yes No 195 IP YES: In what way? IP NO: What has been there affect on this area? 14. Now that apartment development has been allowed in this area, do you think others will be permitted in the future? Yes No a) Does this feeling arise from you (lack of—IF YES) confidence in your local government and planning staff or something else? 15. Do you feel that your attitude towards apartments has changed since the construction of apartments in this area? Yes No a) IP YES: How has it changed? 197 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Anshen, Ruth Nanda. The Family, New York: Harper Brothers, 1949. Abrams, Charles. Revolution In Land. New York: Harper Brothers, 1939. Abrams, Charles. The Future of Housing. New York: Harper Brothers, 1946. Bassett, Edward M. Zoning. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1936. Berger, Bennett M. Working Class Suburb. Berkley: University of California Press, I960. Beyer, Glenn H. Housing and Soelety. New York: MacMillan, 1965« Chapman, Dennis. The Home and Social Status. New York: Grove Press, 1955» Clawson, Marlon. Man and Land in the United States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. " " Community Builder's Council of Urban Land Institute. The Community  Builders Handbook. Washington: Community Builder's Council of Urban Land Institute, 1968. Dean, John P. Home Ownership: Is It Sound? New York: Harper & Bros., 1945. Festinger, Leon, and Katz, Daniel. Research Methods in the Behavioral  Sciences. New York: Holt, Rlnehart and Winston, i960. Foote; Abu-Lughod; Foley; and Winnick. Housing Choices and Housing  Constraints. New York: McGraw-Hill, I960. ' Gans, Herbert J. People and Plans. New York: Basic Books, 1968. Gans, Herbert J. The Levittowners. Pantheon Books. New York, 1967* Grey, George H. Housing and Citizenship - A Study of Low Cost Housing. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1946. Harris, Marshall. Origin of the Land Tenure System In the United States. Iowa State College Press, 1953. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. 198 Mace, Ruth L. Municipal-Cost Revenue Research In the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1961. Marriott, G. R. L. Primitive Property. London: MacMillan, 1878. Milner, J. B. .Community Planning. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1958. Morals, Herbert M. The Struggle for American Freedom^ New York: International, 1944. Neutze, Max. The Suburban Apartment Boom. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. Rosow, Irving. SOcial Integration of the Aged. New York: Free Press, 1967. Rossi, Peter. Why Families Move. Glencoe: Free Press, 1955. Rutland, Robert Allen. The Birth of the Bill of Rights 1776-1791. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955. B. ARTICALS AND PERIODICALS "A Case for Higher Density Housing". House and Home, April, 1962, pp.132-141. "Apartments in Suburbia: Local Responsibility and Judicial Restraint". Northwestern Law Review, Vol. 59, 1964. Babock, Richard F., and Bosselman, Fred P. "Suburban Zoning and the Apartment Boom". University of Pennsylvania Law Review, III. 28. fc-vz-r.j, (June, 1963). Clarke, S. T. "Experiment in Residential Layout for Lethbridge". Habitat, (November-December, 1964). Del Guidiee, Dominic. "Cost-Revenue Implications of High-Rise Apartments". Urban Land, (February, 1963). Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board. Supplement. Real Estate Trends. 1969. Lipman, Marvin, housing and Environment". Habitat, XII (1969), pp. 2-6. Marsh, Leonard C. Lecture No. 3. Industrialization and Urbanization in  Canada and Their Implications for Housing. University of Toronto. 1943-1944. Melamed, Anshel. "High-Rent Apartments in the Suburbs". The Appraisal  Journal.. Vol. XXX No. 3 (April, 1962), pp. 279-b9. 'The Tenants' Point of View". Urban Land. Urban Land Institute, 1970. Vol. 29. No. 2. C. REPORTS AND GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS American Society of Planning Officials, Information Report No. 139. Planning for Apartments. I960. Bucks County Planning Commission. Apartments; An Analysis of Issues and  Standards. Bureau of Economic Research. Rutgers. The Garden Apartment Development:  A Municipal Cost-Revenue Analysis. 1964. Canadian Housing Design Council. Housing in Cities. Ottawa, 1964. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Site Planning Handbook. 1966. Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. Planning Department. Apartment Study. May, 1968. Gray, L. C.j Bennett, J. B.; Kramer, E.j and Parhawk, W. S. "The Cause: Traditional Attitudes and Institutions". Soils and Men. Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1938. Illing, Wolfgang M. Staff Study No. 4. Economic Council of Canada. Housing Demand to 1970. 1964. Lovrer Mainland Regional Planning Board. Municipal Planning Service. Maple Ridge Community Plan. New Westminster, B.C., 1967« Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Municipal Planning Service. Port Moody City Study. New Westminster, B.C., 1966. MacLennan, Ian. Canadian Housing Design Council. The Architecture of  Urban & Suburban Development. 1964. Metropolitan Washington Council of Government. Housing in the Metropolitan  Washington: Today and Tommorrow. Oldman River Regional Planning Commission. City of Lethbrldge, Zoning By- Law, No. 2750. Lethbrldge, Alberta. 1970. Province of British Columbia. Municipal Act. Queens Printer, 1968. 200 University of British Columbia. Seminar in Governmental Urban Land Policies. Vancouver Housing Market I966-I968. Vancouver, B.C., 1968. Technical Planning Board. Policy Report: Low Density Multiple Housing Vancouver, B.C., 1969. 

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.831.1-0102087/manifest

Comment

Related Items