Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social effects of subdivision design : a study in micro-ecology. Williams, Robert Arthur 1958

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1958_A6_7 W45 S6.pdf [ 5.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106085.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106085-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106085-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106085-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106085-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106085-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106085-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106085-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106085.ris

Full Text

THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN: A STUDY IN MICRO-ECOLOGY By ROBERT ARTHUR WILLIAMS REPORT ON A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN LIEU OF A THESIS IN PAR-fIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n the Department of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING. We accept t h i s report as conforming to the standard required from candidates f o r the degree of MASTER . OF SCIENCE. Members of the Department of community and Regional Planning. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL, 1958. A B S T R A C T This Thesis was prompted by the belief that most town planners i n t h e i r creation of the physical environment generally do not r e a l i z e that they are also creating a s o c i a l environment. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of the sub-division design aspect of planning. In order to show that the l o c a l p hysical environment as created by subdivision design does affect l o c a l relationships, a planned veterans' housing project i n East Vanoouver was studied. The underlying reason for choosing the veterans' project, Renfrew Heights, was because the tenants were quite a homogeneous group as a result of the entry r e q u i r e -ments of the C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation. T h i s being the case, the effects of the design i t s e l f could be more e a s i l y determined. It was believed that people i n the lower socio-economic groups were more affected by environment than those i n the higher socio-economic groups. A l l i e d with this thought was the belief that the com-munity of interest i n areas l i k e Renfrew was often the community i t s e l f . Because of these beliefs and the homogeneity of the community, the Renfrew project was chosen. The basic thesis of the study was s i m i l a r to Robert E. P a r k s ' definition of human ecology - that man's relationships with man are affected by environment. It was proposed that at the neighbourhood l e v e l l o c a l friendships were affected by four basic p h y s i c a l factors. It was proposed that these four physical factors were; (1) distance between houses; (2) differences i n elevation or v e r t i c a l distance; (3) the use that the distance i s put to, or intensity of use; (4) orientation of houses or the way they face. A questionnaire was prepared and housewives were interviewed personally i n order to determine what the l o c a l friendship pattern was i n various parts of the project. A n analysis of the questionnaire showed that l o c a l friendships were affected by the four physical factors. The need for further s o c i a l r e s e a r c h i s stressed, p a r t i c u l a r l y the s o c i a l aspects of planning, i n order to see i f we are r e a l l y planning for the people. It i s concluded that i t i s upon this area of study that the future of town planning depends. In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representative. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S It i s with pleasure that I acknowledge the debt owed to the many people who helped me throughout this project. I want to thank Dr. S.M. Jamie son who'opened my eyes' to the f i e l d of sociology and provided the base of a l a s t i n g interest i n the subject through his lectures. Dr. K. Naegle of the same department was most helpful at the beginning of the project i n sharpening my thoughts on the subject. My thanks go also to Mr. J.W. Wilson of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board who provided i n his lectures a c l e a r e r picture of the process of subdivision design than I had hitherto seen. I must p a r t i c u l a r l y thank and acknowledge P r o f e s s o r I.M. Robinson of the Department of Community and Regional Planning for his constant help throughout the entire project. Dr. H.P. Oberlander of the same department was helpful at the beginning i n the outline of the scope of the study. M i s s M. Dwyer of the U n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y was a great help at a l l times. I should also l i k e to thank Mr. and M r s . Hendrie Leggatt who had the di f f i c u l t task of translating my o r i g i n a l draft and M i s s White who typed the f i n a l report. I must also acknowledge the C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation who through the i r national planning fellowships have made it possible for me to follow the f i e l d that interests me most. Robert A. W i l l i a m s . TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION Page 1 CHAPTER I Page 12 Background and Previous Research i n Micro-Ecology. CHAPTER II ... Page 26 Subdivision Design as a Process i n community Planning. CHAPTER I I I Page 3 8 Hypotheses Regarding Some of the Social E f f e c t s of Subdivision Design. CHAPTER IV Page 5 9 Some Findings of the Renfrew Study. CHAPTER V Page 7 9 The Prospect f o r the Future; The So c i a l Sciences and Their Relation-ship to Planning. FOOTNOTES .. Page 8 8 APPENDIX Page 9 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 101 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION: Town planning, by seeking to improve the p h y s i c a l environment, i s p r i m a r i l y a means to satisfy the s o c i a l and economic needs of the people. Too often the planner i n both his planning recommendations and actual developments, forgets this ultimate purpose. Often recommen-dations are made or subdivisions are planned with hardly any concern regarding the effects of the action on the d a i l y l i v e s of the people con-cerned. The m a in reason for this i s probably that the planner just doesn't know what the s o c i a l consequences of his actions are apt to be. The fact i s that much more information i s needed regarding this aspect of planning. And, obvious as it may seem, the only way to. acquire more knowledge regarding the s o c i a l effects of planning i s through more r e -search. The study which f o r m s the basis of this report was a modest effort to; contribute toward f i l l i n g t h is gap, with respect to one aspect of community planning - re s i d e n t i a l subdivision design. Specifically, this study was concerned with evaluating some of the s o c i a l effects of subdivision design. THE BASIC HYPOTHESIS The underlying hypothesis of this study i s that i n the development of land, some of the p h y s i c a l r e s u l t s become b a r r i e r s i n evolving l o c a l friendships. E ven more basic however, i s the belief that the physical environment at the l o c a l or 'micro-ecological' l e v e l has s o c i a l effects on the people involved. A s part of this basic idea, i t i s suggested that the l o c a l environment affects the formation of l o c a l friendships. S p e c i f i c a l l y i t i s hypothesized i n this study that l o c a l or community friendships are affected to a degree by four physical elements. These are: 1. The f i r s t p h ysical element i s distance. B y distance i s meant the l i n e a r distance between houses. It i s be-lieved that l o c a l friendships are affected by the d i s -tance between houses; that within a c e r t a i n range, the most intense l o c a l friendships w i l l develop. 2. Distance between individual houses usually involves an element of use and i t i s believed that this, too, i s one of the p h y s i c a l elements involved that affect l o c a l friendships. If the distance between houses i s used for a l o c a l road, a major road, a park or a garden, i t i s believed that this i n t u r n affects to a considerable ex-tent the human relations across the distance. 3. The t h i r d major physical element affecting friendship i s believed to be v e r t i c a l distance or differences i n elevation. It i s believed that friendships w i l l i n effeqt follow the path of least resistance and that if there are opportunities for l o c a l friendships to develop where there are fewer physical b a r r i e r s then that w i l l be the case. If, for example, one side of a street i s at a common level, and the opposite side of the street i s a l l at a higher elevation, then it i s believed that the difference i n v e r t i c a l distance would discourage friendship across i t and would i n effect become a b a r r i e r . 4. The fourth major ph y s i c a l element that i s believed to affect l o c a l friendships i s that of orientation of the individual houses. If, for example, at a 'T' intersection of two roads the houses across the head of the 'T' face i n different directions, then it i s believed that interaction between the houses would be l e s s than i f they faced one another. The sp e c i f i c hypotheses developed i n connection with these phy-s i c a l elements, of which only some were actually tested i n this study, are described i n f u l l i n Chapter III. THE USUAL, C H A L L E N G E S OF THESE HYPOTHESES: At this point it would be valuable to discuss some of the argu-ments l i k e l y to be advanced against the underlying thesis of this study. One can anticipate that it w i l l be claimed that the w r i t e r i s suggesting that people should be friendly, that people should have many friends, or that people should have l o c a l friends. Though these questions may be interesting and important f o r social-psychological reasons, they r e a l l y m i s s the point of the study. The point being made here i s that town planners, p o s s i b l y without r e a l i z i n g i t , are frequently creating conditions which l i m i t the p o s s i -b i l i t y of community friendships developing. They should at least r e -cognize that they might be doing so and t r y to compensate for such p o s s i b i l i t i e s at the design stage of planning. A single f a m i l y dwelling i n i t s e l f , i t would seem, provides enough p r i v a c y for those members of the community who prefer not mixi n g with the people nearby. However, if the planner or subdivision designer i s unwittingly creating l i m i t i n g conditions to friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s , then he has a direct r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for individual happiness, possibly to an extent never before r e a l i z e d . Widening the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r contact and friendship at the l o c a l l e v e l would definitely seem to increase the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for more satisfactory friendships to develop. With a wider range, more s a t i s -factory relationships would probably develop. If the general trend has been for the l o c a l group to decline i n importance, it would appear that this has happened l e s s i n the lower income groups of our society. If this i s the case, as the w r i t e r believes it i s , and i f t h e r r are physical and spatial factors affecting friendship development, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the lower income groups, then i t i s fun-damental that community planners know and understand what these factors are. The argument that people are not interested i n forming f r i e n d -ships at the l o c a l l e v e l seems to come mainly f r o m those i n the middle or higher socio-economic l e v e l s . F r o m this writer's l i m i t e d experience, it appears that lower income groups are more dependent on the l o c a l i t y or neighborhood for their friendships. The higher income groups may fo r m the i r friends p r i m a r i l y on the basis of community of interest but for the lower income groups the community of interest might w e l l be the community its e l f . R alph Linton, concerned with the changing r o l e of the neighbors or 'bands' wr i t e s eloquently on the subject; With the present ease of t r a v e l and communication, both r u r a l and urban l o c a l groups are l o s i n g t h e i r old qualities as clos e l y integrated, self-conscious s o c i a l units. A s a result, the patterns of govern-ment and s o c i a l control which have been evolved through thousands of years of band l i v i n g are be-coming increasingly unworkable. Moreover, the change has been so r a p i d that the average adult i s s t i l l a person who was conditioned i n c h i l d -hood to l i f e on the band basis. He has been trained to look to his, neighbors f o r reassurance arid m o r a l backing, and when these neighbors are removed, he finds himself at loose ends. The modern c i t y with i t s m u l t i p l i c i t y of organizations of every conceivable sort, presents the picture of a mass of individuals who have lost their bands and who are trying, i n uncertain and fumbling fashion, to find some substitute. New types of grouping, based on congeniality, b u s i -ness association or community of interest are springing up on a l l sides, but nothing has so far appeared which seems capable of taking over the p r i m a r y functions of the l o c a l group as these relate to individuals. Membership i n the R o t a r y Club i s not an adequate substitute for f r i e n d l y neighbors. A large percentage of the f u l l y planned communities i n Canada have been p r i m a r i l y f o r lower income groups, and are low rent public housing projects. In the Vancouver area, F r a s e r v i e w , L i t t l e Mountain, and Renfrew, are the only f u l l y planned projects, and a l l are low rent public housing projects. It appears that for some time i n the future a large part of urban Canada w i l l be developed with v e r y l i t t l e planning control and it appears only d i m l y possible for comprehensive neighborhood units to be developed to any great extent. Most of the neighborhoods that are developed on the basis of comprehensive planning w i l l probably be areas of public housing. It i s l i k e l y , i n view of past experience that most of the public housing w i l l be f o r the lower income groups. These new comprehensive communities w i l l then i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d be homogeneous i n the i r s o c i a l composition. This being the case, the element of physical design and spatial groupings takes on an awesome importance. P h y s i c a l planning on the basis of favorable s o c i a l r e s u l t s becomes the important thing --- the r o l e s of the architect and engineer become only secondary i n com-parison. A s Anthony Wallace states: The architect i s designing the mold i n which a whole community i s cast, and has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y not to allow his enthusiasm for a current standard of aes-thetic d e s i r a b i l i t y to freeze the pattern of s o c i a l relationships i n undesirable f orms for thousands of people f o r f i f t y to one hundred years. The point of this b r i e f polemic i s not that aes-thetic considerations are worthless, but that drawing board sketches ought not to take the place of analy-s i s of s o c i a l needs. A f t e r the s o c i a l needs have been given a framework, then considerations of aesthetic value become important. If Wallace's thesis i s correct, and this w r i t e r believes that i t i s , then town planning w i l l have completed a cycle which began o r i -g inally on the basis of healthful housing and evolved into the C i t y Beautiful and C i t y E f f i c i e n t movements. The cycle w i l l be complete with planning based on the satisfaction of s o c i a l needs. Then, and only then, w i l l community planning take on the most important part of i t s role - to provide and plan f o r a community i n the true sense of the word. A P L A C E TO TEST THE THESIS The underlying thesis of this study grew out of an interest i n a community considered to be the f i r s t 'planned' neighborhood i n the Vancouver area. This w r i t e r has l i v e d i n the neighborhood for the past ten years, a fact which also contributed to the interest. The neighborhood concerned i s on the eastern fringe of the C i t y of Vancouver, and was the f i r s t low rent veterans' housing project THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P / /A/ ^/LAr/o*/ TO r/s<£~ C/ry S C A L E : R . W I L L I A M S built i n Canada. The neighborhood i s ca l l e d Renfrew Heights, and con-sists of approximately 600 homes i n a w e l l defined grouping. R E N F R E W HEIGHTS: ITS L O C A T I O N AND R E L A T I O N TO THE C I T Y Renfrew Heights i s on the eastern boundary of the C i t y of Van-couver, and approximately twenty minutes d r i v i n g time f rom the down-town c i t y centre. (See Map 1) It i s bounded on the south by one of the major east-west c r o s s town routes, the Grandview Highway. One half m i l e further south i s the major east-west route of the metropolitan area; Broadway-Lougheed Highway. The project i s bounded east and west by two major north-south roads; Rupert Street and Boundary Road. Both of these routes provide the major access to the bridge to North Vancouver. In r e l a t i o n to the metropolitan area, Renfrew Heights i s quite cen t r a l l y located. Renfrew i s immediately south of the S t i l l Creek depression which bisects the eastern section of the metropolitan area. The de-pr e s s i o n contains the major east-west routes, as pr e v i o u s l y mentioned, as w e l l as the main line of the Canadian National and Great Northern Railways. Because of the combination of the r a i l w a y and the two high-ways, this area south of the project has developed into an important i n d u s t r i a l belt. Renfrew then has immediate access to major routes i n the metro-politan area, i s quite c e n t r a l l y located, and not an unreasonable distance f r om the central business d i s t r i c t . It i s also close to an important area of work. Except f o r the i n d u s t r i a l development to the south, Ren-frew i s bounded by single f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas. At a l l the four major intersections at the corners of the project, however, there are l o c a l c o m m e r c i a l shopping f a c i l i t i e s which serve portions of the Renfrew as w e l l as other r e s i d e n t i a l areas. THE BACKGROUND OF THE D E V E L O P M E N T OF R E N F R E W HEIGHTS The Renfrew Heights housing project was the f i r s t veterans housing development built by the F e d e r a l Government after the Second World War. It i s probably f a i r to say that its development was p r i m a r i l y the result of l o c a l pressure. There was a severe shortage of housing i n Vancouver after the War, as elsewhere i n Canada. The great depression of the 1930's and the concentration on war production after that period had meant that housing nowhere near kept up with Canada's growth i n population. The c r i s i s reached its peak i n Vancouver i n 1947 when attempts were made to oust veterans and their f a m i l i e s f r om the Old Vancouver Hotel, which had been taken over by the government during the War and subsequently used as temporary housing for the war veterans. Pu b l i c opinion i n the Vancouver area was so outraged at the attempts to oust the veterans from the hotel without providing alternate accommodation, that the F e d e r a l Government sent out the then M i n i s t e r of Reconstruction, the Hon. Clarence D. Howe, to investigate the pro-blem. The Honorable Mr. Howe met with the Vancouver C i t y Council, and made arrangements to develop a rental housing project for the veterans on the existing site of Renfrew Heights. Aside f r o m the fin a n c i a l arrangements, it was agreed that the g r i d system of sub-d i v i s i o n prevalent i n a l l of eastern Vancouver would not be s a t i s -factory. A s a result, the M i n i s t e r agreed to have a neighborhood subdivision plan made and Mr. Douglas W. Jonsson, f o r m e r l y a de-signer with C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation, was sent out fro m Ottawa to do the work. 7 F o r no other reason than that the thesis was a r e s u l t of an interest i n the Renfrew area, i t seemed a l o g i c a l place to test i t . There was however, an additional fact which made this area, f o r r e s e a r c h purposes, a good area to study - and this was the s i m i l a r backgrounds of the residents of the project. THE COMMON BASE OF THE R E N F R E W P R O J E C T The greatest advantage i n using a housing project such as Renfrew Heights, i s that i n such projects the significance of the design elements of the subdivision are probably more e a s i l y identified than i n other housing areas. In Renfrew there was no individual choice involved i n the locating of individual f a m i l i e s and everyone was located p r i m a r i l y on the basis of need and p r i o r i t i e s . Therefore, none of the tenants were given their choice of houses because they l i k e d the s i t i n g arrangements or c e r t a i n color schemes. A l l of the tenants i n the project had to be veterans, have at least two children, and also be i n need of housing. On the basis of these requirements, the tenants of the Renfrew project were chosen. The r e s u l t of course, was a very homogeneous population i n Renfrew Heights. A l l of the people i n the project were of the same age, had young f a m i l i e s , and to some extent, the same aims and ideals. It i s on this somewhat common base that the effects of the subdivision were felt. Because a l l of the inhabitants of the project had v e r y s i m i l a r backgrounds, for the purposes of this study they were eliminated as basic variables. There can be no doubt that differences between people - the i r different personality t r a i t s , etc. are often the basis of l o c a l friendships. Nevertheless, to test the p h y s i c a l v a r i a b l e s of this thesis, it was necessary to assume that the people i n this project were a common factor - they had s i m i l a r interests, personalities, etc., and as such, could be eliminated as varia b l e s f o r the study. Other r e -search i n this f i e l d , though l i m i t e d , leads to the frightening conclusion that this proposal i s a reasonable one. This however, w i l l be dealt with i n a succeeding chapter. T E STING THE THESIS In testing the thesis, i t was necessary f i r s t , to devise a system or method for identifying, measuring, and ra t i n g the degree of f r i e n d -ship between the people to be surveyed. Fortunately, some recent r e -search has been done on this subject by two A m e r i c a n sociologists, Theodore Caplow and Robert Forman. In a study of interaction within a students housing project at the U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, the two authors decided upon a range of friendship values f r o m zero to six, which they called a 'Neighborhood Interaction Scale'. 1 The scale i s as follows: V A L U E R E L A T I O N S H I P  0 Do not know their names or faces 1 Recognize them on the street but have only a greeting ac-quaintance 2 Stop and talk with them r e g u l a r l y outside (only one adult f r o m each f a m i l y involved) 3 Stop and talk to them r e g u l a r l y outside ( a l l adults i n the f a m i l y involved) 4 Mutual aid and/or common ac t i v i t i e s (involving one adult f r o m each family) 5 Mutual aid and/or common a c t i v i t i e s (involving a l l the adults i n each family) V A L U E R E L A T I O N S H I P 6 Mutual entertaining and v i s i t i n g i n each others houses, including drinking or dining. The authors called this a 'study of the c o r r e l a t e s of neighbor-l i n e s s , together with the i n t e r - f a m i l y relationships i n the r e s i d e n t i a l area.' At the same time as the Caplow-Forman study, Leon Fest i n g e r and his associates were studying the Westgate student housing area at 2 the Massachusets Institute of Technology. However, i n that study there was no r e a l attempt to define friendship and the main question asked of the residents concerned was 'What three people i n Westgate do you see most of s o c i a l l y ? 7 The Caplow-Forman questions seem much more appropriate to this study, and so are used i n a modified form for the ease of questioning the people i n the Renfrew project. The modified f o r m that was used for this study i s as follows: V A L U E R E L A T I O N S H I P - -1 Recognize on the street, only a greeting acquaintance. 2 Stop and talk with them r e g u l a r l y outside. 3 Mutual aid and common ac t i v i t i e s . 4 Mutual entertaining, v i s i t i n g , drinking, and eating. The scale prepared by Caplow and F o r m a n appeared to have one basic omission from this writer's point of view: it did not include the frequency of the relationships involved. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study it was not considered possible to include such a factor. C H A P T E R I. B A C K G R O U N D A N D P R E V I O U S R E S E A R C H I N M I C R O -E C O L O G Y . Time, events, or the unaided individual, action of the mind w i l l sometimes under-mine or destroy an opinion without any outward sign of change. It has not been openly assailed, no conspiracy has been formed to make war on i t , but it s f o l -l o w ers one by one n o i s e l e s s l y secede; day by day a few of them abandon i t , u n t i l at last it i s only professed by a minority......The m a j o r i t y have ceased to believe what they believed before, but they s t i l l affect to believe, and this empty phantom of public opinion i s strong enough to c h i l l innovators and to keep them silent and at a respectful distance. Toque v i l l e P L A N N I N G INVOLVES HUMAN E C O L O G Y This study has been entitled 'The Social Effects of Subdivision Design - A M i c r o - E c o l o g i c a l Study.' The sub-title was chosen deliberately because the underlying theme of this study i s that man's relationships with man are affected by environment. This i s Robert E. P a r k s ' definition of human ecology. Because this study involves the effects of subdivision design and house location on man's relationships with man, it has been cal l e d a 'micro-ecological' study. Louis W i r t h said that 'ecology s t r i v e s for the objective depiction and analysis of the spatial, temporal, physical and technological bases of s o c i a l l i f e . ' Although Wirth's statement was o r i g i n a l l y made during the forma-tive stage of human ecology as a separate f i e l d of study, there i s no doubt that he r e a l i z e d the many implications of i t . In this respect he said: /The discovery of the patterns into which s o c i a l phenomena group themselves and of the coin-cidence of the patterns has had important i m -plications f o r s o c i a l control and planning. W i r t h then added a statement which i s e s p e c i a l l y germane to this study: 'Physical factors, while no means negligible i n their influence upon s o c i a l l i f e and psychological pheno-mena are, at best, conditioning factors offering the p o s s i b i l i t i e s and setting l i m i t s for s o c i a l and psy-chological existence and development. In other words they set the stage for man, the actor.' ^ W i r t h suggested that the physical factors i n the environment 'offered the p o s s i b i l i t i e s and set the l i m i t s for s o c i a l and psychological existence and development.' This i s the element with which this study i s concerned; the fact that physical elements set the l i m i t s to so c i a l development - i n this case, friendship. V e r y l i t t l e r e s e a r c h work has been done i n this specific f i e l d , much of i t by accident rather than intention. Nevertheless the work that has been done i n this f i e l d of micro-ecology has been an important beginning i n what could become a v i t a l l y important area of study. PREVIOUS R E S E A R C H IN 'MICRO-ECOLOGY' - THE WORK OF FESTINGER, SCHACHTER AND B L A C K . The best known work i n this new f i e l d i s probably the study by Festinger, Schachter and Blaek of the Westgate student housing project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which has already been r e f e r r e d to. The p r i m a r y interest i n this study was not how groups were formed, but rather, how the groups reacted to certain s t i m u l i and whether there was a group attitude. Once it had been determined what the groups were within the community these sociologists were more concerned with attitudes, values and communication within the groups. The main thesis of their study was to see if the groups would tend to have common attitudes and values, which were generally a r e s u l t of being part of the group. Nevertheless, a great deal was learned i n the M.I.T. study r e -garding the spatial ecology of group formation. It i s noted i n their study that most of the work done i n human ecology has been concerned with a r e l a t i v e l y large area, such as a metropolitan region. But, they state: ' L i t t l e attention has been devoted to the possible effects of the arrangements of s m a l l e r areas, such as neighbour-hoods, nor has attention been focussed on the relations between ecological factors and the formation of f r i e n d -ship and face-to-face groups.' 4 Reference i s made i n the Westgate study to the f i r s t basic studies 5 6 involving propinquity by Abrams and Kennedy who examined the relationships between distance and m a r r i a g e selection. These studies showed that there i s an inverse relationship between the distance separating potential marriage partners and the number of marriages. It was found for example that i n New Haven 76 percent of the m a r r i -ages i n 1940 were between persons l i v i n g within twenty blocks of each other and 35 percent between persons l i v i n g within five blocks 7 of each other. However, as F e s t i n g e r and his associates state; 'While such findings may not seem su r p r i s i n g , it i s l e s s obvious that differences i n distance as s m a l l as twenty or t h i r t y feet would play a major part i n determining friendships. Within the Westgate housing projects however, even these s m a l l d i f f e r -ences i n distance are effective i n determining patt-erns of friendship.'^ It was found i n their study, r e l a t i n g physical structure to the formation of friendships, that i t was necessary to distinguish between two ecological factors, the f i r s t being physical distance and the se-cond being the positional relationships and features of design. This they called functional distance. They state that physical distance and functional distance w i l l affect the pattern and number of passive contacts. They state that the two cannot be considered as independent va r i a b l e s but that i n p a r t i c u l a r cases the distinction becomes clear. F o r example; 'Two back-to-back houses which are t h i r t y feet apart and have neither back doors nor back yards would be considered functionally farther apart than two back-to-back houses, also t h i r t y feet apart, which do have back doors and yards. Thus we have v a r y i n g func-tional distances while physical distance remains constant.'^ In order to study the effects of the physical design, it was necessary for these sociologists to relate individual friendships to the design. This was r e f e r r e d to as sociom e t r i c data. A s indicated previously, this data was collected by asking the question, 'What three persons i n Westgate do you see most of s o c i a l l y ? ' In the analysis of the data, i t was found that there was a strong relationship between socio m e t r i c choice and physical distance. In a statement of some of the i r findings they say; 'In both projects the greatest number of choices were made to people l i v i n g closest to the person choosing, and the choices decreased continuously as distance f r om the home of the chooser increased. The actual measured distances involved were quite small, i n no case being l a r g e r than 180 feet. Yet the effect of even these s m a l l distances i s so marked that i n a Westgate row no choices at a l l were made between houses with the maximum separation of four units or 180 feet.'10 While this statement was made regarding individual choices within a block or court, it was also found i n their study that the same 11. relationship held for choices outside of the court. Westgate was designed with house groupings forming a *U' shape within a block. The i n t e r i o r of the 'U' was called a court. With the exception of the house at the bottom of the 'U', or head of the court, a l l the houses faced one another into the court-yard area. Because of the i r thesis regarding functional distance r e s e a r c h e r s believed that because these were end-houses facing the street they would have fewer chances of passive contacts. P a s s i v e contacts they found were what l o c a l friendships depended upon i n order to develop. A s a resul t of the study, it was found that a l l the inner court residents received a l a r g e r mean number of choices than the residents i n the end houses facing the street. A f a i r l y extensive study of apartments i n the Westgate project was also made and it was found that the general thesis applied there as well. In summary, the authors of the study state that the data r e -vealed a s t r i k i n g relationship between ecological factors and socio-m e t r i c choice. Regarding this they state: 'The relationships between ecological and sociometric structures i s so v e r y marked that there can be l i t t l e doubt that i n these communities passive contacts are a major determinant of friendship and group forma-tion. 1 2 They point out, however, that Westgate i s a v e r y homogeneous community and that i t would seem possible that i n a l e s s homogeneous community the ecological factors become l e s s important. A somewhat s i m i l a r argument was used by this w r i t e r i n the f i r s t chapter, but it was also suggested that i n lower income groups ecological factors were more important than for society i n general. THE WORK OF C A P L O W AND F O R M A N At the same time as the Massachusetts study was being made, two sociologists, Theodore Caplow and Robert Forman, made a some-what s i m i l a r study at the U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, as mentioned e a r l i e r . They studied a students' housing area on that campus and had somewhat s i m i l a r r e s u l t s as the Massachusetts study. One of the important contributions of t h e i r study was the 'neighbourhood inte r a c t i o n scale', described e a r l i e r , which was used to determine the amount and degree of friendship between the people r e s i d i n g i n the project. In the study, factors such as the length of residence of each family, the exact position of each dwelling unit and the functional significance of lanes and rows were considered. These two sociologists found, as did F e s t i n g e r and his asso-ciates, that there was a difference between physical distance (linear measurement) and functional distance (acces s i b i l i t y ) . In an a r t i c l e i n the A m e r i c a n Sociological Review, these authors suggest that the term 'micro-ecology' could be applied to this kind of a study. This w r i t e r has adopted this t e r m i n de s c r i b i n g the present study. Using the rating system or interaction score it was determined how many f a m i l i e s i n the project were known by the individual f a m i l i e s and what the average closeness of the association was. A s part of the study Caplow and F o r man found that an extension of the s o c i a l c i r c l e i n that m i l i e u involved a net increase i n s o c i a l interaction. Thus, the effect of long residence meant expansion of the c i r c l e of acquaintance, rather than i n c r e a s i n g the intensity of a s s o -ciations. In this study the r e s e a r c h e r s were impressed by t h e i r findings. F o r the purposes of this study however it w i l l probably suffice to say that they were v e r y impressed by the degree of interaction within the project and most important, 'the almost mechanical affect of a c c e s s i -, 13 b i l i t y upon intimacy and of time on the number of relationships. The authors state that there seems to be a general trend towards believing that s o c i a l participation i s 'something grudgingly offered and e a s i l y withdrawn.' 1 4 They cannot however, accept this generally held assumption and submit that; 'A wealth of m a t e r i a l suggests only v e r y powerful inhibiting factors can prevent intensive and i n -timate interaction among persons of s i m i l a r status wherever opportunity affords.'15 A s a resu l t of their study the authors believe that when income or l e v e l of l i v i n g , occupation and f a m i l y composition are generally much the same and there are not other factors such as ethnic, r e l i g i o u s or so c i a l differences that: When these obstacles (income, etc) are removed neighborhood interaction r i s e s to an extremely high l e v e l and organizes i t s e l f with almost mole-cular s i m p l i c i t y i n terms of the spatial pattern of the community. 0 They found that the processes of group formation were more amenable to analysis than they had ever expected. In conclusion they state quite plainly: The selection of intimate associates i s i n large measure a function, of s o c i a l situation rather than of individual whimsy and i s therefpre cap-able of being predicted i n some detail. There i s no doubt that these two basic studies, at Massachusetts and Minnesota, were a most important start i n the study of m i c r o -ecology. Because the r e s e a r c h e r s i n both studies were studying v e r y homogeneous groups (in terms of income, occupation, f a m i l y structure and background), it i s possible that they did not want to generalize or state the implications of their findings. Nevertheless, whether they felt the implications were obvious or not, there were no statements regarding the importance of their findings f o r the planner or architect. This w r i t e r has been led to the conclusion that the sociologist i s v e r y wary to apply his findings. There appears to be an unwillingness on his part to have his r e s u l t s used i n a constructive way. This appears to be the case i n a l l the studies that have been seen i n this f i e l d . T h is may be modesty on the part of those concerned, or just plain fear. Nevertheless, our society i s not i n a static state; we are building new communities daily. Must we perpetuate the old known,mistakes be-cause the sociologist i s unwilling to make any positive proposals to the planners? We are continuing to build our c i t i e s ; surely we can do so i n the light of some knowledge regarding s o c i a l need. THE WORK OF W I L L I A M H. WHYTE, JR. In his recent widely quoted book, The Organization Man, W i l l i a m H. Whyte, J r . devotes a chapter of his general study to 'The Web of Friendship'. Whyte investigates the p h y s i c a l reasons for f r i e n d l i n e s s but states at the beginning; Just as important as the p h y s i c a l reasons i s a respon-siveness to the environment on the part of i t s members, and not only i n degree but i n character i t seems to be g r o w i n g . 1 8 This responsiveness to the environment i s the base upon which ecology works and as such i t s importance cannot be overemphasized. Whether this spatial patterning of friends i s good or bad involves a value judgement but the fact remains that this appears to be a choice, conscious or subconscious, of our society. Whyte continues: In suburbia friendship has become almost predictable. Despite the fact that a person can pick and choose from a vast number of people to make friends with, such things as the placement of a stoop or the d i r e c -tion of a street often have more to do with determin-ing who i s friends with whom.l^ Whyte did most of the r e s e a r c h for his study i n a 'junior executive class' suburb of Chicago, P a r k Forest. There were ce r t a i n basic features i n the subdivision design and house groupings that were used i n the project to a great extent, with s m a l l physical v a r i a t i o n s between them. Says Whyte; 'While the architects happened on a design of great s o c i a l u t i l i t y , they were not t r y i n g to be s o c i a l engineers - they just wanted a good basic design that would please people and make money for the developers - and some of the features they built into the units turned out to„be functional i n more ways than they expected.' 0 In P a r k F o r e s t 105 courts or super-blocks were built which were a l l quite s i m i l a r although there were attempts to introduce v a r i e t y among them through varying the number of apartments, the length of streets, parking bays and apartment groupings. Regarding this, Whyte states: 'No two courts or superblocks are alike. Neither are they alike s o c i a l l y ; some neighborhood units have been a conspicuous s o c i a l success f r o m the beginning, while others have not. There are more reasons than p h y s i c a l layout for this, of course, yet as you relate the differences i n the way people have behaved i n them over a period of time, c e r -tain cause-and-effect relationships become apparent.'21 Whyte even goes farther and states: 'The comparison of physical layout and neighbor-li n e s s w i l l show that it i s possible to deliberately plan a layout which w i l l produce a close-knit s o c i a l group.'^2 He maintains however that there i s much more of a p r i c e to be paid for this kind of neighborliness than i s generally imagined. Whyte found many revealing facts about suburbia that where the flow of wheeled juvenile t r a f f i c was also the line of the , wives 'kaffeeklatsch' routes that friendship i s more apt to flower over adjoining back stoops that the centre of s o c i a l activity i s i n the middle of the block and that t r a f f i c k e d streets 23 become a boundary to the adult group by common consent. It would not be f a i r to Whyte to only state the situation that he found i n suburbia because the basic issue i n his book involved con-f o r m i t y and the pr i c e we must pay for i t . F o r this and other reasons it i s only f a i r to include the statements of Whyte regarding the cost of the 'happy' groups i n suburbia. Whyte maintains that the court, 'like the double bed, enforces intimacy' and that self-imposed i s o l a t i o n becomes 'psychologically untenable'. A n important question he asks i s whether the 'Gemutlichkeit' of the gang compensates for the m i s e r y of the deviate. The author states: 'It i s frightening to see the cruelty with which an otherwise decent group can punish the deviate, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the deviate i s unfortunate enough to be located i n the middle of the group, rather than isolated somewhat out of benevolence's The basic problem of such groups developing i n suburbia, as Whyte sees i t , i s that the group i s a tyrant and a f r i e n d at the same time and that what gives the group i t s power over the man ' i s the same cohesion that gives i t i t s warmth'. This, he says ' i s the duality that confuses choice'. Whyte concludes this chapter with a question f r o m one of the residents of P a r k F o r e s t who asks 'Is i t just enough not to be bad?' Whyte comments on this question as follows: 'Many others are so troubled. They sense that by their i m m e r s i o n i n the group they are f r u s t r a t i n g other urges, yet they feel that responding to the group i s a m o r a l duty - and so they continue, hesitant and unsure, i m -prisoned i n brotherhood. ^  ^  Whyte's plea for a recognition of the p i t f a l l s of the conformity that i s engulfing A m e r i c a n l i f e i s extremely important but cannot be dealt with within the scope of this study. F o r the purposes of this study however it i s important to note that Whyte, i n spite of a comprehensive study of a l l the other factors that might affect- l o c a l friendship, found that physical factors were the most important and often the only c r i t e r i a f o r l o c a l friendships. THE WORK OF L E O K U P E R In the study of a newly planned and developed area i n England, a sociologist, Leo Kuper, states that 'there was a general tendency for the awareness of neighbors to be determined by s i t i n g factors, a result c e r t a i n l y not envisioned by the architect.' Kuper maintained however that the s i t i n g factors only provided a potential base for neighbor relations and that there was 'no simple mechanical determination by the p h y s i c a l environment.' Regarding this he stated; 'The extent to which the awareness of neighbors w i l l develop into active s o c i a l relationships depends on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the residents, their attitudes to neighboring, their status aspirations and t h e i r general c o m p a t i b i l i t y . ^ ? In conclusion he said; 'We w i l l not be able to Understand either the patterns of these s o c i a l relationships nor the contribution of elements i n the house design and general s i t i n g arrangements without an analysis of population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , attitudes and status a s p i r a t i o n s . ' ^ It i s interesting to note that Kuper felt that this was the case, yet i n view of his findings - which were to some extent s i m i l a r to Whyte's -it would seem that it was more wishful thinking rather than a conclusion based on the data collected. Nevertheless, it i s probably not the best procedure to include r e s e a r c h that was done i n B r i t a i n because of o v e r r i d i n g differences i n the cu l t u r a l factors that might be involved. T H E WORK OF HAROLD ORLANS AND F L O Y D HUNTER In a scathing c r i t i c i s m of Utopian ideals and some of the philo-sophies behind community planning, Harold Orlans dealt with the Stevenage New Town. In a report by the Stevenage development authority i t was stated: 'We do not c l a i m that a sensible physical arrangement of houses and other buildings normal to a good r e s i d -ential neighborhood w i l l automatically produce a fr i e n d l y and neighborly s p i r i t . But we do c l a i m that it w i l l give a considerable i n i t i a l advantage to the development of a healthy s o c i a l l i f e . ' Of this, Orlans said that; 'like other religions, i t s v a l i d i t y was not amenable to proof.' ^° Regarding the effects of planning, Orlans l a c o n i c a l l y observes; Fortunately many planning decisions are unlikely to affect the happiness of the New Town residents one way or the other, for the residents w i l l p r o-bably be l e s s concerned about them than are the planners, and being ordinary people and not ab-stractions, will'be able to adjust s a t i s f a c t o r i l y 3^ to a v a r i e t y of physical and s o c i a l environments. Statements such as those made by Orlans cannot go unchallenged. H i s statement that the suggestions of the New Town authority were not amenable to proof i s hardly v a l i d i n view of the r e s e a r c h of the previous sociologists considered who have studied this f i e l d of micro-ecology. Orlans' suggestion that planning does not matter because people w i l l adjust to a v a r i e t y of p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environments just does not make sense. Of course people w i l l adjust, the r e s e a r c h e r s i n the f i e l d have shown us that, but the point i s that their adjustment usually involves some moulding by the p h y s i c a l environment. This i s the i m -portant thing - and whether the moulding i s good or bad involves a value judgement - but to state that the planning does not matter i s either a desire to be w i l f u l l y m isleading or a result of being g r o s s l y misinformed. S i m i l a r l y misleading i s the statement by F l o y d Hunter that: 'Urban l i f e i s organized along the l i n e s of organized interest groupings whether the p a r t i c u l a r interest be i n higher wages, higher profits, lower tax rates or lower disease rates. B a s i c organizations have sprung up around a m u l t i p l i c i t y of interests i n urban communities and the p o s s i b i l i t y of the so-called face-to-face relationship of the c i t y dwellers i s an i l l -usion clung to by those who tend to speculate about community organization but who have not been active-l y engaged i n organizing ci t y groups.' ^2 There appears to be no doubt that the studies previously r e f e r r e d to have resulted i n conclusions quite unlike those of either Orlans or Hunter. There i s absolutely no doubt that i n many cases the 'face-to-face' relationships are extremely important. This has c e r t a i n l y been shown by the findings of Festinger, Caplow, and Whyte. The present study s i m i l a r l y has resulted i n such conclusions. Many of the statements made by Hunter and Orlans appear to be based on the somewhat shaky foundation of middle or upper class values and attitudes. It i s part of the thesis of this study that attitudes such as those suggested by Hunter may cert a i n l y be the case i n the higher socio-economic groups but that such attitudes and values s i m p l y do not apply to society i n general. It i s suggested here i n p a r t i c u l a r that i n the lower socio-economic groups 'face-to-face' relationships take on an almost p r i m a r y importance and that as an individual ascends the socio-economic ladder they take on a decreasing importance. S i m i l a r l y , as the importance of face-to-face relationships de-clines, it i s suggested, so does the importance of the spatial factors i n determining friendship. It i s the conclusion of this w r i t e r that l o c a l friendships play a most important part i n the every day l i v e s of those i n the lower socio-economic groups. In their report to the Massey Royal Commission on the A r t s and Sciences the Community Planning A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada stated: The bearing of the physical environment upon the l i f e of i t s inhabitants i s being demonstrated both by s o c i a l scientists and by p r a c t i c i o n e r s of the fine and useful arts. Henry C h u r c h i l l , an eminent architect and c i t y planner, i n an address to his colleagues said: Architecture, urban architecture, i s our environment and cannot be escaped. It affects, subconsciously, even those who are the least aware of i t . If the planner knows what the physical factors are that affect some s o c i a l relationships then i t i s possible for him to plan more r e a l i s t i c a l l y . Ultimately, the planner i s planning for the people, and i f he does not know what the s o c i a l r e s u l t s of his plans are, how can he be sure he i s planning for the people? C H A P T E R II. SUBDIVISION DESIGN AS A PROCESS IN COMMUNITY P L A N N I N G New Attitudes and new objectives are req u i r e d i n planning or, perhaps, i t would be more c o r r e c t to say that we should r e t u r n to the philosophy of the pioneers of modern planning We should think more and more i n terms of the family, of human beings, their l i k e s and desires, their attitudes and needs Gordon Stephenson A R E V I E W OF THE CURRENT-DESIGN PROCESS IN P L A N N I N G Residential subdivision t r a d i t i o n a l l y has been for three m a in r e a -sons; for the profitable sale of lots, for the creation of lots for l i v i n g on, and the creation of a part of a community. The town planner t r a d i t i o n a l l y has considered subdivision design i n r e l a t i o n to the land use pattern of the city's needs. He has been p r i m a r i l y interested however i n the street pattern and seeing that i t i s functionally designed as a communication and transportation network. E s s e n t i a l l y the subdivision designer has been concerned with his sub-di v i s i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the various community s e r v i c e s that people within the subdivision would require. An important determinant i n subdivision designs has been the land itself, p r i m a r i l y i n terms of r e l a t i n g the road pattern to the topo-graphy and natural features of the site. Most recent subdivision designs have been supported and designed on economic grounds. C r i t i c i s m of f o r m e r g r i d layouts has been mainly on the basis of i t s wasteful use of land and uneconomic s e r v i c i n g costs. Economic considerations have played an important part i n determining such things as lot size, lot frontages, road widths, block size, and whether lanes should be provided or not. Another determining factor i n subdivision design has been that of t r a f f i c safety. In many cases such p r i n c i p l e s as that of l i m i t e d access to peripheral major roads have been applied. A l l i e d with this i s the princ i p l e of roads being built on a functional basis. This would mean that within a subdivision, e s p e c i a l l y one developed as a neighbourhood, there w i l l be l o c a l roads that serve only as a means of access to a l i m i t e d number of individual lots. These l o c a l roads would feed into c o l l e c t o r roads that would empty the t r a f f i c f r o m within the subdivision to the points of intersection with the major roads l i n k i n g up the city. The p r i m a r y reasons for this sort of development within a subdivision design has been for reasons of t r a f f i c safety and f o r reasons of economy. F o r reasons of t r a f f i c safety, and possibly economy, many road intersections have also been *T' type junctions within recent subdivisions. Subdivision design has also been determined to some extent by aesthetic considerations. This would involve such considerations as achieving enclosure within a subdivision grouping i n order to give an area finite l i m i t a t i o n s that are pleasing to the eye. Cul-de-sac streets, squares, and curved streets achieve this to some extent. Other aesthe-t i c considerations might involve an opening up of a view by having street types that allow v i s t a s . Although many of the aesthetic considerations i n an urban area p r i m a r i l y involve architecture, subdivision design can be effected by many aesthetic considerations. Along with these basic determinants of subdivision design are functional requirements that might dictate the subdivision design to some extent. F o r example, grades over ten percent might be considered un-desirable and as a r e s u l t i t w i l l l i m i t the choice of road placement i n c e r t a i n areas. Road widths w i l l often be determined on the basis of the road function. C l a i m s of the community at large for c e r t a i n areas with-i n the subdivision design for such purposes as schools, for example, might we l l be a determining factor i n subdivision design. To a l i m i t e d extent s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l factors become deter-minants of subdivision design. Our culture i s p r i m a r i l y one that accepts the detached single f a m i l y dwellings as the best place to l i v e , so this of course i s one of the basic factors affecting subdivisions. T his however i s a basic fact for the designer to face, and beyond this there are generally not too many s o c i a l factors considered by the designer. De-sign on a neighbourhood basis may be p r i m a r i l y f o r economic or func-tional reasons though on occasions it i s suggested that there are 'good soc i a l r e s u l t s ' such as a feeling of place and community or a 'we feeling'. P robably most important of a l l the determining factors i n sub-di v i s i o n design i s the individual designer. A qualified subdivision de-signer, i n creating a subdivision, usually applies a personal concept to his plan. T his may range f r o m a type of loop street to something as r a d i c a l as the Radburn plan of Henry Wright and Clarence Stein. Once the planner has decided upon the concept, however, he usually bends the other basic design factors (economics, aesthetics, function, etc.) to f i t within the framework of the concept. It w i l l usually be the case that the concept involves one of the basic design factors which i s stressed more than the others, depending on the designer's background. The a r c h i t e c t -planner, for example, w i l l generally stress aesthetic or v i s u a l con-siderations at the expense of other important fac t o r s . Very few town planners however, have a background of socio-l o g i c a l training. A s a result, the most important factor to be considered i n subdivision design - the people who w i l l l i v e i n the subdivision, and their happiness, are usually not the p r i m a r y consideration of the designer. Planning today i s seen as an adjunct of either engineering or architecture, even by those who are generally considered w e l l informed. It i s p r e c i s e l y this lack of comprehension of the nature of the ci t y by the m a j o r i t y i n these two professional groups that was the reason for 2? town planning developing as a distinct profession i n the f i r s t place. If planners continue to plan and design subdivisions with an a r c h i t e c t u r a l or engineering bias, they w i l l be abrogating their rights as distinct professionals. Indeed, there w i l l be no reason for the planner to r e m a i n a separate entity. It may be felt that this w r i t e r i s o v e r - s t r e s s i n g the case, but to show how this approach may be enveloping the proper development of planning it seems reasonable to give a resume of the generally accepted approach, as exemplified by Mr. H. Spenee-Sales, a P r o f e s s o r of Planning at the School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y . H i s approach i s stated i n a widely accepted Canadian publication entitled How to Sub T divide: A Handbook on the Layout of Housing Developments. This r e -port has become a sort of handbook on subdivision design procedure. To be f a i r to the author it must f i r s t be stated that the book was written at a time when some reference book on subdivision design was needed by developers i n the country. There was pressure f o r such a publication a n d i t was written p r i m a r i l y f o r developers.' The boom after the war i n housing developments and mass subdivisions was probably handled i n a more rational way because of the use of Mr. Spence-Sales' book. The fact remains however that the handbook, with i t s obvious omissions, i s s t i l l being used throughout Canada and i s being sold by public agencies as a comprehensive handbook on subdivision procedure. Spence-Sales f i r s t deals with the selection of the site; generally on the fringe of urban development and i n the path of c i t y growth. He then deals with the actual site; i t s topography, s o i l types, and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and as a res u l t decides upon the pattern of land use. 3o The author then somewhat weakens his reason for making the land use decisions on the basis of land quality by stating that quality can often be improved by effecting s o i l drainage and grading. He then states: The areas into which the site has now been split represent clusters of different types of develop-ment unrelated to each other. To associate the parts with each other a c i r c u l a t o r y system i s needed. The next step i s to develop the out-line of a street system. The author goes on to state that the next step i s to sketch the lots i n within the block system. He continues: A building lot i s a unit of land which provides economically for the erection of a house and for the out-of-door requirements for the household. Its size and shape must ensure adequate daylight, sufficient sunshine and c i r c u l a t i o n of a i r , and it must afford p r i v a c y and safety against f i r e hazard f r o m adjoin-ing properties. ^  He states that lots should be f i f t y feet wide i n order to achieve light, a i r , privacy, and safety f rom f i r e hazard. But he states, a 'de-sirable* width would be seventy feet. He says also that a lot should be at least one hundred feet i n depth 'to provide for setbacks f r o m the street l i n e / He adds another reason; to allow for household purposes. H i s pattern of thought however, has emerged, and the people that are going to have to li v e i n the subdivision are a factor that has become sub-merged i n the 'technology' involved. Mr. Spence-Sales continues: The layout has now come into focus. Its main parts have been merged together into a single unit of development that can be examined c r i t i c a l l y to ensure that as a whole and i n de-t a i l , it i s p r a c t i c a l and economical. -3/ The next step i s to review the pattern of the plots. F i r s t count the lots to see i f an ade-quate number has been provided. 5 Let us consider these statements i n some detail. The author says 'the layout has come into focus'. However only the layout has come into focus. The people are subordinated to the plan. Says Spence-Sales: 'it i s a single unit of development' - which may be true i n t erms of bulldozer operations or sewer pipes. But i t i s a community; many individual f a m i l i e s w i l l l i v e most of the i r l i v e s i n i t s v arious parts. It i s not a single unit of development except i n technological terms. He continues, stating that it must be examined c r i t i c a l l y to see i f it i s p r a c t i c a l and economical. The approach i s acceptable to a degree but i s hardly adequate. The climax i s doubtless reached when he says: ' F i r s t count the lots to see i f an adequate number have been provided.' Surely this approach reveals i t s own damnation. Mr. Spence-Sales then states that factors such as s e r v i c e s and u t i l i t i e s should be related to the street pattern. Only after this and the previous decisions does he state that the pattern of open spaces should be examined. He then j u s t i f i e s the open space by stating: 'Open space provides the greatest single opportunity for improving the quality and hence the value of a development.' He continues with the statement: It i s often more profitable to use for open space a pocket of land which cannot be w e l l subdivided, rather than to divide i t into lots that would be unsuitable for building. The location of the buildings on the lots i s then considered and Spence-Sales feels that the character of the development i s l a r g e l y dependent upon this factor. He states that the buildings (Note: not 7 houses or homes) relationship to each other i s ' c r i t i c a l l y important'. T h i s i s true of course, but Spence-Sales sees i t s importance only i n ar c h i t e c t u r a l terms. A s Spence-Sales sees i t : The planning of a r e s i d e n t i a l area i s incomplete until landscaping has been considered. It adds more to the immediate attraction and permanent value of the project than any other element. The f i n a l touch i n the design i s , therefore, the landscaping. 8 The planning layout i s now complete. Unfortunately, too many people believe that when a subdivision design has gone through these stages that it i s complete. Subdivisions cannot be considered only as commodities for purchase. It i s not just a case of buyer and s e l l e r of land and buildings. The buyer i s asking for a framework for l i v i n g , and the s e l l e r must r e a l i z e that a frame-work for l i v i n g i s what he must provide. With these various general considerations i n mind, we s h a l l next proceed to examine the actual design process that was evolved i n the subdivision plan for Renfrew Heights. Before this i s done, however a b r i e f description of the site of the r e s i d e n t i a l area would be helpful for setting the stage. THE SITE OF R E N F R E W HEIGHTS By some standards the Renfrew area might be considered a rather rugged site, though by Vancouver standards i t would be con-sidered rather typical for a r e s i d e n t i a l area. The site i s the base, and steepest section of the slope south of the S t i l l Creek depression. The slope of the site i s reasonably constant and generally between 7.5 33 and 10 percent i n grade. The general trend of the slope i s diagonal across the project; the lowest point being i n the north-west corner of the project; the lowest point being i n the north-west corner of the pro-ject and the highest being i n the south-east corner. The slope i s broken up i n the south-western corner of the project by a ravine approximately 300 feet wide. A central part of the site i s reasonably flat as i s the southern fringe where the v a l l e y slope tends to decrease i n gradient. The o r i g i n a l forest cover of the site was e n t i r e l y stripped off when the housing project began to be built, so the slope i s somewhat b a r r e n i n that respect. The site has a northern exposure which o r d i n a r i l y might be considered a disadvantage; however i n this case it proves to be possibly the greatest advantage that the site possesses. Because it i s a northern exposure it offers some of the best views of the Coastal Mountains to the north. The entire chain of mountains allows for many fine v i s t a s f r o m the project site. A view of central and north Burnaby i s also afforded from the site and the northern slope of the S t i l l Creek de-p r e s s i o n provides a foreground for the North Shore mountains. THE DESIGN OF THE R E N F R E W SUBDIVISION It must be stated at the outset that this writer's statements about the design process used i n the evolution of Renfrew Heights are purely his own assumptions based on considerable study of the area and personal experience i n subdivision design. A n attempt i s made to describe the considerations that were probably taken into account by the subdivision designer of the project, i n view of the actual design that has been developed. A s such they do not n e c e s s a r i l y represent the actual process involved i n the development of the Renfrew plan. The f i r s t basic determinants i n the design of the project were of course the boundaries, which were the four major roads surrounding the site. It was necessary for the designer to accept these roads; however he had to decide whether some of the l o t s should face, back or flank these major roads. These decisions were probably resolved i n r e l a t i o n to his basic concept of the whole design and the existing houses on the fringe of the site. A s a result, some lots face the major roads, some back on the major roads, and some have their flankage along the major roads. Because most of the topography was s i m i l a r and the grades were generally not excessive it does not appear that the topography was the p r i m a r y determinant of the design. There are three main exceptions to this however. The ravine and creek i n the north-west corner had to be considered and there were two reasonably flat areas; one i n the centre of the site and one at the south-east corner of the site that had an existing elementary school on i t . The subdivision plan was also l i m i t e d , so to speak, by the fact that it was designed for one-family dwellings, though this should probably not be cal l e d a limit a t i o n , but rather part of the definition of the problem. Within these l i m i t a t i o n s then, the designer was able to work creatively, evolving a synthesized answer to the subdivision design problem. It was at this point that the designer probably evolved his basic concept of the subdivision. (See Map 2). A s this w r i t e r sees i t , the basic concept was a v a r i a t i o n of Clarence Stein's and Henry Wright's Radburn plan. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P 2 S C A L E : R . W I L L I A M S .3D The designer used the flat c e n tral site as the neighbourhood park and school and had a diagonal s t r i p of parkland from, and i n -cluding, the ravine i n the north-west corner of the project. Thus a large portion of the project was linked with the main neighbourhood park. It seems f a i r to state that the park idea was basic, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the fact that approximately eighteen percent of the gross project area i s parkland. In conjunction with the neighbourhood park and school was the idea of a neighbourhood shopping centre. The designer however appeared to be unwilling to c a r r y his design to the l o g i c a l conclusion that Wright and Stein did, so he had his houses oriented towards the street rather than the park. A l l i e d , and part of this underlying concept seems to be the idea of three 'double loop' streets about the neighbourhood park. B y 'double loop' i s meant one s m a l l loop or court bounded by a l a r g e r loop. A fourth 'double loop' was proposed at the head of the ravine area. Given this basic concept and the previously mentioned l i m i -tations, the subdivision design f o r the whole area begins to f a l l into place. The south-western section of the project i s fitted into the basic concept and i s a diagonal v a r i a t i o n of the g r i d pattern (See Map 3). The road pattern takes on an almost geometric appearance based upon the idea of the double loop road and the idea that the loops should be bent only by f o r t y five degree angles. The reasons for this were probably economic and aesthetic. The outer loop roads are approximately thirteen hundred feet long and are of almost super-block size. Because of the i r length they are quite an economic means of providing access and s e r v i c e s to the lots on either side. A block THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DES IGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P 3 S C A L E : ( w R . W I L L I A M S ^6 thirteen hundred feet long however, can become v e r y monotonous and for this reason the designer probably conceived the idea of breaking the block up v i s u a l l y by achieving the loop with only f o r t y - f i v e degree bends. The bends of the loop not only provided a v i s u a l end to the street, but also allowed an exciting and changing panorama of the North Shore mountains. This conception was then a synthesis of the economic and the aesthetic by the planner using his knowledge of both factors. There i s a collector system of roads within the frame-work of the basic concept. In places the coll e c t o r loop does not appear to be too distinct and this i s probably the res u l t of the loop and park system being the main concept rather than the c o l l e c t o r system for t r a f f i c . Complaints could probably be made about Mr. Jonsson's design on economic or aesthetic grounds. However, i n view of the great public pressure for the development of the project and the lack of detailed topographic information, the present design can c e r t a i n l y be considered a credit to the planner's ab i l i t y . In view of the pressure f o r the quick development of the Renfrew Heights i t i s unlikely that many s o c i a l considerations affected the de-signjstage of the project. A s noted p r e v i o u s l y i n this chapter, most subdivisions are designed without the basic thought i n mind that they are a framework for l i v i n g and as such they w i l l substantially affect the l i v e s of the people within them. Because Renfrew i s not unlike other subdivisions i n this respect this w r i t e r desired to obtain information on some of the s o c i a l r e s u l t s of the functional, economic and aesthetic determinants of the Renfrew Heights subdivision design. As the basis f o r such an evaluation, a s e r i e s of tentative hypotheses regarding the s o c i a l effects of various aspects of the subdivision were developed. These are discussed i n the next chapter. Although time did not permit the testing of a l l these hypo-theses, they are included with the hope that other r e s e a r c h e r s may find them challenging enough to undertake s i m i l a r types of studies. C H A P T E R HI. HYPOTHESES REGARDING SOME OF THE SOCIAL E F F E C T S OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN. In Science you don't have to know the right answers, a l l you have to know are the right questions. F a v r e stressed the importance i n science of asking the right questions. Much of the work of this study has been predicated upon this idea. Since this study i s p r i m a r i l y interested i n two aspects of planning, physical planning itself, and the s o c i a l effects of the p h y s i c a l planning, a study of the physical elements as seen by the town planner was made with a view i n mind of the possible s o c i a l r e s u l t s of the design. Only one aspect of the s o c i a l r e s u l t s i s considered i n this study and that i s the l o c a l friendship pattern. On a basis of studying the layout and groupings as w e l l as the phy-s i c a l character of the l o c a l site a great many hypotheses have been made. How reasonable these hypotheses are w i l l be determined after the question-naires have been completed. However, as observed previously, i n the f i e l d of town planning there has not been too great a concern about the s o c i a l r e s u l t s of some of our design devices and even speculation about some of the s o c i a l r e s u l t s has been v e r y r a r e . It i s hoped that the hypotheses presented here w i l l be accepted as more or less f i r s t thoughts about the subject and that they w i l l be modified and consolidated after further work and re s e a r c h i n this f i e l d . Individual sections of the housing project w i l l be considered - these sections have been chosen p r i m a r i l y because the w r i t e r believes that they have affected the residents within them to some extent and because between some of them there might be a comparability that would be interesting to discover. In some cases there may be l i t t l e difference p h y s i c a l l y between any two examples chosen, with the exception that one variable (e.g., po-sit i o n of lane) may be different between the two and this would allow a reasonably s c i e n t i f i c check of the effect of the variable. The isol a t i o n of one va r i a b l e i s often not possible and more than one va r i a b l e may have to be considered at a time. Nevertheless, i n most cases of design it w i l l probably be a combination of phy s i c a l v a r i a b l e s that affect face-to-face or community friendships, and it w i l l be important to know what these are. It i s v e r y possible that a l l the physical v a r i a b l e s affecting comm-unity friendship have not been considered by this w r i t e r . What appear to be correlations, or the effects of one of the v a r i a b l e s , might w e l l be due to the effects of an unrecognized physical factor. T his fact w i l l be kept i n mind throughout the study and every effort w i l l be made to see i f there appear to be physical factors, other than those being tested here, govern-ing or l i m i t i n g friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s . In general the main hypothesis i s that community or l o c a l f r i e n d -ships are governed to a certain extent by four basic p h y s i c a l elements: 1. ) distance. 2. ) differences i n elevation, or v e r t i c a l distance. 3. ) the use that the distance i s put to. 4. ) , orientation. There i s probably a range for each of these factors - that i s , at a c e r t a i n value each of these factors individually become a b a r r i e r to friendship. F o r example, i n a given situation a c e r t a i n distance w i l l be-come a b a r r i e r to friendship i n it s e l f . S i m i l a r l y c e r t a i n differences i n v e r t i c a l distance or elevation w i l l become b a r r i e r s i n themselves. Con-si d e r i n g t r a f f i c as a use factor then at a cer t a i n point intensity of use w i l l r e s u l t i n a friendship b a r r i e r . C e r t a i n uses i n themselves however might constitute a b a r r i e r . Orientation i s an important factor i n f r i e n d -ship but i s probably more di f f i c u l t to measure than the other factors. Given a certain value at which each of these factors i n d i v i d u a l l y becomes a b a r r i e r to friendship it would seem l i k e l y that when one of the factors, distance f o r example, i s combined with one of the other factors, say v e r t i c a l distance, then a lower value of each factor when combined with the other would constitute a friendship b a r r i e r . A common example of a combination of these factors could be a hundred foot road, (THE DISTANCE FACTOR) cut along a h i l l s i d e so that the lots on one side are ten feet above the road and the lots on the other side are ten feet below the road (the v e r t i c a l distance factor); and the road might be a heavily t r a v e l l e d through route (the use factor). F i n a l l y , the houses on both sides of the street might face i n different directions as wel l — the orientation factor. (See the following sketch). A - o 13. i e S J Tfit-rr i © o c M s . ^ - r Z i . v i o i v U E A W I uV U S E D too' 0.0/£i>.0 It i s suggested that a combination of purely physioal factors such as these would deter the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of friendship. One of the factors alone might not have such an effect, but this would depend on the range or intensity of the factor. A typical example of a friendship range might be as shown i n the sketch below: 1 I 1 I I + - H H - I I 1 I 1 I I 1 -THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESii U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H COLUM8IA COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DTPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S MAP 4 S C A L E : /"'/GO' R . W I L L I A M S _ l LLJI J imuuiii 11 n I I • n i iiiiiiiiiiiin iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ntn f=«=i p * / In this example (x) might be the range for l i n e a r friendships along the same side of the street, (y) might be the range f o r friendships along the other side of the street, as affected by distance, and (z) might be the range for friendship across the lane as affected by orientation. These ranges might change as different orientation, v e r t i c a l distance, and use factors come into play. Keeping the hypothesis of the four basic p h y s i c a l factors affecting l o c a l friendship i n mind, various individual sites i n the planned neighbor-hood were considered. Example 1. (Dieppe D r i v e - Map 4) 1.) The interesting p h y s i c a l feature i n this example i s that the grade changes are line a r , or along the street. It would appear that the effect of grade here, accentuated by retaining walls, would be to l i m i t the friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s along the one side of the street. T h is should be compared with a l e v e l street to see i f there i s a difference between the r e s u l t s of a 'stepped' r e s i d e n t i a l s t r i p and a leve l r e s i d e n t i a l s t r i p . 42 2. ) In order to increase the range of l o c a l friendship p o s s i -b i l i t i e s , i t would seem l i k e l y that cross-lane friendships might de-velop. Back of these parcels however i s a special situation to some extent because it i s one of the four r e s i d e n t i a l 'courts' or places, whiqh might have spec i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i t s own. 3. ) One would think that c r o s s - s t r e e t friendships might de-velop i n order to avoid the l i n e a r grade differences. However it i s l i k e l y that this i s not the case i n view of the orientation of the housing acr o s s the street. If the orientation were as shown i n the sketch below, it i s quite possible that a different friendship pattern would exist. I THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S MAP S AfAc/O/2 /2&. - 2 2 ^ A V^T. SCALE: R. W I L L I A M S j t j t d am i i i i i i i f f l i i i i i " " 1 1 1 " " " " " " " " i n i ul T^nnrnrmi i m r Example 2 (22nd Avenue - Map 5) 1. ) The street here i s a width of 100 feet. It i s possible that distance i s a friendship b a r r i e r here. However, if it i s not a b a r r i e r to c r o s s - s t r e e t friendships then an interesting comparison would be with Rupert Street which i s the same width but c a r r i e s much more automobile t r a f f i c . If relationship patterns v a r y between the two streets i t would seem reasonable to state that i t was a result of the use of the distance* 2. ) This street i s not a public t r a n s i t route, whereas Rupert Street i s . It i s possible that the extent or range i n distance of l o c a l friendships on Rupert Street might be more l i m i t e d because of the ease of a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the r e s t of the city. T h is would be dependent however on previous residence i n the c i t y mainly. 3. ) Back of this r e s i d e n t i a l s t r i p along 22nd Avenue are a wide range of lot types. It would be interesting to see i f relationships a c r o s s the lane differed with the lot types involved. 4.) C r o s s street relationships may also be affected by the factor of v e r t i c a l distance along part of the street here as shown i n the rough following sketch, and this can probably be checked reasonably well. I I I i I THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P '«£ S C A L E : R. W I L L I A M S t - n - j n m m n i | i i M i [ i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i i i i i i i i m m . i U L A s m a l l section of the lots are a width of 45 feet compared to a general width of 41 feet. The difference here i s probably not enough to show a difference i n friendship patterns-- however, it might be tested i n other cases. That i s , distance becomes l e s s of a b a r r i e r to f r i e n d -ship i f the range of possible friendship i s lowered. A n exaggerated example of this would be i n r u r a l areas where people c e r t a i n l y go farther for t h e i r l o c a l friendships. There i s then possibly a range i n density that affects distance as a determining factor i n l o c a l friendship patterns. 6.) It i s l i k e l y that there w i l l be different relationships with the inhabitants of the older homes on the same side of the street. This would probably be due mainly to s o c i a l differences such as age, income, f a m i l y structure, and the fact that they are non-veterans. Example 3 (Grandview Highway - Map 6) 1. ) These are two sections along the Grandview highway, the main differences between the two being orientation; one section faces the highway, the other section backs on the highway. It would appear that i n both cases the combination of distance, v e r t i c a l distance and use pro-hibit inter-action across the highway it s e l f . The effects of orientation cannot be r e a d i l y checked here because the houses that do not face the highway are across f r o m i n d u s t r i a l plants rather than r e s i d e n t i a l homes. 2. ) It i s l i k e l y however, that the houses that back onto the high-way take advantage of interaction across V i m y Crescent it s e l f and thus would feel more integrated with the neighborhood as a whole. 3. ) There are three p a r c e l s alone facing the highway east of Skeena Street. It would seem that they are quite isolated f r o m the r e s t of the community and might be comparable to the north-west corner of the project (example 4) on a s m a l l e r scale. Of the three lots, the most easterly or triangular one would appear to be either the most isolated or insulated as a result of i t s lengthy flankage along the lane. 4. ) By virtue of the steep bank on the front of a l l these parcels, it i s quite l i k e l y that the lane becomes the general means of access, and thus the use of the lane might result i n more cross lane friendships than o r d i n a r i l y - - a s w e l l as being strengthened by the negative b a r r i e r of the highway its e l f . 5. ) It would be interesting to compare the friendship pattern here with areas where there i s a wider range of p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Example 4 (North Rupert Street - Map 7) 1.) The p r i m a r y question i n this example i s i f there i s a feeling of i s o l a t i o n here as a res u l t of physical factors and i f interaction i s l i m i t e d l o c a l l y and with the res t of the neighborhood. There are many reasons to believe that this might w e l l be the case because: a. ) It i s at the bottom of the h i l l b. ) It i s bounded by r e s t r i c t i n g roads - Rupert Street, a major north-south road - Grandview Highway, a major east-west road - Worthington Drive, a c o l l e c t o r road c. ) It i s bounded on one side by a large undeveloped park and creek depression d. ) It i s near a change of land use - c o m m e r c i a l and i n -d u s t r i a l r4 / s i THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S MAP ~7 1 l fs \ r* 1 S C A L E : R. W I L L I A M S j t r f c j 111111111I1UIIIIII/"""""1""" 1 L J L T—rHwiii i r n r e.) It i s on a major tr a n s i t route and access to the rest of the c i t y i s much easier. 2. ) On the other hand it i s quite possible that a common problem helps to band them together and attending community functions. In this case it i s a problem of rats i n the undeveloped park. 3. ) One lot i n p a r t i c u l a r , at the corner of F a l a i s e Avenue and Dieppe D r i v e would seem to have v e r y l i m i t e d p o s s i b i l i t i e s for f r i e n d -ships to develop. These l i m i t i n g physical fac t o r s would be: a. ) on a corner b. ) Orientation about i t i s e n t i r e l y different i n a l l but one di r e c t i o n c. ) The lots to the east are v e r y long, and only back yards are nearby. d. ) across the lane there i s a wide park and the church e. ) it i s bounded on the east by the heavy t r a f f i c end of a collec t o r road. 4. ) A possible effect of the design of Matapan Crescent i s that the 45 degree bends i n it might have the same effect as the 'end of a block'. A e s t h e t i c a l l y this seems to be the case, but i s there a s o c i a l c o r r e l a t i o n as well? 5. ) There i s one 'pie' shaped lot on the Crescent where orientation, compared to the other lots, i s quite different and the lot i s also bounded on one side by a lane. The lot i s on a bend of the road and across the street a ty p i c a l subdivision design device has been used i n order to increase the frontage of the lots. The resu l t of this device has been of course to increase the distance a c r o s s the street. The lots across the street are lower / \ THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN ft PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S MAP © f i SCALE: . R. W I L L I A M S t—fl—I \WW IIIHH1IHIIII I IIIIIHK1I 11IMHHHIH I L J L than this side of the street as well. This p a r t i c u l a r lot i s also cut off f r o m immediate cross-lane contact at the back of the lot. Example 5 (Rupert Street - Map 8) 1.) It i s possible that there are two major physical p r e s s u r e s for cross^-lane friendships to develop here. The park and the collector road f o r m a v e r y r e a l b a r r i e r on one side - i n terms of distance and use - and the major road too i s v e r y l i k e l y a b a r r i e r to communication. It i s interesting and somewhat i r o n i c to note that this v e r y important part of the urban communi-cations network may become a b a r r i e r to the l o c a l communications of people. These physical b a r r i e r s may be deterring factors or negative forces against friendship i n c e r t a i n directions that give a positive res u l t which might be cross-lane friendships. Because of the t r a f f i c on the two roads, the residents pro-bably keep thei r c a r s i n the back which i s i n i t s e l f a positive force towards cross-lane friendships. It might be, then, that these forces have resulted i n a channelization to aehieve the desired range of community friendships. 2.) Another interesting p o s s i b i l i t y i n this example i s that the stepping or staggering of cross-lane property l i n e s invites a wider range of friendships, as shown i n the following sketch: 3 . ) It would be important to check c r o s s - s t r e e t relationships on this major street as compared to 22nd Avenue (Example 2) where there i s much le s s t r a f f i c , although the streets are both 100 feet wide. Another reason for any differences might be the a v a i l a b i l i t y of t r a n s i t on Rupert Street as compared with 22nd Avenue. 4. ) It i s possible that the narrow east-west lane i n this block becomes a 'cut off' point, or end of a friendship group. El e v a t i o n and use (access to a c o l l e c t o r road, with a tendency to c a r r y some of i t s t r a f f i c ) would tend to make it more of a b a r r i e r than i n the usual case. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A P R O J E C T I N L I E U O F A T H E S I S R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P 3 U N I V E R S I T Y O F S C A L E : B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T R . W I L L I A M S fcdfcd lull ' I ' M " " " " " l l " l " l " ' " " " "»»»"»!« ' L—IL 5.) The fact that Rupert Street here has a f a i r l y steep gra-dient might tend to cut down l i n e a r relationships as w e l l as the a v a i l -a b i l i t y of t r a n s i t . It might be interesting to compare the effects of gradient here, with other l i m i t i n g factors, with the effect of gradient alone on Worthington D r i v e . Example 7 (Matapan Crescent - Map 9) 1.) It would seem probable that the area bounded by Matapan Crescent, Dieppe Drive, V i m y Crescent, and Skeena Street (the funnel end of the coll e c t i o n road), where there i s the most t r a f f i c , would be a deterrent to c r o s s - s t r e e t friendships. In short, there i s possibly a range of cross street relationships along a collector road which would decrease as the coll e c t o r road gets nearer to the point of connection with the major route. 5.) The p r i m a r y control factor of the project (being accepted Central Mortgage and Housing Corporations as a tenant) i s lost i n the older o r i g i n a l homes along the south side of Matapan Crescent. It i s l i k e l y that there i s a difference i n friendship patterns here. Differences i n age, f a m i l y structure, income, and community of interest would seem to make this so. Example 8 (Falaise - Malta Avenues - Map 10) 1.) It would seem v e r y l i k e l y that extended l i n e a r r e l a t i o n -ships along one side of the street would be the friendship pattern that would develop along these streets. The reasons for thinking this way are the phy s i c a l deterrents involved. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A P R O J E C T IN L I E U O F A T H E S I S U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P l o S C A L E : R . W I L L I A M S t r m m i l l l l l l ' l ' l " " ! ! " " ' " 1 " " " " 1 L X a. ) The park i s probably too wide for friendships to develop across i t . b. ) The fact that both streets face courts rather than another l i n e a r grouping i s probably a v e r y important deterrent to friendships. c. ) Orientation across the street i n both cases i s different. d. ) Along Malta Avenue v e r t i c a l distance i s probably a strong deterrent to cross street relations between the street and the court. 2.) Because these physical factors are quite strong, only a linear relationship pattern might develop. Along F a l a i s e Avenue how-ever, orientation might prove to be le s s of a b a r r i e r than on Malta where it i s combined with a v e r t i c a l distance change. A desire for a wider range of possible friendships between the s m a l l e r court, F a l a i s e Place, and F a l a i s e Avenue might make a different pattern possible. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A COMMUNITY a REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P W ( 1 S C A L E : R. W I L L I A M S J fcfel UlU " i i i l l i i l » iiiniiil i l i l l i n i l l i l i u U L Example 9 (Falaise P l a c e - Map 11) 1. ) One of the basic questions involved i n this example i s whether distance i t s e l f i s a b a r r i e r to friendship at least to c e r t a i n l i m i t s . This court i s 100 feet wide, the same width as the major roads bounding the neighborhood. It i s unlikely however, that friendship patterns are the same. It i s suggested that use i n this case then becomes the more important determinant. 2. ) Orientation might be shown to be more important than distance here. The houses on the corners of the court are c l o s e r i n distance to the houses along F a l a i s e Avenue, but there i s not a front- ' to-front orientation. It i s l i k e l y that there i s more interaction within the court by those i n the corner houses than a c r o s s the avenue where orientation i s different. 3. ) This being one of the s m a l l e r courts, it would seem l i k e l y that there i s a strong group feeling compared to the l a r g e r courts or other parts of the project. 4. ) The m a j o r i t y of these lots are v e r y wide along the lane as a res u l t of the grouping about the court. One might assume that the broadening of the lots at the r e a r would broaden the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of friendship across the lane, but i t i s l i k e l y that this i s not the case. The p r o x i m i t y and orientation of the court i s probably the most i m -portant factor. The houses at the head of the court are on lots with narrower frontages and have an inward orientation. It would seem possible that there i s more contact among these lots than i n the r e s t of the court. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A T H E S I S R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P /Z U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A S C A L E : (k C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T R. W I L L I A M S J t * = i mil uuiuiuiiuj uiuiiwiwiii UWWWUJU U L 6.) The older, original homes to the back of the head of the court probably result i n different relationships across the lane, com-pared with other areas. Example 10 (Malta P l a c e - Map 12) 1. ) It would be interesting to compare this court with F a l a i s e Place, which i s shorter. The length of the court here i s 275 feet, compared with 175 feet i n F a l a i s e Place. The two courts however, are both the same width. 2. ) By vi r t u e of this length, it would seem possible that stronger l i n e a r relationships would develop, rather than cross-court relationships. 3. ) Are there relationships between the houses on the corner of the court with those across Malta Avenue that have a different orientation? It would seem l e s s probable that this would be the case here than on F a l a i s e Place, p a r t i c u l a r l y because of the differences i n elevation, or v e r t i c a l distance. 4. ) Many of the lots i n this court are quite wide along the back; the l a r g e r ones ranging between 70 and 146 feet. It would seem l i k e l y that this i s a b a r r i e r to cross-lane friendships, and would tend to be accentuated by the differences i n elevation between the lots surrounding the court, and the lots behind. Example 11 (Dieppe P l a c e - Map 13) 1.) This i s the widest court i n the group; i n effect i t i s a street, 170 feet wide. It i s possible that this width i s sufficient to be THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBE )IVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING D E P A R T M E N T R E N F R E W H E I G F • I T S MAP /3 SCALE: f J \ /I R. W I L L I A M S \J1 1=11=1 Hill U l l l l l l l l ' l l t l iuni'1'HllllH M i n i m u m I U L i — r r r i ! , n n T r n ! r — i r T i P q a b a r r i e r to c r o s s - c o u r t friendship i n itself. If this i s the case, then it would seem to indicate that there i s a point between the 100 foot width of the s m a l l e r courts and this 170 foot width that becomes a deterrent to friendship development. 2.) At the entrance to the court, the houses on the south side of the road are above the road grade, and the houses on the north side of the road are below the road grade. It would seem that the differences i n elevation would decrease the friendship p o s s i -b i l i t i e s a cross the court i n this section. At the head of the court, the ground i s more l e v e l , and it would seem that there are more ease of access for friendship to develop than at the mouth of the court. If this were a good example, which it might not be, because of excessive distance and not too great a difference i n elevation, i t might be possible to find the point where a resistance to c r o s s - c o u r t t r a f f i c develops. The point would mean that the combination of v e r t i c a l distance and horizontal distance was enough to deter r e -lationships. 3.) It would seem possible that the head of the court might be isolated to some extent because of the two lanes that separate i t from the r e s t of the group. F / V S T -THE SOCIAL £ :FFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DES IGN A PROJECT IN LIEU OF A THESIS U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING D E P A R T M E N T R E N F R E W H E I G H T S MAP /<? S C A L E : / k v M R. W I L L I A M S J fcdfcd l l l l l U1II1I1IWIII i l ' i ' M l ' l ' t l l l ' minimum I U L 4.) It would seem more probable that cross-lane friendships would develop i n this court rather than the s m a l l e r courts, which might be more distinct groups i n themselves. It i s possible that the distance across this court would tend to make cross-lane friendships an easi e r alternative. The lots at the mouth of the court are 147 feet long and the lots at the head of the court are 110 feet long. It would seem l i k e l y that cross-lane relationships would be much more l i k e l y at the head of the court, because of the shorter distance involved. Example 12 (Worthington P l a c e - Map 14) 1.) The size of this court i s almost id e n t i c a l with F a l a i s e P l a c e (example 9), and the design s i m i l a r l y i s almost identical. How-ever, i n cross-section, there i s a difference between the two courts. This court has differences i n elevation that are not the case i n F a l a i s e Place. It would seem then that this would l i m i t c r o s s - c o u r t t r a f f i c to a greater extent than i n the other example. 2.) It would be interesting to note the differences i n c r o s s -lane friendships between the bottom of the court and the head of the THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A PROJECT IN LiEU OF A THESIS U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U S A COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT R E N F R E W H E I G H T S M A P /*r S C A L E : R . W I L L I A M S _ l L L J I l imuimiU I ..) 1 i - i n n r m r n i m n iniiiiiiiiiiiiii IMIIIIIIIIIII mn t=w=i r court. It would seem l i k e l y that 'pie' shaped lots at the head of the court would tend to be b a r r i e r s i n themselves at least as fa r as f r i e n d -ships at the back are concerned. Example 13 (Various 'T' Intersections - Map 15) There would seem to be a p o s s i b i l i t y that lots at the head of 'T' intersections are possibly more isolated than the other lots i n the street. There r e m a i n the l i n e a r friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s along the street of course, but that i s only one side of the street. It would seem possible that cross-lane relationships are reinforced as a result. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A P R O J E C T IN L I E U O F A T H E S I S U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T R E N F R E W H E I G H T S MAP ( 1 S C A L E : R . W I L L I A M S j b - t t r - i till' ( l » i i i i i m i i n i i i l i l ! » " » ' » " i i ' n n M i u i t_a_ 1 1 — T H ^ I F ™ ! ! i n n r Example 14 (Small C l u s t e r s - Map 16) 1. ) The examples here are four s m a l l c l u s t e r s of housing ranging i n groups f r o m four to six. 2. ) The l i n e a r friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n these examples would appear to be quite l i m i t e d , because they are such s m a l l units, and the r a t i o of corner lots to 'body' lots i s much higher. 3. ) It would seem then that c r o s s - s t r e e t or cross-lane relationships would be increased as a result of the l i m i t e d l i n e a r p o s s i b i l i t i e s . However, the lots on the westerly side of Mons Avenue back onto flankage lots, rather than p a r a l l e l lots which would seem to l i m i t the cross-lane p o s s i b i l i t i e s compared to the ea s t e r l y side of the street. 4. ) It would seem that more c r o s s - s t r e e t relationships i n this example at the foot of Worthington D r i v e would develop than farther along the street where the l i n e a r distance i s broken up hardly at a l l . Example 15 (Comparison A c r o s s a H i l l s i d e -Map 17) 1. ) It would seem l i k e l y that the narrow park would be a b a r r i e r to communication ac r o s s i t , dependent upon the use to which the park i s put. The distance f r o m back property line to back property line i s 130 feet. F r o m house to house it i s approximately 250 feet, which i s almost the same as Dieppe Place. 2. ) If there i s no cross-contact here, and there i s on Dieppe Place, then it would appear that orientation and use, are most important determinants. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN A P R O J E C T IN L I E U O F A T H E S I S U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T R E N F R E W H E I G H T S MAP /7 S C A L E : R . W I L L I A M S _ l L U I l iUMUlilnii I - n i iiiiiiiiiniii iniiiiiiiiniiii imiiiimiiii um F = » = I r u 3. ) Whether the flankage lots along the 'T' lanes are not conclusive to friendship as a res u l t of the lane use and the orientation of the houses can probably be determined i n this example. This might be compared with the 'pie' shaped lots which have r e a r lot widths almost equal to their flankage. 4. ) Along Worthington Avenue there i s a 100 foot break for access to the school, it would seem l i k e l y that because of the use of the distance, the distance i t s e l f and the differences i n elevation, that there would be v e r y l i t t l e c r o s s - r e l a t i o n s h i p s here. It would seem that across the whole slope here that c r o s s -lane relationships would differ because of factors l i k e the park and the fact that Worthington D r i v e i s a collector road. This might be tested to see i f i t i s so. 6.) It would seem that friendship along this whole slope might be affected l i n e a r l y as the grade increases up the h i l l . Chapter IV. S O M E F I N D I N G S O F T H E R E N F R E W S T U D Y The more deeply we get into economic and technical analysis, the more often we come up against s o c i a l questions, issues that have hardly as yet been properly posed, let alone answered. Catherine Bauer. The major hypotheses regarding the s o c i a l effects of sub-d i v i s i o n design were that l o c a l friendships would be affected by four major factors. The f i r s t factor was distance: by this was meant the linear distance between homes. The second factor suggested was v e r t i c a l distance or changes i n elevation. The t h i r d factor suggested was the use and intensity of the use that the d i s -tance was put to. The fourth factor suggested was orientation, or the way the houses faced. In one way or another the hypotheses a l l seemed applicable to the Renfrew project. This w r i t e r , because of the l i m i t e d time available for the study, was unable to test many of the examples presented i n the previous chapter. Nevertheless, it was believed that the important part of the study was to ask the questions. More answers w i l l come from subsequent studies. It would cert a i n l y be better too, i f the answers came from the sociologists rather than the planners. The conscientious planner working on subdivision design often asks basic questions about the work he i s doing and for this reason alone could be a great aid to the sociologist. How-ever, most sociologists, building the foundations of a new science, are not applying the i r study and r e s e a r c h to the contemporary physical problems of building our ci t i e s . The planner, asking the questions he feels are necessary, and attempting to find some of the answers himself, without the s k i l l s of the sociologist, i s bound to be c r i t i c i z e d . It i s right and proper that this should be so - for this i s the way that knowledge i s obtained. If there i s c r i t i c i s m of the approach used by the planner out of his f i e l d then it w i l l mean that someone else has thought about the problem. This i s what the planner wants because it can lead to some answers that w i l l r e s u l t i n subdivision design being done more on the basis of s o c i a l needs. It was with these thoughts i n mind that an a l l too b r i e f study of a few parts of Renfrew Heights was made. In the Renfrew study the residents of various parts were questioned about their relationships with the people around and about them. A copy of the questionnaire that was used i n the study i s i n -cluded i n this report (Appendix B> ). The questionnaire i s divided into three parts. The f i r s t section includes p r i m a r i l y general i n -formation, such as location, length of residence i n the project, car ownership and so on. The second section needed only to be f i l l e d out through observation by the interviewer; i t includes items r e -garding various physical aspects of the development, such as street widths, lot types and so on. The t h i r d section includes a system for coding the various possible personal relationships that evolve between different types of lots. The important consideration i n the drafting of the question-naire was the p o s s i b i l i t y of t r a n s f e r r i n g the information to I B M cards i n order to check a l l the possible correlations of the data collected. Time however did not make this possible. The method developed for coding friendships i s explained i n Appendix C. A s an aid during the questioning of the residents however a map of the l o c a l area was on the back of each questionnaire which allowed an easier identification of houses for the interviewer and interviewee. The friendship value scale used was, as previously mentioned, a modification of the neighborhood interaction scale of Theodore Caplow and Robert F o r m a n of the U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota. A value was given the relationship by the interviewer after considerable questioning. P r i o r to interviewing the various residents a letter was de-l i v e r e d stating who the interviewer was, his reasons for undertaking the survey, and the time that he hoped to interview the resident. It was found that the letter was quite helpful i n 'breaking the ice' be-fore the interview. A copy of the l e t t e r i s included i n Appendix 'A'. Approximately seventy people i n the Renfrew project were interviewed. ( O r i g i n a l l y i t had been planned to interview at least two hundred residents of the housing project.) The interviews generally took place on weekday afternoons. The reason for selecting this time of the day for the interviews was p r i m a r i l y i n order to be able to talk to the housewife when she was least under pressure of work. It was decided that the housewives would be the most suitable to answer the questionnaire for several reasons. It was believed that the women bore the main load of s o c i a l l i f e i n the community and that because they l i v e d there much more of the i r l i f e than their husbands, there were more chances of passive contact with l o c a l neighbors. It was also of course easier to contact the women of the household than the men. A conclusion s i m i l a r to this was reached i n the Westgate study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was believed by Fes t i n g e r and his associates that if they interviewed a woman i n one f a m i l y and a man i n another then it would introduce v a r i a b l e s that they could neither control nor identify. They maintained that to interview the man and the woman i n each f a m i l y would have hopelessly complicated the task. A f i n a l reason for interviewing the housewife i s that it was assumed i n this study, as i n the Westgate study, that the f a m i l y can be regarded as an unit and that this Unit can be studied by interviewing only one of i t s members. This assumption does not seem unreasonable for it was found i n the Westgate study i n a l l cases that could be checked with knowledge from informal interviews and observation that the data obtained from interviewing the wife did adequately give data about the whole f a m i l y unit. The i d e a l experiment would of course be a situation where a l l the va r i a b l e s considered important could be controlled by the e x p e r i -menter or researcher. If, for example, the r e s e a r c h e r was able to keep a l l the v a r i a b l e s constant but one, then he could check the effects of change i n the one variable. A s o c i a l r e s e a r c h experiment however i s r a r e l y , i f ever, a con-t r o l l e d situation. T h i s i s both the fascination and the f r u s t r a t i o n of the s o c i a l sciences. In studying a complex s o c i a l phenomena such as a community, it must be accepted as i s and where i s . The exact effect of v a r i a b l e s may be d i f f i c u l t or impossible to assess but nevertheless the effects of some of the var i a b l e s do become apparent. T h i s i s the case i n Renfrew Heights. The main hypothesis of this study was that four physical v a r i a b l e s affected the pattern of face-to-face friendships. The data collected tend to show that the hypothesis i s correct, but i t i s di f f i c u l t to isolate the v a r i a b l e s i n some cases where a combination of v a r i a b l e s become b a r r i e r s to l o c a l friendship. GENERAL, FINDINGS: It was found i n the Renfrew study, f o r example, that c h i l d r e n often played an important part i n determining who their parents' l o c a l friends might be. The c h i l d r e n would of course play with other chi l d r e n nearby who were i n their own age groups. This meant that passive contacts would r e s u l t between the parents which might develop into a close friendship. F o r the c h i l d r e n i n the younger age groups however the p h y s i c a l factors of the environment take on a much different perspective than for adults and so distances and elevations . are multiplied. A s a result, passive contacts between parents, through thei r children, are l i m i t e d to a considerable extent by p h y s i c a l factors. A c o l l e c t o r road i s a b a r r i e r that c h i l d r e n are not allowed to cross, and as such becomes a b a r r i e r of sorts for adult friendship across i t . While the c h i l d r e n are important factors i n determining l o c a l friendships i t i s not believed that they play the major r o l e i n deter-mining who their parents' l o c a l friends might be. It was found that the automobile i s to some measure a deter-minant of l o c a l friendship as w e l l . E v e r y interviewee was asked i f they owned an automobile and whether they parked i n the front or the r e a r of the house. It was found that i n the cases where car s were parked i n the back, near the lane, that friendships across the lane i n -creased tremendously, generally two-fold. It did not appear that parking i n the front of the house increased friendships along the street p a r t i c u l a r l y . It may be the case however that on narrower streets the parking of the vehicle i n front might increase the number of c r o s s -street friendships. It was found i n this study, as i n the Westgate study, that there was l e s s l o c a l interaction or friendships by those who occupied corner houses than those who were i n the i n t e r i o r s of blocks. This proved to be the case i n W i l l i a m H. Whytes' study of P a r k F o r e s t as well. Small physical details also appeared to take on considerable significance for l o c a l friendships. The location of back porches and clothes l i n e s were quite important. Quite frequently the interviewees would mention the fact that their back doors were close to a neighbor on one side, and that they were most f r i e n d l y with that person com-pared to the neighbor on the other side of the house. At the heads of the courts where two neighboring lots might be oriented inward towards one another and also have back porches near to one another, there would usually be quite a close friendship between the two f a m i l i e s i n -volved. It was found generally that next door neighbors were either quite f r i e n d l y with one another or r e l a t i v e l y cool towards one another. This fact would tend to compare with Anthony Wallace's suggestions about next door neighbors sharing a common driveway. A s a general rule friendships tended to concentrate i n a l i n e a r pattern along the same side of the street as the house. This v a r i e d however with the physical v a r i a b l e s . It was found that the houses that were not part of the veterans project but were some of the o r i g i n a l homes within the project boun-daries did not f i t into the general friendship patterns that developed i n the project. Differences i n age, incomes and background were probably too important to be overcome by propinquity. It was found that the number of l o c a l friendships increased with the length of residence i n the project. The average number of l o c a l friendships of those who had l i v e d i n the project two years or l e s s was nine. The average number of l o c a l relationships f o r those who had l i v e d i n the project between two and five years was twelve. . The average number of l o c a l relationships for those who had liv e d i n the project f o r more than five years was thirteen. It appears that l o c a l relationships tend to taper off considerably somewhere between the two and five year length of residence. It i s more than l i k e l y that there i s what might be called a 'desire range' of l o c a l friendships for one f a m i l y and it i s quite possible that i n the Renfrew area it i s around twelve or thirteen. It was found that after two years residence i n the project that the average intensity of friendships remained about the same even though the number of l o c a l f r i e n ds increased. It appears f r o m the available data that the intensity of friendship i n the f i r s t two years i n the project was higher than l a t e r when the average number of l o c a l friends more than doubled. A f t e r the two year period, however, the intensity of friendship did not decrease with an inc r e a s i n g number of friends. The average intensity of friendship (or friendship value) for l o c a l friends was 2.0 for those who had l i v e d i n the project two years or l e s s while the average intensity of friendship f o r those who had li v e d i n the project two years or more was 1.6. The significance of the average value of friendship i s question-able i n that a range of friendship value of only 4 was probably not a broad enough range. A study i n this area alone would probably be better i f i t were based on the o r i g i n a l Caplow-Forman neighborhood interaction scale. Because of the l i m i t a t i o n s of time it was not possible to test a l l of the sections of the project described i n the previous chapter. The findings regarding a few of the sections however are presented i n the following pages. F A L A I S E P L A C E (See Map 11) It appears that the width of the court (100 feet) i s a b a r r i e r to friendship across i t . To the hundred foot width must be added the set back distances of the houses from the property line. T h is would be a total distance between houses across the court of approximately 150 feet. The general pattern i s that people on one side of the court know the people on the other side to speak to but friendship has not developed beyond that stage. It was found that the large 'pie-shaped' p a r c e l s at the head of the court had no friendships across the lane. The only exception was one person who knew one person across the lane. The other lots i n the court have friendships across the lane but these l a r g e r lots do not. There i s no doubt that the excessive back yards are probably the main reason for this difference. In this court there i s a slight slope towards the back, which i s also, it appears, a factor contribut-ing as a b a r r i e r to friendship a c r o s s the lane. One of the 'pie-shaped' lots however i s only approximately 100 feet deep, as compared to the others which range over 200 feet, and here the pattern changes considerably. Because it i s a much sh a l -lower lot there are more f r i e n d -ships across the lane than there are within the court i t s e l f . P r i o r to questioning i t was believed that courts such as F a l a i s e Place might be f a i r l y strongly integrated and that there was a sense of belonging to the group i n the court. However, this does not seem to be the case. One of the interviewees stated that right after the project had been built the friendship pattern was i n three groups. The groups were arranged, one on both, sides of the court and one at the head of the court. (See the sketch opposite). This pattern had broken down somewhat with the change of tenants but it appeared to s t i l l be somewhat the same. The group at the head of the court however was somewhat isolated i n r e l a t i o n to the groups on the sides of the court who were more able to make friends across the lane behind their homes. The people i n the houses at the corner of the court, where it entered the street knew people along F a l a i s e Avenue, but generally just to speak to. Orientation appears to have had quite an effect here. E v e n as close as the second house i n f r o m the corner i n the court there was p r a c t i c a l l y no knowledge whatsoever of the people l i v i n g on the street ( F a l a i s e Avenue). D I E P P E P L A C E (See Map 13) Dieppe Pla c e i s the widest court i n the Renfrew project with over 200 feet between the houses on either side of the street. While some of the residents know the people acr o s s the street to speak to, there are many that they would not even recognize. The elevation, or v e r t i c a l distances change considerably a c r o s s this section of the project. (See the following sketch of the area i n c r o s s section). The houses along the northern side of the court are lower i n elevation than the houses on the southern side of the court. The grade behind the houses on the south side of the court r i s e s quickly and i s considerably steeper than the grade across the court i t s e l f . In contrast, the grade behind the houses on the north side of the court l e v e l s off somewhat and i s almost insignificant. The friendship pattern signif i c a n t l y follows the 'path of least resistance'. The houses on the north side of the court, where the grade i s insignificant, a l l have many friendships across the lane, whereas the houses on. the south side of the court, where the grade behind i s considerable, barely know the people across the lane. There are not even such factors as length of residence that can account for the differences here. V e r t i c a l distance c e r t a i n l y i s the b a r r i e r to friendship i n this example. The lanes at the head of this court also become b a r r i e r s to friendship to some extent as w e l l . The lanes are only twenty feet wide so certainly distance cannot be the main factor i n their be-coming a b a r r i e r . The use factor i s probably the most accountable reason for the lane being a b a r r i e r . Along with the change i n land use for the lane there i s also a change i n the orientation of the houses as w e l l which i s probably another factor. (See the following sketch). Whether the lane i s a physical b a r r i e r or a convenient breaking off point f o r relationships i s an important question, but it would require a great deal of further study to p r o p e r l y a s c e r t a i n this. . To show how these side lanes work as b a r r i e r s the following sketch w i l l probably give a f a i r picture of the friendship pattern. Group A know everyone within the group to varying degrees. They also know the people behind them across the lane. The fam-i l y on lot one however i s the only exception i n the group i n that it knows the people i n group B. However, even for this fam-i l y the second lane becomes a — _ *S b a r r i e r to the i r friendship group. M A L T A P L A C E (See Map 12) This court i s the same width as F a l a i s e P l a c e but i s somewhat longer. A l i n e a r pattern of friendship tends to develop on both sides of the court and the head of the court appears to be somewhat separate. The people i n the houses at the mouth or corner of the court know some of the people across the avenue but only one of them has a close frie n d a c r o s s Malta Avenue i t s e l f . (See the following sketch). It i s interesting to note that even i n this one case which i s an exception the f r i e n d outside of the court was a person that the housewife had met when they were working together. Beyond the corner lot as was the case i n F a l a i s e place the people generally do not know the people who l i v e along the avenue its e l f . In this example there i s a combination of distance (in some cases) as w e l l as or i e n -tation and v e r t i c a l distance differences. The head or top of M a l t a P l a c e i s definitely l i m i t e d i n i t s contact across the back lane. The pie-shaped lots are quite long and tend to be b a r r i e r s to contact across the back. (See the following sketch). This was accentuated on these lots because half way between the houses and the lane there i s a concrete retaining wall. The retaining w a l l i s approximately four feet high and tends to accentuate the physical b a r r i e r s across the lane. Because these p a r c e l s are so big back of these houses v\ \ the retaining w a l l tends to become the end of the used part of the back y a r d as well. In this court it became quite apparent how the location of back porches and l o c a l house orientation affected friendship patterns. Back porches close together cer t a i n l y showed to be incentives to l o c a l friendship. It i s important to note however that such s m a l l differences as set-backs of the houses are v i t a l l y important. (See the following sketch). • • • • • n B • • Houses A and B i n this sketch would be somewhat isolated i n that the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for passive contact would be l i m i t e d because their back porches were not near the same set back as those houses on either side of them. WORTHINGTON P L A C E (See Map 14) Thi s court i s quite s i m i l a r to F a l a i s e P l a c e i n size; the widths and lengths of the two courts are identical. The main differences between the two courts i s i n v e r t i c a l distances within the courts. The c r o s s section of F a l a i s e P l a c e i s r e l a t i v e l y flat whereas Wor-thington P l a c e has a grade difference across the court. In cross section Worthington Pla c e appears somewhat as i n the following sketch: There i s an elevation difference of approximately seven feet on either side of the court. A s a resul t of this elevation d i f f e r -ence there i s even less interaction across this court than i n the flat t e r court of the same width. In fact, many people i n this s m a l l court do not know the people on the other side whereas this i s not the case i n Worthington Place. As a resul t of this fact there i s more interaction toward the back, across the lane, of the houses i n this court to a v e r y noticeable extent. The 'pie-shaped' lots at the head of the court are an exception to this to a considerable degree. One of the lots i n this pourt i s v e r y s i m i l a r to a lot i n F a l a i s e P l a c e and there i s again a v e r y s i m i l a r s o c i a l effect. The lot shape isolates the lot f r o m the r e s t of the court group and the lot i s also shallower than any of the others i n the group. (See the following sketch). A s a re s u l t the people who l i v e on this lot have hardly any contact with the people i n the court i t s e l f but have many l o c a l friends across the lane instead. The corner lot of the court here i s somewhat isolated - even to a greater extent i n this case because of the park across the street. (See sketch). The friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s are l i m i t e d and there i s a tendency for more cross-lane contacts although these are l i m i t e d as well. \ Again, i n this example a side lane becomes a friendship b a r r i e r , and p a r t i c u l a r l y because of the use function. Whereas i n most «ases a back lane becomes an alternate area for friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s when physical fact o r s deter friendship across a street, the side lane seems to be a b a r r i e r . The side lane i n this example r e c e i v e s much more use than o r d i n a r i l y would be the case because it becomes a p a r t i a l outlet f o r a co l l e c t o r road. A s a resu l t it becomes a definite b a r r i e r to contact between people i n the court and those adjacent to it on Worthington D r i v e . Only the people on either side of the lane know one another. Those i n the second lot up f r o m the lane and those i n the second lot down f r o m the lane know no one across i t . There i s no doubt that use i s the major factor that makes the lane a b a r r i e r to friendship. The width of the lane i s only twenty feet so use of the distance i s obviously the important thing. 7¥ FRONTING AND B A C K I N G ON MAJOR ROADS (See Map ) While there was no detailed study of the effects of housing either facing or backing on major roads two examples that had a some-what c u r s o r y investigation were Twenty-second Avenue and Dieppe D r i v e . It was found that on Dieppe Drive, where the houses faced into the project away from the major road (Boundary Road) there was absolutely no interaction across the major road whatsoever. On Twenty-second Avenue however there was some interaction because the o r i e n -tation of the houses was different. Although there i s a difference i n the use factor between the two roads; Boundary Road c a r r i e s much more t r a f f i c than Twenty-second Avenue, there can be no doubt that orientation was an important factor as wel l . !• |jq |jo ||o [JQ llPJjo|io a i d i n Ir a 7 c i It can be seen f r o m the previous sketch that on Dieppe D r i v e where the houses back on the major road that orientation i s an i m -portant factor. The uses of the front yard - at least the periods of heaviest use - are usually at the same times during the day. This i s true of the back yard as well. A s a result when the yards are getting t h e i r most use, when there i s the most chance for passive contact, the f a m i l e s on either side of the street cannot be seen by one another. S UMMARY A b r i e f summary of the main general findings of the Renfrew study would probably be helpful at this point. The summary i s l i s t e d i n tabular f o rm below: 1. There appears to be a 'desire range' of l o c a l friendships -the average of which i s thirteen people. That i s , the average number of people that the residents of the project know - total thirteen. 2. This 'desire range' appears to have been reached after 3 to 5 years residence. 3. The greatest number of friendships i s generally li n e a r , along the same side of the street as the house concerned. / V 4. Back lanes tend to be alternate routes for people thwarted f r o m l i n e a r friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s on the same side of the street as the house concerned. X 5. Side lanes tend to be b a r r i e r s to friendship, p a r t i c u l a r l y when breaking up a li n e a r house grouping. 6. The i n t e r i o r part of the block has more interaction than other areas, although this can be affected by physical factors. 7. Corner lots generally have fewer friendship p o s s i b i l i t i e s . P h y s i c a l factors such as elevation ( v e r t i c a l distance) can aggravate this to a greater extent. S i m i l a r l y use factor, such as a park across f rom the corner lot can isolate i t even more. 8. 'Pie-shaped' lots generally inhibit the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of friendship across the lane at the back of the lot. 9. Noticeable elevation changes - for this purpose however this w r i t e r p r e f e r s the t e r m v e r t i c a l distance - have a strong inhibiting effect on friendship, p a r t i c u l a r l y i s there are alternate p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n which to achieve the 'desire range' of friendship. 1 10. Street widths of 100 feet appear to be a deterrent to c r o s s - s t r e e t friendships. 11. Street widths over 150 feet appear to be definite de-terrents to l o c a l friendships. 12. Houses with si g n i f i c a n t l y different orientation within a house grouping tend to be isolated f rom the res t of the group. 13. Interaction across major roads i s n i l when orientation on one side of the road i s different f r o m the other side. That i s ; i f houses on one side of the major road face onto the road and the house on the other side back onto the major road. n j a N • 1 •1 c 14. Houses facing inward toward one another may have a strong positive incentive for friendship. 15. . The location of back porches or stoops and clotheslines are an important positive or negative elements i n determining l o c a l friendships. H I" t~ • A c3 • L3 v. \ • / \ - I - v e — ve 16. The location of automobile parking, at the front or the back affects the location of l o c a l friendships to a great extent. P a r k i n g i n the back p a r t i c u l a r l y increases the face-to-face relationship i n the back across the lane. 17. L o c a l adult friendships are determined to some extent by childrens' playmates. Nevertheless, physical factors are an im-portant issue i n determining who the childrens' playmates w i l l be. A project such as Renfrew Heights deserves a much more intensive study than this w r i t e r was able to give i t . Nevertheless, even i n the short time that was available, i t i s believed that some use-f u l findings evolved f rom the study of the subdivision design. There i s no doubt i n the mind of this w r i t e r that the four underlying hypotheses of this study are correct. It has become clear however that the sur-face has only been scratched and that there i s a wealth of knowledge to be obtained from this type of study of our own urban habitat. C H A P T E R V. T H E P R O S P E C T F O R T H E F U T U R E ; T H E S O C I A L S C I E N C E S A N D T H E I R R E L A T I O N S H I P T O P L A N N I N G . 'We have only begun to knock a few chips f rom the great quarry of knowledge that has been given us to dig out and use. We know almost nothing about everything. That i s why, with a l l conviction, I say the future i s boundless.' C h a r l e s F. Kettering. It looks as though a new science i s i n the making. It seems l i k e l y that many sociologists, and c e r t a i n l y c i t y planners w i l l r e a l i z e the importance of micro-ecology. The planners are bound to r e a l i z e the importance of the science because they are the people who are p r i m a r i l y responsible f o r the physical development of our c i t i e s . There i s a growing r e a l i z a t i o n among planners that planning i s not just a technology a l l i e d to engineering and architecture. More and more there i s a r e a l i z a t i o n that planning i s an applied s o c i a l science. Only i n the physical application of the p r i n c i p l e s of s o c i a l science do the technologies take on any importance. Even then they are only a means to an end. In fact it would probably be better to say that planning i s not an applied s o c i a l science but applied s o c i a l science. T h i s would i n -clude an application of such sciences as economics, sociology and p o l i t i c a l science. The s o c i a l science that has been most dissociated f r om planning i n the past i s sociology. This has probably been the greatest weakness of contemporary urban planning. If planning i s to be ca l l e d applied s o c i a l science then it must be based on more s o c i a l research. The greatest need for r e s e a r c h i s c e r t a i n l y i n the f i e l d of sociology. P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has been p r i -m a r i l y at the macro-ecological l e v e l (if that t e rm may be used). Studies such as Burgess' Concentric R i n g theory of c i t y development and Homer Hoyts' Sector theory of c i t y development while they may be interesting are not as fundamentally important as studies of the effects of physical development on face-to-face relationships. The l o c a l neighbourhood i s where most of f a m i l y l i f e takes place and it i s at this l e v e l that a great deal of r e s e a r c h i s necessary. If planning i s to be based upon s o c i a l need then it must be based upon a sound knowledge of those s o c i a l needs. The purpose of this study was p r i m a r i l y to point to the need for a different approach i n planning - or a r e t u r n to the o r i g i n a l approach - and to show that such decisions as those made by the subdivision designer have s o c i a l consequences hitherto generally unappreciated. The main thesis of this study was that there are four basic physical factors that can be b a r r i e r s to friendship. This w r i t e r has been satisfied by his s m a l l study of the Renfrew project that this i s true. Not only are these physical factors b a r r i e r s to friendship, they are also i n some instances the f a c t o r s that encourage friendship. This being the case, the planner must design more carefully, and with the r e a l i z a t i o n that his design w i l l constitute the framework for l o c a l friendship. The studies of such people as Caplow and Forman, Festinger Schachter and Black, as w e l l as W i l l i a m H. Whyte have been most revealing. Nevertheless, i t i s true of a l l these excellent studies that they were not p r i m a r i l y concerned with micro-ecology i t s e l f . The two university studies were of more or less barrack-type dwelling areas and as such are probably not too applicable for com-parison with most urban r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Whyte seemed p r i m a r i l y concerned with the courts i n P a r k F o r e s t and the row houses sur -rounding them. The area of greatest need for this type of study i s ce r t a i n l y i n the subdivisions that are e n c i r c l i n g every major cit y i n North A m e r i c a . More often than not these subdivisions abound a/ with the latest cliches of the design aspects of planning. These new fads i n design continue to be applied i n most of our c i t i e s , even though there i s no knowledge whatsoever of their s o c i a l effects. If subdivision design continues to be done this way then it becomes a part of the planning process that i s divorced to a great extent f r o m the s o c i a l sciences. But subdivision design i s one of the important positive parts of the planning process and as such deserves a greater amount of study and r e s e a r c h than it now gets. Because i t affects people i n many ways there i s a great obligation to apply it with a background of as much knowledge as i s available. There i s also an obligation to broaden the knowledge it s e l f . Many questions are being asked and many hypotheses are now being put forward. The hypotheses of such s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s as Anthony F.C. Wallace f o r example need testing so that the applied s o c i a l scientist, the planner, can do a more r e a l i s t i c job. Donald L. F o l e y i n a study for the U n i v e r s i t y of Rochester has studied such matters as how the l o c a l i z a t i o n of f a c i l i t y use v a r i e s with the f a m i l y 1. cycle. Unless the planner recognizes the fact that the r e a l i s m of his work depends upon factors such as these, his work i s s i m p l y not ade-quate. E ven i f the sociologists studied such things as the changing friendship patterns of children as they grow up and change schools, they would be doing a serv i c e to planning. Such factors as these could become the underlying method of determining the placement of s e r -vi c e s and f a c i l i t i e s for various age groups. There appears to be an important place for the use of e l e c t r i c machines i n evaluating some of the s o c i a l effects of urban development. I.B.M. machines could become v e r y important i n the determination of correlations between various f a c t o r s affecting l o c a l face-to-face relationships. These machines are able to absorb a great deal of i n -formation and correlations between any of the factors can be r e a d i l y discovered. In the analysis of the effects of such things as subdivision design these machines could be most useful. If time had allowed, these machines would have been used i n this study. There i s however an appendix on the questionnaire that was used and it i s shown how I.B.M.could have been used i n the analysis of the data collected. It might be possible to r e a l i z e c o r r e l a t i o n s that would otherwise not even be considered a remote p o s s i b i l i t y . There i s no doubt that the sociologist i s the most qualified to study the s o c i a l effects of physical planning and the planner must make him increasingly aware of the role he can play. It i s not enough however for the sociologist to si m p l y do his r e s e a r c h i n isolation. There i s a need for the sociologist to present his findings with recommendations about future physical development. The importance of the sociologist has been underestimated i n planning, but there i s no doubt that part of the fault i s the sociologist's. If he i s to play the part he should i n the physical development of our c i t i e s then the sociologist must make some of the difficu l t de-cisions that are now made by city planners without his aid. The work of the planner involves many value judgements and there i s no doubt that many of these judgements would be on sounder ground i f the de-cisions were a r r i v e d at with the aid of the sociologist. There can be a great deal of knowledge gained about the effects of planners' schemes through the use of the s o c i a l survey. What better way i s there to find out the effectiveness of planning techniques than asking the people concerned? Henry Cohen said at the 1955 convention of the A m e r i c a n Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s that: /The philosophical dilemmas that appear to face the planner are not avoided by ignoring the existence of public opinion. Refining our knowledge of public opinion w i l l make for better planning - for better plans, with s u r e r roots.' 2 There i s cer t a i n l y no s u r e r way to see i f the planner i s achieving his proposed goals than through the s o c i a l survey. Indeed the s o c i a l survey may w e l l provide the knowledge to formulate new goals as w e l l as pro-vide a better foundation for evaluating existing goals. In a paper presented at the same conference of the A m e r i c a n Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s Clyde W. Hart and Donald J. Bogue stated: The planner's main hope of bettering his performance l i e s i n the acquisition of more comprehensive, more penetrative and more accurate information about the forces and factors at work i n the situation to which the plan relates. The plan-ner needs, above a l l , e m p i r i c a l l y derived knowledge of the processes of s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l change i n which he i s per-force intervening. At the r i s k of being t r i t e , we wish to point out that know-ledge of the kinds planners need comes only f r o m one source: research.^ Bogue and Hart point out that the things we know most of about the city are those fiel d s that pertain to problems connected with the physical aspects of the ci t y and i t s functioning as a technological machine and that the things that we know least about the c i t y are those fi e l d s that deal with people as individuals, as members of neighbour-hoods, and as members of institutions and other s o c i a l organizations. It i s pointed out i n the paper that i t i s f r o m the least advanced fie l d s of research, the s o c i a l science fields, that the planner wants much detailed, accurate, and s c i e n t i f i c information. Bogue and Hart state: The success or f a i l u r e of plans w i l l depend, i n many cases, upon the 'human factors' or the factors that relate to the attitudes that the public has or w i l l have as it r e s i d e s and functions within the physical environ-ment designed by the planner. Therefore it would appear that progress i n city planning awaits, at least i n part, r e -search progress i n the fields of sociology,^social psy-chology, p o l i t i c a l science and government. The w r i t e r s then suggest that the most l o g i c a l arrangement i s for planners and s o c i a l r e s e a r c h e r s to j o i n forces i n order to speed progress. They could then apply the p r i n c i p l e s of basic r e s e a r c h to p r a c t i c a l problems. The authors maintain that s o c i a l surveys and new sampling techniques could become useful tools i n furthering knowledge i n these fields. They say that modern surveys focus on a p a r t i c u l a r relationship or set of relationships and ask questions that 'fit together' to obtain data that are needed to test a p a r t i c u l a r hypothesis or es-t a b l i s h a p a r t i c u l a r principle. There i s no doubt, they state that 'the s o c i a l survey i s capable , 5 of being a powerful aid i n planning. Accepting the fact that much more basic r e s e a r c h i s needed i n the s o c i a l sciences i f planning i s to progress then the question a r i s e s : Who i s to do the research? Should the r e s e a r c h be done by c i t y planning staffs, who of course employ most of our planners, or should the r e s e a r c h be done by the U n i v e r s i t i e s ? Let us f i r s t consider the r e s e a r c h function at the c i t y l e v e l : A s M a r t i n Meyerson stated i n a paper on 'Research and C i t y Planning' the action agency, when faced with h i r i n g a r e s e a r c h analyst often tends to put that person i n a residua l category, e.g. a planning student who does not display design competence i s assumed to be qualified by default as a researcher. Confusion of the nondesigner with the competent researcher tends to muddy qualifying c r i t e r i a f o r top r e s e a r c h posts. R e s e a r c h programs thus suffer f r o m the lack of trained personnel - a lack which stems i n part f r o m both a weak supply and a weak demand. This i s then the basic attitude toward the r e s e a r c h function i n planning of planning agencies. Meyerson points out that most planning agencies are eager to undertake r e s e a r c h 'studies' p r i o r to announcing polic y decisions. Questions r e f e r r e d to the r e s e a r c h analyst are gener-a l l y those concerning inventory regarding such things as housing and r e -development. Such factual questions, says Meyerson, are asked as a prelude to planning decisions, but they are also often asked as a basis for r e i n -f o r c i n g a policy decision already made. States Meyerson: This latter kind of fact finding a c t i v i t y i s i n r e a l i t y a part of a propaganda function, - an a c t i v i t y de-signed to just i f y recommendations or to bolster the power position of the planning agency i n r e l a t i o n to other agencies or other interest groups i n the community. ^  Regardless of whether this i s the case or not, Meyerson main-tains that planning r e s e a r c h on cit y staffs i s done on an ad hoc basis, that the questions are asked as s p e c i f i c problems a r i s e and do not f orm part of a consistent pattern of information desired about the community. As w e l l as this fact, time i s usually short and existing data f r o m other agencies i s usually re-worked with the result that many information items of p a r t i c u l a r planning relevance are omitted. With conditions such as those outlined by Meyerson prevalent i n most c i t y planning agencies, it becomes quite obvious that the c i t y agency i s not the place to move back the f r o n t i e r s of knowledge. The obvious alternative appears to be the U n i v e r s i t i e s . This however involves a c l o s e r look at ex i s t i n g methods of planning edu-cation. Generally, most of the planning courses are post-graduate courses, accepting graduates f r o m various undergraduate courses i n the applied and s o c i a l sciences. Most of these graduate schools how-ever are c l o s e l y a l l i e d with the faculties of architecture or engineering. Because planning i s generally not given as an under-graduate degree course, (the notable exception being Durham, England) a great deal of the time i n the course i s spent on quite elementary planning concepts. The orientation of the students from various f i e l d s takes up f a r too much time for a graduate course. This prevents student r e -search that would probably be the case i f there were an under-graduate planning degree as w e l l as a post-graduate planning degree. In a section of his book, On B r i t i s h New Towns, L l o y d Rodwin discusses 'The A c h i l l e s heel of B r i t i s h town planning' whixjh he sees as the lack i n basic r e s e a r c h and the lack i n planning education. He maintains that if there i s no undergraduate t r a i n i n g i n planning then persons who wish to become town planners must study some other subject even though both their r esources and interest may be quite l i m i t e d . He also maintains that many of the persons educated i n other fi e l d s who then serve as planners w i l l forget the bulk of the i r under-graduate specialization: 'the facts, the techniques, the concepts, > 8 possibly even the point of view.. V e r y lucidly, Rodwin states: At best, most of them w i l l be s u p e r f i c i a l architects, surveyors, engineers, or whatever they happened to have studied. A f t e r a l l , an undergraduate major provides only l i m i t e d orientation and tools. Much of the refined technical and professional education occurs i n the more advanced programs and i n out-side professional practice. If further graduate work and direct experience i n the o r i g i n a l professional f i e l d do not occur, i s not the educational result half-baked architects, engineers and s o c i a l scientists with a thin veneer of planning edu-cation, who gradually, as they acquire experience, become more expert as planners? Rodwin maintains that there i s a difference between developing 'specialists i n planning' through existing post-graduate t r a i n i n g method and 'planning specialists' who should be trained at the undergraduate le v e l . If the separation were made it would mean that much more necessary r e s e a r c h would be done at the graduate l e v e l of t r a i n i n g which i s as it should be. Much of the r e s e a r c h necessary for planning to pro-gress could be done by the graduate students. There i s no doubt as w e l l that r e s e a r c h at the graduate l e v e l would be better i f it were a l l i e d with the faculties of s o c i a l science which r e a l l y provide the base for new knowledge i n planning. C e r t a i n l y the un i v e r s i t y i s the institution i n which to accumulate the knowledge i n the many fields that make up the synthesized science of town planning. The roots of the problem are deep but the future of planning as a science i s dependent upon a recognition of where the roots are. Once the roots are recognized then future growth can be on a sound base. INTRODUCTION FOOTNOTES 1. Theodore Caplow and Robert Forman, 'Neighborhood Interaction Scale', A m e r i c a n Sociological Review, V o l . 15, 1950. 2. Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and K u r t Black, Social P r e s s u r e i n Informal Groups, New York, Harper and Bro s . 1950. 3. Ralph Linton, The Study of Man, New York, Appleton-Century, 1936, p. 229-230. 4. Anthony F.C. Wallace, Housing and Social Structure, Philadelphia Housing Authority, 1952. P. 46. C H A P T E R I. FOOTNOTES 1. Lo u i s Wirth, 'Human Ecology', A m e r i c a n Journal  of Sociology, May 1945. 2. Ibid., p. 487. 3. Ibid., p. 487. 4. Festinger et a l , op. cit;, p. 33. 5. Abrams, R.H., 'Residential Propinquity as a F a c t o r i n Ma r r i a g e Selection', American-Sociological Review, V o l . 8, 1943, p. 288-2M: ' 6. Kennedy, R., ' P r e m a r i t a l R e s i d e n t i a l Propinquity', A m e r i c a n Journal of Sociology, V o l . 48, 1943, p. 288-294. 7. Abrams, R.H., Ibid., p. 288-294. 8. Festinger et-al, op; cit., p. 34. 9. Ibid., p. 36. 10. Ibid., p. 43. 11. Ibid., p. 43. 12. Ibid.-, p. 58. 13. Caplow and Forman, op. cit;, p. 365. 14. Ibid., p. 365. 15. Ibid., p. 366. 16. Ibid., p. 366. 17. Ibid., p. 366. 18. W i l l i a m H. Whyte Jr . , The Organization Man, (new ed.), New York, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957, p. 365. 19. Ibid., p. 367. 20. Ibid., p. 367. 21. Ibid., p. 367. 22. Ibid., p. 370. 23. Ibid., p. 365 - 404. C H A P T E R I. FOOTNOTES (CONT'D) 24. Ibid., p. 397. 25. Ibid., p. 404. 26. Leo Kuper and others, ed., L i v i n g i n Towns, F a c u l t y of Commerce and Social Science, U n i v e r s i t y of Birmingham, The Cresset P r e s s , 1953, p. 26. 27. Ibid., p. 27. 28. Ibid., p. 27. * 29. Stevenage New Town, Report on Planning and Development Proposals, (Mimeo report accompanying the p r e l i m i n a r y master plan), M i n i s t r y of Town & Country Planning, J u l y 31, 1946, p. 27. 30. Orlans, op. cit., p. 97. 31. Ibid, p. 101. 32. F l o y d Hunter, Community Power Structure: A Study of the D e c i s i o n Makers, Chapel H i l l , U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a P r e s s , 1953, p. 256. 33. Community Planning A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, Submission to the Royal Commission on National Development i n the A r t s , L e t t e r s and Sciences, Ottawa, J u l y 15, 1949. C H A P T E R II. FOOTNOTES 1. H. Spence-Sales, How to Subdivide: A Handbook on the Layout  of Housing Developments, Ottawa -"Community Planning association of Canada, 1950. 2. Ibid, p. 20. 3. Ibid, p. 21. 4. Ibid, p. 21. 5. Ibid, p. 22. 6. Ibid, p. 25. 7. Ibid, p. 29: 8. Ibid, p. 31. C H A P T E R V. FOOTNOTES 1. Donald L. Foley, Neighbors or Urbanites?, Department of Sociology, U n i v e r s i t y of Rochester, New York, 1952, p. 25. 2. Henry Cohen, 3. Donald J. Bogue and Clyde W. Hart. 4. Ibid., p. 160. 5. Ibid., p. 162. 6. Martin.Meyerson, 'Research i n Planning', Journal of  the A m e r i c a n Institute of Planners, F a l l , 1954, p. 204. 7. Ibid, p. 204. 8. L l o y d Rodwin, The B r i t i s h New Towns P o l i c y :  P r oblems and Implications, Cambridge Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1956, p. 195. 9. Ibid., p. 195. A P P E N D I X Robert Williams School of Architecture 'University of B r i t i s h Columbia Dear Si r or Madams I am a graduate student at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia completing my Masters degree i n Town Planning. I am making a study of Renfrevr Heights as a place to l i v e and i n particular the effects of the sub-d i v i s i o n on the friendships that have developed i n tne project. As part of my study I am interviewing various persons i n the project. I would l i k e to c a l l by your house and ask you a few questions, Tha questions w i l l not be oersonal but w i l l nevertheless bd ket/t confiden-t i a l . y? I had planned on c a l l i n g around, your block this <=s^^-^t^a^t^' about -5".- z^> /r'/sf,.. I hope you w i l l be able to see me at that time or at your convenience. Yours t r u l y . Robert A. Williams, B . A . RBKTRSfo HEIGHTS f:UESfi?I0r'4X?.3 General I n f o r t i o n •: 1 . House Cooes Lot Block 2 . Residence; C i t y Years 3 . Residences Renfrew Years Owner Tenant Tenant Prior to Buying? — « _ — , ~ 6 . Did You Live i n Another House i n the Project Formerly? Where? 7 . 'Educations Husband: 1 ? 2 , 3 ? Wi.f 8 . &ges Husband Wife Q j » Level of Li v i n g ! 1 » 2 } 3 5 1 0 . Member of Community Association? 1 1 . Member of Bowling League? 1 2 . Member of Baseball League? 1 3 . Member of P,T.«.? Do vou Have a Car? Do You Have a Garage? 1 6 , Do You Park in the Front Rear 1 7 . Proximity to Transit General Physical Information 1 . T r a f f i c s Heavy Mediura Local 2 . Road Width; 6 6 Ft. " 1 0 0 Ft. ' More 3 . , Front on s Major Read? Yes No ^. Back on a Ma:or Road? Yes Ho 5 F H i l l 3 Linear Cross Face Park; Yes No 7.. Park Width: Under 1 0 0 F t . Ove--8 ; Park Types Open Pls.y E^uip. __. ,•. , 9 . average Lot Widths .,. ,,. 10. Cross Lane Lots: Staggered? Yes No 1 1 . "T" Head Let? Yes 11 o 1 2 . Side Lane Lot? Yrb : No 1 3 . Back on a Side Lai e Lot ? Yes No Ih. "Pie" Shaped Lot? Yes No 1 5 . Back on "Pie" Lot? Yes _ _ _ _ _ No 1 6 . A. Bend" Lot? Yes Fo 1 7 . - Flank a Bend Lot? Yes No 1 8 . A Corner Lot? Yes Ko . Sep-ond From Corner? Yes IIo : : Third From Corner? Yes IIo Fourth From Corner? Yes No "Body" Lot? Yes No . ~ 1 9 . A Change i n X-Street Orientation? Yes Nc 20. Houses 'Across Street? Yes No :  2 1 . Houses Across Lane? Y"-s No t ::.->lationshi?s Linear s 1 2 3 lk 5' 6. A E C D E F Cross Front; 1 2 3 h 5. 6 A_ B C '0 E F Cross Rears 1 2 3 5 6 _ Cross Corner Linear? 1 2. 3 Ca t er -C or ner s 1 2 3 k Cross Front Flankage; 1 2 3 • 1 2 _ 3 . }••• Flank Lot, Cross Side? 1 _ 2 _ _ _ 3 ^ Lane. Flank, Cross Side: 2 _ 3 Corner, Lane Caters 1 2 3_, Lane Flank, Caters 1 2 3 h A P P E N D I X C. E X P L A N A T I O N OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, SECTION 3. The t h i r d section of the Questionnaire used i n the Renfrew study was a method of coding the possible relationships according to lot types. The idea i n mind was that a coding scheme could be developed that could be used i n a single f a m i l y subdivision area anywhere. The various possible relationships are shown i n the following pages i n sketch form. 1.) Linear: Six lots on either side of the lot concerned are identified. X 2.) C r o s s - F r o n t : Six lots on either side, across the street are identified. i l l I i u l I I i i I 1 I / \ B O A , O a 3.) C r o s s - R e a r : Six lots on either side a c r o s s the lane are identified. -4 I I I h 1/ I 1 I I H-4.) C r o s s - C o r n e r Linear; F o u r Lots across the flank street, yet i n the same l i n e a r arrangement, are identified. Cater-Corner: F o u r lots eater-corner to the lot concerned are identified. C r o s s - f r o n t Flankage: Lot concerned i s at the junction of two roads and the flankage lots across the street are identified. C r o s s - s i d e , F l a n k lot: The flank lot i s the lot concerned and the lots that face the flankage are identified. C r o s s - s i d e , Lane Flank: The same situation as the previous case except a lane i s concerned rather than a street. 9.) Cross-back, Flankage: The relationship a c r o s s a back lane when houses at the back are flankage lots. X 10.) Corner lot; lane cater: The relationship eater-corner across the lane. X 11.) Lane flank lot, cater: The relationship cater corner f r o m a ~~ side lane flank lot to a corner lot. It was believed that identification of a l l the possible lot types would allow a codification of a l l the possible relationships between lot types, with th e i r respective friendship values. The Caplow-Forman neighborhood interaction scale would identify friendship values. A s a r e s u l t , a l l possible relationships between lot types and degree of friendship could be coded on machines such as I.B.M. and the machine could pick out any relationships r e -quired by the researcher after the data had been coded. B I B L I O G R A P H Y Bauer, Catheraine, 'Some Questions i n Housing and Community Planning'. Journal of Social Issues, V o l . 7, 1 and 2, 1951. Bogue, Donald and Hart, Caplow, Theodore and Robert Forman, 'Neighborhood Inter-action Scale', A m e r i c a n Sociological Review, Volume 15, 1950. Cen t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation, P r i n c i p l e s of Small House Groupings, Ottawa. Cohen, Henry, Community Planning A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, Submission to the R o y a l Commission on National Development i n the A r t s , L e t t e r s , and Sciences, Ottawa, July 15, 1949. Dewey, Richard, 'The Neighborhood, Human Ecology and C i t y Planners'. A m e r i c a n Sociological Review, Volume 15, August, 1950. Festinger, Leon, Stanley Schachter and K u r t Black, Social  P r e s s u r e s i n Informal Groups, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1950. Foley, Donald L., Neighbors or Urbanites? Department of Sociology, U n i v e r s i t y of Rochester, New York, 1952. Garrett, Hatt, P a u l K., and A l b e r t J. R e i s s Jr., (ed.), C i t i e s and Society; The Revised Reader i n Urban Sociology, The F r e e P r e s s , Glencoe, I l l i n o i s , 1957. Kuper, Leo, L i v i n g i n Towns, F a c u l t y of Commerce and Social Science, U n i v e r s i t y of Birmingham, The Cresset P r e s s , 1953. McKenzie, R.D., 'Ecological Approach to the Study of the Human Community,' A m e r i c a n Journal of Sociology, July, 1926. Mendonsa, A r t h u r A., Application of Selected Sociological  Concepts to C i t y Planning, Master of C i t y Planning Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1953. Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and S o c i a l Structure, Glencoe, I l l i n o i s F r e e P r e s s , 1957. Orlans, Harold, Utopia Ltd., The Story of the E n g l i s h New Town  of Stevenage, Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New Haven. Park, Robert E., Human Communities, The C i t y and Human Egology^ Glenooe, I l l i n o i s , The F r e e P r e s s , 1951. Quinn, J.A., 'Human Ecology and Interactional Ecology', A m e r i c a n Sociological Review, V o l . 5, October, 1940. Spence-Sales, H., How to Subdivide: A Handbook on the Layout of Housing Developments, Ottawa, Community Planning A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, 1950. Stein, Clarence S., Toward New Towns for A m e r i c a , Reinhold Publishing Co., New York, 1957. Stephenson, Gordon, 'Human Values and Urban Growth', Community Planning Review, V o l . 8, March, 1958. Wallace, Anthony F.C., Housing and Social Structure, Philadelphia Housing Authority, 1952. Wirth, Louis, 'Human Ecology', A m e r i c a n Journal of Sociology, May, 1945. Whyte, W i l l i a m H. Jr., The Organization Man, (new ed.), New York, Doubleday A n c h o r Books, 1957. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106085/manifest

Comment

Related Items