"Arts, Faculty of"@en . "Social Work, School of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Ireland, Florence Louise"@en . "2011-10-04T16:47:40Z"@en . "1964"@en . "Master of Social Work - MSW"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "This is the second instalment of a series of studies of the welfare and community aspects of public housing. The first study, entitled Public Housing and Welfare Services, by James S. Brown, David Kogawa, and Raymond Peters (undertaken as theses, now published), extensively reviewed the most relevant recent literature relating to the welfare services required by public housing tenants, as well as issues of community relationships. The present study, on the other hand, focusses on characteristics of families living in the developments, and all that the move to public housing involves for them personally.\r\nWith this objective, data was obtained from the United States and Britain, and the experience of these countries in the field of public housing was examined. A comparison was made between statistics and related information brought together from both the United States and Britain, and those of the local Vancouver projects, relating to (a) the types of families, the number of children and elderly persons, the age structure of the communities, (b) family incomes and rents, and (c) components of \"balance\" in the developments.\r\nIn sum, it has been found that, in general, in all three countries similar family profiles exist, with some exceptions, notably concerning the number of old people. Both in the United States and in the Vancouver projects the proportion of elderly tenants is frequently higher than in British public housing developments. Furthermore, in Britain, where public housing has formed a large part of the housing stock for many years, the standard family of father, mother and children comprise a much greater proportion of the tenant population than is found in the two other countries. On the other hand, there are similarities in the high proportions of children, and of young married couples. The incomes of the majority of tenants are low, and many are supplemented by government assistance benefits. Some common problems emerge relating to difficulties in adapting to the \"new\" life, and many of these could be alleviated by more awareness of the human aspect of housing, relocation, and services provision on the part of planners, housing authorities, welfare agencies and the general public."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/37750?expand=metadata"@en . "FAMILIES IN PUBLIC HOUSING by FLORENCE IRELAND LIA1-! JUURUP SHEILA MILLER Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l m e n t of the Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK i.n the; School of S o c i a l Work Accepted as conforming t o the standard required f o r the degree of Master of S o c i a l Work School of S o c i a l Work 196* The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a gree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u rposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . S c h o o l of S o c i a l Work The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver 8, Canada. Date May PI, 1964 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a gree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u rposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . S c h o o l of S o c i a l Work The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver 8, Canada. In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a gree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u rposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . S c h o o l of S o c i a l Work The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver 8, Canada. Abstract This i s the second instalment of a s e r i e s of studies of the welfare and community: \"aspects of p u b l i c housing. The f i r s t study, e n t i t l e d P u b l i c Mousing and Welfare S e r v i c e s , by James S. Brown, David Kogawa, and Raymond Peters (under-taken as theses, now p u b l i s h e d ) , e x t e n s i v e l y reviewed the most r e l e v a n t recent l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to the welfare ser-v i c e s required by p u b l i c housing tenants, as w e l l as issues of community r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The present study, on the other hand, focusses on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n the developments, and a l l that the move to p u b l i c housing i n -volves f o r them p e r s o n a l l y . With t h i s o b j e c t i v e , data was obtained from the United States and B r i t a i n , and the experience of these c o u n t r i e s i n the f i e l d of p u b l i c housing was examined. A comparison was made between s t a t i s t i c s and r e l a t e d information brought together from both the United States and B r i t a i n , and those of the l o c a l Vancouver p r o j e c t s , r e l a t i n g to (a) the types of f a m i l i e s , the number of c h i l d r e n and e l d e r l y persons, the age s t r u c t u r e of the communities, (b) f a m i l y incomes and r e n t s , and (c) components of \"balance\" i n the developments. In sum, i t has been found t h a t , i n general, i n a l l three countries s i m i l a r f a m i l y p r o f i l e s e x i s t , with some exceptions, notably concerning the number of old people. Both i n the United States and i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s the p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y tenants i s f r e q u e n t l y higher than i n B r i t i s h p u b l i c housing developments. Furthermore, i n B r i t a i n , where p u b l i c housing has formed a large part of the housing stock f o r many years, the standard f a m i l y of f a t h e r , mother and c h i l d r e n comprise a much gre a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of the tenant population than i s found i n the two other c o u n t r i e s . On the other hand, there are s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the high pro-p o r t i o n s of c h i l d r e n , and of young married couples. The incomes of the m a j o r i t y of tenants are low, and many are supplemented by government a s s i s t a n c e b e n e f i t s . Some common problems emerge r e l a t i n g t o d i f f i c u l t i e s i n adapting to the \"new\" l i f e , and many of these could be a l l e v i a t e d by more awareness of the human aspect of housing, r e l o c a t i o n , and s e r v i c e s p r o v i s i o n on the part of planners, housing a u t h o r i -t i e s , welfare agencies and the general p u b l i c . Acknowledgements We wish, to express our thanks and a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r the i n t e r e s t and help received from others i n the completion of t h i s study. In t h i s respect we would p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e to acknowledge our debt to the f o l l o w i n g persons and o r g a n i z a t i o n s : C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation; the Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y , e s p e c i a l l y Mr. C o l i n Sutherland, and h i s s t a f f . Me would a l s o l i k e to thank Mra. E t h e l A l l a r d y c e and Mr. \"Clarence MacKenzie f o r t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n c o l l e c t i n g data from the MacLean Park and Skeena Terrace p r o j e c t s i n Vancouver. I t has been a most rewarding experience and great p r i v i l e g e to have worked under the d i r e c t i o n of Dr. Leonard C. March, D i r e c t o r of Research, the School of S o c i a l Work, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, whose valuable a s s i s t a n c e i n f o r m u l a t i n g the design of the study, o r g a n i z i n g the ma-t e r i a l c o l l e c t e d , and i n composing the f i n a l p r e s e n t a t i o n has been very much appreciated. In a d d i t i o n , c r e d i t must be given f o r the p a t i e n t support received from husbands and f a m i l i e s throughout the p r e p a r a t i o n of the r e p o r t . Table o\u00C2\u00A3 Contents page I Introduc tory^ Chapter 1 Overview. Method of Study (a) Perspective of B r i t i s h housing experience. New d i r e c t i o n s i n housing and planning: Barlow, Sc o t t and Uthwatt r e p o r t s . Four types of housing development. (b) United States experience. Background information. Contrasts i n p r o j e c t s . (c) The Canadian scene: Pioneering i n Toronto. Developments i n Vancouver. The f i r s t f o u r p r o j e c t s Some complicating f a c t o r s . I I Family P r o f i l e s 51 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of types. Types of f a m i l i e s i n Vancouver' p r o j e c t s . Age of head of f a m i l y . C h i l d r e n . Comparable United States p r o f i l e s . The e l d e r l y . Some B r i t i s h surveys. I l l Family Incomes: The Cost of S h e l t e r 100 Vancouver. E l i g i b i l i t y and Income. Rent-income r e l a t i o n s h i p . Amount and D i s t r i b u t i o n of Income. United States comparisons. Length of tenancy. The e l d e r l y \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a s p e c i a l group? B r i t i s h incomes and r e n t s . Some general c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . IV Balanced and Unbalanced Communities: The St r u c t u r e of Who l i v e s i n p u b l i c housing? E l i g i b i l i t y r e q u i r e -ments. The f a m i l i e s with problems. The concept of 'balance'. The c o n d i t i o n of imbalance. The 'bulge'. S o c i a l segregation \u00E2\u0080\u0094 occupation --education. New approaches. V From t h e \" O l d \" t o the \"New\": The Meaning of Moving . . 195 \"A b e t t e r i i f e \" . S p e c i a l needs of re l o c a t e d f a m i l -i e s . Problems.-- people or p r o j e c t ? S o c i a l d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n . Human resources. Summary \u00E2\u0080\u0094 The task ahead. Appendices: A (i) B r i t i s h S o c i a l Surveys i f i i ) The New Towns v i i ( i i i ) The London County Council Waiting L i s t A n a l y s i s , J u l y 1963 v i i i B ( i ) S o c i a l Problems Focussed by P u b l i c Housing and Re l o c a t i o n Neighbourhoods x ( i i ) . The J o i n t Task F ?occe. U.S.A. x i i C Table I . Types of F a m i l i e s (by Par e n t a l Si t u a t i o n ' ) , Urban Canada and Urban B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961. xv B i b l i o g r a p h y x v i CHAPTER I Housing conditions have fundamental importance for the health and social well-being of a nation. In our Western culture the basic unit of social organization i s the family, and one of our democratic values i s that each family i s entitled to their own \"home\". No country holding this value can consider that i t i s meeting i t s obligations for the welfare of i t s citizens, as long as there are families within i t s borders who are l i v i n g i n substandard dwellings and i n overcrowded conditions. Past experience i n one country after another has demonstrated that private enterprise i s unequal to the task of providing r e l a t i v e l y cheap dwellings of good quality so that families with restricted incomes may be offered an opportunity for better housing. For this reason, i t has been considered an important task for the community to undertake as a public responsibility, and, as i n the case of education, environmental sanitation and social security, the provision of housing has now become a public social service i n many countries i n Europe, as well as i n the United States and Canada. In this way i t can be regarded not only as a means for overcoming gross inequalities i n environment and opportunity, but also for 2 securing improvements i n standards of l i v i n g for a l l citizens. The provision of sound physical shelter, how-ever, i s only a limited aspect of an adequate program for public housing. More and more attention i s being given to the people who l i v e i n housing projects. It i s coming to be recognized that tenants are not just \"numbers of families\" but are lots of particular families having varying characteristics. As a result, i n recent years, a number of surveys have been carried out i n Britain, the United States, and more recently i n Canada, to study the social effects of relocation and redevelopment.\"1* Some problems have emerged which are common to a l l three countries, notably problems for families i n the re-making of a home, often under conditions which are quite d i f -ferent from expectations, and quite foreign to previous l i v i n g conditions. Much of thi s , of course, i s inevitable and must be accepted as the price to be paid for better housing and improved neighbourhoods. However, the process of adjustment can be helped or hindered, i n many ways that have not always been f u l l y understood, but as experience i n public housing mounts much information i s becoming 1 Some details of recent surveys i n Britain are given i n Appendix A, and studies undertaken i n a l l three countries are l i s t e d i n the Bibliography. 3 available, which, when properly interpreted, w i l l lead to more purposeful planning and refocussing on the social aspects of public housing. The lack of normal services i s one of the chief complaints i n housing developments. The main burden of provision necessarily f a l l s on the appropriate local governments, but voluntary social service has particular importance i n the formative period when the public ser-vices are not as yet f u l l y developed, and when social organization i s s t i l l f l e x i b l e . The long delay i n pro-viding buildings for social, recreational, and sometimes educational purposes, has been one of the most frustrating experiences for the tenants of public housing. The main object of this report has been to study the characteristics of the families l i v i n g i n public housing developments i n three countries, with the aim of considering what kind of adaptation these f a m i l i e s have to make. It i s also hoped to take a fresh look at the responsibilities of housing managers, as well as those of government housing agencies, i n the complex task of creating and maintaining, i n partnership with statutory and voluntary agencies, the environment and the conditions i n which the l i f e of a new community can flourish. The importance of reviewing these questions at 4 t h i s time i s c l e a r f o r s e v e r a l reasons. One i s that Canadian p u b l i c housing i s now being b u i l t on a s i z e a b l e scale a f t e r a long-delayed s t a r t . Another i s that United States experience i n p u b l i c housing since the war has some markedly d i f f e r e n t f eatures from those of the pre-war e a r l i e r - p r o j e c t e x p e r i e n c e . 1 A t h i r d i s the major d i f -ferences imported i n t o \"re-housing\" and \" r e - l o c a t i o n \" by the New Towns as w e l l as the major weight which \" c o u n c i l \" housing now assumes i n the great metropolitan centres of B r i t a i n . The dependence of d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l development on p h y s i c a l planning and on the s e l e c t i o n of the o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n , w i t h which i t i s c l o s e l y i n t e r l o c k e d , has become i n c r e a s i n g l y apparent. Good planning can provide the b a s i s f o r a good community, and mistakes i n planning, once made, are hard t o r e c t i f y . What matters most i s that f u t u r e plans should take f u l l account of the e x p e r i -ence which i s now a v a i l a b l e . Although there i s no one model which could be followed everywhere, the t e s t of success i s the extent t o which the scheme makes p o s s i b l e a f u l l and s a t i s f y i n g l i f e i n that community. In reviewing the background experience i n the p r o v i s i o n of p u b l i c housing, i t i s reasonable to look See below, p. 32. 5 f i r s t at Britain, then the United States, then Canada. Britain has been i n this f i e l d for the longest time, but both Brita i n and the United States have had very extensive experience, while Canada i s just now beginning to move into the f i e l d on a moderate scale. Method of the Study A series of studies i n housing and neighbourhood planning have been undertaken by Master of Social Work students at this School of Social Work i n the last five years. The present one i s part of the enquiry into the significance of public housing for contemporary and future welfare service. A f i r s t instalment of this , completed as a joint thesis by James Brown, David Kogawa, and Hay Peters i n 1962-3* bas now been published. While this reviewed some of the issues i n family welfare, i t also brought together experience i n the community setting of housing projects, and on methods of co-ordinating services between public and private agencies and the housing administration. The present study grows out of the same background experience, but devotes major attention to a basic question: what kind of families are characteristic of public housing, and how should this affect planning 6 now and i n the future? There i s an underlying assumption s t i l l d i s-cernible i n studies of housing that i t i s tbe families who bring tbe problems to tbe project, Tbis i s undoub-tedly true of a small proportion of tbe tenants. But a l l projects i n part merely concentrate \"problems\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 sucb as low income, or widowhood, or bringing up a large family \u00E2\u0080\u0094 wbicb were i n tbe community before. Tbey may be better dealt witb i f tbe project i s well designed, ably managed, supplied witb needed community services, wisely located. But concentration, or relocation, may themselves create new problems: both central-area projects and outer or suburban projects bave contributed recent experience on tb i s . Moreover, families bave strengths as well as weak-nesses: accommodations and neighbourhoods need similar assessment of tbeir assets as well as tbeir l i a b i l i t i e s . One of tbe purposes of tbe present review of experience i s to c l a r i f y tbe factors needed i n a balanced approacb. Like tbe previous study, i t bas to wrestle witb tbe facts tbat (a), tbere are now many kinds of bousing projects, (b), major changes bave occurred, botb i n Great Brita i n and i n tbe United States, wbicb must be understood before experience i n these countries can be made appli-cable to Canada. Whereas tbe preceding study drew mainly on United States reports, tbe present one redresses tbe 7 balance by giving mucb more attention to B r i t i s b surveys and studies. Though i t was boped to draw on appropriate European sources, limitations of time bave again made tbis impossible. A great deal of information was sougbt by correspondence and not a l l of tbis bas yet been u t i l i z e d . Since tbere are now four different projects i n operation i n Vancouver, tbe opportunity bas been taken to compile some basic s t a t i s t i c s , thanks to tbe co-operation of tbe Vancouver Housing Authority. Two of tbe projects bave been tbe subject of detailed study, as part of a series of neighbourhood analyses, by other Master of Social Work students, and advantage bas been taken of tbeir collaboration. Tbe managers of tbe project bave been most helpful i n discussing and responding to questions. The Perspective of B r i t i s h Housing Experience As almost everybody knows, England i s one of tbe most densely populated urban areas i n tbe world; and i t bas been predominantly urban for a long time. It i s one of tbe leading countries i n developing a bousing policy, both nationally and l o c a l l y . But i t bas been so because of tbe heavy burden wbicb tbe Industrial Revolution placed 8 on i t i n the nineteenth century. Not only were the masses of houses rapidly put up i n the factory towns of poor quality, crowded together, b u i l t without provision of services or recognition of what nowadays are called neigh-bourhood services, but time bas deteriorated tbem and millions are now urgently i n need of replacement Acute bousing shortages after two world wars made a l l the problems more severe i n 194-5 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 At tbe end of World War II about a half million bouses bad been destroyed, and three and a half million others were damaged (repre-senting about one bouse i n every three). A less recog-nized factor bas been tbe high proportional increase i n tbe number of households compared to tbe increase i n t o t a l population. Tbe trend bas been towards tbe break-up of tbe three-generation family l i v i n g as one household, and thus towards a greater number of distinct family units witb a smaller average size. Metropolitan concentration, a newer feature of modern Canada, i s of course a highly marked characteristic i n Britain, with tbe enormous aggregation of London exceeded by few areas i n tbe world except perhaps New York and Tokyo. 1 Tbe United Kingdom bas a land area of about 93\u00C2\u00BB000 square miles and a population of over 52,000,000 (1961 Census); tbe population of some 550 persons per square mile i s one of tbe highest i n tbe world. 9 Responsibility for formulating housing policy and supervising housing programs, as well as overall planning, has been established as a national matter for at least f i f t y years. The agencies concerned are the Ministry of Housing and Local Government i n England and Wales, the Secretary of State i n Scotland, and the Ministry of Health and Local Government i n Northern Ireland. The actual provision of housing accommodation i n any area, however, i s considerably decentralized, and i n general i s , by comparison with North America, extremely vigorous i n this respect. The municipality i n Britain has clear responsi-b i l i t i e s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 (a) to plan for new housing and slum clearance where necessary, (b) to see that adequate standards are maintained i n newly b u i l t and existing houses and (c) to ensure, as far as possible, that housing conditions are satisfactory i n that area. Pra c t i c a l l y a l l local govern-ments now administer blocks or \"estates\" of \"council housing\", much of which was origi n a l l y slum clearance; and i n selecting tenants for \"council\" dwellings i t i s usual to give preference to families l i v i n g i n overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory conditions. About three and three-quarter million of the 14,750,000 houses i n England and Wales, and over half a million of the 1,600,000 houses i n Scotland are owned by loc a l authorities, (that i s about one house i n four). 10 Private enterprise i s responsible for about balf tbe bouses and f l a t s now being b u i l t , but l o c a l authorities b u i l t about seventy per cent of tbe 3*750,000 houses completed between, 194-5 and tbe end of I960. Tbe majority of new dwellings are detached (separate), semi-detached and terraced bouses or bungalows; tbe remainder are f l a t s or maisonettes (duplexes) i n blocks of from two to thirteen, and sometimes twenty-one storeys high. Host of tbe t a l l blocks are b u i l t i n central areas of the c i t i e s , since tbe old and unfit bouses wbicb are being replaced were usually densely populated. In tbe Hew Towns and certain other new residential areas, however, tbey are planned to counter-balance smaller scale buildings, tbe purpose being to provide a variety of types of accommodation at a moderate over-all density. Tbis bas both social and architectural objectives. A variety of buildings gives more scope for a pleasing and satisfying appearance witb tbe p o s s i b i l i t y of flexible use of open space. But i t i s also an answer to tbe needs of the \"family cycle\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the fact that the number and ages of families change i n tbe course of a generation \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and, more recently, to the danger of one-class bousing areas, where tbe most economical or most \" e f f i c i e n t \" building solution bas been adopted without reference to social and community objectives. 11 Housing subsidies have been provided i n Brita i n since 1919$ when they were f i r s t introduced to f a c i l i t a t e the building of houses for l e t t i n g at moderate rents. Since the second world war, there i s a long string of changing le g i s l a t i o n : but subsidies at higher rates, payable annually for as long as sixty years from the year of building completion, have been provided for a l l new housing accommodation b u i l t with national government approval, whether by l o c a l authorities or by the New Town \"development corporations\". In Britain during the years following World War I, housing began to emerge as one of the most important of the public social services. The volume of building by lo c a l authorities increased from a mere t r i c k l e u n t i l i t now exceeds that of private building, and about 21 per cent of B r i t i s h families could be said to be l i v i n g i n such a dwelling. Like education and the social security and health services, i t has ceased to be thought of as exclusively designed for the benefit of the working classes, and there i s no longer a stigma attached to l i v i n g i n subsidized housing, as there undoubtedly was i n the inter-war period. In general, there i s l i t t l e doubt that post-war housing represents a better standard of accommodation for a greater number of families at rents they can afford, than anything earlier i n Britain's history. 12 In over forty years of experience, of course, there have been mistakes as well as achievements, and a number of lessons bave been learned as a result. Although i t i s true tbat some councils experimented more than others, many of tbe pre-war bousing developments were characterized by tbeir sameness and dreary monotony of architecture,^ their tendency to become mere dormitory estates thus increasing transport costs, and above a l l tbeir lack of provision for tbe social needs of tbe people. A simple but effective i l l u s t r a t i o n of tbe l a t t e r point i s given by L. \u00C2\u00A3. White who compares tbe social provision i n a small established town of only 2,500 people and a bousing estate of twice tbat population. Tbe comparison was made i n 1939* five years after tbe building of tbe 2 estate bad started. Small Housing Town Estate Nursery and Infant Schools . . . . 1 1 Primary Schools 3 1 Secondary Schools 1 0 Churches and Chapels 11 0 Community Halls 1 0 Taverns 4 0 Hotels 7 0 Post Office 1 0 Cinemas \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1 0 1 Tbe Victorians exploited tbe idea tbat architecture was an upper-class speciality wbicb had nothing to do witb \"bousing\". 2 L. E. White, Community or Chaos: New Housing Estates and their Social Problems, p. 9* 13 Small Towns Housing Estate Libraries Parks and Recreation Grounds Youth Organizations . . . . Adult Organizations . . . . 3 7 15 1 0 1 5 8 The comparison between organizations catering for youth and adults i s even more invidious than the figures suggest, as both youth and adult organizations on the estate catered for only a fractional minority of the population. Moreover, the many smaller services provided by churches i n the small town have been ignored. It was calculated that, before the war, less than 2 per cent of the tenants on the large municipal estates were served by community centres* these estates with the squalid streets they replaced, nor to take into account the lack of building space and the concern for preserving park space i n such a densely popu-lated country as Britain, As project followed project, these estates have improved greatly. The best low-density housing of the inter-war period i s represented by wythehshawe, near Manchester, and by the early London County Council estates at Tottenham and Roehampton, a l l of which were influenced by the \"garden c i t y \" movement. Many of the landscaping additions to housing have been s p e c i f i -c a l l y B r i t i s h developments. However, one should neither forget to compare 14 Although building was at a st a n d s t i l l during the war, thinking, writing and planning went on, and three important reports were published \u00E2\u0080\u0094 those of the Barlow, Uthwatt, and Scott Committees \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which were to revolutionize the whole prospect of town and country planning, at least as far as i t s theoretical basis i s concerned. These famous reports were related to three of the most d i f f i c u l t elements of planning i n Britain: the distribution of the industrial population, land-use i n rural areas, and land values, especially increases i n land value due to housing and urban development. Named after the Chairmen of the Commission and Committees which produced them, S i r Thomas Barlow, Lord Justice Scott, and Mr, Justice Uthwatt, these reports a l l agreed that the use of land for industry, for agriculture, for amenity, or for urban development could not be l e f t to the operation of an unrestricted system of private land ownership and private economic enterprise. The Barlow Report (1940) dealt with the geographical distribution of the industrial population. Previously, planning had been piecemeal, but the Barlow Commission for the f i r s t time looked at the question nationally. This i s the key pro-blem, because the location of work-places determines the location of homes, and the size of towns, among other things. 15 The Uthwatt Report (194-2) studied the problem of land values i n relation to t e r r i t o r i a l planning, and was a direct outcome of tbe Barlow Commission's recommendations tbat, unless reasonable s t a b i l i t y could be assured, tbe whole planning process would be held to ransom by land speculators. Unfortunately, tbe Acts passed by tbe govern-ment i n 1954- and 1959 bave rejected every vestige of tbe Uthwatt proposals.^\" Tbe report of tbe Scott Committee (19A2) dealt witb land u t i l i z a t i o n i n rural areas so tbat tbey might absorb a certain amount of urban encroachment without loss to tbeir characteristic way of l i f e . The response by tbe Government to these Reports was manifested by tbe establishment of a Central Planning Authority, wbicb was effected by tbe passing of tbe Ministry of Town and Country Planning Act, 194-31 by wbicb tbe central planning powers were transferred from tbe Ministry of Works and Buildings to a new Ministry charged with the duty of \"ensuring consistency and continuity i n tbe framing and execution of a national policy with respect to tbe use of tbe land\". In addition to these reports a number of surveys 1 It bas been estimated tbat the effect of the 1959 Act bas been to raise land costs over the whole country by 25 per cent. This, of course, i s the situation also i n North America except that land costs bave risen far more. 16 and reports of l i f e on the housing estates, published about the same time, helped to focus attention on their social problems* Stimulated by such national bodies as the Town and Country Planning Association, the Housing Centre, the Association for Planning and Regional Reconstruction, and the National Council of Social Service, conferences were held and discussion and survey groups were started* Nor was interest entirely confined to the technical experts or housing authorities* Through the use of documentary films and popular discussions (which started during the war years i n the Services and i n the C i v i l Defence units), the problems of housing and planning have been brought before the people for whom the plans are presumably being made \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The solution to the anonymity of the great housing estates was thought to l i e i n the creation of the \"neighbourhood unit\". \"Neighbourhood units\" were proposed as a planning device as early as 1929 by Clarence Perry and others who worked on the Regional Plan for Greater New York; but the components were evolved also i n various towns for many of the housing projects b u i l t by Western European countries (including Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Germany, France and Switzerland) after the f i r s t World War. In Britain, neighbourhood objectives were given vigorous formulation by Professor Abercrombie of the 17 University of London, and their incorporation i n the new plans for Greater London were followed by various adoptions i n dozens of Br i t i s h c i t i e s thereafter. In the London Plan, tbere was a conscious endeavour to recover much that was worthwhile i n tbe old village t r a d i -tion and translate i t into modern urban terms. It could be applied equally as a principle of planning to the reconstruction of \"blitzed\" or \"blighted\" central areas, or to tbe planning of new estates and s a t e l l i t e towns. The population, too, would be limited, perhaps, to five to ten thousand people, wbicb i s a relatively small community i n Britain. In contrast with tbe one-class estates, tbere would be a wise mingling of people with a diversity of occupations and income levels, i n order to produce a soc i a l l y balanced community. A variety of accommodation would be needed, and tbere would be provision also for old people. It was realised tbat each estate would need a l l tbe essential social services, and even some suitable li g h t industry. Unfortunately, owing to tbe budget limitations wbicb showed up as the r e a l i t y of tbe post-war period, not a l l this could be translated into action. Host of tbe larger new estates, however, have been planned on neighbourhood lines, even though services and f a c i l i t i e s for recreation are often s t i l l inadequate. Most of the 18 post-war estates contain a variety of types of accom-modation, so that interchange w i l l he possible, and families w i l l no longer have to move from the estate as their housing needs change. In the same way, a deter-mined effort has been made to achieve a better social balance, and one of the indicators of this was that the words \"working class\" were omitted from the 194-9 Act. The same Act provided for a small proportion of non-subsidised housing to middle-income group families by lo c a l authorities. Nevertheless, since the allocation of new houses i s ri g h t l y determined by housing need, the proportion of these \"non-subsidy\" houses i s l i k e l y to remain small for some time. Although, as compared with the average pre-war schemes, post-war developments have included better lay-out and si t i n g , and better standards of architectural design; for the f i r s t ten years or so since the war, local authorities were building new houses to meet the general shortage, as fast as their resources would permit, on any available site which could be acquired. Problems of slum clearance and the redevelopment of central areas, involving high costs of land, the displacement and compensation of industry, the rehousing of overspill 19 population, and the creation of new open spaces, were v i r t u a l l y i n cold storage u n t i l the 1954- Housing Repairs and Rents Act gave a new turn to housing policy. To-day the wiser policy of planned redevelopment within the confines of existing c i t i e s , together with the planning of new towns, or the enlargement of small towns, to receive both industry and overspill population from industrial centres, i s generally acknowledged as tbe right way to proceed. Tbis was recently confirmed by tbe latest Government report (1964) recommending plans to redesign tbe whole of South-East England, an area which embraces nearly one-third of Britain's population. Tbe plan includes tbe creation of three more new towns, expansion of certain others, and doubling the size of tbe p greenbelt around London. Types of Public Housing i n Britain Against tbis background, which i s a matter of 1 \"Overspill\" can best be described as tbe extent to wbicb existing c i t y population can s p i l l over into tbe countryside, into New or Expanded Towns, attracted out-wards by new and relocated industry and by new public bousing. \"Overspill\" i s thus related to decentralization of densely populated urban areas. 2 \"Greenbelt\" means an area of open space of many kinds (including farming as well as parks and natural woodland) origin a l l y designated to prevent the capital from spreading endlessly into tbe countryside i n which building develop-ments are restricted. It bas been continually threatened and i n some areas actually encroached as i n the last ten years. 20 social policy as well as of history, i t i s possible to distinguish four kinds of public housing i n Britain. And this distinction i s significant because of the differences between them, and also because some of the developments vary so much, i n approach or size or both, from North American developments. The four categories are (1) slum clearance or replacement housing i n the central areas of many large c i t i e s , (2) housing estates situated within or on the outskirts of many large c i t i e s , (3) planned extensions to certain small towns, and (4) the eighteen New Towns. They w i l l be separately discussed i n this order; so that more general references i n other chapters can be related back to them i f necessary. They may be b r i e f l y referred to as replacement housing, \"estates\", \"extended towns\", and New Towns, respectively. 1) Replacement Housing In Hay 1963 the Minister of Housing and Local Government was able to announce that more than a quarter of the slums had been cleared. But the main emphasis i n local authority housing i s s t i l l on slum clearance. Most of the cleared sites i n B r i t i s h c i t i e s are to be allocated to new housing; but i t i s rarely possible to rehouse on a site more than sixty to seventy per cent of those d i s -placed by clearance. Densities i n the old areas were 21 often as nigh as 150 persons to the acre, and might even reach 300. The need to rehouse on the sites as many people as i s compatible with reasonable standards of accommodation and amenity dictates the type of bousing to be provided. In central areas of Birmingham, 80 per cent of the new development i s i n f l a t s , and tbis may be taken as typical of the majority of schemes i n tbe central areas. Liverpool favours 'mixed development', of wbicb tbe Everton Heights scheme i n tbat c i t y i s an example, and most authorities include some 'maisonettes' (duplexes) as well as high blocks. In London, the best example of mixed development i s St. Anne's neighbourhood, Poplar, where the people have lost their streets but have gained open space, gardens with flowers growing alongside tbe paths, playgrounds, and paddling pools. Most of the families who have long endured tbe discomforts of tbe slums look forward eagerly to tbe offer of a better home and welcome tbe prospect of tbe move, yet a sharp distinction must be drawn between (a) rehousing for slum clearance and (b) providing houses for families who are on the ordinary waiting l i s t . Tbe lat t e r seek a new home voluntarily, but, once a slum clearance program i s i n operation, the occupants of slums w i l l be required to move whether they wish to or not. Por tbis reason, even more than when families are rehoused 22 at their own request as a result of lack of accommodation, compulsory rehousing, such as i s involved i n redeveloping old areas, entails a heavy responsibility on the society i n whose name the compulsion i s applied. Because of the complex nature of human needs, i t has to he recognized that more than the provision of physical habitation w i l l be required to compensate for the non-material satis-factions which may have been l o s t . \"Che process of clearance and rebuilding w i l l be long, and during the period of rebuilding many of the inhabitants of the old areas w i l l necessarily be rehoused on housing estates, or perhaps i n an \"expanded town\" by special arrangement between the municipal authorities concerned. This raises the series of welfare and housing policy matters which have now become familiar i n the United States since public housing gained momentum there, and are usually summed up as the \"relocation\" problems. In most Canadian c i t i e s , they are hardly taken seriously as large or immediate issues. 2) Housing \"Estates\" As already indicated, municipal housing estates have undergone considerable change i n structure, building materials and lay-out since their early development., Wherever they were b u i l t , i n the inter-war years, they 23 were, u n t i l recently, a l l too apt to be drab and unimagi-native, having an average density of twelve houses to tbe acre. Individually, within tbe limits l a i d down, the houses were often well-designed, particularly i f tbe council wbicb b u i l t them was fortunate i n i t s architect; but tbe lack of variety i n materials and economies i n size and type of building contributed to tbe impressions of monotony so often complained about* A few outstanding examples only, set out to achieve good visual and social results. Housing estates are to be distinguished from projects on redeveloped areas because, for tbe most part, tbey are b u i l t on tbe outskirts of towns or on available unused sites within c i t y boundaries. Some of the pre-war estates were b u i l t to relieve tbe general bousing shortage, whilst others, notably those b u i l t under tbe so-called \"Greenwood\" Act (tbe Housing Act of 1930), were s p e c i f i -c a l l y intended as slum clearance schemes. In tbe early days tbe vast majority (75 per cent) of the houses had three bedrooms, intended as they were to meet the needs of young married couples. Realization of the problem tbis created for tbe next generation when tbe children whom these bouses were designed to accommodate grew up and married, leaving tbeir bouses under-occupied, led to a fundamental change i n tbe planning of these estates. 24 Over the country as a whole, the proportion of three-bedroom houses (or other dwellings) has f a l l e n from 63*1 per cent i n 1955 to 41 per cent i n 1 9 5 9 * w h i l e high blocks of f l a t s and maisonettes are appearing; at the same time some smaller houses, especially bungalows for old people, are being b u i l t , suited as far as possible to the kinds of families who are going to l i v e i n them. This \"mixed\" development, as i t i s called, also implies con-trasts i n the height and form of buildings, and i n the treatment of private and public open space, as well as giving v i s i b l e expression to the actual social variety of a community and affording more economical use of land. A number of the post-war estates have been planned i n neighbourhood units, each with i t s own primary school, stores, local services, and amenities to serve the , immediate needs of the families housed there. However, i n some cases, these projects have been developed as mere \"housing estates\", without sufficient regard to the integration of housing with places of work, commerce, shopping and entertainment f a c i l i t i e s , which take up space and cost money but make a l l the difference between an attractive neighbourhood 1 J. H. Nicholson, New Communities i n Britain, p. 2 1 . 25 and a packed mass of unrelieved streets. The weakness has arisen not only from lack of imagination on the part of responsible housing authorities, but i s also tbe result of financial stringency, of piecemeal legislation, and tbe absence of any co-ordinated economic or industrial planning policy at a national l e v e l . Once an estate i s established without such f a c i l i t i e s , the balance i s d i f f i c u l t to correct later* 3) Expanded Towns In 1952, a new branch of bousing (witb some smaller precedents from tbe past) was given legal recog-nition. Under tbe Town Development Act of that year, some small towns may enter into agreements witb large c i t i e s to take tbeir \"overspill\" population and to provide them with both bouses and employment. Tbis Act bad tbe same general aim as the New Towns Act \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to provide accom-modation outside the congested areas \u00E2\u0080\u0094 but while the la t t e r provided for the cost to be met by government credits, tbe Town Development Act r e l i e d on the existing machinery of local government, witb central government assistance. Financial assistance might be of one of the following kinds: (a) a fixed government payment, (b) a payment dependent upon arrangements between \"importing\" and \"exporting\" municipalities, and (c) any d e f i c i t wbicb would have to be met by tbe \"importing\" authority. 26 Expanded Towns are closely related to the prin-ciple of decentralization and \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\"overspill\", of the over-crowded industrial centres, especially London. Migration to them has developed i n importance because even the multiplying New Towns have not been enough as overspill recipients. The towns chosen for expansion have carefully planned programs for the development of suitable industry, and the population growth i s carefully related to industrial needs* Expansion of this kind brings with i t a number of problems, one of which i s that the old town centre i s no longer adequate, and there i s a delay i n providing stores and other f a c i l i t i e s i n time to keep pace with the growth of the town. In the early stages, the program ran into d i f f i c u l t i e s because the country towns, surprised i n their quiet country ways, found i t d i f f i c u l t to adjust to the newcomers and there resulted some tension and h o s t i l i t y on both sides. However, there are increasing signs of co-operation as the people i n the country began to recog-nize the very material advantages of sponsored growth. Several studies have highlighted some other d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n this s c h e m e I t has been pointed 1 See, for instance, H. B. Eodgers, \"Employment and the Journey to Work i n an Overspill Gommunity,\" The Socio- lo g i c a l Review. December 1959; J\u00C2\u00AB B. Cullingworth,, 27 out, for instance, that to secure the effective integration of industrial re-location with population transfer i s a task of very great d i f f i c u l t y , i n which i t would be unrealistic to expect complete success. It i s not merely a matter of estimating tbe number of jobs that the new community i s l i k e l y to need, and then attempting to guide an equivalent volume of new employment into tbe area. Tbe d i f f i c u l t y becomes apparent when i t i s recognized that any population contains a most complex mixture of s k i l l s , experience, a b i l i t y and ambitions, and that i t s char-ac t e r i s t i c occupational structure may f i t neither tbe type of work available i n existing local industry nor tbe special demands of tbe new enterprises brought i n to provide employment nearby. Tbe fact tbat tbis bas occurred i n some of tbe Expanded Towns, where the range of work bas remained narrow, has resulted i n a widespread feeling of insecurity. For instance, Gullingworth reports that at Swindon, i n comparison witb London, the number of jobs i n the area i s very restricted and, furthermore, there are v i r t u a l l y no others within reasonable travelling distance. Tbis bas given r i s e to fear of tbe p o s s i b i l i t y of redun-dacy and of tbe insecure future for school leavers. It \"Social Implications of Overspill: Tbe Worsley Social Survey,\" Tbe Sociological Review. July I960; J. B. Gullingworth, \"The Swindon Social Survey: A Second Report on the Social Implications of Overspill,\" The Sociological Review, vol. 9\u00C2\u00BB 1961 . 28 must be borne i n mind, however, tbat most of these pro-blems may be resolved with the passage of time, and the feeling of insecurity and fear of the future of which Cullingworth speaks may be normal reactions following from the very real break with a familiar environment and way of l i f e . By the end of 1959* thirty-eight schemes for Expanded Towns had been approved, providing for about 62,500 houses of which nearly half were for London over-s p i l l . By the same date, 9*862 houses had been, or were being b u i l t ; and at least 3,850 families had moved out from London, through this arm of B r i t i s h housing policy. 4) Hew Towns In 1946, on the recommendation of the Eeith Committee, the Labour Government passed the New Towns Act \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and thereby launched a great experiment i n social planning. In drawing up his Greater London Plan i n 1944, Sir Patrick Abercrombie proposed that a series of new towns should be established to which people and industry from the overcrowded boroughs of the metropolis could be moved. The sites he recommended were about twenty-five to t h i r t y miles from London, well outside the suburban fringe. This suggestion aroused considerable interest, P u b l i c Housing i n B r i t a i n Stevenage New Town: F l a t l e t s f o r the E l d e r l y 29 and proposals for new towns appeared i n several other planning reports then \"being prepared for a number of other cities.^\" In 1945 a committee was set up under tbe chair-manship of Lord Reith, which issued i t s reports the following year, The recommendations i n these reports were incorporated into tbe Hew Towns Act, 1946. Tbe Act dealt witb tbe constitution and functions of the development corporations and the method by which tbe new towns were to be financed. The Development Corporations, which are appointed by and are responsible to tbe Minister of Housing and Local Government, and financed by loans raised through tbe Treasury, bave tbe power to acquire, by agree-ment or by compulsory purchase, any land or property necessary for their purposes, to carry out building and other operations, and to provide tbe services required 2 for tbe development of tbe town. As regards the l a t t e r , however, tbe Development Corporations must work i n con-junction witb tbe Parish, D i s t r i c t , Borough or County Councils which operate within their designated areas, for these are s t i l l the rating authorities which must supply a l l tbe services normally rendered by local government. 1 The New Towns of Britain. Central Office of Information Reference Pamphlet No. 44, 1961. 2 Ibid. 30 It was intended that ultimately the Corporations should be dissolved and that the New Towns should be handed over to the appropriate local authorities, but i t was argued that the existing rural or urban authorities were not suited to take over such responsibilities, and i n 1959 the New Towns Act made provision for the setting up of a single Commission for England and Wales \u00E2\u0080\u0094 known as the Commission for the New Towns \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which w i l l take over the assets and l i a b i l i t i e s of each of the Development Corporations as i t completes i t s work. The New Towns are designed as self-contained and balanced communities, each with i t s proper complement of schools, shops, social amenities and public buildings, to which industry and population have been moved from a congested area.*1\" They are intended to offer a combi-nation of urban f a c i l i t i e s with low-density housing and access to ample open space. So far as housing i s con-cerned, the quality of design i n the New Towns i s higher than that of most lo c a l authorities. More thought has been given to individual house design, to layout and the grouping of houses, and their relationship to other amenities. The fundamental difference between New Towns 1 A l i s t of New Towns may be found i n Appendix A. 31 and other forms of housing development i s the direct l i n k between industry and housing. Until the recent intro-duction of the Industrial Selection Scheme \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which permits workers on the housing l i s t s of local authorities i n London to apply for jobs i n New Town factories \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the allocation of New Town houses was restricted to building workers, to employees of firms which erected or leased premises i n New Towns, and to teachers and other professional workers who moved there to serve the needs of the new communities. It has meant, despite certain transitional d i f -f i c u l t i e s of keeping housing and factory construction i n step, that the New Towns have a definite character, a social focus, as places to li v e and work. The conditions of work are among the best i n the country; the buildings are new, the plants are new, the industrial d i s t r i c t s are easy to reach from the workers' homes, thus abolishing long, expensive journeys. A l l these have an important effect on industrial morale and personal health. The success that Britain and other European countries have had i n the experiment of developing New Towns, has presumably led to an interest i n this kind of innovation i n the United States. In his message to Congress on January 2?\u00C2\u00BB 1964, President Johnson asked for authority to include i n an extensive housing and 32 redevelopment program, planning for New T0wns along much the same lines as i n Britain. United States Experience The federal government of the United States f i r s t entered the f i e l d of housing during World Wax I to provide dwellings for workers engaged i n national defence. This served as a precedent for the creation of a housing division i n the Public Works Administration during the depression of the 1930's which carried out the f i r s t program of slum clearance and b u i l t the f i r s t houses for low-income families. The families who received this benefit were primarily manual workers, motivated towards self-improvement. They were poor and needed low-rental accommodation, but they were urbanites, accustomed to high density l i v i n g , and were mostly employed. Local housing authorities screened out welfare recipients and families with problems; and even the most progressive Authorities established quotas to control the composition of their tenant bodies. During World War II, housing programs, as i n Canada, refocussed on provision of dwellings for workers i n war industries and for servicemen; but, after the war, 33 the new Housing Act of 1?A9 made provision for the con-struction of public housing units \"for the purpose of promoting the physical, social and emotional well-being\" of a l l citizens concerned. Tbis l e g i s l a t i o n provided that f i r s t preference must be given to families displaced by clearance a c t i v i t y , and i t prohibited limitation on intake of welfare-assisted families, and therefore a new generation of bousing tenants was created. Tbere bave been various changes of leg i s l a t i o n up to the most recent Housing Act of 1961, established to eliminate substandard bousing and to aid i n a program of urban renewal. After several changes of administration, there i s now one major Department, tbe Public Housing Administration i n tbe Housing and Home Finance Agency. Families l i v i n g i n united States public housing to-day bave these characteristics; half of the families are non-white, almost half are l i v i n g on assistance or benefit incomes, one-third are one-parent families, one-quarter are elderly, a l l are low-income families. In general i t i s clear that they are deprived and disadvan-taged \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the victims of failure of an affluent society to improve the l o t of a l l of i t s citizens. But a favourite term also i s \"unacculturated\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 not used to urban l i v i n g , from rural or peasant backgrounds, handicapped by language and other ethnic differences. However, i t was recognition of the fact that these same families are neither unworthy, 34 nor undeserving, nor incapable, and that the effort of helping them overcome dependency and establish a new self-image would be worth-while, that led to the creation of a Task Force by the Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, i n collaboration, to provide health, education and welfare services for families residing i n public housing projects. Announcement of the joint plan was made i n 1962: i t s aim i s to develop local task forces, and to aid plans i n a l l possible ways from this federal centre also.\"'\" In his message to Congress on January 27\u00C2\u00BB 1964, by President Johnson, one of the major proposals made was for the creation of complete new communities, each with thousands of homes and f a c i l i t i e s for business, shopping, cultural and recreational a c t i v i t i e s ; and with jobs \"designed-in\", much i n accordance with the New Towns of Britain. To make sure that the plan provided a l l the desired f a c i l i t i e s and the best land use, and to be sure i t included homes for elderly and low-income families, f i n a l approval would be up to the Housing Administrator p i n Washington. 1 See Appendix B for a f u l l e r account of the Task Force. 2 President Johnson, Message to Congress, January 27, 1964. (Quoted i n Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1964.) 35 In the United States to-day, public housing developments are often huge projects of skyscraper type, bu i l t i n redevelopment areas to replace existing slums, or on new tracts of formerly unused land isolated from existing neighbourhood services. Both types of projects suffer from lack of imaginative design, from the pro-vision of community structure and open space, and common neighbourhood warmth. Skyscrapers are so familiar i n tbe United States that they are not perhaps to be unexpected i n public bousing: but tbe packed tenement building has also been a product of economical building for as large a number of people as possible with a given amount of financing. As i l l u s t r a t i o n s of community planning directed to offset some of these elements i n public bousing, as opposed to tbe lack of such planning, two descriptive pictures of projects i n tbe United States are worth recounting. Built as an important factor i n the renewal of Chicago's South Side, the Robert R. Taylor Homes was, i n 1962, tbe nation's largest public bousing community. It bouses 4,405 families on a site where once less than 800 households lived i n squalor. Tbe thirty-one buildings comprising Taylor Homes, while tbey are sizeable, occupy . only about seven per cent of tbe 95 acre s i t e , leaving, plenty of room for playgrounds and gardens, and assuring P u b l i c Housing i n the United States 36 a l l apartments of plenty of a i r and l i g h t . Three-quarters of the apartments have three or four bedrooms, one of which i s large enough to accommodate three or four children. There i s a community building providing headquarters for a Chicago Park D i s t r i c t program, for a branch of the Chicago Department of Health, and for Firman House, a neighbourhood settlement. There are four public schools and one parochial school on the s i t e , and new shopping centres. Churches on the site have improved their pro-perties and expanded their services. The Chicago Housing Authority has instituted a Good Neighbour Program which extends to a l l i t s housing projects and which i s designed to promote tenant programs and develop leadership, to bring services to the residents, to improve l i v i n g standards and to foster self-respect. The Taylor Homes have experimented with new programs, such as teaching homemaker s k i l l s to tenants i n conjunction with the Board of Education, and giving classes on credit buying i n conjunction with the Mayor's Committee on New Residents. The Homes have a Citizen's Committee also, composed of tenant leaders and neighbourhood business, education and clergy leaders. In contrast, Columbia Point Housing Project i n Boston has been described as resembling a prison; i t has heavy chain fences, topped with barbed wire,ringing the 37 buildings; everything i s girded with cement and asphalt; i t i s known as \"Alcatraz\" or \"The Rock\". There i s not a tree i n sight. It has come to be infested with rats. Apartments i n tbe high-rise blocks bave small rooms, paper thin walls, and exposed pipes. The elevators of the blocks are often out of order. There i s nothing for tbe young people of the project to do except to s i t i n tbe hallways, and \"nowhere to go\" as i t i s situated i n an isolated part of Boston. It was b u i l t on cheap land (because unwanted land): economies led to maximum pro-vision at dangerous disregard for amenity. Laundry must be done i n the kitchen sink as there are no other f a c i l i t i e s on tbe project; tbe alt e r -native i s to take the washing by bus to a launderette. There are no restaurants, no library, no super-market, no Protestant or Jewish church, and no complete elementary school. Until a few months ago there was not even a public telephone. Xet 7000 people l i v e i n this development. These two housing developments are probably neither the best nor the worst i n tbe United States. But they point up one of the c r i t i c a l features of public bousing, which i s the imperative need that i t develop either a \"project community\" or a community integrating the project and the surrounding neighbourhood, or both. The alter-native i s segregation of the poor into \"communities\" tbat 38 do not represent a cross-section of the general population, so that a l l the good that decent housing can accomplish for a family i s undone because there has been no con-structive change i n the family's cultural environment. Income re s t r i c t i o n shows up, also, as a dangerous policy when pushed to extremes. For, where once screening for tenancy was directed towards keeping out of public housing the welfare-assisted family, i t i s now directed towards the opposite practice \u00E2\u0080\u0094 evicting those whose incomes ri s e to even modest levels. As Michael Harrington has said i n his now famous book, The Other America, the result of this i s the creation of projects which re f l e c t \"the modern poor-farm mentality\". Canadian c i t i e s are fortunate that they do not have to face low-income housing of the same dimensions as the great American c i t i e s . But there i s much that can be learned from United States public housing and applied i n Canada, as the program here i s stepped up to meet the great need. The Canadian Scene Subsidized rental housing projects operated by l o c a l Housing Authorities now exist i n about twenty-five centres throughout Canada. Large, or several projects, 39 have been b u i l t i n only five c i t i e s : St. John's (New-foundland), Halifax, St. John (New Brunswick), Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. The majority of others are very small, mainly located i n Ontario. Canadian public bousing on any large scale, i n short, i s so far only being deve-loped i n a few main c i t i e s . It was hoped i n the present study to obtain comparable data for a l l of them: but i t bas proved more practical to review larger scale experience from Britain and tbe United States, and to survey only tbe four l o c a l projects i n Vancouver i n d e t a i l . Information i s available, however, for Canada's f i r s t major venture into public bousing, wbicb i s i n Toronto, and this i s the best introduction to tbe subject. Tbe Regent Park (North) project, a slum clearance and redevelopment program, got under way i n 194? and was completed ten years later. The major story of the develop-ment of this project bas been documented i n Albert Rose's book Regent Park. 1 Tbere were over six hundred bouses and commercial buildings, most of them i n poor repair, on tbe s i t e , prior to demolition. The population on the site i s now close to double what i t was then, yet there i s con-siderably more open space. The project, located on forty-two and-a-balf acres of cleared land i n densely populated 1 Albert Rose, Regent Park. A Study i n Slum Clearance. 40 down-town Toronto, i s comprised of: 56 rowhouses, 13 three-story apartment blocks, 6 six-story apartment blocks, and the Administration and Community Center Building. The William C. Dies Building for \"Diminishing Families\" was added later and completed i n 1959 Buildings occupy ten-and-one-half acres of the project area, parking, four-and-one-half acres, play areas, ten-and-one-half acres, and there are seventeen acres of open space. The buildings are grouped along the outer boundaries of the site; some divide the inner space into three large sections. No through streets cut across the project area. Recreational and play spaces include two baseball diamonds, areas for basket b a l l and volley b a l l , two \"Tiny Tot Playgrounds\", and ice rinks i n the winter. The Administration Building includes a gymnasium, stage, and a games room. Four crafts rooms and a boxing ring are located i n the basement of one of the blocks. Indoor play f a c i l i t i e s for the young children are located i n the William C. Dies Building. Supervision of recreational a c t i v i t i e s i s provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The William C. Dies Building for 1 The distribution of rental units i n Regent Park (North) i s as follows: 31 bachelor suites; 190 one-bedroom suites; 562 two-bedroom suites; 498 three-bedroom suites; 821 four-bedroom suites; 34- five-bedroom suites. 41 \"diminishing families\" has communal balconies and two large main floor lounging rooms. The Garden Club of Toronto presented detailed landscaping plans for an adjoining garden, which i s intended to provide a measure of privacy to the occupants of tbis building. The Housing Authority of Toronto was established i n 1947 (the City of Toronto Act, 1947, and By-law number 16933). It i s composed of five members appointed by City Council upon the recommendation of the Board of Control. The majority of members may not be elected representatives. It i s of interest to note tbat tbe Housing Authority i s now engaged i n tbe following areas of a c t i -v i t y : 1. The construction, maintenance, operation and manage- , ment of Regent Park (North) housing project. 2. The maintenance, operation and management of. War , Time, Emergency and other Miscellaneous Housing. 3 . The construction, maintenance, operation and manage-ment of new or renovated housing financed under the charter of the City of Toronto Dividend Housing Corporation Limited. 4 . Tbe operation and management of tbe Housing Registry. In October, 1958, a \"Housing Registry\" was established for l i s t i n g of available accommodation at reasonable 42 rents, and where prospective tenants may apply for leads. The Registry i s operated as a public service, and by 1963, close to six thousand would-be tenants were given eon-tacts regarding available low-rental housing. 5. The relocation of families l i v i n g i n areas scheduled for redevelopment. 6. To provide City Council with advice and information on a l l public housing policies and to investigate special projects. Developments i n Vancouver The development of public housing i n Vancouver has moved along somewhat different lines compared witb Toronto, although here also, i t originated from concern over clusters of neighbourhoods with overcrowded sub-standard housing, and the fact that the volume of new housing was out of step with demand, and that the cost of family dwellings was out of the reach of a large pro-portion of the population. The notion of public housing i n Vancouver, as elsewhere, was orig i n a l l y closely linked with slum clear-ance and rehousing. The early beginnings of the low-rental housing movement i n Vancouver can be traced back to tbe efforts of the newly-founded Vancouver Housing Association and interested citizens, during the mid-thirties. After a 43 lengthy l u l l , which l a s t e d i n t o post war years, i n t e r e s t was re-evoked i n the f o r t i e s . A major survey of the Strathcona area, i d e n t i f i e d as a \" c r i t i c a l \" area with regard t o housing and other welfare aspects, was c a r r i e d out i n 1947 -48, 1 com-p l e t e with proposals f o r an extensive \"neighbourhood r e h a b i l i -t a t i o n \" program, i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c housing. No a c t i o n was taken by the c i t y along the proposed l i n e s . Instead, the f i r s t three p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s i n Vancouver, L i t t l e Mountain, Orchard Park and Skeena Terrace were erected on vacant s i t e s outside the Strathcona area. The s i t e f o r the f i r s t p r o j e c t , L i t t l e Mountain, was purchased i n 1950, the p r o j e c t was com-ple t e d i n 1955. Orchard Park was opened i n 1958 and Skeena Terrace i n l a t e 1962. A l a t e r study ( 1957) .of the False Creek area, c a r r i e d out by the C i t y ' s Planning Department,^ d e s i g -nated the Strathcona area a \"comprehensive redevelopment area\" and p r i o r i t y s i t e w i t h i n a recommended twenty year urban renewal scheme. Vancouver's f o u r t h p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t , MacLean Park, completed i n A p r i l 1963,, i s located i n t h i s area, and today i s the c i t y ' s only \"slum clearance and redevelopment\" p r o j e c t , i n the s t r i c t e s t sense. Vancouver, thus, i n 1964 has a sample of slum clearance proper, and three p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s , b u i l t on vacant s i t e s i n e x i s t i n g neighbourhoods, which defy c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by reference to the popular terms coined t o describe types of L. C. Marsh, Reb u i l d i n g a Neighbourhood, Report on a Demonstration S lumn71e\"Sringle-Person\" f a m i l i e s - Households of one person under the age of 70 years. Of course, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s i s not something that j u s t \"happens\"; i n a broad sense i t i s planned. The planning i s r e f l e c t e d both i n p o l i c y and i n the design and layout of the p r o j e c t s . The u n i t d i s t r i b u t i o n of the Vancouver p r o j e c t s (Table I) shows c l e a r l y that when the f i r s t p r o j e c t was developed s i n g l e persons were excluded, since no s i n g l e u n i t s were b u i l t . Nor was any p r o v i s i o n made f o r the very large f a m i l y . In the newer p r o j e c t s , s i n g l e u n i t s have been added i n i n c r e a s i n g numbers, and the pro p o r t i o n of two and three-bedroom u n i t s has been de-creased while f o u r and five-room houses have been added. I t was mentioned e a r l i e r , that the MacLean Park p r o j e c t was b u i l t w i t h the housing needs of that p a r t i c u l a r area i n mind. The very high p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e u n i t s and one-bedroom s u i t e s (121 out of 159) c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h i s p r o j e c t from the others, which are mainly geared t o housing f a m i l i e s . In the o v e r a l l p i c t u r e of the fo u r p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s i n Vancou-ver, i t i s a l s o evident that MacLean Park i s q u i t e d i s t i n c t i v e from the other three p r o j e c t s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i t s r e s i d e n t s . The d i f f e r e n c e s are r e l a t e d both to the o r i g i n and the l o c a t i o n of t h i s p r o j e c t . I t i s f o r t h i s reason that MacLean Park i s separated from the three other p r o j e c t s , 54 termed here, the \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s , to d i s t i n g u i s h them from the p r o j e c t i n the downtown or c e n t r a l area, which i s part of the slum clearance and \"comprehensive redevelopment\" s e c t i o n of the c i t y . Table I . Types of Accommodation Provided by Vancouver P u b l i c Housing P r o j e c t s (1964) ra\"\"\"j STceeTTS\u00E2\u0080\u0094~T^aTEe^rT| Park Terrace i Park T o t a l i U n i t s Mountain S i n g l e u n i t s 0 \u00C2\u00BB 18 21 69 108 Family u n i t s : I-bedroom 40 34 48 52 174 2- bedroom 92 64 70 13 244 3-bedroom 92 50 69 13 224 4-bedroom - 3 21 6 30 5-bedroom - 5 l 6 T o t a l 224 169 234 159 786 Source: Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y , The d i s t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l y types i s an important dimension i n determining t h e ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of any neighbourhood. Fre-quently g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are made along these l i n e s : the suburbs are thought of as populated predominantly by married couples w i t h c h i l d r e n , downtown areas are known f o r t h e i r large s i n g l e , mobile p o p u l a t i o n . P u b l i c housing i n the minds of many i s associated e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n . O r i g i n a l l y conceived i n t h i s way, the scope of p u b l i c housing has widened to become a resource f o r other f a m i l y types as w e l l , and the stereotyped conception about such housing p r o j e c t s i s becoming more and more misleading. In Vancouver, the p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , 55 i n a l l f o u r p r o j e c t s taken together, i s 66.4 per cent. Over h a l f of these are \"standard\" f a m i l i e s (36.1 per c e n t ) . Of the \"one-parent\" f a m i l i e s (30.3 per cent) a l l but a few are mothers wit h c h i l d r e n . \"Adult\" f a m i l i e s (9.3 per cent) and \" s i n g l e \" f a m i l i e s (4.6 per cent) are the two smallest groups. E l d e r i y f a m i l i e s or a household ( s i n g l e and couples) make up about o n e - f i f t h the t o t a l housing p r o j e c t p o p u l a t i o n . Table 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s by Family Type and P r o j e c t , Vancouver P u b l i c Housing, January, 1964. jFamily Type Housing P r o j e c t T o t a l s L i t t l e Mountain Orchard Park Skeena Terrace VlacLean Park A l l Four P r o j e c t s Middle Area P r o j e c t s \"Standard\" P.C. 43.9 P.C. 36.9 P.C. 38.5 P.C. 21.4 P.C. 36.1 P.C. 39.8 \"One-parent\" 40.3 37.5 32.1 6-3 30.3 36.4 \"Adult\" 4.0 7.8 11.5 14.4 9.3 8.0 \" E l d e r i y \" 11.8 14.8 14.5 43.4 19.7 13.7 S i n g l e - 3.0 3.4 14.5 4.6 2.1 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Data from Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y f i l e s , 1964. F u l l y comparative f i g u r e s are not a v a i l a b l e f o r other p a r t s of Canada. However, i n 1957 there were apparently only approximately 125 tenants (out of 1289 households), or about 10 per cent \" e l d e r l y \" f a m i l i e s i n the Toronto Regent Park p r o j e c t . I t was estimated that \"a few short of 1200 housing u n i t s were tenanted by married couples with or without c h i l -d r e n . \" 1 These proportions have undoubtedly changed: there 1 A. Rose, Regent Park, p. 186. 56 are probably more e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s today. Considering f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , a comparison w i t h the l a r g e r community shows that the p r o p o r t i o n of\"one-parent\" f a m i l i e s i n the housing p r o j e c t s i s very h i g h . In the p r o j e c t s , 45.7 per cent of f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n were \"one-parent fami-l i e s as opposed to only 8 .6 per cent of t h i s type i n urban B r i t i s h Columbia. Correspondingly, the p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s w i t h female f a m i l y heads i s much higher i n the p r o j e c t s than i n the surrounding community. (Table 1. Appendix C). The conc e n t r a t i o n of f a t h e r l e s s f a m i l i e s i n the housing p r o j e c t s c l e a r l y r e f l e c t s the f a c t that the f a m i l y without a f a t h e r i s l i k e l y t o have a low economic s t a t u s , 'IMiddle Area\" J'ro jegt s_ . In the three \"middle area\" p r o j -e c t s , 76.2 per cent of the tenants are \"standard\" or \"one-parent\" f a m i l i e s , that i s f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n . There seems however, to be a tendencyyfor fewer f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n t o enter the newer p r o j e c t s . L i t t l e Mountain, the o l d e s t p r o j e c t , has the highest p r o p o r t i o n of these f a m i l i e s : 4-3.9 per cent \"standard\", and 4o .3 per cent \"one-parent\" f a m i l i e s . In Or-chard Park the corresponding f i g u r e s are 36.9 and 37.5 per cent, and i n Skeena Terrace 38.5 and 32.1 per cent (Table 2 ) . Comparing the number of standard and one-parent f a m i l i e s i n these p r o j e c t s i t i s found that L i t t l e Mountain and Skeena Terrace have 3 t o 6 per cent more standard f a m i l i e s , whereas i n Orchard Park the d i s t r i b u t i o n of standard and one-parent f a m i l i e s i s approximatelyyequal. A comparison w i t h e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e s that the r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n of standard and one-parent f a m i l i e s i n Orchard Park has remained p r a c t i -c a l l y r t h e same as i t was i n 1959. In L i t t l e Mountain con-s i d e r a b l e change has taken p l a c e . There has been a c o n s i s t e n t 57 decrease i n the number of standard f a m i l i e s (from 77.2 per cent i n 1955 t o 43.9 per cent i n 1964) and an increase of one-parent f a m i l i e s (from 11.1 per cent t o 40.3 per c e n t ) . (Table 3). Table 3. Family Composition of Residents of L i t t l e Mountain P r o j e c t . (1955, 1958 and 1964) Type of Family 1955 1958 1964 \"Standard\" 77.2 55.3 43.9 \"One-parent\" 11.1 29.0 4o.3 \" E l d e r l y \" 8.0 13.3 11.8 \"Adult\" \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 4.0 j T o t a l 100.0 100.0 ; 100.0 Source; \"The L i t t l e Mountain Low-Rental'Housing P r o j e c t : A Survey o f i t s Welfare Aspects.\" Master of S o c i a l Work Thesis, U.B.C., 1959. Adult f a m i l i e s , that i s , c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s whose head or spouse i s under age 70, i n the \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s make up 8.0 per cent of the t o t a l number of f a m i l i e s , and they con-s t i t u t e an increased p r o p o r t i o n i n the newer p r o j e c t s . Com-pared w i t h L i t t l e Mountain (4 per cent) the p r o p o r t i o n of adult f a m i l i e s has approximately doubled i n Orchard Park (7.8 per cent) and n e a r l y t r i p l e d i n Skeena Terrace (11.5 per c e n t ) . S i n g l e f a m i l i e s , as noted e a r l i e r , were not provided f o r i n L i t t l e Mountain. Both i n Orchard Park and Skeena Terrace they make up about 3 per cent of a l l tenant f a m i l i e s . E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s (13.7 per cent of the t o t a l i n the three p r o j e c t s ) a l s o showed a small increase i n the' newer p r o j e c t s . (Table 2). 58 Maclean Park. Broadly speaking the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l i e s i n MacLean Park, w i t h and without c h i l d r e n , i s the reverse of the p i c t u r e i n the other three p r o j e c t s . In the l a t t e r , 76.4 per cent of a l l f a m i l i e s had c h i l d r e n , i n Mac-Lean Park 72.3 per cent of the f a m i l i e s have no c h i l d r e n . Of the 27.7 per cent f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n i n t h i s p r o j e c t , 21.4 per cent are standard f a m i l i e s and 6.3 per cent are one-parent f a m i l i e s . The p r o p o r t i o n of one-parent f a m i l i e s i s s i g n i f i -c a n t l y lower than i n the other p r o j e c t s . I t can be presumed that t h i s r e f l e c t s the cohesiveness of the A s i a t i c f a m i l y , a s i g n i f i c a n t element i n these s u b c u l t u r e s . (About 55 per cent of the tenants i n MacLean Park are of A s i a t i c o r i g i n , predom-i n a n t l y Chinese). Correspondingly, the remaining f a m i l y types are a l l pro-p o r t i o n a t e l y higher i n MacLean Park than i n the other p r o j e c t s . The percentage of adu l t f a m i l i e s (14.4) i s nea r l y quadrupled i n comparison with L i t t l e Mountain (4.0). S i n g l e persons show the highest proportionate increase (l4.5 per cent as compared t o approximately 3 per cent i n Orchard Park and Skeena Terra c e ) . These are the s i n g l e persons under the age of 70. The l a r g e s t group of f a m i l i e s i n MacLean Park are the \" e l d e r l y , \" 43.4 per cent. The corresponding f i g u r e f o r the other p r o j e c t s i s around 13 per cent. In t h i s e l d e r l y group there are 22 couples and 47 s i n g l e persons, 42 of the l a t t e r being men. MacLean Park p r o j e c t thus i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a very large p r o p o r t i o n of people i n t h e i r seventies and a f a i r l y l a r g e a d u l t population i n l a t e middle-age. Three-quarters of these groups are made up of s i n g l e people, and the m a j o r i t y of them are men. By i t s very nature t h i s w i l l change 59 r a d i c a l l y w i t h i n ten : years or more, and a new occupancy p o l i c y w i l l have to take account of t h i s . Age of .Heatp^of t h e ^ J ^ J Q y . A marked p r o p o r t i o n of people over 60 years of age are now l i v i n g i n Vancouver p u b l i c housing. But, as seems to be the case w i t h a l l p u b l i c housing, there i s a higher p r o p o r t i o n of c h i l d r e n and young people than i n the community at l a r g e . Table 4 . Ages of Family Heads Vancouver P u b l i c Housing, January, 1964. Age of Family Head L i t t l e Mountain Orchard Park Skeena Terrace MacLean Park A l l Area P r o j e c t s ! P r o j e c t s Under 30 12.8 18.8 2 3 . 9 ' P:O. , 6 . 9 r .TT. 16.2 P c 18.8 31-40 3 0 r 3 22.1 2 7 . 0 10.1 2 3 . 2 2 6 . 9 4 l - 5 0 2 3 . 9 2 0 . 8 13.7 7.6 16.4 1 9 . 0 51-60 12.2 * 10.1 6 . 6 8 . 8 9 . 2 9.4 Over 60 2 0 . 8 28.2 2 8 . 8 6 6 . 0 3 5 . 0 2 5 . 9 T o t a l s (a) 100 100 100 1 100 100 100 (a) For a few f a m i l i e s ( p a r t i c u l a r i l y i n the L i t t l e Mountain p r o j e c t ) t h i s i nformation was not a v a i l a b l e , percentages t h e r e f o r e r e l a t e to recorded data only. Considering a l l f o u r Vancouver p r o j e c t s , 35 per cent of a l l f a m i l i e s are those where the f a m i l y head i s 60 years of age or o l d e r . The groups, by age of f a m i l y head, up t o age 5 0 , are f a i r l y evenly d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h between 16 to 23 per cent of f a m i l i e s i n each. F a m i l i e s w i t h age of f a m i l y head between 51 and 60 years c o n s t i t u t e the smallest group, 9 .2 per cent. Not yet \" e l d e r l y , \" and presumably no longer c a r i n g f o r young c h i l d r e n , these f a m i l i e s do, however, remain i n the p r o j e c t s . This age group of f a m i l y i s considered the l e a s t e l i g i b l e f o r admission to p u b l i c housing. However, the housing 60 needs of t h i s group may need t o be r e c o n s i d e r e d i n the l i g h t of p r o g r e s s i v e l y e a r l i e r f o r c e d r e t i r e m e n t due t o changing con-d i t i o n s on the la b o u r market. I t must a l s o be remembered t h a t many persons i n t h i s group spent t h e i r most p r o d u c t i v e years d u r i n g the d e p r e s s i o n , with l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e d u c a t i o n a l advancement and s a v i n g . Regent Park (North), t h e ' o l d e s t major p u b l i c housing pro-j e c t i n Canada, was confronted w i t h the problem of these fami-l i e s among i t s own tenants, and has found a s o l u t i o n , which i s b e l i e v e d t o be unique i n Canada. T h i s p r o j e c t was planned f o r f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n with l i t t l e p r o v i s i o n made f o r couples and none f o r s i n g l e p e r s o n s . 1 With the passage of time many f a m i l i e s dwindled i n s i z e , l e a v i n g o n l y the parents o r a sur-v i v i n g spouse. Rather than r e q u i r e these tenants t o leave the p r o j e c t , they were permitted t o s t a y on, which r e s u l t e d i n s u i t e s designed f o r l a r g e r f a m i l y u n i t s being occupied by s i n g l e per-sons o r cou p l e s . Thus a f t e r the p r o j e c t was completed The W i l l i a m C. Dies B u i l d i n g f o r \"Di m i n i s h i n g F a m i l i e s \" was e r e c t e d as an a f t e r t h o u g h t . 2 No corresponding i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e t o compare the d i s t r i b u t i o n of. age of f a m i l y head i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s w i t h t h a t i n the l a r g e r community, but some i d e a may be gained from the 1961 census f i g u r e s f o r the Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . A d i r e c t comparison between these and the p r o j e c t s i s not p o s s i b l e , (a) because the age c a t e g o r i e s do not c o i n c i d e ; (b) because the p r o j e c t count i n c l u d e s s i n g l e persons, whereas 1 I t would appear t h a t a few s i n g l e tenants were accommodated i n i t i a l l y . 2 The B u i l d i n g i s named a f t e r Mr. W. C. D i e s , M.S.M., o r i g i n a l member of the Housing A u t h o r i t y of Toronto, i n recog-n i t i o n of h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n the f i e l d of p u b l i c housing. 61 they are excluded i n the census f i g u r e s . (Table 5). P o s s i b l y the broad observation can be made t h a t , i n the p r o j e c t s , the pro p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s w i t h head over 60 years of age appears to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r than i n the community. MacLean Park, of course, weights t h i s measurement, perhaps unduly. Table 5. Age of Family Head. M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver Area, 1961. Age of Head of Family (a) Per Cent Under 25 3.8 25 - 34 21.2 35 - 44 25.1 45 - 54 21.9 55 - 64 13.1 6 5 - 6 9 \"\u00E2\u0080\u00A27 Over 70 10.2 T o t a l 100.0 (a) A f a m i l y c o n s i s t s of a husband and wife (with or without unmarried c h i l d r e n ) or a parent, w i t h one or more c h i l d r e n never married. Source: Canada Census, 1961. B u l l e t i n 2. 23-29. \"Middle Area\" J e c t s . In these p r o j e c t s the p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s w i t h head of f a m i l y over 60 years of age i s more i n pro p o r t i o n w i t h other age groups 1; however, i n Orchard Park and Skeena Terrace i t i s s t i l l the l a r g e s t s i n g l e group (28.2 and 28.8 per cent) by a small margin. In L i t t l e Mountain t h i s 1 Vancouver Redevelopment Study, p. 4 l . 62 group i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m a l l e r at 20.8 per cent. (Table 4 ) . The percentage of the youngest f a m i l i e s (age of head under 30 years) i s considerably higher i n the newer p r o j e c t s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 12.8 per cent i n L i t t l e Mountain; 23.9 per cent i n Skeena Terrace. The age group 31 t o 4o i s the l a r g e s t s i n g l e group i n L i t t l e Mountain (30.3 per c e n t ) , which may i n d i c a t e that younger fami-l i e s have continued residence f o r a number of years. The middle age groups(41 to 50, 51 to 60) are c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r i n L i t t l e Mountain (36.1 per cent i n the two groups together) e s p e c i a l l y as compared wi t h Skeena Terrace (20.3 per cent correspondingly.) (Table 4 ) . This as w e l l may r e f l e c t length of tenancy. I t i s common observation that a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p r o g r e s s i v e l y o l d e r age groups occurs as a housing p r o j e c t matures. MacLean Park. The age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the head of f a m i l y at MacLean Park i s most obv i o u s l y at variance w i t h that i n the general p o p u l a t i o n . However, i t probably corresponds more c l o s e l y w i t h the population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p a r t i c u l a r area where the p r o j e c t i s l o c a t e d . Of the households i n t h i s p r o j e c t , 66.6 per cent are f a m i l i e s w i t h head of f a m i l y over 60 years of age. I t i s r e -ported i n the Vancouver Redevelopment Study (1957) that a l -though the Comprehensive Redevelopment Areas (MacLean Park i s located i n one) \"contain only 6 per cent of the C i t y ' s p o p u l a t i o n they accommodate 14 per cent of a l l persons i n r e -c e i p t of Old Age Assistance or Old Age Pension, plus those w i t h Cost of L i v i n g Bonus.\" 1 Considering the high p r o p o r t i o n of old people of small means i n the area the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of Vancouver Redevelopment Study, p. 41. 63 the e l d e r l y i n the p r o j e c t i s not s u r p r i s i n g . The youngest f a m i l i e s comprise the s m a l l e s t s i n g l e group (6.9 per cent) i n t h i s p r o j e c t . The age groups of head of f a m i l y 31 t o 60 years are f a i r l y e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h be-tween 7 and 10 per cent of a l l f a m i l i e s i n each. In t h i s p r o -j e c t the age group 51 to 60 i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y under-repre-sented compared wi t h the oth e r groups (as i t was i n the \"middle a r e a \" p r o j e c t s ) ; however, the r e l a t i v e s i z e of t h i s same group i n t h i s area of Vancouver may p o s s i b l y a l s o be l a r g e . (Table 4). S i z e _of F a m i l y . In g e n e r a l , i t appears t h a t the s i z e of f a m i l y i n Van-couver's p u b l i c housing i s s m a l l e r than one might expect. The presence of very many c h i l d r e n i n p r o j e c t s has p r o b a b l y / l e d t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t predominantly l a r g e f a m i l i e s l i v e i n p u b l i c housing. T h i s n o t i o n i s presumably r e i n f o r c e d by f i -n a n c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with m a i n t a i n i n g a l a r g e f a m i l y . I t would seem, however, t h a t the hig h p r o p o r t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s i s mainly the r e s u l t of h i g h - d e n s i t y c o n c e n t r a t i o n of predominantly a v e r a g e - s i z e f a m i l i e s , although t h e r e are p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more l a r g e f a m i l i e s i n some of the p r o j e c t s than i n the surrounding community. In January, 1964, the average s i z e of household i n the f o u r Vancouver p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s taken t o g e t h e r was 3.9 persons. The corres p o n d i n g f i g u r e , f o r 1961, f o r the Metro-p o l i t a n Vancouver area was 3.3.1 I \" \"the t o t a l of the Vancouver p r o j e c t s 36.4 per cent of a l l f a m i l i e s have one or two' members on l y . The l a r g e s t s i n g l e group c o n s i s t s of f a m i l i e s w i t h 2 Canada Census, 1961 B u l l e t i n 2. 64 members (22.5 per c e n t ) . Nearly three-quarters of the t o t a l number of f a m i l i e s have up to 4 members. As can be expected, the p r o p o r t i o n of l a r g e r f a m i l i e s decreases p r o g r e s s i v e l y and the very large f a m i l y of 8 persons or more make up 3.4 per cent of the t o t a l tenant p o p u l a t i o n . (Table 6). Compared wi t h the l a r g e r community, the outstanding f e a -ture i n the f a m i l y s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n a l l Vancouver p r o j e c t s taken together i s that there are p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y fewer small f a m i l i e s (2 and 3 members) i n the p r o j e c t s (5.2 percentage p o i n t s l e s s ) , and a correspondingly higher p r o p o r t i o n of fami-l i e s w i t h 6 or more members (4.4 percentage p o i n t s h i g h e r ) . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of s i n g l e persons and f a m i l i e s w i t h 4 and 5 mem-bers i s p r a c t i c a l l y the same i n the p r o j e c t s and i n the com-munity. (Table 7). The l e s s e r p r o p o r t i o n of small f a m i l i e s may be r e l a t e d t o the f a c t that c h i l d l e s s couples, unless they are e l d e r l y , are not considered e l i g i b l e f o r p u b l i c housing, except under s p e c i a l circumstances. \"Middle Area': f r o j ^ e c t s . The \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s , are designed predominantly f o r f a m i l i e s . Consequently the propor-t i o n of s i n g l e person households i s cons i d e r a b l y lower than i f the fou r p r o j e c t s are taken together. S i n g l e persons make up 9 or 10 per cent of the t o t a l households i n Orchard Park and Skeena Terrace. There are no s i n g l e person households i n L i t t l e Mountain. Two-person f a m i l i e s c o n s t i t u t e about 20 per cent i n a l l three p r o j e c t s . The l a r g e s t s i n g l e group f o r the three p r o j e c t s together are 4 member f a m i l i e s (21.7 per c e n t ) ; how-ever, the p r o p o r t i o n of these f a m i l i e s i s only very s l i g h t l y higher than that of 2 and 3 member f a m i l i e s . I n d i v i d u a l l y seen, the l a r g e s t group i n L i t t l e Mountain i s made up of 3 member f a m i l i e s (24 per c e n t ) ; i n Orchard Park i t i s 4 member 64 Table 6 . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Tenants by Household S i z e . Vancouver Housing P r o j e c t s , 1964. S i z e of Household (Persons) L i t t l e Mountain Orchard Park Skeena Terrace MacLean Park A l l P r o j e c t s Middle Area P r o j e c t s P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C - P.C. 1 ' - 2 - . 10.7 9 . 0 4 4 . 0 13.9 6.2 2 19.9 20.2 20.9 3 0 . 8 22.5 20.4 3 24 . 0 18.5 17.5 6 .9 17.4 20.1 4 23.1 25.6 155.5 6.3 ,18.6 21.7 5 15.4 11.9 15.0 5.7 12.5 14.3 6 10.8 8.9 7 ? 7 3 .8 8.1 9.1 7 5 . 0 2.4 4 .3 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0.6 3 .3 4 . 0 8 and over 1.8 1.8 8.1 1.9 3 .7 4 . 2 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 7. Households by Number of Persons M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver Area (1961) and Vancouver P u b l i c Housing/ 1964. Number of Persons M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver Area A l l P r o j e c t s Middle Area P r o j e c t s P.C. P.C. P:C. .1 13.2 13.9 6 .2 2-3 45.1 39.9 40.5 4-5 31 .0 31.1 3 6 . 0 6 or more 10.7 15.1 17.3 jTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Canada Census, 1961. B u l l e t i n 2 . Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y f i l e s , - 1964. 65 f a m i l i e s (25.6 per c e n t ) ; i n Skeena Terr a c e these two groups are of equal s i z e (17.5 per c e n t ) . The p r o p o r t i o n of l a r g e r f a m i l i e s decreases p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n a l l the p r o j e c t s . L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard Park both have 1.8 per cent of f a m i l i e s with 8 or more members. Skeena T e r r a c e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t ex-c e p t i o n , the p r o p o r t i o n of the l a r g e s t f a m i l i e s (8 or more members) there i s 8.1 per cent (19 f a m i l i e s ) . (Table 6 ) . The f a m i l y s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the three \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s taken t o g e t h e r shows marked d i f f e r e n c e ' f r o m the Met-r o p o l i t a n Vancouver a r e a . In the p r o j e c t s the p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e persons i s l e s s than h a l f of t h a t i n the l a r g e r com-munity ( 6 . 2 and 13.2 per cent r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . 1 F a m i l i e s w i t h 2 and 3 members a l s o show a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the p r o j e c t s . Groups of l a r g e r f a m i l i e s , c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , are l a r g e r i n p r o p o r t i o n i n the p r o j e c t s ; f o r example, there are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f a m i l i e s with 6 or more members i n the three p r o j e c t s than i n the community. (Table 7 ) . ^9j^- a,1!L^ a,S^-.?- I n t h i s p r o j e c t s i n g l e persons make up 44 per cent of the t o t a l number of households, t h a t i s , i n MacLean Park t h i s group i s f o u r times l a r g e r i n p r o p o r t i o n than i n the other p r o j e c t s . S i n g l e and 2 person f a m i l i e s t o -gether compose n e a r l y 75 per cent of the t o t a l number of households. The percentages of the remaining groups, of course, are q u i t e s m a l l . They decrease g r a d u a l l y from 6 .9 per cent of f a m i l i e s with 3 members t o 0 .6 per cent of fami-l i e s w i t h 7 members. Each of these groups i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m a l l e r than the corresponding groups i n the other p r o j e c t s . 1 The absence of s i n g l e people i n L i t t l e Mountain i n f l u e n c e s t h i s average f o r the p r o j e c t s . 66 On the o t h e r hand, the l a r g e s t f a m i l i e s , 8 members or more, make up 1.9 per cent of a l l f a m i l i e s i n MacLean Park, which i s about the same as the p r o p o r t i o n of these f a m i l i e s i n L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard Park. (Table 6). D i s t r i b u t i o n of C h i l d r e n .and A d o l e s c e n t s . I t i s noteworthy t h a t minor c h i l d r e n make up more than h a l f (approximately 55 per cent) of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n the Vancouver p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s . T h i s i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of p u b l i c housing everywhere, though there are, of course, l o c a l v a r i a t i o n s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r schools are by now w e l l known, but other i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r w e l f a r e s e r v i c e s , such t h i n g s as day n u r s e r i e s , p l a y space and equipment, are by no means g e n e r a l l y a p p r e c i a t e d . At the time of t h i s study there were 1504 c h i l d r e n i n the f o u r Vancouver p r o j e c t s ; 781 of them boys and 723 g i r l s . There are s u b s t a n t i a l l y more younger c h i l d r e n than teenagers, which i s p r o b a b l y r e l a t e d t o the f a c t t h a t two of the p r o j e c t s are newly b u i l t . The r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n of age groups may of course change with time. In the f o u r p r o j e c t s taken t o -gether 43.3 per cent of a l l c h i l d r e n are of p r e - s c h o o l age (up t o 6 y e a r s ) ; 47.1 per cent are of s c h o o l age (between 7 and 15 y e a r s ) ; and only 9.6 per cent are a d o l e s c e n t s and young a d u l t s (16 to- 21 y e a r s ) . (Table 8). Of the t o t a l of 1504 c h i l d r e n , 847 are from two-parent f a m i l i e s , 653 from one-parent f a m i l i e s , a few c h i l d r e n l i v e w i t h others than p a r e n t s . Two-parent f a m i l i e s have s i g n i f i -c a n t l y more p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n (69.7 per cent of a l l c h i l d r e n i n t h i s age group), whereas the p r o p o r t i o n of school-age c h i l d r e n i s s i m i l a r i n the two types of f a m i l i e s . One-parent 67 f a m i l i e s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a d o l e s c e n t s (63.4 per cent of the t o t a l a d o l e s c e n t group), than standard f a m i l i e s , however, as mentioned e a r l i e r , a d o l e s c e n t s make up l e s s than 10 per cent of a l l minors i n the p r o j e c t s . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o draw comparisons between the age d i s -t r i b u t i o n of minor c h i l d r e n i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s and the o v e r a l l f i g u r e s f o r urban Canada and urban B r i t i s h Columbia, because a g a i n the age groupings do not correspond. However, b r o a d l y speaking i t appears t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n i n the p r o j e c t s i s markedly h i g h e r than i n the l a r g e r community. (Tables 8, 9). A d i r e c t comparison of the c h i l d r e n s ' age d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s and the Regent Park p r o j e c t i n Toronto cannot be made, s i n c e the age c a t e g o r i e s are not s t a n -d a r d i z e d . However, as seen i n Tables 8 and 10,. there are con-s i d e r a b l y more school-age c h i l d r e n i n Regent Park than pre-s c h o o l e r s , whereas these two groups are of more equal'pro-p o r t i o n i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s taken a l l t o g e t h e r . The p r o p o r t i o n of the o l d e s t group i s s l i g h t l y l a r g e r i n the Toron-t o p r o j e c t (11 per cent) than i t i s i n Vancouver (9.6 per c e n t ) . In Regent Park s t a t i s t i c s , however, the upper age l i m i t f o r t h i s group may be 19 years as opposed t o 21 f o r the Vancouver p r o j e c t s , i n which case the d i f f e r e n c e i n r e l a t i v e s i z e of t h i s group i s a c t u a l l y g r e a t e r than shown h e r e . 1 The l a r g e r propor-t i o n of o l d e r c h i l d r e n i n Toronto, i t may be presumed, i s r e -l a t e d t o the age of the p r o j e c t . In support of t h i s i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n i s the f a c t t h a t i n 1957 there were 2439 c h i l d r e n and 1 The Housing A u t h o r i t y of Toronto Report of May 1963, used as source, m a t e r i a l , d o e s not s p e c i f y the upper age l i m i t f o r t h i s group, i t i s shown as \"over 16 years - teenagers.\" 68 Table 8. D i s t r i b u t i o n of C h i l d r e n and Adolescents. Vancouver P u b l i c Housing, 1964. Age of C h i l d r e n L i t t l e Mountain Orchard Park Skeena Terrace MacLean Park A l l P r o j e c t s Middle Area Pre-school (up t o 6 years) P.C. 39.8 P.C. 45.3 P.C. 4l.8 P.C. 59.8 P.C. 43.3 P.C. 41.9 School-age (7-15 years) 46.6 46.6 51.1 31.6 47.1 48.4 Adolescents and Young a d u l t s (16-21 years) 13.6 8.1 7.1 8.6 9.6 9.7 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 9. D i s t r i b u t i o n of C h i l d r e n ( i n f a m i l i e s ) , Canada and B r i t i s h Columbia large centres (100,000 and ov e r ) , 1961. Age Group Urban M e t r o p o l i t a n Areas Canada B r i t i s h Columbia No.\" P.C. No. P.C. Under 6 years 1,081,208 35.3 104,764 34.3 6-14 1,322,737 43.2 135,844 44.4 15-18 400,623 13.1 4l,707 13.6 at school (292,119) (72.9) (35,141) (84.3) not at school (108,504) (27.1) (6,566) (15.7) 19-24 257,345 8.4 33,455 7.7 at school (58,882) (22.9) (6,959) (29.7) not at school (198,463) (77.1) (16,496) (79.3) T o t a l 3,061,913 100.0 305,770 100.0 Source: Canada Census, 1961. B u l l e t i n 2. 1-6. 6 9 a d o l e s c e n t s (up t o 19 years of age) i n Regent Park, 550 of them between the ages of 13 and 19 y e a r s . The group made up 22.6 per cent of the t o t a l number of c h i l d r e n r e p o r t e d . 1 The corresponding f i g u r e f o r 1963 was 30 per cen t . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t although the t o t a l number of c h i l d r e n i n the Toronto-p r o j e c t has remained f a i r l y s t a b l e , the p r o p o r t i o n of teen-agers has in c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a b l y over the past s i x y e a r s . (Table 10). Table 10. D i s t r i b u t i o n of C h i l d r e n and Teenagers Regent Park (North) P r o j e c t , I963. Age Number Per Cent P r e - s c h o o l (0-4 ye a r s ) 646 26 School-age (5-16 ye a r s ) 1568 63 Teenagers (a) (over 16) 273 11 T o t a l 2487 100 (a) Upper age l i m i t i s not s p e c i f i e d , presumably 19 y e a r s . Source: The Housing A u t h o r i t y of Toronto, Report May, 1963. \"Middle Area\" P r o j e c t s . In the \"middle a r e a \" p r o j e c t s taken'together, school-age c h i l d r e n make up the l a r g e s t s i n g l e group. They are a l s o the l a r g e s t group w i t h i n each p r o j e c t . As can be expected, L i t t l e Mountain, the o l d e s t p r o j e c t , has a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n (39.8 per cent) Rose, Regent Park, p. 186. 70 and the highest p r o p o r t i o n of the olde s t age group (13.6 per c e n t ) , as compared with the other \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s . The v a r i a t i o n between the three p r o j e c t s w i t h i n a l l age groups, however, i s only up to 6 percentage p o i n t s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n between pre-school and school-age c h i l d r e n w i t h i n the p r o j e c t s i s almost equal i n Orchard Park (^ 5.3 and 46.6 per cent r e -s p e c t i v e l y ) . In L i t t l e Mountain there are s u b s t a n t i a l l y more school-age c h i l d r e n (46.6 per cent) than pre-schoolers (39.8 per c e n t ) . Skeena Terrace shows the l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e i n s i z e between these age groups, there are 51.1 per cent school-age c h i l d r e n and 41.8 per cent pre-schoolers. Adolescents and young a d u l t s make up 13.6 per cent of a l l minors i n L i t t l e Mountain, the corresponding groups i n Orchard Park and Skeena Terrace are 8.1 and 7.1 per cent. (Table 8). MacLeari J?ark. MacLean Park i s the only Vancouver p r o j e c t where the p r o p o r t i o n of pre-school c h i l d r e n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r (59.8 per cent) than that of school-age c h i l d r e n (31.6 per c e n t ) . This may be r e l a t e d t o the f a c t that t h i s p r o j e c t has a markedly^higher p r o p o r t i o n of standard f a m i l i e s . Standard f a m i l i e s , as was noted e a r l i e r , tend t o have more younger c h i l d r e n . The young a d u l t and adolescent group In MacLean Park i s comparable w i t h Orchard Park and Skeena Terrace i n r e l a t i v e s i z e , (8.6 per c e n t ) . (Table 8). The United States P r o f i l e . There were w e l l over one-half a m i l l i o n f a m i l i e s of a l l kinds i n p u b l i c housing i n the United States i n 196I1; the 1 One year, 1961, i s taken p a r t l y because i t i s a census year and the anchor p o i n t f o r Canadian s t u d i e s , p a r t l y because complete f i g u r e s are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s year ( f u l l 1961 s t a t i s t i c s are not published t i l l l a t e i n I962K . For the purposes of the present study, i t i s more valuable zo get rep-r e s e n t a t i v e i n d i c a t i o n s of the components of the \"public'hous-ing p o p u l a t i o n \" than to get more up-to-the-minute t o t a l s . REGIONS - U. S.A. N O R T H SOUTH 71 d e t a i l e d make-up of these aggregate households i s considered l a t e r . Before s e t t l i n g on a \"universe\" which i s most appro-p r i a t e f o r Canadian comparisons, a number of q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o the t o t a l f i g u r e s must be enumerated. The standard s t a t i s t i c s now c o l l e c t e d f o r the nation as a whole, by the H.H.F.A., .(Housing and House Finance Agency), P u b l i c Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , are d i v i d e d f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e reasons which are themselves v a l u a b l e , i n t o two major compila-t i o n s . 1 One of these r e l a t e s only to f a m i l i e s already i n p r o j e c t s ; the other, to f a m i l i e s who have moved i n the yyear reported. The f i r s t group must have t h e i r income p o s i t i o n assessed i n order t o r e t a i n e l i g i b i l i t y , since there i s an upper l i m i t i n a l l U.S. low-rent p r o j e c t s . The other group are f a m i l i e s who have been on the w a i t i n g l i s t , or have recent-l y made a p p l i c a t i o n s , and whose e l i g i b i l i t y was reviewed p r i o r to moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s i n the p a r t i c u l a r year reported. Taking again the year 1961 as base, 4-20,800 f a m i l i e s were r e -examined and 121,900 f a m i l i e s were admitted, presumably f o r the f i r s t time. Now the t o t a l s t a t i s t i c s r e l a t e t o w e l l over h a l f -a - m i l l i o n households; and there can be l i t t l e doubt that they are very r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of at l e a s t the more urban low-income groups of the United S t a t e s . For purposes of comparison w i t h Canada, however, some im-portant e x c l u s i o n s should be made from these f i g u r e s . To begin w i t h , there are now p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s i n Puerto Rico and the V i r g i n I s l a n d s , i n Alaska and i n Hawaii. The terms and c o n d i t i o n s are no doubt\"in many ways s i m i l a r , but i t i s simpler to confine a t t e n t i o n t o c o n t i n e n t a l United States (and some t a b u l a t i o n s r e l a t e only to t h i s area, i n any case). Next a 1 F a m i l i e s ^ i n 'Low-; Rent \".Projects, and F a m i l i e s Mc>vIng .Into Lqw-Rerrc\" H o u s i n g . H . F \" . A ' P u o T f c \" Housing 'AdmfnYs'tVat'idn f T 9 6 1 . 72 c o n s i d e r a t i o n of major s o c i a l consequence i s that Negroes are a very large and a s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s i n g p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l p o p u lation r e s i d e n t i n p u b l i c housing. There i s no quest i o n , of course, that Negroes ought to be e l i g i b l e on equal terms wi t h whites f o r p u b l i c housing -- the c r i t e r i o n i s the need f o r housing, not pace or c o l o u r . But there i s no p a r a l l e l w ith the Canadian s i t u a t i o n i n terms of numbers, on t h i s matter. In any case, a l s o , s o c i a l and economic f a c t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y income, are apt t o d i f f e r so markedly that the standard s t a -t i s t i c s normally f o l l o w separate t a b u l a t i o n s . 1 I t i s more a-ppropriate f o r the present e x p l o r a t i o n s t o take the s t a t i s t i c s f o r white f a m i l i e s only. A l s o , where p o s s i b l e , s t a t i s t i c s f o r the Northern and Western major census regions of the Union only, are used, because of the c l o s e r s i m i l a r i t y t o the Cana-dian regions than those of the Southern S t a t e s . N a t u r a l l y such f i g u r e s are not t o be taken as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t o t a l United S t a t e s . Race. Since any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t i s t i c s on p u b l i c housing i n the U.S. cannot e n t i r e l y d i s r e g a r d the o v e r a l l trends o c c u r r i n g i n p u b l i c housing i n respect of race, i t i s h e l p f u l t o bear i n mind the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s about the major r e g i o n s . In 1961, 51 per cent of a l l r e s i d e n t s i n U.S. p u b l i c housing were non-white, as compared w i t h 36 per cent i n 1949. The per-centage of non-white f a m i l i e s i n the Northern States was 47 i n 1961, i n the South 58 per cent, and i n the West, 4o per cent. '''There are growing proportions of Puerto Ricans, Mexicans i n the category \"Negro and others.\" In Canadian p r o j e c t s , there are already many persons of O r i e n t a l o r i g i n , and many Indians: but i t would be i n v a l i d t o assume that U.S. f i g u r e s h e a v i l y weighted\"by Negroes would serve as comparative m a t e r i a l f o r these groups. 73 A l l regions have increased proportions of non-white r e s i d e n t s since 1952; the West experienced the l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e , and the North tending to l e v e l o f f and s t a b i l i z e at 47 per cent. The p r o p o r t i o n of non-white f a m i l i e s moving i n t o p u b l i c hous-ing f o r the f i r s t time was 35.5 per cent i n 1961. With these f a c t s as a background, the informati o n which now f o l l o w s r e f e r s only t o white f a m i l i e s , e i t h e r already i n the p r o j e c t s , or r e c e n t l y moved i n t o them. Types of J?ami l y . One of the problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the U.S. f i g u r e s , p a r t i c u l a r i l y f o r comparative purposes w i t h the other coun-t r i e s , i s the f a c t that the data i s b a s i c a l l y compiled so as to r e f e r to \" a l l f a m i l i e s \" ( i n c l u d i n g e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s ) . Some information on e l d e r l y / f a m i l i e s as a group i s presented, but very l i t t l e i n formation i s given on younger f a m i l i e s as d i s -t i n c t i v e groups. When the re-examination of 194,467 white f a m i l i e s i n p u b l i c housing i n the U.S. was made i n 1961, i t showed tha t the percentages of major f a m i l y types were; Standard 43.2 per cent; Broken 21.4; Adult 18.4; S i n g l e 17.0. E l d e r l y persons are included w i t h i n these c a t e g o r i e s , but i f e l d e r l y persons are s e p a r a t e l y counted, they;'represent 28 per cent of t h i s t o t a l of f a m i l i e s re-examined. This i s a high p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s i n a community, and t h e r e f o r e , the i n c l u s i o n of t h i s group i n the above f i g u r e s , makes these percentages somewhat n o n - t y p i c a l of the \" f a m i l y \" s t r u c t u r e of the p r o j e c t s . One of the ways i n which s t a t i s t i c s are compiled f o r the P u b l i c Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n the U.S. i s by a d i v i s i o n of f a m i l i e s i n t o those w i t h c h i l d r e n , and those without c h i l d r e n . These two broad groups include e l d e r l y parents, as w e l l as 74 as one-parent f a m i l i e s . Over the past s e v e r a l years there has been a steady; i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d l e s s f a m i l y groups. Part of the reason f o r t h i s i s d i r e c t l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e : i t r e s u l t s from the p a s s i n g of the Housing Act of 1956, which made s i n g l e e l -d e r l y persons e l i g i b l e f o r U.S. p u b l i c housing; but i t i s a l s o a r e s u l t of an i n c r e a s e i n the number of A u t h o r i t i e s p e r m i t t i n g s i n g l e persons of a l l ages t o remain i n r e s i d e n c e . Taking the A d u l t and S i n g l e f a m i l i e s t o g e t h e r g i v e s a t o t a l of 35.4 per cent of f a m i l i e s without minors i n 196I; t h i s c o n t r a s t s with a f i g u r e of 21.1 per cent i n 1952, and i n d i c a t e s the major change i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r e s i d e n t s of p u b l i c housing i n the U.S. i n t h i s decade. These f a c t s may now be compared with the corresponding ones f o r f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s i n .1961. A word should f i r s t be s a i d about the b a s i s f o r e l i g i b i l i t y t o the p r o j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n t o low income, e l i g i b i l i t y requirements are, (a) l i v i n g i n substandard bousing, (b) b e i n g a f f e c t e d by slum c l e a r a n c e , or (c) being completely without housing. Pre-ference f o r admission i s g i v e n to three groups, s e r v i c e - c o n n e c -ted f a m i l i e s , 1 e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s (head or spouse over 62), and d i s a b l e d persons; housing requirements may be waived f o r these groups. The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f a m i l y types a l r e a d y i n p u b l i c housing are compared with f a m i l y types moving i n ( i n the year 1961) i n Table 11. These f i g u r e s , and subsequent ones i n t h i s s e c t i o n are a l l d e r i v e d from two p u b l i c a t i o n s of the Housing and Home 1 i . e . , f a m i l i e s of former members of the armed f o r c e s or those where the head of the f a m i l y i s s e r v i n g h i s two years c o m p u l s o r y y m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g . 75 Finance Agency ( P u b l i c Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Program Planning D i v i s i o n ) . 1 Tbe second set of f i g u r e s r e l a t e to a t o t a l of 75,067 white f a m i l i e s admitted' t o p u b l i c housing i n c o n t i n e n t a l U.S. i n 1961. Table 11. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Types of F a m i l i e s i n U.S. P u b l i c Housing, 1961. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s Type of Family Already i n Moving i n Standard 43.2 52.5 Broken 21.4 20.0 Adult 18.4 18.2 S i n g l e 17.0 9.2 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 While the percentage of Standard f a m i l i e s moving i n t o p u b l i c housing (52.5) i s cons i d e r a b l y higher than that of those f a m i l i e s who have been housed f o r some time (43.2), nevertheless i t represents a decreasing number of Standard f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s , a trend which has been e v i -dent since 1956, when the comparable p r o p o r t i o n was 55.7 per cent. This i s o f f - s e t -- r e l a t e d to the terms of the Housing Act of 1956, as noted p r e v i o u s l y -- by a steady increase i n the number of s i n g l e persons moving i n (from 2.1 per cent i n 1956 t o 9.2 per cent i n 1961). The proportions of Broken and Adult f a m i l i e s moving i n i n t h i s same period has remained 1 ^ d j ^ l i ^ and Faro 11ies Moving_jinto Low - Re ht' \"ffou s ing^. 76 r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e . Age of Head pf Famil y . In g e n e r a l , f a m i l i e s i n low-rent housing i n the U.S. are g e t t i n g o l d e r , year by year. There are two reasons f o r t h i s , (1) the c o n t i n u a t i o n i n r e s i d e n c e of o r i g i n a l f a m i l i e s who have remained there f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s , and (2) the admission of more and more e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s . Those households wherein the age of the head .of the f a m i l y was \"under 25\" were only 7 per cent of the t o t a l f a m i l i e s , i n 196I. The l a r g e s t percentage (26) was the group whose f a m i l y head was aged \"65 or over\". The median age of the f a m i l y head was 44.7. One i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t i s t h a t the Chicago r e g i o n a l o f f i c e r e p o r t e d 31 per cent of the f a m i l i e s i n p r o j e c t s w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n have heads aged 65 or over, while San F r a n c i s c o r e p o r t e d only 18 per cent i n t h i s category. One might s p e c u l a t e as t o whether t h i s i s r e l a t e d t o the r e l a t i v e wealth of o l d e r persons i n these two areas, or to the p r o v i s i o n s f o r housing the e l d e r l y i n them \u00E2\u0080\u0094 both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e housing. New York r e g i o n a l o f f i c e r e p o r t e d the s m a l l e s t p r o p o r t i o n of young f a m i l i e s (4.7 per c e n t ) , while San F r a n c i s c o r e p o r t e d the l a r g e s t (10.5 per c e n t ) . In r e s p e c t of f a m i l i e s who moved i n t o p u b l i c housing pro-j e c t s i n the U.S. d u r i n g 1961, there are some f a c t s t h a t com-pare the ages of the heads of c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s with those ^ of f a m i l i e s who do have c h i l d r e n . In the a l l - a d u l t households the median age of the head of the f a m i l y i s r i s i n g , and was 65.2 years i n 1961. On the other hand, the median age of the f a m i l y head of those f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n has s t a b i l i z e d , and was 30.4 i n t h i s same year. Thus, while a l a r g e percentage of young f a m i l i e s are 77 Table 12. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s by Age of Head. 1961. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Fami] Lies Age of Head Alr e a d y i n Moving i n (a) Under 25 7 26 25-34 22 34 35 - 44 21 15 45 - 54 14 - 7 55 - .64 10 6 65 and over 26 15 T o t a l 100 100 (a) i n c l u d e s white f a m i l i e s i n Alaska and Hawaii. a p p l y i n g f o r admission to the p r o j e c t s , the p o p u l a t i o n s of the p r o j e c t s are themselves changing. As the p r o j e c t s \"age\" so does the age of head of f a m i l i e s i n them. T h i s upward movement of the age d i s t r i b u t i o n i s now becoming f a m i l i a r t o housing ad-m i n i s t r a t o r s . ,\u00C2\u00A7A^ J-,.9_^- rJ^ rHy3 r\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 T h e a v e r a S e s l z e o f f a m i l y has decreased s t e a d i l y s i n c e 1 9 5 5 . The mean was 3 . 9 (approximately) i n 1 9 5 5 and 3 . 5 1 \" 1 9 6 1 , 1 but t h i s i s a s t a t i s t i c a l r a t h e r than a f a m i -l y phenomenon. The i n c r e a s e i n s i n g l e person \" f a m i l i e s \" en-t e r i n g the p r o j e c t s has a l r e a d y been noted. However, as i s e l a b o r a t e d below, there has a l s o been a s l i g h t d e c l i n e i n the average s i z e of the f a m i l i e s who are a p p l y i n g f o r accommodation and e n t e r i n g the housing each y e a r . During t h i s same s i x - y e a r p e r i o d , t h i s decrease i n the 1 The comparable f i g u r e f o r Vancouver's p r o j e c t s i n Jan-uary, 1964, was 3.9. 78 average s i z e of f a m i l y has been evident a l s o f o r those f a m i l i e s who entered the p r o j e c t s each year. The mean number of persons was 3.81 i n 1955 but 3.6l i n 1961. At the same time there was a sharp increase i n the p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e persons being housed; these would be e l d e r l y people mainly. The increase was from 2.2 per cent i n 1956 (the year i n which s i n g l e persons became e l i g i b l e f o r p u b l i c housing) to 9.2 per cent i n 1961. The percentage of l a r g e r - s i z e d f a m i l i e s . ( s i x o r m o r e persons) who moved i n each year has remained r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e at about 15 per cent since 1952. However, each year since that time, there have been fewer f a m i l i e s i n the \"two or three person\" s i z e and the \"four or f i v e person\" s i z e , e n t e r i n g the p r o j e c t s . This f a c t i n i t s e l f i n d i c a t e s that even when s i n g l e persons are excluded, the f a m i l i e s who are e n t e r i n g p u b l i c housing i n the U.S. are somewhat sma l l e r i n s i z e than they were about a de-cade p r i o r to 1961. Of course, the s t a t i s t i c a l i n f l u e n c e of the entrance of large numbers of s i n g l e e l d e r l y persons since 1956, cannot be disregarded f o r the years since that time. There are fewer l a r g e r - s i z e f a m i l i e s (over s i x persons) moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s as compared wi t h those already i n . This needs c a r e f u l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, since i t must be borne i n mind that f a m i l i e s already: i n the p r o j e c t s can i n -crease i n s i z e while l i v i n g t h e re. The range of accommodation ( s i z e of s u i t e s ) i s a l s o important; l o c a l p r o j e c t s t u d i e s would be needed to e s t a b l i s h t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Number of Klinor C h i l d r e n . There has been a decrease i n the average number of minor c h i l d r e n i n the United States p r o j e c t s i n the l a s t few years because the p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t s 79 Table 13. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s , by S i z e of Family, 1961. Number of Persons Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s Already i n Moving i n (a) one two 17 23 9 22 three or f o u r f i v e ' or s i x seven or ei g h t nine or more 30 20 8 3 41 21 6 1 T o t a l 100 100 Mean number of persons 3.56 3.61 (a) includes white f a m i l i e s i n Alaska and Hawaii has been i n c r e a s i n g . The average number of minor c h i l d r e n f o r a l l households i n 1961 was 1.91, down from the i960 f i g u r e of 1.97. On the other hand, f o r f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , the av-erage was 2.96, a s l i g h t increase from i960. Although these f i g u r e s include e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n i n the home, t h i s l a t t e r group would be small i n number, and the f i g u r e of 2.96 i s probably a good i n d i c a t i o n of the number of c h i l d r e n i n the normal and one-parent f a m i l i e s i n United States P u b l i c Housing. For f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s the average number of c h i l d r e n i n a l l f a m i l i e s was I.89 i n 1961, a s l i g h t drop from the i960 f i g u r e of 1.93. S i m i l a r l y as i n the f a m i l i e s already e s t a b l i s h e d i n the p r o j e c t s , a s l i g h t increase i n the average number of minors 80 was e v i d e n t i n those f a m i l i e s who do have c h i l d r e n , and who moved i n t o a u n i t i n 1961 f o r the f i r s t time. The average was 2 . 6 , compared with 2.52 i n 1956. The p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s with f o u r or more minors rose from 16.8 per cent i n 1954 t o 17.5 per cent i n 1961. I t i s important t o note, i n co n n e c t i o n with t h i s f a c t , t h a t l a r g e r d w e l l i n g u n i t s have been a v a i l a b l e s i n c e 1953. Table l 4 . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s by Number of Minors. Number of Minors Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s A l r e a d y i n Moving i n (a) none one or two three or f o u r f i v e or s i x seven or more 35 31 2g 3 27 4o 24 7 2 T o t a l 100 100 Mean Number of Minors 1.91 1.89 (a) i n c l u d e s white f a m i l i e s i n Alas k a and Hawaii. Over one-half the f a m i l i e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s p u b l i c housing have from one to f o u r c h i l d r e n , and about t w o - t h i r d s of a l l the households are f a m i l i e s with youngsters. The new r e s i d e n t s i n 1961, were, t o a l a r g e e x t e n t , presumably young f a m i l i e s , w i t h one or two c h i l d r e n \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the f a m i l y f o r whom pub-l i c housing can rep r e s e n t a good s t a r t i n l i f e f o r the c h i l d -ren, which w i l l serve them w e l l i n l a t e r y e a r s . (Table l 4 ) . 81 F a m i l i e s .with .MJ.jTors . (Standard plus One-parent). The most usual f a m i l y f o r housing c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the f a m i l y composed of two parents with c h i l d r e n of v a r y i n g ages, from i n f a n t s up t o those passing out of t h e i r teens t o grown-up or adult s t a t u s . In U.S. p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s , these key f a m i l i e s -- f a m i l i e s w i t h \" c h i l d r e n \" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 represented two-t h i r d s of the t o t a l , or 64.6 per cent. One-third of these \" f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n \" had only one parent i n the home. This i s u s u a l l y the mother, and t h i s i s another f a m i l y t o whom sub-s i d i z e d housing can make the d i f f e r e n c e between \"managing\" or s i n k i n g i n t o d e s p a i r . A: s i z e a b l e p r o p o r t i o n (28 per cent) of these same \" f a m i l i e s ' 1 w i t h c h i l d r e n \" were large f a m i l i e s of s i x or more persons, and about one-third had at l e a s t f o u r c h i l d r e n . For an i l l u s t r a t i o n of how the s t r u c t u r e of the p r o j e c t s , i n respect of the f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n them, has changed over the years, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t , i n 194-9, e i g h t y -three per cent of the t o t a l f a m i l i e s i n the housing were \"fami-l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n \" , as compared w i t h the 64.6 per cent i n 1 9 6 I , noted above.' Although the p r o p o r t i o n of t h i s group has been d e c l i n i n g s t e a d i l y since the year of 1949, the sharpest d e c l i n e begins i n 1956 -- the year i n which s i n g l e e l d e r l y persons were admitted t o p u b l i c housing f o r the f i r s t time. This p o i n t s up the f a c t that much of the p r o v i s i o n i n housing i n the l a s t few years has been f o r s i n g l e u n i t s f o r the o l d -r age person. Of course old people must be decently housed. The question i s , whether the p r o p o r t i o n that they should rep-resent i n a p u b l i c housing community which we are s t r i v i n g t o keep as \"normal\" as p o s s i b l e , has not been reached \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i n f a c t , i n some sec t i o n s of the U.S., has not already been surpassed. 82 As could be expected, of the group of f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , the p r o p o r t i o n of those who have a head of the fami-l y under the age of 35, has been d e c l i n i n g over the past sev-e r a l y e a r s . T h i s i s , of course, r e l a t e d t o the f a c t t h a t f a m i l i e s w i l l be s t a y i n g on i n the p r o j e c t s , growing o l d e r each year. However, f o r those f a m i l i e s who are coming i n t o housing f o r the f i r s t time, the p r o p o r t i o n who are very young f a m i l i e s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 age of head \"under 25\" -- i s s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s i n g each year, and was 27.8 per cent i n 19.61. T h i s i s n a t u r a l l y accompanied by a decrease i n the percentage of f a m i l i e s whose head of the f a m i l y i s aged \"25 t o 44\". Table 15. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of \" F a m i l i e s with C h i l d r e n \" by Age of Head Age of Head Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of \" F a m i l i e s w i t h C h i l d r e n \" \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 TO.ready i n Moving m under 25 10.4 27.8 25 - 34 33.9 4o.8 3 5 - 4 4 30.8 19.3 45 - 54 16.9 55 - 64 5.6 3.0 65 and over 2.3 1.4 T o t a l 100 100 While a l a r g e percentage of f a m i l i e s with minor c h i l d r e n moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s have a head of the f a m i l y who i s young, the f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t s r e f l e c t the movement of the \"bulge\" upward as the p r o j e c t s and f a m i l i e s age. (Table 15). \"Broken\" or one-parent f a m i l i e s , as noted above, r e p r e -sent o n e - t h i r d of the t o t a l of \" f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n . \" The p r o p o r t i o n of t h i s group has been r i s i n g , but s l o w l y , each 83 year. At the same time, the percentage of these f a m i l i e s who have a young head (under 35) has been decreasing g r a d u a l l y , year by year, and i n 1961, was 44.4 per cent. This may be a s l i g h t i n d i c a t i o n that f a m i l i e s i n the lower-income groups are tending to break up at an e a r l i e r age. On the other hand, i n t h i s group of one-parent f a m i l i e s , those who have four or more c h i l d r e n have been an i n c r e a s i n g p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l each year. In I96I, almost one-third were i n t h i s category. This may be due to e l i g i b i l i t y arrangements, not n e c e s s a r i l y a trend i n f a m i l y types, but i t i s obviously s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the planning of welfare s e r v i c e s i n the p r o j e c t s . One-parent f a m i l i e s , who, i t should be noted, are not n e c e s s a r i l y \"broken\" f a m i l i e s , who came i n t o p u b l i c housing f o r the f i r s t time i n 1961, were 27.6 per cent of the t o t a l of \" f a m i l i e s with c h i l -dren\" who entered that year. This percentage has remained r e l -a t i v e l y s t a b l e f o r a number of years. F a m i j j i e ^ s J ^ i ^ o ^ t C h i l d r e n . (Adult and S i n g l e \"Families''). As has been p r e v i o u s l y noted, there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l pro-p o r t i o n of c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s i n U.S. housing p r o j e c t s , (35.4 per c e n t ) . Over two-thirds of these f a m i l i e s are e l d e r l y , and t h e i r numbers are i n c r e a s i n g each year. For example, i n 1952, there were 52.4 per cent of o l d e r f a m i l i e s (age of head of f a m i l y 65 or over) i n the t o t a l of \" f a m i l i e s without c h i l d r e n , \" but i n 1961, t h i s p r o p o r t i o n had r i s e n t o 69. Again these per-centages i l l u s t r a t e the sharp increase i n the numbers of o l d e r people i n the p r o j e c t s over these years. Single-persons are a r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g group i n t h i s cate-gory, and i n f a c t , show the greatest p r o p o r t i o n a t e i n c r e a s e . They were only 18.9 per cent of the c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s i n 1952, 84 but 44.7 per cent i n i960, and 48 per cent i n 1961. Two-person f a m i l i e s , whom one would presume would be c h i e f l y couples, were a l s o 48 per cent of the c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s , but i n t e r e s t i n g l y , they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y younger than the s i n g l e person \" f a m i l i e s \" . The remaining f o u r per cent of f a m i l i e s i n t h i s group were d i s t r i b u t e d i n three-person and l a r g e r households. This same trend towards an o l d e r average age f o r f a m i l i e s without youngsters i s evident i n the data a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i i s -k ind of f a m i l y who i s e n t e r i n g housing p r o j e c t s f o r the f i r s t time. The p r o p o r t i o n of young c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s (age of head under 25) i s decreasing r a p i d l y each year, and i n 1961, was 21.6 per cent of the t o t a l of \" f a m i l i e s without c h i l d r e n . \" On the other hand, as has been noted, \" f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n \" w i t h young heads have been an i n c r e a s i n g l y higher p r o p o r t i o n of those e n t e r i n g the p r o j e c t s f o r the f i r s t time. The o l d e r age group (age of head 65 and over) were 51.3 per cent of the c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s coming i n t o the housing i n 1961, a l s o a s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s i n g p r o p o r t i o n each year as i s true f o r those who are already e s t a b l i s h e d i n the p r o j e c t s . The i n f l u e n c e of lowering the age of e l i g i b i l i t y to housing from 65 t o 62, and the extension of e l i g i b i l i t y t o s i n g l e e l d e r l y persons i n 1956, can be seen i n the changing proportions of f a m i l i e s whose head i s aged 55 or over. In 1957, t h i s group was 58 per cent of the t o t a l of c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s e n t e r i n g housing, but i n 1961, they were almost 70 per cent. 85 E l d e r l y ^ F a m i l i e s . E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s are becoming a gre a t e r segment of the t o t a l p opulation each year, and t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s markedly demonstrated i n United States Housing S t a t i s t i c s . There are in c r e a s i n g numbers of e l d e r l y a p p l i c a n t s on w a i t i n g l i s t s f o r low-rent housing, and i n the p r o j e c t s themselves as regu-l a t i o n s are adopted to f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r e n t r y . Some c i t i e s i n the Northern s t a t e s of the U.S., where the problem of housing the s e n i o r s i t i z e n s i s p r e s s i n g , have taken a c t i o n t o b u i l d u n i t s designed e s p e c i a l l y f o r old people and have added a con-s i d e r a b l e number t o t h e i r p u b l i c housing. In a d d i t i o n , other expedient measures are being t r i e d . For example, i n Chicago i n 1963, the Housing A u t h o r i t y stated that there were approxi-mately 4500 apartments, i n various stages of development, i n t h e i r housing that were designed f o r e l d e r l y people. However, r e g i s t r a t i o n s f o r these u n i t s t o t a l l e d more than 8000.' In an attempt t o augment the supply of s u i t a b l e housing f o r t h i s seg-ment of the p o p u l a t i o n , the A u t h o r i t y arranged a three year demonstration p r o j e c t wherein i t supplements the rent payments (maximum supplementation i s $50 per month) i n 100 approved and privately-owned apartment b u i l d i n g s . Consideration i s a l s o being given, notably In Chicago, bat^also:;. \"inl'some pother centres to the f e a s i b i l i t y of r e c o n d i t i o n i n g e x i s t i n g housing f o r use as p u b l i c housing d w e l l i n g s f o r old people. E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s are d e f i n e d , f o r purposes of e l i g i b i l i t y to low-rent housing i n the U.S., as those wherein the head or spouse i s at l e a s t 62 years' old or i s d i s a b l e d . Disabled per-sons are those i n r e c e i p t of the re l e v a n t S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s , f o r which age requirements (formerly 50) were e l i m i -nated i n the second h a l f of 1961. These f a m i l i e s were subject to re-examination f o r the f i r s t time i n 1961, and t h e i r e n t r y _ Housing f o r the E l d e r l y i n the United States -86 adds to the already high percentage of e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t s . In a l l , 54,214 E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s were re-examined i n 1961 and of these 31,525 l i v e d i n the Northern s t a t e s while only 3,937 l i v e d i n the West. E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s represented 28 per cent of a l l white f a m i l i e s re-examined i n I 9 6 I ; a f i g u r e which i s most s i g n i f i c a n t ( p a r t i c u l a r l y because i t i s i n c r e a s i n g each year) f o r planning of both welfare s e r v i c e s t o the hous-ing and the design of housing. In these old-age f a m i l i e s there was an equal d i v i s i o n (l4 per cent) between those w i t h only one a d u l t (may include a c h i l d ) and those w i t h two or more a d u l t s . In other words, s i n g l e e l d e r l y people form about 14 per cent of the r e s i d e n t s of U.S. p u b l i c housing. The number of E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s i n 1961 was 13,735. Of these, 7,122 moved i n t o housing i n the Northern s t a t e s and 1,315 i n t o housing i n the West. One-adu l t f a m i l i e s were 52.1 per cent of the t o t a l , two or more ad u l t f a m i l i e s were ^7.9 per cent. In the Vancouver p r o j e c t s there i s an e l d e r l y p o p ulation of 19^7 per cent. However, these are people a l l 70 years of age or ol d e r and ther e f o r e the percentage i s not comparable wi t h the United States percentage of 28.0, which includes per-sons 62 years of age or o l d e r . In the f o u r Vancouver p r o j e c t s however the p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s who have, \"as the f a m i l y head, a person of 60 years of age or o l d e r , i s 3.5.\u00C2\u00B0 P e r cent. Since there w i l l be even more persons over the age of 60 years (not designated as heads of f a m i l i e s ) i n the Vancouver pro-j e c t s , i t does seem p o s s i b l e that there may be a higher pro-p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y people i n them --using.age 62 as the demar-c a t i o n year \u00E2\u0080\u0094 than i n the United States p r o j e c t s . 87 Comparatiye B r i t i s h Overvlew Family Types Without on-the-spot enquiry, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o get i n -formation on the types of f a m i l y t o he found i n p a r t i c u l a r housing developments i n B r i t a i n , of the kind r e f e r r e d t o above i n connection w i t h the Vancouver p r o j e c t s . Some i n d i c a t i o n , however, of the type of household i n a housing estate as com-pared w i t h the r e s t of the country i s presented by Mogey, who undertook a study of Barton, the post-war municipal estate on the o u t s k i r t s of Oxford, already d e s c r i b e d . 1 Mogey c l a s s i f i e d households i n t o f i v e types, which i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to compare w i t h the f o r m u l a t i o n followed elsewhere i n t h i s study: Tyge^A: Households c o n s i s t i n g of the housewife and her husband only. Type^B: Households i n c l u d i n g the housewife, her husband, and one or more of the housewife's own c h i l d r e n aged 0-14 years. Type^C; Households i n c l u d i n g the housewife, her husband, and one or more grown-up sons or daughters aged 15 or over but not any below. Type D; Households c o n s i s t i n g s o l e l y of a d u l t s aged 15 or over, but not c o n t a i n i n g grown-up sons or daughters of the housewife. (Housewife, her husband and other a d u l t s ) . S i n g l e person households w i l l a l s o be included i n t h i s group. T ypeE: Other households. This group w i l l c ontain house-holds c o n s i s t i n g of widows w i t h c h i l d r e n or widows w i t h grown-up sons or daughters. I t w i l l a l s o c o n t a i n households con-s i s t i n g of the housewife, her husband, one or more married c h i l d r e n , and some grandchildren. 1 J . M. Mogey, F j j ^ j J T ^ n d .Neighbqurhood^ Two^Stud^les J.n _ Oxford, p. 16. . 88 In the summary;-below, these types have been given names which help to d i s t i n g u i s h t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Prom the data c o l l e c t e d f o r Barton, i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e to see t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance. Table 16. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Types of F a m i l i e s . 1955. Type of Family Barton Estate Great B r i t a i n A: Two-person f a m i l i e s (no c h i l d r e n ) 11 16 B: Standard f a m i l i e s : younger c h i l d r e n 7.0 37 C: Standard f a m i l i e s : o l d e r c h i l d r e n 4 20 D: Adult f a m i l i e s , i n c l u d i n g s i n g l e persons 0 15 E: Mixed households, i n c l u d i n g one-parent f a m i l i e s - 15 12 T o t a l 100 100 I t seems that the canons f o r s e l e c t i o n of a c o u n c i l house i n Barton favour e i t h e r type B households or type E households, whereas i n the r e s t of the country there i s a more even d i s -t r i b u t i o n . Mogeyyalso reported that during the period 1938-50 there were ha r d l y any one-person households (1 per c e n t ) . I t was inhabited mainly by f a m i l i e s of t h r e e , f o u r or f i v e persons. Large f a m i l i e s 1 c o n s t i t u t e d 5.2 per cent, and \"brok-en\" f a m i l i e s , c o n s i s t i n g of one parent and c h i l d r e n , 5.8\"per cent. There were a l s o 9.9 per cent of f a m i l i e s without c h i l -dren, or a d u l t f a m i l i e s . S i m i l a r f i g u r e s are f i v e n f o r the eleven B e l f a s t e s t a t e s , 'Large' f a m i l i e s , c o n s i s t of f i v e or more c h i l d r e n under eighteen. 89 i n a survey c a r r i e d out by D o r i t a F i e l d and Desmond N e i l l . 1 There were very f e w one-person households (0.3), q u i t e a high p r o p o r t i o n of large f a m i l i e s (23.5 per c e n t ) , and hardly any \"broken\" f a m i l i e s (3 per c e n t ) . The t y p i c a l or model f a m i l y consisted of f a t h e r , mother and two c h i l d r e n . The next most frequent are f a m i l i e s of two a d u l t s and three c h i l d r e n , and two a d u l t s and one c h i l d . These three groups of f a m i l i e s made up 5^ per cent of a l l the households. F o u r - c h i l d r e n and f i v e -c h i l d r e n f a m i l i e s comprised a f u r t h e r 15.2 per cent of the t o -t a l . Thus almost 70 per cent of the f a m i l i e s c o n s i s t e d of two ad u l t s and from one t o f i v e c h i l d r e n . Only about 7 per cent were without c h i l d r e n under 18 years of age. Family .Size Several s t u d i e s , which have now been made of a l l kinds of p u b l i c housing i n B r i t a i n , give information on f a m i l y s i z e . John Westergaard and Ruth Glass, f o r i n s t a n c e , undertook a sur-vey of the London County C o u n c i l estate of Lansbury^ i n the East End of London. Lansburypconsists of replacement housing on a slum clearance s i t e , which was e x h i b i t e d as \"Live A r c h i -t e c t u r e \" during the F e s t i v a l of B r i t a i n i n 1951. Although the o r i g i n a l area had some of the worst, most d i l a p i d a t e d and con-gested housing i n London, the new features incorporated i n the r e b u i l t s e c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g a r e v i t a l i z e d town centre and mar-ket p l a c e , have won acclaim i n many a r c h i t e c t u r a l and planning j o u r n a l s . 1 D o r i t a F i e l d and Desmond N e i l l , A Survey of Mtew Housing E s t a t e s i n B e l f a s t , p. 11. The above figuTes\"~are D a s e d \"ofTa\" 2 I t was given the name of the Lab-our Member of Parliament f o r the area, (George Lansbury), who has long represented t h i s area, and was most instrumental i n seeing the plans ( f i r s t p r o jected i n the County of London Plan) brought \"to f r u i t i o n as a p r i o r i t y i n the East End d i s t r i c t a f t e r the war. 90 Westergaard and Glass found Lansbury's population and household s t r u c t u r e followed the p a t t e r n made f a m i l i a r by other new r e s i d e n t i a l areas, having f a r more c h i l d r e n and young people, and a l s o f a r more large households ( f i v e or more per-sons), even though i t was much more p h y s i c a l l y a part of Pop-l a r and the East End than most \"Council housing\" u n i t s . 1 The average f a m i l y s i z e f o r Lansbury was 3.76, which i s f a i r l y ' t y p i c a l of esta t e s peopled from the housing l i s t s . In t h e i r survey of the B e l f a s t e s t a t e s , F i e l d and N e i l l found that the average s i z e of f a m i l i e s i n t h e i r sample was 4.86 persons. They compared t h i s f i g u r e to the average number of persons per occupied p r i v a t e house i n B e l f a s t and found i t 2 was considerably higher. The Increase i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e , how-ever, since f a m i l i e s i n B e l f a s t appear t o be l a r g e r than those i n London( an average s i z e of 3.97 compared w i t h 2.82 accord-ing to the 1951 Census). One may compare household s i z e i n three housing e s t a t e s w i t h the 1951 census f i g u r e f o r B r i t a i n , i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e . I t can be seen, that f a m i l i e s c o n t a i n i n g f o u r or f i v e persons predominate on the newer housing e s t a t e s , such as Barton and Lansbury, both of which were b u i l t since the war. In S h e f f i e l d , which i s a much o l d e r estate d a t i n g from 1926, there are many more even l a r g e r f a m i l i e s . This could i n c l u d e , however, a number of three-generation f a m i l i e s since some of the e a r l y r e s i d e n t s of that estate are now grandmothers. In B r i t a i n as a whole, on the other hand, there are more s i n g l e -person households, and many more f a m i l i e s c o n t a i n i n g only two 1 John Westergaard and Ruth Glass, \"A P r o f i l e of Lansbury.\" 2 D o r i t a F i e l d and Desmond N e i l l , op. c i t . 91 or three persons with a correspondingly smaller p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s c o n t a i n i n g f o u r or f i v e persons. Table 17. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Household S i z e . Family (persons) Great B r i t a i n 1951 Barton - 1954 Lansbury 1953 S h e f f i e l d 1953 1 11 1 9 4.5 2-3 5 2 38 32 35.9 4-5 29 49 48 36.5 6-7 6 11 11 14.8 8 or more 2 1 0 8.3: T o t a l 100 100 . . . 100 100 On the other hand, young married couples with no f a m i l y as y e t, or perhaps one c h i l d , may obtain a house i n a New Town by i n d u s t r i a l s e l e c t i o n before they; would q u a l i f y on the w a i t i n g l i s t s . Thus i n 1961, 49 per cent of a l l households i n Hemel Hempstead were f a m i l i e s of two or three persons; 27.6 per cent were f a m i l i e s of f o u r ; 15.5 per cent were f a m i l i e s of f i v e or more persons. S i m i l a r f i g u r e s apply to Stevenage, where there were 42 per cent of f a m i l i e s of two or three per-sons i n i960. Number of ^ChJ^d^ren. The ma j,or:i problem of a l l new housing developments has so f a r been the number of c h i l d r e n i n the p o p u l a t i o n . In blocks of f l a t s , New Towns, and other housing p r o j e c t s a l i k e , the age s t r u c t u r e i s d i f f e r e n t from that of the country as a whole. In the new areas there are f a r more c h i l d r e n , because f a m i l i e s 92 w i t h c h i l d r e n have p r i o r i t i e s on the w a i t i n g l i s t s ; and, i n the case of the New Towns, the employees most anxious t o move wi t h t h e i r f i r m s are commonly those w i t h young c h i l d r e n . F i e l d and N e i l l found i n t h e i r survey of the B e l f a s t e s t a t e s that the p r o p o r t i o n of under-fourteens was almost twice t h a t i n the general p o p u l a t i o n , whereas there were r e l a -t i v e l y fewer i n the age-group fourteen to seventeen. A s i m i -l a r s i t u a t i o n was reported by H i l d a Jennings i n her survey of a new estate i n B r i s t o l ; \"The schools were overcrowded by an e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g c h i l d p o p u l a t i o n , and one doctor who analyzed the age-d i s t r i b u t i o n of h i s p a t i e n t s s a i d that i t seemed that over h a l f the i n h a b i t a n t s of the e s t a t e were c h i l d r e n of f i f t e e n years and under, while 35 per cent were under f i v e years of age. Nearly f o u r - f i f t h s of h i s work co n s i s t e d of acute emergency treatment of c h i l d r e n . ...In t h i s preponderance of young f a m i l i e s Mossdene was not e x c e p t i o n a l . The way i n which the p o i n t s sys-tem worked indeed made.it almost i n e v i t a b l e on the new e s t a t e . Even when, as i n redevelopment or clearance schemes, a mixture of age groups were rehoused, the d e s i r e of the old t o remain i n f a m i l i a r p a r t s of B r i s -t o l meant tha t i t was mainly the young who went to the o u t l y i n g e s t a t e s . \" ! This same s i t u a t i o n i s a l s o described by Young and Willmott at Greenleigh, which i s the pseudonym f o r a post-war London County Co u n c i l e s t a t e . Young and Willmott s t a t e that Green-l e i g h 1 s r e s i d e n t s , mostly couples w i t h young c h i l d r e n , f a l l mainly i n t o two age-groups, the parents between t h i r t y and f o r t y - f i v e , and the c h i l d r e n under fourteen. At present the \"bulge\" of c h i l d r e n there i s so large that t h e i r need f o r p schools i s s e v e r e l y t a x i n g the education a u t h o r i t i e s . One may see very c l e a r l y what happens when t h i s \"bulge\" 1 H i l d a Jennings, S o c i e t i e s _ i ] ^ t h e ^Making, p. 137. 2 Michael Young and Peter W i l l m o t t , Family ^nd J^lj^sjiip i n East London, p. 166. 94 moves up through the age groups by comparing the age s t r u c t u r e of the vast pre-war estate of the London County C o u n c i l at Dagenham i n 1931 with what i t became i n 1958. 1 Table 18. Age D i s t r i b u t i o n of Population on the Dagenham \"Estate, 1931 and 1958, and i n England and Wales, 1958. Age Dagenham England and Wales, 1958 1931 1958 0-4 15 4 8 5-14 29 (a) 16 15 15-29 19 20 x ? 30-39 21 13 14 4o-49 11 14 14 50-59 3 17 60-69 70 and over 2 12 4 I T o t a l 100 100 100 (a) 5-13, 14-29 i n 1931 Even i n 1958 there were some important d i f f e r e n c e s i n Dagenham1s age s t r u c t u r e and that of the country as whole. For i n s t a n c e , there were fewer c h i l d r e n under f i v e , and more old e r people i n t h e i r f i f t i e s and s i x t i e s . But these d i f -ferences are not nea r l y so extreme as the s i t u a t i o n twenty-seven years e a r l i e r . At that time 44.5 per cent of the people l i v i n g on the estate were below the age of fo u r t e e n , and 16 per cent over foity; i n 1958 the corresponding f i g u r e s were 20 Peter, W i l l m o t t , The_ _Evqlution of a Community, p. 23. A Neighbourhood U n i t , B a s i l d o n New Town 95 per cent and 47 per cent. In the New Towns, even though the f a m i l y s i z e i s s m a l l e r , surveys show that here a l s o there are abnormal numbers of c h i l d r e n . At P e t e r l e e , f o r example, i n 1963, 13.9 per cent of the population were under f i v e years of age; i n 1962 at New-ton A y c l i f f e 13.7 per cent were below t h i s age, while the corresponding f i g u r e s f o r Harlow and Crawley i n 1961 were 14.6 per cent and 14.0 per cent. On the other hand, i n the country as a whole, only 7.9 per cent of the population were c h i l d r e n i n t h i s age group. For the same years quoted above, i n Harlow and Crawley 36.6 per cent and 35.6 per cent of the people l i v i n g there were c h i l d r e n under fourteen, while i n Great B r i t a i n the corresponding f i g u r e was 23.2 per cent. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s unbalanced age s t r u c t u r e w i l l appear i n the tremendous pressure on a l l the s o c i a l s e r v i c e s f o r c h i l d r e n , such as schools, playgrounds, maternity and c h i l d welfare centres, and w i l l create f u r t h e r d i f f i c u l t i e s as the \"bulge\" moves up the age groups. No feature of the \"new housing\" i s more c r i t i c a l , and f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be given to i t i n a l a t e r chapter. Elde^rly^^FamjLlles. The number of old people i n p u b l i c housing i n B r i t a i n i s s i z e a b l e , but the proportions are s t i l l low compared to the number i n the country as a whole. In mid-1961 the percen-tage of people aged 65 and over i n the United Kingdom was es-timated as 11.7 per c e n t , 1 while the percentage i n any of the new communities i s about a t h i r d as much. On the other hand, 1 B r i t a i n - An O f f i c i a l Handbook, H.M.S.O., 1963. 96 i n some of the pre-war e s t a t e s , such as Dagenham, the \"bulge\" of young married couples l i v i n g there i n 1931 has g r a d u a l l y been moving up i n t o the o l d e r age groups; i n 1958, 7.3 per cent of the pop u l a t i o n was between s i x t y and s i x t y - f o u r , and 8.7 per cent were aged s i x t y - f i v e and over. An i n c r e a s i n g number of e l d e r l y people have been ap p l y i n g to l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s f o r housing, and t h i s has f i n a l l y had i t s impact on government p o l i c i e s . As a r e s u l t , a u t h o r i t i e s are being encouraged to increase t h e i r r a t e of b u i l d i n g t o meet t h i s new demand. A s i g n i f i c a n t d e c i s i o n taken by the London County C o u n c i l , f o r example, has increased the propor-t i o n of one and two-room dwellings i n new developments from 20 to 30 per cent. This i s nea r l y one i n three \u00E2\u0080\u0094 enough to change the character (as w e l l as the needs) of a housing area. A few years ago l o c a l housing a u t h o r i t i e s i n England and Wales were a l l o c a t i n g about 7 per cent of t h e i r b u i l d i n g programs to housing s u i t a b l e f o r old people; i n 1959 i t was about 27 per cent, while i n Scotland they have increased the p r o p o r t i o n from 3.8 per cent i n 1952 to 15.4 per cent i n 1959. There have been other developments of a c o n s t r u c t i v e r a t h e r than a merely \" s t a t i s t i c a l \" nature. In 1958, the M i n i -s t r y asked the l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s to b u i l d group f l a t l e t s i n which old people could have s e l f - c o n t a i n e d b e d - s i t t i n g rooms and kitchens of t h e i r own, but would share communally c e r t a i n other amenities, i n c l u d i n g the s e r v i c e s of a re s i d e n t \"warden. Some of these b l o c k s , c o n t a i n i n g between 20 to 30 \" f l a t l e t s \" , are s i t u a t e d c l o s e t o the centres of housing e s t a t e s , w h i l e ' others are i n small towns or v i l l a g e s . Some are designed s o l e l y f o r persons of retirement age, that i s , men over 65 and 97 women over 60. Others are intended f o r s i n g l e persons with the greatest housing need, i r r e s p e c t i v e of age, and consequent-l y younger tenants are a l s o accommodated. The r e s i d e n t warden i s c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d . In a recent study undertaken by the M i n i s t r y (covering s i x of these blocks) f o u r of the wardens had nursing experience, and one was a t r a i n e d and experienced s o c i a l worker. 1 D i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e tenant s e l e c t i o n . A l l the old people are e i t h e r drawn from the c o u n c i l housing w a i t i n g l i s t s , or come from e x i s t i n g c o u n c i l d w e l l i n g s , or from slum clearance areas. The aim i s to accommodate pensioners, l i v i n g alone, who are l i k e l y t o b e n e f i t from a degree of s u p e r v i s i o n because of poor h e a l t h or i n f i r m i t y , though s t i l l able to look a f t e r themselves. They are not intended f o r the many old people who are s t i l l f a i r l y capable and can l i v e i n s e l f - c o n -t a i n e d f l a t s and bungalows. I t seems t o be the general experience of l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s that areas scheduled f o r redevelopment contain a higher pro-p o r t i o n of old people than other d i s t r i c t s . Although some old f o l k may be q u i t e ready t o move to h e a l t h i e r surroundings out-side the c i t y c e n t e r s , many f i n d i t hard to leave a place which i s f a m i l i a r and where they have f r i e n d s and neighbours. This f a c t o r i s recognized by l o c a l housing managers who t r y , where p o s s i b l e , to give preference t o them f o r rehousing on the s i t e which has t o be c l e a r e d . Among the Expanded Towns, Worsley makes s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n f o r o l d people i n two groups of bungalows; twenty-five are x Grouped F l a t l e t s \" f o r Old People: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Study, M i n i s t r y of \"Housing 'and Local 'Government,' 1962. 98 leased i n each group, w i t h a warden In charge. The groups share a common room and t e l e v i s i o n room, both of which are frequented by other old f o l k from the town. In Swindon, o l d e r tenants are housed mainly i n b u i l d i n g s of a p r e f a b r i c a t e d type, while i n B l e t c h l e y old people's bungalows are mixed with other dw e l l i n g s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 an arrangement which now appears t o be g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r r e d . The p r o p o r t i o n of old people i n the New Towns v a r i e s wide-l y but r a r e l y approaches the number t o be found i n long es-t a b l i s h e d communities. Although at East K i l b r i d e there are sa i d t o be 600 men and women over 65, and -- most e x c e p t i o n a l l y \u00E2\u0080\u0094 2,600 aged between 45 and 60, f o r the most part the numbers are much sm a l l e r . At A y c l i f f e there are 298 tenants over 60, while at Hemel Hempstead the estimated number of people aged 65 and over was 650, and sa i d to occupy 10 per cent of the dwellings t h e r e . 1 At t h i s l a s t town, the f i r s t group of bunga-lows b u i l t was off e r e d to r e t i r e d people on the London housing l i s t s , and was so s u c c e s s f u l that the Corporation b u i l t 200 more i n a l l neighbourhoods, with a view to a t t r a c t i n g f u r t h e r old people from London, but they were l a t e r given t o r e l a t i v e s of tenants. A l l the Development Corporations are now w e l l aware of the importance of the k i n s h i p group, and of p r o v i d i n g f o r the o l d , but at t h i s stage i t i s not easy t o f i l l adequately what i s g e n e r a l l y acknowledged t o be a gap i n e a r l i e r planning. For ins t a n c e , the 200 old people at Crawley are i n the main, r e l a -t i v e s of tenants brought from London, but the demand exceeds Nicholson, op. c i t . , p. 64. 99 the accommodation a v a i l a b l e . At Stevenage the number of e l -d e r l y people i s a l s o i n c r e a s i n g , and the Corporation has f o r some years been a l l o c a t i n g a small percentage of dwellings each year to the parents of e x i s t i n g tenants. At present 462 e l d e r l y people have been accommodated i n Stevenage under t h i s p o l i c y . The e a r l i e r plan of an old people's home or colony i s now i n d i s f a v o u r . Grouped bungalows are acceptable i f there are not too many of them c l u s t e r e d together, and the p r e f e r r e d method i s t o d i s t r i b u t e them throughout the neighbourhoods. The l e s s they are'' separated from the general community the more l i k e l y they are to s e t t l e h a p p i l y . Old people, i t now seems, are s p e c i a l l y valued i n New Towns. The Development Corporations f i n d them an asset i n s e t t l i n g t h e i r communities and make s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n f o r them. Self - g o v e r n i n g old people's clubs and old people's welfare committees are to be found i n New Towns, as w e l l as meal s e r v i c e s , chiropody, and night attendents. Group hol i d a y s f o r the aged, are a l s o often arranged. CHAPTER I I I E^^I^J^SS^S3,}-, ,r\u00C2\u00A3,|ie Cost .of .^e l ^ e r Vancquyer:^ Income and^ jtejnts P u b l i c Housing A u t h o r i t i e s as a r u l e devise some e l i g i -b i l i t y and r e n t a l r e g u l a t i o n s along with procedures f o r tenant s e l e c t i o n , i n order to assure; (1) that the a v a i l a b l e accommo-dat i o n goes to the s e c t i o n of the population f o r whom t h i s type of housing i s intended, (2) that p r i o r i t i e s among the e l i g i b l e a p p l i c a n t s are assigned according to urgency of need, and (3) that adequate housing i s made a v a i l a b l e at rents w i t h -i n the \"tenant's means. I t i s these r e g u l a t i o n s , which ex-p l i c i t l y and i m p l i c i t l y give a clue to the philosophy of a housing a u t h o r i t y on the bas i c goals and purposes of p u b l i c housing. For whom i s such housing intended? \"Low-income f a m i l y \" i s a conveniently vague term which lends i t s e l f to being e i t h e r stretched or r e s t r i c t e d . What i s p u b l i c housing to accomplish f o r the f a m i l i e s w i t h i n i t , and f o r the commun-i t y of which i t i s a part? In a l l o c a t i n g p r o r i t l e s f o r p u b l i c housing accommodation the two main f a c t o r s to be considered, broadly speaking, are need f o r b e t t e r housing, and the income l e v e l of the prospec-t i v e tenants. Income, c l e a r l y , i s an important f a c t o r i n d e c i d i n g whether a person or f a m i l y can or cannot secure adequate hous-ing on the open market. Studies over s e v e r a l decades have confirmed that outlay f o r s h e l t e r should not exceed 20 t o 25 101 per cent of the income of f a m i l i e s w i t h l i m i t e d or middle i n -comes, though f o r higher incomes t h i s \" r u l e of thumb\" has no bearing. In p r a c t i c e the amount of rent paid i n pr o p o r t i o n to t o t a l earnings becomes most c r u c i a l f o r the lowest income groups, as an excessive p r i c e f o r s h e l t e r i s paid at the expense of other e s s e n t i a l s ; and since housing i s a permanent need, i n the long run may have grave e f f e c t s on a f a m i l y ' s t o t a l h e a l t h and w e l f a r e . D i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s use d i f f e r e n t methods f o r coping w i t h the problem of tenant s e l e c t i o n , and views vary on the question of what range of income l e v e l s should be represented i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s . Segregation (of c e r t a i n income l e v e l s or f a m i l y types) and d i v e r s i t y i n p u b l i c housing each have impor-tant consequences which need to be recognized and de a l t w i t h . On t h i s issue again d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s (and areas w i t h i n c o u n t r i e s ) have found various answers. The Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y has followed the Canadian p o l i c y of accepting a moderately wide range of income groups i n t o the l o c a l housing p r o j e c t s . The a c t u a l amounts of maximum income are p e r i o d i c a l l y reviewed i n the l i g h t of changing costs and wage l e v e l s . Minimum incomes are not s t i p u l a t e d ; however, s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e rates of the day are i n p r a c t i c e used as the lower l i m i t , as persons i n B.C. wit h incomes below t h a t , may apply f o r supplementary a s s i s t a n c e t o b r i n g t h e i r income up t o these l e v e l s . The maximum monthly incomes, which are r e l a t e d to f a m i l y s i z e , ranged at the time of the present study from $125 f o r a s i n g l e person t o $412.50 f o r a f a m i l y of seven or more. The rent scheme used by the Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y 102 r e l a t e s the rent paid to f a m i l y income and s i z e , and i s i n keeping with the working p r i n c i p l e that 20 to 25 per cent of income should go f o r r e n t . Rents f o r the l a r g e r f a m i l i e s at the lower end of the s c a l e are a c t u a l l y somewhat below 20 per cent. \"The Progressive Rent S c a l e \" , s t i l l i n use, i s an adaptation of a system developed i n a s p e c i a l study at the U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto School of S o c i a l Work i n 1948.1 Tenant rents i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s are based on the f a m i l y ' s net income, excluding f a m i l y allowances. In the case of c h i l d r e n (under age 25) with earnings of t h e i r own, who are l i v i n g i n t h e i r parent's household, $75 per month of t h e i r i n -come i s considered as f a m i l y income; earnings of l e s s than $75 per month are ignored. Income D i s t r i ^ b u t i q n In January 1964, 43.4 per cent of a l l f a m i l i e s i n the Vancouver p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s had incomes of l e s s than $150 per month. At $250 or under per month, over 80 per cent could be accounted f o r . F a m i l i e s w i t h monthly incomes of $251 t o $300, and from $301 to $377.50, made up 8.2 per cent and 7.7 per cent r e s p e c t i v e l y ; and only very few f a m i l i e s (2.3 per cent) earned over $377.50. These f a c t s come to l i f e f u r t h e r i n t e r m s of a c t u a l f a m i l i e s . Out of a t o t a l of 781 households i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s , 339 l i v e d on l e s s than $150 per month, and only 18 f a m i l i e s had monthly incomes over $377.50.\" (Table 19). 2- For a few f a m i l i e s i nformation on income was not a v a i l a b l e . 1 Humphrey Carver and A l l i s o n Hopwood, Rents f o r Regent Park; \"A Rent Scale System f o r a Public. Housing I W j e W T ^ ^ u ^ e ^ T f r \" L i t t l e Mountain Housing' P r o j e c t : A Survey of i t s Welfare Aspects\". M?s\ir.~Tnifsis: iry;xTi99?: ~~ ~ ~ 103 Table 19. Income D i s t r i b u t i o n of P u b l i c Housing Tenants Vancouver, 1964. Income L i t t l e Mountain Orchard Park Skeena Terrace MacLean Park A l l P r o j e c t s Middle Area P r o j e c t s P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. Under $150 29.0 46.4 37.3 69.2 43.4 3618 150-250 47.5 36.3 40 .8 24.5 38.4 42.0 251-300 10.4 5.4 10.7 4.4 8.2 9.2 301-377.50 10.4 10.7 7.3 1.3 7.7 9.3 Over 377.50 2.7 1.2 3.9 0.6 2.3 2.7 T o t a l (a) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (a) Includes a few non-stated I t i s meaningless, however, t o look at p r o j e c t f a m i l i e s i n a vacuum. In order t o gain p e r s p e c t i v e , they must be seen i n r e l a t i o n t o the l a r g e r community of which they are a p a r t . For l a c k of corresponding data, i t i s not p o s s i b l e to draw d i -r e c t comparisons. However, i t i s of importance t o note, t h a t i n the Me t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver area i n 1961, the average y e a r l y wage and s a l a r y income f o r males was $4,219; the corresponding f i g u r e f o r females was $2,219. Yet i n 1.964, i n the Vancouver p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s , over 4o per cent of f a m i l i e s were maintained on l e s s than $1800; and 80 per cent of f a m i l i e s l i v e d on l e s s than $3,000. I t may be estimated that only about 5 per cent of the f a m i l i e s i n the housing p r o j e c t s had an income comparable to the average wage and s a l a r y income for. males i n the l a r g e r community. A few comparative f i g u r e s are a v a i l a b l e f o r Toronto Regent Park (North). In 1957, the income s t r u c t u r e of the f a m i l i e s i n t h i s p r o j e c t was as f o l l o w s : 104 Incomes Number Per Cent $100 per month or l e s s 85 6.5 $100 to $150 per month 159 12.4 $150 to $320 per month 993 77.1 $320 t o $350 per month 52 4.0 T o t a l 1289 100.0 The \" t y p i c a l \" f a m i l y income i n Regent Park, judged by t h i s data, was $250 to $300 per month. For obvious reasons ( d i f f e r e n c e i n time when these data were c o l l e c t e d , and d i f f e r e n t i a l economic f a c t o r s operative i n B.C. and O n t a r i o ) , the above f i g u r e s are not d i r e c t l y com-parable w i t h the f i n d i n g s i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s . However, the general observation can be made, that both Regent Park and the Vancouver p r o j e c t s have approximately the same range of i n -come d i s t r i b u t i o n , and a heavy concentration of a more spe-c i f i c income l e v e l . T h i s , however, i n 1957, was considerably higher i n Regent Park, than what i t i s i n the Vancouver pro-j e c t s to-day. This d i f f e r e n c e lends i t s e l f t o many p o s s i b l e interpretations': that incomes are g e n e r a l l y higher i n Ontario, that tenant s e l e c t i o n p o l i c i e s d i f f e r , e t c . I t must be pre-sumed that the explanation does not l i e i n any s i n g l e f a c t o r . At l e a s t part of the answer i s found i n the f a c t that Regent Park, at the time, was occupied predominantly by wage earning \"standard\" f a m i l i e s ; whereas the Vancouver p r o j e c t s have a much 2 heavier p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e , e l d e r l y and one-parent f a m i l i e s . 1 Rose, R e j ^ n ^ J ^ r k , p. 187. 2 A standardized c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of f a m i l i e s (Chapter I I ) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 would permit a more understandable d i s c u s s i o n of average i n -comes! 105 More up-to-date data regarding incomes i n Regent Park i n d i c a t e that the income l e v e l s there have gone down since 1957. In 1961, the average income of the head of the home was $215.97; i n c l u d i n g secondary wage earners (492), the average income of f a m i l i e s was $ 2 S 5 . l 6 1 . One p o s s i b l e explanation f o r the de-crease may be, that the pr o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e persons and e l -d e r l y couples has increased i n the Regent Park p r o j e c t since 1957. This i s i n d i c a t e d by the a d d i t i o n of the b u i l d i n g f o r d i m i n i s h i n g f a m i l i e s , which has been discussed e a r l i e r . Middle Area P r o j e c t s . Comparing the three \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s (those not b u i l t on replacement or \"comprehensive redevelopment\" s i t e s ) , i t i s noted that the oldes t one, L i t t l e Mountain, has the lowest p r o p o r t i o n (29 Per Cent) of f a m i l i e s l i v i n g on l e s s than $150 per month. This group i s cons i d e r a b l y l a r g e r i n the newer p r o j e c t s , and forms the l a r g e s t income group (46.4 per cent) i n Orchard Park. In L i t t l e Mountain and Skeena Terrace the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s earn between $150 and $250 per month (47.5 and 4o.8 per cent, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . In a l l three p r o j e c t s , incomes of $250 to $377.50 are f a i r l y e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d -- between 15 and 20 per cent of the fami-l i e s i n each p r o j e c t f a l l i n g i n t o t h i s group. The highest i n -come group, namely f a m i l i e s with monthly earnings over $377.50, v a r i e s i n the three p r o j e c t s , but only from 1.2 t o 3.9 per cent. The a c t u a l number of these f a m i l i e s i s very small -- 6 i n L i t t l e Mountain, 2 i n Orchard Park and 9 i n Skeena Terrace. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that i n L i t t l e Mountain the pr o p o r t i o n of the lowest-income f a m i l i e s ( l e s s than $150 per month) has increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y since I958 (from 17.2 to 29.0 per c e n t ) , whereas the highest income groups ($300 and Housing A u t h o r i t y of Toronto. Report, May 1963. Vancouver s P u b l i c Housing MacLean Park lo6 over) have decreased considerably (from 24.4 t o 13.1 per c e n t ) . In Orchard Park the income d i s t r i b u t i o n has remained a p p r o x i -mately the same as i t was i n 1959. This p r o j e c t , however, had, from the s t a r t , a much higher p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s at the lowest income l e v e l . (Table 19). MajsLean Park. The income d i s t r i b u t i o n i n MacLean Park shows a very d i s t i n c t i v e p a t t e r n . Nearly 70 per cent of a l l tenants have an income of l e s s than $150 per month, and 93.7 per cent of the t o t a l tenant p o p u l a t i o n l i v e on l e s s than $250 per month. This i s not s u r p r i s i n g , c o n s i d e r i n g the very high p r o p o r t i o n of pensioner couples and s i n g l e pensioners i n t h i s p r o j e c t . The income of the remaining f a m i l i e s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ten i n number \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ranges from $250 up t o $377.50 and over, w i t h only one f a m i l y i n the top income category. (Table 19). The Vancouver Redevelopment Study records that i n I956-57 the median monthly Income f o r f a m i l i e s i n the \"East End Survey Area\" (which was studied i n d e t a i l ) was $246; the median income of s i n g l e per-sons was c o n s i d e r a b l y lower ($125 f o r persons under 65 years of age and $60 f o r the o l d e r \" s i n g l e g r o u p ) . 1 In the MacLean Park p r o j e c t the lowest income group i s very much higher'than i n the other p r o j e c t s (over twice as large as the correspond-i n g group i n L i t t l e Mountain), which i s c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o the high p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e e l d e r l y people and pensioner couples i n t h i s p r o j e c t . The \"East End Survey:-Area\" comprises about l600 b l o c k s . The boundaries of the area are Burrard I n l e t , Main S t r e e t , the False'Creek F l a t s , and Semiin and MacLean D r i v e . 107 Income by Family Composition I t was stated e a r l i e r that a large number of the f a m i l i e s i n the Vancouver housing p r o j e c t s are concentrated at a narrow income l e v e l (around $150 t o $250 per month). This does not imply that the economic status of these f a m i l i e s i s very s i m i -l a r , since the f a c t i s that the s i z e of f a m i l y w i t h i n t h i s i n -come l e v e l has a very wide spread. Family s i z e i s an important f a c t o r to keep i n mind when e s t i m a t i n g the economic status of the p r o j e c t f a m i l i e s , as i t can be of c r u c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e at the lowest income l e v e l s . Family allowance, and decreasing rents f o r large f a m i l i e s have an e q u a l i z i n g e f f e c t , but they by no means bridge the d i f f e r e n c e i n the f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n , as, f o r example, i n the case of a couple with a monthly income of $200 per month, compared to a f a m i l y of seven, l i v i n g on the same amount, the d i f f e r e n c e i n rent would be only $10. Table 20. R e l a t i o n between Incomes and'Family S i z e : P u b l i c Housing Residents, Vancouver, 1964. Monthly Income Number of,Persons i n Family T o t a l 1 2 6 8 or more Under $150 105 93 71 66 1 1 - 2 339 151-250 4 74 37 51 67 37 16 14 300 251-300 - 3 19 16 13 5 3 5 64 301-377.50 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 - 6 7 8 x3 16 5 5 60 over 377.50 - - 2 4 4 4 1 3 18 T o t a l 109 176 136 145 98 63 25 29 781 The lowest income group ( l e s s than $150 per month) i n these p r o j e c t s i s made up of f a m i l i e s w i t h one to four members. 108 with, the exception of a handful of l a r g e r f a m i l i e s at that i n -come l e v e l i n L i t t l e Mountain. The veryaheavy concentration of one and two member f a m i l i e s i n t h i s income group i s because of the i n f l u e n c e of the large numbers of pensioners i n MacLean Park. In a l l p r o j e c t s , the widest range of f a m i l y s i z e i s found i n the $150 to $250 per month income group. This group, as noted e a r l i e r , i s the l a r g e s t or second l a r g e s t income group i n each of these p r o j e c t s . In L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard Park a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of these f a m i l i e s are com-posed of up to f o u r members, whereas i n Skeena Terrace the p i c t u r e i s reversed, and over h a l f of the f a m i l i e s have f i v e or more members. In the \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s , the spread i n the higher-income f a m i l i e s tends t o be weighted toward the l a r g e r f a m i l y . Source of Income. The income of p u b l i c housing f a m i l i e s i n Vancouver i s derived from f o u r main sources: earnings, unemployment i n s u r -ance, pensions, and s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , A small p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s have other income, suoh as maintenance payments, i n -t e r e s t from savings, or payments made by r e l a t i v e s . In some cases the f a m i l y ' s t o t a l income i s made up from a combination of the above-mentioned sources. For the purposes of t h i s study, the f o u r main cat e g o r i e s are used, and the r e s t are grouped together. The category of \"pensions,\" includes couples where e i t h e r spouse i s i n r e c e i p t of Old Age S e c u r i t y , r e -gardless of the other spouse's s o u r c e 7 o f income, ( i t was found that i n a number of cases one member of an e l d e r l y couple was a pensioner whereas the spouse was i n r e c e i p t of S o c i a l A ssistance or Old Age A s s i s t a n c e ) . F a m i l i e s f o r whora'a very 109 small p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l income was derived from a second or t h i r d source are grouped under the main source of income. Summing up t h i s i nformation f o r the t o t a l p r o j e c t popu-l a t i o n i n Vancouver, i n January 1964, 31.7 per cent of the f a m i l i e s are supported by t h e i r earnings; 3.1 per cent are tem p o r a r i l y unemployed and i n r e c e i p t of Unemployment Insur-ance. The p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of S o c i a l A s s i s t -ance (31.5 per cent) i s p r a c t i c a l l y equal i n s i z e t o the group of wage-earners: 11.7 per cent of tenants have other sources of income. This d i s t r i b u t i o n i s markedly d i f f e r e n t from the income d i s -t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l i e s i n the Toronto Regent Park (North) pro-j e c t , where, according to the study assembled i n 1957* the p i c t u r e with regard to p r i n c i p a l wage-earners was as follows:\"'' Source of Income Number of Tenants Old Age Assistance (persons i n need, aged 65-69) 20 Old Age S e c u r i t y Allowances (persons over 70) 125 War Veterans' Allowances (mainly older persons) 54 Mothers' Allowances ( u s u a l l y widowed mothers) . 22 Unemployment R e l i e f (general a s s i s t a n c e f o r unemployables) 22 Unemployment Insurance 19 Considering that there were 1289 households i n Regent Park at the time of the study, Rose estimates on the b a s i s of the above in f o r m a t i o n , that s l i g h t l y more than a thousand tenants were primary wage-earners. 2 I t would appear that close t o 80 per cent of Regent Park f a m i l i e s were l i v i n g o f f t h e i r earnings i n 1957, compared to an estimated 33 t o 4o per cent of wage-earners i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s , i n 1964. i t must be stressed Rose, Regent Park, p. 188. Loc. c i t . 110 t h a t , i n I n t e r p r e t i n g these s t a t i s t i c s , i t i s important to keep i n mind, that data on income and source of income are subject to a great deal of v a r i a t i o n ; f o r example, seasonal employment i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n the Vancouver s i t u a t i o n . I t i s a recognized f a c t that i n Canada, s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e payments are considerably below the income of wage-earners. Exceptions, of course, are found -- f o r instance, i f p a r t -time and seasonal workers are taken i n t o account. At the bot-tom l e v e l of the wage scale f a m i l y s i z e may, i n some cases, determine whether a f a m i l y i s f i n a n c i a l l y . b e t t e r o f f with earnings or i n r e c e i p t of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . 1 In view of the markedly lower economic status of f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , and the large p r o p o r t i o n of such f a m i l i e s i n p u b l i c housing, i t i s important t o review what i s the composition of the f a m i l i e s i n the Vancouver pro-j e c t s . In the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s of L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard Park i t was reported that the percentage of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e r e c i p i e n t s was cons i d e r a b l y higher among one-parent f a m i l i e s , and that these f a m i l i e s , correspondingly had a markedly lower average income than two-parent f a m i l i e s . The s i t u a t i o n i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s today i s s t i l l very much the same. In the \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s 60 t o 66 per cent of two-parent f a m i l i e s are maintained on earnings. Among one-parent f a m i l i e s , i n these p r o j e c t s , 57 to 73 per cent are i n r e c e i p t of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . In MacLean Park the per-centage of wage-earning, two-parent f a m i l i e s i s highest of the f o u r p r o j e c t s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 85.5 per cent. Of the one-parent f a m i l i e s 1 In B r i t i s h Columbia supplementary as s i s t a n c e may be ap p l i e d f o r , i f income from other sources f a i l s below the r a t e s of the d i f f e r e n t categories of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e payments. E l -i g i b i l i t y requirements as t o assets allowed vary f o r the d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . I l l i n t h i s p r o j e c t 40 per cent have earnings as t h e i r primary-source of income, and an equal p r o p o r t i o n of these f a m i l i e s r e c e i v e s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e mainly. _\"M^dle^^ A r e a ^ P r o j e c t s . In L i t t l e Mountain the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s (38.9 per cent) maintained themselves on earnings at the time of the present study. The second l a r g e s t group (29.9 per cent) were i n r e c e i p t of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . In Orchard Park the s i t u a t i o n was reversed --39.3 per cent of the f a m i l i e s i n t h i s p r o j e c t l i v e d on s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e and 26.8 per cent were earning wages. In Skeena Terrace, these two groups were of f a i r l y equal s i z e (32 per cent earnings; 36.3 per cent s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e ) . Table 21. Source of Income: P u b l i c Housing Tenants, yancouver, 1964. Source of Income L i t t l e Mountain Orchard Park Skeena Terrace MacLean Park A l l P r o j e c t s Middle Area \"Projects P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. Earnings 38.9 26.8 32.0 26.4 31.7 33.1 Unemployment Insurance 3.6 2.6 . 1 -9 3.1 3.4 Pensions 14.9 18.4 18.4 41 .5 22.1 17.2 S o c i a l Allowance 29.9 39.3 36.3 18.2 31.5 34.8 Other 12.2 11.9 10.7 12.0 11.6 11.5 T o t a l 100 100 100 100 100 100 The p r o p o r t i o n of pensionersjsrsonewhat smaller i n L i t t l e Mountain (l4.9 per cent) than i n the other two p r o j e c t s (both 18.4 per ce n t ) , though not r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . These f i n d i n g s correspond with the e a r l i e r observation . 112 that the newer p r o j e c t s -- Skeena Terrace and e s p e c i a l l y Orchard Park -- have a considerably l a r g e r percentage of f a m i l i e s i n the lowest income group as compared to L i t t l e Mountain. F a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of Unemployment Insurance make up a r e l a t i v e l y small p r o p o r t i o n i n a l l three p r o j e c t s , ranging from 2.6 per cent i n Skeena Terrace to 4.1 per cent i n L i t t l e Mountain. 1 This i s i n keeping with the above observation that L i t t l e Mountain has the highest p r o p o r t i o n of wage-earn-ing families.\" (Table. 21). The p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s with mixed sources of income i s roughly the same i n the three p r o j e c t s , ranging from 10.7 per cent i n Skeena t o 12.2 per cent i n L i t t l e Mountain. (Table 21). Only a small p r o p o r t i o n of these f a m i l i e s a c t u a l l y de-r i v e t h e i r income from other than the f o u r main c a t e g o r i e s . The others, i t appears, have a combination of earnings and s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e mainly, i n a v a r i e t y of r a t i o s . ^aSj\u00C2\u00A3^^?3\u00C2\u00A3\u00C2\u00A3\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 l n t h i s p r o j e c t the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n (41.5 per cent) of a l l f a m i l i e s gain t h e i r income from pensions. About a quarter (26.4 per cent) l i v e o f f earnings, and only 18.2 per cent of the f a m i l i e s (9 out of 159) are i n r e c e i p t of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e s o l e l y . The p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s w i t h \"other\" income i s 12 per cent i n l i n e with the corresponding group i n the other p r o j e c t s . Here a l s o , \"other\" income means mainly a combination of earnings and s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . (Table 21). I t i s noted that the p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s maintained 1 T h i s , of course, i s a v a r i a b l e f i g u r e , anyway, i f the unemployed get jobs. I f they don't, they w i l l add t o s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e percentages. 113 on earnings and unemployment insurance, and of f a m i l i e s w i t h other income, i s f a i r l y s i m i l a r to the corresponding groups i n the \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s . The percentage of pensioners and of f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , however, d i f f e r s markedly i n MacLean Park from these groups i n the other p r o j e c t s . In MacLean Park the very high p r o p o r t i o n of pensioners (41.5 per cent as compared to the average of 17.2 i n the others) i s as expected, i n view of the large number of e l d e r l y people i n t h i s p r o j e c t . The group of s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e r e c i p i e n t s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m aller i n MacLean Park (18.2 per cent compared to 34.8, the average f o r the \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s ) . This d i f f e r e n c e , i t i s presumed, r e l a t e s to the r e l a t i v e l y s m aller number of one-parent f a m i l i e s i n Mac-Lean Park. (Table 21). Rerits ' ' . The Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y ' s p o l i c y with regard t o incomes and rents was discussed e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter. Another f e a t u r e , r e l a t i n g t o f a m i l i e s already i n the p r o j e c t , whose income increases above the e l i g i b i l i t y maximum f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r group, needs comment. Whether such f a m i l i e s should be required to leave the p r o j e c t or be allowed t o remain, has been a subject f o r debate wherever p u b l i c housing has been introduced. The Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y has found a com-promise s o l u t i o n : the f a m i l i e s may remain i n the p r o j e c t , how-ever, a \"surcharge\" i s added to t h e i r r e n t s . B r i e f l y , t h i s means, that a tenant whose income increases beyond the maximum amount, must pay an a d d i t i o n a l t h i r t y per cent of the amount by which the income exceeds the maximum, i f he continues t o l i v e i n the p r o j e c t . This f e a t u r e , as can be expected, i s not Un-popular among tenants, who are i n the higher income groups. F a m i l i e s at higher income l e v e l s , and who consequently pay higher r e n t s , a c t u a l l y make up a small p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l p r o j e c t p o p u l a t i o n . In the fo u r p r o j e c t s taken together, over 70 per cent of the f a m i l i e s pay l e s s than $50 per month i n r e n t ; close t o 30 per cent pay l e s s than $30. Rents be-tween $50 and $59 drop to 9.2 per cent of the t o t a l , and the pro p o r t i o n continues t o decrease f o r p r o g r e s s i v e l y higher r e n t s . Table 22. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Rents Paid Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y , January 1964. Rent L i t t l e Mountain Orchard Park Skeena Terrace MacLean Park A l l Projects Middle \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Area j e c t s P.O. p . c . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 P .C . P .C . P .C . P .C . Less than #30 17.8 22.6 24.5 58.8 29.1 21.6 30-49 41.8 47.6 44.7 28.5 4l.2 44.4 50-59 11.8 11.9 7-7 5.1 9.2 10.3 60-69 13.6 6.5 6.4 3.8 8 o0 9.0 70-79 7.7 6.0 6.4 2.5 5.9 6.8 80 and over 7.3 5.4 10.3 1.3 6.6 7.9 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 LOO.O _\"Midd:le^Are_a\" P r o j e c t s . In these p r o j e c t s 59 to 70 per cent of f a m i l i e s pay a rent of l e s s than $50 per month. In L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard Park over two-thirds of these ten-ants pay between $30 and $49, whereas i n Skeena Terrace the pro p o r t i o n i s somewhat l e s s . In a l l three p r o j e c t s the r e -maining higher rent groups drop markedly and become progres-s i v e l y s m a l l e r , w i t h the exception of Skeena Terrace where the 115 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 highest rent group ($80 and over) jumps to 10.3 per cent as compared to 7.3 and 5.4 per cent i n L i t t l e Mountain and Orchard Park r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r the corresponding groups. MacLean J?ark. The pr o p o r t i o n of rents under $50 i n MacLean Park make up 86.8 per cent of the t o t a l r e n t s . In contrast to the other three p r o j e c t s over two-thirds of these rents are i n the under $30 range. Rents f o r s i n g l e pension-ers are f i x e d at $22 per month i n Vancouver's p r o j e c t s . Con-s i d e r i n g the very high number of pensioners and e l d e r l y people i n t h i s p r o j e c t ; the low average rent i s t o be expected ($33.33 i n MacLean Park as compared t o $43.41 i n Orchard Park and $46.89 i n Skeena Terrace). The remaining rent groups i n MacLean Park make up only 12.7 per cent, and decrease from 5.1 per cent i n the $50 to $59 rent l e v e l to 1.3 per cent of rents of $80 or over. In f a c t only two tenants i n MacLean Park pay t h i s high r e n t . 116 Income P i s j f j j ^ o \" . S . Publi_c HousIn^. As Is the p o l i c y f o r Canadian p u b l i c housing, i n the United States a l s o , there are set upper-income l i m i t s r e l a t i n g to e l i g i b i l i t y f o r U.S. p u b l i c housing. The upper-income l i m i t , apparently, ranges -in the neighbourhood of $6500-7000 per year. However, the i n d i v i d u a l A u t h o r i t i e s have wide d i s -c r e t i o n a r y powers i n s e t t i n g income;;ceilings and rents (sub-j e c t t o review by the P.H.A.) and these upper income l i m i t s may not be e n t i r e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . Minimum income e l i g i b i l -i t y ^ 'requirements do not appear to be i n e f f e c t ; however, i n c e r t a i n cases, persons seeking entrance to the p r o j e c t s may not be able to a f f o r d the rents charged. For t h i s reason, President Johnson has c a l l e d f o r a new subsidy, paid to the l o c a l housing agency, of $120 annually f o r each u n i t so oc-cupied.! Some examples of income l i m i t s set by the Chicago Housing A u t h o r i t y (as of June 30, 1963) i l l u s t r a t e the general p a t t e r n . ' These l i m i t s are graded according t o whether the p r o j e c t i s f e d e r a l l y or state aided. Upper l i m i t s f o r f e d e r a l l y - a i d e d p r o j e c t s are lower than those f o r state-aided p r o j e c t s . They are a l s o graded according to the number of persons i n the f a m i l y , and according t o whether the f a m i l y i s e l d e r l y or non-e l d e r l y . The l i m i t s f o r old people are lower than f o r younger f a m i l i e s . There i s an income l i m i t on admission, and a higher l i m i t f o r continued accupancy. For example, i n a f e d e r a l l y -aided p r o j e c t (of 41 p r o j e c t s i n Chicago, 32 are f e d e r a l l y -a i d e d ) , the income l i m i t f o r a f a m i l y of two non-elderly persons i s , on admission, $4200 per year; f o r continued oc-cupancy the l i m i t i s $5125 -- a d i f f e r e n c e of $925. For a f a m i l y of seven or more, the admission l i m i t i s $5200 per year; 1 President Johnson, Message t o Congress, Jan. 27th, 1964.\" 117 the continued occupancy l i m i t i s $6760 -- a d i f f e r e n c e of $1260. Admission l i m i t s f o r e l d e r l y persons i n these p r o j e c t s are $3000 f o r a s i n g l e person and $3600 f o r a two-person fami-l y . Admission l i m i t s f o r state-aided p r o j e c t s range from $250 600 higher than those f o r the f e d e r a l l y - a i d e d p r o j e c t s . A l l these l i m i t s apply a f t e r \"authorized exemptions,\" have been allowed f o r . There i s a s p e c i a l scale a p p l i c a b l e to f a m i l i e s d i s p l a c e d by p u b l i c improvement programs. This scale ranks, g e n e r a l l y , i n between the admission and the continued occupan-cy s c a l e s , as i l l u s t r a t e d above. Beginning w i t h the 1961 reports of the H.H.P.A.,1 a l l i n -come ta b l e s are computed as t o t a l f a m i l y income. For purposes of the present study, i t has been p o s s i b l e to e x t r a c t i n f o r -mation r e f e r r i n g only to white f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n the Northern and Western s t a t e s , and what f o l l o w s r e f e r s to these segments of the U.S. p u b l i c housing p o p u l a t i o n only. This has the ad-vantage of e l i m i n a t i n g f a c t s about the l e s s t y p i c a l Southern s t a t e s , but again, i t cannot be taken as representing the p i c -ture f o r the t o t a l U.S. 2 In a l l , 233,5^5 f a m i l i e s i n the North and West were re-examined i n 1961 f o r continued e l i g i b i l -i t y f o r occupancy i n U.S. p u b l i c housing. Of these, 97.8 per cent were found t o be w i t h i n the income l i m i t s f o r occupancy set by the various housing A u t h o r i t i e s . Representative Incomes. The median incomes f o r white f a m i l i e s who at the time of reassessment were e l i g i b l e to remain i n the p r o j e c t s i n the 1 H.H.F.A., Bull e t i n ' s 225.1 and 2 2 6 . 1 . p Where t o t a l U.S. information helps t o c l a r i f y the d i s -c u s s i o n , i t has been included and noted. 118 North, was $2539; i n the West the corresponding median was $2647. A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c income, t h e r e f o r e , i s $210 to 220 a month. But, one-third or more of the Northern f a m i l i e s had le s s than $2000 a year. (For a l l white f a m i l i e s e l i g i b l e i n the t o t a l U.S. the median income was $2282, which shows the e f f e c t on the average of poorer economic co n d i t i o n s i n the Southern s t a t e s , when s t a t i s t i c s f o r the South are included i n the t o t a l ) . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note from the report t h a t , i n the North, a small group, 2 per cent of the f a m i l i e s , had incomes of over $6000 and were s t i l l e l i g i b l e f o r subsidized housing. This can be compared wi t h the upper income l i m i t s f o r Vancouver p u b l i c housing of $4950 f o r the l a r g e s t f a m i l i e s , as an ex-press i o n of some of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the economy of the two co u n t r i e s , i n c l u d i n g the purchasing power of the d o l l a r , as w e l l as d i f f e r e n c e s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c y . In both the North and the West average f a m i l y incomes f o r f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s were not r a d i c a l l y d i f -f e r e n t from those already i n . However, the newer f a m i l i e s , j u s t moving i n , expected lower incomes during the year than did those f a m i l i e s who have been l i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t s f o r a time. Twenty-two per cent of Northern f a m i l i e s i n the pr o j e c t s expected incomes of over $4000, while only 12 per cent of the new f a m i l i e s expected such incomes. A s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower p r o p o r t i o n of \" f a m i l i e s moving i n \" i n the West expected incomes of under $2000 (25 per cent) than d i d f a m i l i e s i n the North (33 per c e n t ) . This can be traced to the f a c t t h a t a gre a t e r percentage of old people are moving i n t o p u b l i c housing i n the North than i n the West. Incomes of se n i o r c i t i z e n s are markedly: lower than those of 119 other f a m i l i e s -- i n 1961 they were only s l i g h t l y over one-half as much. (Table 23). Table 23. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of White F a m i l i e s w i t h i n Income L i m i t s / by Amount of income and Region. 1961. (a) Expected Incomes Already i n Moving i n North ' West North West P.C. with t o t a l f a m i l y income -under $2000 36 30 . 33 25 2000 - 2999 23 28 31 38 3000 - 3999 19 23 24 26 4000 and over 22 17 12 11 Per Cent 100 100 100 100 Median t o t a l f a m i l y income $2539 2647 2538 2651 (a) Includes f a m i l i e s f o r whom data on race were not a t t a i n a b l e Source of Income. The p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s i n p u b l i c housing re-examined i n 1961 who were unemployed was 48 per cent, f o r both the North and West regio n s . Of the remainder, that i s the 52 per cent of f a m i l i e s xvho had workers, 8l per cent i n both regions were t o t a l l y s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g ; the r e s t , were r e c e i v i n g some form of f i n a n c i a l help. (Table 24). As s istance_jmd J3eneef i t s . The number of f a m i l i e s who were expecting to rec e i v e some form of organized s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e or government welfare 1 \"Assistance\" r e f e r s t o organized r e l i e f payments. \"Bene-f i t s \" r e f e r s to payments made under the c o n t r i b u t o r y s o c i a l s e c u r i t y schemes. 120 b e n e f i t i n 1961 was s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher than i n i960, con-t i n u a i n g an upward trend that has been evident since 1952. In the North t h i s was 54 per cent; i n the West 55 per cent. (Table 24). To a considerable extent t h i s i s due to the pro-p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s i n low-rent housing. I f the e l d e r -l y are excluded, the 1961 percentage of f a m i l i e s expecting r e l i e f or b e n e f i t s becomes 35 f o r both regions; the same as i n 1956, the year i n which the admission of s i n g l e e l d e r l y persons, the waiver of housing requirements, and the exten-s i o n of preference to the e l d e r l y , were a l l a u t h o r i z e d . 1 Each year a r i s i n g p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s w i t h workers as w e l l as those without workers, both North and West; expect to receive some form of as s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t s . The sharpest r i s e was i n the f a m i l i e s w i t h no workers i n the North -- again t i e d to the i n c r e a s i n g proportions of e l d e r l y persons i n the Northern p r o j e c t s . In t h i s region the percentage of unemployed f a m i l i e s ( i . e . , w i t h breadwinners on insurance or a s s i s t a n c e ) rose from 79 i n 1952 to 92 i n 1961. For the purpose of f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , some information which r e f e r s to the whole of the U.S., and t o younger f a m i l i e s only can be presented here. As i n the past, the p r o p o r t i o n of p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e r e c i p i e n t s was higher among one-adult f a m i l i e s than among f a m i l i e s with two or more a d u l t s . Most of these one-adult f a m i l i e s who receive some form of p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e would be \"Broken\" or one-parent f a m i l i e s . F a m i l i e s i n t h i s younger age group who are r e c e i v i n g \" b e n e f i t s \" only' would be the d i s a b l e d , and, those r e c e i v i n g s u r v i v o r ' s On the other hand, 94 per cent of the old people i n the p r o j e c t s were r e c e i v i n g some form of as s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t s . 121 b e n e f i t s . Two-adult f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of b e n e f i t s only are f a r higher i n number than one-adult f a m i l i e s (13,199 as com-pared t o 8,148). I t f o l l o w s that the f i g u r e of 13,199 i s probably a very close i n d i c a t i o n of the number of young (white) f a m i l i e s i n a l l U.S. p r o j e c t s who q u a l i f y because of d i s a b i l i t y of the head or spouse of the f a m i l y . For f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s i n 1 9 6 l , the per-centage of f a m i l i e s who were unemployed was 4-7 i n the North and 4o i n the West. This d i f f e r e n c e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to the age of the Northern entrants r a t h e r than a r e f l e c t i o n of ec-onomic c o n d i t i o n s . Of the remaining f a m i l i e s , who had work-e r s , 86 per cent i n the North and 91 per cent i n the West were s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g . These are considerably higher propor-t i o n s than among f a m i l i e s already e s t a b l i s h e d i n p r o j e c t s . (Table 24). These could w e l l be the upwardly mobile f a m i l i e s who don't stay long i n p u b l i c housing. For f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s i n 1961, 49 per cent of Northern f a m i l i e s and 4 l per cent of Western f a m i l i e s expected to re c e i v e e i t h e r or both a s s i s t a n c e and b e n e f i t s . These f i g u r e s are lower than those f o r e s t a b l i s h e d f a m i l i e s , but s t i l l represent an upward increase from previous years, f o r newly-housed f a m i l i e s . Rents. In the l a s t decade or so, there has been a d e c l i n e i n the p r o p o r t i o n of very low rents f o r p u b l i c housing, w i t h an accompanying increase i n the pr o p o r t i o n of r e l a t i v e l y high r e n t s . Some of t h i s simply r e f l e c t s higher b u i l d i n g costs and the g e n e r a l l y r i s i n g l e v e l of wages and p r i c e s . For example i n the North, 13 per cent of f a m i l i e s paid rents of under 122 Table 24. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of A l l F a m i l i e s by Assistance and B e n e f i t s Received, and Employment Status, by Regions, 1961. (a) Employment Status Already i n Moving i n T o t a l Workers No: Workers T o t a l Workers Workers P.C. a s s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t -incomes North. 54 x 9 91 49 14 89 West 55 19 95 41 9 88 Employed, (not r e c e i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t s ) North 46 81 9 51 86 11 West 45 81 5 59 91 12 (a) Includes a few f a m i l i e s f o r whom data on race were not a v a i l a b l e . $25 i n 1952, but by 1961, t h i s percentage was reduced to 2 per cent. Conversely, i n 1952, only 27 per cent paid rents of over $50 per month, but by 1961,44 per cent were paying such r e n t s . This i s caused p r i m a r i l y by increases i n minimum rents and the use of welfare r e n t s 1 by more l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s , and the upward trend i n r e l a t i v e l y high rents caused by the l a r g e r groups of f a m i l i e s with higher incomes. I t was expected i n 1961, that t h i s upward trend would increase markedly i n the next few years, i f , as seemed l i k e l y , more a u t h o r i t i e s adopted f i x e d rent schedules \u00E2\u0080\u0094 c a l l i n g f o r rents r e l a t e d not t o income but to s i z e of u n i t . Such schedules had already been adopted by some a u t h o r i t i e s , but had l i t t l e e f f e c t i n 1961. \"Welfare r e n t s \" are l i n k e d t o welfare payment scales and are g e n e r a l l y higher than set minimum rents would be otherwise. 123 Some exaples of rent schedules can be given f o r the Chicago Housing A u t h o r i t y , as of June 30, I963.1 Graded rent scales are used f o r a l l except three of the f e d e r a l l y -aided p r o j e c t s . Tenants are charged $1.00 per month f o r each $55 of annual income, a f t e r c e r t a i n authorized deductions from gross Income. For example, i f income i s $3000, rent i s $55; i f income i s $4000, rent i s $73; i f income i s $5200, rent i s $95. There are some s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g t h i s graded rent-income formula. Minimum and maximum rents are set f o r each s i z e of u n i t , below which the rent may not f a l l nor above which i t may not r i s e . To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s , the minimum rent f o r a bachelor u n i t (no bedrooms) i s $36, the maximum i s $90; f o r a two-bedroom u n i t the minimum i s $41; the maximum $110; f o r a five-bedroom u n i t the minimum i s $46, the maximum i s $150. There are a l s o s p e c i a l set rents f o r the various s i z e d u n i t s f o r tenants i n r e c e i p t of p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e . These range from $50 f o r a bachelor u n i t ($45 f o r s i n g l e old-age or d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e ) to $75 f o r a five-bedroom u n i t . F l a t rents are charged at a l l c i t y - s t a t e developments and three f e d e r a l l y - a i d e d developments. Bachelor u n i t s rent f o r $45; tow-bedroom u n i t s f o r $65; and five-bedroom u n i t s f o r $90. There i s a l s o a p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y higher scale of rents f o r f a m i l i e s whose incomes have r i s e n above the maximum allowed f o r continued occupancy, and who are under notice t o move. For example, a f a m i l y whose income exceeded the maxi-mum allowable by $1000 to 1999 would be charged $100 rent f o r a two-bedroom u n i t . U t i l i t i e s are included i n r e n t s , or 1 Chicago Housing A u t h o r i t y Income L i m i t s and Rent Schedules, June 30, 1963. 124 f i x e d amounts are deducted from rents i f tenants purchase t h e i r own u t i l i t i e s . Rent ^Leye Is The median gross rent f o r f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t s i n 1961, was, i n the North, $46; i n the West i t was $48. Fami-l i e s i n the North were paying more of the lower rents but a l s o a considerably higher p r o p o r t i o n of high rents than was the case f o r Westerners. (Table 25). The New York region has the highest p r o p o r t i o n (33 per cent) of f a m i l i e s paying rents of $60 and over i n the whole country. This i s due, i n part at l e a s t , t o the use of r e l a t i v e l y high f i x e d rents i n a tnumber of large p r o j e c t s i n New York C i t y , which f i l l e d up i n I 9 6 I . In 1961, f o r f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s , median gross rents were up from i960 i n both the North and the West by $2.00 Median rent of f a m i l i e s continued higher i n the West than i n the North, but only by $1.00. In 1952, i n the North, rent was $38, but t h i s average had r i s e n t o $45 by 1961. In the West, the average rent was $37 i n 1952 and $46 i n 1961. (Table 25). The p r o p o r t i o n of rents under $25 d e c l i n e d i n both r e -gions and was only one per cent of the f a m i l i e s i n the North and the West. The p r o p o r t i o n of these new f a m i l i e s paying rents over $60 was considerably lower, as could be expected, than f a m i l i e s already l i v i n g i n the developments. Neverthe-l e s s , these proportions (18 per cent i n the North and 13 per cent i n the West) were up from the year before. This i s a f u r t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n of how the rent scale i s climbing year by year. In 1955, i n the North, the comparable f i g u r e t o the 1 2 5 Table 2 5 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Rental Groups. Monthly gross rent Already i n Moving i n North Hest North West P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. Under $30 12 .9 9 6 3 0 - 4 9 45 46 53 5 6 50 - 59 1 6 24 18 2 5 6 0 - 6 9 15 11 1 3 1 0 over 7 0 12 10 5 3 T o t a l 100 100 100 100 Median gross rent $ 46 48 4 5 46 18 per cent paying over $60, was only : L per cent . Only a very small p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s , and these are located i the Southern s t a t e s only, are now moving i n t o U.S. housing at rents under $20. On the other hand, 2 8 per cent of the f a m i l i e s moving i n i n the New York region d i d so at rents of $ 6 0 or more. For the Chicago region t h i s precentage was l 4 . Re n t - Inc qroe^ Re la t ionships Rent-income r a t i o s are computed on the b a s i s of t o t a l f a m i l y income. For f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t s the p r o p o r t i o n of rent-income r a t i o s of under 2 0 per cent has decreased, and the p r o p o r t i o n of r a t i o s of at l e a s t 3 0 per cent has increased. The very high r a t i o s g e n e r a l l y apply to welfare f a m i l i e s and those to whom minimum rents apply; the low r a t i o s , t o f a m i l i e s pay-ing maximum rents and those for.whom large deductions., a l l o w -ances or exemptions are permitted f o r rent purposes. More extensive information i s given f o r f a m i l i e s who are moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s . For t h i s group, rent-income r a t i o s 126 have increased a l s o , as more welfare rents have been i n t r o -duced and as more p r o j e c t s have adopted f l a t r e n t s . For the t o t a l U.S. ( i n c l u d i n g Negro and other non-white f a m i l i e s ) 7 per cent had gross rents which amounted t o 16 per cent or l e s s of t o t a l f a m i l y income. Nine per cent had gross rents which amounted t o at l e a s t 30 per cent of t o t a l income, and 4 per cent had rents which amounted to 40 per cent or more of t o t a l income. A l s o , f o r a l l r a c i a l groups i n the whole country, while l e s s than 1 per cent of admissions were at maximum r e n t s , of t h i s group, 83 per cent had rent-income r a t i o s below 20 per cent, and they were almost t o t a l l y f a m i l i e s of f i v e or more persons. High r a t i o s a f f e c t e d none of the l a r g e s t f a m i l i e s admitted at maximum r e n t s . Where minimum rents were being used, rents at or below o n e - f i f t h of t o t a l f a m i l y income ac-counted f o r 2\u00C2\u00A9 per cent of the f a m i l i e s , a l l but a small num-ber of whom were f a m i l i e s of three or more persons. On the other hand, minimum rents meant that 30 per cent or more of t o t a l f a m i l y income went t o paying the rent of 30 per cent of the f a m i l i e s . Of these, l e s s than one-third had three or more members. S t i l l l o o k i n g at the t o t a l U.S. p i c t u r e , the l a r g e s t f a m i l i e s tend t o have the lowest \"rent-income r a t i o s . For ex-ample, only 2 per cent of one-person f a m i l i e s have a r a t i o of l e s s than 20 per cent, but 79 per cent of f a m i l i e s of f i v e or more people have t h i s r a t i o . The upward trend i n a l l r e n t -income r a t i o s has been evident f o r s e v e r a l years, and i s most marked i n the l a r g e r f a m i l i e s . Added t o the f a c t o r s already mentioned which make f o r higher r a t i o s -- a d d i t i o n of welfare 127 r e n t s , increases i n minimum r e n t s , f i x e d r ents \u00E2\u0080\u0094 there has a l s o been an upward r e v i s i o n of rent schedules. Then, too, f i x e d rents are high, and ther e f o r e t h e i r e f f e c t can only be to r a i s e r a t i o s . 3&I)i^S^3F3^.r3^^^^^ , A d m 1 ss ion This item i s covered i n the report on f a m i l i e s who moved i n t o U.S. housing i n 1961 but the information given i s not broken down by r e g i o n . However, f o r the t o t a l U.S., and f o r f a m i l i e s on which data was a v a i l a b l e on previous r e n t , 27 per cent of white f a m i l i e s moving i n began paying rents which were higher than those they had been paying p r e v i o u s l y . Length of Tenancy Among white f a m i l i e s re-examined i n 1961, 42 per cent had l i v e d i n low-rent housing l e s s than three years, about the same as i n i960. (Up u n t i l i960 the p r o p o r t i o n of e l i g i b l e white f a m i l i e s w i t h tenancy of such d u r a t i o n had s t e a d i l y de-c r e a s e d ) . 1 Seven and one-half per cent had l i v e d i n low-rent housing more than ten years and 31 per cent more than f i v e years. There i s evidence that the lowest income f a m i l i e s are those most apt t o stay i n low-rent p r o j e c t s at l e a s t f i v e years. Twenty-seven per cent of the f a m i l i e s admitted i n 1956 w i t h incomes of under $1500 were s t i l l i n e l i g i b l e r e s i -dence i n 1961, as compared with only 19 per cent of the f a m i l i e s admitted with incomes of at l e a s t $3500. Because of the s c a r c i t y of p r i v a t e housing i n the U.S. f o r m i n o r i t y groups, non-white f a m i l i e s are l e s s apt t o move from p u b l i c housing. 128 Only 1 per cent of the f a m i l i e s expected incomes of at l e a s t $4000 at admission i n 1956; at l e a s t 11 per cent ex-pected such incomes i n 1961, which r e f l e c t s the r i s e i n wages i n these f i v e years. Conversely, 35 per cent of the f a m i l i e s admitted i n 1956 and s t i l l i n residence i n 1961, had expected incomes of under $1500 at admission while 28 per cent expected such low incomes i n 1961. l\u00C2\u00A3SS^3^\u00C2\u00B0r-, . E l d e r l y Earn 11 l e s Because the incomes of e l d e r l y people i n subsi d i z e d housing i n the U.S. are markedly lower than those of younger f a m i l i e s , and because aged tenants already represent over one-fourth of the population i n the housing and may soon be more, i t i s im-portant t o consider t h e i r incomes separately from the other groups. In t h i s way some approximation of the e f f e c t of these low incomes on the p i c t u r e when a l l ages of f a m i l i e s are con-sidered together may be made. As an example of the d i f f e r e n c e between the old and the young f a m i l i e s , the median t o t a l income f o r e l d e r l y persons l i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t s i n the North was only $1,445, whereas f o r the younger f a m i l y i t was $3206. (Table 26). Incomes of s i n g l e e l d e r l y persons are a l s o sub-s t a n t i a l l y lower than those of two or more e l d e r l y persons forming a \" f a m i l y . \" The reason f o r t h i s i s that almost a l l s e n i o r c i t i z e n s who are i n subsi d i z e d housing are l i v i n g on government a s s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t s , and where there are two old people i n the f a m i l y both are r e c e i v i n g f i n a n c i a l help. E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s who have minors i n the home have incomes which are a l i t t l e higher than those of the other c a t e g o r i e s . Such low incomes f o r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s mean that a l l the other 129 problems of old age are r e i n f o r c e d by the ne c e s s i t y t o get along on very l i t t l e money. But the housing may be one of t h e i r greatest aids i f the rent i s not too high. Some comparisons may be made between median incomes of old and young f a m i l i e s . Table 26. Median T o t a l Income of E l d e r l y and Non-Elderly F a m i l i e s by Region f o r i960 and 1961. Census Region E l d e r l y Households Younger Households Income of E l d e r -l y f a m i l i e s -- a comparative P.C. 1961 I960 1961 i960 I96I I 9 6 0 \" North $1445 $1425 $3206 $3211 45.1 44.4 West $1470 1465 ' 3047 ' 2959 48.2 49.5 Incomes rose g e n e r a l l y , except f o r non-elderly f a m i l i e s i n the North. E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s i n the West had higher incomes than those i n the North, on the average, but f o r younger f a m i l i e s the reverse was t r u e , both i n i960 and 1961. I t can be seen from Table 26, that old people are l i v i n g on incomes of l e s s than h a l f those of other f a m i l i e s . For f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s , a l l types r e f l e c t -ed higher median incomes. In the North the median income was $1,602, $157 higher than the median f o r e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s a l -ready l i v i n g i n the p r o j e c t s i n 1961. In the West the median income was a l s o higher at $1508, but only $38 above the median of $1470 of Western old-age f a m i l i e s already l i v i n g i n the pro-j e c t s i n 1961 (Table 26). In the case of f a m i l i e s moving i n t o the p r o j e c t s , t h e r e f o r e , the highest median income was i n the North r a t h e r than the West, the opposite of what i s true f o r es-t a b l i s h e d f a m i l i e s . S i n g l e old people tended t o have incomes 130 Source of Income Income examinations f o r continued occupancy show that few members of aged households have a member of the f a m i l y who i s g a i n f u l l y employed. In the Northern part of the coun-t r y 13 per cent of e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s have an earner compared wit h 68 per cent f o r younger f a m i l i e s . In the West even fewer members were working and the percentage was ten. Among young-er f a m i l i e s i n the West 64 per cent had someone working. I t may be noted, i n passing, that 2 or 3 times as many e l d e r l y Negro f a m i l i e s have a worker than do white f a m i l i e s . This r a t i o i s highest i n the Southern s t a t e s . Table 27. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of E l d e r l y and Non-E l d e r l y F a m i l i e s by Source of Income and Composition of the Family, 1961. Assistance or Already i n Moving i n B e n e f i t s T o t a l One Adult Two or more Adults T o t a l One Adult Two or more Adults P.C. e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s r e c e i v i n g None 5 5 6 7 7 7 Assistance (with or without b e n e f i t s ) 36 4i 32 27 30 24 B e n e f i t s without ass i s t a n c e 58 54 63 66 63 69 Per Cent 100 100 100 100 100 100 P . C . e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s r e c e i v i n g None 64 46 73 73 56 79 Assistance (with or without b e n e f i t s ) 20 36 12 14 33 8 B e n e f i t s without a s s i s t a n c e 15 17 14 13 11 13 Per Cent 100 100 100 100 100 100 131 Ninety-four per cent of the old people In the p r o j e c t s are r e c e i v i n g some form of a s s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t s . More of them are drawing S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s and retirement funds than are r e c e i v i n g r e l i e f payments, although the d i f f e r e n c e i s not excessive, (53 per cent compared to 41 per c e n t ) . Some comparisons can be made here of percentages of e l d e r l y and non-elderly by the source of income and composition of the f a m i l y . This information i s not c l a s s i f i e d by region and i s f o r white f a m i l i e s i n the t o t a l U.S. As could be expected, f a r fewer younger f a m i l i e s are r e -c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s only, than are old people (15 per cent com-pared to 58 per c e n t ) . Those who are, would be drawing e i t h e r s u r v i v o r ' s or d i s a b i l i t y insurance payments, i n the main. A s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m aller p r o p o r t i o n of young f a m i l i e s are depen-dent on s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , as compared to o l d e r f a m i l i e s , a l s o , (20 per cent compared to 36). Those young f a m i l i e s who have only one a d u l t i n the f a m i l y , and who draw as s i s t a n c e p r i m a r i -l y (36 per cent) are f o r the most part \"broken\" f a m i l i e s . (Table 27). Subsidized housing i s not planned f o r younger s i n g l e people. I t i s c l e a r l y p o s s i b l e , however, that r e c e n t l y bereaved widows or widowers, under notice t o leave, would s t i l l be i n the p r o j e c t s , and i n some cases are allowed t o s t a y . Since mid-1961, the age l i m i t f o r payment of d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s has been removed, and t h e r e f o r e more d i s a b l e d persons became e l i g i b l e f o r such b e n e f i t s and consequently f o r housing too, since they are given preference. Disabled persons are i n -cluded s t a t i s t i c a l l y w i t h e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s , and t h i s i s r e -f l e c t e d i n recent f i g u r e s . Persons whose only income i s as-132 - s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t s apparently are a higher p r o p o r t i o n on the w a i t i n g - l i s t than formerly. Rents f o r E l d e r l y F a m i l i e s Average re n t s paid by E l d e r l y f a m i l i e s i n U.S. p u b l i c housing are lower than those paid by younger f a m i l i e s . This i s because s p e c i a l rent scales are used by;;'\"the l o c a l A u t h o r i -t i e s which are a p p l i c a b l e only to the e l d e r l y and which repre-sent reasonable rent-income r a t i o s i n most cases, or where f i x e d rents are used, these are adjusted downwards. Since the incomes of e l d e r l y people, both s i n g l e persons and households of two or more people, are notably lower than those of younger f a m i l i e s , when rents are c a l c u l a t e d according t o income, the rents are a l s o lower. However, they are not as p r o p o r t i o n a t e -l y low as one might expect. For example, the median rent paid by old-age f a m i l i e s ( i n c l u d e s s i n g l e persons) i n the Northern s t a t e s i n 1961 was $37 and i n the West the comparable rent was $36.62. Rents f o r yyounger f a m i l i e s i n these regions i n 1961 were an average of $11 higher per month. The l a c k of a greater d i f f e r e n c e between the average rents paid by old-age f a m i l i e s and younger f a m i l i e s r e s u l t s from the l a r g e r propor-t i o n of e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s to whom e i t h e r a minimum rent or a welfare rent i s a p p l i c a b l e . Minimum r e n t s , where used, appear to be set at a f a i r l y high r a t e , as f o r example i n Chicago, where the minimum rent f o r a bachelor u n i t i s $36. The f i x e d -rent minimum a p p l i c a b l e t o persons i n r e c e i p t of a s s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t s i s even higher. For a bachelor u n i t i n Chicago housing, when the tenant i s drawing Old Age or D i s a b i l i t y i n -surance, the rent i s set at $45 per month. In Vancouver, i n comparison, s i n g l e pensioners pay a f i x e d rent of $22 per month. 133 . As i s true f o r a l l types of f a m i l i e s i n the North and West, rents are g e t t i n g higher each year f o r e l d e r l y house-holds a l s o . Fewer old-age f a m i l i e s are paying rents under $30 per month, and 11 per cent were paying rents over $50 per month i n 1961. One-quarter of t h i s l a t t e r group were f a m i l i e s who had minors i n the home. Some of these f a m i l i e s might be occupying l a r g e r u n i t s where f i x e d rents apply. S i n g l e s e n i o r c i t i z e n s paid rents which were, on an aver-age, $7 lower than those paid by the l a r g e r - s i z e d e l d e r l y groups. For the e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s who moved i n t o p u b l i c housing i n 1961, the median gross rent was $35, i n both the Northl-and the West. Rents were up by a few d o l l a r s from the pre-vious year; the highest increase was a $4 one f o r s i n g l e e l -d e r l y persons i n the West. In view of the f a c t that exempt-ions are g e n e r a l l y allowed f o r minors, i n computing r e n t , the gross rent of f a m i l i e s without minors i s u s u a l l y higher than t h a t of f a m i l i e s w i t h minors, at any given l e v e l of income. This was found t o be so f o r these types of f a m i l i e s who en-tered the housing i n 1961, however, there was only a one d o l l a r d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups. Rents at admission have s h i f t e d q u i t e sharply f o r e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s , even although the median has r i s e n only s l i g h t l y . Fewer f a m i l i e s are paying the lower rents and more f a m i l i e s are paying the higher r e n t s each year. The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s p o i n t . I t should be noted that the information included i n the t a b l e i s not c l a s s i f i e d by race and r e f e r s to both white and non-white tenants. 134 Table 28. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of F a m i l i e s Moving i n t o P r o j e c t s i n 1961 with Rents Below $25 and wi t h Rents of at Least $40, by Census Region and Family Type. Family Composition Percentage of f a m i l i e s w i t h rents Under $25 At l e a s t $40 1961 1959 1961 1959 North Non-elderly 0.5 1.2 78.1 71.0 E l d e r l y 2.9 3.9 43.1 31.4 s i n g l e two or more (with minors) (no minors) 4.3 1.4 1.2 8.0 3.3 2.9 30.3 68.8 57.2 18.6 56.8 42.3 West Non-elderly 0.2 1.5 74.7 67.I E l d e r l y 5.9 23.0 32.0 21.9 s i n g l e two or more (with minors) 8.8 3.0 36.2 8.6 16.3 66.3 9.1 50.5 (no minors) 1.5 ' 4.4 49.5 36.0 135 Income and J r t e n t DistributJ^on^ In B r i t j . s j i The m a j o r i t y of d w e l l i n g s b u i l t by l o c a l c o u n c i l s and New Town development corporations are f o r l e t t i n g unfurnished, at e i t h e r economic or s u b s i d i z e d r e n t s , to people i n need of accommodation. The l o c a l a u t h o r i t y has complete d i s c r e t i o n as to rents charged and c o n d i t i o n s of tenancy. Subsidies from the Exchequer and the revenue from l o c a l r a t e s (taxes) are im-portant f a c t o r s i n t h e i r determination. Some a u t h o r i t i e s op-erate d i f f e r e n t i a l rent or rent-rebate schemes, and so take i n t o account the incomes and l i a b i l i t i e s of tenants. Average weekly net rents i n post-war 2 or 3-bedroom houses i n England and Wales range from 9/11 t o 54/- (approximately $1.4o to $7.50) f o r a 2-bedroom house and from 12/2 to 6 0 / - (approxi-mately $1 .70 t o $8.4o) f o r a 3-bedroom house. 1 In B r i t a i n , need (not income) i s the c r i t e r i o n determin-in g e l i g i b i l i t y f o r residence i n l o c a l a u t h o r i t y houses, and r e n t s , w i t h some exceptions, are f i x e d according t o s i z e of rented u n i t . Older houses, f o r instance those b u i l t before 1945, are considerably cheaper, and most l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s t r y and a l l o c a t e these f o r f a m i l i e s w i t h l i m i t e d incomes. According t o various s t u d i e s the income of tenants i n l o c a l a u t h o r i t y houses and f l a t s v a r i e s somewhere between \u00C2\u00A38 to \u00C2\u00A315 per week (approximately $22.50 to $ 4 2 . 0 0 ) . In slum clearance estates the incomes of the c h i e f wage earners are i n c l i n e d t o be r a t h e r lower than those on the new suburban e s t a t e s . In B r i s t o l , f o r example, during the year 1953-54 1 Housing_in B r i t a i n , C e n t r a l O f f i c e of Information pamphlet\"^!\" 136 the d i s p a r i t y between incomes of Corporation tenants g e n e r a l l y was great. At one end of the scale 61.5 per cent of the ten-ants earned l e s s than \u00C2\u00A39 per week ($25.20), while at the other end 4.8 per cent earned over \u00C2\u00A313 per week ($36.4o). As time went on and the general l e v e l of earnings rose the d i f f e r e n c e s became l e s s marked, so t h a t , i n 1956-57, the pr o p o r t i o n of tenants i n the lowest income group had f a l l e n t o 33.7 per cent and i n the highest income group had r i s e n t o 24.7 per c e n t . 1 A more recent a n a l y s i s of the a p p l i c a n t s on the London County Council w a i t i n g - l i s t revealed t h a t , i n 1959, 54 per cent of the a p p l i c a n t s had weekly incomes between \u00C2\u00A311 and \u00C2\u00A315 ($30.80 and $42.00), while 31 per cent had incomes between \u00C2\u00A36 and \u00C2\u00A310 ($16.80 and $28.OO) 2. As the average weekly earnings f o r manual workers i n England and Wales f o r 1959 was about \u00C2\u00A313 10s ($37.90)3 t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on the whole, incomes of r e s i d e n t s i n p u b l i c housing are r a t h e r l e s s than the n a t i o n -a l average. Westergaard and Glass found t h a t , at Lansbury , two-f i f t h s of the c h i e f wage-earners had weekly incomes of under \u00C2\u00A37 per week (approximately $21) and there were a few h o u s e -holds headed by old-age pensioners. At the end of 1951, rents i n Lansbury ranged from 25/- f o r three rooms to 35/- f o r f i v e rooms, (approximately $3.60 t o $5.00). These may seem very low r e n t a l s by Canadian standards (as indeed, most European r e n t a l s i n government-aided housing do): nevertheless, they 1 Jennings, p ^ ^ c l t . , p. 122. 2 See Appendix A. 3 Annual Abstract of S t a t i s t i c s , No. 99, 1962, H.M.S.O. 137 represented a s u b s t a n t i a l increase over the amount they had paid before moving. In f a c t , two-thirds of the tenants were paying at l e a s t twice as much rent as before. As Westergaard and Glass emphasize, such an increase could only be met through a complete change i n the p a t t e r n of f a m i l y e x p e n d i t u r e . 1 F i e l d and N e i l l , i n t h e i r study of the estates at B e l f a s t , discovered that more than one-third of the f a m i l i e s had more than one earner, and very few had no p o t e n t i a l adult male earner. The sixty-one married women who worked made up a considerable p o r t i o n of the s u b s i d i a r y earners. The mean weekly income of the 319 f a m i l i e s i n t h e i r sample was \u00C2\u00A310 6s 4d ($29.30) and 85 per cent of the f a m i l i e s had incomes of be-tween \u00C2\u00A36 and \u00C2\u00A314 ($18.00 and $42.00). Twelve of the f a m i l i e s were almost e n t i r e l y dependent on N a t i o n a l Insurance, N a t i o n a l Assistance or Pension Payments. I f these were excluded, the mean weekly income of f a m i l i e s with an earner was \u00C2\u00A310,9s,2d ($29.90 approximately). Income:Rents of E l d e r l y Tenants One of the p o s s i b l e consequences of retirement i s poverty. Loss of income due to i l l n e s s , unemployment or old age i s l i k e -l y to c a l l f o r some degree of adjustment f o r most wage-earners. People from low-income f a m i l i e s , however, are apt to be hardest h i t . In h i s book, The Family L i f e of Old, Jfe^ opJIe, Peter Townsend compared the average income of old people s t i l l at work w i t h t h a t of old people who were r e t i r e d . He found that the income Westergaard and Glass, op. c i t . , p. 43. F i e l d and N e i l l , op. c i t . 138 of s i n g l e and widowed people i n h i s sample f e l l by 68 per cent (on average), while that of married people f e l l by 52 per cent, when they r e t i r e d . Even these f i g u r e s , he suggests, do not represent the f u l l extent of the drop i n the standard of l i v -ing i n the l a s t years of l i f e , as the income of some people had already plunged before retirement, i n that they had taken l i g h t e r and l e s s - w e l l - p a i d j o b s . 1 Townsend, whose survey was undertaken i n Bethnal Green and t h e r e f o r e included predominant-l y working-class people, found that the t o t a l personal incomes of r e t i r e d persons were only a l i t t l e higher, a f t e r deducting r e n t , than the N a t i o n a l Assistance s c a l e s . A N a t i o n a l Assistance Board supplementary grant i s based on the assumption t h a t , apart from r e n t , the amount required 2 by one person l i v i n g alone was \u00C2\u00A32 17s 6d ($8.25) per week. S p e c i a l requirements, however, such as the cost of laundry or domestic help, were met by a d d i t i o n s t o t h i s amount. The Board were aware that pensioners with c h i l d r e n and r e l a t i v e s often received small i r r e g u l a r g i f t s of money, and these were not counted as income. What can be s a i d i s that retirement pensions and N a t i o n a l Assistance payments are very small when compared w i t h average weekly earnings i n . B r i t a i n . In 1955* the pension f o r a s i n g l e person was 18 per cent of average weekly earnings; f o r a married couple i t was 29 per cent. In a small sample study of tenants l i v i n g i n the grouped f l a t l e t s , 85 or more per cent of old people were l i v i n g on 1 Townsend, The Family L i f e of Old People, p. 176. 2 In A p r i l , 1961. 3 Grouped F l a t l e t s f o r Old People, M i n i s t r y of Housing and Loca1 Government~ p. b. 139 pensions of one kind or another (widows, old age, or r e t i r e -ment), with or without a s s i s t a n c e grants, and had no other source of income. Rents i n these f l a t l e t s , i n c l u d i n g heating, ranged from eighteen s h i l l i n g s ($2.60) per week to twenty-nine s h i l l i n g s and sixpence ($4.25) per week. These are almost as-t o n i s h i n g l y low r e n t s , from a North American poin t of viexv: but an e x c e l l e n t example of the d i r e c t c o n t r i b u t i o n which subsidized housing can make t o the old person's budget. Rents i n the New Towns From the tenants' p o i n t of view, one of the most pr e s s i n g problems i n the New Towns has been the l e v e l of r e n t s . P r o t e s t meetings have claimed that rents are unduly high i n r e l a t i o n to earnings; i t has a l s o been f r e q u e n t l y complained that s i c k -ness f o r any length of time makes the burden of rents i n t o l e r -a b l e . On the other hand, while i t i s true that rents are much higher than i n London, (where many people were e i t h e r l i v i n g i n two or three rooms or e l s e sharing accommodation wi t h r e l a -t i v e s ) , a great number of f a m i l i e s f e e l that the v a s t l y sup-e r i o r nature of t h e i r new accommodation outweighs such ob-j e c t i o n s . In some New Towns the rents are higher than i n others. For i n s t a n c e , the 1963 annual report of Stevenage Development Corporation s t a t e s that the average net rent was i n the region of \u00C2\u00A32 to \u00C2\u00A32 5s ($6.00 to $6.50), while i n June 1963, rents i n B a s i l d o n ranged from \u00C2\u00A32 6s 8d f o r a one-bedroom f l a t to f4 l4s l i d f o r a four-bedroom house with garage ($6.70 t o $13.60). The Stevenage Corporation p o i n t s out that they are \" w e l l aware that...some f a m i l y budgets are so f i n e l y balanced that s i c k n e s s , the redu c t i o n or l o s s of a wife's earnings, or 140 of overtime payments can have serious consequences...such d i f f i c u l t i e s are a matter of much concern to the Corporation, whose purpose i t i s to e s t a b l i s h a community as w e l l as t o b u i l d a town. 1 , 1 In Stevenage i n 1963 l e s s than 0.05 per cent of the t o t a l amount due i n housing rents had to be w r i t t e n o f f as i r r e c o v e r a b l e . The Corporation had set up a rent-rebate scheme to help tenants unable t o meet t h e i r rents i n f u l l , e i t h e r because the f a m i l y income was permanently too low, or because i t had been t e m p o r a r i l y reduced through s i c k n e s s , un-employment or other domestic upset. \"High r e n t s \" may be overstressed as a complaint. Never-t h e l e s s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the New Towns, they have to be r e -ckoned w i t h as yet another f a c t o r m i l i t a t i n g against a balanced p o p u l a t i o n . A l l income groups cannot be p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y rep-resented, i f they exclude f a m i l i e s w i t h low incomes, and es-p e c i a l l y those having a large number of dependent c h i l d r e n . There are already exceptions, of which Harlow i s one. The Development Corporation there i s , now, b u i l d i n g various types of houses f o r the lowest income groups as w e l l as a s p e c i a l quota (20 per cent) f o r the higher ones. Sjpme General ,90J^J^?5^A\u00C2\u00B0rl3. P u b l i c housing, as i t e x i s t s today i n the United States tends t o segregate the low-income f a m i l y i n t o one homogeneous \"poor\" community, and there are at l e a s t dangers of i t happening i n Canada. The major reason f o r t h i s i s the s e t t i n g Stevenage Development Corporation, S i x t e e n t h Annual Report f o r the Period ended ,3_lst .March, 141 of maximum income l e v e l s f o r e l i g i b i l i t y t o p u b l i c housing: \"The a b l e , r i s i n g f a m i l i e s are c o n s t a n t l y d r i v e n out as t h e i r incomes cross the c e i l i n g f i g u r e s , \" wrote Harrison S a l i s b u r y i n h i s study of delinquency, The Shook-Up Generation. \"By screening a p p l i c a n t s for\"\" Tow-rent apartments to e l i m i n a t e those w i t h even modest wages, the new community i s badly handicapped. I t Is deprived of the normal quota of human t a l e n t s needed f o r s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n , s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e and self-improvement. A human catchpool i s formed that breeds s o c i a l i l l s and r e q u i r e s endless outside a s s i s t a n c e . \" 1 The same c o n d i t i o n has been shown to be true f o r B r i t a i n but f o r a d i f f e r e n t reason. While there are no income c e i l i n g s i n B r i t a i n , there are more e s t a b l i s h e d c l a s s d i s t i n c t i o n s , which m i t i g a t e s against higher-income groups a s s o c i a t i n g them-selves with those below them i n c l a s s standing. This kind of segregation saps the a s p i r a t i o n s and motivations of f a m i l i e s , and i t i s a poor model f o r the young people i n the p r o j e c t s . I t leads t o \" r e j e c t i o n \" of the p r o j e c t by the surrounding neighbourhood. Some d i s c u s s i o n , at t h i s p o i n t , of the issues involved i n income c e i l i n g s f o r p u b l i c housing i s i n d i c a t e d . Income c e i l i n g s are, of course, d i r e c t l y t i e d t o the pur-pose of p u b l i c housing, that i s , that i t i s intended t o pro-vide decent housing f o r low-income f a m i l i e s . I t would appear, t h e r e f o r e , that any problems that a r i s e because of t h i s f a c t are thus i n the nature of being \" b u i l t - i n \" and not subject to change. The r e s u l t s of t h i s p o l i c y have not been happy; the problems of the poor have become the problems of p u b l i c hous-ing management, and the money spent on p u b l i c housing has seemingly f a i l e d t o achieve one of the key goals that t h i s ex-penditure was intended t o achieve \u00E2\u0080\u0094 that i s , t o give disadvan-Quoted i n Tunley, \"Tragedy of a V e r t i c a l Slum,\" The Saturday Evening Post, June, 1963. 142 -taged f a m i l i e s a chance at a b e t t e r standard of l i v i n g i n a normal environment. In debating t h i s problem one a l s o has t o take i n t o con-s i d e r a t i o n the a t t i t u d e s and values of the general p u b l i c . While tax-payers may be prepared t o support low-income f a m i l i e s i n s u b s i d i z e d housing, they have d e f i n i t e ideas of what con-s t i t u t e s a low income, and any thought of r a i s i n g the income c e i l i n g s to a l l o w persons w i t h even modestly high incomes to l i v e i n p u b l i c housing i s bound to meet with an outcry of op-p o s i t i o n . Yet, i f r e n t s are t i e d t o income, how much a c t u a l s u b s i d i z a t i o n i s i n e f f e c t , i f higher income f a m i l i e s are paying correspondingly higher rents?' This r a i s e s a f u r t h e r question. I f rents r i s e too high f o r the type of accommodation then higher income f a m i l i e s w i l l look f o r something b e t t e r than p u b l i c housing with i t s present a s s o c i a t i o n s . Again, home ownership has now become e a s i e r and more a t t r a c t i v e t o the middle-income f a m i l y , as low-down pay-ments, and monthly payments no higher than some p r o j e c t r e n t s , are being o f f e r e d i n some new r e a l - e s t a t e developments. Management of Vancouver's p r o j e c t s i s faced w i t h t h i s problem, as they s t r i v e to keep \"good\" f a m i l i e s from moving out of t h e i r p r o j e c t s i n order to achieve a balanced community, i n the face of \"easy\" home-ownership i n the suburbs. There i s an a l t e r n a t i v e t o r a i s i n g the l e v e l of maximum income allowable t o achieve a more balanced community and t h i s i s t o set a minimum income a l l o w a b l e . In the opinion of the authors t h i s i s n e i t h e r morally nor l e g a l l y d e f e n s i b l e , whether by s t a t u t e or more subtle means. P u b l i c housing should be a v a i l a b l e to whatever f a m i l y needs i t . One s o l u t i o n that would seem worthy-of c o n s i d e r a t i o n 143 would be t o continue with, a reasonable maximum income c e i l i n g f o r admission t o the p r o j e c t s but t o a b o l i s h the r u l i n g that when a f a m i l y exceeds t h i s maximum they must move out. This would have the e f f e c t of a l l o w i n g some of the f a m i l i e s who serve as a b e t t e r model f o r the r e s t , who give the p r o j e c t some s t a b i l i t y , t o stay on i n i t i f they so d e s i r e . This would a l s o mean that t h e i r r e n t s , i f these continue to be r e l a t e d to income (with some reasonable maximum rent f o r d i f f e r e n t s i z e d u n i t s ) , would be high enough t o o f f s e t the b e n e f i t s of s u b s i -d i z a t i o n . Many f a m i l i e s would s t i l l move, but perhaps enough would stay t o r a i s e the general atmosphere of defeat i n the p r o j e c t . Of course, i t would a l s o mean that the program of p r o v i s i o n of p u b l i c housing would need to be speeded up con-s i d e r a b l y . (There i s a t o p i c f o r f u r t h e r study here, that i s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between move-outs and w a i t i n g l i s t s and new c o n s t r u c t i o n ) . Such a procedure would a l s o mean education of the p u b l i c as t o the purpose, i n order t o gain p u b l i c support and approval. I t i s the i n t e n t i o n under present l e g i s l a t i o n and admini-s t r a t i o n that f o r many/families p u b l i c housing w i l l serve t h e i r housing need f o r a r e l a t i v e l y short p e r i o d . These fami-l i e s w i l l move as soon as an increased income makes i t pos-s i b l e f o r them t o obtain decent housing i n the p r i v a t e market. This i s the idea that p u b l i c housing i s not intended t o be \"bargain\" housing, that i s , that f a m i l i e s w i t h r e l a t i v e l y high incomes stay on i n i t i n order to save on rent c o s t s . This only appears to be a p p l i c a b l e , however, where f i x e d rents are i n e f f e c t and not when rents go up wit h income. On the other hand, f o r other f a m i l i e s , the aged, the i l l , \"broken\" P u b l i c Housing i n the United States Chicago 144 f a m i l i e s , p u b l i c housing may provide a long term s o l u t i o n t o t h e i r housing problem. The only opportunity t o obtain a good d w e l l i n g place i s i n p u b l i c housing. This i s a l s o true f o r f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of welfare b e n e f i t s . I t has been found that i n the United S t a t e s , these f a m i l i e s represent almost h a l f of the t o t a l tenant population i n p u b l i c housing. In Vancouver, t h i s f i g u r e appears to be around E5\u00C2\u00A7 per cent. While there are long w a i t i n g l i s t s f o r p u b l i c housing, these are the people who w i l l need to be served. But more housing could be a b e t t e r s o l u t i o n to the problem of segregation i f t h i s were coupled w i t h the a b o l i t i o n of f i x e d c e i l i n g s on i n -comes f o r continued occupancy i n the p r o j e c t s . This i s s u e , then, r a i s e s a f u r t h e r i s s u e , that of whether rents should be r e l a t e d t o income or whether they should be f i x e d . R e l a t i n g rent to income embodies the p r i n c i p l e of ad-j u s t i n g them t o a b i l i t y t o pay r a t h e r than t o the character of the d w e l l i n g occupied. I t means, a l s o , that changes i n rent w i l l occur with changes i n income. Another important f a c t o r to be considered i n t h i s connection, i s the rent l e v e l i n r e -l a t i o n to income, that i s , the rent-income r a t i o . The p r i n c i p l e involved i s that f a m i l i e s should pay at l e a s t some minimum per-centage of t h e i r incomes f o r housing. The a c t u a l l e v e l , how-ever, should be a r e f l e c t i o n of what f a m i l i e s are able to pay; t h i s w i l l vary i n accordance w i t h a number of economic v a r i a b l e s . O n e - f i f t h of the income appears to be a f a i r l y standard r e n t : income r a t i o . Fixed rents (or f l a t r e nts as they are sometimes termed), by c o n t r a s t , mean that the rent f o r a u n i t i s set and does not vary w i t h changes i n the income of the tenant. Customarily, 145 r e n t s are f i x e d i n accordance w i t h the s i z e of the d w e l l i n g u n i t , or, i n some cases, other f a c t o r s . In some sec t i o n s of the United S t a t e s , rents are f i x e d i n accordance w i t h the s i z e of the u n i t and a l s o the type of as s i s t a n c e or b e n e f i t the tenant r e c e i v e s . Rents, when wel-f a r e b e n e f i t s are part of income, are set higher than the normal f i x e d rent f o r a u n i t , i n the United S t a t e s . More and more housing a u t h o r i t i e s are adopting f i x e d rents i n that country at the present time. These \" f i x e d \" rents are general-l y higher than rents r e l a t e d t o income, and the r e s u l t i s that i n the U.S., where welfare b e n e f i t s are not always as ge n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e as i n Canada, many low-income f a m i l i e s cannot a f f o r d t o move i n t o p u b l i c housing. In B r i t a i n , apart from a few exceptions, rents are f i x e d f o r t h e i r s u b s i d i z e d housing according to s i z e of u n i t . How-ever, i n cases of seriou s need, a method of rent rebates has been devised. This method, which i s being used by some l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s i n B r i t a i n , i s being given c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the Manchester Corporation f o r t h e i r o v e r s p i l l e s t a t e , Wythenshawe. On t h i s e s t a t e , rents are reckoned to be about a s i x t h of the fa m i l y ' s net income, but a c t u a l l y , these rents are f i x e d ac-cording t o the s i z e of the house. Because large f a m i l i e s are f r e q u e n t l y poorer than smaller f a m i l i e s , they are unable t o pay the rent f o r the s i z e of accommodation they need. Rent rebates could help t o solve t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The way i n which rebates are given t o needy tenants v a r i e s considerably. Some a u t h o r i t i e s apply schemes r e l a t e d to the income of the c h i e f earner of the f a m i l y , while others include c h i l d r e n ' s earn-i n g s , i n whole or i n p a r t , w i t h the f a m i l y income. Occasional-l y , the d i f f e r e n c e between the rent which f a m i l i e s paid before 146 they were rehoused and the rent f o r the new d w e l l i n g i s not charged. The rent-rebate schemes a p p l i e d i n Scotland are not only more generous on the whole, than those a p p l i e d i n England, but they are sometimes extended to higher income groups when the f a m i l y includes many c h i l d r e n . 1 In Vancouver's p r o j e c t s , rents are t i e d t o income, except i n the case of s i n g l e pensioners, whose rents are f i x e d at $22. The rents are approximately 20 per cent of income. A number of problems a r i s e , both f o r housing management, and f o r the tenants, when rents are t i e d to income l e v e l s . P o s s i b l y the most objectionable aspect f o r both groups i s the n e c e s s i t y f o r repeated r e c a l c u l a t i o n of rent as incomes r i s e or f a l l . For management, t h i s i n v o l v e s e x t r a book-keeping, and f o r the tenants, i t means l o s s of p r i v a c y i n h i s f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s as each income change must be reported. Tenants d i s -l i k e rent f l u c t u a t i o n s , and since increases i n income auto-m a t i c a l l y b r i n g on rent i n c r e a s e s , i t i s f e l t t hat i n c e n t i v e to r a i s e income i s reduced. There are o b j e c t i o n s , too, t o the i n c l u s i o n i n t o t a l income f o r rent c a l c u l a t i o n purposes, such items as overtime pay, income from temporary employment, or the wages of secondary earners, p a r t i c u l a r l y c h i l d r e n . In a study of voluntary move-outs from p u b l i c housing i n the United S t a t e s , the P.H.A. reported that while 71 per cent of the f a m i l i e s regarded the rent-adjusted-to-income p r i n -c i p l e as \"a good id e a \" , at the same time, one-third of the same_ f a m i l i e s gave a,s a b a s i c reason f o r moving out, 1 In Denmark and Sweden, d i r e c t s u b s i d i e s paid by govern-menttare made to f a m i l i e s with low incomes. 2 The f a c t i s , of course, that the rent increase takes only a percentage, and does not take the whole of an income r i s e - - u s u a l l y not over 20 per cent. 147 d i s a a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h r e n t s . 1 Fromson, Hansen and Smith found i n t h e i r study of the L i t t l e Mountain p r o j e c t , that a l l low-income f a m i l i e s (under $200) as a r u l e , thought the r e n t - s c a l e f a i r ; o n e - f i f t h i n the middle-income group ($200 t o 300), and one-third i n the upper income groups, found i t u n f a i r . 2 Fami-l i e s whose incomes are i n c r e a s i n g are most l i k e l y to have ob-j e c t i o n s to t h i s procedure, and t o f e e l that rents become too high f o r the type of accommodation, or higher than what they want to pay f o r r e n t . F a m i l i e s who s u f f e r income set-backs, on the other hand, are glad to have an adjustment made and a lowering of t h e i r r e n t . Further, tenants complain of frequent rent changes when t h e i r incomes are r i s i n g , . b u t f a m i l i e s whose incomes are f a l l i n g want rent reviews o f t e n . Thus, management must decide and set r e g u l a t i o n s i n respect of reviews that attempt to please a d i f f e r i n g set of a t t i t u d e s . F a i l u r e on the part of tenants t o f u l l y understand the purposes of rents-adjusted-to-income give r i s e t o some d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n s w i t h t h i s method of s e t t i n g r e n t s . F a m i l i e s who say that \"because rents go up, they cannot save and 'get ahead'\", t h i n k of p u b l i c housing as \"bargain\" housing, which i t i s not. I t i s not intended to r e l e a s e Income f o r non-housing expenditures but r a t h e r t o provide housing at r a t e s at which the f a m i l y can a f f o r d t o pay. Consideration might be given t o the f a c t that i f r e a l es-t a t e p r i n c i p l e s are important f o r housing, i n p a r t , f i x e d r ents ( i . e . , according t o kind of accommodation \u00E2\u0080\u0094 not income of the tenant) i s proper p r a c t i c e . A l a n d l o r d who proposed 1 M o b i l i t y and M o t i v a t i o n s . . . survey of f a m i l i e s moving from 1 ow-rTn^'n-o^rngr^ \"Home\" Finance Agency; \"AprH\";\"T958. \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i ~< \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094> \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094r \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 2 L i t t l e Mountain Low-Rental Housing P r o j e c t , M.S.W. Thesis, V.B.V:~\u00C2\u00A3959:\u00E2\u0080\u0094! : : ; 148 t o r a i s e a person's rent because h i s income had gone up, would not be able t o keep h i s r e n t a l s occupied. Of course, rents f o r p u b l i c housing must be s u b s i d i z e d , low r e n t s . Fixed r e n t s , i t i s t r u e , would tend t o m i t i g a t e against large fami-l i e s or very low-income groups, unless rebates are e s t a b l i s h e d . I t would, however, be no more inconvenient a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y than the present n e c e s s i t y of income checking. There i s a considerable range of complaint i n B r i t a i n , Canada, and i n the United States that r e n t s f o r p u b l i c housing are too high. In B r i t a i n , where rents are g e n e r a l l y f i x e d , they are often c o n s i d e r a b l y higher than what the tenants have been accustomed. In 1951, Westergaard and Glass commented that rent was the dominant t o p i c of conversation i n Lansbury, and the most serious object of comp l a i n t . 1 At the time of t h e i r survey, a number of Lansbury households were already i n considerable f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , while f o r many others, any contingency, such as i l l n e s s , unemployment or under-employment, would have been enough to upset a precarious b a l -ance. Increased rents have been a source of concern on other housing estates too. Young and Willmott found that on \"Green-l e i g h \" , rents were nearly three times as high, on average, as they used t o be i n Bethnal Green, one of the poorer d i s t r i c t s 2 i n London's East End from which many of the r e s i d e n t s came. On the S h e f f i e l d e s t a t e , although the earnings of the tenants were comparatively high, many of the wives found i t necessary t o go out t o work i n order t o make ends meet. In f a c t , a 1 Westergaard and Glass, \"A P r o f i l e of Lansbury\", p. 43. 2 Young and W i l l m o t t , \"Family and Kinship i n East London,'-P. 143. . . 149 much higher p r o p o r t i o n of married women worked on t h i s e s t a t e than i n the country as a whole. 1 In the United S t a t e s , f i x e d rents are not so common, but these are often high. The main body of complaint stems from how high rents can climb i f income r i s e s . This may be one of the major problems i n how higher income f a m i l i e s view i n -creases i n rent i n p u b l i c housing. In Vancouver, at the L i t t l e Mountain p r o j e c t , complaints of t h i s same nature have been made. Tenants with the higher incomes f e e l that rents are too high; they are a l s o apt to sug-gest t h a t , i n c e r t a i n ways, they are s u b s i d i z i n g lower income 2 f a m i l i e s . I f there are tenants i n the close-to-maximum income ranges, l i v i n g i n p u b l i c housing, who are complaining that rents r i s e too high, and a l s o the lower income groups complaining t h a t they cannot a f f o r d the -rent, should we ignore these expressions of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ? Or should an attempt be made to f i n d out the v a l i d i t y of these complaints, which a r i s e again and again? I t would be easy, but a mistake, to di s r e g a r d them on the ground th a t they stem from a l a c k of understanding of p o l i c y . I t i s p o s s i b l e that housing o f f i c i a l s are r e f l e c t i n g a r i g i d and i n -f l e x i b l e view of \"economic n e c e s s i t i e s \" . Is there information a v a i l a b l e that would i n d i c a t e the a c t u a l r e a l i s m of s e t t i n g r e n t s at approximately o n e - f i f t h of income without any v a r i a t i o n as incomes r i s e or f a l l ? ' In r e l a t i o n t o v a r i a t i o n s i n l i v i n g 1 The 1951 Census showed that 17 per cent of married ( i n c l u d -i n g widowed and divorced) women i n Great B r i t a i n were working' f u l l time, while another.5 per cent worked part-t i m e . The comparative f i g u r e s f o r the S h e f f i e l d estate were 20 per cent and 26.2 per cent. See T.S. Simey, (ed.). 2 I t i s a l s o brought out i n the L i t t l e Mountain study that t h i s i s p a r t l y a matter of education and communication w i t h tanants, so that they understand p o l i c y . 150 costs f o r items i n a f a m i l y ' s budget i n d i f f e r i n g r e g i o n s , there may be a case f o r a f l e x i b l e r a t i o on t h i s b a s i s alone. In Vancouver' p r o j e c t s the rent scale i s c a l c u l a t e d on the b a s i s of two f a c t o r s : not income alone, but income and f a m i l y s i z e -- the rent decreasing r e l a t i v e l y as f a m i l y s i z e goes up. This seems sound, as i t has the e f f e c t of p r o v i d i n g a b a s i c exemption per person i n the f a m i l y . However, i t does not make enough p r o v i s i o n f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n managing on a low income or a medium income. The question i s whether the present scale a c t u a l l y compensates f o r the f i x e d costs of b a s i c n e c e s s i t i e s , such as food, which f a m i l i e s must meet f o r each person. I t may be argued that p u b l i c housing i s not concerned with budgetary items other than r e n t . In the l i g h t of r e a l i t y , however, can the cost of the two b a s i c n e c e s s i t i e s , and p r i n c i p a l items of a f a m i l y budget \u00E2\u0080\u0094 food and s h e l t e r \u00E2\u0080\u0094 be separated? Even w i t h the exemptions, both the low-income f a m i l y and the medium-income f a m i l y of the same s i z e , i n Van-couver, w i l l be paying approximately o n e - f i f t h of the remaining income i n r e n t . Yet the low-income f a m i l y may be paying out twice as much as i t s budget f o r the combined items of food and s h e l t e r as the medium-income f a m i l y . Who then i s going t o be b e t t e r able t o pay the rent on time each month? Fixed rents and rent rebates according t o f a m i l y s i z e would help to solve t h i s s i t u a t i o n . This leads i n t o the item of rent-deliquency, w i t h which problem managers of p u b l i c housing are so often harrassed. Rents which are too high f o r the f a m i l y budget may w e l l be one of the f a c t o r s which enter here. In f a c t , tenants whose income i s so low that they are genuinely unable to pay t h e i r 151 r e n t , was a category of rent-delinquency described by the C e n t r a l Housing Advisory Committee i n B r i t a i n . 1 S o l u t i o n s adopted f o r t h i s problem i n B r i t a i n , have been (a) to t r a n s -f e r such f a m i l i e s t o the cheaper pre-war houses, or (b) where rent-rebate schemes are i n e f f e c t , to apply these to lower r e n t s . The second s o l u t i o n sounds p r e f e r a b l e t o the f i r s t , which l a t t e r might i n v o l v e a r e t u r n t o run-down housing or overcrowded c o n d i t i o n s . Of course, there are other reasons f o r rent-delinquency. There are f a m i l i e s whose incomes are adequate to meet the rent charged but who cannot be induced to pay i t with any regu-l a r i t y . B r i t i s h experience endorses the idea of i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n t o these f a m i l i e s , not n e c e s s a r i l y on the b a s i s of o f f e r i n g a s s i s t a n c e , but r a t h e r as a warning measure, which, i f i t f a i l s , i s followed by a court order t o recover the a r r e a r s as a debt, r a t h e r than a n o t i c e f o r possession. Such f a m i l i e s are t o be found i n Vancouver's housing, and i t i s commendable fh a t the managers have made e f f o r t s t o a s s i s t these f a m i l i e s by h e l p i n g them with t h e i r budgetary d i f f i c u l t i e s i n order to avoid e v i c t i o n s . A t h i r d category of rent-delinquency described by C e n t r a l Housing Advisory Committee i s the f a m i l y whose income i s often i r r e g u l a r , who i s unable to budget p r o p e r l y , i f at a l l , and who i s c o n s t a n t l y i n debt. In B r i t a i n , as i n Canada and the United S t a t e s , these f a m i l i e s are viewed as having problems of p s y c h o l o g i c a l dependency. I t i s recognized that housing management alone cannot solve the complex of problems that C e n t r a l Housing Advisory Committee, U n s a t i s f a c t o r y Tenants. 152 may be l e a d i n g to rent delinquency. B r i t a i n has marshalled a number of community s e r v i c e s t o help these f a m i l i e s , as have a l s o c e r t a i n c i t i e s i n the U.S. The \"half-way houses\" pro-vided by the London County Co u n c i l i n B r i t a i n , and used f o r concentrated e f f o r t s towards r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , are an example. 1 These are \" g r o u p - l i v i n g \" homes f o r f a m i l i e s . The accommoda-t i o n i s f u r n i s h e d and c o n s i s t s of separate rooms f o r each f a m i l y , but k i t c h e n and r e c r e a t i o n rooms are shared. The pur-pose i s to a s s i s t these f a m i l i e s t o become good tenants f o r t h e i r own d w e l l i n g u n i t i n p u b l i c housing. Some welfare au-t h o r i t i e s use separate o l d e r dwellings f o r the same purpose. Toronto Housing A u t h o r i t y has r e c e n t l y s t a r t e d a somewhat s i m i l a r p i l o t p r o j e c t . The C i t y Property Department has b u i l t a p a i r of semi-detached houses on City-owned land. These dwellings possess e x c e p t i o n a l l y durable q u a l i t i e s and are de-signed t o withstand the r i g o u r s of i n o r d i n a t e l y hard wear, thereby reducing the hazards of f i r e t o a minimum. They were designed to accommodate f a m i l i e s considered t o be i n need of some r e h a b i l i t a t i o n before admittance to a p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t . The experiment has proven most s u c c e s s f u l , and the Housing A u t h o r i t y have advocated the e r e c t i o n of more such 2 u n i t s . A demonstration p r o j e c t from Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y was c a r r i e d out by the Youth Development Center, to f i n d out what e f f e c t s s o c i a l s e r v i c e help t o low-income problem f a m i l i e s , c o n s i s t e n t l y delinquent i n paying r e n t , would have on t h e i r C e n t r a l Housing Advisory Committee, ! ! U n s a t i s f a c t o r y Tenants, p. 30 Housing A u t h o r i t y of Toronto Report, May 1963. 153 rent-paying p a t t e r n s . A s o c i a l worker was assigned t o i n t e r -cede f o r some of these f a m i l i e s w i t h the housing management, i n respect of problems of rent-deliquency. In t h i s r o l e of i n t e r c e s s o r , the worker succeeded i n enabling the study group of f a m i l i e s t o remain i n the p r o j e c t , w i t h rents paid up, a l -though she d i d not achieve the goal of having them pay rents once a month, on time, and i n f u l l . None of the study group f a m i l i e s were e v i c t e d , but one-quarter of the c o n t r o l group, who had t o \"go i t alone\", were e v i c t e d , during the time of the demonstration p r o j e c t . The s o c i a l worker was not a rent c o l l e c t o r , but an enabler. One of the major recommendations of the f i n a l r eport of the p r o j e c t was that rents f o r low-income f a m i l i e s be c o l l e c t e d on a weekly b a s i s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a b a s i s which more a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s the budgetary c a p a c i t y of un-s t a b l e f a m i l i e s . Undoubtedly, these measures and s e r v i c e s are needed i f there i s t o be any improvement i n these f a m i l i e s , or i f they are t o f e e l any hope or encouragement. However, does t h i s k ind of p r o v i s i o n do any more than a patch-up job, i f incomes continue t o be i r r e g u l a r , or even non-existent? The r e a l i t y i s t hat i f a man i s unemployed, u n s k i l l e d , and over f o r t y years of age, h i s chances of o b t a i n i n g a steady job today are s l i m . I f a member of the f a m i l y s u f f e r s a prolonged i l l n e s s , i t w i l l break the f a m i l y . The unemployable person i s expected to l i v e on_a sum of money that can s c a r c e l y be stretched t o cover b a s i c n e c e s s i t i e s . Not u n t i l we face these b a s i c f a c t s about our present-day s o c i e t y , w i l l we be moving i n t o the r e a l issues which are g i v i n g r i s e t o dependency. And not u n t i l p u b l i c housing i s 15^ administered and developed i n the context of these problems, economic as w e l l as s o c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l , w i l l i t be i n true p e r s p e c t i v e . Where does the unemployed man over f o r t y take h i s f a m i l y i f he i s e v i c t e d from p u b l i c housing? Back t o another slum? where h i s rent may be lower but the accommoda-t i o n deplorable and the environment demoralizing f o r h i s ch i l d r e n ? And i s he to be accepted as a candidate f o r p u b l i c housing l a t e r , i f t h i s slum area i n time comes under rede-velopment? CHAPTER LV The S t r u c t u r e of the^ P r o j e c t Low-rent, subsidized p u b l i c housing was o r i g i n a l l y de-signed t o provide decent l i v i n g accommodation f o r low-income f a m i l i e s , who were unable to f i n d s u i t a b l e homes i n the p r i -vate market at rents they could a f f o r d t o pay. The u l t i m a t e aim of housing programs, however, i s not j u s t the p r o v i s i o n of d w e l l i n g u n i t s . As the United States Housing Acts have declared f o r many years, they should include the major task of promoting the \" p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l and emotional w e l l - b e i n g of a l l c i t i z e n s concerned by means of s a f e r and more s a n i t a r y housing i n a more d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l environment.\" 1 P u b l i c housing programs are part of n a t i o n a l welfare p r o v i s i o n and t h e i r success as welfare measures, a c c o r d i n g l y , i s bound up w i t h the amount of i n t e r e s t and e f f o r t invested i n them by the p u b l i c , by the housing a u t h o r i t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e , and by s o c i a l agencies i n the communities. Have these programs succeeded i n improving h e a l t h , l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , and s o c i a l l i f e f o r f a m i l i e s ; or have they f a i l e d to achieve these ob-j e c t i v e s ? A great d e a l can be s a i d on e i t h e r side of t h i s q uestion. Most people would agree t h a t , w i t h a l l t h e i r shortcomings, new housing developments have made c o n t r i b u t i o n s to b e t t e r 1 Housing Act, 19,49 ( P u b l i c Law No. 171, E i g h t y - f i r s t Con-gress, Chapt. 338, S e c t i o n 2. Quoted i n \"Today's Housing Program, the Community, and S o c i a l Casework,\" Daniel J . Ran-sohoff, Marriage^ a, nd JFamily ^Lilving, May, 1955. 156 l i v i n g . On the whole \u00E2\u0080\u0094 though there are some exceptions --the houses and apartments are w e l l planned and soundly con-s t r u c t e d . I f they are b u i l t on s i t e s removed from the d i r t and noise of f a c t o r i e s , i n areas where the a i r i s c l e a n , they a f f o r d many f a m i l i e s , f o r the f i r s t time, homes r a t h e r than hovels, and more space and f a c i l i t i e s f o r a normal f a m i l y l i f e . C h i l d r e n b e n e f i t p a r t i c u l a r i l y by b e t t e r h e a l t h , and i f there i s reasonable imagination i n the p r o j e c t , from im-proved f a c i l i t i e s f o r p l a y and comparative absence of t r a f f i c danger. H o p e f u l l y , the housewife's burden i s l i g h t e n e d , too, by an e a s i e r place t o clean and i n which to cook and do laun-dry. In more than one country, i t has often been found that rehoused f a m i l i e s take on a new lease on l i f e . Having been given a \"new s t a r t , \" they begin to be i n t e r e s t e d i n the com-numity, they may f i n d common i n t e r e s t s and form new a s s o c i a -t i o n s . In a survey completed i n 1963, \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P u b l i c Housing and WeIfare_Services, by Brown, Kogawa and Peters -- which was a s t a r t i n g point f o r the present study, there i s much evidence, however, of the other side of the s t o r y . Housing a u t h o r i t i e s i n B r i t a i n , United S t a t e s , and Canada are faced w i t h a v a r i e t y of problems i n the management of t h e i r developments. Some of these are i n e v i t a b l y associated w i t h the concentration of low-Income f a m i l i e s i n one pl a c e ; others r e f l e c t d i f f i c u l t i e s of readjustment. Some of these problems were brought w i t h them by the new r e s i d e n t s ; some r e s u l t from poor p r o j e c t p l a n -ning. At f i r s t s i g h t the problems are very mixed \u00E2\u0080\u0094 depression and dependency; c h i l d n e g lect, delinquency, vandalism; poor rent-paying p r a c t i c e s , poor household management. 157 But there i s a l s o what might w e l l be c a l l e d the \" t h i r d dimension.\" S e v e r a l A u t h o r i t i e s have joined w i t h Health and Welfare agencies, both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e , to i n s t i t u t e pro-grams designed to provide c o n s t r u c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to com-bat f u r t h e r d e t e r i o r a t i o n of disadvantaged f a m i l i e s , t o r e -h a b i l i t a t e them, and to prevent recurrences i n the f u t u r e . A strong c o n c l u s i o n of the study i s that p u b l i c housing pro-j e c t s should be an i n t e g r a l part of neighbourhoods. I f t h i s i s t o be achieved, there must be p r o v i s i o n i n the community f o r an adequate number of h e a l t h , welfare and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s t o ensure that everyone can have both the s e r v i c e s and the l e i s u r e - t i m e a c t i v i t i e s that they need or d e s i r e . In a d d i t i o n , s e r v i c e s are required i n the p r o j e c t s themselves \u00E2\u0080\u0094 some w e l l known, others, new and o r i g i n a l \u00E2\u0080\u0094 as measures to combat apathy, vandalism, poor housekeeping and. budgetary prac-t i c e s , and f a m i l y d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n . In United States c i t i e s alone, there i s now an impressive a r r a y of demonstration pro-j e c t s which are being pursued on the b a s i s of the above f a c t s . A f u r t h e r study i n Vancouver, a l s o being undertaken by S o c i a l Work post-graduate students, i n c l u d e s , among others, community surveys i n two d i s t r i c t s of the c i t y , which have p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s w i t h i n t h e i r boundaries. These two s t u d i e s w i l l c o n t r i b u t e documentation of neighbourhood patterns and needs, i n c l u d i n g organized h e a l t h , welfare and r e c r e a t i o n -a l s e r v i c e s r e l e v a n t t o urban renewal \u00E2\u0080\u0094 whether t h i s i n c l u d e s p u b l i c housing or not. The present study focusses on a c l o s e r look at the hous-ing p r o j e c t s themselves and the people who l i v e i n them. Are there important d i f f e r e n c e s i n the kinds of f a m i l i e s who are 158 most e l i g i b l e f o r , or most r e q u i r e , p u b l i c housing? What does moving to the new development mean? What happens to the f a m i l y ' s budget? Can assets as w e l l as l i a b i l i t i e s be d i s -tinguished? Is i t p o s s i b l e t o take a f r e s h look at the r e -s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of housing managers, as w e l l as those of the governments and communities Involved? I f a new chapter i n housing and c i t y r e b u i l d i n g (\"urban renewal\") i s opening, how should welfare s e r v i c e s f i g u r e i n the pages? V ' h o L i v e s JLn P u b l i c Hocusing? The r e s i d e n t s of p u b l i c housing are not b a s i c a l l y d i f f e r -ent from people elsewhere. What _is the d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t , i n housing p r o j e c t s , f a m i l y types are grouped i n unbalanced p r o p o r t i o n s . The major f a c t o r g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s , of course, \" e l i g i b i l i t y \" requirements. E l i g i b i l i t y f o r p u b l i c housing v a r i e s i n the three c o u n t r i e s we have had under study. These v a r i a t i o n s are l i n k e d w i t h a number of f a c t o r s , such as a v a i l a b i l i t y of housing, current s o c i a l values of the country, the nature of the economy, and b a s i c demographic f e a t u r e s . As an i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s , i n the United S t a t e s , a notably \"youth-orientated\" n a t i o n , the emphasis was at f i r s t placed on p r o v i d i n g housing f o r young f a m i l i e s . Now there i s a wide awakening to the large p r o p o r t i o n of i l l - h o u s e d e l d e r l y people, and emergency measures to provide decent housing are being considered i n s e v e r a l q u a r t e r s . In B r i t i s h Columbia, the 1 E l d e r l y C i t i z e n s Housing Aid Act, 1955 (funds were made a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s purpose s e v e r a l years p r i o r to the passage of the A c t ) . 159 government has made p r o v i s i o n f o r a decade f o r funds to a s s i s t i n the f i n a n c i n g of housing f o r the e l d e r l y by n o n - p r o f i t or-g a n i z a t i o n s . This r e f l e c t s p r e v a i l i n g values and demographic f e a t u r e s ; the high p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y people l i v i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s well-known, but there i s a l s o a r e l a t i v e l y long t r a d i t i o n of welfare s e r v i c e f o r c h i l d r e n and f o r the aged. With regard t o the a v a i l a b i l i t y of housing, i n a l l three c o u n t r i e s demand s t i l l f a r exceeds supply; there are long w a i t i n g l i s t s , and only the most needy can be deemed e l i g i b l e . In the United S t a t e s , at the end of the 1963 f i s c a l year, there were 538,000 u n i t s i n the P u b l i c Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program, and another 182,000 i n various stages of c o n s t r u c t i o n , making a t o t a l of 720,000 u n i t s . 1 While t h i s number may seem astronomical t o Canadians, i t s r e l a t i v e smallness can be judged by the f a c t that the U.S. Housing Act of 1961, was es-t a b l i s h e d t o help e l i m i n a t e 11,000,000 substandard u n i t s r e -vealed i n the i960 census! In B r i t a i n , although four-and-a-h a l f m i l l i o n new houses have been provided since the end of the war, i t i s estimated that over the next twenty years 125,000 new houses a .year w i l l be needed to keep up wit h the growth of households, while 600,000 slums s t i l l remain t o be c l e a r e d . 2 Vancouver f i g u r e s may seem t i n y i n comparison t o these huge aggregates, but they need t h e i r own appropriate p e r s p e c t i v e . In November 1963, the Housing A u t h o r i t y had some 450 f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n e l i g i b l e f o r p u b l i c housing, w i t h H.H.P.A., \"P.H.A. H i g h l i g h t s . \" July-August, I963. Housing Command 2050. May 1963, H.M.S.O., London. i6o an a d d i t i o n a l 600 s i n g l e e l d e r l y persons, on I t s w a i t i n g l i s t . l Since the completion of Orchard Park i n 1959, 393 p u b l i c hous-in g u n i t s have been b u i l t , compared w i t h about 12,921 d w e l l i n g u n i t s b u i l t during the same period (up u n t i l the end of 1963) 2 i n the C i t y of Vancouver, g e n e r a l l y . i n Canada, since the war, the t o t a l amount of low-rent p u b l i c housing has not ex-ceeded 2 per cent of the t o t a l b u i l d i n g achievement. Between the years 1950 and 1962, 11,167 u n i t s i n 93 housing p r o j e c t s were approved under f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l arrangements. Of these, 9,035 u n i t s were completed and.turned over to l o c a l housing a u t h o r i t i e s by the end of 1962.3 Low income i s the primary determinant f o r e l i g i b i l i t y h t o p u b l i c housing both i n Canada and i n the United S t a t e s . The upper Income l i m i t i n Vancouver, f o r the l a r g e s t f a m i l i e s , i s $4950; such l i m i t s exceed $6500 per annum i n some pa r t s of United S t a t e s . Average incomes, however, are considerably lower than these maximums, so that the m a j o r i t y of people l i v i n g i n p u b l i c housing are s u b s i s t i n g on a very moderate amount of money each month. In Vancouver, f o r example, 36.8 per cent of f a m i l i e s i n the \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s , had an i n -come of JLe^ss than, J> 150 per month. Minimum incomes do not appear t o be i n e f f e c t i n most areas, although i n the United States t h i s may be l e f t t o the d e c i s i o n of the l o c a l housing a u t h o r i t y , subject t o review by the P u b l i c Housing A u t h o r i t y . In Vancouver, there i s no minimum income designated; however, 1 Vancouver Housing A s s o c i a t i o n , B u l l e t i n no.54. 2 C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Regional O f f i c e , Vancouver, B.C. 3 Canada Year Book, 1963-64. i n B r i t a i n , the primary con-s i d e r a t i o n i n s e l e c t i n g tenants i s housing need a r i s i n g from f a c t o r s such as overcrowding, i l l h e a l t h and c o n d i t i o n of d w e l l i n g . Questions of income are i r r e l e v a n t . 161 i n e f f e c t i t i s the s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e s c a l e , since f a m i l i e s or s i n g l e persons having incomes below s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e r a t e s would be supplemented up t o these r a t e s under p r o v i n -c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . The second most important c r i t e r i o n f o r e l i g i b i l i t y i s the c o n d i t i o n of present housing. In g e n e r a l , overcrowding, substandard accommodation, or displacement by p u b l i c a c t i o n are rated high i n the p o i n t - s c a l e systems used t o determine p r i o r i t y . The c o n d i t i o n of present housing does not neces-s a r i l y i n i t s e l f determine the kinds of f a m i l i e s moving i n t o p u b l i c housing, but i t should be mentioned here because of i t s importance. As has already been noted, i n B r i t a i n i t i s the primary c r i t e r i o n f o r e l i g i b i l i t y . In the United States the requirement of poor present accommodation may be waived i n the case of e l d e r l y , d i s a b l e d , or service-connected fami-l i e s . 1 i n a l l three c o u n t r i e s a l s o , where the c o n s t r u c t i o n of p u b l i c housing i s incorporated i n t o the redevelopment plans f o r an area as a replacement f o r slums, the f a m i l i e s i n those areas are given p r i o r i t y over f a m i l i e s on the r e g u l a r w a i t i n g l i s t s f o r new housing ( p r o v i d i n g , of course, that they meet the income e l i g i b i l i t y requirements where these e x i s t ) . In a d d i t i o n t o the above requirements f o r e l i g i b i l i t y , only c e r t a i n kinds of f a m i l i e s are admitted t o p u b l i c housing. Without exception, i n the three c o u n t r i e s under study, p u b l i c housing i s designed f o r young f a m i l i e s and f o r e l d e r l y people -- at f i r s t aged couples, and more r e c e n t l y , s i n g l e e l d e r l y men and women. I t has never been intended f o r younger s i n g l e 1 \"Service-connected\" f a m i l i e s include those whose head i s s e r v i n g h i s two years compulsory m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , as r e -quired i n the U.S. 162 people. In the Vancouver p r o j e c t s , i n the case of younger people who are widowed through death of t h e i r spouse, they are allowed three months t o f i n d other accommodation, although i f a s i n g l e u n i t i s a v a i l a b l e , the widowed person may be per-mitted t o move i n t o i t . Disabled persons are a l s o e l i g i b l e , but the age of the di s a b l e d person i s a f a c t o r . In the United S t a t e s , d i s a b l e d persons of a l l ages, I f i n r e c e i p t of s o c i a l s e c u r i t y d i s -a b i l i t y insurance b e n e f i t s are e l i g i b l e f o r housing. In B r i t i s h Columbia, the d i s a b l e d person seeking rehousing must be s i x t y years of age or more, although i n p r a c t i c e exceptions are sometimes made. Pew di s a b l e d or handicapped persons i n t h i s age group have so f a r a p p l i e d i n Vancouver, and at pre-sent there are no a p p l i c a n t s i n t h i s category on the w a i t i n g l i s t . The Vancouver Housing A s s o c i a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , has r e -commended that the age l i m i t of s i x t y be e l i m i n a t e d i n order t o make the housing a v a i l a b l e t o handicapped persons of a l l ages. 1 In t h e i r o p i n i o n , t h i s group s u f f e r s hardship i n l o -c a t i n g s u i t a b l e accommodation at rents they can a f f o r d i n the p r i v a t e market. I t i s of i n t e r e s t t o note i n t h i s respect t h a t , i n B r i t a i n , the London County Co u n c i l a l l o c a t e 100 houses annually to persons s u f f e r i n g from t u b e r c u l o s i s . 2 F a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n are given preference over f a m i l i e s without c h i l d r e n , although t h i s i s , of course, r e l a t e d to the s i z e of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e . The number of c h i l d r e n i n the f a m i l y has a l s o been used as a c r i t e r i o n f o r p r i o r i t y f o r housing \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 Vancouver Housing A s s o c i a t i o n , Bulletin^^No.^ J54 . 2 See London County C o u n c i l w a i t i n g l i s t a n a l y s i s i n Appendix A. 163 the l a r g e r f a m i l i e s g e t t i n g a higher p r i o r i t y . However, i n Vancouver at l e a s t , t h i s p r a c t i c e has now been d i s c o n t i n u e d , as i t has been found t o have l i t t l e r e l a t i o n t o the need f o r housing, i n two ways. The f i r s t i s that the p o i n t s given f o r overcrowding i n present accommodation tend to take care of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the number of c h i l d r e n i n the f a m i l y . The second i s that many p r i v a t e l a n d l o r d s i n Vancouver are prepared t o accept c h i l d r e n i n t o t h e i r r e n t a l s , and therefore these f a m i l i e s are not so hard-pressed t o f i n d somewhere to l i v e , as might be the case i n other areas. Of course, the large f a m i l y i s pressed by income, as w e l l as shortage of lar g e u n i t s . The p o l i c y of g i v i n g preference t o f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n has the e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g the proportionate number of c h i l d r e n i n housing p r o j e c t s as compared w i t h the community i n general: and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s i s becoming c l e a r e r every year to the designers of p r o j e c t s . Again speaking g e n e r a l l y , housing a u t h o r i t i e s tend to give preference t o \"normal\" or two-parent f a m i l i e s over \"broken\" or one-parent f a m i l i e s . The reason f o r t h i s i s that normal f a m i l i e s add s t a b i l i t y t o the p r o j e c t , and h i s t o r i c a l l y these are the f a m i l i e s whom p u b l i c housing was o r i g i n a l l y planned t o a s s i s t . I t i s a l s o considered that they are l e s s l i k e l y t o be a problem t o management or to the community as a whole. Yet a study of problem f a m i l i e s that was made i n Baltimore's housing p r o j e c t s i n 1956 d i d not bear t h i s out. In these p r o j e c t s i t was found that the (white) standard fami-l y appeared w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r eater frequency among the \"problem f a m i l i e s \" than i n the p r o j e c t p o p u l a t i o n g e n e r a l l y . The study showed that t h i s was not true f o r \"broken\" 164 f a m i l i e s . 1 While i t i s important that the normal f a m i l y be w e l l represented i n housing developments, at the same time c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be given to the ,fact that the mother who i s attempting to b r i n g up c h i l d r e n by h e r s e l f on a low income may need, even more, the help of s u b s i d i z e d housing, and i s very l i k e l y t o respond w e l l to i t . Sometimes, of course, i t i s a f a t h e r w i t h c h i l d r e n ; and the same p o s s i b i l i t i e s hold good. I t has been estimated t h a t , at the present time, 25 per cent of the f a m i l i e s on the w a i t i n g l i s t f o r housing i n Vancouver are i n the category of \"broken\" f a m i l i e s . In any housing p r o j e c t i n Canada and the United S t a t e s , however, t h i s type of f a m i l y w i l l almost c e r t a i n l y be present i n numbers s u b s t a n t i a l l y high-e r than i n the wider community. In B r i t a i n , i n a report en-t i t l e d \" U n s a t i s f a c t o r y Tenants,\" the C e n t r a l Housing Advisory Committee drew a t t e n t i o n t o t h e ' d i f f i c u l t i e s which unsupported mothers w i t h c h i l d r e n have i n f i n d i n g homes f o r themselves. Of the 401 mothers i n N a t i o n a l Assistance Board h o s t e l s e a r l y i n 1954 only 116 had t h e i r names on a l o c a l a u t h o r i t y w a i t i n g l i s t f o r a house, and t h i s may have been p a r t l y due to a b e l i e f that they stood l i t t l e chance of success. The Committee s t r o n g l y recommended t h a t , In the i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n , housing a u t h o r i t i e s should a l l o t more of a v a i l a b l e r e n t a l s t o such f a m i l i e s . 2 Some s e l e c t i o n of the f a m i l i e s who w i l l go i n t o the pro-j e c t s i s made on the b a s i s of s u i t a b i l i t y , and t h i s gives r i s e 1 Housing A u t h o r i t y of Baltimore C i t y , Problem FamJTies i n P u b l i c Housing, 1956. The. opposite was fo^WTTof^egro'^fSmilles. 2 C e n t r a l Housing Advisory Committee, UnsatisJ^cJ:qry Ten-ants: S i x t h Report of the ^Housing _Managejne~ffi^'^ 165 to a number of questions about the l e g a l and moral r e s p o n s i -b i l i t i e s of housing a u t h o r i t i e s i n respect of f a m i l i e s who may be l a b e l l e d \"undesirable tenants.\" Some A u t h o r i t i e s be-l i e v e t h a t such f a m i l i e s do not p r o p e r l y belong i n p u b l i c housing, and they s t a t e a number of arguments to support t h i s view. One of t h e i r main p r o p o s i t i o n s i s that f a m i l i e s w i t h problems lower the tone of the p r o j e c t , and give i t a \"bad name.\" Many of the s t a b l e f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t s are l i k e l y t o hoid t h i s view a l s o , and would agree w i t h the managers th a t such f a m i l i e s should be excluded. D i s l i k e of s o - c a l l e d \"low-c l a s s \" neighbours was, i n f a c t , the second most common reason given by a group of f a m i l i e s , studied i n Baltimore i n 1957, whose reasons f o r moving v o l u n t a r i l y were canvassed. 1 As a f u r t h e r support t o t h i s argument, Housing A u t h o r i t i e h o l d i n g t h i s view have stated that the presence of \"problem\" f a m i l i e s i n the p r o j e c t s discourages e l i g i b l e s t a b l e f a m i l i e s from a p p l y i n g f o r needed housing. In the opinion of these A u t h o r i t i e s housing should be given to \"...good hard-working f a m i l i e s , s t r u g g l i n g t o get along but set back by low earning-c a p a c i t y , i l l n e s s , l a r g e f a m i l i e s to support, or other f a c t o r s i n preference t o f a m i l i e s \"...weakened by d r i n k i n g , low moral standard, i n a b i l i t y t o accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or to hold jobs.\" This same view i s given somewhat d i f f e r e n t emphasis by the f o l l o w i n g quotation from the other side of the A t l a n t i c . 1 Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency, W h y ^ J j j J ^ Famjllies .Le^ve .^^JA^^^^A^^ ^ w a s e v l ( 3 e n t , however,\"ttiat 1nrte ren t\"'\" in\"'\"'t'hTi's\"\"\" vTew\" wa s \"\"\"a\" \"de gr e e of r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e a l s o . 2 Housing A u t h o r i t y of Baltimore C i t y , j ^ o b l e m ^ F a m i l i e s I n B u b l i e Housing. 166 \"Throughout the Report on the Poor Law and l i t e r a t u r e of the V i c t o r i a n era there are many quoted examples of the housewife who, i n s p i t e of poverty, was able to keep her cottage as clean as a new p i n and dress her c h i l d r e n i n s p o t l e s s (although mended) garments. In t h i s workaday world, however, we are d e a l i n g w i t h ordinary f o l k , not w i t h demonstration specimens. The average housewife takes a p r i d e i n her home i f i t r e -sponds to her e f f o r t s , but she cannot be expected t o deal w i t h d i l a p i d a t i o n , l a c k of water or gross over-crowding.\"! This was w r i t t e n by a medical O f f i c e r of Health i n B r i t a i n . Other matters of great concern t o housing managers, however, are r e l a t e d t o rent-paying p r a c t i c e s , since rents are the l i f e - b l o o d of the p r o j e c t , and these kinds of f a m i l i e s are often the ones who get behind i n t h e i r rent payments. For example, f o r t y - t h r e e per cent of the problem f a m i l i e s i n the Baltimore study were considered to be rent-paying r i s k s by the management s t a f f . 2 These are cogent arguments f o r excluding \"undesirable\" f a m i l i e s . There i s , however, an e q u a l l y important other side of t h i s q u e s t i o n . I t may be said that there i s an o b l i g a t i o n on the part of housing a u t h o r i t i e s to house a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of low-income f a m i l i e s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 not j u s t well-behaved \"model\" f a m i l i e s who would give the management s t a f f l i t t l e t r o u b l e . \" P u b l i c housing i s tax-supported, and t h e r e f o r e , belongs t o a l l c i t i z e n s and should be a v a i l a b l e t o any f a m i l y who meets the e l i g i b i l i t y requirements which are set down. In a d d i t i o n , since p u b l i c housing has inherent i n i t s purpose, p r o v i s i o n of a decent place i n which c h i l d r e n can l i v e and grow up, i s there any j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n denying t h i s r i g h t t o the c h i l d r e n of problem 1 Mackintosh, '\u00E2\u0080\u00A2'Hqusi^ , . L i f e . 2 Housing A u t h o r i t y of Baltimore C i t y , Problem F a m i l i e s ^ i n P u b l i c Housing. 167 f a m i l i e s ? I t could be argued that these c h i l d r e n are even more i n need of a good p h y s i c a l environment than are the c h i l d r e n of s t a b l e f a m i l i e s . Parents need a chance too, and a new home could be a f a c t o r i n breaking the c y c l e of s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i n g poverty, i f , i n a d d i t i o n to the home, the other s e r v i c e s that these f a m i l i e s need are a l s o provided. And an u l t i m a t e a r -gument must e v e n t u a l l y be faced. I f i n c o r r i g i b l e f a m i l i e s are t o be excluded, where are they t o go? Must the slums be preserved to keep a place f o r them; are they to be l e f t t o create new ones; or should the community b u i l d appropriate r e -h a b i l i t a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r them? The question of the i n c l u s i o n or e x c l u s i o n of undesirable f a m i l i e s cannot be answered e a s i l y i n view of the many f a c t s which are now coming to l i g h t i n p r o j e c t s . But whether the question i s answered or not, problem f a m i l i e s are g a i n i n g ad-mission t o housing p r o j e c t s through l e g a l preference when they are d i s p l a c e d , and obtain new housing'in the redevelopment areas. This i s law i n the United States under the terms of the Housing Act of 1949, and i t i s at l e a s t echoed i n Canadian l e g -i s l a t i o n . However, t h i s cannot be considered t o be a problem that concerns housing management only, although i n the United S t a t e s , housing a u t h o r i t i e s have come to look f o r management programs that are adapted to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of today's low-income f a m i l i e s , r a t h e r than v i g i l a n t l y keeping the problem f a m i l y out of p u b l i c housing. I t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of other community h e a l t h and welfare agencies to j o i n w i t h hous-in g management and together, f i n d the s o l u t i o n s . One Housing A u t h o r i t y report has put the issue very c l e a r l y : 168 \"The kinds of problems one f i n d s among the p r o j e c t f a m i l i e s are not unique to p u b l i c housing. They cor-respond t o the d i f f i c u l t i e s found among the Tow-income r a m i l l e s tnr roughout rne communltyT The e x i s t e n c e , the i n t e n s i t y , ana the c o n t i n u a t i o n o r t h e s e problems i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the resources and f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e i n the community f o r h e l p i n g f a m i l i e s deal with problems that are beyond t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o r e -solve alone. In a d d i t i o n , the p r o j e c t s must have s t a f f members equipped t o understand the needs of these f a m i l i e s and the resources of the community, so they can be of maximum a s s i s t a n c e i n h e l p i n g problem f a m i l i e s work out s o l u t i o n s . \" ! * One of the major a t t i t u d e s which has a negative impact i n planning programs f o r these kinds of people i s the f e e l i n g held both by housing management and s o c i a l welfare agencies t h a t many f a m i l i e s would not accept or use help i f i t were o f f e r e d . This had grown out of previous experience, of f a i l -ure on the part of these f a m i l i e s t o make use of agency ser-v i c e s , or help o f f e r e d by management. However, i t should be kept i n mind that the readiness or a b i l i t y t o use help does not remain s t a t i c . As circumstances change, some f a m i l i e s that were unresponsive and d i s i n t e r e s t e d might become more access-i b l e . Then, too, we have not as yet perfected the techniques and methods f o r working w i t h impoverished and deprived f a m i l i e s , but t h i s should not discourage us from continued experimenta-t i o n . Some experiments, indeed, are already underway. In B r i t a i n , the processes employed i n r e h a b i l i t a t i n g these f a m i l i e s make use of the s e r v i c e s of l o c a l a u t h o r i t y , the n a t i o n a l government and v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s . At the l o c a l a u t h o r i t y l e v e l , the departments concerned w i t h problem fami-l i e s include the housing, w e l f a r e , h e a l t h , and the c h i l d r e n ' s 1 Housing A u t h o r i t y of Baltimore C i t y , Problem F a m i l i e s i n P u b l i c Housing, ( u n d e r l i n i n g added). 169 department. I f a housing a u t h o r i t y considers a prospective tenant a p o t e n t i a l problem, i t w i l l very l i k e l y o f f e r accommo-dat i o n i n one of i t s o l d e r p r o p e r t i e s . The f a m i l y , however, i s assured t h a t , should they prove t o be good tenants, they w i l l be t r a n s f e r r e d t o a b e t t e r house l a t e r . The f a c t i s r e -cognized, nevertheless, that any rehousing without a prolonged attempt t o secure b e t t e r standards i s l i k e l y merely t o r e s u l t i n a r e p e t i t i o n of the previous h i s t o r y of a r r e a r s and e v i c t i o n . The housing a u t h o r i t y , t h e r e f o r e , works i n clo s e co-operation with the various departments and volun t a r y agencies concerned. Many a u t h o r i t i e s have already set up committees c o n s i s t i n g of re p r e s e n t a t i v e s of a l l the or g a n i z a t i o n s which would consider \"the needs of the f a m i l y as a whole\" and decide how the l o c a l s e r v i c e s could best be ap p l i e d t o meet these needs, and which worker should be re s p o n s i b l e f o r the p a r t i c u l a r f a m i l y . In p l a c i n g such a f a m i l y , many a u t h o r i t i e s attempt to f i n d t o l e r -ant and h e l p f u l neighbours f o r these f a m i l i e s . In the case of major rent-delinquency, i t i s o c c a s i o n a l l y necessary t o e v i c t a tenant, but t h i s step i s taken normally as a l a s t r e s o r t . A u t h o r i t i e s have been advised t o regard an e v i c t i o n not merely as a s o l u t i o n of t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s , but as a stage i n the treatment of a f a m i l y . E v i c t e d f a m i l i e s are I ~> ll I 1 I \" I 'I ~ l II \u00E2\u0080\u00A2|^*^ I - I l '~ ~ t I \" I I ~|l II I ~ I ~ l ~l ~I l~> I ' I ~ l II 'I l\"l I ~ ~1l | \u00E2\u0080\u0094I I ~I ~ I ~ I ~l ~' \"II ~ll t e m p o r a r i l y accommodated by; the N a t i o n a l Assistance Board, and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n begins from there. I t i s of i n t e r e s t t o note that the London County Council a l l o c a t e 50 d w e l l i n g s annually to \"problem\" f a m i l i e s s e l e c t e d by the Medical O f f i c e r of Health so that measures f o r t h e i r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n can be under-taken i n t h e i r own homes. These f a m i l i e s are a l s o helped by the p r o v i s i o n of low-cost f u r n i t u r e and m a t e r i a l s f o r 170 r e d e c o r a t i n g . In the l i t e r a t u r e on p u b l i c housing, there has been a great deal of emphasis on the \"problem f a m i l y \" , s i n g l e d out from a l l other f a m i l i e s , and termed multiprobiem f a m i l i e s i n the United S t a t e s , and i t i s not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s r e -port t o attempt t o secure new d a t a . 1 While there can be no doubt that these f a m i l i e s do absorb an i n o r d i n a t e amount of the time and e f f o r t of housing management, at the same time the f a c t s i n d i c a t e t h a t , as a percentage of the t o t a l popula-t i o n s i n p u b l i c housing, the incidence of problem f a m i l i e s i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . The U.S. P u b l i c Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i n i t s p u b l i c a t i o n \" P u b l i c Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n H i g h l i g h t s \" f o r J u l y and August I963, quotes the New York C i t y Housing Author-i t y i n p u t t i n g the p r o p o r t i o n of I t s problem f a m i l i e s at 2.5 2 per cent. Much, of course, depends on the d e f i n i t i o n of a problem f a m i l y . The Baltimore study on Problem F a m i l i e s i n P u b l i c Hqusj.ng reported that 6 per cent of the f a m i l i e s i n Baltimore p r o j e c t s could be designated as problem f a m i l i e s . This f i g u r e appears t o be f a i r l y standard f o r large American c i t i e s at present.3 But even i f the proportions were as high as ten per cent, i t should be apparent t h a t , f o c u s s i n g a t t e n -t i o n on t h i s group of f a m i l i e s , could leave neglected a great many people i n p u b l i c housing who may be having problems but who are not themselves problems t o the community. I t might be more to the point t o say that n i n e t y per cent of the people \"''A t e n t a t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of f a m i l y and p r o j e c t problems has been included i n Appendix B. 2 H.H.F.A., \"P.H.A. H i g h l i g h t s . \" 3 Housing A u t h o r i t y f o r Baltimore C i t y , Probletn Pam 1 l i e s i n P u b l i c Housing. 171 are \"non-problem f a m i l i e s \" ; but that the incidence of c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c problems ( f o r example, i l l n e s s , need f o r p a r e n t a l t r a i n i n g ) i s wide. Brown, Kogawa and Peters make the d i s t i n c -t i o n that (a) problem f a m i l i e s are one t h i n g , (b) the d i s t r i -b u tion of problems among f a m i l i e s i s another. 1 In summary, types and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f a m i l i e s who are l i v i n g i n p u b l i c housing are determined t o a great extent by e l i g i b i l i t y requirements and admission p o l i c i e s of housing a u t h o r i t i e s . Because of t h i s f a c t o r , an unbalanced housing p r o j e c t community may be the r e s u l t . The next s e c t i o n of t h i s r e p o r t attempts t o explore the meaning of t h i s \"unbalance\" to the f a m i l i e s who l i v e i n p u b l i c housing and t o the management, and some ways i n which a more balanced community might be a-chieved. Balanced and Unbalanced Communities What i s meant by a \"balanced community\"? A community which i s w e l l balanced i n the s o c i a l sense would presumably be an average c r o s s - s e c t i o n of the general p o p u l a t i o n , i n c l u d -ing a d i v e r s i t y of age groups, f a m i l y types, education, oc-cupation, and income l e v e l s . A population so mixed would r e -qu i r e a v a r i e t y of accommodation and a l s o s e r v i c e s . Such a community would be f r e e from problems which were d i r e c t l y r e -l a t e d t o i t s s t r u c t u r e , or to an i n o r d i n a t e p r o p o r t i o n of people w i t h a c e r t a i n l e v e l of income or s t a t u s . In c o n s i d e r i n g p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s i n r e l a t i o n t o Brown, Kogawa, Peters, op. c i t . 172 t h e i r \"balance\" i n t h i s sense, the s i z e of the p r o j e c t i s an important f a c t o r . In Vancouver, the p r o j e c t s are small com-pared t o other c e n t e r s , 1 but t h e i r number i s growing and the issue of balance i s already a r i s i n g . There can be no doubt tha t t h i s i s one of the major problems that p u b l i c housing i n the United States i s f a c i n g at the present time. Z e t t a P u t t e r has commented on t h i s i n her a r t i c l e , \" S o c i a l Work and P u b l i c Housing\": \"In order t o provide, e f f i c i e n t l y and economically, housing u n i t s f o r people i n need, mammoth communities have been created w i t h populations that are s o c i a l l y and economically homogeneous.... Thus, s o c i a l c l a s s segregation evolved as an end product of for c e s and p o l i c i e s geared toward d i f f e r e n t and f r e q u e n t l y i d e a l -i s t i c g o a l s . \" 2 In B r i t a i n , one of the greatest problems that arose from the b u i l d i n g of the inter-war \" e s t a t e s \" was the extent t o which they appeared t o exaggerate s o c i a l segregation. I t might be s a i d t h i s has been going on since the c r e a t i o n of a \"working c l a s s \" by the I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n ; but the great r e s i d e n t i a l s t r e t c h e s of the estate expose i t t o view. In 194o Thomas Sharp c r i t i c i z e d the s i t u a t i o n , i n h i s book Town Planning, i n strong terms: \"...Around the great c i t i e s we have enormous one-class communities ( i f they can be c a l l e d communities) the'slike of which the world has never seen before; Becontree... where no l e s s than 120,000 working-class people l i v e i n one enormous c o n c e n t r a t i o n : . . . N o r r i s Green, one of many L i v e r p o o l Corporation e s t a t e s , housing 50,000 working-class i n h a b i t a n t s . . . \" 3 1 L i t t l e Mountain has 224 u n i t s , Orchard Park 169, Skeena Terrace 234 and MacLean Park 159. 2 P u t t e r , \" S o c i a l Work and P u b l i c Housing,\" S o c i a l Work, Oct., 1963. , . . Thomas Sharp, Town Planning, p. 86. 173 In t h i s chapter and the preceding one various references have been made to the ways i n which p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s tend t o be unbalanced i n s t r u c t u r e and s t a t u s . These can be now summarized and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s discussed more f u l l y . Our i n v e s t i g a t i o n has shown that the proportions of types of f a m i l i e s i n most Canadian and United States s u b s i d i z e d housing developments are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the proportions i n a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of the general p o p u l a t i o n . L i t t l e i n f o r -mation i s a v a i l a b l e on the B r i t i s h p r o j e c t s i n respect of types of f a m i l i e s , but there i s some evidence t o i n d i c a t e that the p r o p o r t i o n of \"broken\" f a m i l i e s i s f a r l e s s than i n the other two c o u n t r i e s . This may, of course, r e f l e c t c u l -t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . \"Broken\" f a m i l i e s c o n s t i t u t e a high pro-p o r t i o n of the f a m i l i e s found i n p u b l i c housing i n the United S t a t e s , and t h i s so f a r i s very c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Vancouver. In the three \"middle area\" p r o j e c t s one-parent f a m i l i e s were 36.6 per cent of the t o t a l . 1 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that Chicago, w i t h a much gre a t e r number of p r o j e c t s , had a s i m i l a r propor-t i o n of \"broken\" f a m i l i e s . For the year ending June 1963, they reported that 33 per cent of the f a m i l i e s i n t h e i r pro-j e c t s had only one parent i n the home.^ These percentages may be compared wi t h those f o r the p o p u l a t i o n as a whole. In 1956 the percentage of f a m i l i e s where there were c h i l d r e n un-der and over fourteen but only one parent at home c o n s t i t u t e d only 8.1 per cent of the population i n B r i t i s h Columbia.3 1 Current information confirms previous evidence that these f a m i l i e s are drawn from a wide sect o r of the t o t a l c i t y --p a r t i c u l a r l y from areas where cheap accommodation can be found. p The Chicago Housing A u t h o r i t y , \" H i g h l i g h t s of the Operation\", June 1963. 3 Census of Canada, 1956, B u l l e t i n : 1-19. 174 On the other hand, the normal f a m i l y of f a t h e r , mother and c h i l d r e n i s not found i n the housing developments t o the extent that one would expect t o f i n d I t i n the wider communi-t y , although the s t a t i s t i c i s not a v a i l a b l e f o r the general p o p u l a t i o n . In the Vancouver p r o j e c t s , standard or \"normal\" f a m i l i e s were 39.8 per cent of the t o t a l populations i n L i t t l e Mountain, Orchard Park and Skeena Terrace. In Chicago, how-ever, 51 per cent of a l l r e s i d e n t s c o n s i s t e d of husband, wife and c h i l d r e n . In B r i t a i n ' s various kinds of subsi d i z e d hous-ing there appears t o be a much higher p r o p o r t i o n of normal f a m i l i e s . In f a c t , one of the reasons why st u d i e s on types of f a m i l i e s i n B r i t a i n does not appear t o have been undertaken t o any extent may be because these f a m i l i e s o b viously predominate. On one of the housing e s t a t e s (Barton) a survey revealed that 70 per cent of the f a m i l i e s c o n sisted of husband, wife and c h i l d r e n under fourteen. The large development of p u b l i c hous-ing has meant that i t i s a normal r a t h e r than an e x c e p t i o n a l . pa r t of the housing stock. There are some c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the p r o j e c t develop-ment when there i s a high p r o p o r t i o n of'broken\" f a m i l i e s l i v -i n g i n i t . This w i l l mean that a large group of women without husbands w i l l s u f f e r from l o n e l i n e s s , absence of s o c i a l l i f e , and the l a c k of the emotional support of a husband. I f they are a l s o working t o support t h e i r f a m i l i e s there may be un-supervised c h i l d r e n l e f t t o t h e i r own devices a f t e r school. What i s needed, i s t o encourage tenant groups t o undertake p l a y , e d u c a t i o n a l and s o c i a l i s i n g a c t i v i t i e s , and above a l l to provide safe and s u f f i c i e n t p l a y areas f o r c h i l d r e n . The need f o r 175 s u p e r v i s i o n of p l a y areas i s a major concern, e s p e c i a l l y when a number of the mothers may be away, working. Whether t h i s i s something that tenant groups could organize f o r themselves, or whether management should arrange f o r l o c a l parks through the Parks and Recreation Department of the C i t y , or both, i s a matter f o r l o c a l e x p l o r a t i o n . A second i m p l i c a t i o n f o r the community i s the presence i n i t of f a r more women than men as heads of households, whereas i n the l a r g e r s o c i e t y t h i s i s not the case. C h i l d r e n growing up i n t h i s environment might w e l l develop d i s t o r t e d expecta-t i o n s of normal f a m i l y l i f e . This l a t t e r p o i n t i s r e i n f o r c e d when the normal f a m i l i e s i n t h e i r m i l i e u are a l s o p r o p o r t i o n a t e -l y small i n number, or e l d e r l y f a m i l i e s are p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y high i n number, as i s the case i n p r o j e c t l i v i n g . The numbers of c h i l d r e n , and often the numbers of a cer-t a i n age grouping, are s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n p u b l i c housing than i n the general p o p u l a t i o n . This has been demonstrated i n a l l the Vancouver p r o j e c t s . In a l l f o u r developments there are 1504 minors i n a t o t a l p o p u lation of 782 f a m i l i e s . This p r o p o r t i o n of approximately 55 per cent of c h i l d r e n i n the p r o j e c t s compares w i t h a p r o p o r t i o n of 41.8 per cent of young people under the age of twenty-one i n the general p o p u l a t i o n . 1 A l s o , there tends to be a higher p r o p o r t i o n of very young c h i l d r e n i n the p r o j e c t s as compared to the c i t y as a whole. For example, 43.3 per cent of the c h i l d r e n were s i x years or under i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s , compared w i t h 34.3 per cent of c h i l d r e n under s i x i n large urban centers. In Regent 1 Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1962, C.M.H.C. (1961 census i n f o r m a t i o n ) . 2-Canada Census, 1961. B u l l e t i n 2 : 1-6. 176 Park (North.) i n Toronto, i n 1963, close to h a l f the population of the development were c h i l d r e n . 1 In B r i t a i n a l s o , as we have seen, there are about twice as many c h i l d r e n aged f o u r and under i n some of the s u b s i -dized housing as are found i n the general p o p u l a t i o n . C h i l d -ren aged nineteen and under c o n s t i t u t e , on an average, 41 per cent of the tenant population compared to 29 per cent i n England and Wales. No f i g u r e s are a v a i l a b l e f o r comparison w i t h the United States p r o j e c t s as a whole, but i n Chicago's p r o j e c t s i n June 1963, there were 91,000 minors, almost double the number of the a d u l t s . These f a c t s about the high p r o p o r t i o n of young c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n p u b l i c housing r e i n f o r c e the statements made above about p l a y space. The r e s i d e n t s have more than once c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n to t h i s need, and have a l s o commented on the neces-s i t y of having a fenced and safe place set aside f o r the tod-d l e r s . Not only are outdoor play areas r e q u i r e d , but a l s o indoor p l a y space f o r wet and r a i n y days, e s p e c i a l l y i n the newer apartment b l o c k s . The a l t e r n a t i v e i s that the c h i l d r e n w i l l be p l a y i n g i n the h a i l s of the b u i l d i n g s , which i s un-s a f e , annoying t o other tenants, and damaging t o the b u i l d i n g s . As has been pointed out In previous s t u d i e s , the needs of these c h i l d r e n cannot be met by the p r o j e c t alone. However, imaginative planning and design of housing can go f a r towards improving the f a c i l i t i e s f o r c h i l d r e n , f o r example, through the p r o v i s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n rooms that could be used by tenant 1 The Housing A u t h o r i t y of Toronto, May 1963. 2 Brown, Kogawa and P e t e r s , o p v ^ c i t . ; Fromson, Hansen and Smith, op. c i t . 177 co-operatives f o r day-nurseries or kindergartens. Probably because of the large number of c h i l d r e n i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s , the opinion i s held t h a t these pro-j e c t s are populated mainly by large f a m i l i e s . This i s a mis-taken impression, however, as i n a l l three c o u n t r i e s under study, the average f a m i l y c o n s i s t s of parents and only two or three c h i l d r e n . While there are more l a r g e r f a m i l i e s i n the Vancouver p r o j e c t s , f o r example; the percentage of f a m i l i e s having s i x or more members i s only 15.1 per cent as compared to 11.2 per cent i n the general population of B r i t i s h Colum-b i a . The parents of these c h i l d r e n are a l s o r e l a t i v e l y young, and i n new housing p r o j e c t s there i s often a gap between the y o u t h f u l tenants and those of advancing years, w i t h few i n the middle-age groups. I t has been noted i n B r i t a i n t h a t , as the p r o j e c t s mature, t h i s over-proportionate number of young people moves up the age s c a l e , r e s u l t i n g i n a phenomenon which has been termed a \"bulge\". There are not s u f f i c i e n t new admis-sions of young'families to counteract t h i s . I t has been poin-ted out that unless circumstances or p o l i c y should i n t e r f e r e , t h i s \"bulge\" w i l l i n time produce a p o p u l a t i o n which i n t u r n i s predominately middle-aged and then o l d . This same phenom-enon i s beginning t o appear i n some United States p r o j e c t s , as has been noted i n Chapter I I . This i s r e l a t e d a l s o t o the ra t e of turnover i n p u b l i c housing. Those p r o j e c t s having a lower r a t e of turnover than average would show more evidence of a \"bulge\" moving up i n t o o l d e r age groups. This p i c t u r e has not appeared i n Vancouver's p r o j e c t s as y e t , since the rate of turnover, which i s estimated t o be 20 per cent per an-n\"-um, seems t o be f a i r l y standard f o r the population at large 178 i n both Canada and the United S t a t e s . Recognition of the matter of s p e c i a l age-structure i s underlined i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s of both housing estates and new towns. 1 For i n s t a n c e , as regards the a n t i c i p a t e d heavy demand f o r employment f o r school leavers i n the coming years, due to the \"bulge\" moving up, the S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s O f f i c e r at Stevenage New Town recommended a gradual b u i l d i n g - u p of o f f i c e jobs through c a r e f u l phasing of a number of p r o j e c t s t o absorb, i n p a r t i c u l a r , 50 per cent of the g i r l s and about 10 per cent of the boys who, i t i s estimated, w i l l be a v a i l -able f o r t h i s kind of work. The S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s O f f i c e r a l s o suggested that a close l i a i s o n should be e s t a b l i s h e d with the Youth Employment S e r v i c e , and that the Youth Employ-ment O f f i c e r be consulted about f u t u r e p r o j e c t s . He consider-ed that a j o i n t study of the male j u v e n i l e employment s i t u a -t i o n was i n d i c a t e d . The Development Corporation i n the same New Town p o i n t s out that the age-structure diagrams show that the number of women i n Stevenage, who have reached the stage i n f a m i l y development when c h i l d r e n represent l e s s of a t i e t o the home, i s i n c r e a s i n g q u i t e f a s t , and w i l l form a more s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t of the'population f o r some time ahead. The Corporation s t a t e s that i t i s from such a d i r e c t i o n that most of the increase i n the working population i s coming, and that an i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r employment s u i t a b l e f o r married women could be expected. Stevenage Development Corporation has a l s o given c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the need f o r s o c i a l a c t i v i t y See Edward C a r t e r , The^ Future_ of Lqndc>n, pp. 121,126; Young and W i l l m o t t , Family ancP Kinship l r i jiast; ^Lqndon, p. 166. 179 f o r the r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g numbers of young people. The i m p l i c a t i o n of the changing p o p u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e i n d e v i s i n g a housing program has been r e f e r r e d to i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s . In a report t o the Peterlee Development Corporation, G. Brooke T a y l o r draws a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t that the i n i t i a l demand f o r accommodation was f o r two and three-bedroom d w e l l -i n g s , but an examination of f a m i l y trends demonstrates that there i s l i k e l y t o be a l a t e r need f o r the l a r g e r house, and he recommended that the p r o p o r t i o n of four-bedroom houses be increased. He a l s o pointed out that there w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be a large demand f o r old people's d w e l l i n g s and he suggested t h a t steps be taken t o b u i l d , or reserve land, f o r t h i s pur-pose. I t i s important to take account of the f a c t that they should be s i t e d c lose t o s e r v i c e s such as shops, post o f f i c e , and the l i k e . The other s i g n i f i c a n t point which we have made i n r e l a t i o n t o age s t r u c t u r e i n p u b l i c housing i s the high p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y people who are l i v i n g i n the Vancouver and United States p r o j e c t s . In the United S t a t e s , e l d e r l y persons (and d i s a b l e d ) represent 28 per cent of the p r o j e c t p o p u l a t i o n , and the same high incidence i s appearing i n Vancouver, where the percentage of persons over s i x t y f o r the three \"middle area 1' p r o j e c t s was approximately 25.9 per cent. This compares w i t h 13.6 per cent f o r the p o p u l a t i o n i n general i n B r i t i s h Columbia. In Toronto, there i s evidence t o suggest that about 7 per cent of the r e s i d e n t s i n Regent Park (North) were over the age of 2 ^ Rose, Regent Park,, A Study in^Slum^Clearance, p. 186. In 1959 Single' e l d e r l y people 'were ' i n e l i g i b l e \"for p u b l i c hous-i n g except i n s p e c i a l circumstances. 1 Census of Canada, 1961. 180 65 i n 1957, however, t h i s percentage has seemingly; increased since that time. From the information a v a i l a b l e , the propor-t i o n of e l d e r l y persons i n B r i t i s h s u b s i d i z e d housing has been very much lower than the p r o p o r t i o n i n the population as a whole. This leads t o questions as t o the d i f f e r e n c e s i n p o l i -c i e s i n these d i f f e r e n t areas. In the United S t a t e s , the high p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y persons i n p u b l i c housing i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to neglect on the part of governments t o provide s p e c i a l hous-ing f o r the aged p o p u l a t i o n , but some e f f o r t s are now being made towards catching up w i t h t h i s backlog. While t h i s has not been the case to the same extent i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the long w a i t i n g l i s t s of s i n g l e e l d e r l y persons In d i c a t e con-tinuing.;;: d e f i c i t s i n the p r o v i s i o n of accommodation f o r t h i s group. I n c i d e n t a l l y , i t should be noted that s e t t i n g the age of e l i g i b i l i t y at 60 tends t o draw i n t o the w a i t i n g l i s t a group who are comparatively young f o r d e s i g n a t i o n as e l d e r l y c i t i z e n s . The question a r i s e s as t o whether e l d e r l y people p r o p e r l y belong i n p u b l i c housing i n such large proportions as they begin t o appear i n Vancouver's p r o j e c t s . This i s not to question the f a c t that t h i s group has a need f o r and a r i g h t to decent housing, but r a t h e r that t h e i r presence i n such large numbers f u r t h e r unbalances the s t r u c t u r e of the pop-u l a t i o n i n the p r o j e c t s compared t o the normal community. In planning housing f o r both young and o l d , c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be given t o the f a c t that n e i t h e r age group i s comfor-t a b l e w i t h large numbers of the opposite age group. Some old people l i k e c h i l d r e n , some do not, but even those who do, would f i n d i t t i r i n g to be surrounded c o n s t a n t l y by large groups of g e n e r a l l y noisy and exuberant youngsters. S i m i l a r l y , c h i l d r e n often l i k e o l d people, but f i n d I t tiresome t o 181 r e s t r i c t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s out of deference f o r the aged. Fur t h e r , l i v i n g i n a community wi t h a high p r o p o r t i o n of old people tends to be depressing f o r young a d u l t s . I t may be that separate accommodation f o r the e l d e r l y away from the pro-j e c t would be more s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r a l l concerned, w i t h a smaller p r o p o r t i o n of \" p u b l i c housing\" reserved f o r the aged. This would have the e f f e c t of p r o v i d i n g more accommodation f o r \"normal\" and one-parent f a m i l i e s i n p u b l i c housing, but would re q u i r e that the government enter i n t o an expanded pro-gram of p r o v i s i o n of accommodation f o r e l d e r l y persons as a separate group. Another s o l u t i o n could be that small u n i t s f o r e l d e r l y people be provided w i t h i n the p r o j e c t and surrounding neigh-bourhood, which would m i t i g a t e against segregation of the e l d e r i y i n t o e i t h e r one huge b u i l d i n g on the p r o j e c t , or one large development i n the community. In h i s \"Housing\" Message t o Congress on January 27, 1964, President Johnson proposed that e l d e r l y persons owning homes i n urban renewal areas would get help i n r e p a i r i n g them so that they would not have to be t o r n down. S p e c i a l f i n a n c i n g through government agencies would be set up ' i n c l u d i n g , among other t h i n g s , p r o t e c t i o n f o r . t h e aged person i n respect of repayment of p r i n c i p a l . E l d e r l y i n d i v i d u a l s would j o i n e l -d e r l y f a m i l i e s i n being e l i g i b l e f o r s i m i l a r l o w - i n t e r e s t loans t o buy houses. Mention has already been made of another of the major kinds of unbalance which occurs In p u b l i c housing develop-ments. This i s the s o c i a l segregation i n t o one community, of low-income f a m i l i e s , w i t h lower l e v e l s of education and 182 and lower job s k i l l s . T h i s kind of s e g r e g a t i o n perpetuates many of the c o n d i t i o n s of the slums t h a t p u b l i c housing was designed t o e l i m i n a t e . T h i s i s not a s u b s t a n t i a l problem i n Vancouver so f a r because the developments are s m a l l and are w i t h i n normal r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . In B r i t a i n , however, t h i s was a major problem i n the i n t e r - w a r y e a r s , and i t e x i s t s t o -day i n the United S t a t e s , where the charge has even been made t h a t what p u b l i c housing has done has been t o convert h o r i z o n -t a l slums i n t o v e r t i c a l s l u m s ! 1 T h i s sharp c r i t i c i s m , i s however, more r e l a t e d t o the d e s i g n (or l a c k of i t ) , t o the choice of s i t e , and t o f e a t u r e s of the landscape i n the develop-ments which have been b u i l t i n the b i g urban c e n t r e s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , than i t i s t o the people themselves. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t i n Regent Park (North) i n Toronto, i n 1957, f a r fewer f a m i l i e s were l i v i n g on the lowest incomes than i s t r u e f o r most of the other p r o j e c t s s t u d i e d i n t h i s r e -p o r t . 2 There were only 18.9 per cent of f a m i l i e s whose i n -comes were under $150 per month, while i n Vancouver's \"middle -area\" p r o j e c t s i n 1964 there were 36.8 per cent i n t h i s c a t e -gory. In t h i s c o n n ection, Rose has r e p o r t e d t h a t some sec-t i o n s of the g e n e r a l p u b l i c i n Toronto c o n s i d e r that\"Regent Park...has ceased t o be a l o w - r e n t a l housing p r o j e c t , and i s thus of r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e b e n e f i t to those i n the community i n g r e a t e s t need of housing.\"3 1 R. Tumley, Tragedy of a V e r t i c a l Sifcum. p. .89. 2 A l s o the number of f a m i l i e s i n r e c e i p t of w e l f a r e bene-f i t s was n e g l i g i b l e . 3 Rose, Regent Park, A Study i n Slum Clearance. 1 8 3 As has been p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , i n the opinion of the authors of the present r e p o r t , there i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r exclu d i n g from p u b l i c housing those who have the greatest need f o r i t \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the lowest-income groups. The answer, there-f o r e , l i e s i n some measures which w i l l assure that higher i n -come groups w i l l a l s o want t o l i v e i n the p r o j e c t s . As has been suggested, t h i s may mean the \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 e l i m i n a t i o n of upper-income c e i l i n g s f o r continued occupancy, p r o v i s i o n of more p u b l i c housing, and r e a l i s t i c help to the disadvantaged f a m i l i e s i n improving t h e i r s o c i a l adjustment. A community composed wholly of persons w i t h i n a f a i r l y narrow income range tends t o be i n e r t , while a mixture provides a wider range of values, i n t e r e s t s and examples which can lead t o changed a s p i r a t i o n s and a d i f f e r e n t s t y l e of l i v i n g . Onoone estate i n B r i t a i n , where there was l i t t l e i f anything i n the way of occupational balance, i t was observed that boys had not changed t h e i r l e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y since 1930, and were s t i l l a t t r a c t e d to steelworks or the mines, but g i r l s about to leave school now wished t o become nurses, c l e r k s and w a i t r e s s e s . But pressure towards conformity from the m a j o r i t y led some I n d i v i d u a l s , attempting t o r i s e i n the s o c i a l s c a l e , e i t h e r to f o r f e i t t h e i r ambitions or subject themselves t o great s t r a i n i n the attempt t o b e t t e r themselves. Moreover, i t was suggested that t h i s u n w i l l i n g n e s s to r i s e above one's f e l l o w s had contributed to the problem of l a c k of lea d e r s h i p on the e s t a t e . 1 Occupation of the head of the f a m i l y w i l l always be a 1 Simey (ed.), Neighbourhood and Community, p. 8 7 . See a l s o , Young and W i l l m o t t T ^ a W J t y ^ \"In \"East London . 184 s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n determining the f a m i l y ' s status i n the community. Low-income f a m i l i e s often have a breadwinner whose employment i s low i n the scale of occupations. Studies completed i n B r i t a i n have shown that there i s a heavy propor-t i o n of manual workers i n s u b s i d i z e d housing. This informa-t i o n i s not a v a i l a b l e f o r other c o u n t r i e s , and there i s grow-ing i n d i c a t i o n that occupational data should be now r e g u l a r l y c o l l e c t e d . But because of i t s i n t e r e s t , the United Kingdom inf o r m a t i o n i s included here. In B r i t a i n , i n most of the redevelopment areas and hous-ing e s t a t e s , there i s a p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y g r e a t e r number of s e m i - s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d manual workers, and a correspond-i n g l y s m a l l e r number of w h i t e - c o l l a r , managerial and p r o f e s -s i o n a l people than i n the population i n g e n e r a l . For i n s t a n c e , Westergaard and Glass found t h a t , i n - t h e i r survey of the Lon-don County Co u n c i l estate of Lansbury, nearly 90 per cent of the c h i e f wage earners i n t e r v i e w e d , were manual workers --dockers, stevedores, t r u c k d r i v e r s , s k i l l e d and s e m i - s k i l l e d f a c t o r y operatives and general l a b o u r e r s . 1 The same s i t u a t i o n i s true on other e s t a t e s . Mogey found that i n Barton, a municipal housing estate outside Oxford, there was a higher p r o p o r t i o n of s k i l l e d and s e m i - s k i l l e d workers compared to the n a t i o n a l average. Only 0.7 per cent were i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e compared to 4.5 per cent i n the C i t y of Oxford as a whole.2 Q n L i v e r p o o l e s t a t e , there were mostly s k i l l e d , s e m i - s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d workers, n e a r l y a l l of whom were engaged i n the manufacture of e l e c t r i c a l equipment. Of t h e i r 1 westergaard and Glass, op. c i t . , p. 38. 2 Mogey, op. c i t . , p. 17; see a l s o , C o l l i s o n , Peter, \"Occupation, Education, and Housing i n an E n g l i s h C i t y \" , American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , May i960, p. 593. 185 small sample of 41 f a m i l i e s l i v i n g on the London County Coun-c i l post-war estate i n Essex, W i l l m o t t and Young found that only s i x were employed i n c l e r i c a l or non-manual oc c u p a t i o n s . 1 In the study of the S h e f f i e l d e s t ate i t was observed that the occupations of the r e s i d e n t s had changed only t o a small ex-2 tent since they f i r s t a r r i v e d there i n 1930. The number of s k i l l e d workers was j u s t as s m a l l , the l a r g e s t s i n g l e group a l l being labourers and s e r a i - s k i l l e d or u n s k i l l e d workers, w i t h very few wage earners i n c l e r i c a l and w h i t e - c o l l a r occu-p a t i o n s . The s i t u a t i o n Is at l e a s t p o t e n t i a l l y , and sometimes a c t u a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n the New Towns. Industry has been encour-aged by the New Towns on the b a s i s of o f f e r i n g housing to employees who would agree t o move when t h e i r f i r m moved to a new l o c a t i o n . The remaining workers are r e c r u i t e d through a s p e c i a l scheme set up and operated by the M i n i s t r y of Labour, who draws them from l o c a l a u t h o r i t y housing l i s t s . This sys-tem ensures that each head of a household moving i n t o a New Town s t a r t s with a job. I n d u s t r i a l i s t s under t h i s p l a n , r e c e i v e an \" a l l o c a t i o n of housing\" from the Development Cor-p o r a t i o n . Many of them p r e f e r to'use i t f o r s k i l l e d , r a t h e r than u n s k i l l e d workers. As one of the observers puts i t , \"Firms w i l l tend t o use t h e i r houses f o r f i t young men i n whom they see an investment f o r the fu t u r e r a t h e r than f o r 3 people who might create any s o r t of problem.\" Thus, i n 1951, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2'\u00E2\u0080\u00A2Willmott and Young, o p ^ c i t . , p. 122. 2 Mark Hodges and C y r i l Smith, \"The S h e f f i e l d E s t a t e , \" , from Neighbourhood^and Community, ed. T.S. Simey, p. 85.= 3 Gerard Brooke T a y l o r , \" S o c i a l Problems\" of New Towns,\" from Community O r g a n i z a t i o n . i n Great B r i t a i n , ed. Peter K u e n s t l e r , p. o4. P u b l i c Housing i n B r i t a i n 3 a s i l d o n New Town 186 t/here was, In Crawley, a s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o p o r t i o n of s k i l l e d workers among the f i r s t f i rms t o open f a c t o r i e s t here, as i n d i c a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e : Table 29. Occupations of Workers i n Crawley New Town, 1951.3=' Type Males Females T o t a l Managerial 44 3 4 7 C l e r i c a l 71 64 135 T e c h n i c a l and s k i l l e d 593 35 628 S e m i - s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d 352 175 527 T o t a l 1,060 277 1,337 In some of the towns, i n d u s t r y was a l r e a d y y f i r m l y es-t a b l i s h e d , or close at hand. This group includes A y c l i f f e , Corby and Stevenage, while P e t e r l e e and Glenrothes'owed t h e i r d e s i g n a t i o n , mainly t o the need to house the miners working i n nearby p i t s . The d e s i r a b i l i t y of balance was recognized and the Corporations attempt to achieve t h i s by developing w i t h i n the town, a counterpoise to the predominant l o c a l i n -d u s t r y . At A y c l i f f e , there i s a considerable p r o p o r t i o n of managerial s t a f f as heads of households and a much l a r g e r pro-p o r t i o n of s k i l l e d workers. On the other hand, the number of u n s k i l l e d workers i s small compared to the number of these on l o c a l a u t h o r i t y e s t a t e s . Corby, however, i s d i f f e r e n t i n t h i s r e s p e c t . 2 Having been f i r s t developed by a s t e e l company, Corby has a h i g h l y unbalanced employment s t r u c t u r e . This i s 1 L.E. White, New Towns_ -- T h e i r .Challenge and Opportunity, p. 50. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ' : ; ' 2 D. Pocock, \"Some Features of the Population of Corby New Town\", The S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 8, Dec. i960. 187 r e f l e c t e d i n the 1951 Census, i n which Corby d i f f e r e d markedly from the n a t i o n a l averages f o r the p r o f e s s i o n a l , intermediate and u n s k i l l e d c l a s s e s . The t a b l e below describes the per-centage of persons i n the f i v e s o c i a l c l a s s e s i n Corby and Harlow, w i t h the corresponding f i g u r e s f o r England and Wales. Harlow, i t must be mentioned, has 10 per cent of middle-class houses, as w e l l as houses b u i l t f o r sale only, which may help to account f o r the high number i n the f i r s t two c l a s s e s . Table 30. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Residents by S o c i a l Classes. 1951 Census Class Harlow 1961 Corby i960 England and Wales 1951 P.C. P.C. P.C. P r o f e s s i o n a l 7.5 2.1 3.0 Intermediate 13.6 5.0 18.0 S k i l l e d 62:5 54.1 50.0 S e m i - s k i l l e d 8.3 13.6 16.0 U n s k i l l e d 3.6 25.2 13.0 Others 4.5 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 However, apart from a m i n o r i t y of towns such as Corby, (which a t t r a c t e d a v a r i e d c o l l e c t i o n of l a b o u r e r s , being a \"boom town\" during the general d e p r e s s i o n ) , the p r o p o r t i o n of u n s k i l l e d workers, p u b l i c u t i l i t y employees and people i n the d i s t r i b u t i v e t r a d e s , remains below normal i n the New Towns f o r two reasons. In the f i r s t p l a c e , the rents are too high; i n the second, since the m a j o r i t y of new r e s i d e n t s are workers who have moved wit h t h e i r f a c t o r y , the percentage of s k i l l e d workers tends t o be f a r higher than i n normal r e s i d e n t i a l d i s -t r i c t s . 188 One i n t e r e s t i n g new development that has occurred i n Vancouver's p u b l i c housing i s that s e v e r a l young U n i v e r s i t y f a m i l i e s have moved i n t o the L i t t l e Mountain p r o j e c t . These are medicine and law students, and there are a l s o some student chartered accountants.- These people could provide p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r s h i p and at the same time, a good image f o r the young people of the p r o j e c t s . Education l e v e l s have been found t o be c o n s i s t e n t l y lower where the f a m i l y has a low income, and one would expect, t h e r e f o r e , that t h i s would hold true f o r p r o j e c t f a m i l i e s . This has been demonstrated i n B r i t a i n where stu d i e s have been focussed on t h i s problem. Peter C o l l i s o n found that those whose education termina-ted at fourteen years of age were over-represented (73.9 per cent) i n a municipal housing estate i n Oxford, compared t o t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the c i t y as a whole: (59.4 per c e n t ) ; a l l remaining groups were under-represented, i n c l u d i n g those whose education terminated at t h i r t e e n years or e a r l i e r . 1 On the S h e f f i e l d e s t a t e , a l s o , i t was found that only 2 or 3 out of about 100 p u p i l s who s i t f o r the \"eleven p l u s \" ex-2 1 amination each year proceed t o a grammar school, a p r o p o r t i o n which may be compared w i t h the n a t i o n a l f i g u r e of 18 per cent, or that f o r the c i t y as a whole (about 16 per c e n t ) . The i n -t e l l i g e n c e of the c h i l d r e n at the l o c a l county school as shown 1 People whose education terminated at 13 years of age or e a r l i e r , are now found mostly i n the upper age groups, and these groups are under-represented on the e s t a t e . Tenants aged 45 years or more c o n s t i t u t e d 10 per cent of the p o p u l a t i o n and those aged 65 years or more 1.8 per cent. For Oxford the corresponding f i g u r e s are 35.3 per cent and 11.2 per cent. Peter C o l l i s o n , o p . c i t . , p. 594. 2 The \"Eleven p l u s \" examination i s the method used by L o c a l E d u c a t i o n . i n B r i t a i n to determine what type of secondary school i s most s u i t a b l e f o r each c h i l d . 189 by the O t i s and Moray House t e s t s Is lower than the n a t i o n a l average. 1 Willmott and Young, on the other hand, found that the people on the London County Co u n c i l estate they studied were becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y status conscious and i n t e r e s t e d p i n the education of the.ir c h i l d r e n . The s t r u c t u r e of the community i n p u b l i c housing, then, i s \"unbalanced\" when compared wi t h the wider community i n i t s kinds of f a m i l i e s , age groups, and s o c i a l l e v e l s . No concer-ted attempt t o counteract t h i s p a r t i c u l a r problem appears t o have been made i n the United States u n t i l very r e c e n t l y . In h i s message t o Congress, January 27, 1964, President Johnson included i n proposed extensive l e g i s l a t i o n on housing, some measures to combat the segregation features of p u b l i c housing. This b i l l would enable the a u t h o r i t i e s to buy an e x t r a 15,000 u n i t s a year from among e x i s t i n g d w e l l i n g s a v a i l a b l e on the p r i v a t e market. O f f i c i a l s b e l i e v e r e - f u r b i s h i n g would u s u a l l y be much cheaper than b u i l d i n g new u n i t s , would a l l o w more f l e x i b l e arrangements f o r housing large f a m i l i e s and would a-void the \"ghetto\" atmosphere of some b i g p u b l i c p r o j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , the b i l l would l e t a u t h o r i t i e s lease 10,000 p r i v a t e u n i t s i n each of the next f o u r years. A s i m i l a r development has taken place i n Toronto. In the framework of a \"rent c e r t i f i c a t e p l a n \" , the Toronto Housing V T . S. Simey, Neighbgur^o^od _and Comrrmnity, p. 8 6 . 2 Young and W i l l m o t t , Family and Kin s h i p _in East _London, p. 162. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 : ~ ' 3 A l l t o l d , t h i s would increase p u b l i c housing by 240,000 d w e l l i n g u n i t s over the next four years. 190 A u t h o r i t y has entered i n t o d i r e c t leases w i t h owners of p r i v -ate d w e l l i n g u n i t s , which are then rented by the A u t h o r i t y t o f a m i l i e s of low income i n accordance with the rent scale used f o r the Regent Park p r o j e c t . A number of r e g u l a t i o n s have been drawn up t o cover the f i n a n c i a l aspects of the scheme. Some of the advantages of the plan are the absence of i n i t i a l c a p i t a l costs f o r the housing, lower upkeep c o s t s , the i n t r o -d u c t i o n of low-income f a m i l i e s i n t o the main stream of com-munity l i v i n g , and economic i n t e g r a t i o n with p r i v a t e b u i l d e r s . Disadvantages are that the plan only f l o u r i s h e s when the p r i -vate r e n t a l market i s s o f t , and overuse of the scheme could delay the program of government p r o v i s i o n of housing p r o j e c t s . In B r i t a i n , although the words \"working c l a s s \" were omitted from the Housing Act, 19^9, and p u b l i c housing was thus made a v a i l a b l e to a l l those i n need, i r r e s p e c t i v e of so-c i a l s t a t u s , the middle c l a s s have been slow to a v a i l them-selves of t h i s o f f e r . Moreover, e f f o r t s t o a t t r a c t people wi t h higher incomes to the \"e s t a t e s \" have met wit h l i t t l e suc-cess. On the London County'Council'estate, Harold H i l l , f o r example, a p r o p o r t i o n of middle-class houses were b u i l t , but i t seems that a f t e r a time most of the tenants who accepted them moved out again t o a d j o i n i n g areas. T r a d i t i o n d i e s hard i n the old c o u n t r i e s . Although the p r o v i s i o n of middle-income housing at Harold H i l l was not s u c c e s s f u l , t h i s does seem t o be an idea that i s worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r Canadian housing developments. 1 P.E.H. Brady, \"Rent C e r t i f i c a t e Plan operating i n Canada; f i r s t year's. experience analyzed\", J o u r n a l of Housing, J u l y 1963.\" This new form'of p u b l i c h pu sing\"\"\" invoTvea' \"\"arPame nd'me n t t o the Ontario Housing Development Act. 191 The government has made p r o v i s i o n f o r p r i v a t e b u i l d e r s to construct housing on a l i m i t e d dividend b a s i s , but has set the maximum income f o r prospective tenants at too low a l e v e l to a t t r a c t investment money. I f a s a t i s f a c t o r y formula could be a r r i v e d at with p r i v a t e b u i l d e r s , i n c l u d i n g such housing i n p u b l i c housing developments would, perhaps, be a means of a c h i e v i n g a more balanced community. The concept of 'balance 1 i s one of the c e n t r a l ideas i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of New Towns, that d i s t i n g u i s h e s them from ordin a r y housing e s t a t e s , p r i v a t e s p e c u l a t i v e p r o j e c t s and dormitory suburbs. I t means that a town should not only have enough schools, entertainment and l e i s u r e f a c i l i t i e s , s t ores and other amenities f o r i t s p o p u l a t i o n , but that t h i s popula-t i o n should be s u f f i c i e n t l y d i v e r s e i n i t s i n t e r e s t s and occu-pations t o give the town a healthy urban complexity. For t h i s reason the R e i t h Committee l a i d such emphasis on s o c i a l b a l -ance, and i n s i s t e d that the New Towns must not be one-class communities l i n k e d t o unplanned f a c t o r y development. The Committee urged that New Towns should i n c l u d e \"head o f f i c e s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and research establishments, i n c l u d i n g sec-t i o n s of Government Departments and other p u b l i c o f f i c e s . I t i s most d e s i r a b l e that p r o p r i e t o r s , d i r e c t o r s , e x e c u t i v e s . . . should l i v e i n the towns. Many p r o f e s s i o n a l men and women, w r i t e r s , a r t i s t s and other s p e c i a l i s t s not t i e d t o a p a r t i c u -l a r l o c a t i o n . . . r e t i r e d people from home and overseas, from every kind of occupation, as w e l l as people of independent means. n l 1 Quoted i n Norman Mackenzie, The New T^wn^; ^ h^^^Su^ess of S o c i a l Planning, Fabian ResearcIT\"SerTe~s~. 192 In order t o a t t r a c t the middle c l a s s e s t o them, s e v e r a l New Towns have now b u i l t houses e s p e c i a l l y designed t o appeal to p rospective tenants or purchasers from the higher income groups. Most New Towns, too, encourage p r i v a t e b u i l d i n g and reserve s i t e s f o r t h i s , and, i n a d d i t i o n , attempt to promote s o c i a l mixing by the b u i l d i n g of houses i n \" c l u s t e r s \" , w i t h a view to encouraging n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s . New Towns make use of a study e n t i t l e d \"Housing S t r u c t u r e and Housing Need\" which was produced by the Research.Section of the M i n i s t r y of Housing soon a f t e r the New Towns were s t a r -ted , and which sets out a standard population s t r u c t u r e of 100,000 persons developed from n a t i o n a l s t a t i s t i c s and f o r e -c a s t s of b i r t h s , deaths and marriages. The estimate broke down the 100,000 population i n t o households on various assump-t i o n s and then r e l a t e d them t o types of d w e l l i n g s . This en-abled planners i n New Towns to see what a normal 'stationary? -, p o p u l a t i o n looked l i k e and thus showed a t a r g e t towards which they could b u i l d , on the reasonable assumption that the u l t i -mate shape of the town's po p u l a t i o n would resemble, not the shape of the households on entry i n t o the town, but the shape of a \"normal\" or balanced p o p u l a t i o n . Even t h i s should not be taken too l i t e r a l l y ; and i t seems the path of wisdom to have a margin of space i n hand. For example, contrary to the assumptions of ten years ago, when even o f f i c i a l census f o r e -casts were that the b i r t h - r a t e would f a l l a f t e r the immediate post-war bulge of b i r t h s , the b i r t h - r a t e has r i s e n s t e a d i l y . Women married since the war are having a greater number of c h i l d r e n i n the f i r s t f i v e years of marriage than t h e i r counterparts d i d i n the t h i r t i e s . As a consequence, t'.:? 193 the Registrar-General's p o p u l a t i o n f o r e c a s t s f o r the 1970's show an i n c r e a s i n g , not a d e c l i n i n g p o p u l a t i o n . This makes the M i n i s t r y ' s Research s e c t i o n f o r e c a s t of household s i z e ( p a r t i c u l a r l y as regards the l a r g e r households) more l i k e l y than e v e r . 1 In the planning of the New Towns, the neighbourhood u n i t i s f a i r l y w idely used and neighbourhood-centred a c t i v i t i e s have played a valuable part i n t h e i r s o c i a l development. I t has been found that where these u n i t s have come nearest to success they are e i t h e r based on n a t u r a l geographical f e a t u r e s , or s t r o n g l y r e i n f o r c e d by l o c a l l y - g r o u p e d s e r v i c e s . They must f i r s t s a t i s f y \" f e l t needs\" i n c l u d i n g the need to belong to some place which i s r e c o g n i z a b l y d i f f e r e n t from other p l a c e s . C r i t i c s of neighbourhoods a l l e g e that they c o n f l i c t w i t h the development of l o y a l t y t o the town as a whole. S o c i a l development i s an accepted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a Development Corporation and some New Towns have appointed an o f f i c e r who i s mainly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s . In g e n e r a l , new communities must depend f o r s o c i a l development on much the same agencies as those normally at work w i t h i n an e s t a b l i s h e d community: the s t a t u t o r y and v o l u n t a r y s o c i a l s e r v i c e s , church-es and groups of a l l k i n d s . In the e a r l y stages, the impetus must l a r g e l y come from e f f o r t s t o help the newcomers to es-t a b l i s h themselves, and such help i s forthcoming from the so-c i a l development o f f i c e r s . O r i g i n a l l y , the New Towns were intended t o form an 1 Brooke T a y l o r , Re pgrt o n the Ne e d f or Soc i a 1 - Pr q v ijs i o n s i n the New Town of N e W o n ^ y c T i f f e y p'p'.' \"8-^ 194 important part of a program of planned migration from the over-populated c i t i e s . There are, however, various reasons f o r t h e i r f a i l u r e as r e c i p i e n t s of o v e r s p i l l . For one t h i n g , they r a p i d l y develop l i v e s of t h e i r own and t h e i r people must provide f o r t h e i r own young f a m i l i e s . Moreover, as New Town i n d u s t r y gets on i t s f e e t , there i s a tendency f o r r e c r u i t -ment of workers t o be n a t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l , r a t h e r than i n response to an imposed p o l i c y of o v e r s p i l l from another c i t y . CHAPTER V From the \"Old\" to the \"New\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 The meaning of Moving Moving t o a new home i n a new neighbourhood has the same meaning f o r f a m i l i e s who are going i n t o p u b l i c housing as i t has f o r any f a m i l y preparing t o move, but w i t h often some higher e x p e c t a t i o n s , on the one hand, and some heightened f e e l i n g s of a n x i e t y , on the other. There w i l l be a n t i c i p a t i o n of enjoying new clean surroundings, w i t h new and modern equip-ment, w i t h no more overcrowding, and a decent neighbourhood i n which t o b r i n g up c h i l d r e n . But there w i l l be some f e a r of the f a m i l y ' s a b i l i t y to measure up t o the new standard of the home and neighbourhood, e s p e c i a l l y when the move i s from a slum d i s t r i c t to a s t a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l area. There w i l l be hope coupled w i t h sadness, and the sadness w i l l be associated w i t h l e a v i n g old f r i e n d s and neighbours behind, perhaps even an et h n i c group i n which the f a m i l y f e e l s comfortable. I t w i l l mean l e a v i n g schools and churches, the corner s t o r e , and a l l the other f a m i l i a r places that make a neighbourhood one's own. In B r i t a i n , the move t o the large e s t a t e s i n the suburbs has meant l e a v i n g the warmth of the town, the \" b r i g h t l i g h t s , \" and the c h e e r f u l noisy b u s t l e of the crowds. in, and Mogey i n h i s survey of Barton, a l l commented on t h i s \" r e t r e a t to the home\" p a t t e r n on the new e s t a t e s . Moreover, an i n t e r e s t i n g study of the incidence of neurosis which was made on one e s t a t e , revealed that admissions to h o s p i t a l w i t h t h i s d i a gnosis were twice the f i g u r e of the n a t i o n a l average \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the incidence being much higher among wo-men than among men.1 Views as to the cause of t h i s d i f f e r . F i n a n c i a l and other personal worries are blamed, and the sense of i s o l a t i o n which many young wives, i n p a r t i c u l a r , might f e e l i s a l s o a f a c t o r . One medical o f f i c e r holds the view that the very open lay-outs on some estates c o n t r i b u t e t o t h i s sense of i s o l a t i o n among those who have come from areas of high d e n s i t y . This report has demonstrated the high p r o p o r t i o n of e l -d e r l y and broken f a m i l i e s who are l i v i n g i n p u b l i c housing. These groups e s p e c i a l l y , may have problems of l o n e l i n e s s , and even l e s s money than the other kinds of f a m i l i e s to enjoy a needed break from the d u l l n e s s or s t r e s s of everyday l i v i n g . Mental h e a l t h demands that there be some enjoyment and r e l a x a -t i o n f o r each person. I f t h i s f a c t i s acknowledged, then i t f o l l o w s that i t i s common sense, i n order to prevent f u r t h e r breakdown i n f a m i l i e s , that the more a f f l u e n t members of so-c i e t y share some of t h e i r advantages with the l e s s a f f l u e n t . One way t h i s can be done i s by the p r o v i s i o n i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s of r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , such as game rooms, movie equipment, and hobby rooms. But f a m i l i e s who have learned to 1 F. M. M a r t i n , J.H.F. Brotherston and S.P.W. Chave, \"Incidence of Neurosis i n a New Housing E s t a t e \" , B r i t i s h \"journal of Preventive and S o c i a l Medicine, OctV V-FST'. 208 expect nothing, often cannot make use of such f a c i l i t i e s w i t h -out help t o do so. I t i s a l s o an o b l i g a t i o n of our s o c i e t y t o see that such help i s o f f e r e d and made a v a i l a b l e . This has been done i n many cases by housing management i t s e l f , or by housing management j o i n t l y w i t h welfare agen-c i e s i n the community. In some of the Vancouver p r o j e c t s the management has encouraged the formation of Tenant Councils which serve as forums f o r d i s c u s s i o n of common problems, and which a l s o promote i n t e r e s t groups and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i -t i e s , w i t h the help of management, f o r the p r o j e c t r e s i d e n t s . Three Vancouver p r o j e c t s produce a newsletter f o r the develop-ment. At the Skeena p r o j e c t , a Tenant C o u n c i l i s i n the pro-cess of formation. At t h i s development'also, the management has a s s i s t e d i n the formation of a teen-age club who i n v i t e i n teenagers from outside the p r o j e c t , and a Tot-Spot. The l a t t e r i s a kind of co-operative nursery which the mothers take turns i n s u p e r v i s i n g . There are a l s o Scout and Cub groups a c t i v e . A l l t h i s has been done despite the f a c t t h a t there are no ad-equate f a c i l i t i e s i n any of Vancouver's p r o j e c t s f o r h o l d i n g a meeting or a club s e s s i o n . For example, the Tenant's A s s o c i a t i o n of Orchard Park must rent a room i n a nearby Church to hold i t s meetings. Housing Management i n Vancouver has a l s o encouraged and aided the h e a l t h agencies to b r i n g t h e i r programs i n t o the p r o j e c t s ; some i l l u s t r a t i o n s are the V i c t o r i a n Order of Nurses, the P u b l i c Health Nurses and tuber-c u l o s i s mobile c l i n i c . I t seems questionable, however, whether both housing management and welfare agencies have taken f u l l advantage of a l l the methods at t h e i r d i s p o s a l of h e l p i n g f a m i l i e s adjust 209 t o p r o j e c t l i v i n g , and a l s o whether they have made f u l l use of the, perhaps unrecognized, p o t e n t i a l of the housing tenants themselves. For example, as has been discussed, moving to a new home can hold a number of f e a r s f o r low-income f a m i l i e s . One suggestion to help overcome t h i s i s the p r o v i s i o n of a welcoming or o r i e n t a t i o n program, f o r the new tenants, i n which both the management and o l d e r r e s i d e n t s could j o i n . Such a program would include the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n necessary t o the tenant, and a l s o such information as would enable him to make a b e t t e r s o c i a l adjustment. I n t r o d u c t i o n s to other tenants, a warm welcome, o r i e n t a t i o n to the p r o j e c t and the neighbourhood would go f a r t o a l l e v i a t i n g f e e l i n g s of strangeness, and would r e i n f o r c e the Idea that t h i n g s could b e ^ d i f f e r e n t than they had been. In other words, a good r e l a -t i o n s h i p t o the p r o j e c t could be e s t a b l i s h e d from the begin-ning. One of the i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t s about Vancouver's p r o j e c t s i s that a number of d i f f e r e n t r a c i a l and e t h n i c groups are l i v i n g together i n them wi t h no evidence of disharmony because of these d i f f e r e n c e s . This has the advantage of broadening the t o l e r a n c e s of c h i l d r e n and preventing the growth of un-founded p r e j u d i c e . I t a r i s e s that f u r t h e r use could be made of t h i s good atmosphere. Since the c u l t u r e s of other coun-t r i e s are often not understood or l i t t l e known by Canadians, there are i n these s i t u a t i o n s p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r extending the understanding of our young people through p a r t i e s , or even small group i n t e r e s t c l u b s , sponsored by the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of other c u l t u r e s . Many people a l s o , coming t o l i v e i n p u b l i c housing, w i l l b r i n g s p e c i a l s k i l l s or leade r s h i p p o t e n t i a l i t y which may be 210 encouraged t o a s s i s t the l e s s a b l e , both by Ins t r u c t i o n , a n d example. A carpenter might be asked t o organize the b u i l d i n g of some playground equipment; f i n d i n g the ma t e r i a l s might be the job of some of the p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r s . A s k i l l f u l home-maker could teach others her s k i l l s . An old man could t e l l about the e a r l y days i n Vancouver to a group of small boys, and an old lady teach some l i t t l e g i r l s to k n i t or crochet. S o c i a l work has demonstrated that people grow and change when t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i t i e s are supported and when they themselves become engaged i n the planning of a c t i v i t i e s , but t h a t t h i s does not happen when ready-made programs, are imposed on them. The United States J o i n t Task Force of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Housing and Home Finance Agency, emphasizes t h i s f a c t i n t h e i r booklet designed t o a i d State and l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s i n planning programs f o r p u b l i c housing tenants: ^ . A ^ . I P J L 1 ; ^ ^ ,R^\" n,^ n^A ^he ^voice of r e s i d e n t s must ^5,.Ae-.^^ and t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n s_ought Ip reaching d e c i s i o n s as t o where to be;gin; that i s , i n ^ i d e n t i f y -ing _the\" problems' or^ho'^ . 1 To sum up, when a f a m i l y moves from an old home to a new one, t h i s can be a c r i t i c a l p o i n t i n the f a m i l y ' s l i f e , es-p e c i a l l y i f t h i s i s a deprived household moving i n t o p u b l i c housing, who sees the move as a chance f o r a b e t t e r l i f e . I t i s t o our great advantage t o understand how the f a m i l y f e e l s at t h i s p o i n t i n i t s career, and t o support the strengths the f a m i l y may have, i n order t o ensure that t h i s experience does U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and H.H.F.A., Services, f o r F a m i l i e s L i v i n g i n P u b l i c Housing, p. 4. 211 not prove to be another disappointment on top of a long s e r i e s of disappointments. Some ways i n which t h i s can be done have been suggested, but there are many others that would be help-f u l a l s o . I t means that there must be an emphasis on imagina-t i v e r a t h e r than on c o n v e n t i o n a l , stereotyped t h i n k i n g , and there must be appropriate s t a f f , not too overworked w i t h day-to-day a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , to e x e r c i s e and implement i t . The J o i n t Task Force s t r e s s e s t h i s p o i n t a l s o , c a l l i n g f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p by s k i l l e d workers who can a s s i s t r e s i d e n t s them-selves i n co-operative e f f o r t s t o improve f a m i l y and communi-ty l i f e . I t has been s t a t e d , but i s worth r e p e a t i n g , that while a small group of tenants w i l l be problems to the management and to the community, the m a j o r i t y of f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n p u b l i c housing w i l l be \"...occupied p r i m a r i l y w i t h earning a l i v i n g , m aintaining a home, c a r i n g f o r and r e a r i n g c h i l d r e n , and a s s u r i n g f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n healthy growth and development, an education and opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e u s e f u l l y i n the l i f e of the community.\" 1 But these same f a m i l i e s w i l l be sub-j e c t to the s t r e s s e s of l i v i n g on a low-income \u00E2\u0080\u0094 economic i n -s e c u r i t y and emotional i n s e c u r i t y . And these s t r e s s e s may be increased by poor p r o j e c t design, l o c a t i o n , f a c i l i t i e s and management. I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , important that i n the planning of p u b l i c housing, close c o n s i d e r a t i o n be given to these f o u r aspects as programs are developed. For, embodied i n these f a c t o r s are the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g p r i n c i p l e s which w i l l mean 1 U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and H.H.F.A., Se r v i c e s f o r F a m i l i e s L i v i n g i n Publl^c^o^sJ-ng. 212 s u c c e s s f u l p r o j e c t s meeting a community need i n a d e s i r a b l e and respected f a s h i o n , or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , unsuccessful pro-j e c t s which present problems to the housing management, to the tenants and t o the community. The f u r t h e r f a c t o r of the importance of i n c l u d i n g i n any rehousing development or new p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t planning f o r neighbourhood s e r v i c e s t o meet the needs of a l l kinds of f a m i l i e s , cannot be over-stressed. For t h i s i s what makes the d i f f e r e n c e between I s o l a t i o n or i n t e g r a t i o n . The r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y of housing o f f i c i a l s does not end with the construc-t i o n of d w e l l i n g u n i t s , but extends, not only t o the other necessary f a c i l i t i e s on the p r o j e c t i t s e l f , but t o the neigh-bourhood where the p r o j e c t w i l l be l o c a t e d . J o i n t planning w i t h the s e r v i c e agencies of the community i s needed to en-sure the success of the program before t r o u b l e develops be-cause of gaps i n s e r v i c e or l a c k s of necessary amenities. Through p u b l i c housing we are o f f e r i n g f a m i l i e s a b e t t e r standard of l i v i n g . We expect them to respond with a b e t t e r standard of behaviour.' But experience has shown that some f a m i l i e s cannot respond i n t h i s way without s u b s t a n t i a l help and encouragement, many others need only a l i t t l e help, and some w i l l need none at a l l . But f o r a l l three of these l e v e l s of adjustment, the \"standard of behaviour\" achieved w i l l be d i r e c t l y dependent on whether the project'meets the reasonable needs of f a m i l i e s , without adding unnecessary s t r a i n s through u n r e a l i s t i c design and untenable r e g u l a t i o n s and p o l i c i e s . Good housing i n good neighbourhoods i s as much an i n d i -c a t i o n of a nation's p r o v i s i o n f o r the h e a l t h and p r o s p e r i t y of i t s c i t i z e n s as are e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and p u b l i c 213 h e a l t h programs. Yet Canada, which does not h e s i t a t e to s u b s i d i z e the two l a t t e r welfare s e r v i c e s , i s slow to accept the idea of p u b l i c housing as a s i m i l a r welfare n e c e s s i t y . But the 1961 Census i n Canada showed that 1,006,356 homes were designated as e i t h e r i n major need of r e p a i r or over-crowded. 1 This huge backlog of substandard housing i s a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of the need f o r a g r e a t l y expanded program of p u b l i c housing i n Canada i n l i n e w ith what has been accom-p l i s h e d i n other c o u n t r i e s , p r o f i t i n g both from t h e i r negative and p o s i t i v e experience i n the p u r s u i t of the commonly held goal of the e l i m i n a t i o n of slums, and the p r o v i s i o n of a de-cent and a t t r a c t i v e home f o r each and every household. 1 Canada Year Book, 1963-1964, Housing S t a t i s t i c s . APPENDIX A i APPENDIX A S o c i a l Surveys Data from a number of s o c i a l surveys has been used i n the t e x t . I t might be of some i n t e r e s t here to describe some of them and i n d i c a t e the kinds of features that they have s t r e s s e d . Three stud i e s of urban areas of the types from which most of those moving to the housing e s t a t e s come,throw l i g h t on the degree of adaptation they are c a l l e d on to make. In l l ^ ^ J ^ i l l S ^ L ^ > J.M. Mogey compares l i f e i n S t . Ebbe's (an old d i s t r i c t i n the centre of Oxford) w i t h l i f e at Barton, an estate on the o u t s k i r t s to which many from S t . Ebbe's have moved. Barton was b u i l t between 1946 and 1950 and c o n s i s t s of 1006 houses w i t h g a r d e n s , b u i l t as a s i n g l e unit.. In i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n the lessons of pre-war years were un f o r t u n a t e l y disregarded i n the urgent press of b u i l d i n g more and more houses'.' Mogey's study was financed by the Board of S o c i a l Studies of Oxford U n i v e r s i t y , supplemented by a grant from the N u f f i e l d Foundation. Family and K i n s h i p i n East London, by M. Young and P. W i l l m o t t , i s a l s o a study i n c o n t r a s t s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 t h i s time between Bethnal Green and \"G;reenleigh\u00C2\u00BB -- a pseudonym f o r the London County Council estate where large numbers from Bethnal Green have\"been s e t t l e d . \"Green-l e i g h \" i s a post-war estate s i t u a t e d i n Essex, nearly twenty miles from the m e t r o p o l i s , and c o n s i s t s of d i f f e r e n t types of housing w i t h gardens back and f r o n t . Willmott and Young undertook t h i s survey between 1953 and 1955 from the I n s t i t u t e of Community Studies whose concern w i t h housing and town planning has been two-fold,(a) a d e s i r e t o make p r a c t i c a l suggestions f o r housing p o l i c y and planners and a r c h i t e c t s , and(b) an i n t e r e s t i n new communities and new housing schemes, as places In which to study changing patterns of l i f e . The t h i r d study of t h i s kind i s S o c i e t i e s i n the Making i n which H i l d a Jennings describes the f i n d i n g of f i v e years' close study of the clearance area of Barton H i l l , B r i s t o l , and f o l l o w s those who have moved out to l i v e on the new e s t a t e s . Research f o r t h i s survey was c a r r i e d out by members of 'the U n i v e r s i t y Settlement. D i f f e r e n t as the three areas studied are, they have features i n common which are'unmistakable. The most marked feature which these communities, i n t h e i r old s e t t i n g , had i n common i s , as Young and Willmott put i t , t hat \" k i n s h i p i s the door to community.\" There i s a \" k i n s h i p net-work\" i n which \"Mum\" (the wife's mother) i s the f o c a l p o i n t and the three generation f a m i l y i s the f i r s t l i n e of defence. The f a m i l y i s \"neighbourhood centred\"and strong s t r e e t r e l a -t i o n s h i p s are l o c a l i s e d by corner s t o r e s . The breaking of the k i n s h i p t i e when the young married people arid t h e i r f a m i l i e s move to an estate and \"Mum\" and the r e l a t i v e s are l e f t behind i s held t o be a major cause of unease. With the breaking of the k i n s h i p t i e there goes a l s o the b a s i s of community i n the form i n which I t has been known and shared. F u r t h e r , the community gave not only a sense of belonging but (according t o Mogey) \"a t r a d i t i o n a l set of behaviour patterns and a mechan-ism to f i n d out what i s expected.\" In the new s e t t i n g there are no longer commonly accepted standards. There i s a l s o b a s i c agreement among the three s t u d i e s as t o how the average f a m i l y r e a c t s to t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The \" r e t r e a t t o the home\" r e f e r r e d to by many observers of these new communities i s sai d by Mogey to have brought the husband and wife c l o s e r together. Young and Willmott agree a l s o t h a t the new community i s home-centred. However, i t would be un-wise t o assume that a l l o l d - e s t a b l i s h e d communities share t h i s c l o s e l y - k n i t k i n s h i p o r g a n i z a t i o n based on l o c a l i t y or that t h e i r members experience t h i s degree of d e p r i v a t i o n when they migrate, e s p e c i a l l y those i n North America. Another important f a c t o r which should not be f o r g o t t e n i s that a l l these surveys leave out the time element, t h e r e f o r e , some important ques-t i o n s have remained unanswered. Are the i s o l a t i o n from r e l a -t i v e s and f r i e n d s and the aloofness from neighbours part of a new way of l i f e or are they merely t r a n s i t i o n a l ? What s o c i a l p a t terns evolve on housing est a t e s when people have had time to s e t t l e down? These were the questions that Peter Willmott set out to answer when he undertook h i s study of the London County Council's vast housing estate at Dagenham, which i s now over 40 years o l d . In h i s book, The_ rEvolution of a Community, he found t h a t , given a l l the discouragements, people at Dagen-ham had managed to develop a way of l i f e very much l i k e the o l d . Information from f o u r other s t u d i e s has a l s o been brought together i n the t e x t . One of these i s a survey c a r r i e d out by John Westergaard and Ruth Glass, f o r the b e n e f i t c h i e f l y of Town Planners, on the' London County C o u n c i l estate of La^n_sbury. This estate c o n s i s t s of about 419 one-family houses wi t h gardens, as w e l l as blocks of f l a t s -- a r a r i t y i n the c e n t r a l areas. S t a r t e d i n 1951, Lansbury i s the core of a new neighbourhood u n i t i n Poplar, a borough i n the East End of London, of which the. p o p u l a t i o n i s predominantly \"working c l a s s \" . The f a c t that the great m a j o r i t y of tenants were born i n the same d i s t r i c t and employed i n the same kinds of jobs helps t o make them a s o c i a l l y homogenous group. Westergaard and Glass set out to answer the questions -- What'did Lans-bury mean to the people who l i v e there? Has resettlement brought about any p o s i t i v e changes i n t h e i r mode of l i v i n g ? i v They made a number of recommendations f o r planners r e l a t i n g to the need to provide a gr e a t e r d i v e r s i t y of dwe l l i n g s f o r house-holds at successive stages of t h e i r l i v e s , and a more r a t i o n a l a l l o c a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t d w e l l i n g types. Two estat e s i n the North of England were studied by mem-bers of t h e i r l o c a l u n i v e r s i t i e s , and t h e i r reports were brought together i n Neighbourhood and Community, edit e d by T. S. Simey. These are an estate outside L i v e r p o o l and one i n S h e f f i e l d . The L i v e r p o o l E s t a t e i s s i t u a t e d near a v i l l a g e on the out-s k i r t s of the c i t y . I t was b u i l t i n 1942-43 to provide accom-modation f o r the f a m i l i e s of workers engaged on important war production i n nearby f a c t o r i e s . At the end of the war the C i t y C o u n c i l began t o l e t the houses t o f a m i l i e s on i t s w a i t i n g l i s t . I t s 496 d w e l l i n g s , w i t h gardens back and f r o n t , are semi-detached bungalows c o n t a i n i n g three bedrooms. Most of the 2000 r e s i d e n t s on the estate had been c i t y dwellers before the move. The S h e f f i e l d ^ E s t a t e was b u i l t t o provide the necessary accom-modation when s e v e r a l slum areas i n the c i t y were cleared under the p r o v i s i o n s of the Housing Act, 1923. Work was s t a r t e d i n 1926 and b u i l d i n g continued f o r ten years, \"in the course of which over 6,000 people were moved -- whole s t r e e t s together i n some cases, no attempt being made to i n t e r f e r e w i t h the previous groupings of neighbours. The 1666 houses were b u i l t t o a t y p i c a l \" c o r p o r a t i o n \" p a t t e r n \u00E2\u0080\u0094 some wit h two bedrooms, some with three, and a few with f o u r . About h a l f were semi-detached residences, while the remainder were b u i l t i n blocks of from three to s i x . The estate i s s i t u a t e d on a h i l l s i d e l e s s than.a mile from the c i t y and completely i s o l a t e d from other r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s except at one p o i n t . In 1952, V at the time of the survey, the t o t a l p o p ulation was over 7,000. Both L i v e r p o o l and S h e f f i e l d are c i t i e s which expanded enormously during the I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n . In the eighteen s i x t i e s , L i v e r p o o l , d e a l i n g i n Lancashire's c o t t o n , exported more goods than the c a p i t a l , and between 1801 and 1851 the popu-l a t i o n of S h e f f i e l d , famous f o r i t s s t e e l f a c t o r i e s , had i n -creased from 46,000 to 135,000, and today i s i n the region of 513,800. The researchers set out to study the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the people l i v i n g on these e s t a t e s and they found evidence to suggest that the r e s i d e n t s had not only shared i n the s o c i a l advances of the past twenty years but \"that i n c e r t a i n s p e c i f -i c r e s p e c t s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y perhaps i n matters of he a l t h and hygiene, removal to a new environment has had a d i r e c t bene-f i c i a l e f f e c t . \" However, the f a c t that both e s t a t e s were ten-anted mainly by u n s k i l l e d workers had co n t r i b u t e d to the ab-sence among them of p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r s , a matter of consider-able concern to those who sought t o develop community i n s t i t u -t i o n s . They considered that there was a strong need f o r some-one t o help the i n h a b i t a n t s s e t t l e and e s t a b l i s h good r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e i r f e l l o w r e s i d e n t s . Moreover, they sta t e that \" i t i s obvious...that t h i s 'sense of belonging' i s u n l i k e l y t o be possessed i n any large degree by r e s i d e n t s on new es t a t e s un-l e s s c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n i s paid by housing a u t h o r i t i e s t o the a l l o c a t i o n of the houses to a s u f f i c i e n t v a r i e t y of people, who can be regarded as the raw m a t e r i a l of a new community ...Much more a t t e n t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , needs t o be paid to the 'communityybuilding' aspects of the work of housing management departments...Unless t h i s can be done s u c c e s s f u l l y , i t i s only too probable that the people who are moved from congested c e n t r a l areas t o the suburbs w i l l f i n d t h a t they have merely v i exchanged the p h y s i c a l d i r t and d i s o r d e r of one kind of slum f o r the l o n e l i n e s s and a n x i e t i e s of another...Rehousing needs to be regarded more as a s o c i a l s e r v i c e than i t has been.\" 1 The f i n a l study concerns a group of e s t a t e s s i t u a t e d i n the B e l f a s t area. B u i l t since the war by the Northern I r e l a n d Housing Trust (an a d d i t i o n a l s t a t u t o r y housing a u t h o r i t y es-t a b l i s h e d by the M i n i s t r y of Health and L o c a l Government i n 1945 t o supplement the b u i l d i n g program of the.-local a u t h o r i -t i e s ) these e s t a t e s were the subject of a survey c a r r i e d out by D o r i t a F i e l d and Desmond N e i l l i n 1953-4. While most of them were b u i l t on the o u t s k i r t s of the c i t y , three smaller s i t e s were chosen w i t h i n i t s boundary on which 288 houses were e v e n t u a l l y constructed. The l a r g e s t of the e s t a t e s , Cregagh, has 924 d w e l l i n g s , while the s m a l l e s t , C l i f t o n d e n e , has only 80. The survey was organized by the Department of S o c i a l Stu-d i e s i n the Queen's U n i v e r s i t y of B e l f a s t and arose out of d i s -cussions w i t h members of the Housing Trust who were p a r t i c u -l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the incidence of the costs of heat and l i g h t and the journey t o work on the budgets of those f a m i l i e s that had been rehoused. References Mogey, J .M., Family and NelghJ^urhq Two^ Studies _in^ Oxford, Oxford tini'v'ers i'ty'Tare's s\", 19567 Young, Michael and W i l l m o t t , Peter, Family \"and K i n s h i p i n East London, Penguin Books, Middlesex^ 196l2; \ Jennings, H i l d a , S o c i e t i e s i n the Making, Routledge and Kegan Pau l , London\", V^S2~. \" W i l l m o t t , Peter, The _Eyqlutiqn__of_ a Community:_ A Study of Pagenham A f t e r ~F\"drty ' ^ ears,\" \"Routledge^'^ancT^egah^Fa 1, T. S. Simey, Neighbourhood! and Community, p. l 48 . Westergaard, John and Glass, Ruth, \"A P r o f i l e of Lansbury,\" The Town Planning Review, vol.xxv, 1954-55. Sirriey, T.S. ed ., Meighbourhood, and Commun11 y, The U n i v e r s i t y Press of Liverp'od: F i e l d , D o r i t a and N e i l l , Desmond, A Survey of New Housing Estates i n B e l f a s t , The Department \"of \"SoclaT \"Studies, The queen rs\"\"\"Uriive\"rsity of B e l f a s t , 1957. THE NEW TOWNS ENGLAND B a s i l d o n , Essex B r a c k n e l l , B e r k s h i r e Corby, Northamptonshire Crawley, Sussex Harlow, Essex H a t f i e l d , H e r t f o r d s h i r e Hemel Hempstead, H e r t f o r d s h i r e Newton A y c l i f f e , County Durham Dawley, Shropshire Skelmersdale, Lancashire P e t e r l e e , County Durham Stevenage, H e r t f o r d s h i r e Welwyn Garden C i t y , H e r t f o r d s h i r e WALES Cwmbran, Monmouthshire SCOTLAND Cumbernauld, Dunbartonshire East K i l b r i d e , Lanarkshire Glenrothes, F i f e s h i r e L i v i n g s t o n , M i d l o t h i a n and West Lothian Planned Population 106,000 50,000-60,000 75,000 70,000-75,000 80,000 26,000 80,000 20,000 90,000 80,000 30,000 80,000 50,000 55,000 70,000 70,000 32,000 70,000 v i i i The London County Co u n c i l Waiting L i s t A n a l y s i s J u l y 1963 The number of a p p l i c a t i o n s covered by the a n a l y s i s i s 46,984 persons. (a) According to Borough The greatest number of a p p l i c a n t s (5,077) are drawn from I s l i n g t o n , the borough with the second l a r g e s t p o p u l a t i o n . On a p r o p o r t i o n b a s i s , however, the demand from a p p l i c a n t s i s g reatest i n respect of B^ethna, 1 Green. (b) Aliens^ and Immigrant F a m i l i e s A t o t a l of 4,640 a p p l i c a n t s representing j u s t under 10 per from cent of the t o t a l l i s t have come Aabroad. Of these 4,640 ap-p l i c a n t s , 4o per cent have been r e s i d e n t i n t h i s country since 1946 or before, 46 per cent came here between 1947 and 1956 and l4 per cent a r r i v e d between 1957 and 1962. Over one-half of these a p p l i c a n t s have come from E i r e . I t w i l l be noted that the number of West Indian f a m i l i e s r e -g i s t e r e d on the w a i t i n g l i s t i s small (4o8), but the number must be expected to grow. (218 C y p r i o t s , 289 from P a k i s t a n , India and Ceylon). (c) E l d e r l y ^ap_plleants There has been some increase both i n the pr o p o r t i o n and a l s o i n the a c t u a l number of e l d e r l y people r e g i s t e r e d on the hous-ing w a i t i n g l i s t . The number of e l d e r l y a p p l i c a n t s i s 5,118. (d) App1icants Income The number of a p p l i c a n t s f a l l i n g i n each income range i s ex-pressed as a percentage of the t o t a l number who supplied i n -formation as t o t h e i r incomes. The comparable f i g u r e s f o r 1959 are a l s o given. Weekly Income 1962 1959 \u00C2\u00A35 or l e s s 8$ 9% \u00C2\u00A36 - \u00C2\u00A310 17$ 3lfc \u00C2\u00A311 - \u00C2\u00A315 58$ 54$ \u00C2\u00A316 or more 17$ 6% The Income given by a p p l i c a n t s may represent, i n some cases gross earnings as d i s t i n c t from net earnings a f t e r deduction of n a t i o n a l insurance c o n t r i b u t i o n s , income ta x , e t c . , and may or may not include overtime pay i n a d d i t i o n t o the bas i c wages. (e) Number of households which include a b l i n d person i s 305. ( f ) Number of a p p l i c a n t s d i s a b l e d from war s e r v i c e i s 1,562. (g) Rent paid Up to 30/ - 21,722 households 30/1 t o 50/- . 13,793 \" 50/1 to 70/- = 5,259 over 70/- = 3,092 \" not stated ~Z 3/118 \" T o t a l 46,984 \" By f a r the greatest demand i s f o r a 3-room d w e l l i n g (19,751). The annual a l l o c a t i o n of houses to problem f a m i l i e s i s 50, and to t u b e r c u l o s i s cases i s 100; a l s o 25 are a l l o c a t e d to the e l d e r l y parents of tenants. In 1963 i t was a n t i c i p a t e d that some 3,466 London r e s i -dents would be rehoused on e s t a t e s , or i n new and expanding towns under the i n d u s t r i a l s e l e c t i o n scheme. A f u r t h e r 800 were expected t o be rehoused under various pr1or1ty a1locatiqns such as .slum clearance, s p e c i a l needs, e t c . As i n previous years an a l l o c a t i o n of 50 d w e l l i n g s has been provided f o r 1963 f o r problem f a m i l i e s s e l e c t e d by the Medical O f f i c e r of Health under arrangements agreed by the Housing committee so tha t measures f o r t h e i r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n can be undertaken i n t h e i r own homes. ( o l d e r in-county d w e l l i n g s , mobile homes, and out-of-county accommodation are used f o r t h i s purpose). APPENDIX B X APPENDIX B A CLASSIFICATION FOR DISTINGUISHING AND ANALYZING \"PROBLEMS\" I . Family ^Structure and I t s welfare ^ i m p l i c a t i o n s a. The si n g l e - p a r e n t f a m i l y ~ i ~ ~ i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i ~ ~i ~>i i \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094> i i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i -1 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ~i -i i~ ~ i i ~i i~> i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i II ~ i . breadwinner; sources of income, e t c . ; d i f f i c u l t i e s of f i n d i n g work: i i . care and s u p e r v i s i o n of c h i l d r e n : i i i . s o c i a l needs -- morale, l o n e l i n e s s , need f o r support: i v . other? b. Handicapped f a m i l i e s (two-parental) ( d e t a i l s and types) i . d i s a b i l i t i e s ( p h y s i c a l , earning-power) i i . e t h n i c , c u l t u r a l , l i t e r a c y , e t c . ( i n c i u d i n g m o b i l i t y ) i i i . e l d e r l y dependents i v . large f a m i l i e s I I . Econqmic Dependency a. 0 c cup at1qna1 (earning-capacity) i . s k i l l l e v e l s i i . other v o c a t i o n a l inadequacies i i i . unemployment, I r r e g u l a r i t i e s , e t c . i v . distance from work, home-ties, e t c . Tai..- 'Income 1 eye 1 s I . s i z e of f a m i l y i i . rent burden (often higher) i i i . other budget d i f f i c u l t i e s ( i n c l u d i n g debts) I I I . Household Management i i ' I ' I I I \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i r i I~I \u00E2\u0080\u0094i n \" i ~ \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i ~ i i ^ ~i I~I ' i i~> a. budgeting a b i l i t y , a b i l i t y (or i n a b i l i t y ) t o plan b. f a m i l y maintenance (cooking, laundry, shopping, d i e t e t c . ) c. property maintenance IV. Fam l l y Ma lad jus true nt a. m a r i t a l d i s c o r d or weaknesses b. p a r e n t a l ( c h i l d r e n needs, d i s c i p l i n e , s o c i a l i z a t i o n , e t c . ) c. s o c i a l . r e l a t i o n s (husband, w i f e , couples) d. s p e c i a l problems of young f a m i l i e s V. C h i l d r e n _and Youth a. i n f a n t s and young c h i l d r e n b. school age and teenagers c. school r e l a t i o n s h i p s d. r e c r e a t i o n a l (non-school) r e l a t i o n s h i p s x i e. employment, v o c a t i o n , t r a i n i n g , continued e d u c a t i o n f . delinquency, gangs, a c t i v i t i e s and a s s o c i a t i o n s V I . L a n d l o r d ^ ^ a. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s from experience of the most common d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s area b. i n d i v i d u a l s c. group a s s o c i a t i o n s d. a u t h o r i t y versus c o - o p e r a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n regu-l a t i o n s , maintenance, e t c . e. experience on Tenant C o u n c i l s V I I . Cqmmunity^ (Ne l ^ b o ^ r h q q d R e l a t i o n s a. work i s s u e s : o p p o r t u n i t i e s ( o r l a c k ) ; type of work, e t c . b. p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s (\"stigmas\", p r e j u d i c e , b a r r i e r s t o communication, group a s s o c i a t i o n ) c. a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of the environment ( p h y s i c a l , f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . ) d. legacy of deprived environment from which r e s i d e n t s came e. \" P r o j e c t environment\" i s the neighbourhood. Design, b u i l d i n g s , s t r e e t p a t t e r n s , p l a y f a c i l i t i e s , i n -s t i t u t i o n a l elements, e f f e c t of l a r g e u n i t s , e t c . f . new-neighbourhood s o c i a l ' r e s o u r c e s ( h e a l t h , w e l f a r e , e d u c a t i o n , r e c r e a t i o n , e t c . ) Are they by new u n i t s ? M o d i f i c a t i o n s , a d d i t i o n s , a d a p t a t i o n s , e t c . g. unbalanced communities -- s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n pros and cons h. se g r e g a t i o n s ? i . new p l a n s , expedients, i n n o v a t i o n s . x i i The_ J o i n t Task Force The c r e a t i o n , i n 1962, of the j o i n t Housing and Home Finance Agency and Department of He a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and Wel-f a r e Task Force grew out of the hypothesis t h a t \"...the r i g h t combination of h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n and we l f a r e s e r v i c e s , i f concentrated on a s i n g l e neighbourhood, i n s a t u r a t e d form could produce a change, an improvement i n the s o c i a l f u n c t i o n -i n g of low-income, d e p r i v e d , disadvantaged f a m i l i e s . . . t h i s i n c l u d e s i n c r e a s i n g employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s and t r a i n i n g as an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the t a s k . \" 1 The r a t i o n a l e f o r the Task Force -- whose purpose i s t o provide h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n and welfare s e r v i c e s f o r f a m i l i e s r e s i d i n g i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s -- r e s t s on the concept t h a t s i n c e both departments (H.H.F.A. - H.E.W.) are concerned with the same c l i e n t e l e , an attempt t o combine and concen-t r a t e t h e i r separate e f f o r t s would prove more e f f e c t i v e as a team e f f o r t , than as separate fragmented b i t s and p i e c e s of we l f a r e a c t i v i t y . Too o f t e n programs have f a l l e n s h o r t of t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s because they d i d not marshal a l l the r e -sources r e q u i r e d and a v a i l a b l e t o d e a l with the problem. The J o i n t Task Force attempts t o overcome t h i s d i f f i c u l t y through m o b i l i z i n g and a p p l y i n g the l e a d e r s h i p and resou r c e s of the f e d e r a l l y - a i d e d programs under the Departments of He a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and Welfare and the Housing and Home Finance Agency, and t o demonstrate the kinds of c o - o r d i n a t i o n t h a t can take p l a c e among F e d e r a l departments and agen c i e s . The charge t o the Task Force s t a t e s , i n p a r t ; (a) To seek t o i d e n t i f y needs, t o develop methods of 1 Abner D. Silverman, \"Using P u b l i c Housing t o Strengthen F a m i l y L i v i n g \" , An address at the Demonstration Workshop of the J o i n t Task Force on He a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and Welfare S e r v i c e s and Housing, Oct. 1963. m a r s h a l l i n g Departmental s e r v i c e s and t o e s t a b l i s h methods by which they may serve the needs of r e s i -dents of p u b l i c housing; (b) To i n i t i a t e research or demonstration p r o j e c t s t o show and appraise the accomplishments that may be achieved by p r o v i d i n g a wide range of s e r v i c e s through F e d e r a l , S t a t e , and l o c a l a c t i o n ; and (c) To evaluate the programs, determine what gaps ex-i s t i n present programs, and recommend the expan-s i o n of e x i s t i n g or c r e a t i o n of new programs which may more e f f e c t i v e l y solve the problems, of low-income f a m i l i e s . 1 The c e n t r a l purpose behind the J o i n t Task Force and i t s work i s to draw f a m i l i e s who are s o c i a l l y and economically i s o l a t e d i n t o the mainstream of community l i v i n g . The Task Force has no funds of i t s own; the s a t u r a t i o n d f o s e r v i c e s i s t o be achieved by the d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e deploy-ment of e x i s t i n g s t a f f and resources -- F e d e r a l , l o c a l , p u b l i c and p r i v a t e \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i n a v i a b l e co-ordinated program. Demon-s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t s have been i n i t i a t e d i n s e v e r a l communities, which have a b u i l t - i n research and e v a l u a t i o n f a c t o r . I t i s hoped \"...that t h i s combination of intense co-ordinated l o c a l a c t i o n , coupled w i t h o b j e c t i v e searching and competent r e -search w i l l produce new knowledge making i t p o s s i b l e t o cope more s u c c e s s f u l l y w i t h the problem of the u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d i n our urban centers and thus make a great c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the betterment of our c i t i e s and metropolitan a r e a s . \" 2 1 Silverman, op. c i t . , p. 5. 2 I b i d . , p.' 7. The program i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a Federal program. Any c i t y or community can I n i t i a t e the program and operate i t s own l o c a l Task Force. ; Further, there i s a beginning to draw i n t o the e f f o r t , the other important F e d e r a l , State and l o c a l e f f o r t s which are e s s e n t i a l ; f o r example, the programs of the Departments of Labour and Commerce, t o provide increased em-ployment opportunities'. For the purpose of p r o v i d i n g g u i d e - l i n e s to l o c a l housing a u t h o r i t i e s t o a s s i s t ithem i n co-operative planning with other l o c a l agencies, the J o i n t Task Force has prepared a p u b l i c a -i t i o n , S^rvicejj^f|or F a m i l i e s i n P u b l i c Housing, which includes a comprehensive chart 'of the problems, appropriate s e r v i c e s , and l o c a l , State and Federal resources a v a i l a b l e to meet these problems. Because of the value of t h i s c h a r t , an adap-t a t i o n of i t , r e l a t e d t o l o c a l needs and s e r v i c e s , i s included i n t h i s Appendix. i I i ! References U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, S e r v i c e s f o r F a m i l i e s Living; i n Pub l i e .Hous i.ng, Washington-\"'D.~C. 'July \"1963.\" Silverman, Abner D., \"Using P u b l i c Housing to Strengthen Family L i v i n g \" , An Address at the Demonstration Workshopof^the^ arid\"\u00C2\u00A5elt'^ afe\"\"S^ r\"vlt3\"es 'arid Housing, \"McGregor\" \"Memorial T;rayRe\"\"~S1?at'e- UnWerBlty/'DeTroit; Michigan, Oct. 14, 1963. NEEDS AND POSSIBLE SERVICES IN PUBLIC HOUSING (Adapted from Services for Families Living i n Public Housing; jo i n t pamphlet of U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and U.S. Housing Agency, Washington, B.C. 1963) The items have been r e c l a s s i f i e d and augmented. Problems, Needs Appropriate Services Res ources Local Other 1. Poor housekeeping s k i l l s : home management (ex-cluding budgeting) a, adult classes; home management and improvement groups, b. individual and group counselling and teaching c, homemaker service d. volunteer services 2, Money management; debts; rent payments. a, family budgeting (including planning expenditures) b, credit counselling c, protective payments d, consumer education e, meetings of adults i n tome demonstration programmes f , home and money management (individual and group) g, casework counselling 3. Family maladjustment (family discord; per-sonality disorders other problems i n family relations. a, casework counselling b, psychiatric evaluation and services c, pastoral counselling 4. Care and supervision of children of (a) working mothers (b) others a. day care f a c i l i t i e s b. foster-family day care c # nursery school d. after-school programmes e. \u00C2\u00AB parent education programmes 5\u00C2\u00BB Youth problems (work and education) employment; continued education (school drop-outs) idleness a. assistance i n obtaining after-school and summer employment b, vocational counselling c t vocational training d. (including \"work habits\" and reconditioning programmes) oe educational counselling and assistance i n return-ing to school Problems, Needs Appropriate Services Resources Local Other 6. Youth problems (behaviour, neglect) ex. physical and mental d i s a b i l i t i e s a, mental health or c h i l d guidance service b, school soc i a l worker c, c h i l d welfare services d, c h i l d protective service (public or voluntary) e, public assistance f, special agencies for disabled children (e.g. polio, cerebral palsy) g, diagnostic and treatment services for special d i s -a b i l i t y groups e.g. speech, hearing, mentally retarded h, special education (schools) 7. Unemployment, under employment, i n s u f f i c -ient income from work a. f i n a n c i a l assistance b. payments for medical care c. vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n d. retraining or other educat-ion services e. social work services, i . e . casework and group service f . employment counselling and job placement service g. unemployment insurance h. veterans' employment service i . relocation counselling j . workmen's compensation k. r e h a b i l i t a t i o n counselling 1, voluntary agencies (e.g. Salvation Army, Churches) 8. Health needs: children a. mental health or c h i l d guidance service b, school soc i a l worker e. public assistance f . special agencies for disabled children (e.g. polio, cerebral palsy) g. diagnostic and treatment services for special d i s a b i l i t y groups e.g. . speech, hearing and v i s u a l l y handicapped, mentally retarded -3-Problems, Needs ^-appropriate Cervices Resources Looal Other 9\u00C2\u00BB Vocational training needs (including r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a. employment counselling, job placement, retcaining and relocation services b. unemployment insurance benefits c. social assistance, pay-ments for medical care d n community work and training-projects e 0 casework counselling f\u00C2\u00AB vocational education g e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n counselling for the disabled h 0 psychiatric evaluation and counselling 10r Inadequate education (including l i t e r a c y , language needs) a. adult education b. individual and group counselling, tutoring, mothers' clubs, etc. Co language study groups d o Citizenship Branch classes. 11, Health needs: adults \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i 1 a 0 advisory and regulatory services i n the f i e l d of environmental health b 0 adult health c l i n i c s c, public health and v o l -untary nursing services including bedside nursing services, d, homemaker service e, health information health counselling i 12. Recreational needs (a) indoor and outdoor 1 (b) special age groups 13, Social and community needs (inc. education com unity p a r t i c i -pation) - 4 -1 t Problems, Needs Appropriate Services Resources Local Other 14. Ago and d i s a b i l i t y a. homemaker services, house-problems (ex. incomes keeping help . deficiency) house- b. adult education programme keeping; i n a b i l i t y especially home manager.snt to care for s e l f ; c. Laundry service loneliness, a. hone-delivered neals i s o l a t i o n e. comnunity dining room f. carry-out kitchen for prepa-red seals g\u00C2\u00AB shopper service h. friendly v i s i t i n g i . talking books and l i b r a r y services U casework and counselling service k. mental health counselors, psychiatric treatment 1. employaent-honebound sheltered, competitive m. hone medical care including v i s i t i n g nurse service, health education n. fi n a n c i a l assistance and payments for medical care 0. old-are, and d i s a b i l i t y insurance benefits p. protective service 3. Housing and Home Finance Agency, P.H.Av High1ights, Washington, D.C., July-August 1963. Housing and Home Finance Agency, Views _on P u b l i c Housing: Symposium of L e t t e r s Wr i 11 e n\" \"a t~\" t he\" Re que s\" t of Norman P. Mason, U.S. Rousing A d m i n i s t r a t o r , March i960. Housing and Home Finance Agency, Fami1ie s i n Low-Rent, Pro j e c t s , ( F a m i l i e s Re-examined during \"Calendar Year \u00C2\u00A3961 \"for \"continued occupancy) P u b l i c Housing Administra-t i o n , Program Planning D i v i s i o n , S t a t i s t i c s Branch, B u l l e t i n No:225.1, August 1962. Housing and Home Finance Agency, F a m i l i e s Moving into._L 0w^e^nt^Housing,. B u l l e t i n No:226\"\u00C2\u00A3\". Housing and Home Finance Agency, M^obility and Motiva-t i o n s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Survey .of F a m i l i e s Moving from\" Low-Rent \"Housing, Pub l i e Housing Admin si: r a t i o n , wasningt on, u. 0., A p r i l 1958. . - . xxii Baltimore Council of S o c i a l Agencies, Community We I f are Serv i c e s to Residents of P u b l i c Housing:~~T^port \"to \"the Board of \u00E2\u0080\u00A2QTrect^T'^^T^'.\u00E2\u0080\u0094: B a l t i m o r e , C i t y Housing A u t h o r i t y , Problem F a m i l i e s i n P u b l i c Housing, Baltimore, M a r y l a n d \" , \" \" \" i 9 5 6 - ; - ~ ~ Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency, Why E l i g ^ F a m i l i e s Leave Public. Housing, Baltimore\"',\"'\"Wrylahd, 1957. , Types'of F a m i l i e s L i v i n g i n Baltimore's Low-~\"'Krrit\"\"Trojeers T958';\u00E2\u0080\u0094 , Types of F a m i l i e s L i v i n g i n Baltimore's Low-'Re ht\" \"Frojecf's \"\u00C2\u00A3951 -TlT^Haft\"itffore 7\"Marylancf; \"SepT.\"'\"1962 . Community S e r v i c e s Center, j t e c o n d J E v a , ^ of the Community Services _Cg^^ ijdu'tri \"ji'rid \" ,Sett ,le lmerits\" ri ,h'\"co-operation with the Boston Housing Authority'and the U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, Nov. 196l-Beb. 1963. Chicago Housing A u t h o r i t y , H i g h l i g h t s of the Operation, Annual Report f o r Year e n d e ^ T T ^ m e ^ T T T ^ S ? \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' _ ~~ ' , Income L i m i t s and Rent Schedules,and other o~aTa~sfieets, June 30, 1963. Buck, Thomas, \"Chicago's Housing A u t h o r i t y , Holder of T i t l e , Finds a Way of Helping Residents Appreciate and.Care f o r Property,\" Commerce Magazine_, Feb. 1963. Dwyer, Ma r t i n J . , Report to the Chicago Chapter of the N a t i o n a l s s o c i a t i o n or Housing and Hedev^opment O r r i c i a T s , \u00C2\u00AB-T| \u00E2\u0080\u0094 |\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 , -p \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u00941 jii \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 if- - \u00E2\u0080\u0094 -1 -> \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 f 11 1 r i i - 1 1 1 - jr 1 r i i- \u00E2\u0080\u00941 \u00E2\u0080\u00941 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 ~i I J I~I i~i if- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ~i t~i ~II ~i 1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1 m 1 ~ i ~ ~ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Chicago Housing, A u t h o r i t y , Chicago,111In01s, Sept.11, 1962. Newark, New Jersey, C e n t r a l Planning Board, The Middle Income Housing Problem i n Newark,_ New Je r s eyy ^STuoTy^ncT ffraltie\"^ \"June\"' \u00C2\u00A3$6'2\". "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "10.14288/1.0093746"@en . "eng"@en . "Social Work"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Families in public housing"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/37750"@en .