UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The impact of the geographic dispersal of displaced households in urban renewal programs : Vancouver,… Shapiro, Harold S. 1969

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A8 S53.pdf [ 5.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302469.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302469-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302469-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302469-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302469-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302469-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302469-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302469-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302469.ris

Full Text

THE IMPACT OF THE GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL OF DISPLACED HOUSEHOLDS IN URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAMS: VANCOUVER, A CASE STUDY by Harold S. Shapiro BjA., C. W. Post College, 1964 A Thesis Submitted in P a r t i a l Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of B r i t i s h Columbia A p r i l , 1969 In present ing th i s thesis in p a r t i a l f u l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f r e e l y ava i l ab le for reference and Study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for s cho l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t i on of this thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i tten permi ss i on. Department The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date llAeaf 7 /f(,7 Abstract This study i s e s s e n t i a l l y a descriptive report on where people move after being displaced by urban renewal projects. In p a r t i c u l a r , empirical research has been conducted on the displaced population of Vancouver's Urban Renewal Project 2. Information on the geographic dispersion of relocatees provides a p a r t i a l basis for assessing the e f f e c t s of relocation on the displaced popu-l a t i o n and on the community at large. A review of past Canadian and U. S. relocation patterns indicates that relocated families and individuals tend to s e t t l e close to t h e i r old neighborhoods. While the a v a i l a b i l i t y of low income housing nearby and an inadequate knowledge of housing opportunities elsewhere are p a r t i a l l y responsible for t h i s pattern, a more dominant influence on relocation patterns i s the reluctance of many families to abandon the sub-culture of working class or low income areas. In l i g h t of past research, the following hypothesis has been formulated regarding relocation patterns for residents displaced by Project 2 in Vancouver: The given displaced population w i l l exhibit a tendency to relocate within one mile of the renewal s i t e . Post-relocation addresses have been traced for 73 households or 20 percent of the displaced population which did not move into public housing. An examination of the patterns of dispersion confirms the research hypo-thesi s . Sixty percent of the 73 households traced r e s e t t l e d within one mile of the renewal s i t e . Thirty-four of these households relocated i n present and proposed renewal s i t e s . Because of a lack of data on household charac-t e r i s t i c s and on housing conditions, only a tentative assessment of the e f f e c t s of relocation can be made at t h i s time. The dispersion pattern documented suggests that few residents were s o c i a l l y or psycho-l o g i c a l l y prepared to move at the time of displacement. For many, relocation has probably been a disruptive and disturbing experience. The dispersion pattern also suggests that housing conditions for a large number of families and individuals either did not improve or were impaired by re l o c a t i o n . In view of the current housing shortage, p a r t i c u l a r l y for low-income groups, relocation may have resulted in the further over-crowding of low-income dwellings and i n the premature deteriora-t i o n of part of the c i t y ' s housing stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L i s t of Tables and Maps i Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Importance of Research The Need for Research at This Time The Research Problem Organization Def i n i t i o n s 2 GENERAL BACKGROUND 10 Comparative History of United States and Canadian L e g i s l a t i o n Relocation Issues Class D i s t i n c t i o n s The "Slum Community" Limitations of Public Housing C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n Summary 3 PATTERNS OF RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION 45 U. S. Relocation Patterns Canadian Relocation Patterns 4 RELOCATION PATTERNS IN VANCOUVER 60 Research Hypothesis The Research Population The Research. Area Method of Inquiry and Treatment of Data Results Limitations of the Study 5 CONCLUSION 72 Interpretation of Data Planning P o l i c i e s Suggestions for Further Study 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS Tables Selected Findings from 33 U.1 S. Relocation Studies Relocated Households in Public Housing Expressed as a Percentage of the Total Displaced Project Population - Select Projects An Examination of the Relationship Between Displaced Population Groups and Select Demographic Characteristics - Urban Renewal Project 2, Vancouver Socio-Economic Ranking of Local Areas in Vancouver . Select Demographic Charact e r i s t i c s of the Displaced Population - Urban Renewal Project 2, Vancouver Maps Relocation of Project 2 Sample Local Area Boundaries , City of Vancouver Urban Renewal Program As of A p r i l , 1966 , pp. 50 8s 51 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C (in pocket) p. 62A Appendix D Appendix E ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to thank Dr. Robert C o l l i e r for his encourage ment and advice throughout the preparation of t h i s thesis I am p a r t i c u l a r l y indebted to Dr. C o l l i e r for the oppor-tunity of working as his research assistant during the summer of 1968. It was during t h i s period that much of the background material for t h i s report.was gathered. Chapter One: Introduction Importance of Research Eighteen thousand families and individ u a l s have been, or are in the process of being, displaced by urban renewal projects across Canada.^ Where these people move i s of considerable importance. Resettlement patterns, along with information on pre- and post-relocation housing quality , costs, and tenure, form a basis for an i n i t i a l assessment of the e f f e c t s of relocation on the l i v i n g conditions of those displaced. Such information also provides the essential background for a more thorough analysis of relocation issues, such as the psychological and s o c i a l consequences of displacement. Even considered alone, relocation patterns can pro-vide useful insights into renewal and relocation programs. Two of the basic objectives of renewal are the improvement i n the l i v i n g conditions of the area residents and the r e s t r i c t i o n or removal of blighted areas within the c i t y . While relocation i s concerned p r i n c i p a l l y with the s o c i a l welfare of the residents, "the e f f e c t s of relocation can -2-have a substantial impact on the second objective of clearing slums and r e s t r i c t i n g b l i g h t . Most c i t i e s have l o c a l areas, defined in terms of usage and physical, s o c i a l , and economic conditions. An examination of relocation patterns, based on a thorough knowledge of the l o c a l landscape, should suggest probably post-location l i v i n g conditions. A concentration of re-locatees in areas noted for overcrowded and blighted conditions would indicate that t h i s group has not moved into safe, decent, and sanitary housing. An analysis of relocation movements can also lead to the early i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of successive displacements in multi-phased renewal programs. The incidence of families and individuals who, r e s e t t l i n g in future renewal areas, only await being displaced again i s an unfortunate 2 consequence of many U. S. renewal projects. Furthermore, a close examination of relocation experiences can provide information on the d i f f e r e n t i a l impact of relocation on various ethnic or socio-economic groups. In addition to suggesting the e f f e c t s of relocation on the personal welfare of those displaced, relocation patterns can indicate, to some degree, the effectiveness of a renewal program in arresting or reducing the physical - 3 -deterioration of project or adjacent neighborhoods. If displaced residents scatter throughout the urban area or s e t t l e i n areas free from blig h t and overcrowding, then the chances of new slums developing as a resu l t of increased population congestion may be reduced. Alterna-t i v e l y , i f relocatees congregate in areas contiguous to the renewal s i t e (areas which are probably blighted to some degree because of a s p i l l o v e r e f f e c t ) , then the p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y with a large displaced population, of contributing to a premature deterioration of the area. Renewal w i l l , thus, have the e f f e c t of s h i f t i n g rather than clearing the slum, a l l at the expense of large sums of public money. Over nine thousand (more than one half) of a l l displacements i n Canada have occurred i n three c i t i e s : 3 Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. These large-scale movements within a c i t y can signal changes i n the demo-graphic structure of an urban area. These changes may in turn require a reassessment of planning designs and proposals. If a large block of school-age children, for example, move into an area with few school or park f a c i -l i t i e s , then area plans w i l l probably need r e v i s i o n . -4-The Need for Research at This Time The value of relocation research i s i n stark con-t r a s t to the dearth of available reports, p a r t i c u l a r l y in Canada. The s c a r c i t y of reports dealing with Canadian relocation patterns and related urban renewal issues i s p a r t i a l l y the result of national urban renewal p o l i c y . Unlike U. S. agencies, l o c a l governments or renewal agencies in Canada are not required to undertake renewal and reloca-tion follow-up studies.^) In the absence of any coercion, l o c a l agencies have not, for the most part, taken the i n i t i a t i v e i n assessing the e f f e c t s of past p o l i c i e s and actions. Furthermore, independent studies of relocation experiences have been hampered by an apparent lack of available raw data. As a r e s u l t , Canadian reports must be augmented to a great extent by U. S. studies to present a h i s t o r i c a l perspective of relocation patterns and issues. The need for t h i s study of Canadian relocation patterns i s accentuated by a number of factors: l ) the absence, i n most cases, of l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e i n assessing the relocation program, (2) the lack of such information on the national l e v e l , and 3) the recent expansion of urban renewal a c t i v i t i e s throughout Canada. -5 -The Research Problem This study w i l l describe urban renewal relocation patterns in Vancouver. It w i l l also examine some of the factors which may influence relocation patterns. The objectives of t h i s study are as follows: 1) to provide the groundwork for a tentative assessment of relocation as i t has affected both relocatees and the general objectives of the renewal program; 2) to evaluate the relocation patterns and develop a tentative assessment; 3) to propose area and issues for further study; 4) to present findings which w i l l be comparable with information gathered elsewhere i n Canada and the U. S., in order to discover r e g u l a r i t i e s in relocation patterns. Organization This introduction w i l l be followed by 1) a general overview of relocation issues, i n which past research w i l l be reviewed in order to present the s p e c i f i c issues of relocation patterns i n perspective; -6-2) a review of relocation patterns i n Canada and the U. S. , which w i l l provide the back-ground for formulating the research hypothesis; 3) a statement of the research hypothesis, including a) description of the research design, b) presentation of the r e s u l t s , c) discussion of the study l i m i t a t i o n s ; 4) an interpretation of the findings, p o l i c y recommendations, and suggestions for further study. Def i n i t i o n s The process of relocation i s to be distinguished from s i t e clearance and displacement ^ Site clearance refers to the demolition and removal of a l l physical structures which are barriers to redevelop-ment . Displacement i s the removal of families and i n d i v i -duals from their homes and businesses in order that s i t e clearance and other aspects of renewal may proceed. Relocation, though coordinated with redevelopment schedules, i s p r i n c i p a l l y concerned with the welfare of the s i t e residents. It i s a process which incorporates di s l o c a t i o n or displacement into a broader program designed -7-to provide residents with an opportunity to improve the i r l i v i n g conditions at a minimum .cost, whether i t be economic, s o c i a l , physical, or psychological. By d e f i n i t i o n , a relocation program requires f u l l knowledge of the possible e f f e c t s of forced displacement on the area residents. -8-Footnotes The following figures were obtained from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Vancouver, and cover a l l nation-wide renewal a c t i v i t y up to January 1, 1969. Displacement figures incorporate both single and person and family households. Number of Projects Number of Households Displaced Renewal Projects Completed.... 10 3,597 Renewal Projects in Progress.. 39 14,285 C i t i e s with Renewal Projects in Progress or Completed... 28 2 Wilbur Thompson, Preface to Urban Economics, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, paperback e d i t i o n , 1968), p. 297. 3 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, op_. c i t Location Projects Households Number of Number of Households Displaced Montreal 6 5,348 Toronto 6 3,119 Vancouver _4 1,007 Total 16 9,474 ^The Urban Renewal Scheme Preparation Handbook, (Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation) sets no requirement for progress or follow-up renewal and relocation reports. Jack Meltzer,. "Relocation of Families Displaced i n Urban Redevelopment: Experience i n Chicago", Urban  Redevelopment Problems and Practices, edited by Coleman Woodbury (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 407-408. While Canadian urban renewal (cont'd...) -9-l e g i s l a t i o n does not s p e c i f i c a l l y define the term reloc a t i o n , i t i s nevertheless clear from i t s usage by both federal and l o c a l o f f i c i a l s in statements about relocation that the term i s consonant with the d e f i n i t i o n presented here. See the following: R. T. Adamson, "Housing P o l i c y and Urban Renewal", Urban Studies: A Canadian Perspective (Toronto: Methuen Publications, 1968), pp. 222-239. Questions and Answers on the Urban Renewal and  Public Housing Provisions of the National Housing Act (Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1966), edited by N. H. Lithwick and G i l l e s Paquet, esp. pp. 12-13. Integration of Physical and Social Planning With  Special Reference to Public Housing and Urban Renewal, Report No. 1 (Ottawa: Councils Div i s i o n of the Canadian Welfare Council, 1967), p. 51. Integration of Physical and Social Planning With  Special Reference to Neighborhood Services and C i t i z e n  P a r t i c i p a t i o n , Report No. 2 (Ottawa: Councils Div i s i o n of the Canada Welfare Council, 1968), p. i i , a quote by the Honorable John R. Nicholson. National Housing Act, Part I I I , Sec. 23 ( b ) ( i ) . Chapter Two: General Background Comparative History of United States and Canadian L e g i s l a t i o n Though often relegated to a minor pos i t i o n , relocation has been an integral aspect of urban renewal programs in North America. In Canada, federal renewal l e g i s l a t i o n was created within the framework of the National Housing Act of 1944 and i t s subsequent amendments in 1949 and 1954 and 1956. It was i n 1964, however, that a t r u l y comprehensive urban renewal program was authorized under the National Housing Act and incorporated i n Section 23 of that Act. An i n t e r e s t i n g p a r a l l e l i s found in the United States l e g i s l a t i o n in which the o r i g i n a l act authorized urban renewal i n 1949 and was subsequently expanded i n 1954, 1956, 1961 and 1964. 1 The broad objectives of the 1949 U.< S.' l e g i s l a t i o n were as follows: 1) to eliminate substandard and other inadequate housing through clearance of slums and blighted areas; 2) to stimulate housing production and community development i n order to remedy the housing shortage; -11-3) to r e a l i z e the goal of a decent home and a suitable l i v i n g environment for every o American family. Under t h i s act, the government acknowledged a di r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for r e l o c a t i o n . Local public authorities were held responsible for providing displaced families with temporary housing. Single person households were 3 not under t h i s protective mantle. As urban renewal has evolved i n the United States and Canada from i t s emphasis on individual slum clearance projects to i t s present concern with city-wide community renewal a c t i v i t y , expansion and refinement have occurred concomitantly in the relocation program. Under the aegis of the 1964 U. S. Housing Act, a l o c a l government, in order to q u a l i f y for federal renewal aid, must provide in i t s renewal application a workable program for the relocation of both families and individuals in convenient and standard housing which they can afford. Families and individuals are now e l i g i b l e for moving expenses up to a maximum of $200. In addition, payments of up to $500 are available to families and e l d e r l y individuals (62 years of age and older) who, although e l i g i b l e for public housing, cannot f i n d accommodation. L i b e r a l -12-mortgage insurance rates are available to dislocated families seeking new or r e h a b i l i t a t e d housing. Such coverage i s extended to families dislocated by any government program and applies to the sale and rental of housing. Below market or low i n t e r e s t rate mort-gages on rental housing for relocated and other low and moderate income families i s also available, as well as grants for demonstration projects which explore new approaches to low income housing such as d i r e c t rent s u b s i d i e s . 4 In regard to dislocated businesses, the previous l i m i t on relocation payments has been l i f t e d . In contrast to the detailed and structured federal relocation procedures i n the United States, the program i n Canada emphasises discretionary powers. When sub-mitting an urban renewal proposal for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approval, l o c a l o f f i c i a l s must demonstrate that "decent, safe and sanitary housing" at reasonable rentals i s available for displaced persons (Section 23(b) ). The Corporation i s empowered to con-tribute one half the incurred cost i n a s s i s t i n g persons to relocate. Relocation assistance, however, i s not mandatory. As such, the reimbursement of moving expenses i s at the d i s c r e t i o n of l o c a l o f f i c i a l s . Exploratory relocation programs are also dependent on l o c a l rather -13-th an federal d i r e c t i o n . Relocation Issues Displaced families and individuals face two basic problems: replacement housing and the s o c i a l adjust-ment to new and often d i f f e r e n t conditions. While the p o s s i b i l i t y of solutions to these problems i s dependent on the i n d i v i d u a l s i t u a t i o n i n each area, in a more general overview, i t has been argued by various c r i t i c s that neither problem can be, or has been, successfully handled under e x i s t i n g conditions. The extent to which relocatees have been re-housed i n safe, decent, and sanitary dwellings i s debatable. Government reports seem overly o p t i m i s t i c . Through June 1963, the U. renewal progam displaced 157,000 fam i l i e s . Of the 87 percent whose housing conditions were known, 92.2 percent l i v e d i n housing c l a s s i f i e d Q as decent, safe, and sanitary. Thus, only 7.8 percent of those families whose housing conditions were known moved into substandard dwellings. The report, however, f a i l e d to provide information on the welfare of the 60,000 individuals who were displaced by the end of 1963. 7 The r e l i a b i l i t y of these reports has been challenged Q in numerous a r t i c l e s . Chester Harmon, a doctoral fellow -14-at M.3I .T. -Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies, has provided the most comprehensive analysis to date.® In a follow-up study of relocation from Boston's West End, discrepancies regarding the percentage of families rehoused in standard dwellings was noted between o f f i c i a l renewal reports and independently conducted research. Since federal relocation figures are merely compilations of reports submitted by l o c a l relocation or renewal agencies, bias due to varying standards of appraisal may be introduced. Again, i f one considers that non-whites constitute approximately 80 percent of a l l U. S. families relocated, i t seems highly improbable that such a high rate of successful relocation has a c t u a l l y occurred, e s p e c i a l l y given the general dearth of standard low income dwellings available.^® In reviewing the experience of relocated fa m i l i e s , Harman concluded that while the incidence of substandard housing among relocatees has been reduced in absolute numbers, the upwardly mobile are generally those who improve th e i r p o s i t i o n . The poor, the insecure and the disadvantaged f i n d t h e i r position weakened.Harman has been c r i t i c i z e d for using data which includes d i s -placements from government projects other than urban renewal.^ This defect, however, does not seem serious -15-enough to invalidate his conclusions. A further c r i t i -13 cism i s that his material for comparison i s outdated. This he openly admits (two-thirds of the relocation reports date from the 1950's). The problem i s a general lack of post-relocation studies on recent programs. The improvement i n the housing conditions of many i s not without i t s p r i c e . V i r t u a l l y a l l post-relocation reports have documented an increase, often substantial, i n the proportion of income spent for housing. 1-^ In the vfest End study in Boston, the rent/income r a t i o increased from 16.6 percent to 26.3 percent. Among families earning less than 3,000 do l l a r s per year (35 percent of a l l households), the increase i n the 15 rent/income r a t i o was from 35.3 percent to 45.9 percent. The recommended l e v e l of expenditure on housing i s between 20 percent and 25 percent of a family's income. This standard, however, i s for the average income family. With an annual income below $3,000, even a small increase from 15 to 17 percent can cause undue hardship and want, es p e c i a l l y when one remembers that food and clothing are not sold on a graduated scale adjusted to income. Thus, a cost-benefit analysis i n such a case might well re s u l t i n a net s o c i a l l o s s . -16-It has been argued that since redevelopment destroys the worst slums, the housing of those forced to move can 17 only improve. A renewal project, however, i s normally the product of a number of goal trade-offs among various 18 int e r e s t groups. The Canadian federal government, when discussing the objectives of urban renewal, places i t s p r i n c i p a l stress on improving the l i v i n g conditions of the poor. High p r i o r i t y i s also accorded to the aesthetic aspects of urban renewal. In contrast, the main municipal goal i s to increase the tax base of the community. Other int e r e s t groups such as property owners, developers, and large merchants are interested primarily in speculative gain and economic growth. Thus, the condition of the slum i s not i n i t s e l f a s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i o n for the selection of a renewal area. The area must provide good 19' potential for private development. The worst slums do not always hold the most promise, from a r e a l estate or economic standpoint, when renewal i s being considered. That considerations other than the interests of slum dwellers are those which motivate public agencies to undertake urban renewal i s evident from that fact that between 1949 and 1964 only one half of one percent of a l l U. S.i renewal expenditures was for relocation 20 financing. Economic considerations are of foremost -17-importance i n renewal programs such as Vancouver's which stress, in euphemistic terms, that land be used 21 for i t s "highest and best use". Blighted areas are defined as those sections of the c i t y which offer no 22 prospect of a "higher return from investment". Areas which offer potential as commercial or i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s are often selected f i r s t . As such, Vancouver's renewal report recommends the following l i s t of p r i o r i t i e s in sel e c t i n g clearance s i t e s : l ) the necessity of public works projects, 2) the demand for s p e c i f i c s i t e s by private enterprise, 3) and f i n a l l y , "other conditions permitting, the worst blighted areas to be cleared f i r s t . ' Again, from the same report, "redevelopment i s not proposed primarily to r e h a b i l i t a t e people..."^4 The assumption, therefore, that the worst areas are being cleared seems questionable. Unprofitable slums w i l l foreseeably continue to house the poor and disadvantaged. While renewal i s often i n i t i a t e d as a means of strengthening the c i t y ' s tax structure, the underlying 25 association with slum clearance has remained. Slums and b l i g h t (often used interchangeably) are associated with crowded and deteriorating housing conditions which in turn are assumed to contribute to s o c i a l pathology. This causal r e l a t i o n s h i p has never been f u l l y accepted: -18-"...even i n the sphere of physical health, there i s evidence to suggest that socio-economic status i s more 26 c r i t i c a l than slum residence." In h i s well-documented study, Slums and Social Insecurity, A l y i n Schorr argues (not inconsistently with the above quote) that slum conditions often contribute to stress to which only 27 certain people adjust favorably. In reviewing various studies investigating the relationship between physical environment and s o c i a l behavior, Schorr concludes that i f housing does influence s o c i a l patterns and health, i t i s primarily under extremely poor housing conditions — 28 housing which he terms "desperately inadequate." A similar position i s taken by Irving Rostow i n h i s a r t i c l e 29 "The Social E f f e c t s of the Physical Environment." The insistence on safe, decent, and sanitary housing for a l l relocatees as a f i r s t p r i o r i t y i s p a r t i a l l y based on the assumed and tenuous relationship between housing and s o c i a l pathology. Recent studies, such as those mentioned above, suggest that aspects of urban l i f e other than housing, such as socio-economic group cohesion, may play a more v i t a l role in the mental and physical well 30 being of an individual or community. As such, a reassess-ment of relocation procedures and p r i o r i t i e s i s imperative. Otherwise the s o c i a l benefit society anticipates from re-location and slum clearance may never accrue. -19-A further evaluation must be made of any widely used single standard of safe, decent, and sanitary housing. Adequate privacy and space are class-determined 31 concepts. Middle-class values are not necessarily 32 working-class values, as Herbert Gans had made e x p l i c i t . Class values regulate the r e l a t i v e importance placed on both the i n t e r i o r dimensions and exterior appearance of buildings. Thus, the rating of structures through the 33 use of windshield surveys seems questionable. Class D i s t i n c t i o n s To gain an appreciation of other factors which bear on successful r e l o c a t i o n , a knowledge of the blighted or slum area i s required. The concept of a homogeneous slum i s common but misleading. Slum communi-t i e s and sub-communities are numerous and varied. In an attempt to d i f f e r e n t i a t e slum communities, one socio-l o g i s t has distinguished between slums of hope and slums of despair.*^ New immigrants and the working class often inhabit the slums of hope which serve as a port of entry to urban America. While some groups within t h i s category are immobile due to extraneous forces such as r a c i a l prejudice, the general gestalt of the area i s one of hope. The slums of despair house the indigent, the s o c i a l r e j e c t s , the downwardly mobile, and the multiple problem -20-cases. While the slums of hope may eventually disappear with prosperity, the slums of despair w i l l probably p e r s i s t . Another approach distinguishes among the lower cla s s , the t r a d i t i o n a l working class, the modern working 35 cl a s s , and the ghetto. Family structure i s an impor-tant d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between working and lower class. The t r a d i t i o n a l working class subculture has tended to be characterized by the importance and pervasiveness of the extended family as a central focus for l i f e . Here, out-siders are regarded with suspicion and interests outside the family are rejected. The modern working class, how-ever, i s more s o c i a l l y mobile, having accepted some middle class values. The lower class tends to be matrifocal in structure. The husband or man i n the family has a marginal and often negative r o l e . L i f e tends to be unstable, episodic, and unpredictable i n 37 comparison to the s t a b i l i t y of working class l i f e . • Fear of danger and trouble are major concerns of the 38 lower class. Personal safety i s of great importance. The ghetto i s not characterized by s o c i a l class but primarily by the lack of choice open to i t s residents, a condition usually enforced by the prejudice of the 39 larger society. -21-Slums also bouse various opportunists, those members of society who f i l l functional but s o c i a l l y unacceptable positions: the prosti t u t e s , the gamblers, 40 the dope peddlers, and the loan sharks. Unless society changes r a d i c a l l y , these functional roles (however d i s t a s t e f u l ) cannot be expected to disappear. The slum w i l l continue to serve as their haven. While most sub-communities are s o c i a l l y i f not 41 p h y s i c a l l y i s o l a t e d from one another, one common bond i s the absence and often repudiation of middle class 42 values. In contrast to middle class orientations, slum cultures tend to value personal r e l a t i o n s above ambition and goals, personal l o y a l t y above competition. Leaders and associations are rare. Social l i f e i s invested i n small groups, the family and peers. L i f e focuses on the present, not the future. A withdrawal 43 and detachment from the larger society p r e v a i l . The h o s t i l i t y , however, should not be equated with envy. The working class has l i t t l e desire to adopt middle class values. Increased wealth would enhance but not p a r t i c u l a r l y change l i f e s t y l e s . The importance of close personal relationships, e s p e c i a l l y in the working class, i s p a r t i a l l y r e f l e c t e d in the strong attachment to the neighborhood. "Home" i s not confined to the physical structure but extends into -22-the immediate area. "This view of an area as home and the significance of l o c a l people and l o c a l places are so profoundly at variance with t y p i c a l middle class orientations that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to appreciate the int e n s i t y of meaning, the basic sense of i d e n t i t y in l i v i n g in the p a r t i c u l a r a r e a . " ^ The slum neighbor-hood i s an extension of home, geographically and s o c i a l l y . The "Slum Community" The slum provides a functional framework for i t s residents. It encompasses a close network of s o c i a l t i e s which i s fundamental to working and lower class l i f e patterns. It affords residents a sense of s p a t i a l i d e n t i t y and orientation. An apparently es s e n t i a l 45 human requirement, s p a t i a l i d e n t i t y finds d i f f e r e n t i a l expression among various classes. The middle cl a s s , with i t s outward goal-directed orientation as exemplified i n the "career", i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y dependent upon a s p e c i f i c and stable place for a vi s u a l locus. Conser-vative i n nature, the working class i s highly dependent upon external s t a b i l i t y , such that when relocation does occur, individuals f i n d that their sense of s p a t i a l orientation i s fractured.^6 Social and psychological investments i n the area must be f o r c i b l y abandoned. -23-The loss of s p a t i a l orientation and the shearing of s o c i a l t i e s often induce genuine and persistent feelings of g r i e f , helplessness, despondancy, i s o l a t i o n , 47 and alien a t i o n . While many relocatees w i l l recover from th e i r i n i t i a l reactions, and e f f e c t i v e l y cope with th e i r new situations, some, t r a g i c a l l y , w i l l be over-whelmed by the experience. 4** In a study on the reloca-tion in Boston of former West End residents, Marc Fried discovered symptoms suggesting that relocation had been a severly disruptive and disturbing ordeal, even though most did eventually adapt to their new conditions. 4® "For the majority, i t seems quite precise to speak of 50 t h e i r reactions as expressions of g r i e f . " Two years after r e l o c a t i o n , 26 percent of the women s t i l l f e l t depressed. Another 20 percent had experienced a long period (6 months to 2 years) of depression. Thirty-eight percent of the men reported lengthy g r i e f reactions. Length of residence, curiously, was not found to be a c r u c i a l factor. Of greater importance was f a m i l i a -r i t y with the neighborhood. The more one knew of an area, the greater, were the chances of severe g r i e f . F a m i l i a r i t y seemed to suggest commitment to the area as "home".^ "'' -24-Similar findings were reported by Young and Willmott in their London study of the t r a n s i t i o n of families from a working class borough (Bethnal Green) 52 to a new housing estate. Again, the extended family was the primary s o c i a l u n i t . Kin served an important s o c i a l i z i n g function in i n i t i a t i n g and maintaining contact with the neighborhood community outside the 53 home. Kinship t i e s and length of residence were considered important i n developing a s a t i s f y i n g l i f e within the house and the neighborhood. The move to housing estates produced d e f i n i t e changes in l i v i n g patterns. The family could no longer depend upon near-by r e l a t i v e s for services and s o c i a l t i e s . The husband-wife rela t i o n s h i p grew stronger. The family 54 became s e l f - r e l i a n t . Two years after the move, however, families were s t i l l complaining of loneliness and i s o l a -55 t i o n . The women, p a r t i c u l a r l y , remembered the shock which accompanied their a r r i v a l . Since kin were not available for company or to provide introductions to neighbors, the family withdrew into a home-centered existence. Neighbors were seen as unfriendly, p a r t i a l l y as a re s u l t of the s p a t i a l distance between homes. Possessions replaced personal relationships as an ind i c a -56 tion of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y and status. -25-While kinship t i e s and length of residence may account for stable s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , they are not s u f f i c i e n t factors i n themselves to indicate r e s i d e n t i a l or area s a t i s f a c t i o n . A study of s o c i a l conditions i n 57 central Liverpool i n 1955-56 discovered that the most stable area of the past\contained the largest propor-58 tion of households wishing to move. Residents of the more transito r y and deteriorated areas, however, expressed l i t t l e desire to leave the area. The stable area was a working class neighborhood. Kinship t i e s and long-term residence were common. The residents, however, f e l t threatened by the s o c i a l decline of the surrounding d i s t r i c t s . In order to protect their status and provide a better environment for the i r children, they were w i l l i n g to move. This attitude i s in contrast to Boston's West End, where most households resented having to leave. The West End, however, was a t i g h t l y knit ethnic working class community. Residents were content to stay. The area was stable. No s o c i a l decline was evident or perceived. The less stable areas of Liverpool housed the lower class and the downwardly mobile individuals and households who were in an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l position from the working cl a s s . Here, the slum becomes -26-a haven and sanctuary, an area where the censure of the upper classes can be avoided. Of those studies which have cl o s e l y examined the impact of relocation on s o c i a l adjustment, most have been c r i t i c a l of the urban renewal process. Relocation remains a disruptive and s t r e s s f u l experience. For many, 59 relocation i s a c r i s i s injurious to mental health. The e l d e r l y , who often have few resources, are p a r t i -c u l a r l y l i m i t e d i n their a b i l i t y to adjust to new sit u a t i o n s . Preliminary findings suggest that their physical as well as mental health may be impaired by a forced move. Unfortunately, l i t t l e information i s available on the relocation experience of the lower classes and the s o c i a l l y marginal groups who have even fewer resources available to cope with change and stress. In New York, a woman who had been given notice to re-locate was found in her building, otherwise vacant. Too confused to move, she had remained. The woman had numerous problems, not d i r e c t l y related to housing. The forced move, however, had precipitated a c r i s i s . The incidence of similar occurences has not received documentation but can e a s i l y be surmised. New York, through one of the s o c i a l agencies connected contractu-a l l y with the relocation project, was able to help the -27-woman through the c r i s i s . Remedial aid, however, i s not the same as preventive action.61 The response to impending displacement i s not necessarily paralysis; the reaction to post-relocation conditions i s not always immeasurable g r i e f , In exami-ning the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of relocation on Boston's West End population, F r i e d concluded that s o c i a l adjust-ment to the post-relocation s i t u a t i o n i s dependent to a large degree upon an individual's readiness for change 62 or s o c i a l mobility. F r i e d concentrates on the working class community and suggests i t functions as an accultu-rat i o n mechanism for i t s residents. Rural immigrants use the community as a port of entry. Unfamiliar with urban l i v i n g , the newcomers f i n d security in many of the old-country patterns which p e r s i s t i n the community. Slowly, they become acculturated to urban, i n d u s t r i a l l i f e . Their l i f e s t y l e s and aspirations change and th e i r world view becomes less parochial. Their commit-ment to the working class community lessens. F i n a l l y , when s o c i a l l y and psychologically prepared, they leave the working class area in order to participate more f u l l y i n urban l i f e . The time an individual or family requires to complete the t r a n s i t i o n v aries. While some may make the t r a n s i t i o n within a r e l a t i v e l y short period -28-of time, others may spend th e i r l i f e t i m e within the confines of the t r a d i t i o n a l working class community, having never reached the point of c u l t u r a l and psycho-l o g i c a l readiness for the move into the larger community. Urban renewal has a d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on the residents, depending upon the progress of each i n d i v i -dual within the acculturation process at the time of displacement. While post-relocation improvements i n l i v i n g conditions may mitigate some of the adverse e f f e c t s of a premature move out of the area, the improvements can only p a r t i a l l y compensate for the d e t r i -mental consequences of relocation which occur when people 6 3 have not been inwardly prepared for such a change. When relocation does occur, usually only a few members of the working class community are ready for s o c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l mobility. For most residents, relocation provides "the se t t i n g for a major c r i s i s of t r a n s i t i o n 64 which few working class people are ready to meet." Using Fried's theor e t i c a l framework and adopting his research design to a Canadian context, Marvin Lipman has examined the e f f e c t s of relocation on former 65 T . Alexandria park residents i n Toronto. Lipman's research sample i s composed of families with school-age -29-children, since he i s interested i n the consequences of relocation for both children and adults. The sample i s s t r a t i f i e d into three ethnic groups of twenty-six families each: Portuguese f i r s t generation immigrants, other ethnic f i r s t generation immigrants, and Canadian-born residents. In analyzing the post-relocation adjustment of these f a m i l i e s , Lipman pays p a r t i c u l a r attention to indicators of preparedness for change which Fried i d e n t i -f i e d : Status (occupation, education), commitment to the working class community (strength of close-knit t i e s ) , world view (in t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the larger society and/or compatible attitudes toward the larger s o c i e t y ) , 66 and personality t r a i t s . Children seemed to adjust best to the post-relocation 67 experience. Dislocation, however, did have a d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on the adults i n the three ethnic groups. The Other-Ethnic group evidenced the most preparedness for change prior to being displaced. More than half of these families had been planning to, or were thinking of, 68 moving before renewal was announced. They tended to be the most s o c i a l l y mobile and had the greatest degree of 69 geographical dispersion. For the most part, they adjusted well to the post-relocation experience. -30-Of the three groups, the Canadian-born were the 70 least s a t i s f i e d with th e i r new s i t u a t i o n . At an average of nineteen months after displacement, many of these families s t i l l exhibited reactions of g r i e f , loneliness, and alie n a t i o n , added to th e i r s o c i a l and f i n a n c i a l problems. They f e l t out of place i n their new set t i n g and longed for the i r old neighborhood where they could again f e e l comfortable. Not prepared to leave, these households represented "the kind of 71 group most often affected by urban renewal", a group characterized by downward or s t a t i c mobility who are dependent upon the singular resources of the slum com-munity. The Portuguese were also not ready to leave the 72 working class community. Their solution to renewal was to re-establish their close-knit community on the 73 outskirts of the renewal area. Through the resources of the extended family, they were able to buy homes close to one another. Home ownership, however, did re s u l t i n the imposition of a severe f i n a n c i a l s t r a i n 74 on some of these f a m i l i e s . While noting that native b i r t h and education do not i n themselves promote post-relocation adjustment (the Canadian group had the highest education l e v e l ) , Lipman concludes that i n general his findings agree with 75 Fried's. Preparedness for change, in both studies. -31-i s singled out as the c r u c i a l variable in determining post-relocation adjustment. Limitations of Public Housing The reliance by renewal agencies on public housing to absorb families and individuals who are unable to compete for safe, decent, and sanitary housing in the private sector i s u n j u s t i f i e d by past experience. Only 20 percent of a l l displaced families i n the U. S. have 76 moved i n t o j p u b l i c housing, though 50 percent were e l i g i b l e . In Canada, a s l i g h t l y higher percentage seems to have relocated in public housing. In a review of urban renewal projects with large displaced populations (300-700 households), the median number of households moving into public housing was 27 percent. The extremes were one percent and 51 percent (see Appendix A). The decision to f i n d accommodation elsewhere, however, i s not always a voluntary one. Individuals, unless over 60 or 65, are i n many cases excluded from public housing, although otherwise e l i g i b l e . In Vancouver's Strathcona area, a survey of housing preferences revealed 686 males desiring public accommodation. Even 77 i f housing were available, one-quarter would be i n e l i g i b l e . In expressing a preference for public housing, families often assume low rental rates. Of 924 families -32-in Strathcona expressing interest i n public housing, 440 would face a rent increase over their present pay-ments. Thus, economic implications, when withheld, often 78 negate survey preferences. To many, public housing i s stigmatized by i t s i n s t i t u t i o n a l atmosphere and by a concentration of 79 lower class problem f a m i l i e s . Such housing i s rejected p a r t i c u l a r l y by the working class who value highly the s o c i a l aspects of the house and neighborhood. Often projects i n h i b i t the maintainance of fa m i l i a r s o c i a l patterns. No personal choice of neighbors e x i s t s . When maximum income c e i l i n g s are imposed, the continuity of community l i f e i s interrupted. People f e e l a lack of privacy. Isolation from the surrounding neighborhood i s imposed by stigma and often by project design. The area often seems crowded and disorganized. No community 80 structure appears to e x i s t . In an interview of r e s i -dents of Vancouver's McLean Park project, 40 percent 81 wished to begable to share accommodations with r e l a t i v e s . Public housing often disrupts communal or extended family l i f e which had prevailed among families before displace-ment. Others who were interviewed wished to engage i n 82 small enterprises i n order to supplement their incomes, 83 another common t r a i t of certain slum communities. -33-Displaced home owners usually prefer to purchase, not rent, new housing. In Strathcona, of those owners who wished to buy new homes only one-third had an annual income over $4,500. Five per cent of these owners were 84 over 55 years of age. In Vancouver, displaced owners are awarded f a i r market value for their property. Fair market value r e f l e c t s the depressed state of the prop-erty and the area, and in most cases i s considerably under replacement value. Thus, preferences of home owners are often f i n a n c i a l l y u n r e a l i s t i c , given present reimbursement standards. C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n In order to qual i f y for federal assistance, l o c a l governments in the U. S. must incorporate some 85 form of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in their renewal platform. Compliance i s usually loosely construed, such that approval of the c i t y council i s often s u f f i c i e n t . Unfortunately, individuals and communities i n renewal areas usually are l i m i t e d in their a b i l i t y to parti c i p a t e in or pro-test against renewal programs. The l i f e s tyles of the working and lower classes usually stress personal r e l a -86 tions to the exclusion of organized p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . Two attempts to involve the affected c i t i z e n s 87 d i r e c t l y have been documented i n depth. In the -34-Kenwood-Hyde Park area of Chicago, the renewal agency a c t i v e l y sought c i t i z e n support for i t s program. The emphasis was on approval, not on c i t i z e n s ' involvement in design. In e f f e c t , support was given by the white middle class in the area which would benefit most from the program. Lower class and predominantly Negro r e s i -dents who would eventually be evicted did not participate in the public meetings although they were strongly opposed to the renewal program. Even the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the middle class in the Kenwood area was a unique occurence. Many who participated were part of the University of Chicago academic community and thus repre-sented a vocal segment of an otherwise passive middle cl a s s . In analyzing the experience of New Haven, Connecticut, RobertDahl found l i t t l e public int e r e s t i n planning programs and decisions unless individuals were d i r e c t l y affected. While the middle class generally placed a higher value on community goals than the working and lower classes and maintained more of a future orienta-t i o n , active public p a r t i c i p a t i o n was s t i l l d i f f i c u l t to foster. Lower, working, and middle classes were p r i n c i p a l l y concerned with personal matters. When groups did organize, i t was usually i n response to threats or personal danger. -35-In Canada, c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n renewal programs 8 8 i s not a requirement for federal assistance. While community groups may occasionally be asked to support a p a r t i c u l a r program, there i s l i t t l e evidence to i n d i -cate, at least i n Vancouver and New Westminster, that affected residents are given a voice i n redesigning and planning clearance areas. The renewal programs i n New Westminster, Toronto, and London suggest some degree of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; the extent to which such i n -volvement i s actually incorporated into the renewal 8 9 process has yet to be adequately documented. Summary Relocation i s more than a problem of housing. Slum dwellings must be distinguished from slum communities. The attempt to condemn both has confused the relocation program. • Solutions to the relocation probelm are inex-t r i c a b l y t i e d to the housing market and often to the poverty of the community affected. Without an adequate reserve of standard and convenient housing which d i s -placed persons can afford,.slum housing i s s h i f t e d , not cl e a r e d . ^ 0 Public housing can be expected to accommodate only a small percentage of the displaced, even i f space were available, which i s usually not the case. The s e l e c t i v i t y and stigma of public housing are e f f e c t i v e deterrents to many. -36-Slum communities, as d i s t i n c t from slum housing, have been found to be viable and functional.® 1 The com-munity structure i n these areas has far from outlived i t s usefulness. The destruction of such communities i s disruptive to the society at large. It i n i t i a t e s or com-pounds serious s o c i a l problems for those displaced. In p a r t i a l acknowledgement of t h i s , renewal of late has stressed r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and selective clearance in order to maintain the continuity of community l i f e . For those who are forced to move, i t has been suggested that an attempt be made to provide housing choices within their old neighborhood. The recent renewal program for San Francisco has stressed the need for the i n i t i a t i o n of s o c i a l programs i n the renewal areas perhaps two to 92 three years before physical renewal actually begins. Education, counselling, job t r a i n i n g and placement would be emphasized. During t h i s period, physical conditions would be improved temporarily to meet minimum safety and health standards. At the end of three years, residents, hopefully, would be better prepared f i n a n c i a l l y and s o c i a l l y to cope with moving. While San Francisco's program seems quite ambi-tious, a relocation agency can do much even on a limited budget. For example, families need assistance i n finding -37-private as well as public housing. Such help i s r a r e l y provided, even though the extra cost to the relocation agency would be minimal. Perhaps of greater importance than the size or sophistication of any p a r t i c u l a r program i s the rapport established between the relocation s t a f f and the project population. A concerned and sympathetic s t a f f who have the trust and confidence of the area residents i s obviously d i f f i c u l t to achieve, but i t i s nevertheless an important prerequisite for any relocation program. In those instances where t h i s type of relationship was established, the relocation program tended to proceed smoothly with 93 often d e f i n i t e and b e n e f i c i a l r e s u l t s . To disregard t h i s aspect and impose a relocation program on an anta-gonistic public i s to court trouble. Past research has thus suggested some patterns, p r i o r i t i e s , and procedures. It has, perhaps, raised more questions than i t has answered. What such research has shown c l e a r l y , however, i s that housing i s not the only relocation issue of importance. -38-Footnotes -^ U. S. Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations, Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and  Businesses Displaced by Governments, Report No. A-26 (Washington: 1965), pp. 16-20. Martin Anderson, The Federal Bulldozer (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967, p. 4. 3Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations, l o c . c i t • 4 I b i d . , pp. 18-22. ^Ibid.. Table 4, p. 28. 6 I b i d . 7 I b i d . , p. 25. 8 Chester Hartman, "The Housing of Relocated Families", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXX, No. 4, (November, 1964), pp. 266-286. Anderson, op_. c i t . , pp. 60-65. Charles Abrams, The C i t y i s the Frontier (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1967), pp. 132-154. Peter Marris, "A Report on Urban Renewal in the United States", The Urban Condition, ed. Leonard Duhl, (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1963), pp. 151-171. 9 Hartman, l o c . c i t . 10 11 Marris, op_. cit.., p. 119. Hartman, op_. c i t . , p. 278. 1 2 A s t r i d Monson, "Relocation Program: It's not as good as i t should be - i t ' s not as bad as i t s c r i t i c s say i t i s " , Journal of Housing, No. 3 (March, 1966), p. 138. 13 Ibid. -39-14 Hartman, op_. c i t . , p. 272. Nathan Glazer, "The Renewal of C i t i e s " , C i t i e s , edited by S c i e n t i f i c American (New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1967), p. 184. "^Hartman, op_. cit.., p. 273. •^Hartman, op_. c i t . , p. 268. 1 7 G l a z e r , op_. cit.., pp. 178 & 184. 1 o E.1 Ziegler, "Objectives, Po l i c y and Require-ments in Urban Renewal", (unpublished report, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1967). 19 Herbert Gans, "The Failu r e of Urban Renewal", Urban Renewal: The Record and The Controversy, ed. James Q. Wilson (Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1966), p. 540. 20 Anderson, op_. c i t . , p. 21. 21 City of Vancouver Planning Department, Vancouver Re de ve 1 opine n t Stu dy (Vancouver, 1957), p. 18. 2 2 I b i d . 2 3 I b i d . , p. 15. 2 4 I b i d . , p. 8. 2 5 M a r r i s , op_. c i t . , pp. 117-118. James C. T.' Mao, " E f f i c i e n c y in Public Urban Renewal Expenditures through Benefit-Cost Analysis", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXII, No. 2 (March, 1966), pp. 95-107. 26 Marc Fr i e d and Joan Levin, "Some Social Functions of the Urban Slum", Urban Planning and Social P o l i c y , ed. Bernard J . Frieden and Robert Morris (New York:-Basic Books, 1968), p. 65. 27 Al v i n L. Schorr, Slums and Social Insecurity, U.' S?1 Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Social Security Administration, Division of Research and S t a t i s -t i c s , Research Report No. 1 (Washington: U. S. Government Pr i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1963), p. 12. -40-2 8 I b i d . , p. 31. 2 9 I r v i n g Rostow, "The Social E f f e c t s of the Physical Environment", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXVII, No. 2, (May, 1961), pp. 127-133. 30 Fri e d and Levin, op_. cit.., p. 65. Arthur D. L i t t l e , Inc., Community Renewal  Programming - A San Francisco Case Study, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1966). Hartman, op_. c i t . , p. 279. 3 1 C h a r l e s Vereker and John Barron Mays, Urban  Redevelopment and Social Change, (New York: Lounz, 1960), p. 4. Vere Hale, "Social E f f e c t s of Planned Rehousing", Town Planning Review, Vol. 30 (1959), pp. 161-173. Edward T. H a l l , The Hidden Dimension, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966). Lee Rainwater, "Fear and the House as Haven i n the Lower Class", Frieden and Morris, op.cit., pp. 84-94. oo Herbert Gans, The Urban V i l l a g e r s (New York: The Free Press, 1962). 3 3Community Chest and Council of the Greater Vancouver Area, Urban Renewal Scheme I I I T Lower Mount  Pleasant (Vancouver, 1966), p. 32. 3 4 C h a r l e s J. Stokes, "A Theory of Slums", Land  Economics, Vol. XXXVIII1, No. 3 (August, 1962), pp. 187-197. 3 5Rainwater, op_. ext., pp. 84-88. 3 6Gans, The. Urban V i l l a g e r s , pp. 244-246. 3 7 I b i d . 3 8Rainwater, op_. c i t . , p. 90. d y D a v i d R.1 Hunter, The Slums: Challenge and  Response (New York: The Free Press, 1964), pp. 52-61. -41-4 0 S e e l e y , op_. ext., pp. 13-15. 4 1Gans, The Urban V i l l a g e r s . 4 9 Marc Fr i e d , "Grieving for a Lost Home", The Urban Condition, op. ext.., pp. 151-171. 4 3Gans, The Urban V i l l a g e r s , pp. 229-262. 44 Fried , "Grieving....", op_. c i t . , p. 154. 4 5 I b i d . Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City ^Cambridge: The M.I .T.< Press, 1960). 4 6 F r i e d , "Grieving....", op_. c i t . , p. 157. 4 7 M i c h a e l Young and Peter Willmott, Family  and Kinship i n East London (England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1966). Vereker and Mays, op_. c i t . 48 Marc F r i e d , "Functions of the Working-Class Community i n Modern Urban Society: Implications for Forced Relocation", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXIII, No. 2~TMarch, 1967), p. 93. 4 9 F r i e d , . "Grieving. ..." , op_. c i t . 50 T,., Ibxd. 51 Ibid., p. 156. 5 2Young and Willmott, op_. c i t . 5 3 I b i d . , p. 104. Ibid., p. 146. ^^Ibid., p. 154. 5 6 I b i d . , p. 183. ^ 7Vereker and Mays, op_. c i t . 5 8 I b i d . , pp. 110 & 118. -42-5 9 F r i e d , . " G r i e v i n g . . . . " , op. c i t . , p. 152. 6 0 P a u l L;< Niebanck, The E l d e r l y i n Older Urban  Areas (Philadelphia: Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 1965). The Committee on Family and Child Welfare and the Committee on Housing and Urban Development, Demon- st r a t i o n Project in Relocation (New York: Department of Public A f f a i r s , Community Service of New York, 1962), p. 37. 62 63 Frie d , "Functions....", op_. c i t . , p;. 100. Ibid., pp. 99 & 100. 64 Ibid., p. 101. a K Marvin H. Lipman, "Relocation and Family L i f e " , (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, School of Social Work, University of Toronto, 1.968). 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77T F r i e d , "Functions....", op_. c i t . , p. 100. Lipman, op_. cit.., p. 179. Ibid., P- 106. Ibid., P- 79. Ibid., PP . 113 Ibid., P. 120. Ibid., P. 101. Ibid., P. 152. Ibid., P- 82. Ibid., P. 144. Glazer, op_. c i t . , p. 185. United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area, Urban Renewal Scheme III - Strathcona (Vancouver, 1966), p. 13. -43-7 8 I b i d . , p. 14. 79 Glazer, p_p_. c i t . , p. 186. Report of the Task Force on Housing and Urban  Development (Ottawa: The Queen's Pr i n t e r , 1969), pp. 19, 53-55. 80 Chester Hartman, "The Limitations of Public Housing i n a Working-Class Community", Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXIX, No. 4 (November, 1963), pp. 283-296. p. 13. Books, 1959). 81 Urban Renewal Scheme III - Strathcona, op. c i t . , 8 2 I b i d . , p. 17. 83 Oscar Lewis, Five Families (New York: Basic 15. 84 Urban Renewal Scheme III - Strathcona, op. c i t . , Q C Urban Renewal Manual (Washington: Urban Renewal Administration), c i t e d by Anderson, op_. c i t . , p, 18. 86 Gans, The Urban V i l l a g e r s . 87 Report of the Federal Task Force..., op_. c i t . , p. 14. James Wilson, "Planning and P o l i t i c s : C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Urban Renewal", Journal of the American  Institute of Planners. Vol. XXIX, No. 4, (November, 1963), pp. 242-249. 88 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Urban Renewal Handbook, (Ottawa), pp. 4 8s 5. 89 • -The C i t y of New Westminster Planning Department, Resident Attitude Survey - Urban Renewal Area 4 (1966), (mimeographed report). 90 Mack Meltzer, "Relocation of Families Displaced i n Urban Redevelopment: Experience i n Chicago", Urban  Redevelopment: Problems and Practices, ed. Coleman Woodbury (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 452. -44-9 1 F r i e d and Levin, op_. c i t . , p. 74. 9 2 L i t t l e , op_. cit_., pp. 116-117. 9 3Jeanne R. Lowe, C i t i e s i n a Race with Time, (New York: Random House, 1967), Chapter 5. Chapter Three: Patterns of Residential Relocation An assessment of urban renewal relocation generally begins with an examination of the location and quality of post-relocation housing. U n t i l recently, such data on the adequacy of post-relocation housing in Canada has been sparse. On a national l e v e l , Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation publishes figures only on the number of displaced households which have moved into public housing. 1 At the l o c a l level,.many munici-p a l i t i e s have f a i l e d to i n i t i a t e follow-up studies. Thus, in assessing movement patterns and housing conditions, relocation o f f i c i a l s have had to r e l y on impressionistic judgment based on f a m i l i a r i t y with the relocation program, the l o c a l community, and past U. S i experiences. U. S. Relocation Patterns In the U. S . , several federal agencies have exa-2 mined post-relocation l i v i n g conditions. Unfortunately, their reports have been c r i t i c i z e d as being neither com-prehensive nor representative assessments of relocation -46-experiences. For example, they conspicuously omit an analysis of the s p a t i a l patterning of r e l o c a t i o n . While they evaluate i n d e t a i l post-relocation housing conditions, they f a i l to i d e n t i f y the areas in which these dwellings are located. They provide no informa-tion on the number of families who have moved into standard housing within slum neighborhoods or on the number of relocatees who have moved into areas slated for future renewal. Two independent studies have examined th i s issue 4 of r e s i d e n t i a l dispersion. Both r e l y on l o c a l agency follow-up studies. These two reports examine the move-ments of displaced populations in approximately seventy renewal and public housing programs which span the years 1933-1964. In reviewing these studies, emphasis has been placed on findings which seem applicable to Canada. Since the r a c i a l issue i s a more pervasive factor in U.: S. urban r e s i d e n t i a l patterns and movements than i n Canadian, p a r t i c u l a r attention has been focussed on U. S. renewal projects which involved white or predomi-natly white populations. -47-In a study of selected U. S. urban renewal pro-i' j e c t s from 1955-1958, Harry W. Reynolds, J r . , examined the area preferences and housing selection of 42,000 relocated families i n 41 c i t i e s of varying s i z e . Since Reynolds was also interested i n the relat i o n s h i p between relocation guidance programs and housing choices, the 41 c i t i e s were s p l i t into two groups: those which offered extensive guidance counseling for displaced residents (15 c i t i e s ) and those c i t i e s which provided relocatees with a minimal amount of information and assistance (21 c i t i e s ) . Five percent of the relocatees in the 21 c i t i e s which offered l i t t l e assistance expressed a desire to remain in their old renewal neighborhood. A l i t t l e over half of a l l relocated families in this group even-t u a l l y s e t t l e d within twelve c i t y blocks, or a mile and 6 a h a l f , from their old housing. A large number of these families moved into substandard dwellings. In contrast, approximately three-quarters of those families i n the f i f t e e n c i t i e s with extensive coun-s e l i n g services chose housing in areas more than a mile and a half from their former dwellings. It should be noted that even with counseling, one quarter of the displaced population (approximately 4,000 families) did locate within a mile and a half of t h e i r former residences -48-Again, most of these families obtained substandard housing. While noting the rel a t i o n s h i p between guidance programs and bousing choices, Reynolds concludes that i n terms of preference, relocated families did desire " f a m i l i a r surroundings, whatever the condition of the housing, to decent, safe and sanitary housing that i s Q far away". While these preferences were not a l l rea-l i z e d , there was a "conspicuous tendency in v i r t u a l l y every relocation s i t u a t i o n ... for a large portion of displaced families to choose their new addresses close 9 to their old l o c a t i o n " . F i f t y - s i x and a half percent of a l l families relocated i n Reynolds' survey were non-white. 1^ Unfor-tunately, he does not provide a breakdown for individual projects. He notes, however, that the r a t i o of non-whites 11 to whites grew with increasing c i t y s i z e . Three out of every four displaced households i n c i t i e s over one m i l l i o n in population were non-white. Only three out of ten were non-white i n the smallest c i t i e s surveyed, those with a population between 100,000 and 499,999!j Nevertheless, i n each of the c i t i e s surveyed, race was found to be an important variable i n the overal l pattern 1 o of r e l o c a t i o n . i -49-Of the 33 relocation reports analyzed by Chester Hartman , seven, or approximately o n e - f i f t h , dealt with white or predominantly white populations. In six of these renewal projects, the whites comprised 83 percent or more of the t o t a l population (see Table 2). An exami-nation of Hartman's evidence shows no obvious differences in s p a t i a l relocation patterns between predominantly non-white and predominantly white population groups. Most show a concentration of displaced households around the renewal project area. In reviewing the e f f e c t of relocation on Boston's West End population (which was almost completely white), Hartman found an exception to the general cluster pattern;! The West End sample s e t t l e d throughout the Greater Boston area. Noticeably absent was a high degree of resettlement close to the project area. Areas at a five-mile radius from the West End project contained approximately the same number of displaced families as did bands closer to the West End. Also, no prominant bousing clusters formed anywhere i n the metropolitan or near suburban areas. Relocatees seemed to s e t t l e randomly throughout the general Boston area. Contributing factors possibly accounting for the wide dispersion of the dislocated families included an almost t o t a l l y white population, C H A R T 1 Selected Findings From 33 t/.5. Relocation Studies STUDY vr.w V O R K . ] 933. Lavanburg Foundation f white 1 | 26] DEST INAT ION S6 percent relocated in the joining block*" "ad-TYPE, T E N U R E tenements: 100 percent pre, 99 percent post DWELL ING SPACE Density 1.0I-\-: 50 percent pre, 47 percent post COND IT ION Living in Old Law Tenements: 96 percent pre, 83 percent post R E N T S Average monthly rent: $16 pre, SIS post A T L A N T H : C I T Y , 1936, Ncw Jer-sey State Housing Authority [97 percent non white] | 37) 39 percent within % mile percent within !j mile: 96 cent within *A mile : 83 per-/-family ,'row house: 70 per-cent pre, 62 percent post. 2-family: 15 percent pre, 18 per-cent post Average number of rooms: 6.2 pre, 5.1 post; Density /.0/-4-; 10 percent pre, 23 percent post Units unfit for use: 83 percent pre, 34 percent post; Ma/or re-pairs needed: 99 percent pre, 86 percent post Median monthly rent: $12 pre, $15 post. 48 percent paying higher rents; 29 percent paying lower rents M I W I . A P O L I S . 1 ('3£. Chapin [ra-cially mixed] f~ l , 84 percent within V* mile N . A . Little overcrowding pre- or post-relocation N . A . Average monthly rent: $16 pre, $18 post B O S T O V . 1939. Housing Associa-tion of Metropolitan Boston [primarily nonwhite] [23] N . A . N . A . 12 percent more space: 34 per-cent no change; 54 percent less space 78 percent living in "better" apartments 67 percent paying higher rents: (23 percent of those paying higher rents in worse housing) P H I L A D E L P H I A . 1 940. Philadel-phia Housing Authority [88 percent nonwhite] f32] N . A . 6 percent owners pre, 6 percent owners post N . A . Needing major repairs or unfit for use: 90 percent pre, 37 per-cent post: Good condition: 1 percent pre, 20 percent post Median monthly rent: $18 pre, $19 post D E T R O I T . 1950. Detroit Housing Commission f 17 ] N . A . N . A . Post-relocation: 27 percent douhlcd-up (no pre-relocation data available) 12 percent moved to substand-ard housing (no pre-relocation data available) N . A . C H I C A C O . 1952. Pcndciton, Hel -ler [90 percent nonwhite] T29] 36 percent within 1 mile: percent within 2 miles 59 12 percent owners pre; 9 per-cent owners post Density /.5/-J-: 24 percent pre, 27 percent post Private bath: 45 percent pre, 53 percent post: Central heat: 83 percent pre, 92 percent post 550 nr lessimonth: 94 percent pre, 62 percent post. 46 percent paying at least $16/ month more post S E W Y O R K C I T Y . 1953. City Planning Commission [12] N . A . N . A . N . A . "73 percent . . . exclusive of those who doublet! up or moved into furnished rooms or room-ing-houses obtained apartments which appeared to be standard." N . A . C H I C A G O . 1952-1954. Chicago Housing Authority [primarily nonwhite] [8] 29 percent within 1 mile; percent within 3 miles; 10 cent 5 miles or more 66 ner-1-family: 2 percent pre, 4 per-cent post; 54- dwelling units: 48. percent pre, 46 percent post Median number of rooms: 3.7 pre, 4.0 post; Density /.0/ + ; 31 percent pre, 33 percent post; Doubled-tip households: 39 per-cent pre, 36 percent post Standard: 18 percent pre, 53 percent post: Bldg. 60-4- years old: 89 percent pre, 68 percent post (Renters only.) 85 percent paying higher rents; average increase "about twice" previous rent. Median monthly rent: $37 pre, $67 post S E A T T L E . 1954, Seattle Housing Authoritv [83 percent white] .35] (Private housing only) 43 percent within I—I \\ miles 0 percent owners pre, 19 per-cent owners post N . A . N . A . V . A . A K R O N , 1955?. East Akron Com-munity House [52 percent non-white] [18] N . A . 0 percent owners pre; 38 per-cent owners post Average number of rooms: 4.0 pre, 4.7 post (Renters only) Private bath: 100 percent pre, 62 percent post Pre: $33 (all families paying same rent) Post: 70 percent paying over $50 per month, 18 percent over $75 I N D I A N A P O L I S , 1956. Community Surveys. Inc. [primarily non-white] [15] N . A . N . A . N . A . Generally improved conditions (Renters only) nearly all are paving rents . . . 100 percent—250 percent more than . . . in Area 'A* " N E W Y O R K C I T Y . 1956, Women's City Club [4] 59 percent in Manhattan (23 percent within Manhattantown area) Density 7.0/-f-; 26 percent pre, 10 percent post ing: post •crcent post: Central heat-70 percent pre, 97 percent Average monthly rent: $41 pre, $56 post 53 percent paying higher rents (Private housing only). 51 percent paying one-fifth or more of income for rent, 32 per-cent one-fourth or more. Average number of rooms: 4.3 , / rift, 4.0 post; J + rooms: 43 v%pcrccnt P<"c, 29 percent post '^.,J$5£, Morning-[ d g h t # ^ ™ * ^ " t i $ n f-pri-v ^ i ^ h i t c T Puerto Ricah ? 1 57 percent within Manhattan (.I9$j}crccnt HafJem, ,,13 percc-nt ' Washington Heights', TO percent1. Upper West Side, 15 percent other) l 31 -percent:- other New Yorkj.Cttjv... . i Average monthly rent: $51 pre, $61 post (relocated by management) r.HKAt-.o. 1957-1958. Chicapo Homing Authoritv | nonwhite] "About a third holds moved . to dwellings within the clearance .site. of the house- 19 percent owners pre, 18 pcf-othcr private- - - cent owners post the vicinity of 1—2 family house: 16 percent pre, 21 percent post Median number of rooms: 4.1 pre, 4.6 post; Density 1.01-$-: 34 percent pre, 30 percent post; Doubled-up: 33 percent pre, 34 percent post Substandard: 83 percent pre, 42 percent post: Central heating: 56 percent pre, 75 percent post Median monthly rent: $57 pre. $85 post $roa-\- month: 2 ncrccnt pre. 27 percent post Median rent income ratio: 16.6 percent pre, 26.3 percent post B O S T O N . 1958, Boston Redevel-opment Authority f primarily nonwhite 1 ] [5] 29 percent within '> mile; 45 percent within I mile; 73 per-cent within 3 miles; 16 percent 5 + miles 13 percent owners pre, 9 percent owners post Post-relocation: 77 percent standard. 14 percent substand-ard, 9 percent un reported ( no prc-relf>cation data available) P O R T L A N D . 1 '''iH.-, Slum Clear-ance and Redevelopment Au-thority [93 percent white] [36] ' 74 percent within mile, percent within 1 mile H6 22 percent owners pre, 21 per-cent owners post N . A . N . A . tinder $20/month: 50 percent pre, 17 percent post: under $30/ month: 90 percent pre, 63 per-cent post P H I L A D E L P H I A , 1958, Philadel-phia Housing Authority [ pri-marily nonwhite ? ] J 31 j 37 percent within 2 blocks, percent within 4 blocks 56 N . A . *'. . . Extent of ovcrcrowiling . . .just about as great." 37 per-cent living at densities 1.01 + post. Poor condition: 83 percent pre, 35 percent post; Good condition: 4 percent pre, 17 percent post Average monthly rent post-relo-cation 37 percent higher than pre-rclocation average. S30-\- 'month: 23 percent pre, 69 percent post P H I L A D E L P H I A . 1958, Philadel-phia Housing Asst»ciation [95 percent nonwhite] [30] 50 percent within Vi mile, 88 percent within 2 miles, 2 percent 4-f- miles N . A . Density s.oi-\-: 59 percent pre, 41 percent post Unsatisfactory housing: 100 per-cent pre, 72 percent post Median monthly rent: $33 pre, $46 post, 72 percent paying higher rents, |9 percent paying lower rents. C H I C A G O , J958. Land Clearance Commission (43 percent non-white] [10] N . A . N . A . N . A . 92 percent relocated into decent, safe housing (no pre-relocation data available) Average monthly rent: $25 pre, $51 post; $50-\- 'month: 5 percent pre, 54 percent post i -52-r e l a t i v e l y high incomes, and a low rate of vacancies within and near the renewal area. In other exceptions (renewal projects i n sections of New York and Chicago), r a c i a l factors and rapid tran-s i t systems have p a r t i a l l y accounted for leap-frogging and scatteration. Canadian Relocation Patterns The e a r l i e s t relocation report in Canada i s _ a study of relocation from Toronto's Regent Park South urban renewal s i t e . Research began in 1957 and an interim report was issued i n 1957. This study was never completed and no further documents were issued. Displacement from Regent Park South began in October, 1954, and continued for the next three years. Five hundred and sixteen households (78 percent of the displaced population) had moved by 1957. The remaining 22 percent had chosen to move into on-the-site public housing. While 78 percent (516) of the t o t a l population had relocated elsewhere, only 25 percent (132) of these families were interviewed at the time of the interim report. These 132 households comprise the population sample. -53-Prior to renewal, 57 families (43 percent of the sample population) had owned their own homes. After renewal, the number of homeowners increased to 74. While a few former owners moved into rental accommoda-17 tion s , 29 former tenants became homeowners. In terms of household composition, only 4 (3 percent) were one-person households. Seventeen (13 percent) were two-person households, and 38 (29 percent) were three-person households. Seventy-two (55 percent) households were composed of 4 or more persons. The median family income for the sample was $3,312. In moving, 50 (38 percent) of the families re-located within one mile of the renewal s i t e , 24 (18 percent) between 1.0 and 1.9 miles, and 20 (15 percent) between 2.0 and 2.9 miles. Thus, 70 percent of the sample popu-18 l a t i o n moved within three miles of the renewal area. As a group, the homeowners, and e s p e c i a l l y those home-owners who were formerly tenants, moved farthest. Of the t o t a l sample population, 85 percent made only one move. The 17 families who made multiple moves were a l l tenants. Consistent with U. S. findings, there was a general improvement i n housing conditions, but at su b s t a n t i a l l y higher rentals than they had previously -54-paid. Unfortunately, there i s no information on the number of families moving into future renewal areas. There i s also no assessment of the types of neighborhoods into which these displaced families moved. Marvin Lipman's study of relocation i n Toronto's 20 Alexandra Park was introduced in the previous chapter. His sample was taken from Block A, the f i r s t section of the renewal project to be vacated. In a l l , 260 households were displaced; over half were single-person households. Since Lipman was interested only i n families with school children, the number of e l i g i b l e sample house-holds was reduced to 89, out of which information was co l l e c t e d on 78 (5 percent l o s s ) . The sample was s t r a t i -f i e d by e t h n i c i t y . The three ethnic groups (Portuguese, f i r s t generation; Other Ethnic, f i r s t generation; and Canadian-born) contained 26 households each. For the sample as a whole, the median income was $3,833 (the Canadian-born had the lowest yearly income: $2,844). The average family size was 5.4 persons. Post-relocation information was obtained at an average of nineteen^months after displacement. In regard to r e s i d e n t i a l dispersion, 36 percent (28 households) moved less than one mile from the renewal -55-s i t e . F i f t y - t h r e e percent of the t o t a l sample moved less than two miles from the s i t e . In assessing the dispersion pattern, Lipman comments that "... income alone does not seem to account for t h i s concentration 21 of movement with in.-a two-mile radius." There were differences among the movement patterns of the three ethnic groups. Eighty-two percent of the Portuguese households, i n contrast to 29 percent of the Other Ethnic households, relocated within a mile 22 of the s i t e . Although the Canadian-born group showed the greatest degree of dispersion, t h i s was p a r t i a l l y the r e s u l t of eight families moving into a public housing project f i v e miles from the renewal s i t e . Regardless of variatio n s between groups, however, each group showed a propensity to relocate near the renewal s i t e . As i n the move from Regent Park South, there were some changes i n tenure for Alexandra Park relocatees. Homeownership increased from 35 to 47 percent (30 percent of the former tenants bought homes). The Portuguese i n p a r t i c u l a r changed from renters to homeowners. Most of the sample did improve the quality of th e i r housing. F i f t e e n percent, however, continued to l i v e i n substandard dwellings. (The highest proportion were from the Canadian group). Again, the proportion of income spent on housing rose, from a median 17.5 percent to 23.5 percent. Thirty-one families spent over 25 percent of their incometon -56-housing. Commenting on neighborhood conditions, Lipman states that "(m)ost families did not end up i n slum areas." Nineteen of the 87 households moved more than 25 once during the relocation period under study. u One family r e s e t t l e d i n an active renewal area and was d i s -placed a second time. A number of fa m i l i e s , some of whom were waiting for the completion of a public housing pro-j e c t in Alexandra Park, moved into an area (Kensington) slated for future renewal. Examining the relocation experiences of the 18 families who did move more than once, Lipman concludes that the multiple moves did not seem to be a factor in post-relocation adjustment. This may not apply to families experiencing multiple displace- ment since the degree to which the move i s voluntary may influence the adjustment of the relocatee. One other study should be mentioned. In 1967, the Community Welfare Planning Council of Winnipeg published a study on the s o c i a l e f f e c t s of relocation on families from Winnipeg's Lord Selkirk Redevelopment 26 Project. The report i s marred by the ommission of information on the sampling technique used i n obtaining the sample population. Without such information, i t i s impossible to judge the representativeness of the sample - 5 7 -or evaluate the re s u l t s of the survey. In addition, no information i s provided on patterns of r e s i d e n t i a l dispersion. While the sample i s s t r a t i f i e d into three groups (households in;public housing, households-'on the periphery of the renewal area, and households "at large" ) , t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n alone does not aid i n the analysis of s p a t i a l patterns. In comparing Canadian and U. S. dispersion patterns, i t seems f a i r to state that no observable 27 differences appear. Both Canadian and U. S. reports document a clustering of families near the renewal s i t e . It i s t h i s general tendency which provides the founda-tion for the hypotheses which follow. -58-Footnotes Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s (Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Economics and S t a t i s t i c s D i v i s i o n ) . ^Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People  and Businesses Displaced by Governments, Report No. A-26 (Washington: 1965). U. S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, "The Housing of Relocated Families: Summary of a Census Bureau Survey", Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy, ed. James Q. Wilson (Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1967), pp. 336-352. Chester Hartman, "A Comment on the HHFA Study of Relocation", Urban Renewal: The Record and the Con- troversy , op. c i t . Peter Marris, "A Report on Urban Renewal i n the United States", The Urban Condition, ed. Leonard Duhl (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 119. 4 Chester Hartman,."The Housing of Relocated Families", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXX, No. 4 (November, 1964), pp. 266-286. Harry W. Reynolds, J r . , "Population Displacement i n Urban Renewal", The American Journal of Economics and  Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (January, 1963), pp. 113-128. Harry W. Reynolds, J r . , "The Human Element i n Urban Renewal", Public Welfare, Vol. XIX, ( A p r i l , 1961), pp. 71f73, 82. 5 Reynolds, "The Human...", op_. c i t . , p. 71. 6 Ibid. 7 I b i d . , p. 82. 8 I b i d . , p. 72. ^Reynolds, "Population...", op_. cit.., p. 123. -59-1 0 I b i d . , p. 116. 1 1J_bid. 1 2 I b i d . , p. 117. Hartman, "The Housing...", op. c i t . 1 4 I b i d . , pp. 267 & 268. 1 5 I b i d . , p. 268. 16 Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, Regent Park South: Relocation Study, Interim Report, 1958. 1 7 I b i d . , pp. 46 & 47. 1 8 I b i d . , p. 44. 1 9 I b i d . , p. 52. 20 Marvin H. Lipman, "Relocation and Family L i f e " , (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, School of Social Work, University of Toronto, 1968). 2 l I b i d . . p. 79. 2 2 I b i d . oo Ibid., pp. 81 & 82. 2 4 I b i d . , p. 96. 9 ^ Ibid., p. 90. 26 A Study on Some of the Social Aspects of Urban  Renewal: A_ Detailed Investigation of the Social E f f e c t s  of Relocation upon Selected Families from a_ Renewal Area  in Winnipeg (Winnipeg: The Community Welfare Planning Council of Winnipeg, 1967). 27 'Two additional studies on urban renewal reloca-t i o n in Canada were not available for review during the research period. Relocation in Moss Park, publfehed by the Toronto Housing Authority i n 1964, includes information on pre- and post-relocation patterns, and the role of the relocation authority i n the renewal project. The second study i s a recently issued report on relocation i n Hamilton, Ontario. Chapter Four: Relocation Patterns i n Vancouver Research Hypothesis The following hypothesis has been formulated regarding urban renewal relocation patterns i n Vancouver: H^ = The given displaced population w i l l exhibit a tendency to relocate within one mile of the renewal s i t e . This hypothesis has evolved from a reading of Canadian and U. S. theoreti c a l and empirical studies r e l a t i n g to rel o c a t i o n . The theory of s o c i a l behavior and mobility outlined in the Boston studies of Marc Frie d , the exten-sion and examination of Fried's theories i n a Canadian context by Marvin Lipman, and the summary findings of Reynolds and Hartman regarding relocation patterns have been p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s t r u c t i v e . Fried and Lipman have shown that the working class area functions as an acculturation mechanism for r u r a l and foreign immigrants and as a sanctuary for downwardly mobile in d i v i d u a l s . When renewal disrupts the community, only a few households are prepared to enter the larger urban community. Most t r y to r e - e s t a b l i -61 their l i v i n g patterns i n other communities similar to t h e i r own. Parochial in outlook, the displaced population i s familiar with few r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s outside of the immediate neighborhood. Thus they tend to r e s e t t l e i n neighboring, low-income areas. The r e l a t i v e ease of moving close by also contributes to t h i s relocation pattern. If housing i s unavailable in the general area, then the displaced population tends to move into the nearest community compatible with their l i f e s tyles in which housing can be found. Assuming the absence of any intervening variables, such as a severe low-income housing shortage nearby, i t i s hypothesized that the given displaced population from Vancouver's Renewal Project II w i l l tend to s e t t l e within one mile of th e i r former homes. (Relocation patterns elsewhere suggest one mile as a suitable distance). The Research Population The research population i s composed of a l l si n g l e -and multiple-person households displaced by Vancouver's Urban Renewal Project II who did not move into public housing (338 households). The term displaced households refers to those households surveyed by the municipality 1 prior to displacement. -62-The Research Area Post-relocation addresses have been plotted within the boundaries of Vancouver, North Vancouver, West Vancouver and Burnaby. Method of Inquiry and Treatment of Data 1. Vancouver C i t y Directories (1964-1968) have been used to trace address changes. 2. Post-relocation addresses have been plotted on a municipal base map (see Map p. 62A). In instances in which households have made multiple moves during the period of 1964-1968, only the f i r s t post-relocation address has been recorded. 3. The distance each displaced household has moved has been measured i n one-mile u n i t s . The points of reference for the measurements are the pre-location block of residence and the post-location block of r e s i -dence. The shortest street route between the two points has been measured and recorded. 4. The major research hypothesis, E-^, has been tested by a Difference of Proportions Test at a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The n u l l hypothesis i s one of no s i g n i -f i c a n t difference between the proportion of the population which located within one mile of the renewal s i t e and the proportion which located beyond one mile of the renewal s i t e . -63-5. Where available, the following information has been recorded for each displaced household: a. street distance between pre- and post-relocation housing, b. size of the household, c. age of the head of the household, d. sex of the head of the household, e. ethnic background (Chinese or non-Chinese) of the head of the household, f. t o t a l yearly family income, g. number of children under 18. h. rent paid for the pre-relocation dwelling. i . l o cation of post-relocation housing (in or out of present or proposed renewal area). 6. This information has been tabulated and i s presented i n percentage and absolute figures for three population groups (see Appendix B)*. a. Pt = t o t a l given displaced population (338 households), b. P-^  = that portion of the displaced popu-l a t i o n for which post-relocation addresses were found (73 households) , c. P 2 = that portion of the displaced popu-l a t i o n for which post-relocation addresses were not found (265 households). -64-7. A Chi Square test has been used to evaluate differences between the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sub-populations P-^  and Pg. The l e v e l of significance has been set at .05, and the n u l l hypothesis i s one of no difference between the two groups with respect to the variables examined. The operational variables tested are e t h n i c i t y , households with children under 18, age of household head, and size of household. The remaining variables have been excluded due to incomplete data. 8. Settlement patterns are p a r t i a l l y shaped by the nature of the neighboring communities. A socio-economic scale of l o c a l d i s t r i c t s i n Vancouver has been used to examine the area which borders on the Project II renewal s i t e . This scale i s adopted from Local Areas of  Vancouver, a 1967 publication of Vancouver's United Community Services. Based on 1961 Census information, the socio-economic scale i s derived from three variables: income, occupational status, and educational achievement. Socio-economic structure, along with housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (lot s i z e , age of house, type of dwelling, value of the house) contributed to the demarcation of each l o c a l area i n Vancouver. (See Appendix C). Results Three hundred and t h i r t y - e i g h t displaced house-holds from Vancouver's Renewal Project 2 did not move into -65-public housing. With the aid of Vancouver c i t y d i r e c -t o r i e s (1964-1968), the post-relocation addresses of 73 of these households have been traced and plotted (Map p. 62A). The distance each household moved has been measured and tabulated: Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Freq. 44 7 7 7 2 1 2 0 1 2 73 % 60.27 9.59 9.59 9.59 2.74 1.37 2.74 .00 1.37 2.74 100.00 Code (Distance Moved): 1=0.0-1.0 mile; 2=1.1-2.0 miles; 3=3.1-4.0 miles, etc... Forty-four or 60.27 percent of the t o t a l sample of 73 households moved within one mile of t h e i r former addresses. Twenty-nine or 39.73 percent relocated at a distance of 1.1 to 9.0 miles from t h e i r former addresses. The research hypothesis states that the given displaced population (73 households) w i l l exhibit a tendency to relocate within one mile of the renewal s i t e . The n u l l hypothesis asserts that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the proportion of the given displaced population which located within one mile of the renewal s i t e and the proportion which located beyond one mile of the renewal s i t e . A difference of proportions test has been selected to evaluate the findings. The l e v e l of significance i s set at .05. A one t a i l test i s employed -66-since the d i r e c t i o n of bias has been predicted. p s " p u .60-.50 Z = = = 1.73 P u q u /N (.50)(.50)/73 Using the above formula, a Z of 1.73 i s obtained. The c r i t i c a l region i s a Z value,1.65. The Z value of 1.73 w i l l occur by chance less than 5 times out of a hundred. Therefore, the n u l l hypothesis i s rejected and the research hypothesis i s accepted. For t h i s given d i s -placed population, there i s a tendency to relocate within one mile of the renewal s i t e . Since the given displaced population of 73 house-holds was not randomly drawn, the findings cannot be s t a t i s t i c a l l y projected to the t o t a l population of 338 displaced households. That the observed relocation pattern applies to the t o t a l of displaced households can be t e n t a t i v e l y assessed by comparing the characteris-t i c s of the 73 households included i n the sample (P^) with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 265 households who were not located ( P 2 ) • Unfortunately, l i m i t e d and incomplete data severely r e s t r i c t the number of demographic features which can be compared. Those variables evaluated through the use of a Chi Square at a .05 l e v e l of significance -67-are e t h n i c i t y (Chinese-Non-Chinese), age of the head of the household, size of the household, and composi-tion of the household (households with children under 18). The r e s u l t s of the comparison are reported f u l l y i n the Appendix. Of the four demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s examined, two varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the two relocatee groups. In the sample of 73 households (P^), households with children under 18 were over-represented. The sample, however, under-represented one-person households. In view of the limited data available and the s i g n i f i c a n t differences evident in the comparisons which have been possible, even a tentative assessment of the t o t a l pattern of relocation must be approached with caution. Thirty-four of the 73 households traced moved into present and proposed renewal s i t e s . A comparison of those households who moved outside of renewal areas with those who located within renewal boundaries i n d i -cates that one-person households are s i g n i f i c a n t l y over-represented in the l a t e r group. This finding i s not su r p r i s i n g . The displaced population i s composed of a large number of e l d e r l y and single individuals — a group often highly involved i n and dependent on the community -68-l i f e of the renewal area. More of a physical, psycho-l o g i c a l , and s o c i a l hardship than for younger individuals and fa m i l i e s , relocation for the e l d e r l y i s often a move close by. A breakdown of single households i n the displaced population l o s t froimrsight w i l l show a high number of e l d e r l y i n d i v i d u a l s . It i s suggested that some have died of old age and others have probably moved within the renewal area but were missed when the area was can-vassed (25 percent of the household heads i n the l o s t relocatee population were 70 years of age and older). The younger single i n d i v i d u a l s , being more mobile than the e l d e r l y , have probably l e f t Vancouver. Thus, death, the r e l a t i v e ease with which single individuals can become l o s t i n a major c i t y , and the transient nature of younger individuals a l l provide p a r t i a l explanations for the under-representation of single persons i n the sample of displaced households who were traced (P^). Limitations of the Study This study has been subject to a number of re-s t r i c t i o n s . .. 1. The non-random nature of the sample precludes the projection of the r e s u l t s to the larger displaced population and r e s t r i c t s the use of s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . - 6 9 -2. I n s u f f i c i e n t data on the t o t a l displaced population prevents a comprehensive comparison of the backgrounds of those households who were located with those households who were l o s t . 3. The research population i s lim i t e d to only those displaced households who were surveyed by the municipality. It excludes (a) households missed when the area was canvassed, (b) families which moved into the renewal area subsequent to the survey but prior to di s l o c a t i o n , and (c) residents who, apprehensive over the forthcoming renewal a c t i v i t y in the area, moved away prior to the survey. 4. Even though traced with caution, some of the relocation addresses may be inaccurate. Using c i t y d i r e c t o r i e s presents a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s . Names are not always easy to trace from year to year. For example, i s A. Smith, plumber, of 334 Seymour the same person as Albert J . Smith, plumber, of 1127 1st Avenue in the following year's directory when no A.; Smith of Seymour i s l i s t e d . Occupation changes and s l i g h t a l t e r a -tions i n the s p e l l i n g of the family name often complicate the search. Also, a family may be l o s t for the f i r s t year after relocation and appear i n the following year's -70-directory. Does t h i s l i s t i n g represent their f i r s t permanent post-relocation address? 5. One of the major l i m i t a t i o n s has been the inadequacy of the pre-relocation data. Information on households i s occasionally incomplete. For example, a name but no renewal area address, or a f i r s t i n i t i a l with a popular l a s t name. Pre-relocation data on income and occupation, dwelling size and rent are not always recorded for each displaced household. Had names been f u l l y and accurately recorded, the number of l o s t families would quite possibly have been reduced s u b s t a n t i a l l y . -71-Footnotes I f , after r e l o c a t i o n , the members of a household separate (occasionally the case when unre-lated persons occupying the same dwelling move), then each member i s treated as a separate household. ^Barry W. Mayhew, Local Areas of Vancouver, (Vancouver: United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area, Research Department, 1967), pp. 9-11. 3Hubert M;1 Blalock, Social S t a t i s t i c s (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960), pp. 141-152. Chapter Five: Conclusion If relocation i s to be an e f f e c t i v e instrument of change, i t i s es s e n t i a l that the consequences of present and past programs be known. Geographic d i s -persion patterns, along with information on pre- and post-relocation housing conditions and costs, form the basis for and i n i t i a l assessment of the e f f e c t s of relocation on the displaced population. Alone, geogra-phic dispersion patterns are useful to the extent that they suggest probable relocation experiences. In the case of Vancouver, an examination of movement patterns i s seen as an exploratory probe into the s o c i a l and economic e f f e c t s of rel o c a t i o n . In interpreting the dispersion patterns of the research sample, tentative statements w i l l be made regarding the consequences of reloc a t i o n . Confirmation or refutation w i l l have to await further research. Interpretation of Data In terms of the research hypothesis, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency for the 73 households in the -73-research sample to relocate within one mile of the renewal s i t e . Of the 44 households who did re s e t t l e within one mile, 34 relocated i n present and proposed renewal areas. By d e f i n i t i o n , these areas are charac-ter i z e d by blighted or substandard conditions.^ The dispersion pattern suggests that relocation has had a d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on the displaced popula-t i o n . While some people have probably improved their l i v i n g conditions, for a large number of fa m i l i e s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y for single persons (who were disproportion-ately high i n the renewal area) , housing conditions either have remained the same or have been impaired by reloc a t i o n . A long-term housing shortage, p a r t i c u l a r l y for low-income groups, suggests that relocation has resulted in the further overcrowding of low-income dwellings and probably in the premature deterioration of part of the c i t y ' s housing stock. The absence of r e a d i l y available and relevant relocation services during displacement from Project II also indicates that many families have s e t t l e d in substandard dwellings. (Sensitive and thorough relocation counseling, when present, tends to increase the proportion of households lodging i n standard housing) .< - 7 4 -Th e nature of the neighborhoods near the renewal s i t e and the f a m i l i a r i t y of families with housing oppor-t u n i t i e s elsewhere are both factors which aff e c t geographic dispersion. A more dominant influence i n relocation patterns i s the degree to which households are prepared for a change or for s o c i a l mobility. The resettlement pattern of the research sample suggests that few renewal area residents were s o c i a l l y or psycho-l o g i c a l l y prepared to abandon the sub-culture of the working class or low-income area. Many of the house-holds who r e s e t t l e d within one mile probably found relocation to be a disruptive and disturbing experience. Sixty-six percent (265) of the displaced popula-tion which did not move into public housing has been l o s t from sight. For the most part, t h i s i s a r e f l e c t i o n on the inadequacy of pre-relocation household data, the technique of using only c i t y d i r e c t o r i e s for tracing moves, and the time lapse between relocation and research (relocation period: February 1965 to summer, 1968). It i s d i f f i c u l t to estimate the number of house-holds out of a t o t a l of 265 who could be described along with other l o s t relocation populations i n Canada and the U. S. as "the least stable, most transient group 2 in the area..." Past experience indicates that t h i s -75-group, having few resources, w i l l "probably fare far worse than those families ... whose whereabouts are 3 known.1" In respect to the disproportionately high number of single persons i n the l o s t Project II population, t h i s may possibly r e s u l t from the r e l a t i v e ease with which single individuals can become l o s t i n a large c i t y , the transient nature of many single persons, and in the case of the e l d e r l y , death from old age. A l t e r -natively, the disproportionately low number of families with children in the l o s t population i s probably a consequence of the r e l a t i v e l y stable nature of t h i s type of household. Planning P o l i c i e s A thorough evaluation of present relocation p o l i c i e s i s contained in Marvin Lipman's "Relocation and Family L i f e " . 4 The empirical and background research undertaken in t h i s study suggests that several issues should be stressed. 1. Comprehensive and comparative knowledge of the consequences of relocation i s required i f renewal programming i s to improve. Local agencies, for the most part, have not examined the e f f e c t s of present relocation p o l i c i e s . I t i s recommended that Central -76-Mortgage and Housing Corporation add relocation follow-up studies to their l i s t of renewal requirements. 2. The objectives of urban renewal should be c l e a r l y stated by both l o c a l and federal agencies. At present, federal and l o c a l agencies seem to stress d i f f e -rent and often c o n f l i c t i n g goals. If the s o c i a l welfare of the resident population i s a major concern of federal l e g i s l a t i o n , i t should be a r t i c u l a t e d within major renewal publications (e.g. Urban Renewal Scheme Preparation Hand- book) . 3. If the s o c i a l welfare of the residents i s defined as a major renewal goal, then (a) relocation should be an integral rather than a n c i l l a r y part of renewal programming, and (b) the needs (andanot simply housing) of the area population should be examined pr i o r to renewal and considered c a r e f u l l y in renewal strategy. For example, i f most of the residents seem dependent on the l i f e of the community, renewal might best take the form of a conservation program which would leave community l i f e i n t a c t . Suggestions for Further Study 1. Most of the conclusions regarding the e f f e c t s of relocation on the sample population are at this point tentative. The next step i s to contact these householders -77-and thoroughly examine their relocation experiences. While r e c a l l may present a problem, i t should be possible to determine some of the major consequences of relocation. Hopefully, such a study would provide additional informa-tion on the r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l and geographic mobility.^ 2. The e f f e c t of relocation on displaced businesses has not been examined yet within the Canadian context. Research might be extended i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . -78-Foot notes •'•City of Vancouver Planning Department, Urban  Renewal i n Vancouver, Progress Report No. 7_, (Vancouver, 1966), p. 2. 2Chester Hartman, "The Housing of Relocated Families", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXX, No. 4, (November, 1964), p. 282. See also Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, Regent Park South: Relocation Study, Interim Report (1958), p. 6. Hartman, op_. c i t . ^Marvin H. Lipman, "Relocation and Family L i f e " , (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, School of Social Work, University of Toronto, 1968). ^For a study which has recently explored the re l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l and geographic mobility, see M. Lindeman, "The Nodular Metropolitan Concept; Some Social and Spatial Aspects", (unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968). ^Two extensive U. S. studies on the e f f e c t s of relocation on small businesses are B a s i l G. Zimmer, Rebuilding C i t i e s , (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964), and Brian J . L.1 Berry, Sandra J . Parsons, and Rutherford H. P i a t t , The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Business f (Chicago: Center for Urban Studies, The University of Chicago, 1968). -79-Bibliography Books Abrams, Charles. The C i t y i s the Fro n t i e r . New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1967. Anderson, Martin. The Federal Bulldozer. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. Blalock, Hubert M;< Social S t a t i s t i c s , Chapter I I . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in  an American C i t y . Chapters 10, 12, 24, 25, 26. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964. Gans, Herbert. The Urban V i l l a g e r s . New York: The Free Press, 1962. H a l l , Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966. Hunter, David R. The Slums: Challenge and Response. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Lewis, Oscar. Five Families. New York: Basic Books, 1959. L i t t l e , Inc., Arthur D. Community Renewal Programming -A San Francisco Case Study. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1966. Lowe, Jeanne, R. C i t i e s in a_ Race with Time, Chapter 5. New York: Random House, 1967. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the C i t y . Cambridge: The M.'T.T. Press, 1960. Niebanck, Paul L. The E l d e r l y i n Older Urban Areas. Philadelphia: Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 1965. Schorr, A l v i n L. Slums and Social Insecurity. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Social Security Administration Di v i s i o n of Research and S t a t i s t i c s , Research Report No. 1. Washington: U. S;! Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1963. -80-Th omps on , Wilbur. Preface to Urban Economics, Chapters 6 & 8. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. Vereker, Charles and Mays, John Barron. Urban Redevel- opment and Social Change. New York: Lounz, 1960. Young, Michael and Willmott, Peter. Family and Kinship  in East London. England: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1968. A r t i c l e s Adamson, R. T. "Housing Policy and Urban Renewal", Urban Studies: A Canadian Perspective, edited by N. H. Lithwick and G i l l e s Paquet. Toronto: Methuen Publications, 1968, pp. 222-239. Fried , Marc. "Functions of the Working-Class Community in Modern Urban Society: Implications for Forced Relocation", Journal of the American Institute of  Planners. Vol.. XXXIII, No. 2 (Mar^h, 1967), pp. 90-103. Fried , Marc. "Grieving for a Lost Home", The Urban  Condition, edited by Leonard Duhl. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1963, pp. 151-171. Fr i e d , Marc and Levin, Joan. "Some Social Functions of the Urban Slum", Urban Planning and Social  Policy, edited by Bernard J . Frieden and Robert Morris, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. Gans, Herbert. "The Failure of Urban Renewal", Urban  Renewal: The Record and the Controversy, edited by James Q Wilson. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1966. Glazer, Nathan. "The Renewal of C i t i e s " , C i t i e s , edited by S c i e n t i f i c American. New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1967, pp. 175-191. Hale, Vere. "Social E f f e c t s of Planned Rehousing", Town  Planning Review. Vol. 30 (1959), pp. 161-173. Hartman, Chester. "A Comment on the HHFA Study of Relocation", Urban Renewal: The Record and the  Controversy, edited by James Q. Wilson. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1967. -81-Hartman, Chester. "The Housing of Relocated Families", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXX, No. 4 (November, 1964), pp. 266-286. Hartman, Chester. "The Limitations of Public Housing in a Working-Class Community", Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXIX, No. 4 (November, 1963), pp. 283-296. Meltzer, Jack. "Relocation of Families Displaced in Urban Redevelopment: Experience in Chicago", Urban Redevelopment: Problems and Practices, edited by Coleman Woodbury. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 407-459. Mao, James C. T. " E f f i c i e n c y in Public Urban Renewal Expenditures through Benefit-Cost Analysis", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXII, No. 2 (March, 1966), pp. 95-107. Morris, Peter. "A Report on Urban Renewal i n the United Stateis", The Urban Condition, edited by Leonard Dubl. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1963, pp. 113-134. Monson, A s t r i d . "Relocation Program: I t ' s not as good as i t should be - i t ' s not as bad as i t s c r i t i c s say i t i s " , Journal of Housing, No. 3 (March, 1966), pp. 136-141. Rainwater, Lee. "Fear and the House as Haven i n the Lower Class", Urban Planning and Social P o l i c y , edited by Bernard J . Frieden and Robert Morris. New York: Basic Books, Inc. ^  1968. Reynolds J r . , Harry W. "The Human Element i n Urban Renewal". Public Welfare, Vol. XIX ( A p r i l , 1961), pp. 71-73, 82. Reynolds J r . , Harry W. "Population Displacement in Urban Renewal", The American Journal of Economics and  Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 1, (January, 1964), pp. 113-128. Rostow, Irving. "The Social E f f e c t s of the Physical Environment", Journal of the American Institute of  Planners, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. (May, 1961), pp. 127-133. Seeley, John R. "The Slums: Its Nature, Use and Users", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXV, No. 1 (February, 1959), pp. 7-14. -82-Stokes, Charles J . "A Theory of Slums", Land Economics, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (August, 1962), pp. 187-197. U. S. Housing and Home Finance Agency. "The Housing of Relocated Families: Summary of a Census Bureau Survey", Urban Renewal: The Record and the Contro- versy, edited by James Q. Wilson. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1967, pp. 336-352. Wilson, James Q. "Planning and P o l i t i c s : C i t i z e n P a r t i c i -pation in Urban Renewal", Journal of the American  Institute of Planners, Vol. XXIX, No. 4 (November, 1963), pp. 242-249. Public Documents and Reports Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Economics and S t a t i s t i c s D i v i s i o n . Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s . Ottawa. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Questions and  Answers on the Urban Renewal and Public Housing  Provisions of the National Housing Act. Ottawa, 1966. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Urban Renewal  Scheme Preparation Handbook. Ottawa. City of New Westminster Planning Department. Resident  Attitude Survey - Urban Renewal Area 4. 1966... Mimeographed Report. City of Vancouver Planning Department. Urban Renewal in Vancouver, Progress Report No. 7. Vancouver, 1966. City of Vancouver Planning Department. Vancouver redevelop- ment Study. Vancouver, 1957. Committee on Family and Child Welfare and the Committee on Housing and Urban Development. Demonstration Project on Relocation. New York: Department of Public A f f a i r s , Community Service of New York, 1962. Community Chest and Council of the Greater Vancouver Area. Urban Renewal Scheme I I I . Lower Mount Pleasant. Vancouver, 1966. -83-Community Welfare Planning Council of Winnipeg. A Study  on Some of the Social Aspects of Urban Renewal: A Detailed Investigation of the Social E f f e c t s of  Relocation Upon Selected Families from a_ Renewal  Area in Winnipeg, 1967. Councils Division of the Canadian Welfare Council. Inte- gration of Physical and Social Planning with Special  Reference to Public Housing and Urban Renewal, Report No. 1, Ottawa, 1967. Councils D i v i s i o n of the Canadian Welfare Council. Inte- gration of Physical and Social Planning with Special  Reference to Neighborhood Services and C i t i z e n P a r t i - cipation , Report No. 2, Ottawa1, 1968. Mayhew, Barry W. . Local Areas of Vancouver. Vancouver: United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area, Research Department, 1967. Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. Regent Park South:  Relocation Study, Interim Report, 1958. United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area. Urban Renewal Scheme III - Strathcona. Vancouver, 1966. U. S. Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations. Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and Businesses  Displaced by Governments. Report No. A-26. Washington: U. S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1965. Unpublished Material Lipman, Marvin H. "Relocation and Family L i f e " , unpub-li s h e d Ph.D. Thesis. School of Social Work, University of Toronto, 1968. Ziegler, E. "Objectives, P o l i c y and Requirements in Urban Renewal", Unpublished Report. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1967. APPENDIX A Relocated Households in Public Housing Expressed as a Percentage of the Total Displaced Population - Select Projects Location Name Total Households Displaced Total Into Public Housing Saint John, N ,'B ; Courtney Place 553 283 51% Vancouver Project I 461 184 40% Vancouver Project II 514 153 30% Toronto Don Mount V i l l a g e 312 83 27% Toronto Alexandra Park 807 183 22% Winnipeg Lord Selkirk Park 679 57 8% Montreal Dorchester St. 429 4 1% "Source: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Vancouver. APPENDIX B An Examination of the Relationship Between Displaced Population Groups and Select Demographic Characteristics -Urban Renewal Project 2, Vancouver S t a t i s t i c a l Test: Chi Square Level of Significance = .05 Null Hypothesis: There i s no difference between the two groups with respect to the variables examined. Code: P-^  = that portion of the displaced population for which post-relocation addresses were found (73 households). P2 = that portion of the displaced population for which post-relocation addresses were not found (265 households). P l ( a ) = that portion of P^ which relocated out-side present and proposed renewal s i t e s . P-L ( D) = that portion of P^ which relocated within present and proposed renewal s i t e s . Relationship between Relocation Groups and E t h n i c i t y . Non-Chinese Chinese Total P x 58.00 15.00 73.00 P 2 183.00 81.00 264.00 Total 241.00 96.00 Chi Squared = 2.8828 1 Degree of Freedom No s i g n i f i c a n t difference found between these two variables. Relationship between Relocation Groups and Age of Head of Household. 39 yrs 60 yrs and under 4 0 - 5 9 y r s and over T o t a l P± 15.00 27.00 21.00 63.00 P 2 27.00 88.00 88.00 203.00 Total 42.00 115.00 109.00 Chi Squared = 4.5427 2 Degrees of Freedom No s i g n i f i c a n t difference found between these two variables. 3. Relationship between Relocation Population Groups and Households with Children under 18 Years^of Age. c 2 Total Households with children under 18 22.00 27.00 49.00 Households with no children Total under 18 51.00 73.00 238.00 265.00 289.00 Chi Squared = 18.3740 1 Degree of Freedom Data indicate a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between these two variables. 4. Relationship between Population Groups and Size of Household. Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 6 or Total more P x 34.00 15.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 4.00 73.00 P 2 192.00 33.00 12.00 13.00 5.00 9.00 264.00 Total 226.00 48.00 19.00 19.00 12.00 13.00 Chi Squared = 22.2593 5 Degrees of Freedom Data indicate a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between these two variables. Relationship between Relocation Groups Ide n t i f i e d by Settlement Patterns and E t h n i c i t y . Non-Chinese Chinese Total P.,, N 31.00 8.00 39.00 1(a) P;L(D) 27.00 7.00 34.00 Total 58.00 15.00 Chi Squared = 0.0001 1 Degree of Freedom No s i g n i f i c a n t difference found between these two variables. Relationship between Relocation Groups Id e n t i f i e d by Settlement Patterns and Age of Head of Household. 39 yrs 40-59 yrs 60 yrs Total and under and over P w » 10.00 16.00 9.00 35.00 1(a) P l ( b ) 5 ' 0 0 11.00 13.00 29.00 Total 15.00 27.00 22.00 Chi Squared = 2.1501 2 Degrees of Freedom No s i g n i f i c a n t difference found between these two variables. 7. Relationship between Relocation Groups I d e n t i f i e d by Settlement Patterns and Households with Children Under 18. P K a ) P2(a) Total Households with children under 18 15.00 7.00 22.00 Households with no children Total under 18 24.00 27.00 51.00 39.00 34.00 Chi Squared = 2.7560 1 Degree of Freedom No s i g n i f i c a n t difference found between these two variables. 8. Relationship between Relocation Groups Ide n t i f i e d by Settlement Patterns and Size of Household. Ka) 12.00 2 9.00 P 1 ^ 2 2 . 0 0 6.00 Total 34.00 15.00 Number of Persons 3 and 4 8.00 5.00 13.00 5 or more 10.00 1.00 11.00 Total 39.00 34.00 Chi Squared = 11.3077 3 Degrees of Freedom Data indicate a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between these two variables. APPENDIX C Socio-Economic Ranking of Local Areas i n Vancouver (Lower numbers indicate higher ranking) Shaughnessy 8.4 Kerrisdale 8.6 Arbutus-Ridge 11.3 West Point Grey 12.1 Dunbar-Southlands 14.7 Oakridge 29.1 West End 43.5 Marpole 48.0 Kil l a r n e y 57.0 L i t t l e Mountain 70.0 Fairview 71.2 Sunset 78.0 Victoria-Fraserview 80.6 Renfrew-Collingwood 89.3 Mount Pleasant 95.0 Riley Park-Kensington 96.8 Cedar Cottage 99.5 Hastings East 100.5 Woodland-Grandview 108.0 CBD 109.0 Strathcona 117.0 Source: Barry W. Mayhew, Local Areas of  Vancouver (Vancouver: United* Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area, ReseaYrch Department, 1967), (Appendix 3. LOCAL AREA BOUNDARIES STANLEY PARK BURRARD INLET WEST ' APPENDIX D ENGLISH BAY .END £s C.B.D. i ait HASTINGS EAST KITSILANO IFAIRVIEWig 11—• MOUNT ; ^PLEASANT j j .BROADWAY _ St. UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LANDS </> CEDAR DUNBAR- ;S SOUTHLANDS!-LITTLE l i MOUNTAIN l5 ^ fS R E N F R E W -•I RILEY P A R K - ^ /iCOLLINGWOOD % KENSINGTON --41st - AVE. — — I SWAY. 4 S KERRISDALE MILE OAKRIDGE 1„1 MARPOLE SUNSET g VICTORIA-! RASERVIEW KILLARNEY FRASER RIVER FIGIIRF 7 Select Demographic Characteristics of the Displaced Population-Urban Renewal Project 2, Vancouver MVTAB Code DIST .EQ. '0' = Those displaced households for which post-relocation addresses were not found (265 households). DIST .NE. '0' = those displaced households for which post-relocation addresses were found (73 households). URAREA .EQ. '1' = those displaced households which relo-cated in present and proposed renewal sites. DIST = distance displaced household moved: 1 = 0-1.0 mile; 2 = 1.1-2.0 miles; 3 = 2.1-3.0 miles... 9 = 8.1-9.0 miles; A = 9.1-10.0 miles. ETHNIC = ethnicity of household: 1 = Non-Chinese 2 = Chinese HSEHLD = size of household: 1 = 1 person household; 2 = 2 person household, etc... AGE = age of head of household: 3 = 20-29 years of age; 4 = 30-39 ... 9 = 80-89, A = 90-99; B = 59 and under; C = 60 and over. SEX = sex of head of household: 1 = Male 2 = Female OCCUP = occupation of head of household: 1 = white collar; 2 - blue collar; 3 = pension; 4 = welfare; 5 = unemployment insurance. INCM = yearly income of household: 1 = 0-$999; 2 = $1,000-1,999 ... 9 = $8,000-8,900; A = $9,000-9,999; B = $10,000-10,999... CHILD = no. of children under 18 in the household: 1 = 1 child; 2 = 2 children...8 = 8 children; 9 = no children. RENT = rent of pre-relocation dwelling: 1 = 0-$9; 2 = $10-19... URAREA = location of post-relocation housing: 1 = in present and proposed urban renewal areas 2 = outside of present and proposed urban renewal areas. JOB NUMBER 2 1 0 0 9 CATEGORY F USE* »S NAME- HAROLD SHAPIRO U S E R ' S P R D J E C T -* * * * * * * * THE COMPUTING CENTR-E WILL Be CLOSED GOOD FRIDAY AND EASTER MONDAY APR 4TH , AMD 7 T H . — * * * * H E 5 U L A I t SERVICE SATURDAY APR I L 5 JOB START 15HRS 25MIN 2 7 . 3 S E C V9M011 QN~LINE &D890 DATE 0 4 / 0 9 / 6 9 SJOB 21009 H SHAPIRO ^execute mrm CARO DEF 3 * 0 I S T , 9 * E T H N l C t l5 * H S E H L D t 21 3*AGE t 27=SEXt 3 3 « 0 C C U P t 3 9 - i N C M * 45* C H I L D * 51*RENT# 57 *URAREA . SET 81 TO IF (D I ST . E Q . • I* .OR. D IST . E Q . » 2 M « ! • / ELSE » 2 V . TABLES (FM2) ETHNIC HSEHLD AGE SEX OCCUP INCH CH ILD RENT URAREA IFtD IST, . E Q . »0») ( FMZJ ETHNIC HSEHLD AGE SEX OCCUP CH I LD RENT INCH/ I F (D I ST .NE. » 0 M (FMZI DIST ETHNIC HSEHLD AGE SEX OCCUP CHILD RENT INCH/ I F (URAREA .EQ. U » K t F M l ) ETHNIC HSEHLO AGE SEX OCCUP CHILD RENT INCM/ 81 -ETHN IC END r UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF ETHNIC <CC9) ^ FREQUENCY TABLE  f| NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 241 96 337 PERCENT , 0 0 7 1 . 5 1 2 8 , 4 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF HSEHLD I C C 1 5 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 226 48 19 19 12 6 1 5 1 337 PERCENT . 0 0 6 7 . 0 6 1 4 . 2 4 5 . 64 5 . 6 4 3 , 5 6 1 .78 . 3 0 1*46 . 3 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 K UN IVAR IATE TABLE CF AGE (CC211 FREQUENCY TA8LE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B TOTAL RESPONSE 0" 0" 0 R IB 4~7 57 5U 43 HS 2 TI 2 3 F PERCENT . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 5 . 2 2 1 0 . 4 5 1 7 . 5 4 2 1 . 2 7 1 8 . 6 5 1 7 . 1 6 4 . 8 5 . 7 5 4 . 1 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF SEX ( C C 2 7 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 276 47 323 PERCENT . 0 0 8 5 . 4 5 1 4 * 5 5 1 0 0 . 0 0 UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF OCCUP (CC33 )  FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 11 65 73 54 2 205 PERCENT . 0 0 5 . 3 7 3 1 , 7 1 3 5 . 6 1 2 6 . 3 4 . 9 8 1 0 0 . 0 0  UNIVAR IATE TABLE OF INCH ( C C 3 9 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D T 0 T A f : RESPONSE 0" 5 1 53 IB T I ~7 2 5 W~ 0 0 5 I * W PERCENT . 0© 33 .51 2 9 . 2 6 9 . 5 7 9 . 5 7 10 . 11 3 . 72 1.06 2 . 6 6 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .00 . 5 3 100 .00 UNIVAR IATE TABLE OF CHILD ICC45) FREQUENCY TABLE  NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 7 19 10 6 3 4 0 0 2 89 338 PERCENT .00 2 . 0 7 5 . 62 2 . 9 6 1.78 .89 1 .18 . 0 0 . 0 0 8 5 . 5 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 UNIVAR IATE TABLE OF RENT ( C C 5 U FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 0 2 0 39 24 14 30 15 2 144 PERCENT . 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 8 9 27b08 1 6 . 6 7 9 . 7 2 2 0 . 8 3 1 0 . 4 2 1.39 1 0 0 . 0 0 UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF UR'AREA ( C C 5 7 ) I FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 34 39 73 PERCENT . 0 0 4 6 * 5 8 5 3 . 4 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 (DIST . E Q . • « • ) UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF ETHNIC ( C C 9 I FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER D I 2 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 183 81 264 PERCENT . 0 0 6 9 . 3 2 3 0 . 6 8 1 0 0 . 0 0 (D I ST . E Q . «0»J UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF HSEHLD 1CC15 I FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 192 33 12 13 5 5 0 4 264 PERCENT .00 7 2 . 7 3 12.SO 4 * 5 5 4 . 9 2 1 .89 1 . 8 9 .00 1 .52 100.00 (D I ST . E Q . • 0 * ) UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF AGE ( C C 2 1 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 5 1 2 3 5 5 S 7 g 9" A" 5 f Ot At RESPONSE 0 0 0 8 19 33 45 37 40 11 1 10 204 PERCENT . 0 0 . 0 0 >0Q 3 .92 9 .31 1 6 . 1 8 2 2 . 0 6 1 8 . 1 4 19 .61 5 . 3 9 . 4 9 4 . 9 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 (D IST . E Q . « 0 « l UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF SEX ( C C 2 7 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 214 36 2 50 PERCENT . 0 0 8 5 * 6 0 1 4 . 4 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 N (D I ST . E Q . «0<) UNIVAR IATE TABLE OF OCCUP (GC33 ) > FREQUENCY TABLE \ NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 9 39 62 45 1 156 PERCENT . 0 0 5 . 7 7 25.00 3 9 . 7 4 2 8 . 8 5 . 6 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 | 0 1 S T # E Q a »o«} UNIVAR IATE TABLE OF CHILD (CC45 I FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 TOTAL _ R E S p o N s e g 2 o 3 5 1 5 5 5 2T1 2"6"5 [ PERCENT .00 . 7 5 4 . 9 1 1 .13 1 .89 . 3 8 1 . 13 . 0 0 .DO 8 9 . 8 1 100.00 ID IST . E Q . *C«> UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF RENT I CCS I); FREQUENCY TA6LE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 0 16 30 18 9 2 3 9 105 PERCENT .00 .00 1 5 . 2 4 2 8 * 5 7 1 7 . 1 4 8 . 5 7 2 1 . 9 0 8 . 5 7 1 0 0 . 0 0 <DIST im* « o « j | UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF INCH ( C C 3 9 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A D C O TOTAL RESPONSE 9 56" ¥3 O TZ 8 5 Z 4 0 0" 0 C 1 UK PERCENT .00 3 8 . 6 9 2 9 . 8 6 9 . 0 3 8 . 3 3 5 . 56 3 . 4 7 1 .39 2 . 78 .DO .00 .00 .00 . 6 9 103.00 (O t ST rfNE; ' 0 * I UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF DIST ( CCS ) FREQUENCY TABLE fi NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A TOTAL RESPONSE 0 4 4 7 7 7 2 1 2 0 1 2 73 PERCENT .00 6 0 . 2 7 9 . 5 9 9 . 5 9 9 . 5 9 2 . 7 4 1 . 3 7 2 . 7 4 . 0 0 1 .37 2 . 7 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 , ( D I S T .NS. *0 'J : UNIVAR IATE TABLE OF ETHNIC ( C C 9 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL  RESPONSE 6 58 I~5 73 {j PERCENT . 0 0 7 9 . 4 5 2 0 . 5 5 100.00 (G I ST .NE. »Q*l UNIVAR IATE TABLE OF HSEHLO LCC15 ) > FREQUENCY TABLE ; ' ' NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 34 15 7 6 7 1 1 1 1 73 PERCENT . 0 0 4 6 . 5 8 20 .35 9.59 8 . 2 2 9 . 5 9 1 . 37 1 . 3 7 1.37 1 . 37 1 0 0 . 0 0 (01 ST . N E * *Q* ) UNIVAR IATE TABLE QF AGE ( C C 2 1 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B TOT A i RESPONSE 0 0 P 6 9 P» 12 O 6 2 1 1 5 * PERCENT .00 .00 .00 9.38 1 4 . 0 6 2 1 . 8 8 1 8 . 7 5 2 0 . 3 1 9 . 3 8 3 . 1 3 1 .56 1.56 1 0 0 . 0 0 (01ST #NE. »0M UN IVAR IATE TABLE QF SEX I C C 2 7 J FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 62 11 73 PERCENT .0© 8 4 * 9 3 1 5 . 0 7 100.00 ID1ST «iNE« « 0 » ) UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF OCCUP ( C C 3 3 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL RESPONSE 0" 2 Z6" I T 9 1 4~? PERCENT . 0 0 4 . 0 8 5 3 . 0 6 2 2 . 4 5 1 8 . 3 7 2 . 0 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 (D I ST . N E . « 0 M UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF CHILD ( C C 4 5 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 5 6 7 I 2 1 0 0 51 73 PERCENT . 0 0 6 . 8 5 8 . 2 2 9»59 1 .37 2 . 7 4 1 . 3 7 . 0 0 .00 6 9 . 8 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 (D IST . N £ . » 0» ) ! UN IVAR IATE TABLE OF RENT ( C C 5 1 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL RESPONSE 3 5 3 § 5 5 7 6 2 V* PERCENT .00 fcOO 1 0 . 2 6 2 3 . 0 8 1 5 . 3 8 1 2 . 8 2 1 7 . 9 5 1 5 . 3 8 5 . 1 3 1 0 0 . 0 0 (URAREA .EQ* »I.M UNIVARIATE TABLE OF CHILD (CC45) F R E Q U E N C Y TABLE N U M B E R RESPONSE PERCENT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 O 3 3 1 0 © 0 • 0 0 8*82 8.82 2.94 . 0 0 .00 .00 . 0 0 8 9 0 27 .00 79.41 TOTAL 34 100.00 — ( U R A R E A .EQ. nn fj UNIVARIATE TABLE OF RENT ( C C 5 1 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 8 RESPONSE PERCENT 0 0 3 5 3 1 5 2 r •00 . 0 0 15.00 3 0 . 0 0 15.00 5.00 20.00 10.00 5.00 TOTAL 2TT 100.00 (URAREA .EQ. UNIVARIATE TABLE OF INCH ( C C 3 9 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER RESPONSE PERCENT 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 0 3 8 3 2 3 19 •00 15.79 42.11 15.79 10.53 15.79 100.00 BIVARIATE TABLE OF COLUMN 81 VS ETHNIC ( C C 9 I FREQUENCY TABLE * 0 1 2 * r~* o m rr~* 5 1 2 * 0 201 85 * 286 " • ' 0 241 96 * 337 ( O f S T JNEW » O M UNIVARIATE TABLE OF INCH ( C S 3 9 ) ^ FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 7 12 5 6 11 2 0 1 44 PERCENT ,00 15.91 27.27 11.36 13.64 25.00 4.55 .00 2.27 ID0400 (URAREA .EQ. M M : : UNIVARIATE TABLE OF ET«NIC ( C C9) FREQUENCY f A B L E ™ " " " " T ~ ~ ~ " ; " " NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL  RESPONSE 0 27 1 34 fj| PERCENT .00 79.41 20*S9 100.00 I U R A R E A . E Q . M M " " " UNIVARIATE TABLE OF HSEHLD (?CC15) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL RESPONSE 0 22 6 3 2 1 34 PERCENT .00 64.71 17*65 8.82 5.88 2,94 100.00 (URAREA .EQ. MM UNIVARIATE TABLE QF AGE ( C E 2 1 I ' FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 A TOTAL RESPONSE 0 9 0 T 4 4 7 9 2 1 1 29^ PERCENT .00 400 *§0 3.45 13.T9 13>.79 24.14 31.03 6.90 3.45 3.45 100.00 J URAREA . EQ. " M * 1 UNIVARIATE TABLE OF SEX (CC 2 7 ) FREQUENCY TABLE NUMBER 0 1 2 TOTAL R E S P O N S E 0 3 0 3 4 " " " " " " PERCENT #00 88*24 11.16 100.00 ('URAREA . I Q * n*) : UNIVARIATE TABLE OF QCCUP J C C 3 3 J FREQUENCY TABLE " " " NUMBER 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL  RESPONSE 5 1 7 7 4 J 20 PERCENT .00 5.00 35.00 35.00 20.00 5.00 100.00 END OF RUN TIME 15HRS 25MIN 27.3SEC T $$ 8D890 Trm-rm rzmnr-KwnrrnzmL 355 CARDS READ D OUTPUT CARDS 229 LIMES PRINTED 0 OBJ. DEDK PUNCHED Relocation of project 2 Sample 1 West End 2 Strathcona Kitsi lano Mount Pleasant Shaughnessy Cdr. Cottage Kerrisdale 8 Mar pole 9 Fraserview 10 BURNABY 11 WEST VANC. 12 NORTH VANC. present and proposed U. R. sites 1 MILE RADIUS EACH 1 relocated household 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0302469/manifest

Comment

Related Items