UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Mixing of housing types : a study of selected social issues 1970

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1970_A6_7 E37.pdf [ 17.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0102087.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102087+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102087.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102087+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102087+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102087+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
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, 1 9 6 8 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, 1 9 7 0 In presenting th i s thes is in p a r t i a l f u l f i lment o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f r ee l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fu r ther agree tha permission for extensive copying of th i s thes i s fo r scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes i s fo r f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion. Department of <t>~>A fe^g^M. 1 The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h 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. i i i 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 o f f i c i a l s a l l 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, p o l i t i c a l 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 i s placed on the examination of four issues related to this topic. They arei. (1) The role of single-family housing and i t s 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 f e a s i b i l i t y of mixing people who possess different social and demographic characteristics in the same neighbourhood. (4) The v a l i d i t y of homeowners' opposition to mixed housing. Itoe method used in this study i s a combination of the library research approach, and a sample survey of homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing. The f i r s t 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 i v located in two Metropolitan Vancouver municipalities. These municipalities were North Vancouver District and Surrey. The findings show, first of a l l , 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 i t 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 .... i i ABSTRACT. i i i TABLE OP CONTENTS... v LIST OP TABLES ... ix LIST OP FIGURES.. xi LIST OF PLATES x i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 THE PROBLEM 1 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY. ... 2 HYPOTHESES OP THE STUDY 4 THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY. 4 METHODOLOGY . 6 DEFINITIONS...... 7 ORGANIZATION 9 II PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND THE SINGLE- FAMILY HOME. . ... ... ...... ..... 12 INTRODUCTION 12 THE TRADITION OP THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND 13 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 v i CHAPTER PAGE New Threats to Single-Family Housing..... 31 SUMMARY 35 I I I 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 82 A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES 83 EXAMPLES OF HOUSING MIXES 85 Vancouver City 85 Lethbridge, Alberta 86 Surrey Study Area 90 North Vancouver Study Area..... 92 THE BALANCED COMMUNITY. 99 v i i 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 I l l 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 123 Methodology 124 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 v i i i CHAPTER PAGE General Characteristics.... 146 Validity of Homeowners Opposition 156 Attitude Change.......................... 172 SUMMARY 175 VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 179 RELEVANCE OP THE STUDY 179 SUMMARY 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 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 6 6 (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 1 4 7 5-2 Estimated Value of Home by Number and Per Cent (In Thousands). 1 4 8 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 D i f f i c u l t To S e l l 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 l 6 l 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 N o r t h Vancouver D i s t r i c t Apartment L o c a t i o n P o l i c y . 72 3-2 L o c a t i o n o f Mixed Hous ing i n N o r t h Vancouver D i s t r i c t . . . . . . ; . ' . . . . . . 74 3-3 D i s t r i c t o f S u r r e y Apartment L o c a t i o n P o l i c y 76 3- 4 L o c a t i o n o f Mixed Housing i n the D i s t r i c t o f S u r r e y . . . 77 4- 1 P ic ture-Number Guide Queen's Road Survey Area 93 4- 2 P ic ture-Number G u i d e " B e r k l e y Road Survey Area 96 5- 1 H i l t o n Road Survey A r e a , P o p u l a t i o n Sample 136 5-2 H i l t o n Road Survey A r e a , Survey Sample 137 5-3 Queen's Road Survey A r e a , P o p u l a t i o n S a m p l e . . 138 5-4 Queen's Road Survey A r e a , Survey Sample 139 5-5 B e r k l e y Road Survey A r e a , P o p u l a t i o n S a m p l e . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5-6 B e r k l e y Road Survey A r e a , Survey Sample 141 x i i LIST OF PLATES PLATE PAGE I Types o f Apartments 43 I I V i e w i n g the Suburbs From A New P e r s p e c t i v e 84 I I I Photo S tudy o f Mixed Housing I n L e t h b r i d g e 87 I V Photo Study o f Mixed Housing In S u r r e y 91 V Photo Study o f Queen's Road Survey A r e a . . . . . 94 V I Photo S tudy o f B e r k l e y Road Survey A r e a . . . . . 97 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM Lawyers , Babock and Bosselroan i n d i s c u s s i n g the importance o f the problem o f c o n s t r u c t i n g apartments i n what have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d h o u s i n g a r e a s , make the f o l l o w i n g s ta tement : The dominant s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g p a t t e r n o f most suburban communities f a c e s a major c h a l l e n g e . The homogeneous suburb h a v i n g endured the a t t a c k s o f s o c i a l c r i t i c s f aces a f a r more f o r m i d a b l e opponent i n the deve loper who sees an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o f i t from the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f apartment b u i l d i n g s o u t s i d e the c e n t r a l c i t y . D u r i n g the decade o f the s i x t i e s , t h e r e w i l l be unprecedented pressure t o permit c o n s t r u c t i o n i n suburban areas of m u l t i - f a m i l y u n i t s . . . (As a r e s u l t ) b i t t e r l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l s t r u g g l e s w i l l c o n f r o n t the supreme c o u r t s o f the more populous s t a t e s w i t h such a m u l t i t u d e o f z o n i n g cases as t o d i s p l a c e - a t l e a s t - the u b i q u i t o u s gas s t a t i o n . Apar t from the l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l importance o f mixed h o u s i n g , t h i s problem i s o f g r e a t e r importance t o the p r o p e r p l a n n i n g o f the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e o f the c i t i e s . P h y s i c a l l y , i t means t h a t suburban r e s i d e n t i a l areas would be more compact, and t h a t i n s t e a d o f rows and rows o f i n d i v i d u a l houses a l l the same h e i g h t , s i z e and s e t - 2 b a c k , t h e r e woul d be some v a r i e t y . This has serious implications for planning. While i t i s 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 i t i s not a good practice to introduce higher densities into an existing residential area as f a c i l i t i e s such as parks, schools and u t i l i t y lines were designed with a particular capacity, and to increase the demand on them would 3 result in costly rebuilding. Very l i t t l e i s 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 l i v e ? " 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, i t would seem that extreme caution should be exercised by public o f f i c i a l s before creating new mixed housing situations. IMPORTANCE OP THE STUDY ' The main decision in the past to allow apartments to be bu i l t in single-family residential areas has been based, to a large extent, on the financial costs and benefits accruing to the municipality, whereas, l i t t l e , i f any, attention has been given to the social implications of such development. This i s largely accounted for by the fact that there i s 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 i f after the apartments are built and in use, whether the homeowners s t i l l 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, i f 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 al l 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 i f 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 i f 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 l i v i n g in close proximity to apartments? The sample survey technique w i l l 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 w i l l 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 w i l l 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 f e a s i b i l i t y of a social mix. Interviews with local planning o f f i c i a l s w i l l be used to accomplish .two goals. The f i r s t w i l l be to choose the mixed housing situations in which to administer a questionnaire to determine homeowners' attitudes towards mixed housing. The second goal w i l l be to examine mixed housing situations in Metropolitan Vancouver. At the same time, an analysis of apartment location policies and practices w i l l be undertaken. An interview schedule w i l l be drawn up to test the v a l i d i t y of homeowners' opposition to mixed housing, and also to determine i f liv i n g 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 w i l l be used interchangeably, "Single-detached" means a single house adjoining no other structure. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA means a d i s t r i c t In which only single- detached homes are located, and which i s 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 w i l l be surveyed. TEST CASE refers to mixed housing situations which meet the three c r i t e r i a of: 1. Documented homeowner opposition to the construction of apartments i n 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 w i l l be to devote a separate chapter to each of the chosen social issues related to mixed housing. Chapter II w i l l deal with the history of the tradition of private ownership of land and single-family housing* The purpose of this chapter w i l l be to show that controls over man's use of his land were devised to protect and to conserve the environment and property values i n single-family residential areas. The main hypothesis of this chapter w i l l be that single-detached housing and the environment of single-family residential areas play an important role i n 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 w i l l examine the growth of multiple- family dwellings in Canada• Apartment looation policies and practices w i l l also be examined to determine the methods by which mixed housing situations are brought about. The hypothesis for this chapter w i l l be that as c i t i e s 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 w i l l delve more deeply into the social implications of a housing mix. The basic assumption of this chapter w i l l be that a housing mix implies a social mix. This chapter w i l l attempt to determine the f e a s i b i l i t y of a social mix by relying on the findings of sociological studies carried out on this topic. Chapter V w i l l deal with the methodology of the questionnaire formulation and administration. This chapter w i l l also be devoted to the results and analysis of the questionnaire. The purpose of the survey w i l l be to determine the va l i d i t y of homeowner's opposition to the construction of apartments i n residential areas, and to determine whether or not l i v i n g i n close proximity to apartments results i n a change i n attitude on the part of the homeowners towards mixed housing. The correlation of the various social issues related to mixed housing w i l l be accomplished i n Chapter VI. This chapter w i l l also contain some recommendations for further research i n 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 i n 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 i s broad and deals with the private ownership of land and the single-family home In a North Amer lean context* It i s 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 i s made to distinguish which country i s being referred to when a particular topic i s being discussed. The f i r s t part of this chapter outlines the history of private ownership of land In North America. The discussion of this topic has f i l l e d many volumes, therefore, only a few of the basic concepts w i l l 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 i n North America, The purpose of this discussion i s to show that the traditions of private property and home ownership have developed together, and are deeply engrained i n 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 i n the traditional system of housing, namely, the placement of apartments i n single-family residential areas. Forming an integral part of this chapter i s a discussion of the various restrictions that have been placed on the use of privately owned land. One of the major restrictions—zoning, i s dealt with at length regarding i t s 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 i s a North Amerloan tradition that has developed and evolved from the time the f i r s t colonists arrived on the Atlantic seaboard i n the early loOO's. To understand the importance of the development of this tradition, an examination of the conditions existing in Northern Europe, particularly i n England prior to colonization i n the seventeenth century, i s i n order. From the mid-fourteenth century to the beginning of the seventeenth century, a slow but very r e a l economio revolution took place i n 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 v i l l e i n tenures. The former included a l l tenures based on services considered proper for a ^free n 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 i n 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 i n order to increase their own personal wealth and prestige. It was marked by three characteristics: (1) the disappearance of the open f i e l d system which was characterized by scattered strips, communal meadows and pastures, and joint t i l l a g e (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 i n 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 r i s i n g cost of l i v i n g . When Henry VIII broke away from Rome in 1 5 3 4 , 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 p o s s i b i l i t y of starvation, these labourers congregated in the towns and c i t i e s , 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 1 5 5 3 to 1 6 8 0 , forty-nine Joint stock enterprises were founded with capital invest- ments raising from 1 0 , 0 0 0 pounds in 1 5 5 8 to over 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 pounds In 1 6 9 5 . ^ 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 a l l three of these elements was largely due to the profound changes that had occured in English l i f e from the middle of the fourteenth century to the end"of the seventeenth century. The revolution in agriculture and in industry had brought in i t s 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 p o l i t i c a l , religious and economic conditions under which they were,forced to l i v e ; and they were looking abroad for an opportunity to begin anew. To a l l 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 s t r i c t l y English. A l l 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 i n 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 v i r t u a l l y valueless unless manpower could be made available, and especially because the resources were part of a vast, unexplored wilderness occupied by un- c i v i l i z e d peoples, i t turned out to be very d i f f i c u l t to transplant feudal institutions in America. Morals1'1' makes the following observations concerning the in a b i l i t y of the large land companies to establish feudalism in America. Three factors weighed against the establishment of feudalism in seventeenth oentury America. In the f i r s t place, land was so pl e n t i f u l that i t could be had for the asking. Thus, few settlers were willin g 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, f i n a l l y , 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. 1 2 Although feudalism i t s e l f was not established i n America, some stages of feudalism did make their way into the colonial system. 13 Among these were primogeniture, entail and quitrents. The f i r s t 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 a l l services to the landlord except for the payment of a nominal sum. It was not u n t i l the American Revolution that the states abolished quitrents along with the other outmoded practices of primogeniture and e n t a i l . A steady movement towards freer tenure conditions existed In America from the early l 6 0 0's, but i t was the American Revolution that completed the work. After the war, the land that belonged to the Br i t i s h 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 Br i t i s h North America Act in 1 8 6 7 . One of the prime considerations in the minds of the framers of the American Declaration of Independence, and the B i l l 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 B i l l of Rights because i t 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,. l i f e , liberty and property. The result was the Fifth amendment to the B i l l of Rights stating that "no person should be deprived of l i f e , liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private „ 14 property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Land ownership as i t i s known today in the United States was instigated after the American Revolution. The highest form of land tenure was ownership, and was evidenced by t i t l e which gave the owner the right to transfer a l l 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 u n t i l i t included a total of 1.2 b i l l i o n 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, i t was possible to buy land for $1.25 per acre. Other laws made land available at 12.5 cents per acre after i t 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 i f they would live on them and cultivate 17 them for five years. A l l government policies were directed to the ownership of land, and i t 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 s p i r i t of self-help was strong in them. They had come to root themselves in the free s o i l , their own s o i l . The ownership of land to them meant liberty i t s e l f . Here was virgin s o i l , amply and gratefully yielding r i c h sustenance. Here were rivers stocked with f i s h , untrodden woods f u l l 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 l i v i n g in the large c i t i e s and towns in North America than were livi n g in the rural or farm areas. The c i t i e s 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 i t was f e l t 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 c i t i e s of the east coast and Great Lakes region were flooded with immigrants, in a new land with no place to l i v e . 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 b u i l t . They were low rental, multiple-family units especially designed to house the immigrants 22 21 u n t i l they could find a hone of their own. Up to this time, i t 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 c i t i e s and the increasing costs of urban land, building materials and labour, this ideal grew more remote to the average c i t y dweller. RESTRICTIONS TQ THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY When population was small and the distance between farms was great, there was l i t t l e need for restrictions on the use of privately owned land. But as farms developed next to one another, and as towns and c i t i e s grew in size and number, the p o s s i b i l i t i e s 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 i s found under or attached to his land... An owner could i f 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 f i t . He could waste or dispoil the land as he pleased, and he was not normally liable merely because he neglected i t . 2 ' With time and with the increasing problems connected with "dose l i v i n g " , the absolute freedom of landowners was qualified in a number of ways. In the last century and particularly during the past f i f t y years, there has been much legislation imposing on land- owners, restrictions and l i a b i l i t i e s in the public interest. There have been statutes enacted which have made the landowner subject to what i s called "eminent domain", which i s the power of Parliament to authorize the compulsory acquisition of a person's land by some government department, public authority or public u t i l i t y company." Unlike the powers of eminent domain exercised during the enclosure movement, compensation i s 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 i t to the local authority for clearance and redevelopment. Of a l l the statutes regulating an owner's use of bis land, Community Planning Acts have been some of the most r e s t r i c t i v e . The O f f i c i a l 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 si t i n g 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 cla s s i f y 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 d i s t r i c t s under police power of the height, bulk and use of buildings, the use 30 of land, and the density of population". For further c l a r i f i c a t i o n , he stated that the purposes of zoning were: to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from f i r e , panic and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and a i r ; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concen- trations of population; to f a c i l i t a t e the adequate provision of transportation, water sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. In the early days of zoning, many people contended that i t 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 i n residential areas, they were used mainly in the more 32 well-to-do suburban areas. Zoning provided a means whereby a l l 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 d i s t r i c t s by conserving the value of buildings and preventing premature obsolescence from the infringement of other uses. By dividing the c i t y into d i s t r i c t s 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 f e l t the proof for suoh a separation was sufficient, and recognized as va l i d the gradations of residential d i s t r i c t s accord- 33 ing to the number of families per building e 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 a l l other land uses. This raises two questions: "Why was i t believed that single-detached housing should be separated from a l l other land uses?" and "Was Single-detached housing f u l f i l l i n g needs that could not be satisfied by other housing types?" The answer to the f i r s t question has already been discussed in part. It was f e l t that the intrusion of apartments, stores and factories would upset the s t a b i l i t y 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, a l l 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 d i s t r i c t or zone* The answer to the second question as to certain needs being f u l f i l l e d by single-detached housing i s very subjective as i t i s related to people's values and attitudes towards housing. Basically, '"''As-. single-detached housing (synonymous with ownership) has been thought to f u l f i l l certain individual needs as well as to f u l f i l needs related to the nation as a whole, Ruth Anshen suggests six needs related to families and individuals that are f u l f i l l e d by single-detached homes 1, The one family single-detached home has been regarded as a status symbol. It i s a possession in whioh the "family ego" and a good part of i t s income can be invested, 2, It i s 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 f a c i l i t a t e s personal l i v i n g , disencumbers family a c t i v i t i e s and lightens the every day routines, 4, It i s a retreat for privacy, for spontaneous relaxation, and for unlimited expression of feelings, 5, It i s an emotional bulwark against the threats and i n - securities of a complicated world where men have to compete for a "place i n 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 i s a locus for family a c t i v i t i e s and friendship interaction* The house i s the social background within which entire lives or generations of lives are lived, and i t i s surrounded by an atmosphere of childhood memories, associations with "the old folks" or some other s t i r r i n g meaning* 36 These have been accepted by many housing authorities as being worthwhile needs to be f u l f i l l e d by a l l housing. Up to the present time, single-detached housing f u l f i l l e d these needs more than 37 any other housing type* It i s recognized that a l l people do not have the same housing needs, but for the person who desires privacy, security, s t a b i l i t y , 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 a l l of the national i l l s . Other statements simply express the importance of good homes and l i v i n g 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 o f f i c i a l s concerning the importance of single-family housing i s as follows: It i s doubtful whether democracy i s possible where tenants overwhelmingly outnumber homeowners* For democracy i s not a privilege, i t i s a responsibility, and human nature rarely volunteers to shoulder responsibility, but i t i s driven by the whip of necessity* The need to guard and protect the home i s the whip that has proved*•* efficacious i n driving men to discharge the duties of self government••• We have concerned ourselves too l i t t l e with the effect of homeownership on citizenship*.. For the sake of our p o l i t i c a l institutions and what they mean to our li b e r t i e s , we should not forget that the obstacles to a much greater percentage of homeownership than_we can now boast, are a r t i f i c i a l 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 i n the ranks of those who have their feet firmly embedded i n the s o i l * . * through home ownership* 39 Thus, i t 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 w i l l 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 t o t a l 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 a l l 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 i n urban areas. In comparison, the data for the United States shows a similar increase in home ownership over the corresponding years, i n 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 i n 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 i n the suburbs. To the middle class family, the suburbs represented the North American ideal of a home i n the country. They 31 were located away from the d i r t , the noise and the undesirable social conditions that made the central c i t y an unhealthy environment i n which to raise a family. The houses in the suburbs were bu i l t on large lots with plenty of room for the children to play. It was f e l t the children would get a better education i n 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 c i t y l i f e . New Threats to Single-Family Housing Since the beginning of the 1960's, apartments have been attracted to suburban residential d i s t r i c t s by low cost land, rapid transit routes and the quality of amenities found there as compared to the central 44 c i t y . 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 i n 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. I f 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 t a l l e r than the surrounding homes. 2. Infringements upon the s t a b i l i t y 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 i s 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 B r i t i s h Columbia Municipal Act specifically states i n 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, i s 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 l i v i n g in an apartment better than owning a home, or an apartment to be a permanent place to l i v e . They f e l t that a single- family house offered good outside l i v i n g 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 i s that single-detached housing does satisfy the housing needs of certain people. Although the degree to which this form of housing satisfies people i s not quantifiable, or has not been to date, i t i s 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 i f 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 a l l 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 al l 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 i f 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 s t i l l 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 i t , 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. """" 3 I b i d t p. 14. p. 256. 5 ^G. R. L. Marriott, Primitive Property, (London: MacMillan, 1878), Ibid, pp. 252-9. 6 Morrais, op. c i t . , p. 18. 7 I b l d , p. 24. arlon Clawson, Man and Land In the United States, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), pp. 11-12. ^Morals, op. c i t . , p. 24. ^ H a r r i s , op. c i t . , pp. 71-81. 1 : LMorais, op. c i t . 1 2 I b i d , p. 34. ^ I b l d . l 4Robert Allen Rutland, The Birth of the B i l l of Rights 1776 - 1791» (Chaptel H i l l : University of North Carolina Press, 1955)> p. 233. •^^Harris, op. c i t . , p. 7 Clawsc 1 7 I b i d . I 6 , Clawson, op. c i t . , 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., 1 9 4 6 ) , p. 5 . 2 1 I b l d . ^Abrams, op. c i t . , pp. 6 0 - 7 7 • 2 3R. E. Megarry and H. W. R. Wade, The Law of Real Property, (London: Stevens and Sons, 1966), p. 7 0 . 2 ^ B r i t i s h Columbia, Municipal Act, ( 1 9 6 8 ) , sec. 483. 2^Megarru amd Wade, op. c i t . , p. 7 1 » 2 6 B r l t i s h Columbia, Municipal Act, (1968), sec. 634. ^ I b l d , sec. 702 (1) and (6). 2 8 I b l d , (1) (d). ^Edward M. Bossett, Zoning, (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1936). 3 0 I b l d , p. 45. S^-lbid, p. 5 2. 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. c i t . , p. 64. 34ibid, pp. 45-59. 35Ruth Nanda Anshen, The Family, (New York: Harper Brothers, 1949), p. 306. 36 0 1 e n n 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 a l . , Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, (New York: McGraw-Hill, I 9 6 0 ) , p. 5 4 . 3 8Dean, op. c i t . , p. 3. 40 J ? I b i d . , p. 4 . ^ I b i d . , p. 11. 41 Abrams, The Future of Housing, op. c i t . , p. 36. 'Wolfgang, M. I l l i h g , Housing Demand to 1970? (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1964). 43 Beyer, op. c i t . , 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. o l t . 47"The T e n a n t s t point of View", Urban Land, Vol. 2 9 , (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 f i r s t part of the chapter discusses b r i e f l y 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 i n Canada. The last section i s concerned mainly with the, location of low .-density multiple-family housing in suburban areas. Attention w i l l be focused primarily on the situation existing in the Metropolitan Vancouver area as data i s readily available for this area. It i s recognized that such an approach necessarily res t r i c t s the applicability of the research to other c i t i e s , but i t i s 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 i n 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 i s that multiple-family housing has always played an important role in urban housing. As c i t i e s have grown in size and complexity, and as people's interests have become more diversified, the housing industry has provided a greater variety i n the type and location of housing. APARTMENT TYPES Multiple-family housing can be broken down into three main types. The high-rise apartment building i s 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 to t a l housing stock, but i n 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 d i s t r i c t . 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 b u i l t 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, a l l 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 $500. per month depending on the number of bedrooms in the suite, the floor the suite is on, and whether or not there is 6 a pleasing view. The lowest rental fees are for bachelor suites, and the highest are for three bedroom suites and penthouse apartments. In Metropolitan Vancouver, the majority of all apartment units are bf the one bedroom type. In 1967, 62.3 per cent of all apartment suites con- tained one bedroom; 18.1 per cent, two bedrooms; 16.4 per cent were 7 bachelor suites, and only 3.2 per cent were three bedroom suites.' The density of high-rise development ranges from 25 to35 units per acre for buildings up to eight stories in height, and from 40 to 8 85 units per acre for buildings over eight stories. These densities have left more open space around the buildings to allow for more light and a i r , and in general, the creation of a more esthetically pleasing atmosphere. Landscaping i s encouraged in the open area, and some developments have used this space to build an outdoor swimming pool. The Low-Rise or Walk-Up Apartment This type of apartment generally consists of two or three floors, and i s primarily of wood frame construction. The relatively low cost of construction ($l4.50/sq. foot) makes these apartments particularly desirable investments. Where the cost of construction'and the cost of land i s 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 a c r e . 1 1 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 i t s own front entrance, and the recommended density of between 6 to 14 units per acre i s much less than that of 12 the walk-ups. The density for townhouses i s relatively low because the units are placed side by side, and are not stacked v e r t i c a l l y 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- t a l l y have recommended densities similar to townhouses. However, the three-story garden apartments that share common walls both horizontally and v e r t i c a l l y 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 l i v i n g 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 s t i l l available, and where land costs are lower than those In the central c i t y . 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 are s, and ninetee  w re located in singl -family residential areas. 48 Of a l l 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 l i v i n g . Some developments have also added a swimming pool which becomes the envy of every child l i v i n g 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 to t a l 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 u n t i l 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 tot a l 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 c i t i e s . After the war, single-family housing became the prime focus of builders. Over the next ten year period, very l i t t l e 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 c i t y housing i s 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 St a t i s t i c s , 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 2̂ 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 i s 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 al l 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 i t 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 al l 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 23,9̂ 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, i t can be concluded that over the past 45 years, multiple-dwelling units have been accounting for an increasing propor- tion of t o t a l housing in Canada. Multiple-dwellings are found almost exclusively i n 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 f a i r l y constant i n the urban centers, but indications are that by 1971, the proportion of multiple-dwellings w i l l increase. Finally, due to the large number of multiple-dwellings i n Quebec, the national average has been pushed out of proportion when compared to the percentages of multiple-dwellings i n the other provinces. REASONS FOR APARTMENT GROWTH Data shows that Over the past forty-five years, the proportion of multiple-family housing to the t o t a l housing stock, has been i n - 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 I l l i n g i n his book 20 Housing Demand to 1970 suggests three reasons for the apartment boom during this period. The f i r s t of these reasons i s related to demographic factors; the second to the cost of housing and the t h i r d 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 b u i l t . 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 t h i r t i e s , 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 u n t i l they can afford to buy their own house. Around the late 1950*s, World War II babies started to make their presence f e l t , and i n 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 i n 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 li v i n g , and they too, comprise a rapidly growing group. If age composition i s an Important factor influencing trends In housing types, i t i s possible to go far in fore- casting what w i l l occur i n the near future. As babies of the 1940*s continue to come Into the market, they w i l l maintain a strong demand for apartments. Toward the end of the 1960's, they w i l l begin to make their presence f e l t In the housing market; and i n the 1970's w i l l cause a very strong resurgence i n the demand for houses. Unless the very recent f a l l i n 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, i n addition to moving families about the country, also takes single men and women to new 2 c i t i e s where they tend to live alone or with other unmarried persons. The number of households has also grown, as widows and widowers are finding i t 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. A l l of th i s , newly found independence manifests i t s e l f i n 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 i s 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 Cost b (Dollars) na 2,360 2,453 2,535 2,692 2,813 2,816 3,006 3,155 Average Monthly Debt Service 0 (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 K O ? 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, Q a d 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 f i l l the vacancies, are themselves unable to f i n d suitable rental accommoda- tions, but must take what they can f i n d . 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 f i r s t 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 d i f f i c u l t to quantify, are people's changing tastes In housing. There have been tendencies for people to move back to the c i t i e s from single-dwellings 60z i n the suburbs, and not to move to single-dwellings at the same rate 27 as i n the past. This may re f l e c t , among other things, a certain disenchantment with l i f e i n the suburbs, and the a v a i l a b i l i t y 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 tr i p s to work from the fringe, do not present alternatives that are as attractive as an apartment which i s both convenient and inexpensive for the f a c i l i t i e s provided. Other speculations are that the trend towards apartment l i v i n g indicates c i t y dwellers are coming to grips with c i t y l i f e rather than trying to compromise between urban and rural by l i v i n g in the suburbs on their own pieces of land. "It i s thought that young people now forming families are urban born and reared, and do not look back 29 nostalgically to a childhood i n the country". This i s merely hypothesis, and i t i s not known i f people are consciously choosing apartment l i v i n g because they prefer i t or i f the increase i n apartment li v i n g i s a result of having no other choice. Further research i n this area i s required. APARTMENTS IN THE SUBURBS For Metropolitan Vancouver, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to define the true extent to which apartments have been bu i l t i n the suburbs as this area i s made up of some thirteen major autonomous municipalities a l l 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 act i v i t i e s within their boundaries. As a result, the pattern of development for each of these areas repeats i t s e l f . Each has a defined commercial core or s t r i p which varies in size according to the size of the municipality, and surrounding It i s 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 p o l i t i c a l l y . There i s a question as to whether or not these municipalities can be considered as Vancouver's suburbs or whether the single-family residential d i s t r i c t s of each municipality are r e a l l y the suburbs on a smaller scale. I f 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 i s a considerable amount of apartment construction around the commercial centers. On the other hand, i f 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 i s 63 located in the single-family residential areas, but such construction as there i s 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 i s 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 f i r s t of these reasons i s what he c a l l s the "migrations to the suburbs". To him the reasons that made, f i r s t , 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 c i t y . He suggests that each migration re-inforces the others, and that people l i v i n g 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 i s 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 i t 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 i f the purchase is conditional upon rezoning being granted. It was observed in Montgomery County that a 3 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 c i t y and occupation, and not lo c a l i t y 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 i s , the more Job opportunities available, and therefore there i s a greater likelihood of people liv i n g and working In the same area. Apartments are not a result of people l i v i n g and working In the same municipality as Neutze Infers, but It does follow that i f 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 d i s t r i c t easily accessible to i t 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 l i k e l y to be tied to children... These people are inter- ested in being able to get quickly to many parts of the c i t y . . . 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 i s noted for the fact that It does not have an urban freeway system. Freeway construction has been confined to about thirt y 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, i t 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 ( 3 0 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 i f 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 3 8 ' r • project. Also, since 1 9 6 9 , 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 . 6 9 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 ôwn Center" which serves a large metropolitan area (several town centers in Lower Mainland), and has at least 500,000 70 square feet of r e t a i l floor space. The next largest i s the "Sub-Center" which serves a smaller area, and has at least 250,000 square feet of r e t a i l floor space. The "Neighbourhood Center" serves an even smaller trade area, and has less than 250,000 square feet of r e t a i l floor space. The smallest i s the "Local Store" which serves a small localized area .39 The general housing policy pursued by the regional plan i s 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 f a c i l i t i e s , park tf 4o areas and schools". The apartment location policy i s carried even further by the following statement: Key to the success of the commercial centers proposed... w i l l 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 c r i t e r i a for apartment location was proximity to shopping f a c i l i t i e s . Clearly, the single-family house dweller Is content to travel distances to commercial f a c i l i t i e s , largely in trade for privacy and an exclusive residential neighbourhood. On the other hand... the apartment r e s i - dent seeks f a c i l i t i e s close at hand in exchange for a loss in privacy and amenity. This statement of policy i s 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 f a c i l i t i e s close at hand as It was once thought. Neutze states that i f l e f t to market forces, apartments would become dispersed throughout N o r t h V a n c o u v e r D i s t r i c t A P A R T M E N T L O C A T I O N P O L I C Y L E G E N D C o m m u n i t y and R e t a i l C e n t e r s A p a r t m e n t A r e a s F IGURE 3-1 73 policy goes further by suggesting that apartments should also be located next to t r a f f i c corridors, community centers, parks and schools, and in areas of d i f f i c u l t terrain. While North Vancouver supports the policy of locating apartments next to commercial centers, i t s a b i l i t y to actively pursue this policy i s severely limited by the fact that there i s no commercial focus for the D i s t r i c t . A l l 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 d i f f i c u l t terrain, next to t r a f f i c corridors, and to a limited extent, next to small neighbourhood shopping f a c i l i t i e s . Figure 3-2 shows the distribution of apartments and surrounding land-use. North Vancouver i s primarily a single-family residential area, and for this reason, i t Is d i f f i c u l t to reserve suitable apartment loca- tions separate from existing single-detached dwellings. While the policy i s 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 i s 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 f a c i l i t a t e the location of apartments, Surrey's FIGURE 3-2 LOCATION OF MIXED HOUSING IN NORTH VANCOUVER DISTRICT 7 4 - 75 policy envisions one major town center surrounded by smaller village centers. This policy i s illustrated diagramatically in Figure 3 - 3 . Their policy i s to locate apartments around the major town center. The village commercial center would provide shopping f a c i l i t i e s to the single-family residential areas surrounding i t . 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 1 9 6 4 , the evidence from apartment construction informa- tion over the past six years, indicates that this policy has not been r i g i d l y 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 s t a t i s t i c s on the growth and location of apartments. Over the past decade, apartments have accounted for more than half of a l l 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 A P A R T M E N T LOCAT ION POLICY S i n g l e - D e t a c h e d Hous ing F I G U R E 3-3 j is 4 %r^&24 crt«c»f»llb»ochjy (/ i / T V s btll park • HORTH • gLU FF RP BROWN BO 1 rtdwOOd ijSn pork L O C A T I O N OF MIXED HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OF S U R R E Y L E G E N D A P A R T M E N T S S I N G L E - D E T A C H E D H O U S I N G o F I G U R E 3-4 S U R V E Y A R E A ® 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 c i t y 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 ac t i v i t i e s 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 Ŵolfgang 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. 1 9 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 1 9 i b i a , p. 11. 20 I l l i n g , op. c i t . John P. Dean, Home Ownership; Is It Sound? (New York: Harper Brothers, 1945), p. 147. Discussion of family housing cycle. 2 2 I l l i n g , op. c i t . 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 i n Governmental Urban Land Policies, Vancouver Housing Market 1966-1968, (University of Bri t i s h Columbia, May, 1968), p. 12. 2 6 I b l d . 27 I l l i n g , op. c i t . , 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. c i t . 3 2Pollcy Report: Low Density Multiple Housing, op. cit.' *^In the Dist r i c t 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 f i l e d and 21 were not approved. -^Refer to the Community Plans for the Municipalities of Richmond and Burnaby. ^Neutze, op. c i t . , p. 53. 3 6 I b l d , p. 52. 37 Information gathered from personal survey—See Chapter V of this study. -^Bri t i s h Columbia, Municipal Act, (1968), sec. 711 (e). 39 Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Port Moody City Study, (Municipal Planning Service, September, 1966), p. 12. ^ I b i d , p. 36. 41 Ibid, p. 21. 42 Neutze, op. c i t . , p. 52. ^Corporation of the District of North Vancouver, Apartment Study, (Planning Department, May, 1968). 44 Corporation of the Dist r i c t 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 c i t i e s have advocated a mixture of housing types, 1 This reaction i s mainly in response to what has been 2 referred to as the over homogenization and s t e r i l i t y Of the suburbs. To MaeLenuan, single-family houses i n 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 d u l l , 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 s t e r i l e , 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 rows Aof single- family homes. Such an approach i s misleading. What appears to be a monotonous pattern of identical "boxes" from the a i r , 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 a l l 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 i s not only a landscape, and i t 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. A l l 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 i s 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 i s gaining support. The feeling i s 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 l a i d out, they can provide plenty of open space, privacy and adequate off-street parking.** EXAMPLES OF HOUSING- MIXES Vancouver City Very few c i t i e s actively support policies In favour of residential housing mixes although mixing does occur in communities through "Spot 86 zoning". To date, Vancouver City i s the only community in the Metrop- 7 olitan area to o f f i c i a l l y adopt a policy in support of a housing mix. The policy i s limited in nature as i t restriots the areas of mixed housing to several pre-determined, older single-family housing d i s t r i c t s . The policy i s 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 I t . Lethbrldge, Alberta A more extreme example of an unrestricted residential housing mix i s 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 i s as follows: Although i t is d i f f i c u l t to ensure a balanced residential development, a positive attitude towards changes in legislation, building controls, and sale agreements on c i t y 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 I I I PHOTO STUDY OP MIXED HOUSING I N LETHBRIDGE P i c t u r e 4-4 P i c t u r e 4-5 P i c t u r e s 4-4 and 4-5: Some o f the apartments are s m a l l and do not d i s r u p t the c h a r a c t e r o f the s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . 3 P i c t u r e s 4-6 and 4-7: Other apartments are l a r g e r and overshadow the s m a l l e r s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes. PHOTO STUDY OP MIXED HOUSING I N LETHBRIDGE CONT'D P i c t u r e 4-8: No back y a r d t o P i c t u r e 4-9: As seen from the b a c k y a r d p l a y i n h e r e . o f a s i n g l e - f a m i l y home - a l i t t l e o v e r b e a r i n g . 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 i t s 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 i s scattered throughout single- family residential areas (See figure 3-4) even though the policy i s to have them situated next to commercial centers. (See Chapter III — Apartment Location Policy in Surrey) Although policies are different, apartment location in Surrey i s 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 l i t t l e 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 i s 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 h i l l s i d e , people l i v i n g 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 P i c . + s s • 1 0 0 0 o o o o 0 o o 0 LU > < Q U E E N S A p a r t m e n t s v~r t R O A D E A S T Pic. 4—15" s s 3 3 ° o o o o o 29 th S T R E E T E A S T QUEEN'S ROAD SURVEY AREA F I G U R E 4-1 P i c t u r e - N u m b e r G u i d e 1 L E G E N D O n e H o u s e , N S e r v i c e S t a t i o n o s s S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 0 PLATE V PHOTO STUDY OF QUEEN'S ROAD SURVEY AREA P i c t u r e 4-12: The m a j o r i t y o f the homes are o l d e r - P i c t u r e 4-13: But there are a l s o new homes i n the a r e a . 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 V a c a n t P i c + - i 6 v _ B E N D A L E R O A D V a c a n t O o o > U J cc U J CQ and A p a r t m e n t s BERKLEY ROAD SURVEY AREA P i c t u r e - N u m b e r G u i d e F I G U R E 4^2 X 1 L E G E N D O n e H o u s e N S e r v i c e S t a t i o n S S o S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 0 PLATE V I 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 al l 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, i t is quite likely that the kind of people attracted 100 t o i t w oul d be the e l d e r l y , the c h i l d l e s s , the h i g h l y mobi le and the 13 w e l l - t o - d o . E s s e n t i a l l y , a mix ture o f h o u s i n g types does i n r e a l i t y produce a s o c i a l mix ture or h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f the p e o p l e . HETEROGENEITY VS HOMOGENEITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Advocates of the ba l anced community concept suggest f o u r ends t o be a c h i e v e d through p o p u l a t i o n h e t e r o g e n e i t y . These are o u t l i n e d by Gans i n h i s book People and P l a n s as f o l l o w s : 1. H e t e r o g e n e i t y adds v a r i e t y as w e l l as demographic " b a l a n c e " t o an a r e a , and thus e n r i c h e s the i n h a b i t a n t s l i v e s . Con- v e r s e l y , homogeneity i s s a i d t o s t u l t i f y as w e l l as t o d e p r i v e people o f important s o c i a l r e s o u r c e s , such as the wisdom o f the o l d e r g e n e r a t i o n i n the s u b u r b s . 2. H e t e r o g e n e i t y promotes t o l e r a n c e o f s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s , thus r e d u c i n g p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t and encouraging democrat ic p r a c t i c e s . Homogeneity i n c r e a s e s the i s o l a t i o n between area r e s i d e n t s and the r e s t o f s o c i e t y . 3. H e t e r o g e n e i t y p r o v i d e s a broadening e d u c a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e on c h i l d r e n by t e a c h i n g them about the e x i s t e n c e o f d i v e r s e types o f p e o p l e , and b y c r e a t i n g the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r them t o l e a r n t o get a l o n g w i t h these p e o p l e . Homogeneity i s thought , t o l i m i t c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge o f d i v e r s e c l a s s e s , ages and r a c e s , and t o make them l e s s capable o f a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h o t h e r s i n l a t e r y e a r s . 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 i f 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 al l 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 li f e " 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 a l l 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 i f 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 i f they are mothers and are r e s t r i c t - 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 i f the neighbours are comparatively homogeneous with respect to child-rearing methods. This i s 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 i s 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 liv i n g 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 i s that i t cannot determine the intensity of the relation- ship, this being a function of the characteristics of the people i n - volved. If neighbours have similar backgrounds and feel themselves to be compatible, there i s some likelihood that the relationship w i l l be more intensive, than an exchange of greetings. If neighbours do not have similar backgrounds or feel themselves to be incompatible, the relationship i s not l i k e l y to be intensive, regardless of the degree of propinquity. Propinquity, may thus be the i n i t i a l cause of an intensive positive relationship, but i t cannot be the f i n a l cause. Similarity of Backgrounds - With regards to the second theory of neighbourhood interaction—similarity of backgrounds—little i s 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 i s also important because i t affects occupational choice, child rearing patterns, leisure time preferences and taste 25 l e v e l . It i s known when different combinations of these character- i s t i c s are shared by several Individuals, for example, income and occupation, there i s a greater likelihood of friendships resulting than i f 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 righ t l y 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 2 8 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 r a c i a l , 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 l i t t l e 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 p o s s i b i l i t i e s and benefits for the elderly. The benefits of segregated housing, as described by Rosow, included economy in building and provision of services, the p o s s i b i l i t y 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 a l l age and class groups i s l i k e l y 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 w i l l 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 i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n N o r t h America t h e r e i s , i n g e n e r a l , a h i g h degree o f c l a s s c o n s c i o u s n e s s , and because o f i t t h e r e seems t o be an i n a t e d e s i r e f o r people t o l i v e among those they p e r c e i v e t o be t h e i r e q u a l s * There i s a n a t u r a l tendency towards homogeneity, and t o p l a n and t o l e g i s l a t e f o r h e t e r o g e n e i t y under these c i rcumstances seems presumptuous. In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , i t can be s a i d t h a t a group o f heterogeneous people may be f o r c e d t o l i v e i n the same a r e a , but t h e y cannot be f o r c e d t o i n t e r a c t s o c i a l l y w i t h one a n o t h e r . I n d i c a t i o n s are t h a t under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n woul d be the r e s u l t . HOUSING MIX COST - REVENUE ANALYSIS I t has o f t e n been s t a t e d t h a t m u l t i p l e - d w e l l i n g s produce more t a x revenue f o r l o c a l governments than do s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes. T h i s s e c t i o n r e v i e w s the f i n d i n g s o f f o u r apartment cos t - revenue s t u d i e s t o determine whether o r not t h i s i s the c a s e . Be fore the s t u d i e s are r e v i e w e d , Ruth Mace mentions t h r e e b a s i c l i m i t a t i o n s t o cos t - revenue 32 a n a l y s i s t h a t s h o u l d be n o t e d . 1 . The cos t - revenue r e l a t i o n s h i p p r e s e n t s o n l y a p a r t i a l p i c t u r e o f the net cost of development . I t i s u s u a l l y o n l y concerned w i t h d i r e c t m u n i c i p a l c o s t s and revenues w h i l e I n d i r e c t c o s t s and revenues may be e q u a l l y or more s i g n i f i c a n t t o l o c a l governments . 2 . Cost - revenue a n a l y s i s i s m e a n i n g f u l o n l y i f i t i s developed w i t h , and takes i n t o account a whole range o f b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n , 110 such as the economic interdependence of the municipality and the region in which i t i s located. Land use cannot be encouraged or discouraged simply on the basis of policies tailored to local tax needs. 3. Cost-revenue analysis i s an expensive, time-consuming and complicated process. Service costs, revenue structure, municipal policy, economic conditions and tax base, are ever changing variables which make i t 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 o f f i c i a l s 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 expendi ture s i d e , Melamed suggested t h a t apartments show up q u i t e f a v o u r a b l y i n t h e i r l i m i t e d requirements f o r p u b l i e s e r v i c e s . Of key impor tance , the s t u d y n o t e d , was the s m a l l number o f s c h o o l aged c h i l d r e n i n such u n i t s . I n t e r v i e w s showed t h a t o n l y 7 per cent o f the apartments were o c c u p i e d by householders w i t h c h i l d r e n . I n none o f the h i g h - r e n t a l suburban apartment developments were there more than ten s c h o o l - a g e d c h i l d r e n per 100 d w e l l i n g u n i t s . T h i s compared w i t h an average o f f i f t y c h i l d r e n per 100 s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . S i n c e s c h o o l t axes r e p r e s e n t e d as much as 60 per cent o f the t o t a l m u n i c i p a l l e v y i n the suburban a r e a s , the s t u d y concluded t h a t the r e l a t i v e l y low number o f sehoo l -aged c h i l d r e n i n apartments r e p r e s e n t e d a g r e a t s a v i n g s t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The a c t u a l e d u c a t i o n cos t p e r apartment u n i t , however, was not c a l c u l a t e d . The second major reason why apartments produced r e l a t i v e l y low m u n i c i p a l c o s t s was t h a t they had l i m i t e d requirements f o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e . The s t u d y n o t e d t h a t such s e r v i c e s as p o l i c e and f i r e p r o t e c - t i o n , t r a s h c o l l e c t i o n and d i s p o s a l , highway maintenance and l i g h t i n g were l e s s c o s t l y per u n i t f o r apartments than o ther u s e s . A c t u a l c o s t f i g u r e s were not g i v e n , however. S t a m f o r d , C o n n e c t i c u t S tudy T h i s s t u d y , 3 " * conducted by Dominic D e l G u i d i c e i n 1963, was c o n - cerned w i t h one b a s i c q u e s t i o n : "Does t h a t p r o p o r t i o n o f h i g h - r i s e 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 i s , 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 ci t y wide basis, the study showed that two single-family homes were required to represent one public school child, but i t took 7.6 apartment units to represent one public school ch i l d . Although the study offered no s t a t i s t i c a l calculations, i t stated that i f 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 S m a l l Large Suburban Suburban Community Community A l l Residences .60 - 2.10 .77 - .91 One-Fami ly .78 - 2.28 .66 - 1.40 Two-Family .38 - .69 .66 - .80 M u l t i - F a m i l y .30 - 1.01 .65 - 1.62 INTERPRETATION 1. 1.00 i n d i c a t e s the use i s j u s t p a y i n g i t s way. 2. Less than 1.00 i n d i c a t e s the use pays l e s s i n t a x e s than i t c o s t s . 3. More than 1.00 i n d i c a t e s the use i s c o n t r i b u t i n g a s u r p l u s i n taxes over the c o s t of s e r v i c e s . T h i s s t u d y found t h a t the age s t r u c t u r e i n r e c e n t l y occupied apartment u n i t s i n Bucks County v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the average age s t r u c t u r e o f the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n which the u n i t s were l o c a t e d . Apartment age d i s t r i b u t i o n f i g u r e s r e v e a l e d a h i g h percentage o f occupants i n the 0 t o 4 and 15 t o 24 age g r o u p s . Many m u l t i p l e - f a m i l y developments a l s o had s i g n i f i c a n t numbers o f t enants i n the 55 years and o l d e r g r o u p . R e l a t i v e l y few apartment r e s i d e n t s were i n the age groups 5 t o 14 and 35 t o 4 4 . I t was a l s o found t h a t apartment d e v e l o p - ments had fewer s c h o o l - a g e d c h i l d r e n per u n i t than s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . Even though the number o f s c h o o l - a g e d c h i l d r e n was l e s s per d w e l l i n g u n i t i n the apartments than i n the s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes, the number o f s c h o o l - a g e d c h i l d r e n per acre o f l a n d was h i g h e r f o r the apar tments . A t ten apartment u n i t s t o the acre and an average o f .125 children per unit, i t 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 to t a l 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 a l l 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 i t does show i s that high-rise apart- ments in the suburbs produce high revenues and low costs mainly because of the small number of school-aged children liv i n g 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, f i r e or unemployment. Also, not considered, was the need for new f a c i l i t i e s 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, i t i s 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 i s less than the number of children per single-family home. 2. The number of school-aged children per acre for apartments i s higher than i t i s 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 ste r i l e in appearance. Others u 7 who were not f u l l y aware o f the consequences of what they were s a y i n g , went f u r t h e r , and advocated a s o c i a l m i x . They suggested tha t by m i x i n g lower c l a s s people and middle c l a s s p e o p l e , t h e r e would be an i n f u s i o n o f i d e a s , and the lower c l a s s people would a c q u i r e middle c l a s s ways and t h i n k i n g ; and the middle c l a s s people would g a i n more empathy f o r the lower c l a s s and t h e i r p r o b l e m s . S t u d i e s c a r r i e d out i n t h i s area i n d i c a t e , f i r s t o f a l l , t h a t those who l i v e In suburban r e s i d e n t i a l areas are g e n e r a l l y q u i t e s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r l i v i n g arrangements i n d i c a t i n g t h a t c r i t i c i s m o f the suburbs u s u a l l y comes from people "on the o u t s i d e l o o k i n g i n " . S e c o n d l y , a l l o f the evidence p o i n t s t o the f a c t t h a t people a s s o c i a t e w i t h those who t h e y p e r c e i v e have s i m i l a r backgrounds and i n t e r e s t s . P r o p i n q u i t y r e s u l t s i n f r i e n d l y g r e e t i n g s between n e i g h b o u r s , but i f ne ighbours do not have s i m i l a r backgrounds , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s are not l i k e l y t o be i n t e n s i v e r e g a r d l e s s of the degree o f p r o p i n q u i t y . T h i r d l y , I f the main purpose o f mixed hous ing i s t o achieve a s o c i a l m i x , r e s e a r c h has c l e a r l y shown t h a t more harm than good i s a c h i e v e d by t h i s a p p r o a c h . I n the few cases where p u b l i c h o u s i n g has been l o c a t e d i n m i d d l e - c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , the r e s u l t has been the s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n of those l i v i n g i n p u b l i c h o u s i n g . On the b a s i s o f these f i n d i n g s , mixed h o u s i n g s h o u l d not be encouraged. A l t h o u g h the f i n a n c i a l a spec t s of mixed h o u s i n g were not i n c l u d e d i n the scope o f t h i s s t u d y , the f i n a l s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter on c o s t - revenue a n a l y s i s was i n c l u d e d t o i n d i c a t e some of the l i m i t a t i o n s 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. c i t . , p. 5. c; -'Gans, op. c i t . , 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, Apr i l , 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). 1 0See Lethbrldge Herald - March, 1969. 1 1Gans, op. c i t . , p. 127. 12 American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , 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. c i t . , 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. e i t . , p. 138. l 8Bennett M. Berger, Working Class Suburb, (Berkley: University of California Press, i960). ^Qans, The Levittowners, op. c i t . 2 QGans, People and Plans, op. c i t . , p. 139. 2 l I b l d , p. 152. 22 Ibid. 2 3 I b i d , p. 158. O i l Poote, and others, Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, (New York: McGraw-Hill, I960), p. 194. '. 25Gans, People and Plans, op. c i t . , 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. 2 8 I b l d , p. 145. 2^Foote, op. c i t . , p. l 8 l . 3 G I . 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. c i t . 32 Ruth L. Mace, Municipal - Cost Revenue Research in the United States, (Chapel H i l l , 1961). 3 3 I b i d , p. 4. 34 Melamed, op. c i t . 3-*Doroinic Del Guidiee, "Cost-Revenue Implications of High-Rise Apartments", Urban Land, February, 1963. 36ibid, p. 3. - " B u c k s County P l a n n i n g Commission, Apartments : An A n a l y s i s of I s sues and S t a n d a r d s , p . 9 . 38 Mace, o p . c i t . 39 Bureau of Economic R e s e a r c h , The Garden Apartment Development: A M u n i c i p a l Cost-Revenue A n a l y s i s , (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 L i m i t a t i o n s The purpose o f the m u n i c i p a l s u r v e y was t o l o c a t e areas s u i t a b l e f o r c a r r y i n g out a s u r v e y o f homeowners' a t t i t u d e s towards mixed h o u s i n g . Problems were encountered i n d e c i d i n g the b e s t approach t o s t u d y the homeowners' change o f a t t i t u d e towards apartments as no " b e f o r e " s t u d y had been done as a means o f c o m p a r i s o n . One approach t h a t can be used under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s i s t o choose one c o n t r o l area where apartments were proposed but had been t u r n e d down due t o s t r o n g homeowner o p p o s i t i o n , and compare the a t t i t u d e s o f these homeowners w i t h the a t t i t u d e s o f homeowners i n an area where apartments were b u i l t . In u s i n g t h i s approach , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t the two areas b e i n g compared have c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s , such as the age o f the s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes, income o f the homeowners, proposed s i t i n g o f the apar tments , type and number o f apar tments , a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s e r v i c e s , e t c . T h i s approach was not used as each mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n t h a t was s t u d i e d was u n i q u e , and not comparable i n a number o f important aspec ts t o o t h e r mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n s . A second approach and the one employed i n t h i s s t u d y , was t o l o c a t e mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n s where the homeowners' o p p o s i t i o n t o apartments had been r e c o r d e d , and use t h i s r e c o r d e d o p p o s i t i o n as a b a s i s o f e s t a b l i s h i n g homeowners* a t t i t u d e s p r i o r t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the a p a r t m e n t s . An important l i m i t a t i o n t o t h i s approach was t h a t 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 i f 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, i t more than l i k e l y 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 i f any of the municipalities had any formal policies that would f a c i l i t a t e 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 i n 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 f i e l d examination of each mixed housing situation was used to determine i f i t 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 i t 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 f i n a l 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 a l l the municipalities interviewed, Bumaby's apartment zoning policy was the most r i g i d . According to the planning o f f i c i a l inter- viewed, no apartments had been constructed outside the apartment zones since the passing of a new zoning by-law in 1 9 6 6 . 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 t r a f f i c 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 i t 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 f i r s t of 1 9 7 0 , 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. A l l other rezonlng applications for this area have been frozen u n t i l 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 i s a statement of the issues expressed in one of the petitions circulated in February of 1 9 & 9 : In regards to the rezonlng on Hilton Road between Bolivar Crescent and Bently Road, we the property owners, object to 128 spot z o n i n g , a l l o w i n g apartments t o be b u i l t next t o and a c r o s s from t h e i r p r o p e r t y , d e f l a t i n g v a l u e s of t h e i r homes once apartments have been b u i l t . We a l l f e e l , i n order t o be f a i r t o the p r o p e r t y owners, and a t the same t ime not t o s t a n d i n the way o f p r o g r e s s , t h i s p r o p e r t y i n t h i s s m a l l area must a l l be purchased b e f o r e any apartments are b u i l t on t h i s s t r e e t . These s m a l l l o t s o f f i f t y f e e t a l s o pose a s e r i o u s p a r k i n g p r o b l e m . H i l t o n Road was chosen as one o f the three survey areas because o f the r e c o r d e d s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n t o spot z o n i n g , and the na ture o f the mixed h o u s i n g . The m u n i c i p a l i t y g r a n t e d a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d home on H i l t o n Road, and f o u r months l a t e r approved the r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the t h r e e s t o r y apartment d i r e c t l y a c r o s s the s t r e e t . A t the t ime the p e r m i t was i s s u e d f o r the new home, the owner upon i n q u i r i n g as t o f u t u r e development o f the a r e a , was a s s u r e d t h a t no apartments would be c o n s t r u c t e d on H i l t o n R o a d . There are o ther r e l a t i v e l y new homes on H i l t o n Road, and i t would seem t h a t when p l a n s and p o l i c i e s were f o r m u l a t e d f o r t h i s a r e a , l i t t l e thought was g i v e n t o e x i s t i n g l a n d u s e . N o r t h Vancouver i s p r i m a r i l y a s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , and f o r t h i s r e a s o n , most o f the m u l t i p l e - d w e l l i n g u n i t s b u i l t there have been l o c a t e d i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d h o u s i n g a r e a s . F i g u r e 3-2 shows the areas o f a l l e x i s t i n g apartments t o the end o f 1969. A l t h o u g h N o r t h Vancouver supports the 'Town C e n t e r " concept , there are no major commercial shopping c e n t e r s w i t h i n the D i s t r i c t ' s b o u n d a r i e s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no c e n t r a l focus around which m u l t i p l e - d w e l l i n g s can be l o c a t e d . 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 i f , 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 l i v i n g even one or two blocks away could only speculate as to the affect of the apartments on the single-family area. To this extent, i t was assumed that the old adage "out of sight, out of mind", was applicable i n 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 f i r s t was to determine the degree to which the homeowners' reasons for objecting to a housing mix were f u l f i l l e d after the apartments were b u i l t . The second was to determine the extent to which the attitudes 131 o f the homeowners changed as a r e s u l t o f l i v i n g i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o m u l t i p l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s . To achieve the f i r s t g o a l , a l i s t o f homeowner o b j e c t i o n s t o apartments i n the s u r v e y areas was drawn u p . Many o f the o b j e c t i o n s were s i m i l a r f o r each a r e a , and so a roaster l i s t o f the b a s i c o b j e c t i o n s was drawn up and summarized as f o l l o w s : 1. Apartments w i l l d e p r e c i a t e the v a l u e o f the s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes i n the a r e a . 2. The presence o f apartments w i l l make i t d i f f i c u l t t o s e l l the s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes. 3. P r o p e r t y taxes w i l l i n c r e a s e . G e n e r a l t h i n k i n g on t h i s t o p i c was t h a t the apartments would produce more c h i l d r e n i n areas where s c h o o l s were over -c rowded, t h u s r e q u i r i n g c o s t l y s c h o o l e x p a n s i o n . I t was a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t the i n c r e a s e d c o s t s f o r s e r v i c e s t o the new apartments would Increase p r o p e r t y t a x e s . 4. People who l i v e i n apartments are more m o b i l e , and are o f a lower c l a s s than people who own t h e i r own home. 5. Apar tments , because o f t h e i r h e i g h t w i l l b l o c k the views enjoyed b y the occupants o f the s m a l l e r s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes. 6. Apartments cause i n c r e a s e d t r a f f i c and n o i s e . 7. Apartments cause p a r k i n g p r o b l e m s . 8. Apartments do not p r o v i d e adequate p l a y a r e a s , and so the c h i l d r e n l i v i n g I n them w i l l p l a y on the s t r e e t s . 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 al l 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 i f 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 al l homeowners' attitudes prior to the construction of the apartments. This assumption had a severe limitation in that it was impossible to know i f the homeowner surveyed had signed a petition because he was convinced that apartments should not be built in bis neighbourhood or i f 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 i f 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 f i t , 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 o f the v a r i o u s types o f m u l t i p l e - h o u s i n g , he w i l l be unable t o answer any q u e s t i o n s r e q u i r i n g an e v a l u a t i o n o f one apartment type over a n o t h e r . Memory b i a s i s another f a c t o r which renders the respondent unable t o p r o v i d e accura te i n f o r m a t i o n . Of ten the o n l y way t o get around t h i s problem i s t o c a r r y out the r e s e a r c h over a l o n g e r p e r i o d o f t i m e , and 6 do surveys a t s p e c i f i c t ime i n t e r v a l s . The Sample The sample was chosen from a t o t a l o f 46 homes c o n s i d e r e d t o be l o c a t e d i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o the apar tments . The H i l t o n Road area had 14 homes i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , the Queens Road area 21, and the B e r k e l y area 11. (See f i g u r e s 5-1; 5-3; 5-5 f o r p o p u l a t i o n sample) S i n c e the t o t a l number o f homes i n the s u r v e y p o p u l a t i o n was s m a l l , a 50 per cent p r o p o r t i o n a t e random sample was chosen from each o f the a r e a s . T h i s produced a t o t a l sample s i z e o f 23 homes o f which 7 homes were i n the H i l t o n Road a r e a , 10 were i n the Queens Road area and 6 were i n the B e r k l e y Road a r e a . (See f i g u r e s 5-2; 5-4; 5-6 f o r random sample) Prom t h i s 23 home sample , 20 i n t e r v i e w schedules were comple ted . The three who d i d not respond were d i s t r i b u t e d e v e n l y over the three s u r v e y a r e a s . The one i n the H i l t o n Road area was a tenant occupied home, and so d i d not q u a l i f y as a r e s p o n d e n t . The two o ther n o n - responses r e s u l t e d from the homeowners 1 u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o c o - o p e r a t e . The 20 responses accounted f o r 43 p e r cent of the homes i n c l u d e d i n the s u r v e y a r e a s , and were c o n s i d e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the homeowners l i v i n g i n the survey a r e a s . 137 J < X o X U J o cc o U J o HILTON ROAD SURVEY AREA SURVEY SAMPLE F I G U R E 5-2 / A p a L E G E N D „ r t m e n t Z o n i n g A p p |^^>| O n e H o u s e Su rvey Sample S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 0 13 6 J S S O o o o B O L I V A R > < I O - X UJ o cc O UJ O O 2 A p a r t - m e n t s OO o o ^ ^ ^ ^ f i l l ' ooo L C o m m e r c i a l B E N T L E Y R O A D HILTON ROAD SURVEY AREA POP ULAT ION SA MPLE F I G U R E 5-1 ^ L E G E N D / A p a r t m e n t Z o n i n g A P P ^ O n e H o u s e P o p u l a t i o n Sample S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 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 R O A D E A S T 5i oo no D ,0 w p U J cc o UJ QUEEN'S SURVEY ROAD AREA L E G E N D A O n e H o u s e N S e r v i c e S t a t i o n o S S F I G U R E 5-3 P o p u l a t i o n S a m p l e o POPULAT ION S A M P L E S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 0 139 I t 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o J I 1 i J K I N G S R O A D s s U J > < UJ _ J < Q CO z o E A S T H r~ i # O • () 0 o C o m m e r c i a l O s s A p a r t m e r i t s s s n i Q U E E N S R O A D E A S T O U J > < CO U J o cc o U J H CO o 2 9 th S T R E E T E A S T - - -| r n| i QUEEN'S ROAD SURVEY AREA F I G U R E 5-4 SURVEY SAMPLE 1 L E G E N D O n e H o u s e S e r v i c e S t a t i o n S u r v e y S a m p l e O s s S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 0 1 4 0 Q < o CC o o o o o V a c a n t B E N D A L E R O A D V a c a n t \ O O o > U J cc U J CQ o o O O O O O O s s A p a r t m e n t s C o m m e r c i a l a n d A p a r t m e n t s BERKLEY ROAD L E G E N D O n e H o u s e o s s SURVEY AREA I N S e r v i c e S t a t i o n POPULATION SAMPLE Popu la t i on Sample o F I G U R E 5-5 S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 0 1 4 1 Q < o CC o o o o o V a c a n t B E N D A L E R O A D BERKLEY ROAD SURVEY AREA S U R V E Y S A M P L E F I G U R E 5 - 6 L E G E N D O n e H o u s e S e r v i c e S t a t i o n S S S u r v e y S a m p l e ^ S C A L E In I n c h e s 1 to 4 0 0 142 L i m i t a t i o n s o f Sample Survey Sample surveys have l i m i t a t i o n s both i n p r e c i s i o n and a d a p t a b i l i t y . Any d a t a - g a t h e r i n g p r o j e c t based on a sample i s s u b j e c t t o sampl ing e r r o r . T h i s means t h a t a l l f i n d i n g s coming from such a s t u d y must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i g h t o f t h i s e r r o r . However, the sampl ing e r r o r i n s m a l l e r e x p l o r i t o r y and a t t i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s such as the one a t hand, i s not a major c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The use o f the nominal s c a l e I s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f e x p l o r i t o r y r e s e a r c h where the emphasis i s on u n c o v e r i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r than on s p e c i f y i n g the mathemat ica l form o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Por t h i s r e a s o n , the use o f percentages and p r o p o r t i o n s are used as the b a s i s o f a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s s t u d y . Another l i m i t a t i o n i s t h a t e v e r y d a t a - g a t h e r i n g instrument has an o p t i m a l l e n g t h f o r the p o p u l a t i o n t o which i t w i l l be s u b m i t t e d . Beyond t h i s p o i n t , i n t e r e s t b e g i n s t o lapse and c o - o p e r a t i o n d i m i n i s h e s . In t h i s r e s p e c t , the number o f q u e s t i o n s and t o p i c s d e a l t w i t h i n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e must be l i m i t e d o r e l s e the p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e c e i v i n g i n - complete and i n a c c u r a t e answers e n t e r s i n t o the a n a l y s i s . A sample s u r v e y des i gned t o r e p r e s e n t a p o p u l a t i o n d i s p e r s e d over a wide g e o g r a p h i c a l area i s l i k e l y t o g i v e an inadequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o any p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t i s h i g h l y l o c a l i z e d . The converse i s a l s o t r u e t h a t a sample s u r v e y d e s i g n e d t o r e p r e s e n t a h i g h l y l o c a l i z e d p o p u l a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o g i v e inadequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o any p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are d i s p e r s e d over a wide g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a . T h i s means t h a t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from one p o p u l a t i o n t o another are 143 not s t a t i s t i c a l l y valid, and that care must be taken in the interpreta- tion and use of survey data. A f i f t h limitation i s that the survey Interview can temporarily l i f t 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 i t 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 s t a t i s t i c a l 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 cr i t e r i a used, and the problems involved in determining locations for apartments. The homeowners main concern was in keeping apartments out of his neighbourhood. 1 H 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 d i f - ferent classifications of the lower-density apartment types. The term "character" In question 1 3 has obviously resulted in ambiguity. The character of a residential area means different things to different people. The architect may see i t as variety in housing types and styles whereas the housewife may see i t as large backyards for her children to play i n , or having other women her own age l i v i n g nearby. Because of these different perceptions of a neighbourhood's character, the question was not changed and i t s interpretation was l e f t up to the respondent. The purpose of the question was to determine i f a change i n neighbourhood character had been noticed, and i f the respondent associated the change with the presence of the apartments. Procedure of Questionnaire Administration Letters of introduction were sent out to a l l of the homeowners in the sample informing them that they had been selected from a random sample, and requesting co-operation in f i l l i n g 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 c a r r y out the i n t e r v i e w s . S ince most o f the respondents worked d u r i n g the day , I n t e r v i e w s were c a r r i e d out i n the e v e n i n g between 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm. The respondents were u n w i l l i n g t o schedule i n t e r v i e w s over the weekend, and so the o n l y n i g h t s t h a t i n t e r v i e w s c o u l d be h e l d were Mondays through T h u r s d a y s . The i n t e r v i e w s were spread out over a two week p e r i o d as o n l y two t o t h r e e i n t e r v i e w s c o u l d be completed per e v e n i n g . The l e n g t h of the i n t e r v i e w s ranged from twenty minutes f o r those who were s a t i s f i e d w i t h development i n t h e i r a r e a s , t o f o r t y - f i v e minutes f o r those who were v e r y d i s g r u n t l e d w i t h i t . "Homeowner" was d e f i n e d as e i t h e r the husband or the w i f e . Most s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes t h a t are owner o c c u p i e d are r e g i s t e r e d i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e under a J o i n t tenancy agreement between the husband and h i s w i f e so t h a t i f something was t o happen t o the husband, the p r o p e r t y a u t o m a t i c a l l y passes on t o the w i f e . Because o f the v e s t e d i n t e r e s t bo th share i n the home or t h e i r p r o p e r t y , i t was assumed t h a t bo th would express b a s i c a l l y the same p o i n t o f v i e w . I n t h i s r e g a r d , no p r e f e r e n c e was made as t o whether the i n t e r v i e w was h e l d w i t h the husband o r the w i f e . Of the twenty respondents , f i v e were female , seven were male and i n e i g h t c a s e s , bo th the husband and w i f e were p r e s e n t . Where both were p r e s e n t , the husband answered most o f the q u e s t i o n s w i t h the w i v e s i n t e r j e c t i n g comments now and a g a i n . RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE The r e s u l t s o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e have been broken down i n t o three s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t d e a l s w i t h the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 146 s u r v e y a r e a s ; the second w i t h the v a l i d i t y o f homeowners' o p p o s i t i o n ; and the t h i r d w i t h the change i n homeowners' a t t i t u d e towards mixed h o u s i n g . G e n e r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s chapter i n c l u d e such t o p i c s as l e n g t h o f r e s i d e n c e , c r i t e r i a used f o r p u r c h a s i n g homes, presence o r absence o f apartments a t the t ime of purchase and conf idence i n l o c a l governments t o c o n t r o l mixed h o u s i n g . The number o f years respondents had r e s i d e d i n t h e i r present home was spread out over a twenty year cont inuum. (See t a b l e 5-1) Of the t o t a l sample, 50 per cent had r e s i d e d i n t h e i r home f o r f i v e years or l e s s w h i l e the o ther 50 p e r cent had r e s i d e d i n t h e i r home from f i v e t o twenty y e a r s . The Queens Road area c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d the o l d e s t s i n c e 89 per cent o f the sample from t h a t area had r e s i d e d In t h e i r home from f i v e t o twenty y e a r s . H i l t o n Road area was the next o l d e s t w i t h 66 p e r cent o f I t s sample r e s i d i n g i n t h e i r home from f i v e t o twenty y e a r s , f o l l o w e d by the B e r k l e y Road area w i t h 40 per cent o f i t s sample f a l l i n g i n t o t h i s c a t e g o r y . The e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f the homes i n d i c a t e d an age breakdown o f the s u r v e y areas s i m i l a r t o the one mentioned above . (See Table 5-2) G e n e r a l l y the l e a s t expensive homes are l o c a t e d i n the o l d e r a r e a s . The e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f 45 per cent o f the respondents* homes f e l l i n the c a t e g o r y o f $15,000 t o $25,000. The e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f another 35 TABLE 5-1 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN HOME BY NUMBER AND PERCENT 1 year or l e s s % 1 t o 2 years % 2 t o 5 years % 5 t o 10 years * 10 t o 15 years % 15 t o 20 years % T o t a l H i l t o n 1 17 1 17 2 33 2 33 6 100 Queens 1 11 3 34 2 22 1 11 2 22 9 100 B e r k l e y 2 40 1 20 1 20 1 20 5 100 T o t a l 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 t o 20 % 21 t o 25 % 26 t o 30 % 31 t o 35 % 36 t o 40 % 40 & Over % D o n ' t Know % T o t a l * H i l t o n 2 33 1 17 1 17 2 33 6 100 Queens 4 44 1 11 1 11 2 22 .1 11 9 100 B e r k l e y 1 20 1 20 3 60 5 100 T o t a l 6 30 3 15 1 5 2 10 3 15 2 10 3 15 20 100 I—' -*=• CD 149 p e r cent o f the homes f e l l i n the $31,000 and over c a t e g o r y . Over 80 per cent o f the homes i n the B e r k l e y Road area were l e s s than f i v e years o l d . As a r e s u l t , a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n (80 p e r c e n t ) o f these homes f e l l i n the $31,000 t o $40,000 c a t e g o r y . The e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f the homes i n the Queens Road area ranged a l l the way from $15,000 t o over $40 ,000 . F i f t y - f i v e per cent o f the homes were i n the ca tegory o f $15,000 t o $25,000, and 33 per cent were i n the $31,000 t o over $40,000 c a t e g o r y . The wide spread i n the e s t i m - a t e d v a l u e o f homes i n t h i s area was a r e s u l t o f the number of o l d e r homes which would 'account f o r the low e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s ; p l u s some new homes and some l a r g e o l d homes l o c a t e d on l a r g e l o t s which would account f o r the h i g h e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s . Most o f the homes In the H i l t o n Road area were b u i l t d u r i n g 1 the e a r l y and mid ,1950's . T h i s was r e f l e c t e d i n the g e n e r a l l y low and u n i f o r m e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f the homes. S i x t y - s e v e n per cent o f the homes f e l l i n the $15,000 t o $30,000 c a t e g o r y . The respondents l i v i n g i n the o t h e r 33 per cent o f the homes were unable t o es t imate the v a l u e s o f t h e i r homes. Wi th r e g a r d s t o the reasons why the p a r t i c u l a r home they were l i v i n g i n had'been p u r c h a s e d , 70 per cent o f the respondents s t a t e d t h a t l o c a t i o n was the prime c o n s i d e r a t i o n . (See Table 5-3) C r i t e r i a i n c l u d e d as important t o l o c a t i o n were p r o x i m i t y t o s c h o o l s , f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s , shopping f a c i l i t i e s and p l a c e o f employment. Other c r i t e r i a i n c l u d e d the q u a l i t y o f the view and the degree o f p r i v a c y a f f o r d e d b y the s i t e . O n l y two (10 per c e n t ) o f the respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r main TABLE 5-3 CRITERIA USED FOR PURCHASE OF HOME BY NUMBER AND PERCENT L o c a t i o n % L i k e d Home % S p e c u l a - t i o n % No Choice % T o t a l H i l t o n 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 T o t a l 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; % T o t a l H i l t o n 6 100 6 100 Queens 6 67 3 33 9 100 Berkley- 3 60 2 40 5 100 T o t a l 9 45 11 55 20 100 152 reason f o r b u y i n g t h e i r home was because t h e y l i k e d i t . T h i s i s 9 s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h a t R o s s i i n h i s s t u d y o f three P h i l a d e l p h i a suburbs f o u n d t h a t the c r i t e r i a f o r c h o o s i n g a home i n o r d e r o f importance was : f i r s t , the p a r t i c u l a r space dimensions o f the home; second, the p a r t i c u l a r d e s i g n requirements o f the home such as h e a t i n g , l a y o u t and u t i l i t i e s ; and t h i r d , the l o c a t i o n o f the home. I n h i s s t u d y , o n l y 26 per cent o f the respondents s t a t e d t h a t l o c a t i o n was the major f a c t o r i n b u y i n g a home. F u r t h e r s t u d y i n t h i s area would determine i f , i n f a c t , homeowners I n Vancouver p l a c e h i g h e r p r i o r i t y on home l o c a t i o n than on the p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t e s o f the home. In the survey a r e a s , the s t r o n g p r e f e r e n c e f o r l o c a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t a number o f the home purchasers were l i t t l e concerned w i t h the presence o f , or the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t apartments were t o be b u i l t I n the immediate a r e a . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y e v i d e n t i n the comparisons o f Tables 5-3 and 5-4. In the Queens Road area s i x (67 per c e n t ) o f the respondents knew o f the apartments a t the t ime t h e y purchased t h e i r home, and yet t h e y s t i l l chose the home p r i m a r i l y because o f I t s l o c a t i o n . T h i s same phenomena occured a l s o i n the B e r k l e y Road a r e a . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t l o c a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o s e r v i c e s and a m e n i t i e s outweighed any o f the n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s t h a t p r o x i m i t y t o apartments might have h a d . Table 5-5 shows t h a t 90 per cent o f the respondents b e l i e v e d t h a t more apartments would be b u i l t i n t h e i r neighbourhoods i n the f u t u r e . F i f t e e n p e r cent c o u l d not g i v e reasons f o r t h e i r b e l i e f s w h i l e 40 per cent s t a t e d t h a t apartment development was the t r e n d o r t h a t i n order t o 153 take care of the increased numbers of people, apartments would have to be b u i l t . But 45 per cent mentioned lack of confidence in the a b i l i t y 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 o f f i c i a l policy for development in the Hilton Road area, and also of i t s i n a b i l i t y 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 i n 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 i s that while apartments presently exist in the areas, and i t i s believed that more w i l l 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 f i r s t 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 t h e r e was no v i s i b l e o r s t a t i s t i c a l ev idence o f i n c r e a s e d m o b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g from the presence o f apartments , the p o t e n t i a l f o r i n c r e a s e d m o b i l i t y was m a n i f e s t , and under c e r t a i n unforeseen market c o n d i t i o n s , the h i g h p o t e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n these mixed h o u s i n g areas c o u l d be t r i g g e r e d . V a l i d i t y o f Homeowners O p p o s i t i o n W h i l e proceedings were underway t o rezone the s i t e s i n the s u r v e y areas t o m u l t i p l e - d w e l l i n g u s e , the homeowners p r e s e n t e d numerous reasons why t h e y f e l t apartments s h o u l d not be p e r m i t t e d . (See INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FORMULATION. In t h i s chapter f o r l i s t o f o b j e c t i o n s ) To determine the v a l i d i t y of the o b j e c t i o n s , t h e y were r e - p h r a s e d i n the form o f q u e s t i o n s t o see i f the apartments had o r e a t e d a l l o f the u n d e s i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r - i s t i c s t h a t the homeowners s a i d t h e y w o u l d . S i n c e the q u e s t i o n s were open, the respondent had complete freedom t o i m p l i c a t e apartments o r a n y t h i n g e l s e as c a u s i n g or c o n t r i b u t i n g t o any u n d e s i r a b l e f a c t o r s e x i s t i n g i n the survey a r e a . The f i r s t o b j e c t i o n was t h a t the apartments would d e p r e c i a t e the v a l u e o f the s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes, and make them d i f f i c u l t t o s e l l . Table 5-7 shows t h a t 35 per cent o f the respondents f e l t t h e i r home would be d i f f i c u l t t o s e l l because of the presence o f apar tments . Another 50 per cent f e l t t h e y would have no t r o u b l e s e l l i n g t h e i r home. Other f a c t o r s such as the s i z e , shape and l a y o u t o f the home was mentioned by 15 per cent o f the respondents as f a c t o r s t h a t would make t h e i r home d i f f i c u l t t o s e l l . In r e p l y t o whether t h e y knew o f anyone who had d i f f i c u l t y i n TABLE 5-7 FACTORS THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO SELL HOKE BY NUMBER AND PERCENT No D i f f i c u l t y % Presence of Apartments % Other % Total % H i l t o n 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 s e l l i n g a home because o f the presence o f apartments , none o f the r e s - pondents f e l t t h a t the presence o f apartments c o u l d a f f e c t the r e - s a l e v a l u e of t h e i r home, no cases were known where t h i s had occured even though s e v e r a l homes had been s o l d i n these areas over the past two y e a r s . The second o b j e c t i o n was t h a t taxes would i n c r e a s e due t o i n c r e a s e d s c h o o l and s e r v i c i n g c o s t s brought about by the apar tments . When asked i f p r o p e r t y taxes had i n c r e a s e d over the past two y e a r s , s i x t e e n (80 per cent ) o f the respondents s t a t e d t h a t they h a d ; one s t a t e d taxes had remained the same and three d i d not know I f p r o p e r t y taxes had i n c r e a s e d o r n o t . (See Table 5-8) In g i v i n g reasons f o r the i n c r e a s e i n t a x e s , o f importance was the f a c t t h a t none o f the homeowners a s s o c i a t e d the i n - crease In taxes t o the presence o f apar tments . In the " o t h e r " c a t e g o r y , some o f the reasons g i v e n w e r e : i n c r e a s e d c o s t s o f g e n e r a l improvements, i n c r e a s e d s c h o o l c o s t s , wage i n c r e a s e s f o r m u n i c i p a l employees, Increases i n the number o f m u n i c i p a l employees, i n c r e a s e s i n l a n d v a l u e s and home improvements. I n the Queens Road area where the upgrading of a lane t o s e r v i c e the apartments o b v i o u s l y r e s u l t e d i n Increased t a x assessments , the home- owners d i d not a s s o c i a t e the i n c r e a s e i n taxes t o the apar tment . The homeowners seemed t o b e n e f i t J u s t as much from the u p g r a d i n g o f the lane as d i d the apartment . The lane was widened and paved so t h a t the amount o f n o i s e and dust from the l a n d was r e d u c e d . The r e s u l t was t h a t the homeowners were p l e a s e d t o see the lane paved , and i n no way blamed the presence of apartments f o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r t a x e s . 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 t h i r d o b j e c t i o n was t h a t people who l i v e i n apartments are more m o b i l e , and b e l o n g t o a lower s o c i a l c l a s s than do homeowners; the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t r e n t a l u n i t s were a b l i g h t i n g i n f l u e n c e i n s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . The homeowner's p e r c e p t i o n o f t enants In the s u r v e y areas d i d not s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s argument. The data i n Table 5-9 can be summarized by s a y i n g t h a t on the w h o l e , homeowners i n the survey areas p e r c e i v e d people l i v i n g i n the apartments as young, middle c l a s s f a m i l i e s who were moderate ly m o b i l e . Some o f the respondents went so f a r as t o say t h a t the t enants were much l i k e t h e m s e l v e s . Others s t a t e d t h a t the t enants were young p r o f e s s i o n a l s j u s t g e t t i n g s t a r t e d , and t h a t t h e y w o u l d have t o be making a good wage i n order t o pay the h i g h apartment r e n t s . H i e l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f respondents (between 25 t o 30 per eent) who were unable t o g i v e an o p i n i o n as t o the type o f people l i v i n g i n the apartments i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were e i t h e r u n w i l l i n g t o make a p e r - s o n a l v a l u e Judgement about the t e n a n t s or t h e y had never r e a l l y taken n o t i c e o f the k i n d o f people who were l i v i n g t h e r e . A l s o , s i n c e 20 per cent o f the respondents had l i v e d i n t h e i r home f o r l e s s than one y e a r , t h e y would not have had t ime t o f a m i l i a r i z e themselves w i t h the people l i v i n g i n the apar tments . One o f the major o b j e c t i o n s t o apartments i n the Queens Road and B e r k l e y Road areas was t h a t t h e y would cut o f f the v iew o f e i t h e r the mountains or the c i t y (depending on which way the home was f a c i n g ) . TABLE 5-9 HOW HOMEOWNERS PERCEIVE TENANTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT A . M a r i t a l S t a t u s o f Tenants B . Age o f Tenants F a m i l y % S i n g l e D o n ' t % Young % M i d d l e O l d % D o n ' t % Know Know H i l t o n 5 83 1 17 3 50 3 50 Queens 8 89 1 11 7 78 2 22 B e r k l e y 4 80 1 20 3 60 1 20 1 20 T o t a l 17 95 3 15 13 65 1 5 6 30 C . C l a s s S t a t u s o f Tenants D . MO b i l i t y o f Tenants Lower % M i d d l e % Upper * Don ' t Know i S t a b l e i M o b i l e * D o n ' t Know i H i l t o n Queens B e r k l e y 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 T o t a l •3- 5 12 65 7 35 3 15 10 50 7 35 162 The f a c t t h a t t h i s was an o b j e c t i o n o f homeowners i n the two N o r t h Vancouver s u r v e y areas was i n d i c a t e d by the responses i n Table 5-10. In the H i l t o n Road a r e a , the l o s s o f v iew was not a c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t a l l , and even though the owners o f two homes d i r e c t l y a c r o s s the s t r e e t from the t a l l , t h r e e - s t o r y w a l k - u p apartment s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r p r i v a c y had been I n t e r f e r e d w i t h , no mention was made o f t h e i r v iew b e i n g a f f e c t e d . N o r t h Vancouver homeowners are t r a d i t i o n a l l y v e r y s e n s i t i v e t o a n y t h i n g t h a t t h r e a t e n s t o o b s t r u c t t h e i r v i e w . T h i s i s understandable as many people l o c a t e on the Nor th Vancouver mountains ides p r i m a r i l y t o take advantage o f the panoramic view o f M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver . In the two N o r t h Vancouver survey a r e a s , o n l y f i v e (36 per c e n t ) o f the f o u r t e e n respondents mentioned t h a t t h e i r view had been a f f e c t e d . In none o f the c a s e s , however, was the view i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t o the e x t e n t t h a t home- owners were f o r c e d t o seek compensation from the m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r " i n j u r i o u s a f f e c t i o n " . Another o b j e c t i o n was t h a t apartments would produce i n c r e a s e d t r a f f i c and p a r k i n g problems i n r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Tiie r e s u l t s o f the s u r v e y showed t h a t 75 per cent o f the homeowners had n o t i c e d an i n c r e a s e i n t r a f f i c on the r o a d on which t h e i r home f r o n t e d . (See Table 5-11) However, o n l y 25 per cent suggested t h a t the i n c r e a s e was caused by the apar tments . The H i l t o n Road area accounted f o r 15 per cent o f the c o m p l a i n t s . These homeowners were r a t h e r b i a s e d as H i l t o n Road has been used f o r more than a year as one o f the major access roads t o the W h a l l e y Commercial 163 TABLE 5-10 RESPONDENTS WHO PELT VIEW HAD BEEN CUT OFF BY APARTMENTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Yes % No T o t a l * H i l t o n 6 100 6 100 Queens 3 33 6 67 9 100 B e r k l e y 2 40 3 60 5 100 T o t a l 5 25 15 75 20 100 TABLE 5 - H HOMEOWNERS' PERCEPTION OF INCREASED TRAFFIC CAUSED BY APARTMENTS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT N o t i c e d Increase Reasons f o r Increase Yes % No % A p t S . % Other % D o n ' t Know * T o t a l % H i l t o n 5 83 1 17 3 50 2 33 1 17 6 100 Queens 7 78 2 22 1 11 8 89 9 100 B e r k l e y 3 60 2 40 i 20 3 60 1 20 5 100 T o t a l 15 75 5 25 5 25 13 65 2 10 20 100 1 6 5 Center. It is doubtful i f 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 o n l y one o f the homeowners mentioned t h e r e was a p a r k i n g p r o b l e m . A c a s u a l d r i v e around the apartments would show t h a t not enough p a r k i n g s t a l l s were p r o v i d e d . S e v e r a l p l e a s u r e boats have been parked among the t r e e s s u r r o u n d i n g the apar tments , and i n the evening t e n t o f i f t e e n a u t o - mobi les are p a r k e d i n the b o u l e v a r d s a l o n g B e r k l e y Road and B e n d e l l Avenue. The s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes' i n t h i s area have p r i v a t e d r i v e w a y s , and so are not a f f e c t e d by any p a r k i n g problems t h a t e x i s t around the apar tments . I n the H i l t o n Road a r e a , adequate underground and s u r f a c e p a r k i n g have been p r o v i d e d . The p a r k i n g p r o v i d e d f o r the apartments i n the Queens Road i s adequate f o r the t e n a n t s , but one o f the homeowners from t h i s area complained t h a t whenever p a r t i e s are h e l d a t the apar tments , p a r k i n g became a problem a l o n g Queens R o a d . The s i x t h o b j e c t i o n t o apartments was t h a t the c h i l d r e n would be o v e r l y n o i s y , and t h e r e would be a l a c k of p l a y area f o r them around the apar tments . N i n e t y - f i v e per cent o f the homeowners d i d not c o n s i d e r the c h i l d r e n who l i v e d i n the apartments t o be o v e r l y n o i s y . W i t h r e g a r d s t o where the c h i l d r e n p l a y , 50 per cent o f the r e s - pondents s t a t e d t h a t t h e y had seen the c h i l d r e n from the apartments p l a y - i n g on the s t r e e t s , i n the yards o f s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes, i n s c h o o l yards and v a r i o u s o t h e r p l a c e s . (See Table 5-12) Another 45 per cent s t a t e d t h a t t h e y d i d not know where the c h i l d r e n played.*-? T h i s c o u l d be taken t o mean t h a t s i n c e the respondents had not seen the" c h i l d r e n p l a y i n g i n the a r e a s mentioned above, t h a t the c h i l d r e n p l a y e d i n and about the apartment b u i l d i n g s . T h i s would 1 be e s p e c i a l l y t r u e o f the garden apartments i n TABLE 5-12 WHERE CHILDREN WHO LIVE I N APARTMENTS PLAY: BY NUMBER AND PERCENT Around Apartment X On S t r e e t s * I n S i n g l e - F a m i l y yards % Other % D o n ' t Know % T o t a l * H i l t o n 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 T o t a l 1 5 5 25 2 10 3 15 9 45 20 100 168 the N o r t h Vancouver survey a r e a s . Both developments have l a r g e p l a y areas equipped w i t h such p l a y apparatus as s w i n g s , s l i d e s and t e e t e r - t o t t e r s . Each development a l s o has a swimming p o o l which i s i n constant use throughout the summer months. Some o f the homeowners mentioned t h a t the c h i l d r e n were q u i t e n o i s y when p l a y i n g around the p o o l s , but not t o the p o i n t o f b e i n g d i s t u r b i n g . The seventh and f i n a l compla int examined by the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t h a t apartments would d e t r a c t from the c h a r a c t e r . o f the s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . (See Table 5-13) Of the twenty r e s p o n d e n t s , twelve (60 per cent ) f e l t t h a t apartments had not d e t r a c t e d from the c h a r a c t e r o f the a r e a s . F i v e (25 per cent ) o f the respondents went so f a r as t o say t h a t the c h a r a c t e r o f the areas had been improved by the apar tments . The apartments i n the Queens Road area were b u i l t on a s i t e where an o l d , abandoned home had b e e n . I n the H i l t o n Road a r e a , the s i t e on w h i c h the apartment b u i l d i n g was l o c a t e d had p r e v i o u s l y been a vacant l o t f u l l o f t a l l weeds and s h r u b s . I n the B e r k l e y Road a r e a , the s i t e had p r e v i o u s l y been a f o r e s t . E i g h t (HO per cent ) o f the respondents f e l t t h a t apartments had d e t r a c t e d from the c h a r a c t e r o f the s i n g l e - f a m i l y area so t h a t i t c o u l d no l o n g e r be thought o f as an e x c l u s i v e a r e a . Another 15 per cent f e l t t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the t h r e e s t o r y u n i t s i n the B e r k l e y Road and H i l t o n Road areas had reduced the p r i v a c y of the s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes. Tenants l i v i n g i n the t h i r d f l o o r s u i t e s c o u l d see d i r e c t l y i n t o the yards and windows o f the n e i g h b o u r i n g homes. Ten per cent f e l t a p a r t - ments had d e t r a c t e d from the c h a r a c t e r o f the area by b l o c k i n g the view o f the mountains and the c i t y . 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 f i n d i n g s o f the s u r v e y r e g a r d i n g the v a l i d i t y of homeowner o p p o s i t i o n t o the development of m u l t i p l e - d w e l l i n g s i n s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas can be summarized as f o l l o w s : W h i l e some o f the respondents f e l t t h a t the presence o f apartments wo uld make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r them t o s e l l t h e i r home, none o f them were aware o f any i n s t a n c e s where d i f f i c u l t y was encountered i n s e l l i n g a home because o f the presence o f apar tments . The respondents agreed t h a t p r o p e r t y taxes had i n c r e a s e d , but none blamed t h i s on the presence o f apar tments . The g e n e r a l o p i n i o n o f the homeowners was t h a t the apartment d w e l l e r s were young, m i d d l e - c l a s s f a m i l i e s , much l i k e t h e m s e l v e s . They were thought o f as a l i t t l e more mobi le than the homeowners, but some o f the respondents were q u i c k t o add t h a t some o f the t enants had l i v e d i n the apartments f o r as l o n g as they had l i v e d i n t h e i r home. (50 per cent o f the respondents had l i v e d i n t h e i r home f o r l e s s than f i v e y e a r s . ) The view from some o f the homes had been a f f e c t e d by the apar tments , but on the w h o l e , t h i s was not s e r i o u s . I t u s u a l l y meant t h a t the scenery changed from a l o t f u l l o f t r e e s t o a few t r e e s and a l o t f u l l o f a p a r t m e n t s . T r a f f i c had i n c r e a s e d In a l l o f the a r e a s , but t h i s was not a t t r i b u t e d t o the presence o f apar tments . I n the one area where i n c r e a s e d t r a f f i c c o u l d be r e a s o n a b l y blamed on the apar tments , the homeowners were not p e r c e p t i v e o f the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . 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 f e l t 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, i t s character changes and i t i s 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 i n that i t 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 b u i l t . 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 i l l effects to the surrounding residential areas. 172 Prom c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s i n the a r e a s , i t was p o s s i b l e t o r e c o g n i z e e x i s t i n g problems w i t h regards t o p a r k i n g , p r i v a c y , n o i s e , e t c . , but t o the homeowners, these problems were almost n o n - e x i s t e n t , p o s s i b l y because t h e y were l i v i n g t o o c l o s e t o the p r o b l e m s . To a l a r g e e x t e n t , i t seemed t h a t they had accepted the c o n d i t i o n s around them as b e i n g normal and perhaps even d e s i r a b l e . A t t i t u d e Change T h i s s e c t i o n examines, f i r s t o f a l l , homeowners' change i n a t t i t u d e towards apartments i n g e n e r a l , and s e c o n d l y , homeowners' change i n a t t i t u d e towards m i x e d - h o u s i n g . Table 5-14 shows a breakdown by number and per cent of homeowners who expressed a change i n a t t i t u d e towards apar tments . No attempt was made t o measure the degree o f change, and the respondent was asked t o s t a t e h i s a t t i t u d e towards apartments i n g e n e r a l . The r e s u l t s show t h a t 35 per cent o f the respondents f e l t t h e i r a t t i t u d e s had changed from b e i n g opposed t o apartments to b e i n g i n f a v o u r o f them. The o t h e r 65 per cent s t a t e d no change i n a t t i t u d e . Of i n t e r e s t , I s the f a c t t h a t the seven (35 p e r cent ) respondents who i n d i c a t e d a change i n a t t i t u d e l i v e d i n the two N o r t h Vancouver survey areas i n which the garden apartments were l o c a t e d . The i m p l i c a t i o n . I s t h a t the w e l l d e s i g n e d and landscaped garden apartments are more a c - c e p t a b l e i n s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas than the o ther forms o f apartment b u i l i n g s . I n the H i l t o n Road a r e a , where the apartment b u i l d i n g i s a t h r e e - s t o r y square s t r u c t u r e , none o f 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, i f 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 c r i t i c a l of apartments. This finding lends strong support to the concept that i f mixed housing practices are going to persist, the greatest success could be achieved by, incorporating i t into new develop- ments rather than trying to inject apartments Into existing single- family residential areas. Hypothesis I i s v a l i d 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 i s that 25 per cent of the t o t a l 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 i f 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 l i t t l e , attention to the apartments, and the a c t i v i t i e s 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 f i r s t , 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, r e a l l y i s not. The 177 fact that the respondents had no complaints about the apartments, and s t i l l 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 i t * This should not be taken too li g h t l y , as homeowners who are dissatisfied with a neighbourhood tend to move to areas where they f e e l more comfortable. One other finding of the study was that the amount of homeowner acceptance to mixed housing i s 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 liv e d i n close proximity to the three-story walk-up expressed a very negative attitude towards them. The height of the apartment buildings Is also a c r i t i c a l factor. In the areas where three-story apartments were located, homeowners expressed a greater concern for loss of privacy than i n 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. 4 I b i d , p. 351. 5 Pred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p. 469. ^Festinger and Katz, op. c i t . , p. 330. 7 I b i d , pp. 48-51. Q See Appendix B for a copy of the Letter of Introduction. % e t e r Rossi, Why Families Move, (Glencoe: Free Press, 1955), P. 154. CHAPTER V I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY At the i n c e p t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y , i t was e n v i s i o n e d t h a t the f i n d i n g s would be r e l e v a n t t o the p l a n n e r , t o l o c a l c o u n c i l s and t o the homeowner. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y are r e l e v a n t t o the p l a n n e r i n t h a t t h e y g i v e some I n s i g h t i n t o the a t t i t u d e s o f the people l i v i n g i n the homes t h a t so o f t e n are thought o f as dots on a map. S ince p l a n n e r s have been , t o some e x t e n t , the f o r e r u n n e r s i n a d v o c a t i n g mixed h o u s i n g , t h i s s t u d y goes one s tep f u r t h e r t o examine the s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f mixed h o u s i n g . Tfcis s t u d y a l s o r e - e v a l u a t e s the r o l e o f the s i n g l e - f a m i l y home, and suggests t h a t s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas s h o u l d be p r e s e r v e d a t a t ime when many are s a y i n g t h a t s i n g l e - f a m i l y h o u s i n g i s w a s t e f u l o f urban l a n d . The r e l e v a n c e o f t h i s s t u d y t o l o c a l c o u n c i l s concerns t h e i r d i l i g e n c e i n f o r m u l a t i n g and f o l l o w i n g proper apartment l o c a t i o n p o l i c i e s . I n most c a s e s , c o u n c i l s agree w i t h the town center concept i n which apartments are l o c a t e d around the major commercial c e n t e r s , but i n the l8o f i n a l 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 a l l of the problems normally associated with apartments. To a certain extent, they can also add character to an area i f 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 i t s purpose was to gain familiarity with the phenomenon of mixed housing, and^ achieve new insights into the problems related to i t . 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 l a n d any way he p l e a s e d , but w i t h the growth o f the p o p u l a t i o n and the i n c r e a s e d c l o s e n e s s i n l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , i t was necessary t o p l a c e r e s t r i c t i o n s on how a person used h i s l a n d . One o f the most important d e v i c e s implemented t o c o n t r o l land-use was the z o n i n g b y - l a w . Z o n i n g was seen as a way t o p r o t e c t s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas from u n - d e s i r a b l e l a n d - u s e s and thereby conserve p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . I t was r e c o g n i z e d t h a t s i n g l e - f a m i l y h o u s i n g p l a y e d an i n v a l u a b l e r o l e i n s a t i s f y i n g the needs o f c e r t a i n p e o p l e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , s i n g l e - f a m i l y h o u s i n g s a t i s f i e d the h o u s i n g needs of f a m i l i e s more than any o t h e r type o f h o u s i n g . The s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d home p r o v i d e s p r i v a c y from n e i g h b o u r s . I t s s i z e p r o v i d e s f o r a g r e a t e r s e p a r a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n s and p r o v i d e s g r e a t e r p r i v a c y f o r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members. I t i s a form o f inves tment , and g i v e s the owner a source of s e c u r i t y . I t i s the l o c u s f o r f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s , a p l a c e t o i d e n t i f y w i t h , and I t lends i t s e l f t o p e r s o n a l e x p r e s s i o n more than any o t h e r type o f d w e l l i n g u n i t . For these r e a s o n s , i t was concluded t h a t the s i n g l e - f a m i l y home, and i t s environment i s i n need of c o n t i n u e d c o n s e r v a t i o n , and t h a t i n f r i n g e m e n t from other l a n d - uses s h o u l d be d i s c o u r a g e d . The f i r s t p a r t of Chapter I I I d e a l t m a i n l y w i t h the growth i n the number of apartments i n Canada. Data showed t h a t m u l t i p l e - d w e l l i n g s have been a c c o u n t i n g f o r an ever i n c r e a s i n g p r o p o r t i o n o f t o t a l hous ing i n Canada, and t h a t t h i s growth has occured m a i n l y i n urban c e n t e r s . Reasons f o r t h i s growth have been due t o changes i n the age s t r u c t u r e o f the 182 p o p u l a t i o n , household f o r m a t i o n , i n c r e a s e d h o u s i n g c o s t s and peoples changing t a s t e s . Much o f the apartment growth i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver has occured i n the suburban m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Lower l a n d c o s t s have a t t r a c t e d d e v e l o p e r s t o these areas w h i l e i n c r e a s i n g employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a t t r a c t e d people t o l i v e i n them. Apartment growth has r e s u l t e d i n i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e on more economica l use of r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d . I t must be kept i n m i n d , however, t h a t the l a r g e number o f people who are l i v i n g i n apartments a t p r e s e n t , w i l l be g e t t i n g m a r r i e d over the next f i v e y e a r s , and t h e y w i l l then be l o o k i n g f o r a s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d home i n which t o r a i s e t h e i r f a m i l y . The second p a r t o f Chapter I I I d e a l t w i t h apartment l o c a t i o n p o l i c i e s , and p r a c t i c e s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver . Most o f the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s making up M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver Support s i m i l a r apartment l o c a t i o n p o l i c i e s . These p o l i c i e s advocate the placement o f apartments around the major commercial c e n t e r s w i t h i n the community. In p r a c t i c e , l o c a l c o u n c i l s have not always u p h e l d t h i s p o l i c y . I n t h e i r eagerness t o have a deve loper i n v e s t money i n t h e i r community, l o c a l c o u n c i l s have o f t e n g r a n t e d r e z o n i n g s f o r apartments i n areas not r e l a t e d t o commercial c e n t e r s . Under these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , sound apartment l o c a t i o n p o l i c i e s have been se t a s i d e i n f a v o u r o f f i n a n c i a l e x p e d i e n c y . The focus o f Chapter I V was on the s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f mixed h o u s i n g . A r c h i t e c t s , p l a n n e r s and other " s t u d e n t s " o f the urban scene , have been the major advocates o f mixed h o u s i n g . Mixed h o u s i n g , however, i m p l i e s a s o c i a l mix as d i f f e r e n t types o f h o u s i n g a t t r a c t people w i t h 183 d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I n t h i s r e g a r d , mixed h o u s i n g cannot be r e a s o n a b l y separa ted from the f e a s i b i l i t y o f a s o c i a l m i x . Prom the a n a l y s i s o f the s o - c a l l e d "balanced community c o n c e p t " , i t was conc luded t h a t t h e r e i s a n a t u r a l tendency f o r people t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h o t h e r s o f s i m i l a r backgrounds and s i m i l a r v a l u e s . A r t i f i c i a l l y m i x i n g people w i t h d i f f e r i n g backgrounds r e s u l t s i n s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n i n s t e a d o f an enrichment o f i d e a s and c u l t u r e . W h i l e a h o u s i n g mix may be d e s i r a b l e from the p o i n t o f view o f i n t r o d u c i n g v a r i e t y i n t o the urban scene , the s o c i a l makeup o f the people l i v i n g i n the d i f f e r e n t h o u s i n g types i s sure t o c r e a t e f o r c e s which w i l l t e n d t o d i s r u p t the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t would o therwise e x i s t i f the i n h a b i t a n t s e x h i b i t e d homogeneous s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ' The purpose o f i n t r o d u c i n g the cos t - revenue a n a l y s i s was t o show the a f f e c t d i f f e r e n t types o f apartments have on m u n i c i p a l f i n a n c e s . Each apartment type possesses c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t c a t e r t o the needs o f d i f f e r e n t segments o f the p o p u l a t i o n . I n d e t e r m i n i n g where t o l o c a t e apar tments , p l a n n e r s and l o c a l c o u n c i l s must take i n t o account such t h i n g s as the h e i g h t , number o f bedrooms, r e n t and s i z e of the p r o j e c t because each element d e c i d e s , t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , the k i n d of people who w i l l l i v e i n the a p a r t m e n t s . Chapter V d e a l t w i t h the f o r m u l a t i o n and r e s u l t s o f the s u r v e y r e s e a r c h i n t o homeowner's a t t i t u d e s towards mixed h o u s i n g . The two hypotheses t e s t e d weres 184 HYPOTHESIS I : Homeowners' a t t i t u d e s towards mixed hous ing are not changed by l i v i n g i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o apar tments . HYPOTHESIS I I : I n a mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n homeowners p e r c e i v e apartments t o be the cause o f p a r k i n g problems , d e p r e c i a t e d p r o p e r t y v a l u e s , i n c r e a s e d t r a f f i c and n o i s e , h i g h e r t a x e s , l o s s o f p r i v a c y , l o s s o f v iew and o t h e r problems u s u a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o apar tments . H y p o t h e s i s I was accepted on the grounds t h a t 9 0 per cent o f the home- owners who d i d not know t h a t apartments would be b u i l t i n the area when t h e y purchased t h e i r home, c o n t i n u e d t o oppose mixed h o u s i n g a?fter the apartments were c o n s t r u c t e d , and i n u s e . C o n v e r s e l y , 9 0 p e r cent o f the homeowners who knew o f the apartments a t the t ime t h e y purchased t h e i r home were i n f a v o u r o f mixed h o u s i n g , and had not changed t h e i r a t t i t u d e a f t e r l i v i n g a t l e a s t one year i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o the apar tments . An i n c o n s i s t e n c y i s e v i d e n t i n these r e s p o n s e s , as 8 0 per cent o f a l l homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d , s t a t e d t h a t t h e y l i k e d the apartments t h a t had been c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e i r ne ighbourhood, whereas o n l y 4 5 per cent o f t o t a l homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d , s t a t e d t h a t t h e y were i n f a v o u r o f mixed h o u s i n g . T h i s seems t o s u b s t a n t i a t e the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t homeowners' a t t i t u d e s towards mixed h o u s i n g do not change as a r e s u l t o f l i v i n g i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o apar tments . The f a c t t h a t t h i s b a s i c i n c o n s i s t e n c y e x i s t s , i n d i c a t e s t h a t f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o d e l i n e a t e t o a 185 f i n e r degree why homeowners express a p p r o v a l o f p a r t i c u l a r types o f apartments c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e i r neighbourhood, and a t the same t i m e , oppose mixed h o u s i n g . H y p o t h e s i s I I was r e j e c t e d on the grounds t h a t homeowners g e n e r a l l y d i d not p e r c e i v e the apartments t o be the cause o f any s e r i o u s problems i n the a r e a s . T h i s v iew was s t rengthened by the f a c t t h a t even where the e x i s t e n c e o f problems c o u l d be t r a c e d t o the apar tments , the homeowners d i d not p e r c e i v e them t o be the c a u s e . Even though homeowners do not p e r c e i v e apartments as c a u s i n g problems u s u a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o them, the f a c t t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y one h a l f o f the homeowners i n t e r v i e w e d opposed mixed h o u s i n g , r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n and r e s e a r c h . Mixed h o u s i n g seems t o c r e a t e c o n f l i c t between two v a l u e s y s t e m s . One suggests a need f o r v a r i e t y o f h o u s i n g t y p e s , and the o ther suggests homogeneity o f h o u s i n g t y p e s . Who i s t o say which one i s r i g h t , and which one i s wrong? The evidence does p o i n t t o the maintenance o f some semblance o f homogeneity w i t h i n r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . C e r t a i n l y , the v a l u e system o f one s h o u l d not be f o r c e d on the o t h e r , and t h i s q u e s t i o n s h o u l d not be d e c i d e d by the economics i n v o l v e d as has occured i n the p a s t . One o f the important f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y was t h a t homeowners who v o l u n t a r i l y chose t o l i v e i n a mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n are s a t i s f i e d w i t h the arrangement. T h e r e f o r e , i f mixed h o u s i n g i s t o be p r a c t i c e d , i t s h o u l d be c o n f i n e d t o new developments where the p u r c h a s e r s o f the s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes are f r e e t o choose whether o r not t h e y want t o l i v e i n a mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n . 186 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH One o f the p r i m a r y purposes o f e x p l o r i t o r y r e s e a r c h i s t o d i s c o v e r t o p i c s s u i t a b l e f o r fur ther> more d e t a i l e d r e s e a r c h . Whi le the r e s e a r c h p o s s i b i l i t i e s r e l a t e d t o the t o p i c o f mixed h o u s i n g are v a s t , o n l y f o u r p o s s i b l e areas o f r e s e a r c h w i l l be ment ioned. Resources o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n these areas were v e r y l i m i t e d , and were g r e a t l y missed i n the f o r m u l a - t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y o f mixed h o u s i n g . Of major importance i s the need f o r a s u r v e y o f homeowners' a t t i t u d e s b e f o r e the apartments are c o n s t r u c t e d , and another s u r v e y a f t e r t h e y are comple ted . I n the p r e s e n t s t u d y , the assumption t h a t a l l the homeowners opposed the development o f apartments i n t h e i r r e s p e c - t i v e neighbourhoods was i n v a l i d as some o f the homeowners were a c t u a l l y i n favour o f the development . A second area f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y r e q u i r e s a s u r v e y t o determine the amount and the k i n d o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t occurs between home- owners and tenants i n mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n s . As a means o f compar ison, the same type o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be ga thered on the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o c c u r i n g between homeowners i n the same a r e a . I f i t i s found t h a t v e r y l i t t l e i n t e r a c t i o n takes p l a c e between homeowners, a h o u s i n g mix c o u l d not have t h a t much e f f e c t on the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f the a r e a . I n r e l a t i o n t o R o s s i ' s s t u d y i n P h i l a d e l p h i a , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o the importance o f " l o c a t i o n " as a f a c t o r i n p u r c h a s i n g a home, c o u l d be u n d e r t a k e n . From the crude response o b t a i n e d i n t h i s s t u d y , " l o c a t i o n " seems t o be a much more important c r i t e r i a f o r p u r c h a s i n g a home i n Vancouver , than i n P h i l a d e l p h i a . The l a s t s u g g e s t i o n f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i s a s t u d y t o determine i f m o b i l i t y i s h i g h e r among homeowners i n areas o f mixed h o u s i n g , than i n homogeneous s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l ne ighbourhoods . A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample o f mixed h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n s c o u l d be chosen, and then m o b i l i t y i n and out o f these areas c o u l d be s t u d i e d over a s p e c i f i e d time p e r i o d . APPENDIX 189 APPENDIX A ATTITUDINAL SURVEY - FOR HOMEOWNERS The purpose o f t h i s s u r v e y i s t o determine r e s i d e n t ' s a t t i t u d e s toward c e r t a i n types o f h o u s i n g developments . The q u e s t i o n s have been des igned t o g i v e the respondent the h i g h e s t degree o f freedom t o answer i n the way h i s e x p e r i e n c e , knowledge, and u n d e r s t a n d i n g d i c t a t e s . I t must be s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e r e are no r i g h t o r wrong answers . I n r e p o r t i n g the r e s u l t s o f t h i s i n t e r v i e w , names and s p e c i f i c addresses w i l l not be u s e d . Those who take p a r t i n t h i s survey w i l l remain anonymous. I n t h i s type o f an i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e , s i n c e the q u e s t i o n s must be asked i n a predetermined order and f o r m , i t w i l l be necessary t o complete the i n t e r v i e w b e f o r e answering any q u e s t i o n s you might h a v e . How l o n g have you l i v e d i n t h i s home? a) Have you thought o f moving? Yes No b ) I f YES: What would be your reasons f o r moving? Need l a r g e r house Would l i k e new house D o n ' t l i k e neighbourhood Move c l o s e r t o work Other What are the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e d your d e c i s i o n t o buy t h i s house? Q u a l i t y o f neighbourhood L o c a t i o n Close t o job Good s c h o o l s Good d e a l Close t o f r i e n d s L i k e d home Other a ) I have n o t i c e d some apartment b u i l d i n g s i n t h i s a r e a . D i d you know a t the t ime you purchased your home t h a t apartments would be b u i l t i n t h i s area? b ) I f you knew what you know now about t h i s a r e a , would you s t i l l buy i n t h i s l o c a t i o n ? Yes No Yes No c ) I f NO: What are your reasons f o r s a y i n g t h a t ? 191 3. What do you think i s the estimated value of your home? a) To your knowledge, Is there anything about your home or i t s location that would make i t d i f f i c u l t 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 d i f f i c u l t y 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 li v i n g 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 t r a f f i c 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 ) I P NO: In your o p i n i o n , are "proper s e r v i c e s and a m e n i t i e s " the most important c r i t e r i a when d e t e r m i n i n g apartment l o c a t i o n ? 1 2 . I f apartments were t o be l o c a t e d i n the same g e n e r a l area as s i n g l e f a m i l y homes, what k i n d o f apartments do you f e e l cause the l e a s t d i s r u p t i o n t o community l i f e ? H i g h r i s e 2&3 s t o r y w a l k - u p Townhouse o r row-house Garden apartments D o n ' t know Other 1 3 . I n your o p i n i o n have apartments d e t r a c t e d from the c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s area? Yes No 4) I F NO: What are some o f the o t h e r c r i t e r i a p l a n n e r s s h o u l d use when c o n s i d e r i n g s i t e s f o r apartments? Yes No a ) I F YES: In what way? b ) I F NO: Have t h e y improved the c h a r a c t e r o f the area? Yes No 1 9 5 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? 1 5 . 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 F a m i l y , New Y o r k : Harper B r o t h e r s , 1949. Abrams, C h a r l e s . R e v o l u t i o n I n L a n d . New Y o r k : Harper B r o t h e r s , 1939. Abrams, C h a r l e s . The Future o f H o u s i n g . New Y o r k : Harper B r o t h e r s , 1946. B a s s e t t , Edward M . Z o n i n g . New Y o r k : R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1936. B e r g e r , Bennet t M . Working C l a s s S u b u r b . B e r k l e y : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , I 9 6 0 . B e y e r , Glenn H . Housing and S o e l e t y . New Y o r k : M a c M i l l a n , 1965« Chapman, D e n n i s . The Home and S o c i a l S t a t u s . New Y o r k : Grove P r e s s , 1955» Clawson, M a r l o n . Man and Land i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska P r e s s , 1964. " " Community B u i l d e r ' s C o u n c i l o f Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . The Community B u i l d e r s Handbook. Washington: Community B u i l d e r ' s C o u n c i l o f Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1968. Dean, John P . Home Ownership : I s I t Sound? New Y o r k : Harper & B r o s . , 1945. F e s t i n g e r , L e o n , and K a t z , D a n i e l . Research Methods i n the B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s . New Y o r k : H o l t , R l n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , i960. F o o t e ; Abu-Lughod; F o l e y ; and W i n n i c k . Housing Choices and Housing C o n s t r a i n t s . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , I 960 . ' Gans, H e r b e r t J . People and P l a n s . New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1968. Gans, Herber t J . The L e v i t t o w n e r s . Pantheon B o o k s . New Y o r k , 1967* G r e y , George H . Hous ing and C i t i z e n s h i p - A S t u d y o f Low Cost H o u s i n g . New Y o r k : R e i n h o l d P u b l i s h i n g C o r p . , 1946. H a r r i s , M a r s h a l l . O r i g i n o f the Land Tenure System In the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Iowa S t a t e C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1953. J a c o b s , J a n e . The Death and L i f e o f Great American C i t i e s . New Y o r k : V i n t a g e Books , 1961. 198 Mace, Ruth L. Municipal-Cost Revenue Research In the United States. Chapel H i l l : 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 B i l l of Rights 1776-1791. Chapel H i l l : 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 O f f i c i a l s , 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 Dist r i c t 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. I l l i n g , 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 Br i t i s h 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:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 4 14
United States 3 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 4 0
Sunnyvale 2 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items