Business, Sauder School of
Real Estate Division
DSpace
UBCV
Homewood, Craig
Master of Science in Business - MScB
University of British Columbia
The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the market for inner-city housing in general, and specifically in Vancouver. The objective is not to identify the size or strength of the market. Rather the thesis objective is to answer the question "What are the characteristics of the market for inner-city housing?". To do this the answers to five sub-questions are sought, as follows: 1) Who wants to live in the inner-city? 2) Where do people want to live in the inner-city? 3) In what kind of housing do people want to live in the inner-city 4) How much are people willing to pay for inner-city housing? 5) Why do people want to live in the inner-city? The approach used is to review the findings of extant studies on the market for inner-city housing. The results of these studies are then compared with the results of a questionnaire survey conducted on the market for inner-city housing in Vancouver. Questionnaires were mailed to a systematic sample of 1587 inner-city and 531 suburban households in Vancouver. Within the inner-city sample were three sub-samples — one for each of Vancouver's existing inner-city residential neighbourhoods (the West End, False Creek, and Fairview Slopes). An overall response rate of 29% was achieved (496 inner-city and 127 suburban respondents). The questionnaire results were analysed with reference to frequency and cross-tabulation tables, using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Separate analyses are provided on the characteristics of households who want to live in the inner-city, the areas and kind of housing they want to occupy, the amount they are willing to pay for such housing, and why they want to live in the inner-city. However, it was found to be difficult to do any one of these analysis without considering the results of at least one of the other analyses. For example, it was impossible to identify the type of people who want to live in the inner-city without considering the type of housing they want to occupy and the location in which they currently live and want to live. Therefore, the conclusion to the study does not consist of a separate answer to each of the questions outlined in the statement of the study's objective. Rather, 11 conclusions on the market for inner-city housing are presented. Most of these conclusions apply generally (i.e. to any inner-city); however several are specific to Vancouver, notably those dealing with where households want to live in the inner-city. These conclusions, and their bases, are fully described in the concluding chapter to this thesis. Briefly stated the conclusions are as follows: 1) Only a small proportion of suburban households will move to the inner-city. 2) A relatively large proportion of inner-city residents will move within the inner-city. 3) Households who want to live in the inner-city are primarily those whose primary income earner is a "white collar" worker, a sales or service worker, or retired. 4) The effect of work location on the desire to live in the inner-city is not clear. 5) A primary reason households move within the inner-city is to obtain a larger unit. Other important reasons are to obtain better quality housing and for renters to obtain ownership housing. 6) Price of housing is an important factor in determining where inner-city residents live. 7) Access to downtown, to parks, to shopping, to entertainment/cultural facilities, and to a body of water are all factors influencing why people want to live in the inner-city. 8) The character of the inner-city neighbourhoods is an important determinant of why people want to live in Vancouver's inner-city. 9) The market for housing differs in each of the areas comprising Vancouver's inner-city. 10) Within Vancouver's inner-city False Creek appears to be the area with the broadest market. 11) On the basis of the incomes and expenditures of the households likely to move to or within the area, development in Fairview Slopes and False Creek would entail less risk than in the West End.
A N A N A L Y S I S O F T H E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F T H E M A R K E T F O R I N N E R - C I T Y H O U S I N G By L. Craig Homewood A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (URBAN LAND ECONOMICS DIVISION) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1983 © L . C R A I G HOMEWOOD In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 (3/81) ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to analyse the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i n general, and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n Vancouver. The objective i s not to i d e n t i f y the size or strength of the market. Rather the thesis objective i s to answer the question "What are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing?". To do this the answers to f i v e sub-questions are sought, as follows: 1) Who wants to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? 2) Where do people want to l i v e i n the inner-city? 3) In what kind of housing do people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y 4) How much are people w i l l i n g to pay for i n n e r - c i t y housing? 5) Why do people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? The approach used i s to review the findings of extant studies on the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing. The r e s u l t s of these studies are then compared with the r e s u l t s of a questionnaire survey conducted on the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i n Vancouver. Questionnaires were mailed to a systematic sample of 1587 i n n e r - c i t y and 531 suburban households i n Vancouver. Within the inner-c i t y sample were three sub-samples — one for each of Vancouver's e x i s t i n g i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods (the West End, False Creek, and F a i r -view Slopes). An o v e r a l l response rate of 29% was achieved (496 i n n e r - c i t y and 127 suburban respondents). The questionnaire r e s u l t s were analysed with reference to frequency and cross-tabulation tables, using SPSS ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences). - i i i -Separate analyses are provided on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y , the areas and kind of housing they want to occupy, the amount they are w i l l i n g to pay for such housing, and why they want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . However, i t was found to be d i f f i c u l t to do any one of these analysis without considering the r e s u l t s of at least one of the other analyses. For example, i t was impossible to i d e n t i f y the type of people who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y without considering the type of housing they want to occupy and the l o c a t i o n i n which they cu r r e n t l y l i v e and want to l i v e . Therefore, the conclusion to the study does not consist of a separate answer to each of the questions outlined i n the statement of the study's objective. Rather, 11 conclusions on the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing are presented. Most of these conclusions apply generally ( i . e . to any i n n e r - c i t y ) ; however several are s p e c i f i c to Vancouver, notably those dealing with where households want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . These conclu-sions, and t h e i r bases, are f u l l y described i n the concluding chapter to thi s t h e s i s . B r i e f l y stated the conclusions are as follows: 1) Only a small proportion of suburban households w i l l move to the i n n e r - c i t y . 2) A r e l a t i v e l y large proportion of i n n e r - c i t y residents w i l l move within the i n n e r - c i t y . 3) Households who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y are pr i m a r i l y those whose primary income earner i s a "white c o l l a r " worker, a sales or service worker, or r e t i r e d . 4) The e f f e c t of work l o c a t i o n on the desire to l i v e i n the inner-c i t y i s not c l e a r . - i v -5) A primary reason households move within the i n n e r - c i t y i s to obtain a larger u n i t . Other important reasons are to obtain better q u a l i t y housing and for renters to obtain ownership housing. 6) Price of housing i s an important factor i n determining where i n n e r - c i t y residents l i v e . 7) Access to downtown, to parks, to shopping, to e n t e r t a i n -ment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s , and to a body of water are a l l factors i n f l u e n c i n g why people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . 8) The character of the i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods i s an important determinant of why people want to l i v e i n Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y . 9) The market .for housing d i f f e r s i n each of the areas comprising Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y . 10) Within Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y False Creek appears to be the area with the broadest market. 11) On the basis of the incomes and expenditures of the households l i k e l y to move to or within the area, development i n Fairview Slopes and False Creek would e n t a i l less r i s k than i n the West End. -v-TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 11 v v i i i x i i x i v 1 1.1 General 1 1.2 Vancouver's I n n e r - c i t y 4 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations 12 2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14 2.1 Households Who Want to Live i n the Inner-city 15 2.2 Housing People Want to Occupy i n the Inner-city 20 2.3 How Much Households Are W i l l i n g to Pay for 21 Inner-city Housing 2.4 Why Households Want to Live i n tne Inner-city 21 3.0 METHODOLOGY 2 5 3.1 Sampling Procedure 2 6 3.1.1 I n n e r - c i t y Sample • 2 6 3.1.2 Suburban Sample 28 3.2 Survey Response 3 0 3.3 Data Analysis 3 2 3.3.1 Who Wants to Live i n the Inner-city? 32 3.3.2 Where Do People Want to Live i n 3 5 the Inner-city? 3.3.3 What Kind of Housing Do People Want to 35 Occupy i n the Inner-city? 3.3.4 How Much Are People W i l l i n g to Pay 36 for I n n e r - c i t y Housing 3.3.5 Why Do People Want to Live i n 3 6 the Inner-city? - v i -4.0 WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN THE INNER-CITY 37 4.1 Current Inner-city Residents 38 4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics 40 4.1.2 Socio-economic Characteristics 42 4.2 Inner-city Residents Not Expecting to Move 59 4.2.1 Demographic Characteristics 59 4.2.1 Socio-economic Characteristics 63 4.3 Inner-city Residents Who Expect to Move 71 Within the Inner-city 4.3.1 Demographic Charateristics 73 4.3.2 Socio-economic Characteristics ^4 4.4 Inner-city Residents Who Would Consider Moving 79 Within the Inner-city 4.4.1 Demographic Characteristics " 83 4.4.2 Socio-economic Characteristics 83 4.5. Suburban Residents Who Would Consider Moving 93 to the Inner-city 4.5.1 Demographic Characteristics 93 4.5.2 Socio-economic Characteristics 97 4.6 Summary 101 4.6.1 Demographic Characteristics 101 4.6.2 Socio-economic Characteristics 103 5.0 WHERE DO PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN THE INNER-CITY? * 108 5.1 Where Current Residents Expect to Move 108 in the Inner-city 5.2 Where Current Residents Would Consider Moving 111 in the Inner-city 5.3 Where Suburban Residents Would Consider Moving 113 in the Inner-city 5.4 Inner-city Residents' Satisfaction with Their 114 Current Neighbourhood and Dwelling Units 5.5 Summary 117 6.0 WHAT KIND OF HOUSING PEOPLE WANT TO OCCUPY IN THE 12 0 INNER-CITY? 6.1 Housing Currently Occupied 120 6.1.1 Type 120 6.1.2 Size 122 6.1.3 Tenure 122 6.1.4 Dwelling Unit Amenities 122 - v i i -6.2 Housing Desired by Respondents who Expect to Move 124 W i t h i n the I n n e r - c i t y 6.2.1 Type 124 6.2.2 Size 126 6.2.3 Tenure 12 6 6.2.4 D w e l l i n g U n i t Amenities 128 6.3 Summary 13 2 7.0 HOW MUCH ARE HOUSEHOLDS WILLING TO PAY FOR 13 4 INNER-CITY HOUSING? 8.0 WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN THE INNER-CITY? 141 8.1 Reasons f o r Current Residents L i v i n g 141 i n the I n n e r - c i t y 8.2 Reasons f o r Current Residents Moving 14 6 Within the I n n e r - c i t y 8.2.1 Respondents Who Expect to Move 14 6 Within the I n n e r - c i t y 8.2.2 Respondents Who Would Consider Moving 14 7 W i t h i n the I n n e r - c i t y 8.3 Reasons f o r Suburban Residents C o n s i d e r i n g 153 Moving to the I n n e r - c i t y 8.4 Summary 15 6 9.0 CONCLUSIONS 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY 171 MAP A Vancouver I n n e r - c i t y 5 MAP B Suburban Sample Area L o c a t i o n 29a APPENDICES A t o Z 174-218 - v i i i -LIST OF TABLES 1-1 DESCRIPTION OF INNER-CITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, 1971-81 3-1 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION 4-3 NUMBER OF INCOME EARNERS IN SURVEY RESPONDENTS' HOUSEHOLDS 4-5 WORK LOCATION & MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK OF SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS' INCOME EARNERS 4-6 MONTHLY HOUSING EXPENDITURE BY SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 4-7 TENURE OF SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 4-8 LOCATION OF PREVIOUS RESIDENCE OF SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 4-9 RESPONDENTS' EXPECTATIONS OF MOVING FROM CURRENT RESIDENCES 4-10 CROSS-TABULATION OF HOUSEHOLD SIZE WITH EXPECTATION OF MOVING 4-11 CROSS-TABULATION OF RESPONDENTS' AGE WITH EXPECTATION OF MOVING 4-12 CROSS-TABULATION OF GROSS ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME WITH EXPECTATION OF MOVING 4-13 CROSS-TABULATION OF NUMBER OF INCOME EARNERS WITH EXPECTATION OF MOVING Page Number 9 31 4-1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS: SURVEY RESULTS 3 9 AND 1981 CENSUS FIGURES 4-2 GROSS ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF SURVEY 4 3 RESPONDENTS 46 4-4 OCCUPATION OF SURVEY HOUSEHOLDS' INCOME 4 8 EARNERS 51 54 54 57 60 60 62 64 62 - i x -4 - 1 4 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N OF WORK L O C A T I O N OF T H E H O U S E H O L D ' S H I G H E S T INCOME E A R N E R WITH E X P E C T A T I O N OF MOVING 4 - 1 5 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N OF T E N U R E AND E X P E C T A T I O N OF MOVING 4 - 1 6 E X P E C T E D D E S T I N A T I O N OF R E S P O N D E N T S WHO E X P E C T TO MOVE 4 - 1 7 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N O F WHERE R E S P O N D E N T S E X P E C T TO MOVE WITH A G E 4 - 1 8 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N OF WHERE R E S P O N D E N T S E X P E C T TO MOVE WITH HOUSEHOLD INCOME 4 - 1 9 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N OF WHERE R E S P O N D E N T S E X P E C T TO MOVE WITH WORK L O C A T I O N OF H O U S E H O L D ' S H I G H E S T INCOME E A R N E R 4 - 2 0 I N N E R - C I T Y R E S P O N D E N T S WHO WOULD C O N S I D E R MOVING W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y 4 - 2 1 E X P E C T E D D E S T I N A T I O N OF R E S P O N D E N T S WHO WOULD NOT C O N S I D E R MOVING W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y 4 - 2 2 E X P E C T E D D E S T I N A T I O N OF R E S P O N D E N T S WHO WOULD C O N S I D E R MOVING W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y 4 - 2 3 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N O F A G E OF R E S P O N D E N T S WITH C O N S I D E R A T I O N O F MOVING W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y 4 - 2 4 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WITH C O N S I D E R A T I O N O F MOVING W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y 4 - 2 5 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N OF NUMBER OF INCOME E A R N E R S WITH C O N S I D E R A T I O N OF M O V I N G W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y 4 - 2 6 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N O F O C C U P A T I O N OF PRIMARY INCOME E A R N E R WITH C O N S I D E R A T I O N OF MOVING W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y 4 - 2 7 C R O S S - T A B U L A T I O N OF HOUSEHOLD H O U S I N G E X P E N D I T U R E WITH C O N S I D E R A T I O N OF MOVING W I T H I N T H E I N N E R - C I T Y -x-4-28 CROSS-TABULATION OF HOUSEHOLD TENURE WITH 91 CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 4-29 CROSS-TABULATION OF SUBURBAN HOUSEHOLD 9 4 SIZE WITH CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY 4-30 CROSS-TABULATION OF CHILDREN PER SUBURBAN 94 HOUSEHOLD WITH CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY 4-31 CROSS-TABULATION OF AGE OF SUBURBAN 9 6 RESPONDENTS WITH CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY 4-32 CROSS-TABULATION OF SUBURBAN HOUSEHOLD 9 6 INCOME WITH CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY 4-33 CROSS-TABULATION OF SUBURBAN HOUSEHOLD 9 9 EXPENDITURE WITH CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY 4- 34 CROSS-TABULATION OF TENURE OF SUBURBAN 9 9 HOUSEHOLDS WITH CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY 5- 1 EXPECTED DESTINATION OF INNER-CITY 1 0 9 RESPONDENTS WHO EXPECT TO MOVE 5-2 WHERE RESPONDENTS WOULD CONSIDER MOVING 1 1 2 IN THE INNER-CITY 5-3 RESPONDENT SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT 1 1 5 NEIGHBOURHOOD 5- 4 RESPONDENTS' SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT 1 1 5 DWELLING UNITS 6- 1 TYPE OF HOUSING OCCUPIED BY 1 2 1 INNER-CITY RESIDENTS 6-2 SIZE OF INNER-CITY RESPONDENTS' 1 2 3 DWELLING UNITS 6-3 AMENITIES ACCESSIBLE TO INNER-CITY 1 2 3 RESPONDENTS - x i -6-4 TYPE OF HOUSING DESIRED BY HOUSEHOLDS 12 5 WHO EXPECT TO MOVE WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 6-5 DESIRABILITY OF SELECTED DWELLING UNIT 12 7 FEATURES IN NEW UNIT BY RESPONDENTS WHO EXPECT TO MOVE WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 6-6 TENURE DESIRED BY HOUSEHOLDS WHO EXPECT 12 9 TO MOVE WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 6- 7 DESIRABILITY OF SELECTED BUILDING AMENITIES 131 IN NEW HOUSING BY RESPONDENTS WHO EXPECT TO MOVE WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 7- 1 HOW MUCH SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS WHO EXPECT 1 3 5 TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN THE INNER-CITY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR HOUSING 7- 2 INCOME AND HOUSING EXPENDITURE OF HOUSEHOLDS 1 3 8 WHO EXPECT TO MOVE WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 8- 1 FACTORS DETERMINING RESIDENTIAL LOCATION— 14 2 COMPARISON OF INNER-CITY & SUBURBAN RESPONDENTS 8-2 FACTORS DETERMINING RESIDENTIAL LOCATION— 14 4 COMPARISON OF INNER-CITY AREAS 8-3 REASONS GIVEN FOR EXPECTING TO MOVE 14 7 WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 8-4 REASONS FOR EXPECTING TO MOVE WITHIN 15 0 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA 8-5 REASONS GIVEN BY HOUSEHOLDS FOR 151 CONSIDERING MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 8-6 REASONS GIVEN BY HOUSEHOLDS FOR 154 CONSIDERING MOVING WITHIN THEIR CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS •8-7 REASONS GIVEN BY SUBURBAN RESPONDENTS 155 FOR MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY - x i i -LIST OF APPENDICES Page Number A COVERING LETTER 174 B SUBURBAN QUESTIONNAIRE 17 5 C INNER-CITY QUESTIONNAIRE 181 D DETAILS ON WEIGHTING OF INNER-CITY SAMPLE 187 E DATA ON CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD AND 189 EXPECTATION OF MOVING F DATA ON OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD'S HIGHEST INCOME 19 0 EARNER AND EXPECTATION OF MOVING G DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND 19 2 EXPECTATION OF MOVING H DATA ON MONTHLY HOUSING EXPENDITURE 194 AND EXPECTATION OF MOVING I DATA ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND WHERE 19 6 RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE J DATA ON CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD AND 197 WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE K DATA ON NUMBER OF INCOME EARNERS AND 19 9 WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE L DATA ON TENURE AND WHERE RESPONDENTS 2 01 EXPECT TO MOVE M DATA ON MONTHLY HOUSING EXPENDITURE AND 20 3 WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE N DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND 2 04 WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE 0 DATA ON OCCUPATION AND WHERE RESPONDENTS 206 EXPECT TO MOVE P DATA ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 209 - x i n -DATA ON CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN INNER-CITY DATA ON WORK LOCATION AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN INNER-CITY DATA ON WORK LOCATION AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY DATA ON NUMBER OF INCOME EARNERS AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY DATA ON OCCUPATION AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY CROSS-TABULATION OF DESIRED TENURE WITH CURRENT TENURE CROSS-TABULATION OF TENURE WITH HOUSING EXPENDITURE BY INNER-CITY HOUSEHOLDS CROSS-TABULATION OF HOUSING TYPE WITH HOUSING EXPENDITURE BY INNER-CITY HOUSEHOLD - x i v -ACKNOWLKDGEMENT S I would l i k e to thank B.C. Place Corporation and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for t h e i r f i n a n c i a l support, without which t h i s thesis would not have been possible. I would also l i k e to thank those organizations for t h e i r encouragement and technical assistance i n the project. At B.C. Place Corporation my thanks are directed to Bob Thompson and Dave Podmore. At CMHC, my thanks are directed to Chris Terry, Helmut Pastrick, and Ted M i t c h e l l . I would l i k e to extend s p e c i a l thanks to Ted for his encouragement to see the project through to i t s conclusion and for his help i n making this possible. I would also l i k e to thank my advisors within the Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n at the Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia: Dr. Michael Goldberg and Professor Jonathan Mark, for th e i r invaluable guidance and encouragement. Thanks are also extented to the t h i r d member of my committee, Professor Norman Carruthers, for h i s input. Other people 1 would l i k e to thank include Roger Robson for assistance i n the coding and computer analysis of the questionaire r e s u l t s ; various mem-bers of the s t a f f of the Cit y of Vancouver, including Anne McAfee, P h i l Mondor, and Eunice Mak, for providing information; P h i l l i p Boname and the s t a f f of Urbanics Consultants Limited for use of th e i r f a c i l i t i e s and for the i r encouragement; and Anne Wicks for her advice and encouragement. Most of a l l , I would l i k e to thank my wife, Joan, for her e d i t i n g , typing, word processing, and most, importantly, unending f a i t h and support. -1-1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 General In recent years there has been renewed i n t e r e s t i n the i n n e r - c i t y as a r e s i d e n t i a l area i n many North American c i t i e s . This i s evidenced by both the development of new housing i n the i n n e r - c i t y (e.g. the St. Lawrence project i n Toronto; Eau C l a i r e i n Calgary) and the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of e x i s t -ing units (e.g. Cabbagetown i n Toronto). A 1975 Urban Land I n s t i t u t e study^ found that 75% of American c e n t r a l c i t i e s with a population of at least 250,000 were experiencing s i g n i f i c a n t private market renovations i n form-e r l y d e t e r i o r a t i n g areas. There has also been a trend towards incorporating r e s i d e n t i a l units i n new downtown o f f i c e developments. In Vancouver, the growing i n t e r e s t i n the i n n e r - c i t y as a r e s i d e n t i a l area i s evidenced by the i n c l u s i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l units i n new downtown o f f i c e b uildings, and by i n f i l l development i n the West End, an area predominated by apartments located between the downtown and Stanley Park. In the Yale-town-South Downtown area warehouses are being converted for r e s i d e n t i a l purposes, and plans for the development of B.C. Place (located on the north shore of False Creek) include 10,000 to 12,000 r e s i d e n t i a l units to be b u i l t over a 20-year period. 1 Cited i n "Changing Economic Role for the Central C i t y " by J . Thomas Black i n The Prospective C i t y , 1980. Arthur P. Solomon, ed; Boston: MIT Press. -2-Across False Creek from the downtown peninsula, the south shore of False Creek has been redeveloped from a decrepit i n d u s t r i a l area to a r e s i d e n t i a l community, with expansion of the area currently underway. Adjacent to the False Creek development, Fairview Slopes i s undergoing redevelopment from an area of d e t e r i o r a t i n g detached houses interspersed with i n d u s t r i a l and commercial uses to a high-quality multiple-unit r e s i d e n t i a l community. A more thorough d e s c r i p t i o n of these areas and a map showing t h e i r locations i s presented l a t e r i n t h i s chapter. The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to analyse the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing. The thesis objective i s to answer the question "What are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing?". To do t h i s , the study seeks to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households who want to l i v e i n the inner-c i t y , the kind of housing they want to occupy, i n what kind of areas, and for what reasons. The study w i l l also investigate the amount households are w i l l i n g to pay for i n n e r - c i t y housing. Restated more p r e c i s e l y , the thesis objective i s to answer f i v e sub-questions: 1) Who wants to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? 2) Where do people want to l i v e i n the inn e r - c i t y ? 3) In what kind of housing do people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? 4) How much are people w i l l i n g to pay for i n n e r - c i t y housing? 5) Why do people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? It i s necessary to determine not only the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households who l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y but also the kind of housing and i n n e r - c i t y areas i n which they want to l i v e because d i f f e r e n t areas and kinds of housing may appeal to d i f f e r e n t types of households. Indeed, the studies referenced i n the review of l i t e r a t u r e (chapter 2) indicate that this i s the case. The findings of t h i s thesis w i l l be of i n t e r e s t to persons a c t i v e l y involved i n developing i n n e r - c i t y housing (or contemplating doing so) and to persons responsible for making and administering p o l i c y regarding i n n e r - c i t y hous-ing (e.g. c i t y planners). Developers w i l l be interested i n knowing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households who comprise the market for i n n e r - c i t y hous-ing and the kind of housing and areas those households prefer since t h i s information could guide them i n planning developments which meet the needs of the market (and thus maximize the projects' l i k e l i h o o d of success). Knowing why households want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y could help them i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a marketing plan for t h e i r developments. To determine whether i n n e r - c i t y housing should be b u i l t , the developer would need to analyse the e x i s t i n g and future supply of the kind of housing desired i n the l o c a t i o n desired, which i s beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . The developer would also have to compare his production costs with the amount households are w i l l i n g to pay for i n n e r - c i t y housing. The amount households are w i l l i n g to pay i s considered i n this thesis but a comparison with production costs i s also beyond the th e s i s ' scope. Policy makers w i l l be interested i n the information this thesis presents because i t i s e s s e n t i a l that the i n n e r - c i t y housing market be understood i n formulating p o l i c y with respect to i n n e r - c i t y housing. Policy made without this understanding i s u n l i k e l y to be e f f e c t i v e . For example, the c i t y could take the p o s i t i o n that i t wants i n n e r - c i t y housing and then pass a bylaw requiring that a l l such housing be suitable for families with c h i l d r e n , but unless there was a market for such housing, no i n n e r - c i t y housing develop-ment would occur. The approach used i n t h i s study i s to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i n Vancouver through the use of a question-naire survey. To ar r i v e at general conclusions on the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing ( i . e . not s p e c i f i c to Vancouver), the r e s u l t s of the questionnaire survey are compared to those of other studies on th i s t o p i c . A review of the findings of extant studies i s presented i n chapter 2. In chapter 3, the methodology used i n the questionnaire survey (both data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis procedures) i s described i n d e t a i l . Chapters 4 to 8 present the r e s u l t s of the questionnaire survey, noting s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences from the findings of the studies reviewed i n chapter 2. In chapter 9 conclusions that can be drawn on the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i n general and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n Vancouver are presented. 1.2 Vancouver's Inner-city For the purposes of t h i s study Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y i s defined to comprise the downtown peninsula plus the False Creek development (south shore) and Fairview Slopes. Areas on the downtown peninsula include the downtown or central business d i s t r i c t , the West End, Yaletown-South Downtown, and B.C. Place. The location of these areas i s shown on Map A. A b r i e f discussion of each of these areas follows. -5-a West End MAP A: VANCOUVER INNER-CITY b Downtown i -6-a) Downtown and Yaletown-South Downtown The downtown and Yaletown-South Downtown are pri m a r i l y non-residential areas. R e t a i l and o f f i c e land uses predominate i n the downtown, an area of 2 approximately lh km . Adjoining downtown i s Yaletown-South Downtown, an 2 area of approximately 1 km comprised old warehouses, hotels and commercial bu i l d i n g s . These areas have had a small r e s i d e n t i a l population for many years, primarily lower-income persons l i v i n g i n rooming houses and ho t e l s . In 1981 the downtown area had a population of approximately 1600 persons 2 while Yaletown-South Downtown had approximately 1750 residents. It i s l i k e l y that r e s i d e n t i a l populations are growing i n these areas because of the i n c l u s i o n of dwelling units i n new o f f i c e buildings and the conversion of warehouses and other commercial buildings to housing. However, there has been a displacement of some low-income residents as a r e s u l t of the demoli-ti o n of older h o t e l s . b) B.C. Place There i s currently no r e s i d e n t i a l development at B.C. Place, the majority of 2 the 230-acre (0.92 km ) s i t e being vacant at present. This area, situated on the north shore of False Creek adjacent to Yaletown-South Downtown, w i l l be the s i t e of the Expo 86 World's F a i r ; the B.C. Place stadium i s currently under construction. 2 S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1983. Population and Dwelling Counts for Enum-eration Areas, 1981. Ottawa, Canada. B.C. Place has the p o t e n t i a l to become a major i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t i a l area. B.C. Place Corporation, the p r o v i n c i a l crown corporation responsible for 3 development of the area, has prepared a concept plan for the s i t e which designates approximately 80 acres for r e s i d e n t i a l and mixed r e s i d e n t i a l -commercial development, capable of supporting more than 12,000 u n i t s . It was proposed that a minimum of 15% of the units be capable of accommodating chil d r e n and that approximately 15% be non-market u n i t s . This plan was not well received by the Cit y of Vancouver, which favours a lower density and a larger proportion of family and non-market housing. The Cit y Planning 4 Department's plan for the area c a l l s for only 7500 to 8000 un i t s , approxi-mately 42% of which would be non-market u n i t s . Negotiations between the two parties are continuing. The majority of the r e s i d e n t i a l development on the s i t e w i l l not occur u n t i l a f t e r the World's F a i r i n the summer of 1986. B.C. Place Corporation expects development to depend on many fa c t o r s , including the proportion of private and public development, market demand, f i n a n c i a l conditions, and government p o l i c y . 3 B.C. Place Corporation. 1982. B.C. Place report no. 2 The B r i t i s h Columbia Place Concept Plan. Vancouver, B.C. 4 Vancouver Ci t y Planning Department, May 1982. North and East False Creek: Development Objectives for B.C. Place. Vancouver, B.C^ -8-c) The West End 2 The West End i s an established r e s i d e n t i a l area of 480 acres (1.92 km ) situated between the downtown and Stanley Park. Apartments are the dominant form of housing, with h i g h - r i s e units out numbering low-rise units by a 3:1 r a t i o . O v e r 90% of West End residents rent t h e i r housing. In 1981 the West End had a population of approximately 36,615. As shown on Table 1-1, there was a s l i g h t decline i n the population of the area from 1971 to 1976 but the population grew marginally from 1976 to 1981. The number of house-holds has grown from approximately 22,735 in 1971 to 24,800 i n 1976 and 25,925 in 1981. The number of households increased while the population declined i n the 1971 to 1976 period because of a decline i n the number of persons per household. This decline i n household size has continued from 1976 to 1981, with 1.4 being the average number of persons per household i n 1981. The West End i s characterized by the small number of households with c h i l d -ren; as shown on Table 1-1, over 90% of the households are c h i l d l e s s . This factor i s r e f l e c t e d i n the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the population. In 1981, only approximately 3.1% of the population was under 15 years of age, a decline from 5.5% i n 1971. The population i s dominated by two age groups: 5 S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1982. Selected Population, Dwelling, Household and Census Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for Census Tracts, 1981. Ottawa, Canada. -CI-TABLE 1-1: Description of Inner-city Residential Areas, 1971-1981 FALSE FAIRVIEW WEST END CREEK SLOPES 1981 1976 1981 1981 1981 Population 36,615 36,030 36,885 2570 1985 (1100) Number of Households 25 925 24,800 22,735 1175 1110 Family (%) 24% 27% 33% 58% 35% Non-family (%) 76% 73% 67% 42% 65% Size of Household 1 person (%) 68% 64% 52% 38% 52% 2 person 27% 29% 39% 32% 31% 3 person 4% 4% 7% 15% 10% 4 or more persons 1% 2% 2% 15% 7% Average 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.8 Households by Number of Children No children 93% 92% 91% 61% 83% 1 Child 5% 5% 6% 20% 10% 2 Children 1% 2% 2% 15% 5% 3 or more Children 1% 1% 4% 2% Residents by Age Under 15 years 3% 4% 6% 21% 10% 15-19 years 2% 3% 3% 5% 6% 20-24 years 10% 12% 16% 6% 14% 25-34 years 30% 26% 24% 24% 33% 35-44 years 14% 11% 10% 19% 16% 45-54 years 11% 11% 11% 8% 8% 55-64 years 11% 12% 11% 8% 8% 65 and older 19% 21% 18% 9% '7% Dwelling Units 25,925 24,800 22,735 1175 1110 Rented 93% 94% 96% 65% 84% Owned 7% 6% 4% 35% 16% Single-Detached 1% 1% 2% 0 18% Apt. <. 5 storeys 26% 99% 97% 28% 62% Apt. ^ 5 storeys 73% 55% 5% Other 1% 1% 1% 17% 15% 2 Area (km ) 1.94 .38 .42 Note: Percentages may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. Source for 1981 data i s Selected Population, Dwelling, Household and Census Family Characteristics, S t a t i s t i c s Canada cat. no. 95-931. Sources for 1976 data i s S t a t i s t i c s Canada cat. 95-828 and for the 1971'data, s t a t i s t i c s Canada cat. 95-728. No 1971 or 1976 data i s provided for False Creek because i t did not exist as a reside n t i a l area u n t i l after 1976. No data i s provided for Fairview Slopes for 1971 or 1976 because of a change in census tract boundaries from 1971 and 1976 to 1981. The demographic characteristics for Fairview Slopes in 1981 are for census tract 49.02, an area which i s larger than just Fairview Slopes. Shown in brackets are the number of persons and households in the enumeration areas comprising only Fairview Slopes (source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1983 Population and Dwelling Unit Counts for Enumeration). Other demographic characteristics are not available at the enumeration area l e v e l . -10-25 to 34 year olds and those 65 year and older. In the 1971 to 1981 period, there was a decline i n the 20 to 24 year old age cohort while the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 year old groups grew. The West End population i s also charac-t e r i z e d by the large proportion of non-family households. In 1981, the C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department estimated that the area had a p o t e n t i a l for 2380 ad d i t i o n a l u n i t s . b d) False Creek The False Creek development i s an area of approximately 96 acres (0.38 km ) located on the south shore of False Creek, opposite B.C. Place and the downtown peninsula. The majority of housing i n the area i s low-rise apart-ment buildings and townhousing. The Census data for 1981 indicates that 65% of the households are renters; however, t h i s figure also includes co-op residents. Of False Creek's 1175 residences i n 1981, 250 were co-op u n i t s . The 1981 population of the area was 2570 ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1982) U n t i l 1970 the False Creek area was an i n d u s t r i a l area; between 1970 and 1976 i t was redeveloped as a r e s i d e n t i a l area, with considerable federal and municipal government involvement. The objective i n developing the area was to create a community with a v a r i e t y of household types (e.g. s i n g l e s , couples, couples with c h i l d r e n ) , income groups, and housing types (e.g. co-ops, senior c i t i z e n housing, market condominiums, low and middle-density apartments, and townhouses, and even f l o a t homes). 6 City of Vancouver Planning Department. 1981. Quarterly Review, Vol. 8, No. 1. -11-In contrast to the West End, the majority of False Creek households (58%) are family households and approximately 39% have at least one c h i l d . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y the average household size i s larger than i n the West End (2.1 persons compared to 1.4). In terms of age d i s t r i b u t i o n , the largest age cohort i s the 25 to 34 year old group; compared to the West End, False Creek has a smaller percentage of residents 20 to 24 years and 65 years and over, but a larger percentage of 35 to 44 year olds. In 1981, the City of Vancouver Planning Department estimated that the False Creek area had the p o t e n t i a l for 2140 a d d i t i o n a l units (Quarterly Review, v o l . 8, no. 1). e) F a i r v i e w Slopes 2 Fairview Slopes i s an area of approximately 25 blocks (0.42 km ) located on the slope overlooking the False Creek development. In the early 1970s i t was a small community of approximately 500 people l i v i n g i n old houses interspersed with warehouses and o f f i c e s . In recent years Fairview Slopes has been redeveloped into an area of luxury townhousing, and by 1981 the population had grown to approximately 1100 people (670 households).^ 7 S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1983. Population and Dwelling Unit Counts for Enumeration Areas, 1981, Ottawa. Note that the demographic data on Table 1-1 i s for a census t r a c t which includes Fairview Slopes and the area east as far as Main Street. The en t i r e census t r a c t (4901) had a population of approximately 1985, comprising 1110 households. -12-Fairview Slopes i s s i m i l a r to the West End i n that small households without c h i l d r e n predominate (though not to the same extent as i n the West End). The 25 to 34 year old age category predominates i n th i s area to a greater extent than i n the other i n n e r - c i t y areas, comprising approximately 32.5% of the population. This area i s also generally seen as having higher-income residents that the other i n n e r - c i t y areas. In January 1981, the Cit y Planning Department estimated that t h i s area had the pote n t i a l for 1350 add i t i o n a l units (Quarterly Review, v o l . 8, no. 1). 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations The study focuses on two markets for i n n e r - c i t y housing: people who l i v e i n the suburbs and people who currently l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . It does not consider i n d e t a i l people who l i v e elsewhere, such as between the suburbs and the i n n e r - c i t y , i n a r u r a l area, i n some other c i t y , outside the coun-try, e tc. The head of the household was asked to complete the questionnaire. As a r e s u l t several markets for i n n e r - c i t y housing could not be adequately t e s t -ed. For example, h i s t o r i c a l l y young people have l e f t the family households i n the suburbs to form independent households i n the i n n e r - c i t y . Because the questionnaire was directed to the head of household, asking his/her moving expectations, i t was not possible to i d e n t i f y the proportion of suburban households with young persons leaving to form independent house-holds i n the i n n e r - c i t y . -13-Also, i t was assumed that i n most cases the head of the household and his/her spouse would be i n the same age bracket. If this was not the case i n a large number of cases, the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents would not be representative of the population. S i m i l a r l y , i f the head of the household and his/her spouse had d i f f e r e n t opinions on moving expectations, s a t i s f a c -t i o n with housing, etc., the survey r e s u l t s would not be representative of the population. The suburban sample was not drawn from the population of a l l suburban households but from an area of Richmond. The conclusions with respect to suburban households are v a l i d only to the extent that the area of Richmond used i s representative of suburban Vancouver. The area may not be represent-ative to the extent that Richmond has a higher population to employment r a t i o and a higher average household income than other Vancouver suburban communities. -14-2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE In planning the current research, a number of e x i s t i n g studies which r e l a t e to the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing were reviewed. The studies d i f f e r i n focus and scope making d i r e c t comparison at times d i f f i c u l t . Some studies focus on e x i s t i n g i n n e r - c i t y residents, seeking to determine t h e i r l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with i n n e r - c i t y l i v i n g , reasons for l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y , and future mobility plans (e.g. Forbes et a l , 1970), while others seek to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those households not cur-r e n t l y l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y but who would consider moving there (e.g. F l a v i n , 1981); another study investigates both current and p o t e n t i a l inner-c i t y residents (Michelson, 1977). Studies on household mobility i n general (e.g. Rossi, 1980; Speare et a l , 1975) were also reviewed. The studies also d i f f e r i n that some are concerned with the market for ownership housing while others are interested i n r e n t a l housing. The studies also.vary i n scope, with some studying the market for downtown housing, which comprises only a part of the i n n e r - c i t y , while others inves-tigate the market for c e n t r a l c i t y housing, an area broader than j u s t the i n n e r - c i t y . Also, i n n e r - c i t y areas d i f f e r i n character. For example, within Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y , the West End d i f f e r s considerably from False Creek i n terms of density, proximity to downtown, and so on. Because of the presence of the ocean and adjacent parks, Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y as a whole also d i f f e r s from that of c i t i e s such as Calgary and Toronto. F i n a l l y , the difference between American and Canadian i n n e r - c i t i e s i s s i g -n i f i c a n t . American i n n e r - c i t i e s are, i n general, i n much worse shape than Canadian i n n e r - c i t i e s . Also, most studies of American c i t i e s are concerned with the return of the whites to the i n n e r - c i t y ; this r a c i a l aspect i s not a concern i n Canadian studies. Despite these d i f f e r e n c e s , a picture of who comprises the market for inner-c i t y housing and for what reasons does emerge from the studies reviewed. They also give some i n d i c a t i o n of the type of housing desired and how much households are w i l l i n g to pay for such housing. In the sections which follow the findings of the extant studies are reviewed. 2.1 Households Who Want to Live i n the Inner-city Inner-city housing appears to appeal primarily to c h i l d l e s s households. These households are of two basic types — single persons, and c h i l d l e s s couples. In a study of persons interested i n moving to downtown Calgary, F l a v i n found that 51% of single respondents would consider doing so compared to 30% of c h i l d l e s s couples and only 25% of households with c h i l d r e n . When asked i f t h e i r households would be d i f f e r e n t i f they l i v e d downtown, 13 of 44 households with ch i l d r e n indicated they would be c h i l d l e s s . Black (1980) i d e n t i f i e d households interested i n renovating ce n t r a l c i t y housing as small households, with few i f any c h i l d r e n . Michelson (1977) found a disproportionate number of current i n n e r - c i t y households with c h i l d r e n wanted to move out of Toronto's i n n e r - c i t y while those without ch i l d r e n were over-represented i n those who wanted to move within the i n n e r - c i t y . Gallagher (1981) concluded that the market for a condominium project i n Vancouver's West End was singles and couples without c h i l d r e n . E a r l i e r West End studies ( i . e . Forbes et a l , 1970; McAfee, 1966) i d e n t i f i e d a lack of child r e n as being a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the West End popula-t i o n . It appears that the market has changed l i t t l e i n th i s respect over the past 20 years. In a study of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i n Philadelphia, Rapkin and Grigsby (1960) concluded that the target market was persons s i m i l a r to current i n n e r - c i t y residents, 94% of whom had no ch i l d r e n . Abu-Lughod ( i n Foote et a l - 1960) also reached t h i s conclusion with respect to the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing. In contrast to other studies, i n t h e i r study of Vancouver's False Creek area, Vischer-Skaburskis Planners (1980) found that a s i g n i f i c a n t propor-t i o n of the households contained a c h i l d (43%). Further, they found that these households were very s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n ; how-ever, i t should be noted that many of these households l i v e i n subsidized housing with housing cost l i k e l y being a major determinant of why they l i v e i n False Creek. Also, False Creek was designed with provision for families with children through the i n c l u s i o n of an elementary school and playground. In terms of age, the l i t e r a t u r e indicates that the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i s comprised of several groups: 1) e l d e r l y singles or couples whose c h i l d r e n , i f they had any, have grown and l e f t home (these people are often r e f e r r e d to as "empty-nesters") -17-2) young and middle-aged couples who have decided not to have c h i l -dren or have postponed doing so 3) young singles and couples, many forming t h e i r f i r s t households independent of the family household. In t h e i r 1970 study of West End tenants, Forbes et a l concluded that the population was bimodal, comprised of e l d e r l y persons and young singles or couples. In her 1981 study of the market for West End condominiumns, Gallagher noted that there had been a growth i n the middle-aged population i n the West End since 1970, a r e s u l t of the aging of the baby-boom genera-tion and the development of ownership housing i n the area. F l a v i n found that persons who would consider moving to downtown Calgary were primarily those under 35 years of age; she did not f i n d that "empty-nesters" would consider moving downtown. Other studies do i d e n t i f y empty-nesters as com-p r i s i n g part of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing, including those by Abu-Lughod (1960) and Solomon (1980). Such households move to the i n n e r - c i t y to obtain dwelling units that are smaller, require less maintenance than t h e i r single-detached houses, and provide a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n , accessible to shop-ping, parks and f r i e n d s . Another d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature of i n n e r - c i t y households i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s the small number of persons per household (e.g. Simmons, 1974; Forbes et a l , 1970; McAfee, 1966). This, of course, i s l a r g e l y a r e s u l t of the lack of children i n i n n e r - c i t y households, as has been discussed. Also contributing i s the age of i n n e r - c i t y r esidents. Seniors no longer have children l i v i n g with them and are often single-person households (widows or -18-widowers). S i m i l a r l y , many households comprised of young, adults are s i n -gle-person households. In terms of employment, the l i t e r a t u r e indicates that persons who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y are primarily p r o f e s s i o n a l s , c l e r i c a l workers, or a administrator-managers who work i n the downtown and persons who do not work at a l l ( i . e . r e t i r e d persons). Black i d e n t i f i e d persons renovating ce n t r a l c i t y housing as middle to upper-income, white-collar professionals or b u s i -ness people, while Michelson found that downtown residents were generally more educated and more l i k e l y to be professionals than were suburban r e s i -dents. Studies of Vancouver's West End (Forbes et a l ; McAfee) have i d e n t i f i e d professionals and the other "white-collar" occupations ( c l e r i c a l and mana-g e r i a l ) as accounting for the majority of the West End population. Both studies also i d e n t i f i e d sales employees as comprising a s i g n i f i c a n t propor-ti o n of the population. McAfee i d e n t i f i e d "service and r e c r e a t i o n " as an employment category of some importance as well while Forbes et a l i d e n t i f i e d s k i l l e d labour as comprising approximately 20% of the employed respondents. The income of i n n e r - c i t y households varies with t h e i r employment type, with professionals having high household incomes and c l e r i c a l and sales workers having lower incomes. Almost a l l extant studies reviewed indicate that the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i s primarily households already l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y or i n immediately adjacent areas. James (1980) found that i n the United States i n -19-i 1975 and 1976, only 18% of the households purchasing c e n t r a l c i t y housing had moved from the suburbs while 70% had relocated within the same c e n t r a l c i t y . In a study of two i n n e r - c i t y areas i n Washington, D.C, Gale (1980) found that three-quarters of the residents had moved from within the inner-c i t y . A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n was found by Vischer-Skaburskis Planners i n t h e i r study of Vancouver's False Creek. In Toronto, Michelson found that only 5% of h i s suburban respondents would move downtown and concluded that downtown residences are normally f i l l e d by those already downtown, or moving there from adjacent intermediate areas or from out of town. Forbes et a l also i d e n t i f i e d persons who previously l i v e d out of town as a s i g n i f i c a n t segment of the i n n e r - c i t y population; these households s e t t l e i n a c e n t r a l area, such as Vancouver's West End, u n t i l they e s t a b l i s h where they want to l i v e i n the c i t y . In terms of tenure, the extant studies indicate that the market for inner-c i t y housing i s p r i m a r i l y renters. Michelson found that v i r t u a l l y a l l residents of downtown r e n t a l apartments previously l i v e d i n another r e n t a l apartment while somewhat more than h a l f of the residents of single detached houses downtown had moved to ownership housing from a r e n t a l u n i t . F l a v i n found that renters i n Calgary were much more l i k e l y to consider moving downtown than owner-occupiers while Gallagher found that of the condominium residents she surveyed, 60% were previously renters. -20-2.2 Housing People Want to Occupy in the Inner-city The l i t e r a t u r e indicates that households desire dwelling units with two bedrooms or more. F l a v i n found that 55% of the households who would con s i -der moving to downtown Calgary wanted two-bedroom units compared to only 27% who wanted one-bedroom u n i t s . Other studies also indicate that many inner-c i t y residents are d i s s a t i s f i e d with the small si z e of t h e i r units and that t h i s may be a reason for households moving within the i n n e r - c i t y ; Forbes et a l found that dwelling unit s i z e was the most-given complaint by West End apartment dwellers, although only a small proportion would leave the West End for t h i s reason. Michelson's study of downtown Toronto apartment dwell-ers yielded s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . General studies of mobility (e.g. Rossi, Spearne et a l ) found that an increase i n dwelling unit size and q u a l i t y are common reasons for moving. In terms of the kind of unit desired, the l i t e r a t u r e indicates demand for both apartment and townhouse units and for both r e n t a l and ownership u n i t s . F l a v i n found that the majority of the respondents who would consider moving to downtown Calgary wanted to l i v e i n some form of apartment b u i l d i n g , with townhousing being favoured by households with c h i l d r e n . She also found that 38% of the respondents who would consider moving downtown would rent com-pared to 33% who would buy and 28% who didn't know what form of tenure they wanted. Michelson found a large proportion of the downtown renters wanted to move to ownership housing and many other studies have i d e n t i f i e d the desire to move to ownership housing from r e n t a l housing as a primary reason for moving (e.g. Spearne et a l ; Sabagh et a l , 1971; Simmons). -=21-2.3 How Much Households Are Willing to Pay for Inner-city Housing Flavin's study i n Calgary was the only study reviewed which dealt s p e c i f i -c a l l y with the amount households w i l l spend on i n n e r - c i t y housing. She found that only 48% of those who would consider renting downtown would pay $400 or more per month, this amount being the average rent for a one-bedroom downtown apartment i n downtown Calgary i n 1981. S i m i l a r l y , only 25% of those who would consider buying downtown would spend $700 or more per month, the estimated carrying cost of a one-bedroom condominium i n downtown Cal-gary i n 1981. Several studies found that housing cost was a major factor i n determining where households l i v e . Both Michelson and Forbes et a l found that r i s i n g housing costs would be a major factor causing i n n e r - c i t y r e s i -dents to move. Forbes et a l also found housing cost was the most important factor i n the choice of unit and apartment b u i l d i n g within the West End. Reasonable rents were also an often mentioned reason for choosing to l i v e i n False Creek (Vischer-Skaburskis). 2.4 Why Households Want to Live in the Inner-city The l i t e r a t u r e indicates that households want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y primarily due to i t s access to downtown because of i t s employment and entertainment opportunities. B e l l (1968) claims people who l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y have chosen "careerism" and/or "consumerism" as l i f e s t y l e choic es, while those who l i v e i n the suburbs have chosen "familism". Forbes et a l found that the most often mentioned reason for l i v i n g i n the West End was convenience to work and downtown. F l a v i n found that access to shops, entertainment, and workplace were the most often mentioned reasons for con--22-si d e r i n g l i v i n g i n downtown Calgary, while Michelson found that downtown residents, regardless of t h e i r type of housing, rate l o c a t i o n as the most important c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r choice of housing. Vischer-Skaburskis found that access to work was a primary reason for choosing to l i v e i n False Creek. In a study conducted by the Downtown Idea Exchange (1979) i n Dallas, Texas the following factors were given as factors that would increase i n t e r e s t i n l i v i n g downtown: 1) a b i l i t y to walk to work 2) a b i l i t y to walk to good eating f a c i l i t i e s 3) a b i l i t y to walk to shopping 4) free transportation to work Simmons (1966) notes that access to work i s not a factor that a t t r a c t s households from the suburbs to move to the i n n e r - c i t y but that i t acts as a constraint i n s e l e c t i n g a r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n ; hence, i t i s a factor that keeps current i n n e r - c i t y residents, many of whom work downtown, from leav-ing the i n n e r - c i t y . He suggests that access to s o c i a l amenities i s of more concern to households who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y than access to work. In Vancouver, access to parks and the waterfront also appears to be an important reason for wanting to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . Closeness to parks and the beach was i d e n t i f i e d as the second most-often-mentioned reason for choosing to l i v e i n the West End by Forbes et a l , and Vischer-Skaburskis i d e n t i f i e d access to parks and the seawall as an important determinant of why False Creek residents chose to l i v e there. -23-The l i t e r a t u r e indicates that a major reason households are interested i n l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y i s because of the increase i n two-income-earner households. Alonso (1980) states that 65% of American women are i n white-c o l l a r jobs, many working i n downtown o f f i c e s , compared to 43% of men and that women place a greater emphasis on access to work and services than men. Further, he states that with more women working t h e i r wishes gain weight i n family decisions. Michelson also found that women were more concerned with access to work than men and that households who moved downtown from the suburbs shortened t h e i r commuting time considerably. Solomon claims that access to l e i s u r e f a c i l i t i e s i s more important when both partners i n a couple work because there i s less l e i s u r e time and so such time must be used e f f i c i e n t l y . Another reason suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e for people wanting to l i v e i n the inn e r - c i t y r e l a t e s to the type of housing a v a i l a b l e . Inner-city housing generally requires l i t t l e maintenance, not having yards and with b u i l d i n g maintenance done by a maintenance firm. Alonso observed that with both partners i n a couple working there i s less time for household maintenance. Lipton (1980) noted that c h i l d l e s s households have less help for chores associated with suburban l i v i n g , such as lawn-cutting. Through use of time-budgeting studies, Michelson found that residents of downtown apartments i n Toronto spend less time on housework than residents of the suburbs and downtown houses. Solomon concluded that empty-nesters l i k e low-maintenance housing because they are not p h y s i c a l l y able to do the maintenance associat-ed with suburban l i v i n g . -24-Another reason Solomon gives for people choosing to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y i s that i t allows for a v a r i e t y of l i f e s t y l e s . He says there i s a trend towards greater emphasis on the i n d i v i d u a l and a greater legitimacy accord-ed to a va r i e t y of l i f e s t y l e s . Further, he says the r e n t a l form of tenure, t y p i c a l of i n n e r - c i t y housing, i s better suited to people with changing l i f e s t y l e s than that associated with suburban l i v i n g ( i . e . ownership). -2 5-3.0 S T U D Y M E T H O D O L O G Y Survey data was c o l l e c t e d to answer the following f i v e questions concerning the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing i n Vancouver: 1) Who wants to l i v e i n Vancouver's inner-city? 2) Where do people want to l i v e i n the inn e r - c i t y ? 3) What kind of housing do people want to occupy i n the in n e r - c i t y ? 4) How much are households w i l l i n g to pay for i n n e r - c i t y housing? 5) Why do people want to l i v e i n the inner-city? The survey data was c o l l e c t e d by means of self-administered mailed ques-tionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d to a sample of current Vancouver i n n e r - c i t y r e s i -dents and to a sample of suburban residents i n the Vancouver area. Copies of the questionnaires and covering l e t t e r used are included as Appendices A, B and C. The questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d on a household basis ( i . e . one per household), with the head of the household as the intended respondent. The sections which follow i n this chapter provide d e t a i l s on the sampling procedure, as well as a d e s c r i p t i o n of the data analysis methodology. -26-3.1 Sampling Procedure 3.1.1 Inner-city Sample The population for the i n n e r - c i t y sample was a l l households within the area defined for the purpose of this study as the Vancouver i n n e r - c i t y . A systematic, s t r a t i f i e d sample was drawn from this population, using Section 3 of the 1981 Ci t y of Vancouver Ci t y Directory^ as the sample frame. Sec-t i o n 3 i s organized by street name, l i s t i n g the names of the occupants of every c i v i c address. The sample was systematic i n that every "nth" name was chosen from the l i s t of names and addresses i n the d i r e c t o r y . The sample was s t r a t i f i e d i n that three samples were a c t u a l l y produced — one each for the West End, False Creek, and Fairview Slopes. The f i r s t step i n producting the samples was to i d e n t i f y the approximate number of households i n each of the three i n n e r - c i t y areas: # of Households, 1982 8 West End 26,500 False Creek 1,400 Fairview Slopes 1,000 7 1981 Vancouver, B.C. Ci t y Directory. B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s . R.L. Polk & Co. Ltd.: Vancouver, B.C. 8 Estimated with assistance from the C i t y of Vancouver Planning Depart-ment and the False Creek Development Group. Subsequent to these estimates having been made, the 1981 census figures became ava i l a b l e . The estimates and the Census figures f o r the West End were very close, reasonably close for False Creek , and far apart for Fairview Slopes. -27-Based on these estimates, every 30th name was drawn from the l i s t of West End households i n the c i t y d i r e c t o r y , while every other name was drawn from the l i s t s of False Creek and Fairview Slopes households. This procedure was used so that samples of a s i m i l a r size would r e s u l t for each area. Based on a response rate of between 15% and 20%, close to 100 respondents were expected for each area, which would f a c i l i t a t e comparison between the r e s u l t s for the three areas. The sampling procedure resulted i n a l i s t of households numbering approxi-mately 860 for the West End, approximately 430 for False Creek, and only approximately 150 for Fairview Slopes. Evidently the estimated number of households i n the West End was very close to the number l i s t e d i n the directory while the estimated number of False Creek and Fairview Slopes households greatly exceeded the number i n the d i r e c t o r y . This was not sur p r i s i n g because of the new housing development i n False Creek and F a i r -view Slopes shortly before, during, and a f t e r the data for the direc t o r y was c o l l e c t e d . To supplement the l i s t of False Creek and Fairview Slopes households, these areas were surveyed on foot and, where new buildings were observed the names of the occupants were sampled on the same basis as from the di r e c t o r y ( i . e . every other name). On these walks through False Creek and Fairview Slopes the l i s t of names and addresses selected from the di r e c t o r y was checked for accuracy where possible. (Names and addresses were checked against those l i s t e d on apartment and townhouse intercom systems.) This was done because in the pre-test conducted i n A p r i l 1982, approximately 7% of the question--28-naires were returned undeliverable from these areas either because the addressee had moved, the building had been demolished, or for some other reason. This problem was particularly acute in Fairview Slopes, which was undergoing considerable re-development. Names and addresses of the West End sample were not checked because with the large number of questionnaires mailed i t was anticipated that there would be a sufficient number of West End respondents, even i f 7% were returned undeliverable. The size of the sample also made physical checking impractical. The final number of questionnaires mailed to inner-city residents was 495 in False Creek, 200 in Fairview Slopes, and 858 in the West End. 3.1.2 Suburban Sample The suburban sample was drawn from two contiguous neighbourhoods in South Richmond, called Broadmoor and South-central Richmond. Together these neighbourhoods had a total of 6946 households in 1981, according to the City 9 of Richmond Planning Department. This area was chosen because: a) i t is located far enough from the inner-city (approximately 12 miles) that residents who value access to downtown might move to the inner-city to reduce commuting time; 9 South Central Richmond Neighbourhood Plan Summary and Broadmoor Neigh-bourhood Plan. Richmond Planning Department, 1981. -29-b) t y p i c a l of the Vancouver suburbs, the majority of the housing i n the area i s single-family detached dwellings, however there are also some apartment buildings on the main thoroughfares; c) i t i s not a newly developed r e s i d e n t i a l area, therefore, not a l l of the residents w i l l have just recently moved into t h e i r homes and so not be interested i n moving. The l o c a t i o n of the suburban sample area i n r e l a t i o n to the i n n e r - c i t y i s shown on Map B. The suburban sample was drawn i n the same manner as the i n n e r - c i t y sample. Every 14th name was selected from the suburban area households l i s t e d i n the 1980-81 Lower Fraser Valley D i r e c t o r y . ^ This procedure was used to produce a sample of approximately 500 suburban house-holds that would y i e l d close to 100 respondents based on a response rate of between 15% and 20%. The r e s u l t of this sampling procedure was a l i s t of 487 suburban households. 10 Lower Fraser Valley Directory, 1980-81. B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s , R.L. Polk & Co. Ltd.: Vancouver, B.C. MAP B: SUBURBAN SAMPLE AREA LOCATION - 3 0 -3.2 Survey Response Table 3-1 summarizes the response to the questionnaire. Of the 2050 ques-tionnaires mailed on May 15, 1982, 263 (12.8%) were completed and returned within 10 days. In addition, 148 questionnaires (7.0%) were undeliverable. To stimulate response, between May 26 and 31 telephone c a l l s were placed to a l l of the remaining p o t e n t i a l respondents. Two attempts were made to contact each p o t e n t i a l respondent with the f i r s t c a l l made between 6 and 10 p.m. and the second between noon and 6 p.m. A number of the people contacted by telephone stated they had not received the questionnaire but would be interested i n completing i t . As a r e s u l t , an add i t i o n a l 68 were mailed, r a i s i n g the t o t a l number mailed to 2118. The telephoning appeared to have the desired e f f e c t . By June 6, the number of respondents had r i s e n to 565, representing 26.7% of the questionnaires mailed. The questionnaires continued to come i n and by July 15, a t o t a l of 621 had been returned (492 i n n e r - c i t y , 129 suburban). Subtracting the i n c o r r e c t l y completed questionnaires (25), a t o t a l of 596 were used for the data analy-s i s (469 i n n e r - c i t y , 127 suburban). Of the i n n e r - c i t y respondents 188 were from False Creek, 59 from Fairview Slopes, and 220 from the West End. There were also two i n n e r - c i t y respondents whose s p e c i f i c r e s i d e n t i a l areas were undeterminable (they had removed the area code from th e i r questionnaires). TABLE 3-1: Summary of Data C o l l e c t i o n -Remailed as RF. TURNS Total M a i l e d a r e s u l t of T o t a l Returned by by F i n a l Unusable Usable AREA: May 15 Phone C a l l s M a i l e d U n d e l i v e r a b l e May 25 s June 6 ( J u l y 15) Returns Returns F a l s e Creek 495 10 505 6 87 170 193 5 188 (1.2%) (17.6%) (33.7%) (38.2%) (37.2%) F a i r v i e w Slopes 200 9 209 22 27 56 65 6 "59 (10.5%) (13.5%) (26.8%) (31.3%) (28.2%) West End 858 15 873 85 101 224 232 12 220 (9.7%) (11.8%) (25.7%) (26.6%) (25.2%) Unknown''' 1 2 2 0 2 I n n e r - c i t y T o t a l s 1553 34 1587 113 216 452 492 23 469 '' (7.1%) (13.9%) (28.5%) (31.0%) (29.6%) Richmond 497 34 531 35 47 114 129 2 127 (6.6%) (9.3%) (21.5%) (24.3%) (23.9%) •GRAND TOTAL 2050 68 2118 148 263 566 621 25 596 (7.0%) (12.8%) (26.7%) (29.3%) (28.1%) 1 Two i n n e r - c i t y respondents removed the area code from t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . -32-Of the four sub-samples (False Creek, Fairview Slopes, West End and Rich-mond), False Creek had the highest response rate (37.2%) while the Richmond sub-sample had the lowest (23.9%). The o v e r a l l response rate for the three i n n e r - c i t y areas was 29.6%. A possible explanation for the r e l a t i v e l y lower response rate from Richmond i s that suburban residents do not have the vested i n t e r e s t i n i n n e r - c i t y housing that i n n e r - c i t y residents have. 3.3 Data Analysis The data from the questionnaires was coded and put onto computer tape. SPSS ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences) was used to analyse the data. The data analysis was based on simple frequency and cross-tabulation tables. In the sections that follow, d e t a i l s are provided on the data analysis used to answer each of the questions outlined i n the introduction to this section. 3.3.1 Who Wants to Live i n the Inner-City? In answering t h i s question the f i r s t step was to i d e n t i f y the demographic and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of e x i s t i n g i n n e r - c i t y residents. Both census data and questionnaire survey r e s u l t s were used to accomplish t h i s . The s p e c i f i c demographic and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s considered were as follows: Demographic household si z e (number of persons per household) number of c h i l d r e n per household age of adult household members -33-Socio-economic gross annual household income - number of income earners per household occupation - work loc a t i o n monthly household expenditure housing tenure The analysis i n t h i s section was done with reference to frequency tables (e.g. the percentage of households with one, two, three, and four or more persons were i d e n t i f i e d ) . To i d e n t i f y who wants to continue l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y , respondents were asked i f they expected to move from t h e i r current residences sometime i n the future and i f so, where they expected to move. Those who ei t h e r did not expect to move or expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y were considered to be representative of people who would continue l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents who were l i k e l y to continue l i v i n g i n t h e i r current residences were i d e n t i f i e d by cross-tabulating the various demographic and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s against whether or not the respondent expected to move. For example, the size of household was cross-tabulated against the expectation of moving. Then the percentage of house-holds of one, two, three, and four or more persons who did not expect to move were compared. The same type of analysis was used to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n n e r - c i t y residents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y . -34-Respondents were also asked i f they would consider moving within the inner-c i t y . The demographic and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those who answered i n the a f f i r m a t i v e were then i d e n t i f i e d using the same type of analysis used to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n n e r - c i t y residents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y . It was o r i g i n a l l y intended to use the chi-square s t a t i s t i c to determine whether associations existed between household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the ex-pectation of moving, the expectation of moving within the i n n e r - c i t y , and whether households would consider moving to or within the i n n e r - c i t y . How-ever, some doubt arose as to the appropriateness of the chi-square test for this data. One problem often incurred was i n s u f f i c i e n t data (e.g. there were few i n n e r - c i t y households of three or more persons). This problem was p a r t i c u l a r l y evident for c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that included many categories (e.g. occupation). Because of these d i f f i c u l t i e s , the chi-square test was not used. I t should be noted that i n the analysis of r e s u l t s , instances where observations are based on a small number of cases have been pointed out. A l l of the foregoing analyses were used to determine who wants to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ; that i s , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the following respondents were considered: a) those who currently l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y b) those who do not expect to move from t h e i r current i n n e r - c i t y residences c) those who expect to move within the i n n e r - c i t y or would co n s i -der doing so - 3 5 -d) those who expect to move to the i n n e r - c i t y or would consider doing so 3.3.2 Where Do People Want to Live i n the Inner-city? This question was answered i n part by i d e n t i f y i n g the s p e c i f i c i n n e r - c i t y areas respondents e i t h e r expected to move to or within or would consider moving to or within. Also considered were where i n the i n n e r - c i t y suburban respondents would consider moving, the s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l of e x i s t i n g i n n e r - c i t y residents with t h e i r areas, and the areas from which the smallest percentage of i n n e r - c i t y respondents wanted to move. Data analysis was based on simple frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s . For example, the percentage of households who would consider moving to or within each of the i n n e r - c i t y areas were compared. 3.3.3 What Kind of Housing Do People Want to Occupy i n the Inner-city? The f i r s t step i n answering this question was to i d e n t i f y the kind of housing currently occupied by i n n e r - c i t y r esidents. The kind of housing desired by those households surveyed who expected to move within the inner-c i t y was then i d e n t i f i e d . Again, data analysis was based on frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s . For example, the number of households d e s i r i n g r e n t a l hous-ing was compared to the number d e s i r i n g ownership or co-op housing. The dwelling unit c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s considered were as follows: type (apartment, townhouse, etc.) size (number of bedrooms) amenities (private outdoor space, recreation f a c i l i t i e s , r e -served parking) tenure ( r e n t a l , ownership, co-op) - 3 6 -3.3.4 How Much Are People W i l l i n g to Pay for Inner-city Housing? This question was answered by asking the respondents who expected to move to or within the i n n e r - c i t y , how much they were w i l l i n g to pay for i n n e r - c i t y housing. Again, the r e s u l t s were analysed using frequency comparisons. 3.3.5 Why Do People Want to Live i n the Inner-city? To determine why people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y , respondents were asked to rate a set factors i n determining where they currently l i v e d as " e s s e n t i a l " , "very important", "important" or "not important". Also analysed were the reasons for moving given by respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y and by those who would consider moving to or within the i n n e r - c i t y . Again the analysis was based on simple frequency comparisons. For example, the percentage of households i d e n t i f y i n g each reason for moving to or within the i n n e r - c i t y were determined and compared. -37-4.0 WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN THE INNER-CITY As outlined i n the previous chapter, several methods were used to determine who wants to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . Considered were the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the following households: 1) those who currently l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y 2) those who do not expect to move from t h e i r current i n n e r - c i t y residences 3) those who expect to move within the i n n e r - c i t y 4) those who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y 5) those who would consider moving from the suburbs to the inner-c i t y In t h i s chapter, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each of these types of households are described, followed by a concluding section, which i s a synthesis of these f i v e separate analyses. -38-4.1 Current Inner-city Residents In this section the demographic and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the current i n n e r - c i t y residents are described. So that d i s t i n c t i v e character-i s t i c s of i n n e r - c i t y residents can be i d e n t i f i e d , they have been compared with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a sample of suburban residents. 1981 census data i s used to describe the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , however, the most recent census data a v a i l a b l e on socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s at the cen-sus tr a c t l e v e l i s for 1971. Because t h i s data i s so old, and i s only av a i l a b l e f or the West End i n any case (False Creek and Fairview Slopes being p r i m a r i l y non-residential areas i n 1971), analysis of the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s based on the survey r e s u l t s . This appears to be j u s t i f i e d given that there i s a very close match between the 1981 census figures and the survey r e s u l t s on the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (see Table 4-1). Note that on Table 4-1, two sets of survey r e s u l t s are presented for the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y : a set of unweighted r e s u l t s and a set of weighted r e -s u l t s . The unweighted r e s u l t s are a r r i v e d at simply by adding together the r e s u l t s f or each of the areas comprising the i n n e r - c i t y . The problem with these r e s u l t s i s that False Creek and Fairview Slopes households are over-represented i n the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y sample. While they comprise 40% and 13% res p e c t i v e l y of the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y respondents, they each comprise only approximately 4% of the t o t a l number of households i n the i n n e r - c i t y accord-ing to the 1981 census. To produce figures that more accurately r e f l e c t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n n e r - c i t y households as a whole, the r e s u l t s for the West End, False Creek, and Fairview Slopes have been weighted by the propor-ti o n of t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y households each area represents according to the TABLE 4-1: Demographic Characteristics: Survey Results and 1981 Census Data 1 Household S i z e : 1 person 2 persona 3 p e r s o n s 4 persons o r more Average no. of persons T o t a l Respondents Number of C h i l d r e n : 0 c h i l d r e n 1 c h i l d 2 c h i l d r e n 3 o r more c h i l d r e n T o t a l Respondents Survey S9I 35 5 2 1.5 218 Age of A d u l t R e s i d e n t s ! 18 25 35 45 55 24 y r s . 34 y r s . 44 y r s . 54 y r s . 64 y r s . 65 y r s . and o l d e r Average age of a d u l t s S t andard D e v i a t i o n ( y r s ) T o t a l Respondents 891 10 1 1 219 et 33 21 » \ 17 42.7 14.6 213 19B1 Census 661 27 4 1 931 5 1 12\ 32 15 11 11 19 42.6 15.4 FALSE CREEK Survey 311 31 20 IB 2.3 162 591 21 14 7 182 3% 25 33 23 1 17 44.5 13.0 162 1961 Census 361 32 15 15 611 20 15 4 et 32 25 11 11 12 41.7 13.6 FAIRVIEW SLOPES Survey 461 46 3 3 1.6 59 sot 17 3 0 l o t 47 19 22 2 37.1 11.7 59 1981 Census 521 31 10 7 631 10 5 2 16t 38 19 10 10 8 38.1 13.6 YALETOWN S.DOWNTWN 1961 CenBua 72t 25 2 2 971 2 1 0 l i t 22 12 15 14 26 46.5 15.5 INNER-CITY TOTAL Unweighted Survey 461 35 11 8 1.6 461 761 15 6 3 32 33 26 21 21 20 15 16 42.6 41.7 13.8 14.9 458 Weighted Survey > 56t 35 6 3 est 11 2 1 1961 Census 661 28 4 2 92t 6 2 1 121 32 16 11 11 18 42.5 15.1 SUBURBAN SAMPLE Survey 61 34 26 34 3.0 127 50t 21 21 9 2t 25 26 34 : 12 45.6 12.6 126 1961 CensuB l i t 30 20 40 401 21 27 12 lOt 26 25 15 15 42.5 13.7 1981 Census 28t 31 15 26 571 17 17 9 131 25 18 14 14 41.4 15.2 I 00 I P e r c e n t a g e s are p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l households and columns nay not t o t a l t o lOOt due to rounding. M i s s i n g cases are e x c l u d e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g the percentages f o r the survey r e -s u l t s . 1981 census data i s from S e l e c t e d P o p u l a t i o n , Dwell- ing, Household, and Census Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 1981, . S t a t i s t i c s Canada c a t . 95-931. The 1981 census f i g u r e s f o r F a i r v i e w Slopes are f o r an area e x t e n d i n g e a s t to Main S t . , which i s a l a r g e r area than that used f o r the survey. The d i f f e r e n c e s h o u l d not s i g n i f i c a n t -l y a f f e c t the r e s u l t s . No q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d i n Yaletown-S.Downtown. 7 To c a l c u l a t e the weighted i n n e r - c i t y r e s u l t s , the r e s u l t s f o r each i n n e r - c i t y area are m u l t i p l i e d by the p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y households each area r e p r e s e n t s , and then summed. The survey and census area f o r the suburban sample are not e x a c t l y the same. The survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of 1-person, households, households with no c h i l d r e n a 16-24 y r . o l d persons than does the census. The reason f o r t h i s i s l i k e l y a non-response systematic e r r o r . Census i s based o n a 1001 sample, compared t o a l o t survey sample at most. The census f i g u r e s are based on the p o p u l a t i o n 20 years of age'and over w h i l e the survey r e s u l t s are based on the percentage of respondents 18 years of age and o l d e r . -40-1981 census (.90, .04 and .04 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , and then summed.xx The r e s u l t s are shown i n the summary t a b l e as the "weighted survey r e s u l t s " . 4.1.1 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) Household Size The i n n e r - c i t y i s populated p r i m a r i l y by small households. Accord-in g to the 1981 census, 68% of i n n e r - c i t y households are one-person and the average household s i z e i s 1.4 persons. By way of compari-son, i n the suburban sample area only 11% of the households are one-person and 40% have four or more persons. The average household s i z e i s 3.1 persons f o r the suburban sample area and 2.6 persons f o r the GVRD as a whole. There are d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n n e r - c i t y areas; False Creek households are l a r g e r than West End or F a i r v i e w Slopes households with an average s i z e of 2.1 persons compared to 1.4 f o r the West End, 1.8 f o r F a i r v i e w Slopes, and 1.3 f o r Yaletown-South Downtown. False Creek a l s o has the lowest number of one-person households (38% compared to 72%, 68% and 52% r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r Yaletown-South Downtown, the West End and F a i r v i e w Slopes) and the highest percen-tage of households with four or more persons. The sma l l e s t house-holds are found i n Yaletown-South Downtown and the West End. 11 Yaletown-South Downtown represents approximately 2% of the i n n e r -c i t y households; however, no questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d to t h i s area. For more d e t a i l s on the weighting, see Appendix D. Source of census data: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, c a t . 95-937, 1981. Selected P o p u l a t i o n , D w e l l i n g , House-h o l d , and Census Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s -41-b) Number of C h i l d r e n per Household Of i n n e r - c i t y households, 92% have no c h i l d r e n compared to 40% of suburban households and 57% of households i n the GVRD as a whole. There are again d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n n e r - c i t y areas. In Fa l s e Creek, 39% of the households have at l e a s t one c h i l d compared to 17%, 6% and 3% r e s p e c t i v e l y of households i n F a i r v i e w Slopes, the West End, and Yaletown-South Downtown. I t i s evident from these r e s u l t s that F a l s e Creek households are more l i k e l y to i n c l u d e c h i l d r e n than other i n n e r - c i t y households. Even i n False Creek, however, the m a j o r i t y of the households (61%) have no c h i l d r e n . c) P o p u l a t i o n D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adult Residents The l a r g e s t age cohort of a d u l t i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s i s persons 25 to 34 years, comprising 32% of a d u l t i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s . There i s a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of the i n n e r - c i t y a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n over 65 years (18%) and 35 to 44 years (16%). The i n n e r - c i t y p o p u l a t i o n d i f f e r s from the suburban p o p u l a t i o n i n that i t has a grea t e r p r o p o r t i o n of s e n i o r s (65 years and o v e r ) . A l s o , although the 25 to 34 years cohort i s the l a r g e s t f o r both the suburban and i n n e r - c i t y p o p u l a t i o n s , i t i s l a r g e r i n the i n n e r -c i t y . Again there are d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n n e r - c i t y areas. Y a l e -town-South Downtown and the West End have a large p r o p o r t i o n of ad u l t r e s i d e n t s 65 years of age or older (26% f o r Yaletown-South Downtown and 19% f o r the West End compared to 12% and 8% f o r False -42-Creek and Fairview Slopes r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The largest age cohort for the West End, False Creek and Fairview Slopes i s the 25 to 34 years group. However, Fairview Slopes has a larger percentage of i t s adult population i n this group than the other areas (38% com-pared to 32%). It also has a higher percentage of i t s population i n the 18 to 24 years cohort. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y the average age of adult residents i n Fairview Slopes i s lower than for the other areas (38.1 years compared to 42.6 for the West End, 41.7 for False Creek, and 46.5 for Yaletown-South Downtown). 12 4.1.2 Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) Gross Annual Household Income The average income for i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed was lower than that of the suburban households ($28,200 p.a. compared to $39,600 p.a.); and over 35% of the i n n e r - c i t y households had gross annual incomes of less than $20,000 compared to only 13% of the suburban sample (See Table 4-2). 12 Note that percentage figures for the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y i n t h i s sec-ti o n are the weighted f i g u r e s . TABLE 4-2: Gross Annual Income of Survey Respondents FAIRVIEW INNER-CITY TOTAL SUBURBAN Gross Annual Household WEST END FALSE CREEK SLOPES Unweighted Weighted SAMPLE Income (1982): Less than $20,000 $20,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $59,999 $60,000 or more 38% 20 11 8 7 Jr' 29% 15 11 11 8 7 h28 13J 22% 7 17 14 7 9 f- 33 17J 32% 16 12 10 7 5^22 9J 36% 19 11 8 7 SJ-16 13% 9 8 11 9 2 4-, 12 ho 14J Mean Gross Annual Household Income $28,200 $33,400 $36,000 $31,400 $28,200 $39,600 Standard D e v i a t i o n $11,200 $14,500 $15,000 513,500 $11,300 $13,800 95% Confidence I n t e r v a l $17,-000. -39,400 $18,900 -47,900 $21,000 -51,000 $17,500 -44,900 $16,900 -39,500 $25,800 -56,500 Median $22,500 $27,500 $32,500 $27,500 $22,700 $37,600 Number of Cases (N) 213 172 58 434 434 114 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude mi s s i n g c a s e s ) . They may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. -44-Approximately h a l f the i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed had annual incomes l e s s than $25,000 compared to 22% of the suburban house-h o l d s . R e l a t i v e l y few i n n e r - c i t y households had high incomes ($60,000 or more p.a.): 5% compared to 14% of the suburban house-holds . The d i f f e r e n c e between i n n e r - c i t y and suburban households i s even more obvious i f upper-income households are considered to be those with gross annual incomes of at l e a s t $40,000; 50% of the suburban households were i n t h i s category compared to only 16% of the i n n e r - c i t y sample. A r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e percentage of i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed had what could be considered middle-incomes; 45% had annual incomes between $20,000 and $39,999, and 26% between $25,000 and $39,999. The percentage of suburban households w i t h incomes i n the $20,000 -$39,999 range was 37%, w i t h 28% i n the $25,000 -$39,999 range. Considerable d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between the areas comprising the i n n e r - c i t y . On average, of the households surveyed F a i r v i e w Slopes had the highest gross annual income ($36,000), while the West End households had the lowest ($28,200), w i t h False Creek f a l l i n g i n between ($33,400). F a i r v i e w Slopes had the l a r g e s t percentage of households w i t h high gross annual incomes; 17% had incomes of $60,000 or more (compared to 13% f o r F a l s e Creek and only 4% f o r the West End), and 33% had incomes of $40,000 or more (compared to 28% f o r False Creek and 15% f o r the West End). The West End was the area w i t h the l a r g e s t percentage of low-income households; 38% had incomes of l e s s than $20,000 compared to 29% f o r False Creek and 22% -45-for Fairview Slopes. Households with incomes of less than $25,000 comprised 58% of the West End households surveyed compared to 44% for False Creek and 29% for Fairview Slopes. With respect to middle-income, a l l three areas had a large and approximately equal percentage of households surveyed i n the $20,000 to $39,999 range (45%); however, the proportion of house-holds i n the $25,000 - $39,999 range was higher i n Fairview Slopes than i n False Creek or the West End (38% compared to 30% and 26% re s p e c t i v e l y ) . b) Number of Income Earners per Household Most of the i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed had only one income earner, whereas for the suburban sample, two-income households were the most common (see Table 4-3). This difference i s not s u r p r i s i n g given that the majority of i n n e r - c i t y households are one-person households, i n contrast to the small proportion of suburban house-holds so comprised. When only households of two or more persons were considered, the number of income earners per household was si m i l a r for the i n n e r - c i t y and suburban samples (approximately 50% in both areas). A comparison of the three i n n e r - c i t y areas surveyed revealed that the West End had a larger proportion of one-income-earner house-holds than False Creek or Fairview Slopes (77% compared to 56% and 61% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The West End also had the smallest average number of income-earners per household (1.25 compared to 1.36 for T A B L E 4-3: N u m b e r o f I n c o m e E a r n e r s i n S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s ' H o u s e h o l d s 1 WEST END FAIRVIEW INNER-CITY TOTAL SUBURBAN NUMBER OF INCOME EARNERS FALSE CREEK SLOPES Unweighted Weighted SAMPLE A l l Households: Households with 0 0% 6% 3% 3% 0 4 % 1 77 56 61 66 74% 44 " " 2 22 35 34 28 23 46 " " 3 or more 1 4 0 2 1 5 Mean 1.25 1.36 1.32 1.30 1.26 1.57 Standard D e v i a t i o n .46 .65 .54 .56 .46 .75 Number of Cases (N) 216 185 59 462 462 126 Households of Two^ or more persons: Households with 0 0 5% 3% 3% 1% 3% " " 1 44% 40 31 41 42 42 " " 2 52 50 66 53 52 49 " " 3 or more 2 5 0 3 2 7 Mean 1.57 1.55 1,64 1.56 1.57 1. 60 Standard D e v i a t i o n . 54 .67 .54 .61 .56 .66 N 89 125 32 247 246 118 due to rounding. exclude missing c a s e s ) . They may not t o t a l to 100% 2 For the weighted i n n e r - c i t y t o t a l , West End, F a l s e Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes r e s u l t s are weighted by the percentage of t o t a l households with two or more persons each area r e p r e s e n t s (84%, 8% and 6% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . - 4 7 -False Creek and 1.32 for Fairview Slopes). Again, t h i s i s not sur p r i s i n g since the West End has a larger proportion of one-person households than False Creek and Fairview Slopes. When only house-holds of two or more persons were considered, there was l i t t l e d ifference between the West End and False Creek i n terms of number of income earners per household (approximately 50% for each), how-ever, Fairview Slopes did have a larger proportion (66%), and a higher average number of income earners per household. c) Occupation of Income Earners Persons l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y f e l l into several major employment categories i n the survey r e s u l t s : p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l , c l e r i -c a l , manager-proprietor-administrator, sales, service, and re-t i r e d . Table 4-4 shows the percentage of households surveyed whose primary (highest) and secondary income earners were i n each of these categories. Together these categories comprised at least 80% of both the primary and secondary income earners. Not shown i n Table 3-4 i s the very small proportion of households whose income earners were employed i n the following categories: a g r i c u l t u r e -fishing-mining, manufacturing, construction, transportation-communications, materials handling, unemployed, student, other. The largest percentage of primary income earners i n the i n n e r - c i t y were employed as pro f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l workers (23%), followed by r e t i r e d persons (17%). There was also a r e l a t i v e l y large percen-tage whose primary income earners were c l e r i c a l workers (13%) or manager-proprietor-administrators (13%) . TABLE 4-4: Occupation of Survey Households' Income Earners 1 FAIRVIEW INNER-CITY TOTAL SUBURBAN Household's Hiahest Income WEST END FALSE CREEK SLOPES Unweighted Weighted SAMPLE Earner: 23% 19% P r o f e s s i o n a l - T e c h n i c a l 22% 33% . 47% 29% C l e r i c a l 14 8 7 11 13 3 Manager/Proprietor/Adminis. 13 21 14 16 13 24 Sales 7 8 12 8 7 13 S e r v i c e Worker 8 3 2 5 7 7 R e t i r e d 18 15 0 14 17 7 Sub-Total 82% 88% 81% 83% 80% 73% N 213 174 58 447 447 119 Household's Second Income Earner: 19 17 P r o f e s s i o n a l - T e c h n i c a l 18 41 30 31 C l e r i c a l 31 13 20 20 29 28 Manager/Proprietor/Adminis. 10 7 10 9 •10 15 Sales 6 10 10 9 6 9 S e r v i c e Worker 10 6 15 9 10 6 R e t i r e d 8 7 0 6 7 6 . Sub-Total 83% 84% 85% 84% 81% 81% N 49 71 20 140 140 65 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing c a s e s ) . Not shown are the employment c a t e g o r i e s r e p r e s e n t i n g only a very small percentage of i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s (e.g. manufacturing and a g r i c u l t u r a l workers). -49-Although the largest proportion of primary income earners i n a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas were pr o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l workers, the highest proportion of households i n t h i s category were i n Fairview Slopes (47%), followed by False Creek (33%) and the West End (22%). The West End had a larger proportion of primary income earners who were c l e r i c a l workers than i n the other areas (14% compared to 8% for False Creek and 7% for Fairview Slopes). Of note i s the difference between the three areas i n the percentage of r e t i r e d primary income earners. The West End and False Creek had a r e l a t i v e l y large proportion (18% and 15% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) while Fairview Slopes had none. S i m i l a r l y , 8% and 7% of second income earners i n the West End and False Creek r e s p e c t i v e l y were r e t i r e d compared to zero i n Fairview Slopes. There was a considerable difference between West End households and other i n n e r - c i t y households i n terms of occupation of second income earners. In West End households, most second income earners were c l e r i c a l workers, whereas for False Creek and Fairview Slopes, most second income-earners were pr o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l workers. The type of employment of i n n e r - c i t y respondents d i f f e r e d from sub-urban respondents i n that there was a higher percentage of suburban respondents i n the manager-proprietor-administrator category and a lower percentage i n the pr o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l group. Also, a l a r -ger percentage of primary income earners i n the i n n e r - c i t y were c l e r i c a l workers. In percentage terms, there were also more r e t i r e d - 5 0 -persons l i v i n g i n the in n e r - c i t y than i n the suburbs. This applied for both primary and secondary income earners. d) Work Location As shown on Table 4-5, i n 45% of the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed, the highest income earner worked downtown. S i m i l a r l y , i n 43% of the i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed with a second income earner, that income earner worked downtown. The table also shows that a large percentage of households had income earners working somewhere i n the C i t y of Vancouver but outside the i n n e r - c i t y . The greatest proportion of West End income earners worked i n the downtown area, i n contrast to False Creek and Fairview Slopes where the greatest proportion worked somewhere i n the City of Vancouver outside of the i n n e r - c i t y . However, downtown was the second most common work l o c a t i o n for Fairview Slopes income earners as a whole and for primary income earners from False Creek. The second most common work l o c a t i o n for second income earners from False Creek was somewhere i n the GVRD outside the C i t y of Vancouver, although a r e l a t i v e l y large proportion (23%) worked downtown. Included on Table 4-5 are the r e s u l t s of the Vischer-Skaburskis 13 study of False Creek with respect to work loc a t i o n of residents. 13 Vischer-Skaburskis Planners, 1980. False Creek Post Occupancy Eva l -uation, CMHC, Ottawa. TABLE 4-5: Work L o c a t i o n and Mode o f T r a v e l t o Work o f S u r v e y e d H o u s e h o l d s ' Income E a r n e r s ^ WEST END FALSE v - s 2 FAIRVIEW INNER-CIT Y TOTAL SUBURBAN CREEK STUDY SLOPES Unweighted Weighted SAMPLE W U K K i j U L A i J . U I N Highest (Primary) Income Earnei Downtown 47% 33% 28% 34% 40% 45% 23% Elsewhere i n I n n e r - c i t y 7 1 ^ A 4 5 6 1 Elsewhere i n c i t y of Vane. 21 38 D 4 43 31 22 21 Elsewhere i n GVRD 17 18 18 14 17 17 38 Other 8 9 -- 5 8 8 18 Number of Cases (N). 175 138 — 56 386 386 112 Second Income Earner: Downtown 46% 23% -- 29% 32% 43% 16% Elsewhere i n I n n e r - c i t y 13 0 — 5 5 12 3 Elsewhere i n c i t y of Vane. 26 48 -- 57 42 28 15 Elsewhere i n GVRD 11 24 -- 10 17 11 54 Other 4 5 — 0 4 4 12 N 46 62 -- 21 129 129 61 MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK Highest Income Earner: By Car 41% 59% 68% 60% 51% 42% 87%-By Bus 21 19 17 18 20 20 6 Walk 25 11 14 14 18 .. 23 1 Other ( b i c y c l e , t a x i , e t c . ) 6 4 2 4 5 6 5 Bus and Walk 6 5 — 5 6 6 0 N 176 143 — 57 378 378 111 Second Income Ea r n e r : By Car 37% 60% -- 62% 52% 38% 82% By Bus 24 23 — 29 24 24 12 Walk 28 14 — 5 17 26 3 Other ( b i c y c l e , t a x i , e t c . ) 2 0 — 5 2 2 3 Bus and Walk 7 2 — 0 3 6 0 N 46 65 -- 21 132 132 60 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing c a s e s ) . They may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. 2 V i s c h e r - S k a b u r s k i s Planners, 1980. F a l s e Creek Post Occupancy E v a l u a t i o n , CMHC, Ottawa. -52-That study also found that the largest proportion of False Creek primary income earners worked within the Cit y of Vancouver but outside the downtown, and that the second largest proportion worked i n downtown. The work l o c a t i o n of i n n e r - c i t y income earners d i f f e r e d from sub-urban income earners i n that f ar fewer suburban income earners worked i n downtown Vancouver or even i n other locations within the City of Vancouver. The largest percentage of suburban income earn-ers worked within the Greater Vancouver area but outside of the C i t y of Vancouver. e) Mode of Travel to Work The mode of t r a v e l to work by i n n e r - c i t y respondents was p r i m a r i l y by one of the following means: car, bus, or walking. While the largest proportion t r a v e l l e d to work by car (42% of primary income earners, 38% of secondary income earners), approximately 20% t r a -v e l l e d by bus, while a s l i g h t l y greater percentage walked (see Table 4-5). In contrast, the suburban respondents t r a v e l l e d to work almost e x c l u s i v e l y by car (87% of primary income earners, 82% of secondary income earners). -53-A comparison of the i n n e r - c i t y areas revealed that a smaller pro-p o r t i o n of West End income earners t r a v e l l e d to work by car than income earners from False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes. On a percen-tage b a s i s , more West End income earners walked to work. These r e s u l t s were not s u r p r i s i n g c o n s i d e r i n g the work l o c a t i o n of i n n e r -c i t y respondents; the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of West End income earners worked w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y area ( i n c l u d i n g downtown), which i s i n close p r o x i m i t y to t h e i r residences. The work l o c a t i o n s f o r False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents were more widely d i s t r i b u t e d . The Vischer-Skaburskis False Creek Post-Occupancy E v a l u a t i o n (1980) f i n d i n g s w i t h respect to mode of t r a v e l to work, support the current study. . 14 f ) Housing Expenditure The mean monthly housing expenditure of the i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed was $435, considerably l e s s than the average f o r suburban respondents of $660. As shown on Table 4-6, the l a r g e s t percentage of both i n n e r - c i t y and suburban respondents spent between $200 and $499 per month on housing; however, the p r o p o r t i o n of i n n e r - c i t y respondents i n t h i s category was much l a r g e r (70% compared to 35%). The d i s t r i b u t i o n of housing expenditures among the suburban respon-dents was much wider than f o r the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y sample. The household expenditure f i g u r e s may be understated. They are posed to be i n c l u s i v e of the monthly rent or mortgage payment plus the t of h e a t i n g , l i g h t s , taxes, and maintenance; however, i t was not made l i c i t l y c l e a r to respondents that t h e i r rent or mortgage payment was to included. I t appears, given the r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l s of expenditure arted, that most, i f not a l l , understood the question i n i t s intended n (see question 30 of q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) . TABLE 4-6: M o n t h l y H o u s i n g E x p e n d i t u r e by S u r v e y e d H o u s e h o l d 1 Monthly Housing Expenditure Less than $200 $200 - $499 $500 - $699 $700 - $999 $1000 - $1499 $1500 or more Mean Standard D e v i a t i o n Number of Respondents WEST END ',7% 74 11 4 2 1 $425 $220 215 FALSE CREEK 5% 45 29 10 7 : 4 $575 $325 183 FAIRVIEW SLOPES INNER-CITY TOTAL Unweighted|Weighted 9% 40 22 19 $585, $320 59 6% 57 20 8 5 3 $505 $290 458 7% 70 12 5 2 1 $435 $225 458 Percentages are the p r o p o r t i o n t o t a l households i n each c a t e g o r y . They are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude m i s s i n g cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rou n d i n g ! The mean monthly housing expenditure i s rounded to the near e s t $5. y TABLE 4-7: Tenu r e o f S u r v e y e d H o u s e h o l d s 1 WEST END FAIRVIEW INNER-CTTY TVITAT. SUBURBAN FALSE CREEK SLOPES Unweighted Weighted SAMPLE Tenure: Rental 89% 38% 76% 67% 84% 17% Ownership 9 28 24 19 10 83 Co-op 2 33 0 14 3 0 Number of Respondents 215 183 59 458 458 126 Percentages are the p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l households i n each c a t e g o r y . They are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. 1981 Census i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e on housing tenure; however, l i t t l e r e l i a b i l i t y can be p l a c e d i n these f i g u r e s i n areas where there are co-op r e s i d e n c e s (e.g. F a l s e Creek). Census respondents were i n s t r u c t e d to c o n s i d e r themselves as " r e n t e r s " i f they l i v e d i n co-ops. Census r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t many co-op r e s i d e n t s c o n s i d e r e d themselves as "owners". The survey and Census r e s u l t s on tenure are very c l o s e i n areas where there are no or few co-ops (e.g. West End, F a i r v i e w Slopes, suburban sample). The d i s t r i b u t i o n by tenure i n F a l s e Creek i s c o n s i s t e n t with the development o b j e c t i v e s f o r the area. -55-Housing expenditures of West End respondents were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes respon-dents. Although the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l three areas spent between $200 and $499 per month, the West End had the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n i n t h i s category (74% compared to 45% f o r False Creek and 40% f o r F a i r v i e w Slopes). The West End a l s o had the lowest average expenditure ($425 compared to $575 and $585 f o r False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Contrary to expec-t a t i o n s , False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents were very sim-i l a r i n t h e i r housing expenditures with the average expenditure (and standard d e v i a t i o n ) f o r the two areas almost i d e n t i c a l . A c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r to the lower r e n t s i n the West End i s that the housing i n stock i s o l d e r , on average, than that i n False Creek or Fa i r v i e w Slopes. A l s o , as shown i n chapter 6, West End u n i t s are smaller on average than False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes u n i t s , and a l s o l e s s f r e q u e n t l y have access to p r i v a t e outdoor space, r e c r e a -t i o n f a c i l i t i e s and reserved p a r k i n g . g) Tenure of Housing By f a r the l a r g e s t percentage of i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed l i v e d i n r e n t a l u n i t s (84% compared to 17% of the suburban sample). However, there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the areas comprising the i n n e r - c i t y . As shown i n Table 4-7, the large m a j o r i t y of West End respondents were re n t e r s (89%), as were most F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents (76%). F a i r v i e w Slopes d i f f e r e d from the West End i n that there was a l a r g e r percentage of owner-occupiers (24% compared to 9% f o r the West End). False Creek d i f f e r e d from both the West - 5 6 -End and Fairview Slopes i n that approximately one-third of the respondents were renters (38%), one-third owner-occupiers (28%) and one-third co-op residents (33%). h) Location of Previous Residence To get some idea of the l o c a t i o n a l o r i g i n s of i n n e r - c i t y residents, the respondents were asked: 1) the l o c a t i o n of t h e i r previous residence 2) whether they had l i v e d i n a suburban area within the previous f i v e years. As shown on Table 4-8, the largest percentage of respondents pre-viously l i v e d i n another residence i n Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y (43%), with the second largest percentage having l i v e d elsewhere i n the Vancouver region (30%). There were considerable differences between the West End and the other two i n n e r - c i t y areas. The largest percentage of West End respondents previously l i v e d i n another residence i n the i n n e r - c i t y whereas the majority of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents previously l i v e d somewhere i n the Vancouver region outside the i n -n e r - c i t y . This difference may be a t t r i b u t e d to the West End having been an established r e s i d e n t i a l area for much longer that the other two areas. The r e s u l t s of this and other studies indicate that a large percentage of moves are made within an area ( i . e . not from one area TABLE 4 - 8 : L o c a t i o n of Previous Residence of Survey Households FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES INNER-CI r l l n w p i r r h " t - P H VY TOTAL L o c a t i o n of Pr e v i o u s Residence: ^ Vancouver i n n e r - c i t y Elsewhere i n Vancouver Region Sub-Total I n n e r - c i t y of some other c i t y Suburbs " " " " U n s p e c i f i e d area " " Rub-Total R u r a l area or town 46% 28 74 12 9 0 21 6 28% 53 81 5 9 o-14 5 19% 50 69 9 14 3 26 5 Ul 1W C i. ^ 11 L- G \A 33% 41 74 9 9 1 19 5 43% 30 73 11 9 0 20 6 N 204 178 58 442 442 L i v e d i n suburbs i n p r e v i o u s 5 years Yes No 37% 63 40% 60 58% 42 41% 59 37% 61 N 208 176 59 444 444 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . e x c l u d e missing cases) and may not t o t a l t o 100% due to rounding - 5 8 -to another); i t follows that much more of th i s type of movement i s l i k e l y to have occurred i n an established area than i n one newly developed. When asked i f they had l i v e d i n a suburban area within the previous f i v e years, approximately 60% of the respondents r e p l i e d that they had not, which i s i n accordance with the r e s u l t s to the previous question. The only area where a majority of the respondents had l i v e d i n the suburbs within the previous f i v e years was Fairview Slopes. Of the False Creek households, 60% said they had not l i v e d i n the suburbs within the previous f i v e years although a large percentage (53%) said t h e i r previous residence had been located within the Vancouver region outside the i n n e r - c i t y . One of the reasons for th i s i s that a large proportion of False Creek residents previously l i v e d within the C i t y of Vancouver but outside the in n e r - c i t y (Vischer-Skaburskis, 1980). It i s l i k e l y that these respondents did not consider t h e i r previous residences to be l o c a t -ed i n the suburbs. - 5 9 -4.2 Inner-city Residents Not Expecting to Move Approximately o n e - t h i r d of the i n n e r - c i t y respondents d i d not expect to move from t h e i r current residences i n the foreseeable f u t u r e . By way of comparison, approximately 44% of the suburban respondents d i d not expect to move (see Table 4-9). There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the areas comprising the i n n e r -c i t y i n t h i s respect. More than 50% of the False Creek respondents d i d not expect to move compared to approximately 30% of the respondents i n the West End and only 12% i n F a i r v i e w Slopes. In t h i s s e c t i o n , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of West End and False Creek respondents not expecting t o move from t h e i r current residences are i d e n t i f i e d and compared with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of suburban respondents not expecting to move, so that any d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may be i d e n t i f i e d . Be-cause only 12% of the F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents f e l l i n t o t h i s category, few meaningful observations could be made; t h e r e f o r e , F a i r v i e w Slopes r e -spondents are not discussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n . 4.2.1 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) Household Size Of the households surveyed, one-person households were l e s s l i k e l y to move from t h e i r current residences than households of two or more persons. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of False Creek; as shown on Table 4-10, 70% of the one-person households i n False Creek d i d not expect to move compared to approximately 45% of other False Creek households. A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s i s that a large propor-TABLE 4-9: Respondents' Expectations of Moving from Current Residences FALSE FAIRVIEW INNER-CITY TOTAL SUBURBAN WEST END CREEK SLOPES Unweighted Weighted SAMPLE Expect to move from c u r r e n t Residence: Yes 69% 45% 88% 62% 67% 56% No 30 • 52 12 37 30 44 No Answer 1 3 0 2 3 0 Number of Cases (N) 220 188 59 469 469 127 1 Columns may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 4-10: EXPECT TO MOVE WEST END FALSE CREEK SUBURBAN SAMPLE C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n YES NO YES NO YES NO of Household Size No. of persons per household: N % N % N % N % N % N % with E x p e c t a t i o n 1 person 86 68 40 32 17 30 40 70 2 25 6 75 of Moving 1 2 persons 54 71 22 29 28 53 25 47 27 63 16 37 3 persons 9 82 2 18 20 56 16 44 20 61 13 39 4 persons or more 2 67 1 33 17 55 14 45 22 51 21 49 T o t a l 151 6 5. 82 95 71 56 % of T o t a l Households 70% 30% 46% 54% 56% 44% 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l t o 100% -61-t i o n of single-person households are e l d e r l y persons who are p a r t i -c u l a r l y u n l i k e l y to expect to move. b) Number of Children per Household Chi l d l e s s households were less l i k e l y to move than household with ch i l d r e n ; however, the proportion of i n n e r - c i t y households with children was very small (see Appendix E). c) Age of Respondents For West End respondents the l i k e l i h o o d of moving decreased with age, with 18-24 year olds being the most l i k e l y to move and persons 65 years of age and older being the le a s t l i k e l y . Of respondents 18-24 years, 12% did not expect to move compared to 64% of respon-dents 65 years of age and older and 29% of the West End respondents regardless of age (see Table 4-11). False Creek respondents were si m i l a r to those from the West End i n that a disproportionately large number of e l d e r l y residents did not expect to move; 82% of False Creek respondents 65 years and older did not expect to move compared to 53% of the False Creek respondents regardless of age. Inner-city respondents d i f f e r e d from suburban respondents i n that a r e l a t i v e l y smaller proportion of e l d e r l y suburban respondents did not expect to move from t h e i r current residences (56% compared to 64% and 82% r e s p e c t i v e l y of West End and False Creek respondents). TABLE 4-11: C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Respondents' Age with E x p e c t a t i o n of Moving EXPECT TO MOVE WEST END FALSE CREEK SUBURBAN SAMPLE YES NO YES NO YES • NO N % N % N % N % N % N % Age: - 2 18-24 y r s . 15 88 2 12 2 40 3 60 1 50 1 50 25-34 y r s . 63 89 8 11 26 58 19 42 24 77 7 23 35-44 y r s . 34 76 11 24 32 55 27 45 15 46 18 55 45-64 y r s . 25 59 17 41 17 44 22 56 22 51 21 49 6 5 or o l d e r 14 36 25 64 5 18 23 82 7 44 9 56 T o t a l 151 ; 63 82 94 69 56. % of T o t a l Households 71% 29% 47% 53% 55% 45% Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due t o rounding. 2 There were only 5 F a l s e Creek respondents i n the 18-24 y r . age category, and only 2 suburban respondents i n the 18-24 y r . category. - 6 3 -4.2.2 Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) Gross Annual Household Income Low-income i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed were less l i k e l y to move than middle or high-income households. Approximately 80% of False Creek respondents with gross annual household incomes of less than $20,000 did not expect to move compared to 44% of households with incomes of $25,000 - $39,999 and 40% of households with incomes of $40,000 or more (see Table 4-12). Results for the West End show the same trend; 35% of the respondents with gross annual household incomes less than $20,000 did not expect to move from t h e i r current residences compared to 21% of households with incomes of $25,000 -$39,999 and 13% of households with incomes of $40,000 or more. Household income did not appear to be a factor i n determining whether or not suburban respondents expected to move. Close to 45% did not expect to move regardless of income. b) Number of Income Earners per Household The number of income earners per household appears to have affected whether or not False Creek households expected to move, with the l i k e l i h o o d of moving increasing with the number of income earners (see Table 4-13). Of households with no income earners, 90% did not expect to move, compared to 57% of one-income-earner households and 41% of households with two or more income earners. In the West End, a larger proportion of one-income-earner house-holds than those with two or more income earners did not expect to TABLE 4-12: Cross-Tabulation of Gross Annual Household Income with Expectations of Moving EXPECT TO MOVE WES T END FALSE CREEK SUBURBAN SAMPLE YES NO YES NO YES NO Household Income: N % N % N % N % N % N % Less than $20,000 50 65 27 35 10 20 39 80 8 53 7 47 $20,000 - $24,999 28 68 13 32 14 54 12 46 7 . 70 3 30 $25,000 - $39,999 42 79 11 21 27 56 21 44 18 56 14 44 $40,000 or more 26 87 4 13 27 60 / 18 40 32 56 25 44 T o t a l 146 55 78 90 65 49 % of T o t a l Households 73% 27% 46% 54% 57% 43% TABLE 4-13: Cross-Tabulation of Number of Income Earners with Expectation of Moving^ EXPECT TO MOVE WEST END FALSE CREEK SUBURBAN SAMPLE YES NO YES NO YES NO N % N % N % N % N % N % 2 No. of Income Earners : 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 90 1 20 4 80 1 110 67 54 33 43 43 58 57 33 60 22 40 2 or more 40 80 10 20 40 59 28 41 36 55 30 46 T o t a l 150 64 84 96 •70 56 % of T o t a l Households 70% 30% 47% 53% 56% 44% 1 Percentages are adju s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude m i s s i n g cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. 2 None of the West End respondents and only 5 of the suburban respondents s t a t e d t h a t there were no income earner i n t h e i r households. - 6 5 -move (33% compared to 20%). There were no households with no income earners i n the West End. Just as income had no bearing on the expectation of moving for the suburban sample, neither did the number of income earners per household. c) Occupation of Income Earners Type of employment had l i t t l e bearing among the households surveyed on the expectation of moving except that i n n e r - c i t y households with r e t i r e d primary income earners were less l i k e l y to expect to move than other households (see Appendix F) . In the West End, 62% of the households with a r e t i r e d primary income earner did not expect to move compared to 29% of West End households regardless of the em-ployment status of the primary income earner. In False Creek, 76% of households with a r e t i r e d primary income earner did not expect to move compared to 51% of the households regardless of the primary income earner's employment status. The employment status of the primary income earner for the suburban sample appears to have had l i t t l e bearing on the expectation of moving; of the eight r e t i r e d income earners, four expected to move, while 44% of the households expected to move regardless of the primary income earner's employment status. - 6 6 -d) Work Location Inner-city households i n which the primary income earner worked outside the C i t y of Vancouver were more l i k e l y to expect to move than households where the primary income earner worked within the c i t y . Approximately 24% of the surveyed West End households with primary income earners working within the c i t y did not expect to move compared to only 7% of households where the primary income earner worked outside the c i t y . Of False Creek households i n which the primary income earner worked within the c i t y , approximately 50% did not expect to move compared to 29% of households i n which the primary income earner worked outside the c i t y (see Table 4-14). S i m i l a r l y , a larger percentage of i n n e r - c i t y households expected to move when the second income earner worked outside the Cit y of Van-couver. The work l o c a t i o n of suburban respondents did not appear to af f e c t t h e i r expectation of moving. e) Mode of Travel to Work Inner-city households where the primary income earner t r a v e l l e d to work by bus were more l i k e l y to expect to move than households where the primary income earner t r a v e l l e d by car or walked (see Appendix G). A possible explanation f o r th i s i s that, assuming access to work i s a reason for moving, those who t r a v e l to work by bus are more concerned with reducing t h e i r commuting time because many people consider bus t r a v e l to be more unpleasant and less conven-ient than walking or d r i v i n g to work. TABLE 4-14: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Work Loc a t i o n of the Household's Highest Income Earner with E x p e c t a t i o n of Moving-*" EXPECT TO MOVE WEST END FALSE CREEK SUBURBAN SAMPLE YES NO YES NO YES NO Work L o c a t i o n of Highest Income Earner: N % hi % N % N % N % N % Within i n n e r - c i t y Elsewhere i n the c i t y 74 26 7% 701 20 11 30* 22 27 53 24 24 5^50 47 13 13 :r 14 10 5 2£48 44 Elsewhere i n the GVRD 27 93 2 7 17 71 7 29 23 55 19 45 Other 8 57 6 43 8 62 5 39 15 75 5 25 T o t a l 135 39 74 60 64 48 % of T o t a l Households 78% 22% 55% 45% 57% 43% 1 Percentages are ad j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. - 6 8 -f ) Monthly Housing Expenditure Inner-city respondents with a low monthly housing expenditure were less l i k e l y to expect to move than other i n n e r - c i t y respondents (see Appendix H). 60% of West End respondents from households with monthly housing costs of less than $200 did not expect to move compared to 28% for West End households regardless of housing ex-penditure. S i m i l a r l y , 89% of False Creek residents with a monthly housing cost less than $200 did not expect to move compared to 54% for area respondents regardless of housing cost. Inner-city r e -spondents were no d i f f e r e n t from suburban respondents i n t h i s re-spect; 70% of suburban respondents with monthly housing expendi-tures less than $200 did not expect to move compared to 42% of suburban respondents i n t o t a l . This f i n d i n g i s not s u r p r i s i n g i n that most households with low housing expenditures also have low incomes. g) Tenure of Housing As shown on Table 4-15, i n n e r - c i t y respondents l i v i n g i n co-ops were the le a s t l i k e l y to expect to move; a l l f i v e West End respon-dents and 63% of the False Creek respondents l i v i n g i n co-ops did not expect to move. By way of comparison, approximately 30% and 83% respe c t i v e l y of West End and False Creek respondents regardless of type of tenure did not expect to move from t h e i r current residences. Owner-occupiers i n the West End were less l i k e l y to move than rent-ers (58% compared to 25%). West End and suburban respondents were si m i l a r i n th i s regard. Only 29% of suburban renters did not expect TABLE 4-15: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Tenure and Exp e c t a t i o n of Moving^ EXPECT TO MOVE WEST END FALSE CREEK SUBURBAN SAMPLE YES NO YES NO YES NO N % N % N % N % N % N % Tenure: Rental 142 75 48 25 35 52 33 49 15 71 6 29 Ownership 8 42 11 58 26 53 23 47 56 53 49 47 Co-op 0 0 5 100 22 37 38 63 0 n/a 0 n/a T o t a l 150 64 83 94 71 55 % of T o t a l Households 70% 30% 47% 83% 56% 44% 1 Percentages are adju s t e d due t o rounding. f i g u r e s ( i . e. exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% -70-to move compared to 47% of suburban owner-occupiers. This f i n d i n g i s consistent with studies reviewed i n chapter 2 (e.g. Rossi, 1980; Speare et a l , 1975; Simmons, 1974; Michelson, 1977). For the False Creek area, there was l i t t l e difference between owners and renters (approximately 50% of both groups did not expect to move). The proportion of False Creek renters who expected to move was less than that of the West End and suburban samples. -71-4.3 I n n e r - c i t y Residents Who Expect to Move Wi th in the I n n e r - c i t y The l o c a t i o n s to which respondents expected to move are shown on Table 4-16. Of i n n e r - c i t y respondents expecting to move (movers), the l a r g e s t propor-t i o n (35%) expected to move only w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y , while another 6% would move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y or to some other l o c a t i o n outside the i n n e r - c i t y . The second most popular d e s t i n a t i o n f o r i n n e r - c i t y movers was a l o c a t i o n w i t h i n the Vancouver r e g i o n but outside the i n n e r - c i t y (26%). A r e l a t i v e l y large p r o p o r t i o n of i n n e r - c i t y movers (15%) d i d not know the d e s t i n a t i o n of t h e i r expected moves. In c o n t r a s t , only four suburban respondents expected to move to the i n n e r -c i t y (approximately 6% of suburban movers). There were a l s o two suburban respondents who expected to move e i t h e r to the i n n e r - c i t y or to some other l o c a t i o n . By f a r the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of suburban movers expected to move w i t h i n the Vancouver r e g i o n but outside the i n n e r - c i t y (49%). There was al s o a r e l a t i v e l y l a r ge p r o p o r t i o n of suburban movers who d i d not know the d e s t i n a t i o n of t h e i r expected moves (24%). A comparison of the movers from the three i n n e r - c i t y areas found that approximately 40% from each area expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y (approximately o n e - t h i r d of the respondents from each area expected to move only w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y while another 6% to 8% would move e i t h e r w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y or to a l o c a t i o n outside the i n n e r - c i t y ) . F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents d i f f e r e d from those of False Creek and the West End i n that the la r g e s t percentage expected to move to a l o c a t i o n i n the Vancouver region TABLE 4-16: Expected D e s t i n a t i o n of Respondents Who Expect t o Move CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA FAIRVIEW INNER -CITY SUBURBAN WEST END FALSE CREEK SLOPES TOTAL SAMPLE Expected D e s t i n a t i o n of Move: N % N % N % N % N % (1)Vancouver I n n e r - C i t y 55 36 30 35 17 33 102 35 4 6 (2)Elsewhere i n Vancouver Region 38 25 17 20 19 37 75 26 35 49 (3)Some other l o c a t i o n 16 11 18 21 7 14 41 14 10 14 (1) and (2 or 3) 9 6 5 6 4 8 18 6 2 3 Don't Know 28 18 12 14 4 8 44 15 17 24 No Answer 4 3 3 4 1 2 8 3 2 3 Respondents who Expect to Move 152 85 52 290 71 % of T o t a l Respondents 69% 45% . 88% 62% 56% 1 Percentages may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. 2 The respondents were asked to i n d i c a t e the one l o c a t i o n they expected to move to, however, : some i d e n t i f i e d more than one l o c a t i o n as t h e i r p o s s i b l e d e s t i n a t i o n . Shown on the t a b l e are the percentage of respondents who would move e i t h e r w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . There were a l s o 2 West End respondents who would move e i t h e r elsewhere i n the Vancouver r e g i o n or to some other l o c a t i o n . - 7 3 -outside the i n n e r - c i t y (37% compared to 25% and 20% re s p e c t i v e l y of West End and False Creek movers) . The largest percentage of West End and False Creek movers expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y . False Creek movers d i f f e r e d from those i n other areas i n that a r e l a t i v e l y larger proportion expected to move out of the Vancouver region (21% compared to 14% and 11% r e s p e c t i v e l y of Fairview Slopes and West End movers). In t h i s section, the demographic and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i s t i n -guishing those i n n e r - c i t y respondents who expected to move within the in n e r - c i t y are described. 4.3.1 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) Household Size False Creek was the only i n n e r - c i t y area surveyed where the number of persons per household appears to be re l a t e d to whether respon-dents expected to move within or out of the i n n e r - c i t y ; of False Creek movers, only 17% of households of four or more persons expect-ed to move within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to approximately 40% of other False Creek movers (see Appendix I ) . False Creek was also the only i n n e r - c i t y area with a s i g n i f i c a n t number of households of four or more persons. b) Number of Children per Household The number of ch i l d r e n per household appears to have had no bearing on the destination of i n n e r - c i t y movers. Approximately one-third expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y regardless of the number of children i n the household (see Appendix j ) . -74-c) Age of Respondents Households headed by younger persons appear l e s s l i k e l y to expect to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y than other households. As shown i n Table 4-17, f o r a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas surveyed a l a r g e r pro-p o r t i o n of 18-24 and 25-35 year olds expected to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y than w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y , while a l a r g e r percentage of 35-44 and 45-64 year olds expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . The West End was the only area w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t number of persons 65 years of age and o l d e r ; 58% of those respondents expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . 4.3.2 Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The number of income earners, tenure, monthly housing expenditure, and mode of t r a v e l to work appear to have had l i t t l e or no bearing on whether respondents expected to move w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . Approximately o n e - t h i r d of the movers from each area expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r -c i t y r e g a r d l e s s of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (see Appendices K to N). a) Gross Annual Household Income As shown on Table 4-18, a smaller p r o p o r t i o n of upper-income than lower or middle-income households surveyed i n the West End expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . In c o n t r a s t , of F a i r v i e w Slopes movers, low-income households were l e s s l i k e l y to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . Income appears to have had l i t t l e e f f e c t on whether False Creek households expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . TABLE 4-17: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Where Respondents Expect to Move with Age CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES Within Out of Within Out of Within Out of I-C I-•c I-C I-C I-C I-C N % N % N % N % N % N % Aqe of Respondents: 100 33 67 18-24 y r s . 4 27 6 40 0 0 2 2 4 25-34 y r s . 19 30 26 42 4 17 15 63 6 23 16 62 35-44 y r s . 16 47 12 35 16 50 10 31 4 44 3 33 45-64 y r s . 8 33 7 29 8 47 5 29 5 55 2 22 6 5 or o l d e r 7 58 3 25 1 20 2 40 0 0 1 100 T o t a l 54 54 29 34 17 26 % of T o t a l Respondents 37% 36% 36% 43% 33% 51% 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing c a s e s ) . Not shown on t h i s t a b l e are the respondents who e i t h e r d i d not know where they expected to move or would move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . For t h i s reason (and because of rounding) the percentages shown may not t o t a l to 100%. TABLE 4-18: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Where Respondents Expect to Move with Household Income-'-CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES Within I-C Out of I-C ' Within I-C Out of I-C Within I-C Out of I-C HOUSEHOLD INCOME: N % N % N % N % N % N % Less than $25,000 28 37 29 38 9 38 8 33 3 23 7 54 $25,000 - $39,999 17 42 16 39 9 36 12 48 8 38 10 48 $40,000 or more 7 27 10 39 10 39 10 39 6 38 8 50 T o t a l 52 55 28 30 17 25 % of Respondents ( r e g a r d l e s s of income) 36 39 37 4'0 34 50 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing c a s e s ) . Not shown on t h i s t a b l e are the respondents who e i t h e r d i d not know where they expected to move or would move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . For t h i s reason (and because of rounding) the percentages shown may not t o t a l to 100%. - 7 7 -b) Occupation of Income Earners A greater proportion of households surveyed where the primary i n -come earner was i n the " p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l " category expected to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y than other households, while house-holds where the primary income-earner was r e t i r e d were more l i k e l y to move within the i n n e r - c i t y than other households (see Appendix 0). c) Work Location As shown on Table 4-19, a higher proportion of False Creek and Fairview Slopes households (38% and 35% resp e c t i v e l y ) expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y when the household's highest income earner worked wit h i n the C i t y of Vancouver than when he or she worked elsewhere i n the GVRD (25% and 29% for False Creek and Fairview Slopes r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . However, the opposite was true of West End households, where a higher proportion expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y when the household's highest income earner worked elsewhere i n the GVRD (48%) than when he/she worked i n the City of Vancouver (34%). Whether the highest income earner worked within the i n n e r - c i t y or elsewhere i n the Cit y of Vancouver was only s i g n i f i c a n t i n Fairview Slopes where 50% who worked within the i n n e r - c i t y would move within that area compared to only 20% of those who worked elsewhere i n the c i t y . TABLE 4-19: Cr o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Where Respondents Expect to Move with Work L o c a t i o n of Household's Highest Income Earner-'-CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES Wi t h i n Out of Within Out of Within Out of I- C I- C I-C I- C I- C I-C WORK LOCATION: N % N % N % N % N % N % Vancouver i n n e r - c i t y 27 3 7 l 3 4 25 34 l 5 1 7 3 3 l 3 8 12 5 7 > 9 10 5 0 7 3 5 8 4°-|48 Elsewhere i n the c i t y 6 24-1 15 60 J 11 42 J 11 42-1 4 2 0 J 11 65 J Elsewhere i n GVRD 13 48 8 30 4 25 8 47 2 29 4 57 Other 0 0 4 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 2 100 T o t a l 46 52 26 31 16 25 % of T o t a l Households 35% 39% 36% 43% 33% 51% Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing c a s e s ) . Not shown on t h i s t a b l e are the respondents who e i t h e r d i d not know where they expected to move or would move, e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . For t h i s reason (and because of rounding) the percentages shown may not t o t a l to.100%. - 7 9 -4.4 Inner-city Residents Who Would Consider Moving Within the Inner-city In t h i s section, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n n e r - c i t y residents who would consider moving to another dwelling unit i n the i n n e r - c i t y are i d e n t i f i e d . As shown on Table 4-20, approximately 59% of the i n n e r - c i t y respondents would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Of Fairview Slopes respon-dents 78% would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to 60% and 52% r e s p e c t i v e l y of West End and False Creek respondents. TABLE 4-20 INNER-CITY RESPONDENTS WHO WOULD CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY Current Residential Area: Would Consider Moving Within I-C N % West End 131 60 False Creek 97 52 Fairview Slopes 46 78 Inner-city T o t a l 1 275 59 Weighted Inner-city Total 275 59 1 The i n n e r - c i t y t o t a l includes one i n n e r - c i t y respondent whose s p e c i f i c r e s i d e n t i a l area within the i n n e r - c i t y was not i d e n t i f i e d . 2 To calculate the weighted i n n e r - c i t y t o t a l , the r e s u l t s for each i n n e r - c i t y area are m u l t i p l i e d by the proportion of t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y house-holds each area represents, and then summed. - 8 0 -Respondents who would not consider moving within the in n e r - c i t y are not; necessari l y d i s s a t i s f i e d with the i n n e r - c i t y . In f a c t , most False Creek (75%) and West End (55%) respondents who would not consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y did not expect to move anywhere. However, most Fairview Slopes respondents who (62%) would not consider moving within the inner-c i t y , expected to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y (see Table 4-21). Respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y did not neces-s a r i l y expect to do so. As shown on Table 4-22, the largest proportion of West End respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y expec-ted to do so (38% compared to 27% and 33% re s p e c t i v e l y of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents). In contrast, the largest proportion of False Creek respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y did not expect to move at a l l (30%) while the largest proportion of Fairview Slopes respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y expected to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y (39%). In this a n a l y s i s , a l l respondents who would consider moving within the in n e r - c i t y are included ( i . e . respondents who did not expect to move within the i n n e r - c i t y or move at a l l have not been included). Since almost a l l Fairview Slopes respondents would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y , i t is impossible to i d e n t i f y any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that d i s t i n g u i s h the respon-dents from that area who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y ; there-fore, Fairview Slopes respondents are not considered i n th i s section. TABLE 4-21: Expected D e s t i n a t i o n of Respondents who Would Not Consider Moving w i t h i n the Inner-city-'-CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES INNER-CITY TOTAL EXPECTED DESTINATION OF MOVE: N % N % N % N % Elsewhere i n Vancouver Region or to another area ( i . e . out of the i n n e r - c i t y ) 21 24 13 14 8 62 42 22 Don't Know 7 8 5 6 1 8 13 7 No Answer 4 5 1 1 0 0 5 3 DON'T EXPECT TO MOVE 47 55 68 75 2 15 118 62 TOTAL (who would not c o n s i d e r moving w i t h i n the I n n e r - c i t y ) 86 91 13 191 1 Percentage columns may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. 2 Included i n the t o t a l are 13 respondents who f i r s t s t a t e d they would not c o n s i d e r moving t o another r e s i d e n c e i n the i n n e r - c i t y and l a t e r , c o n t r a d i c t i n g themselves, s t a t e d they expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . TABLE 4-22: Expected D e s t i n a t i o n of Respondents Who Would Consider Moving Within the Inner-city-*-CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA » WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES INNER-CITY TOTAL EXPECTED DESTINATION OF MOVE: N % N % N % N % Within Vancouver I n n e r - c i t y 50 38 26 27 15 33 91 33 Elsewhere i n Vancouver Region or to another area ( i . e . out of the i n n e r - c i t y ) 34 26 22 23 18 39 75 27 E i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y 7 5 5 5 4 9 16 6 Don't Know 20 15 7 7 3 7 30 11 No Answer 2 2 8 8 1 2 11 4 DON'T EXPECT TO MOVE 18 14 29 30 5 11 52 19 TOTAL (who would c o n s i d e r moving w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y ) 131 97 46 275 % of T o t a l Respondents 60% 52% 78% 59% 1 Percentage columns may not t o t a l t o 100% due to rounding. -83-4.4.1 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The number of persons and ch i l d r e n per household appears to have had no bearing on whether households would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y ; approximately 60% of West End and 52% of False Creek households of a l l sizes would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y (see Appendices P and Q). a) Age of Respondents Respondents 65 years of age or older were less l i k e l y to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y than other respondents. Of West End respondents i n t h i s age category, only 33% would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to approximately 70% of respondents 18-44 years and 54% of respondents 45-64 years (see Table 4-23). S i m i l a r l y , of False Creek respondents 65 years of age or older, only 23% would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to approx-imately 60% of respondents 25-44 years and 49% of respondents 45-64 years. As shown i n section 4.2, senior c i t i z e n s (65 years and over) were not only less l i k e l y than other respondents to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y but also less l i k e l y to consider moving any-where ( i . e . they were p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y to expect to continue l i v i n g i n t h e i r current residences). 4.4.2 Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) Gross Annual Household Income Middle-income households i n the West End ($25,000 - $39,999 p.a.) were more l i k e l y to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y than lower (less than $25,000 p.a.) and upper ($40,000 or more p.a.) income households. As shown on Table 4-24, 74% of middle-income TABLE 4-23: Cross-Tabulation of Age of Respondents with Consideration of Moving Within the Inner-city CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN INNER-CITY WEST END FALSE CREEK YES . NO YES NO AGE OF RESPONDENTS: N % N % N % N % 18 - 24 y r s . 13 77 4 24 1 20 2 4 80 25 - 34 y r s . 47 67 23 33 26 57 20 44 35 - 44 y r s . 32 71 13 29 40 67 20 33 45 - 64 y r s . 22 54 19 46 20 49 21 51 65 y r s . and o l d e r 13 33 26 67 7 23 23 77 T o t a l 127 85 94 88 % of T o t a l Respondents 60% 40% 52% 48% 1 Percentages are adjusted f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. 2 There were only f i v e F a l s e Creek respondents i n t h i s age category. -85-households would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to 62% and 58% r e s p e c t i v e l y of upper and lower-income households. That a smaller percentage of low-income households would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y i s not s u r p r i s i n g , given that, as shown i n section 4.2, a smaller proportion of low-income households than upper and middle-income households expected to move anywhere. General mobility studies (e.g. Rossi) have concluded that low-income households are less l i k e l y than other households to make voluntary moves. Of the i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed, the l e a s t l i k e l y to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y appear to be low-income False Creek households. Only 31% would consider doing so compared to 61% and 71% r e s p e c t i v e l y of middle-income and upper-income households. As shown i n section 4.2, low-income False Creek households were also the i n n e r - c i t y households most l i k e l y to expect to continue l i v i n g in t h e i r current residences ( i . e . not to expect to move). b) Number of Income Earners per Household A s l i g h t l y greater percentage of households with two income earners than households with one income earner i n both the West End and False Creek would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . However, the s i t u a t i o n i n which the number of income earners appears to have had the greatest s i g n i f i c a n c e i s when the household had no income earners. As shown on Table 4-25, only 18% of the False Creek households with no income earners would consider moving within the TABLE 4-24: Cross^-Tabulationr of Household Income—With Consideration of Moving Within the Inner-city 1 CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN INNER-CITY WEST END FALSE CREEK YES NO YES NO Household Income: N % N % N % N % Less than $25,000 68 58 49 42' 12 31 52 69 $25,000 - $39,999 39 74 14 26 30 61 19 39 $40,000 or more 18 62 11 38 34 71 14 29 T o t a l 125 74 87 85 % of T o t a l Households 63% 37% 51% 49% I oo I TABLE 4-2 5: Cross-Tabulation of Number of Income-Earners with Consideration of Moving Within the Inner-cityl CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN INNER-CITY WEST END FALSE CREEK YES NO YES NO No. of Income Ea r n e r s : N % N % N % N % 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 9 82 1 95 58 69 42 52 51 51 50 2 or more 33 67 16 33 41 58 30 42 T o t a l .128 85 95 90 % of T o t a l Households 60% 40% 51% 49% 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude m i s s i n g cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. -87-i n n e r - c i t y compared to more than 50% of households with one or more income earners. There were no West End households with no income earners. As shown i n section 4.2, households with no income earners were the most l i k e l y households to expect to continue l i v i n g i n th e i r current residences. c) Occupation of Income Earners Households most l i k e l y to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y were those where the primary income earner was employed i n sal e s . As shown on Table 4-26, of West End households where the primary income earner was a salesperson, approximately 87% would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y ; s i m i l a r l y , 92% of False Creek house-holds with primary income earners employed as salespersons would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Other West End households p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y were those where the primary income earner was employed i n transportation-communications or manufacturing. A large percentage of households from both the West End and False Creek where the primary income earner was a manager-proprietor-administrator would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . House-holds not l i k e l y to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y were those where the primary income earner was r e t i r e d . Only 34% and 23% of such households i n the West End and False Creek r e s p e c t i v e l y would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . TABLE 4-26: Cr o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Occupation of Primary Income Earner with C o n s i d e r a t i o n of Moving Within the I n n e r - c i t y 1 CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN INNER -CITY WEST END FALSE CREEK YES NO YES NO Occupation of Primary Income Earner: N % N % N % N % Sales 13 87 2 13 12 92 1 8 Transportation-Communication 13 87 2 13 4 67 2 33 Manager-Proprietor-Adminis. 20 74 7 26 24 65 13 35 Manufacturing 10 80 2 20 1 33 2 67 C l e r i c a l 19 66 10 35 2 14 12 86 P r o f e s s i o n a l - T e c h n i c a l 23 52 21 48 34 60 23 40 S e r v i c e 8 47 9 53 2 40 3 60 R e t i r e d 13 34 25 66 6 23 20 77 T o t a l 126 84 92 82 % of T o t a l Households 60% 40% 53% 47% 1 Percentage columns may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. A l s o , occupation c a t e g o r i e s comprising few respondents are not shown (e.g. m a t e r i a l s handling, student, e t c . ) -89-As shown i n section 4.2., the vast majority of households where the primary income earner was r e t i r e d did not expect to move anywhere. Those households would not be interested i n moving lar g e l y because they could not af f o r d to. Approximately 94% of West End households with a r e t i r e d income earner had annual incomes less than $25,000, compared to 58% of a l l West End households. In False Creek, 71% of such households had incomes less than $25,000 compared to 44% of a l l False Creek households. Fortunately, the majority of these house-holds also had low housing expenditures, some l i v i n g i n subsidized s e n i o r - c i t i z e n housing. The fact that most r e t i r e d persons are old l i k e l y also contributes to t h e i r lack of desire to move from t h e i r current residences. d) Work Location The only instance i n which work l o c a t i o n appears to have had any bearing on whether the respondents would consider moving within the in n e r - c i t y was for West End households where the primary income earner worked outside the Vancouver region. In only 36% of these cases would the respondents consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to 67% and 76% res p e c t i v e l y when the income earner worked within the i n n e r - c i t y or elsewhere i n the Vancouver region (see Appendix R). e) Housing Expenditure Households with a low monthly housing expenditure were less l i k e l y to consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y than other households. As -90-shown on Table 4-27, only 33% and 22% of West End and False Creek households r e s p e c t i v e l y with housing expenditures of less than $200 per month would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to 64% and 53% of West End.and False Creek households r e s p e c t i v e l y with housing expenditures of $200 or more per month. As shown i n section 4.2, households with low housing expenditures were less l i k e l y than other i n n e r - c i t y households to move anywhere. A major reason for t h i s i s that the majority of such households have low-incomes. Of West End households with a monthly housing expenditure less than $200, 47% had annual incomes less than $20,000 while 73% had annual incomes less than $25,000 (compared to 58% of a l l West End house-holds). A l l False Creek households with housing expenditures less than $200 had incomes less than $20,000 (compared to 29% of False Creek households regardless of household expenditure). Also, as mentioned e a r l i e r , a disproportionate number of households with a low housing expenditure are comprised of persons 65 years of age or older, which would also contribute to t h e i r lack of desire to move. f) Tenure of Housing Tenure appears to have had l i t t l e bearing on whether False Creek respondents would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . As shown on Table 4-28, close to 50% of False Creek renters, owner-occupiers, and co-op residents would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . In the West End, a higher proportion of renters than owner-occupiers or co-op residents would consider moving within the TABLE 4-27: Cross-Tabulation of Household Housing Expenditure with Consideratic of Moving Within the Inner-cityl CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY _ H n n r h l v Housinn Exoenditure: Less than $200 $200 - $499 $500 or more T o t a l Households % of T o t a l Households WEST END FALSE CREEK YES NO YES NO N % 5 33 99 64 6 4 23 59 127 61% N % 10 67 54 35 16 41 80 39% N % 2 22 41 51 53 50 55 93 51% N % 7 78 40 49 41 45 88 49% TABLE 4-28: Cross-Tabulation of Household Tenure with Consideration of Moving Within the Inner-city 1 •- — CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY WEST END FALSE CREEK YES NO YES NO Tenure: N % N % N % N % Rental 122 65 67 35 37 53 33 47 Ownership 7 39 11 61 30 58 22 42 Co-op 1 20 4 80 27 44 34 55 T o t a l 130 82 94 89 61% 39% 51% 49% 1 Percentages are adju s t e d f i g u r e s t o t a l to 100* due to rounding. i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not - 9 2 -i n n e r - c i t y ; however, there were very few West End owner-occupiers or co-op residents. g) Mode of Travel to Work Mode of t r a v e l to work did not appear to have any bearing on whether or not residents would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y (see Appendix S). -93-4.5 Suburban Residents Who Would Consider Moving to the Inner-city Only 17 of the suburban respondents (13%) would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . Because of t h i s low number i t was d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y factors d i s t i n g u i s h i n g those who would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y from those who would not. Nevertheless, i n t h i s section those observations which can be made are presented. 4.5.1 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) Number of Persons/Children per Household Suburban households of four or more persons were less l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y than households of three or less persons. As shown on Table 4-29, approximately 13%, 17%, and 18% resp e c t i v e l y of households of one, two or three persons would con-sider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y compared to only 7% of households of four or more persons. If the t h i r d person i n a 3-person household i s a c h i l d , these r e s u l t s would indicate that suburban households with one c h i l d are equally or more l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y than c h i l d l e s s households. The findings shown on Table 4-30 indicate that t h i s i s the case. Of suburban households with one c h i l d , 23% would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y compared to 13% of c h i l d l e s s households. However, households with two or more child r e n were less l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . These findings d i f f e r somewhat from the studies reviewed i n chapter 2, which conclude that households who would move to the i n n e r - c i t y from the suburbs are almost e x c l u s i v e l y c h i l d l e s s (e.g. Michel--94-TABLE 4-29: Cross-Tabulation of Suburban Household Size with Consideration of Moving to the Inner-city ^ 1 CONSIDER MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY YES NO HOUSEHOLD SIZE: N % N % 1 person 1 13 7 88 2 persons 7 17 35 83 3 persons 6 18 27 82 4 or more persons 3 7 40 93 T o t a l 17 109 % of T o t a l Households 14% 87% TABLE 4-30: Cross-Tabulation of Children per Suburban Household with Consideration of Moving to the Inner-cityl CONSIDER MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY YES NO NO. OF CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD: N % N % None 8 13 55 B7 One 6 23 20 77 2 or more 3 8 34 92 T o t a l 17 109 % of T o t a l Households 14 87 1. Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude m i s s i n g cases) and may not t o t a l t o 100% due to rounding. -95-son). A possible explanation for t h i s difference l i e s i n the chara-cter of the i n n e r - c i t y destinations. As described i n chapter 5, most suburban household who would consider moving to Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y i d e n t i f y False Creek as the area i n which they would want to l i v e , an area that was designed to accommodate households with ch i l d r e n . b) Age of Respondents Younger suburban respondents were more l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y than older suburban respondents. As shown on Table 4-31, 29% of the respondents between 25 and 34 years would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y compared to 12%, 7% and 7% r e s p e c t i v e l y of persons 35-44, 45-64, and 65 years and older. There were only two suburban respondents 18-24 years o l d . These findings d i f f e r somewhat from those of studies reviewed i n chapter 2 i n that "empty-nesters" were not i d e n t i f i e d as part of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing. Low income would p a r t i a l l y explain why households comprised of persons 65 years and older would not considering moving to the i n n e r - c i t y ; 50% of these households had annual incomes less than $20,000. However, i t does not explain why households comprised of persons 45 to 65 years would not consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y ; approximately 70% of these households had annual incomes of $35,000 or more. - 9 6 -TABLE 4-31: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Age of Suburban Respondents w i t h C o n s i d e r a t i o n of Moving t o the I n n e r - c i t y l CONSIDER MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY YES NO AGE OF RESPONDENTS: N % N % 18 - 24 y r s . 0 0 2 100 25 - 34 y r s . 9 29 22 71 35 - 44 y r s . 4 12 29 88 45 - 64 y r s . 3 7 40 93 65 or o l d e r 1 7 14 93 T o t a l 17 107 % of T o t a l Households 14% 86% TABLE 4-32: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n of Suburban Household Income w i t h C o n s i d e r a t i o n of Moving t o the Inner-city-*-HOUSEHOLD INCOME: Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $39,999 $40,000 or more T o t a l % of T o t a l Households CONSIDER MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY YES NO N % N % 2 8 22 92 2 6 30 94 12 21 45 79 16 97 14 86 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . e x c l u d e m i s s i n g c a s e s ) and may not t o t a l t o 100% due to rounding. -97-4.5.2 Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Of the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , work l o c a t i o n and mode of t r a v e l to work had no bearing on whether or not suburban respondents would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . Approximately 13% of the suburban respondents regardless of t h e i r work l o c a t i o n and mode of t r a v e l to work would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y (see Appendices T and U). a) Gross Annual Household Income Suburban households with gross annual incomes less than $40,000 were less l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y than house-holds with incomes of $40,000 or more. Approximately 7% of house-holds with incomes less than $40,000 would consider moving to the in n e r - c i t y compared to approximately 21% of those with incomes of $40,000 or more (see Table 4-32). This f i n d i n g i s consistent with the findings of extant studies reviewed i n chapter 2. b) Number of Income Earners per Household The number of income earners per household affected whether subur-ban households would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y only to the extent that none of the f i v e households with no income earner would do so. Approximately 13% of households both with one income earner and with two or more income earners would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . It should be noted that a l l but eight suburban house-holds were comprised of two or more persons (see Appendix V). -98-c) Occupation of Income Earners Suburban households where the primary income earner was a profes-s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l worker were the most l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y (26% of the respondents i n such households said they would do so). Less l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y were households where the primary income earner was a manager-proprietor-administrator (14%), service worker (13%), or r e t i r e d (14%) (see Appendix W). This f i n d i n g i s consistent with the r e s u l t s of extant studies reviewed i n chapter 2. d) Household Expenditure Households with a low monthly expenditure were less l i k e l y to con-sider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . As shown on Table 4-33, less than 10% of the households spending less than $700 per month on housing would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y while 23% and 33% respec-t i v e l y of households spending $700-$900 and $1000-$1499 per month would consider the move. As with the i n n e r - c i t y sample, a dispro-portionate number of suburban households with low housing expendi-tures are low-income households comprised of persons 65 years and over. The low incomes and advanced age of these households l i k e l y contribute to t h e i r lack of i n t e r e s t i n moving. e) Housing Tenure As with i n n e r - c i t y households, renters were more l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y than owner-occupiers. As shown on Table 4-34, 30% of suburban renters would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y -99-TABLE 4-33: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f Suburban H o u s e h o l d E x p e n d i t u r e w i t h C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f M oving t o t h e Inner-city-'-CONSIDER MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY YES NO HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE: N % N % Less than S200 1 10 9 90 $200 - $499 3 7 38 93 $500 - $699 1 6 17 94 $700 - $999 7 23 24 77 $1000 - $1499 5 33 10 67 51500 or more 0 0 5 100 T o t a l 17 103 % of T o t a l Households 14% 85% TABLE 4-34: C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n o f T e n u r e o f Suburban H o u s e h o l d s w i t h C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f Moving t o t h e I n n e r - c i t y CONSIDER MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY YES NO TENURE: N % N % R e n t a l 6 30 14 70 Ownership 11 11 94 90 T o t a l 17 108 % of T o t a l Households 14% 86% 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude m i s s i n g cases) and may not t o t a l to' 100% due to rounding. -100-compared to only 11% of owner-occupiers. However, r e l a t i v e l y few of the suburban respondents were renters (16%), i n contrast to the i n n e r - c i t y respondents who were predominantly renters. Previous studies on the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing (e.g. Michelson) also found that the suburban households most l i k e l y to move to the inner-c i t y were renters. - 1 0 1 -4.6 Summary In this section, conclusions on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y are drawn based on the foregoing analyses ( i . e . the analyses of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of current i n n e r - c i t y residents, households who expect to continue l i v i n g i n t h e i r current i n n e r - c i t y residences or to move within the i n n e r - c i t y , and households who would consider moving to or within the i n n e r - c i t y ) . In i d e n t i f y i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these house-holds, i t i s sometimes necessary to d i s t i n g u i s h between the three inner-c i t y areas because i n some respects the type of people who want to l i v e i n one area d i f f e r from those who want to l i v e i n another area. 4.6.1 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The i n n e r - c i t y appears to appeal primarily to small households with no childr e n . This type of household currently predominates i n the West End and Fairview Slopes. Even i n False Creek the majority of households are c h i l d -less and the percentage of households with c h i l d r e n i s lower than i n the suburban sample. Respondents from small i n n e r - c i t y households were less l i k e l y to move from the i n n e r - c i t y than those from large households, and large suburban households were less l i k e l y than small suburban households to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . However, suburban households with one c h i l d were more l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y than those with no children; this f i n d i n g i s inconsistent with the extant studies. It appears that people of a l l ages want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y , although the p a r t i c u l a r area they choose varies with age. For example, based on the age of current residents, West End and Fairview Slopes appear to appeal to -102-18-24 year olds while persons i n this age group do not want to l i v e i n False Creek. S i m i l a r l y , i t appears that seniors (65 years and over) want to l i v e i n the West End and False Creek but not i n Fairview Slopes ( t h i s r e s u l t may be a function of income). The majority of residents of a l l three inner-c i t y areas are 25-44 years o l d . False Creek had a larger proportion of middle-aged residents than did F a i r -view Slopes or the West End. For example, according to the 1981 census, 25% of adult residents i n False Creek were i n the 35 to 44 year age cohort compared to 19% and 15% res p e c t i v e l y i n Fairview Slopes and the West End. A l i k e l y reason for th i s difference i s the larger proportion of households with ch i l d r e n i n False Creek than i n the other i n n e r - c i t y areas. The West End population i n the middle-age cohorts i s greater than that found by Forbes et a l in 1970. In large part, t h i s difference i s a r e s u l t of the aging of the baby-boom generation. Respondents 18 to 34 years of age were more l i k e l y to expect to move from the i n n e r - c i t y than persons 35 years or older. However, the majority of these respondents would at least consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Suburban respondents most l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y were in the 25-34 year old age group. F l a v i n also found that the households l i k e l y to move to the i n n e r - c i t y were pr i m a r i l y comprised of persons under 35 years of age. Neither her study nor the current study i d e n t i f i e d empty nesters as part of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing, although other extant studies have done so (e.g. Solomon). -103-4.6.2 Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s It appears that households of a l l incomes want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y but, as with age, the areas i n which they want to l i v e v a r i e s . Persons with a broad range of incomes currently l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y , with Fairview Slopes residents on average having the highest household incomes and the West End the lowest. A larger proportion of West End respondents from high-income households ($40,000 or more p.a.) expected to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y than other West End respondents. However, False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents from high-income households were no more l i k e l y to expect to move from the in n e r - c i t y than middle and low-income households i n those areas; and sub-urban respondents most l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y were those from high-income households. Respondents from low-income households (less than $25,000 p.a.) were the in n e r - c i t y households least l i k e l y to expect to move from t h e i r current residences ( t h i s was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of False Creek where there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of subsidized housing). This does not ne c e s s a r i l y i n -dicate that low-income households want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y but rather might indicate that they f e e l they cannot a f f o r d to move from t h e i r current residences. In Fairview Slopes, where there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t amount of subsidized housing, low-income households were more l i k e l y than middle and upper-income households to expect to move from the i n n e r - c i t y . The majority of low-cost housing i n Fairview Slopes i s old single-detached housing soon to be demolished and redeveloped. It may be that i t i s impossible to -104-conclude where low-income households want to l i v e ; they simply expect to l i v e i n housing they can a f f o r d . It appears that the number of income earners per household i s not s i g n i f i -cant i n determining who wants to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . The majority of current households have one-income earner; however, the majority of inner-c i t y households of two or more persons have two or more income earners. Among the households surveyed, the l i k e l i h o o d of moving increased with the number of income earners; however, the number of income earners did not appear to a f f e c t whether i n n e r - c i t y households would move within or out of the i n n e r - c i t y or whether suburban households would consider moving to the in n e r - c i t y . With respect to employment, i t appears that households who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y are those where the primary income earner i s r e t i r e d or employed i n one of the following employment categories: — p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l — c l e r i c a l — manager-proprietor-administrator — sales — service These are the employment categories of current i n n e r - c i t y r esidents. Sur-vey r e s u l t s indicate that only persons i n the pro f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l cate-gory are p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y to leave the i n n e r - c i t y ; however, suburban -105-households where the primary income earner i s a p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l wor-ker are the most l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . The extant studies are consistent with the findings of the current study to the extent that almost a l l i d e n t i f y professionals as comprising a large part of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing (e.g. Michelson, Black, Bourne, Sim-mons, Solomon, Abu-Lughod, Rapkin and Grigsby). Most also imply that c l e r i -c a l workers also comprise a large part of the market by s t a t i n g that the reason for the growth i n i n n e r - c i t y housing has been the growth of downtown o f f i c e employment. Forbes et a l , McAfee, and Manning (quoted i n P a t i l l o , 1967) a l l found that c l e r i c a l workers dominate i n the West End. Michelson concluded that managers would rather l i v e i n the suburbs than downtown; however, McAfee, Forbes et a l , and Manning a l l found a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of West End residents were managers (9.0%, 13.9% and 14.3% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The current study i s consistent with the West End studies i n i d e n t i f y i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of i n n e r - c i t y residents as being i n sales and s e r v i c e s . However, i t d i f f e r s from the Forbes et a l and Manning studies i n that they i d e n t i f i e d i n d u s t r i a l workers as comprising approximately 20% of the West End workers. A probable reason for t h i s difference l i e s i n the fact that the Forbes et a l study was done i n 1970 and the Manning study i n 1967. Since that time the C i t y of Vancouver has l o s t many of i t s i n d u s t r i a l employers to outlying areas and hence i t s population employed i n industry. It appears that False Creek and Fairview Slopes households who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y are p r i m a r i l y those whose primary income earner works within the i n n e r - c i t y or at least within the C i t y of Vancouver. In the -106-majority of the households surveyed i n False Creek and Fairview Slopes the primary income earner worked within the c i t y and when he/she worked outside the c i t y there was a greater l i k e l i h o o d of the household moving out of the in n e r - c i t y . It i s not cl e a r that proximity to work i s a factor a f f e c t i n g whether West End households want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ; while the majority of primary income earners from the surveyed West End households worked within the i n n e r - c i t y , West End households expecting to move were more l i k e l y to expect to move from the i n n e r - c i t y when the primary income earner worked within the C i t y of Vancouver than when he/she worked outside the c i t y . The work l o c a t i o n of the primary income earner does not have much ef f e c t on whether or not suburban households would consider moving to the in n e r - c i t y . The mode of t r a v e l to work does not appear to be a factor i n determining who wants to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . Most i n n e r - c i t y respondents drove to work; those who took the bus were s l i g h t l y more l i k e l y to move; however, mode of tr a v e l did not appear to be re l a t e d to the destination of the move. V i r -t u a l l y a l l suburban respondents drove to work, making i t impossible to determine i f the mode of t r a v e l has any e f f e c t on whether they would move to the i n n e r - c i t y . It appears that renters, owners-occupiers, and co-op members a l l want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . The majority of current i n n e r - c i t y residents are renters. Co-op residents were less l i k e l y to move from t h e i r current inner-c i t y residences than renters or owner-occupiers, l i k e l y because on average they have lower housing costs than other i n n e r - c i t y residents. In the West -107-End, owner-occupiers were less l i k e l y to move than renters, a s i t u a t i o n consistent with the findings of general mobility studies referenced i n chapter 2. However, i n False Creek there was l i t t l e d ifference between the two groups i n terms of moving expectations. Cross-tabulations of the cur-rent and desired tenure of households who expected to move within the inner-c i t y indicates that many renters want to move to ownership housing while few owner-occupiers want to move to re n t a l housing (see Appendix X). The surveyed suburban households who wanted to move to the i n n e r - c i t y were almost e x c l u s i v e l y renters. These findings are consistent with the extant studies reviewed i n chapter 2. Inner-city households with a low monthly housing expenditure were more l i k e l y than other households to expect to continue l i v i n g i n t h e i r current residences. Hence, they were the least l i k e l y to consider moving within the in n e r - c i t y . S i m i l a r l y , of suburban households, those with low housing expenditures were the least l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . The reason these households are u n l i k e l y to move to or within the i n n e r - c i t y can i n a large part be a t t r i b u t e d to the fact that they are pr i m a r i l y low-income households and cannot afford to move. Many of these households are comprised of e l d e r l y persons; and even i f these households could a f f o r d to move they may have l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n doing so. This i s but one example of how many of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households who want to l i v e i n the inner-c i t y are r e l a t e d . -108-5.0 WHERE DO PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN THE INNER-CITY To i d e n t i f y where people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y the following areas are explored: 1) the i n n e r - c i t y areas current i n n e r - c i t y residents expect to move to or within; 2) the i n n e r - c i t y areas current i n n e r - c i t y residents would con-sider moving to or within; 3) the i n n e r - c i t y areas suburban residents would consider moving to; 4) the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n of i n n e r - c i t y residents with t h e i r current i n n e r - c i t y areas. 5 . 1 Where Current Inner-city Residents Expect to Move in the Inner-city Respondents who expected to move (movers) were asked to i d e n t i f y where they expected t h e i r new residences to be located. It was an t i c i p a t e d that only one l o c a t i o n would be i d e n t i f i e d , however some respondents gave more than one; a l l of the answers are used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . ^ Table 5-1 presents the r e s u l t s of t h i s question. As the table shows, the largest percentage of the t o t a l number of i n n e r - c i t y movers gave "elsewhere in Greater Vancouver" ( i . e . out of the i n n e r - c i t y ) as a possible destination (31%). It appears that Fairview Slopes residents are the most l i k e l y to leave the i n n e r - c i t y ; 45% of the respondents there gave "elsewhere i n Great Vancouver" as an anticipated destination compared to 30% and 25% res p e c t i v e l y of West End and False Creek respondents. 15 Because of the multiple responses, the sum of respondents expecting to move to each area exceeds the t o t a l number of respondents expecting to move. TABLE 5-1: Expected D e s t i n a t i o n of I n n e r - c i t y Respondents Who Expect to Move 1 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA Expected d e s t i n a t i o n of move: WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES INNER- CITY TOTAL N % N % N % N % West End 41 27 1 1 5 10 47 16 F a l s e Creek 10 7 30 36 5 10 45 16 F a i r v i e w Slopes 5 3 11 13 13 26 29 10 Yaletown-South Downtown 6 4 3 4 2 4 11 4 B.C. P l a c e 8 5 9 9 0 0 17 6 Downtown 4 3 1 1 1 2 6 2 Elsewhere i n Grea t e r Vancouver 46 30 21 25 23 45 91 31 To some ot h e r c i t y 15 10 11 13 4 8 30 10 Don't Know 29 19 12 14 4 8 45 15 Other 7 5 8 10 3 6 18 6 TOTAL NO. OF RESPONDENTS WHO EXPECT TO MOVE 152 85 52 290 % of T o t a l Respondents 69 45 88 62 The percentages shown are of the. t o t a l number of respondents from each area who expect to move rrom t h e i r c u r r e n t r e s i d e n c e s . They t o t a l to more than 100% because of m u l t i p l e responses (some respondents e x p e c t i n g to move gave more than one l o c a t i o n as t h e i r expected d e s t i n a t i o n ) For the same reasons, the sum of the number of respondents expecting to move to each area exceeds the t o t a l number of respondents expecting to move from t h e i r c u r r e n t r e s i d e n c e s -110-The largest proportion of movers from both Fairview Slopes and the West End gave "elsewhere i n Greater'Vancouver" as an expected destination while the largest proportion of False Creek movers (36%) gave "within False Creek". "Within the West End" was the second most common answer from West End respondents (27%) as was "within Fairview Slopes" from Fairview Slopes respondents (26%). C l e a r l y i n n e r - c i t y residents expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y plan to stay within t h e i r current areas; t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true for residents of False Creek. Another notable r e s u l t shown on Table 5-1 i s that the West End has l i t t l e appeal to False Creek residents; i t was given as a possible destination by only 1% of the False Creek respondents expecting to move compared to 10% and 27% r e s p e c t i v e l y of respondents i n Fairview Slopes and the West End. S i m i l -a r l y Fairview Slopes does not appear to appeal to West End residents; i t was mentioned as a possible destination by only 3% of West End respondents compared to 13% and 26% res p e c t i v e l y of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents. Part of the reason for these r e s u l t s may be a difference i n housing cost between the areas. Approximately 9% of False Creek respondents gave B.C. Place as a possible destination compared to 5% of those i n the West End and none i n Fairview Slopes. Only a very small proportion from a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas gave "Downtown" or "Yaletown-South Downtown" as p o t e n t i a l destinations. That these areas are less often mentioned as destinations i s understandable given that they are at present e i t h e r completely undeveloped as r e s i d e n t i a l areas ( i . e . B.C. Place) or not yet established as r e s i d e n t i a l areas ( i . e . - I l l -Downtown and Yaletown-South Downtown). People have d i f f i c u l t y imagining l i v i n g i n a r e s i d e n t i a l area that does not yet e x i s t . A r e l a t i v e l y large proportion of the respondents did not know where they expected to move (16%). This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of the West End where 19% did not know where they expected to move compared to 14% and 8% respec-t i v e l y i n False Creek and Fairview Slopes. 5 . 2 Where Current Inner-city Residents Would Consider Moving i n the Inner-city The respondents were asked i f they would consider moving to another r e s i -dence within the i n n e r - c i t y . Those who answered i n the a f f i r m a t i v e were then asked to i d e n t i f y the i n n e r - c i t y areas they would consider moving to or within. The r e s u l t s to this questions are presented i n Table 5-2. For each i n n e r - c i t y area surveyed, the greatest percentage of respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y mentioned t h e i r current area as a p o t e n t i a l destination. In Fairview Slopes, 72% said they would consider moving within Fairview Slopes, whereas 66% of the False Creek respondents would consider moving within False Creek and 55% of West End respondents would consider moving within the West End. False Creek was mentioned as a possible destination by a large percentage of respondents not only from False Creek but also from Fairview Slopes (65%) and the West End (45%). S i m i l a r l y , Fairview Slopes was mentioned as a possible destination by a large proportion of respondents from False Creek TABLE 5-2: Where Respondents Would Consider Moving i n the Inner-city-*-CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA FAIRVIEW INNER-CITY SUBURBAN Expected D e s t i n a t i o n of Move WEST END FALSE CREEK SLOPES TOTAL 2 SAMPLE To or Within The I n n e r - c i t y : N % N % N % N % N % West End 72 55 15 16 12 26 99 36 5 29 . Downtown 5 4 6 6 5 11 16 6 1 6 Yaletown-South Downtown 12 9 17 18 11 24 40 15 3 18 B.C. Place 29 22 39 40 15 33 83 30 9 53 F a l s e Creek 58 45 64 66 30 65 153 56 12 71 F a i r v i e w Slopes 45 35 51 52 33 72 129 47 6 35 TOTAL NO. OF RESPONDENTS WHO WOULD CONSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN THE INNER-CITY 131 97 46 275 17 % Of T o t a l 60% 52% 78% 59% 13% 1 The percentages shown are of the t o t a l number of respondents from each area who would conside moving to or w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . They t o t a l to more than 100% because of m u l t i p l e response {respondents c o u l d i d e n t i f y more than one area as an area they would c o n s i d e r moving to or w i t h i n ) . For the same reason, the sum of the number of respondents who would c o n s i d e r moving to each area exceeds the t o t a l number of respondents who would c o n s i d e r moving w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . 2 The i n n e r - c i t y t o t a l i n c l u d e s 1 respondent whose s p e c i f i c i n n e r - c i t y l o c a t i o n was unknown. -113-(52%) and by 35% of the respondents from the West End. However, a smaller proportion of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents mentioned the West End as a p o t e n t i a l destination (16% and 26% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Another notable r e s u l t shown on Table 5-2 i s that a r e l a t i v e l y large propor-ti o n of the respondents who would consider moving mentioned B.C. Place as a possible destination (40%, 33% and 22% r e s p e c t i v e l y of movers from False Creek, Fairview Slopes and the West End). Yaletown-South Downtown was mentioned as a possible destination by 24% and 18% r e s p e c t i v e l y of the Fairview Slopes and False Creek respondents who would consider moving, but by only 9% of those i n the West End. Downtown was the l e a s t often mentioned destination by a l l three areas. As i n section 5.1, part of the reason Yaletown-South Downtown, B.C. Place and Downtown are less often mentioned i s that these areas are not yet established as r e s i d e n t i a l areas. 5.3 Where Suburban Residents Would Consider Moving in the Inner-city Seventeen suburban respondents (13%) would consider moving to the inner-c i t y (see Table 5-2). The largest percentage of t h i s group (71%) mentioned False Creek as a p o t e n t i a l destination while B.C. Place was the second most often mentioned (53%). Fairview Slopes and the West End were i d e n t i f i e d as a p o t e n t i a l destination by 35% and 29% r e s p e c t i v e l y . As with i n n e r - c i t y respondents, Yaletown-South Downtown and Downtown were the l e a s t often men-tioned destinations. A preference for False Creek was also shown by the suburban respondents who expected to move to the i n n e r - c i t y . Of the s i x who expected to do so, f i v e mentioned False Creek as a p o t e n t i a l destination; -114-the West End was mentioned by three; and Yaletown-South Downtown and B.C. Place were each mentioned by two. 5.4 Inner-city Residents' Satisfaction with their Current Neighbourhoods and Dwelling Units I t i s hypothesized that the l e v e l of a resident's s a t i s f a c t i o n with his/her current neighbourhood i s i n d i c a t i v e of the degree to which he/she wants to l i v e i n that neighbourhood. The respondents were asked i f they l i k e d l i v i n g i n t h e i r current neighbour-hood and given " l i k e very much", " l i k e " , " d i s l i k e " , " d i s l i k e very much" and "no opinion" as response options. As shown on Table 5-3, over 90% of the respondents from a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas stated that they e i t h e r " l i k e d " or " l i k e d very much" l i v i n g i n t h e i r neighbourhoods. False Creek residents appear to be the most s a t i s f i e d , with 80% of the False Creek respondents stating they " l i k e very much" l i v i n g i n t h e i r current neighbourhood com-pared to 64% of Fairview Slopes and only 47% of West End respondents. False Creek respondents were also more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r neighbourhoods than suburban respondents, only 57% of whom stated they " l i k e very much" t h e i r neighbourhoods. The respondents were also asked i f they l i k e d l i v i n g i n t h e i r current dwelling u n i t s . The response to this question was s i m i l a r to the previous question. A large proportion of the responents from a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas said they e i t h e r " l i k e d very much" or " l i k e d " l i v i n g i n t h e i r current dwelling units (see Table 5-4). False Creek respondents again appear to be TABLE 5-3; Respondent j? S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h ^ C u r r e n t N e i g h b o u r h o o d i WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES INNER-CITY TOTAL SUBURBAN SAMPLE Unweighted Weighted Like Very Much Li k e 47% 94% 47% 80% 100% 20% 64% 93% 29% 62% 95% 33% 47% 92% 43% 57% 97% 40% D i s l i k e D i s l i k e Very Much 4% 6% 2% 1% 1% 0 3% 5% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 6% 2% 2% 2% 0 No Opinion 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0 Number of Cases (N) 215 185 59 461 461 126 TABLE 5-4: R e s p o n d e n t S a t i s f a c t i o n W i t h i C u r r e n t D w e l l i n g U n i t WEST END FAIRVIEW INNER-CITY TOTAL SUBURBAN FALSE CREEK SLOPES Unweighted Weighted SAMPLE L i k e Very Much L i k e 34%-58%--92% 62%-T (-94% 32% J 44%7 f83% 39% J 46%7 \91% 45%-» 35%7 T-90% 55% A 56%T T98% 4 2%-* D i s l i k e D i s l i k e Very Much 6%-j f-8% 2%-» 6%-i j-7% 1% J 14% 7 f l 6 % 2%-» f-8% 1 % A 6%n (-8% 2 %1 (-2% o-A-No Opinion 1% 0 2% 0 1% 1% NUMBER OF CASES 213 183 59 457 457 125 G r o u n d i n g . a d j U S t S d exclude m i s s i n g cases) and may not t o t a l t o 100% due -116-th e most s a t i s f i e d , with 62% of the respondents replying that they " l i k e d very much" t h e i r residences compared to 44% and 34% res p e c t i v e l y of Fairview Slopes and West End respondents. Fairview Slopes was the only area where a s i g n i f i c a n t number of respondents stated they d i s l i k e d t h e i r residences (16% compared to 8% and 7% re s p e c t i v e l y of West End and False Creek respon-dents). Suburban respondents were very s i m i l a r to False Creek respondents i n terms of t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r current residences. The respondents' high l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r neighbourhoods and dwelling units i s consistent with the findings of other studies. Goldberg and Mark (1981) reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e on housing s a t i s f a c t i o n and ar r i v e d at the conclusion that generally both Canadian and American households, including i n n e r - c i t y residents, are s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r housing. Among the studies they reviewed were Michelson's 1977 study. He found that one year a f t e r having moved to ei t h e r a downtown apartment or house the vast majority of residents were eit h e r mostly or d e f i n i t e l y s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r dwelling u n i t , l o c a t i o n and neighbourhood. Michelson found some points of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y by apartment dwellers (e.g. si z e of u n i t s , lack of storage space). However, he concluded that these persons report a high l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n despite d i s a t i s f a c t i o n with p a r t i c u l a r features because they see t h e i r current housing as temporary. Other studies r e f e r -enced by Goldberg and Mark include a 1973 study of condominium residents i n Vancouver by Hamilton and Roberts and a 1979 CMHC study of 11,000 households across Canada. Hamilton and Roberts found 93% of the condominium residents were eit h e r moderately or very well s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r residences while the CMHC study found 82% of the respondents were s a t i s f i e d . In the United -117-States, Norcross (1973) found that of 1760 households i n 49 condominium projects i n Maryland, V i r g i n i a , and C a l i f o r n i a , 86% found l i v i n g conditions to be good, while only 2% found them to be poor. 5.5 Summary False Creek appears to be the i n n e r - c i t y area i n which people most want to l i v e . While the West End i s the most populous i n n e r - c i t y area, False Creek was the area from which the smallest proportion of respondents expected to move. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , i t was also the area i n which the largest percen-tage of respondents stated they " l i k e d very much" l i v i n g i n t h e i r current neighbourhood and dwelling u n i t . Further evidencing the d e s i r a b i l i t y of False Creek, a greater proportion of False Creek than West End or Fairview Slopes movers (those who expect to move) expected to move within t h e i r own area. False Creek was the only area i n which the largest proportion of movers mentioned t h e i r current area as a possible d e s t i n a t i o n ; "elsewhere i n Greater Vancouver" was mentioned most often by West End and Fairview Slopes movers. Also, a large proportion of movers from a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas said they would consider moving to or within False Creek. S i m i l a r l y , of suburban respondents who would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y , the largest proportion mentioned False Creek as a p o t e n t i a l d e s t i n a t i o n . Fairview Slopes respondents were the i n n e r - c i t y respondents most l i k e l y to move from t h e i r current residences, but the le a s t l i k e l y to expect to move within t h e i r current area. They were also the most l i k e l y i n n e r - c i t y respondents to expect to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y . However, Fairview I -118-Slopes was mentioned as a po t e n t i a l destination by a large percentage of in n e r - c i t y respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y ( p a r t i c u l a r l y Fairview Slopes respondents) and was the t h i r d most often mentioned destination by suburban respondents who would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y ( a f t e r False Creek and B.C. Place). The West End appears to be the area considered the least desirable by residents l i v i n g outside the West End. R e l a t i v e l y few False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents expected to move there or would even consider doing so (only one False Creek respondent expected to move there). Also, i t was the least often mentioned of the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l areas (West End, False Creek, Fairview Slopes) as a dest i n a t i o n by suburban respondents who would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . However, the West End was the most often mentioned i n n e r - c i t y destination by West End respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y or would consider doing so. While only a small percentage of respondents expecting to move i d e n t i f i e d B.C. Place as a possible destination, i t was mentioned by 30% of the inner-c i t y respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Nine of the 17 suburban respondents who would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y (53%) mentioned B.C. Place as a possible d e s t i n a t i o n . B.C. Place i s less often mentioned as a dest i n a t i o n than False Creek, Fairview Slopes, and the West End because no housing (or anything else other than the stadium) has been developed on the s i t e ; considering t h i s f a c t , the number of respondents who mentioned i t as a po t e n t i a l destination i s impressive. Given the loca t i o n of the B.C. Place s i t e and government involvement i n i t s develop--119-ment, i t seems l i k e l y that respondents are v i s u a l i z i n g a development s i m i l -ar to False Creek on the s i t e and consequently responding p o s i t i v e l y towards i t as a po t e n t i a l r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n . A small percentage of Fairview Slopes and False Creek respondents showed some i n t e r e s t i n Yaletown-South Downtown but Downtown appealed to v i r t u a l l y no one. Part of the reason these areas are less often mentioned i s that they are not yet established r e s i d e n t i a l areas. However, the fact that v i r t u a l l y no one was interested i n l i v i n g Downtown ra i s e s the question of i t s a t t r a c t i o n even a f t e r the r e s i d e n t i a l units currently under construction i n the area are completed. - 1 2 0 -6.0 WHAT KIND OF HOUSING DO PEOPLE WANT TO OCCUPY IN THE INNER-CITY? The kind of housing people want to occupy i n the i n n e r - c i t y i s described i n terms of type (townhouse, apartment, e t c . ) , size (number of bedrooms), tenure, and dwelling unit amenities. The kind of housing currently occupied by i n n e r - c i t y respondents i s described f i r s t , followed by a de s c r i p t i o n of the kind of housing desired by respondents who expected to move to or within the i n n e r - c i t y . Only respondents who expected to move were asked to de-scribe the kind of housing they would l i k e to move to. (Respondents who would only consider moving to or within the i n n e r - c i t y were not asked t h i s question.) 6.1 Housing Currently Occupied 6.1.1 Type The type of housing occupied by i n n e r - c i t y respondents i s shown on Table 6-1. Also shown i s the type of housing occupied by i n n e r - c i t y residents according to the 1981 census. The survey and census d i f f e r i n that "stacked townhouses" was included i n the survey as a housing type but not i n the census. Survey respondents who i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r current housing as "stack-ed townhouse" could have i d e n t i f i e d "single-attached" ( i . e . rowhouse/town-house) or "low-rise apartment" i n the census. Taking t h i s difference i n data c o l l e c t i o n into account, i t can be concluded that the survey and census r e s u l t s show the same type of housing being occupied i n the i n n e r - c i t y . There are very few residents of single-detached, semi-detached or duplex housing. TABLE 6-1: Type of Housing Occupied by I n n e r - c i t y Residents WEST END FALSE CREEK 4 FATRVIEW SLOPES INNER-C TTY TOTAL Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census Unweighted Survey 2 Weighted Survey Census Tvce of Housinq: S i n g l e detached 2% 1% 2% 0% 10% 18% 3% 2% 2% Semi-detached or duplex 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 Row house/townhouse 0 0 15 16 12 12 8 1 2 Stacked townhouse 3 1 n/a 42 n/a 17 n/a 19 4 n/a Apt. i n b u i l d i n g of 3 or l e s s s t r y s . Apt. i n 4- s t r y b l d g . 18 2 24 14 6 55 51 0 62 20 3 19 2 27 Apt. i n b l d g . of 5 or more s t r y s . 76 74 18 28 5 5 44 69 69 Apt. i n b l d g . of u n s p e c i f i e d s i z e 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 Other 0 0 2 0 0. 0 1 0 0 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. Census data i s from S e l e c t e d P o p u l a t i o n , Dwelling Household, and Census Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r Census T r a c t s , 1981, S t a t i s t i c s Canada Cat. 95-937. 2 To produce the weighted i n n e r - c i t y r e s u l t s , t h e f i g u r e s f o r each i n n e r - c i t y area are weighted by the percentage of the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y households t h a t each area comprises and then summed. 3 "Stacked townhouse" was not a housing category i n the- 1981 census; respondents i n t h i s category •. cou l d have been c l a s s i f i e d as r e s i d e n t s of s i n g l e - a t t a c h e d housing or as apartment r e s i d e n t s . 4 The Census area f o r F a i r v i e w Slopes was l a r g e r than the survey area and c o n t a i n e d p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d houses. - 1 2 2 -West End residents are almost e x c l u s i v e l y occupants of apartments, with approximately 74% r e s i d i n g i n h i g h - r i s e buildings (5 storeys or more) and 24% i n smaller apartment b u i l d i n g s . The larges t percentage of False Creek residents l i v e i n low-rise attached r e s i d e n t i a l buildings (apartments, townhouses, rowhouses or stacked townhouses), while there are also some high-ris e apartment b u i l d i n g s . Fairview Slopes residents are almost exclu-s i v e l y occupiers of low-rise apartment buildings and townhouses. 6.1.2 Size The largest percentage of i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed occupied one-bedroom u n i t s . As shown on Table 6-2, the majority of West End respondents (65%) and the largest percentage of Fairview Slopes respondents (41%) occupied one-bedroom u n i t s , compared to only 20% of False Creek respon-dents. The largest percentage of False Creek respondents (44%) l i v e d i n two-bedroom units while 28% l i v e d i n units of three or more bedrooms. 6.1.3 Tenure Almost a l l West End and three-quarters of Fairview Slopes respondents were renters with the remainder being owner-occupiers. Approximately one-third of False Creek respondents were renters, while another t h i r d were owner-occupiers and the f i n a l t h i r d co-op residents (see Table 4-7, section 4.1). 6.1.4 Dwelling Unit Amenities a) Private Outdoor Space The majority of i n n e r - c i t y households surveyed had access to some sort of private outdoor space (e.g. balcony, patio, yard). As shown TABLE 6-2: Size of Inner-city Respondents' Dwelling Units 5 "'" INNER-CITY TOTAL WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES Unweighted Weighted S i z e of Dwel l i n q U n i t : Bachelor 15% 8% 12% 12% 14% 1 Bedroom 65 20 41 44 60 2 Bedroom 18 44 32 30 2-0 3 or more bedrooms 4 28 15 14 6 TABLE 6-3: Amenities Accessible to Inner-city Respondents INNER-CITY TOTAL 2 WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES Unweighted Weighted Amenities A c c e s s i b l e : P r i v a t e outdoor space (e.g. balcony, p a t i o , yard) 68% 94% 77% 80% 74 o. o R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s (e.g. p o o l , c o u r t s , gym) 50-; 45, 16 44 47 Reserved Parking ^ (nig h t only ) 0 "1 4 l n 0. Reserved Parking (24 hours/day) 80-.80 91-.93 82--86 85-86 79--.79 1 Percentages are a d j u s t e d f i g u r e s ( i . e . exclude missing cases) and may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. 2 To produce the weighted i n n e r - c i t y t o t a l s , the f i g u r e s f o r each i n n e r - c i t y area are weighted by the percentage of the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y households t h a t each area comprises and then summed. - 1 2 4 -on Table 6-3, 94%, 77% and 68% r e s p e c t i v e l y of the False Creek, F a i r v i e w Slopes and West End households surveyed had access to p r i v a t e outdoor space. b) Access to Recreation F a c i l i t i e s A r e l a t i v e l y smaller percentage of respondents had access to r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s such as a swimming p o o l , gym or courts — 50% of West End respondents, 45% of False Creek respondents and only 16% of those i n Fa i r v i e w Slopes. c) Reserved Parking Shown on Table 6-3 are the pr o p o r t i o n of respondents who had r e -served parking at night only or 24 hours per day. At l e a s t 80% of the respondents from a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas had reserved parking, almost a l l w i t h t h i s parking 24 hours/day. 6.2 Housing Desired by Respondents who Expect to Move Within the Inner-city 6.2.1 Type The type of housing d e s i r e d by West End respondents who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y d i f f e r e d from that d e s i r e d by False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . As shown on Table 6-4, 45% of the West End respondents would l i k e to move to an apart-ment i n a b u i l d i n g f i v e storeys or more compared to only 6% and 5% respec-TABLE 6-4: Type o f H o u s i n g D e s i r e d by H o u s e h o l d s Who E x p e c t t o Move W i t h i n t h e I n n e r - c i t y CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES N. % N % ' N % Type of housing: S i n g l e - d e t a c h e d house 7 11 2 6 2 10 Semi- detached or duplex 4 6 3 9 1 5 Rowhouse/Townhouse 14 22, 19 11 Stacked Townhouse 7 n3 3 3 7 2 0 J 7 4 4 1 93 7 1 Apt. i n b l d g . of 3 s t r y s . or l e s s 11 17 6 17 4 19 Apt. i n b l d g . of 5 s t r y s . or more 29 45 2 6 1 5 Apt. i n b l d g : - s i z e u n s p e c i f i e d 0 0 0 0 1 5 Other 2 3 3 9 1 5 Don 11 Know 0 0 0 0 2 10 2 T o t a l no. of respondents who expect to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y 64 35 21 1 Because of m u l t i p l e responses (some respondents i n d i c a t e d more than one type of housing), the percentage columns t o t a l to more than 100%. S i m i l a r l y the sum of the respondents d e s i r i n g each type of r e s i d e n c e exceeds the t o t a l number of respondents who expect to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i 2 Includes respondents who expect to move only w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y and respondents who s a i d they would move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . -126-t i v e l y of the False Creek and Fairview Slopes movers. The largest propor-ti o n of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents i d e n t i f i e d a rowhouse, townhouse or stacked townhouse as the type of housing they would l i k e to move to (74% and 71% re s p e c t i v e l y compared to 33% for the West End). Ap proximately 17% of the movers from each area would l i k e to move to an apartment b u i l d i n g of three or less storeys. 6.2.2 Size Respondents from a l l three areas wanted to move to a residence with two or more bedrooms, however, t h i s was a much more important consideration for False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents than for those from the West End. As shown on Table 6.5, approximately 70% of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y stated that they required two or more bedrooms i n t h e i r new residence compared to only 34% of West End respondents. Larger units would be desired by False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents i n part because t h e i r households were larger than West End households (with False Creek households being the l a r g e s t ) . Also, the False Creek and Fairview Slopes households surveyed currently occupied larger dwelling units than West End households. False Creek and Fairview Slopes could also demand larger units than West End households because, as indicated by the survey r e s u l t s , on average they had higher incomes ( p a r t i c u l a r l y Fairview Slopes). TABLE 6-5: D e s i r a b i l i t y of S e l e c t e d Dwelling U n i t Features i n New U n i t by Respondents who Expect to Move Within the Inner-city-'-2 or more bedrooms: Required D e s i r a b l e but not r e q u i r e d Not wanted No answer CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END N % 22 34—i 28 44-J 7 8 13 20 1 2 FALSE CREEK N % 25 71-1 6 17-> 8 8 5 14 • 2 6 FAIRVIEW SLOPES N % 14 67—1 5 2 4 - T 9 1 2 10 0 0 2 bathrooms: Required D e s i r a b l e but not r e q u i r e d No wanted No answer 6 9 30 47 24 38 4 6 12 ' 34 15 43 6 17 2 6 7 33 11 52 • 3 14 0 0 P r i v a t e outdoor space: Required D e s i r a b l e but not r e q u i r e d Not wanted No answer 41 64 - i 18 28-*"9 2 2 3 3 5 30 86-1 4 l l > 9 7 0 0 1 3 17 81-] 3 1 4 > 9 5 1 5 0 0 1 Columns may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. Included i n the t a b l e are respondents who expect to move only w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y and those who would move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y -128-The presence of two bathrooms i n t h e i r new units was c l e a r l y less important than two or more bedrooms, p a r t i c u l a r l y to the West End households surveyed. As shown on Table 6 - 5 , 38% of West End respondents said that two bathrooms were wanted, compared to 17% and 14% for False Creek and Fairview Slopes r e s p e c t i v e l y . Approximately one-third of False Creek and Fairview Slopes households expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y said that two bathrooms were required compared to only 9% of s i m i l a r West End households. 6 .2 .3 Tenure As with type of housing desired, the form of tenure desired by West End respondents expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y d i f f e r e d from that desired by False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents. As shown on Table 6-6 , the majority of West End respondents wanted to move to r e n t a l housing (56%), while most False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents wanted to move to ownership housing (63% and 57% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Co-op housing was desired by 17% and 14% of False Creek and West End respondents r e s p e c t i v e l y , but by only one Fairview Slopes respondent. 6.2 .4 Dwelling Unit Amenities a) Private Outdoor Space Private outdoor space (e.g. balcony, patio, yard) was desired by over 90% of the respondents who expected to move within the inner-c i t y from a l l three areas. However, as shown on Table 6 -5 , i t s presence was more important to False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents than to those i n the West End; over 80% of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents would require private outdoor space TABLE 6 - 6 : Tenure D e s i r e d by Households Who Expect to Move Within the I n n e r - c i t y CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES N % N % N % Tenure D e s i r e d : R e n t a l 36 56 8 23 9 43 Ownership 25 39 22 63 12 57 Co-op 9 14 6 17 1 5 2 T o t a l no. of respondents expect to move-within the who i n n e r - c i t y 64 35 21 1 Because of m u l t i p l e responses (some respondents i n d i c a t e d more than one type of housing), the percentage columns t o t a l to more than 100%. S i m i l a r l y the sum of the respondents d e s i r i n g each type of r e s i d e n c e exceeds the t o t a l number of respondents who expect to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i 2 Includes respondents who expect to move only w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y and respondents who s a i d they would move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . -130-i n t h e i r new residences compared to only 64% of West End respon-dents. One reason for this difference could be that a smaller proportion of West End respondents than i n the other two areas have private outdoor space i n t h e i r current residences (see section 6.1). b) Access to Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Access to recr e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s (e.g. pool, courts, gym) was seen as desirable by the majority of i n n e r - c i t y respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y . It was not, however, seen as being e s s e n t i a l ; as shown on Table 6-7, for approximately 60% of the respondents from each area access to recr e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s was de-si r a b l e but not required and for approximately 20% i t was required. Fairview Slopes respondents expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y were the le a s t concerned with re c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , with 24% s t a t -ing they were not wanted compared to 11% and 13% re s p e c t i v e l y of False Creek and West End. c) Reserved Parking The presence of 24-hour/day reserved parking was deemed to be im-portant by respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y by those i n Fairview Slopes and False Creek. As shown on Table 6-7, 86% and 77% re s p e c t i v e l y of Fairview Slopes and False Creek respondents said they would require reserved parking 24 hours a day with t h e i r new i n n e r - c i t y residence. Only 50% of West End respondents stated that they would require reserved 24-hours/day TABLE 6 - 7 : D e s i r a b i l i t y of S e l e c t e d B u i l d i n g Amenities i n New Housing by Respondents who Expect to Move Within the Inner-city-*-Access to r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s : Required D e s i r a b l e but not r e q u i r e d Not Wanted No answer CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END N % 17 27-] 38 59 - I" 8 6 8 13 1 2 FALSE CREEK N % 8 23-] 22 6 3 > 8 6 4 11 1 3 FAIRVIEW SLOPES N % 4 19-1 12 57-f" 7 6 5 24 0 0 Reserved p a r k i n g ( n i g h t o n l y ) : Required D e s i r a b l e but not r e q u i r e d Not wanted No answer 10 16 16 25 21 33 16 25 8 23 7 20 8 23 12 34 5 24 1 5 6 29 9 43 Reserved p a r k i n g (24 hrs./day) Required D e s i r a b l e but not r e q u i r e d Not wanted No answer 32 50 13 20 16 25 3 5 27 77 4 11 2 6 2 6 18 86 1 5 2 10 0 0 1 Columns may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. Included i n the t a b l e are respondents who expect to move only w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y and respondents who would move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . -132-parking. West End respondents were l i k e l y less concerned with parking because a smaller percentage drive to work than respondents in False Creek or Fairview Slopes. Reserved parking at night only was not seen as a s a t i s f a c t o r y a l t e r -native to 24-hour/day reserved parking. As seen on Table 6-7, the majority of respondents ei t h e r did not want th i s type of parking or didn't answer the question (many because they had already stated they wanted reserved parking 24-hour/day). 6.3 Summary The type of housing i n n e r - c i t y residents currently occupy varies from one r e s i d e n t i a l area to another. West End residents are almost e x c l u s i v e l y apartment dwellers, the majority i n buildings of f i v e storeys or more. Of the three i n n e r - c i t y areas surveyed, the West End had the largest proportion of small dwelling units (bachelor and one-bedroom). It was also the area with the smallest percentage of units with private outdoor space or access to r ecreation f a c i l i t i e s . In contrast, the housing i n Fairview Slopes and False Creek i s primarily low-rise apartments and rowhouse-townhouse complexes (including stacked townhouses). In terms of s i z e , on average the Fairview Slopes units of those surveyed were larger than West End u n i t s , with False Creek units being the l a r g e s t . Also, a larger proportion of False Creek and Fairview Slopes units had private outdoor space than those i n the West End. -133-It appears that to a large degree i n n e r - c i t y households would l i k e to continue occupying the type of housing they currently occupy. As shown i n section 5.0, the largest percentage of respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y expected to do so within t h e i r current r e s i d e n t i a l areas. The largest percentage of West End respondents expecting to move within the in n e r - c i t y wanted to move to a hig h - r i s e apartment bu i l d i n g while the largest percentage of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents want-ed to move to a rowhouse, townhouse or stacked townhouse. West End respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y also d i f f e r -ed from False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents i n terms of the desired tenure and dwelling unit s i z e , and i n whether or not they required private outdoor space and reserved parking. To generalize, the majority of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents who expected to move within the inner-c i t y desired ownership housing, with two or more bedrooms, private outdoor space, and reserved parking. A greater proportion of West End than False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents desired r e n t a l housing; and a smaller proportion of West End movers desired units of two of more bedrooms, with private outdoor space and with reserved parking. As pointed out within t h i s section, the reasons for the difference between the West End respondents and other i n n e r - c i t y respondents l i e s l a r g e l y i n the kind of housing they cur-r e n t l y occupy and where they expect to move i n the i n n e r - c i t y . -134-7.0 HOW MUCH ARE HOUSEHOLDS WILLING TO PAY FOR INNER-CITY HOUSING? Households who expected to move were asked how much they were w i l l i n g to spend per month on t h e i r new housing. As shown on Table 7-1, of the inner-c i t y respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y , West End house-holds were w i l l i n g to spend the least on t h e i r housing and those i n Fairview Slopes the most. The average amount West End respondents would spend was $465 per month compared to $690 and $750 for False Creek and Fairview Slopes r e s p e c t i v e l y . 63% of West End respondents would spend only between $200 and $499 monthly compared to 29% of respondents i n both False Creek and Fairview Slopes. The largest proportion of False Creek households (31%) would spend between $500 and $699 while the largest proportion of Fairview Slopes res-pondents (38%) would spend between $700 and $999. Only s i x suburban respon-dents expected to move to the i n n e r - c i t y ; f i v e of those s i x would spend less than $700 per month on t h e i r housing. Part of the reason West End households are w i l l i n g to pay less for inner-c i t y housing than False Creek and Fairview Slopes households l i e s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the housing desired. West End households surveyed on average desired smaller dwelling units than False Creek and Fairview Slopes households. As shown on Table 6-5, only 34% of West End households required two or more bedrooms compared to approximately 70% of False Creek and Fairview Slopes households who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y . Also, as shown on Table 6-5, two bathrooms were required by only 9% of West End households expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y compared to approxi-mately one-third of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents. West End households expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y desire smaller dwelling TABLE 7-1: How Much Surveyed Households who Expect to Move To or Within the I n n e r - c i t y Are W i l l i n g To Pay f o r Housing! WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES' SUBURBAN SAMPLE MONTHLY HOUSING EXPENDITURE: N % N % N % N % $200 - $499 40 63 10 29 6 29 2 33 $500 - $699 15 23 11 31 3 14 3 50 $700 - $999 8 13 7 20 8 38 0 0 $1000 - $1499 0 0 2 6 2 10 0 0 $1500 and more 0 0 3 9 2 10 1 17 No Answer 1 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 64 35 21 6 MEAN $465 $690 $750 n/a STANDARD DEVIATION $165 $350 $365 n/a 1 Percentages may not t o t a l to 100% due to rounding. Included i n the t a b l e are respondents who expected to move only w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y and those who would move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . -136-u n i t s than other i n n e r - c i t y households i n part because on average they are smaller households. 64% of West End households expecting to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y comprise one-person compared to only 24% and 47% r e s p e c t i v e l y of False Creek and Fa i r v i e w Slopes households expecting to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y (see Appendix I ) . Another reason West End households expecting to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y would be w i l l i n g to spend l e s s on t h e i r housing than i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s i s that they r e q u i r e fewer amenities with t h e i r housing. Only 64% of West End respondents r e q u i r e d p r i v a t e outdoor space with t h e i r new residences com-pared to over 80% of False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents (see Table 6-5). S i m i l a r l y a smaller p r o p o r t i o n of West End respondents required reserve p r i v a t e parking (see Table 6-7). Dif f e r e n c e s i n the tenure and type of d w e l l i n g d e s i r e d a l s o e x p l a i n why West i End households are w i l l i n g to spend l e s s on t h e i r housing than False Creek or F a i r v i e w Slopes households. Of the West End households who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y , the m a j o r i t y (56%) s t a t e d they wanted to move to a r e n t a l u n i t compared to only 23% of False Creek and 43% of Fa i r v i e w Slopes households who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y (see Table 6-6). C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the respondents' current housing expenditure and tenure reveals that i n n e r - c i t y r e n t e r s on average have a lower housing cost than owner-occupiers (see Appendix Y ) . S i m i l a r l y the m a j o r i t y of West End house-holds st a t e d they wanted to move to u n i t s i n apartment b u i l d i n g s while the ma j o r i t y of False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes households wanted to move to -137-rowhouses/townhouses (see Table 6-4). As shown i n Appendix Z, rowhous es/townhouses are on average more expensive than apartment units in.Vancou-ver's i n n e r - c i t y . A major reason West End households are w i l l i n g to pay less for i n n e r - c i t y housing than False Creek and Fairview Slopes households i s a b i l i t y to pay. This factor also explains why False Creek households are w i l l i n g to pay less than Fairview Slopes households. As shown on Table 7-2, the majority of West End households who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y had annual incomes of less than $25,000 (55%) compared to 31% of False Creek households and only 24% of Fairview Slopes households. The average income of West End households expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y i s approximately $27,990 compared to $35,985 for False Creek households and $39,165 for Fairview Slopes households. Accordingly, West End households who expect to move within the i n n e r - c i t y currently have lower average housing costs than False Creek or Fairview Slopes respondents. The l a t t e r two groups have very s i m i l a r current housing costs (see Table 7-2). A question arises as to the degree to which the area i n which households want to l i v e a f f e c t s the amount they are w i l l i n g to pay for th e i r housing. As was shown i n section 5 (see Table 5-1), the majority of i n n e r - c i t y households expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y gave t h e i r current areas as t h e i r d e s t i n a t i o n . That i s , West End households are most l i k e l y to move within the West End, False Creek households within False Creek, and Fairview Slopes households within Fairview Slopes. It follows then that West End households would be w i l l i n g to spend less on t h e i r housing than other inner-TABLE 7-2: INCOME & HOUSING EXPENDITURES OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO EXPECT TO MOVE WITHIN THE INNER-CITYl WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES Annual Income N o o N o "5 N g, o L e s s than $25,000 35 55 11 31 5 24 $25,000 - $39,999 17 27 10 29 10 48 $40,000 o r more 9 14 12 34 6 29 NO ANSWER 3 5 2 6 0 0 TOTAL 64 35 21 MEAN $27,990 $35, 985 $39,165 STANDARD DEVIATION $10,545 $14, 320 $14,390 Monthly Housing E x p e n d i t u r e L e s s than $200 3 5 1 3 1 5 $200 - $499 46 72 11 31 7 33 $500 - $699 7 11 12 34 4 19 $700 - $999 5 8 5 14 6 29 $1000 - $1499 1 2 1 3 3 14 $15 0 0 o r more 0 0 3 9 0 0 NO ANSWER 2 3 2 6 0 0 TOTAL 64 35 21 MEAN $425 $645 $660 STANDARD DEVIATION $190 $350 $330 1 P e r c e n t a g e s may not t o t a l t o 100% due t o r o u n d i n g . I n c l u d e d i n t h e t a b l e a r e re s p o n -dents who expected t o move o n l y w i t h i n t h e i n n e r - c i t y and those who would move e i t h e r w i t h i n o r out of the i n n e r - c i t y (12 West End and 7 F a l s e Creek r e s p o n d e n t s ) . D o l l a r f i g u r e s are rounded t o the n e a r e s t $5. -139-c i t y residents because West End housing units a're on average smaller, older, and less expensive than False Creek and Fairview Slopes housing units (see Tables 6-2 and 4-6). Also, a larger proportion are apartment and r e n t a l units than i n False Creek or Fairview Slopes (see Tables 6-4 and 4-7). However, the questionnaire^ survey was not structured so as to determine whether, for example, West End households would move to False Creek or Fairview Slopes i f the kind of housing they desired at a price they were w i l l i n g to pay was located there. To summarize, West End households who want to move within the i n n e r - c i t y (the majority of whom want to move within the West End) are w i l l i n g to spend less on t h e i r housing than False Creek and Fairview Slopes households be-cause they w i l l move to smaller units with less amenities. Also, a larger proportion of West End households than other i n n e r - c i t y residents choose to l i v e i n apartment units rather than townhousing, and i n r e n t a l housing rather than ownership housing. Reasons for moving to these units include the smaller size and lower incomes of West End households r e l a t i v e to other i n n e r - c i t y households. The willingness of Fairview Slopes respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y to spend more on t h e i r housing than False Creek respondents appears to be la r g e l y a function of t h e i r higher average incomes. Respon-dents from these areas expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y are s i m i l a r i n the type of housing and amenities they d e s i r e . It may be that Fairview Slopes households on average are w i l l i n g and able to pay for a higher qu a l i t y unit than False Creek households who expect to move within the -140-i n n e r - c i t y . This supposition i s supported by the f i n d i n g that Fairview Slopes households who expect to move within the i n n e r - c i t y are on average smaller households than those i n False Creek. Fairview Slopes households indicate a desire and willingness to pay for a greater amount of f l o o r space per person i n t h e i r dwelling u n i t . -141-8.0 WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN THE INNER-CITY? In t h i s section, the reasons why current residents l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y are f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d , then the reasons why residents would move within the in n e r - c i t y are i d e n t i f i e d , and f i n a l l y , the reasons why suburban respon-dents would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . 8.1 Reasons for Current Residents Living in the Inner-city The respondents were asked to rate a l i s t of factors i n determining where they currently l i v e d as being " e s s e n t i a l " , "very important", "important", or "unimportant" (see Table 8-1). Factors given some l e v e l of importance are assumed to be i n d i c a t i v e of why respondents l i v e i n t h e i r current loc a t i o n s . To i d e n t i f y d i s t i n c t i v e reasons for i n n e r - c i t y l i v i n g , the ra t i n g of factors by i n n e r - c i t y respondents i s compared to that of the suburban respondents. A l l factors were considered " e s s e n t i a l " , "very important", or "important" by a large percentage of i n n e r - c i t y respondents, with the exception of number of children i n neighbourhood ( r e f l e c t i n g the small number of inner-c i t y households with c h i l d r e n ) . The factor carrying the greatest impor-tance was price of dwelling u n i t , rated " e s s e n t i a l " by 30% of the i n n e r - c i t y respondents and given some l e v e l of importance by over 90%. Other factors given some l e v e l of importance by approximately 90% of the i n n e r - c i t y res-pondents were the q u a l i t y and type of dwelling unit, the safety and c l e a n l i -ness of neighbourhood, and the a c c e s s i b i l i t y to shopping. The importance of access factors to i n n e r - c i t y residents i s evident when compared to the suburban sample. As shown on Table 8-1, over 80% of the TABLE 8-1: F a c t o r s Determining R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n -- Comparison of I n n e r - c i t y and Suburban Respondents RATED AS ESSENTIAL, VERY IMPORTANT RATED AS ESSENTIAL OR IMPORTANT RATED AS UNIMPORTANT 1 i (% of respondents) (% of respondents) (% of respondents) IC* Weighted Suburban IC* Weighted Suburban IC* Weighted Suburban T o t a l IC T o t a l Sample T o t a l IC T o t a l Sample T o t a l IC T o t a l Sample Access t o : Downtown 10 10 6 83 82 41 14 13 55 Work 19 19 13 80 76 80 12 12 16 Parks 15 19 6 84 83 61 12 13 36 A Body of Water 17 16 5 81 78 43 15 16 51 To shopping 14 15 18 91 89 91 8 ' 9 7 E n t e r t a i n m e n t / C u l t u r a l F a c i l i t . 9 9 3 80 74 57 15 19 37 Neighbourhood C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Neighbourhood C h a r a c t e r 18 13 22 91 86 97 5 8 0 Safety 25 20 35 94 90 9 5 3 5 3 Quiet 16 15 26 88 82 96 9 12 2 " C l e a n l i n e s s 19 20 25 94 91 97 3 3 0 Type of people i n Neighbourhood 10 11 19 80 74 88 14 17 9 No. of c h i l d r e n " 6 4 7 48 39 64 45 50 32 Q u a l i t y of Housing 13 13 21 87 84 95 8 10 1 Q u a l i t y of S t r e e t s , curbs 12 12 17 82 79 88 13 15 8 Parks 13 14 9 85 82 80 10 11 16 " Shopping 10 11 12 86 82 84 10 8 12 " P u b l i c S e r v i c e s 10 11 15 70 71 81 25 22 14 ( l i b r a r i e s , s c h o o l s , e t c . ) Dwelli n q Unit C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r i c e 29 30 17 91 91 89 4 3 8 Size 15 14 12 89 89 94 6 8 4 Q u a l i t y 20 21 23 93 93 94 1 1 2 Type (townhouse, apt., e t c . ) 10 11 28 74 74 93 18 19 6 Amenities (yard, p o o l , balcony) 15 11 21 7 9 79 92 14 17 e Amt. of Maintenance Required 10 11 8 79 79 87 11 12 10 Type of Tenure ( r e n t a l , coop, 17 15 26 77 77 93 14 15 5 ownership) 469 127 469 *IC = Inner C i t y 469 1 2 7 469 469 127 1 Not shown are the percentage of respondents who e i t h e r had no o p i n i o n or d i d not answer the q u e s t i o n . -143-i n n e r - c i t y respondents gave access to downtown some importance compared to only 41% of the suburban respondents. Other access f a c t o r s r a t e d as "essen-t i a l " , "very important", or "important" by a l a r g e r percentage of i n n e r -c i t y than suburban respondents included the f o l l o w i n g : — access to parks (83% compared to 61%) access to a body of water (78% compared to 43%) access to e n t e r t a i n m e n t / c u l t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s (74% compared to 57%) Access to work and to shopping were given a high l e v e l of importance by both i n n e r - c i t y and suburban households. I n n e r - c i t y respondents r a t e d s e v e r a l d w e l l i n g u n i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l e s s important than d i d the suburban respondents. The type of d w e l l i n g u n i t , i t s amenities and the form of tenure were considered as " e s s e n t i a l " , "very important" or "important" by only approximately 70% of i n n e r - c i t y respon-dents compared to over 90% of suburban respondents. These r e s u l t s are not s u r p r i s i n g given that a much l a r g e r percentage of suburban than i n n e r - c i t y respondents own t h e i r homes. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , given the l a r g e r percentage of suburban households w i t h c h i l d r e n , the number of c h i l d r e n i n the neigh-bourhood was more important to suburban households. There were few d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n n e r - c i t y areas i n terms of the f a c t o r s t h e i r r e s i d e n t s considered important i n determining where they l i v e d (see Table 8-2). Neighbourhood s a f e t y , c l e a n l i n e s s and character were h i g h l y rated by respondents from a l l three areas, w i t h False Creek respondents g i v i n g them the highest r a t i n g . S i m i l a r l y the p r i c e and q u a l i t y TABLE 8-2: F a c t o r s Determining R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n -- Comparison of I n n e r - c i t y A r e a s 1 RATED AS ESSENTIAL RATEC AS ESSENTIAL,VERY RATED AS UNIMPORTANT (% of respondents) IMPORTANT OR IMPORTANT (% of respondents) i (% of respondents) West F a l s e F a i r v i e w West F a l s e F a i r v i e w West F a l s e End Creek Slopes End Creek Slopes End Creek Slopes A e r i e s t o : Downtown 11 10 5 84 83 80 13 15 15 Work 19 17 24 77 77 95 13 12 5 Parks 20 11 10 85 87 78 13 10 14 A body of Water 16 18 17 80 82 76 16 14 14 Shopping 16 14 5 91 93 86 9 6 12 E n t e r t a i n m e n t / C u l t u r a l f a c i l . 9 9 7 75 84 83 20 12 10 Neighbourhood C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Neighbourhood C h a r a c t e r 13 26 10 87 97 92 9 1 3 " S a f e t y 20 31 22 91 97 95 6 0 2 " Q u i e t 15 19 12 83 93 89 13 5 9 " C l e a n l i n e s s 21 19 9 93 96 89 3 1 7 Type of People i n Neighbourhood 11 12 3 75 86 78 18 8 17 No. of C h i l d r e n " 4 9 2 38 59 48 52 36 49 Q u a l i t y of Housing 14 13 5 85 92 82 10 3 15 " S t r e e t s / C u r b s 13 12 5 81 87 73 15 8 20 " Parks 15 12 9 84 88 77 11 7 15 ' " Shopping 12 10 3 87 85 81 8 10 17 " P u b l i c S e r v i c e s 11 10 7 73 72 56 21 24 41 ( l i b r a r i e s , s c h o o l s , e t c ; ) D w e l l i n q U n i t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : P r i c e 31 29 22 93 88 94 3 6 3 S i z e 14 19 12 86 92 88 9 4 3 Q u a l i t y 22 21 10 93 94 90 1 2 2 Type (townhouse, apt., e t c . ) 11 10 9 72 78 71 20 14 20 A m e n i t i e s ( y a r d , p o o l , balcony) 11 19 14 75 85 75 18 7 22 Amount of Maintenance R e q u i r e d 11 11 3 78 84 70 12 6 20 Type of Tenure ( r e n t a l , coop, 15 20 17 73 80 80 16 11 14 o w n e r s h i D ) N 220 188 59 220 188 59 220 188 59 1 Not shown are the percentage of respondents who e i t h e r had no o p i n i o n or d i d not answer the q u e s t i o n . -145-of dwelling unit were important considerations to residents of a l l three areas. Fairview Slopes respondents were more concerned with access to work than other i n n e r - c i t y respondents; 95% gave i t some l e v e l of importance compared to 77% of False Creek and West End respondents. Reasons for t h i s are that Fairview Slopes was the i n n e r - c i t y area with the largest proportion of respondents from two-income-earner households and with the lowest percen-tage of r e t i r e d income earners. False Creek respondents gave more impor-tance to the number of c h i l d r e n i n the neighbourhood; i t was also the inner-c i t y area with the largest proportion of households with c h i l d r e n . Another difference between the areas was that a r e l a t i v e l y smaller percen-tage of Fairview Slopes respondents gave some l e v e l of importance to the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood public services (schools, senior c i t i z e n ' s cen-t r e s , e t c ) . This could be explained by the fact that Fairview Slopes has fewer households with ch i l d r e n than False Creek and fewer senior c i t i z e n s than the West End. -146-8.2 Reasons for Current Residents Moving Within the Inner-city The reasons i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s would move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y were i d e n t i f i e d i n two ways: a) Respondents who expected to move from t h e i r current residences were asked to i n d i c a t e up to three reasons f o r moving and where they expected to move. b) Respondents who would consider moving to another residence i n the i n n e r - c i t y were asked to i d e n t i f y the three most important reasons for doing so. The r e s u l t s of these two analyses are presented i n t h i s s e c t i o n . 8.2.1 Respondents Who Expect to Move Within the I n n e r - c i t y The reasons f o r moving given by respondents who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y are shown on Table 8-3.^ The reason most of t e n given f o r expecting to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y was to obta i n a l a r g e r u n i t (43% of the False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents, 34% of the West End respon-de n t s ) . The second most o f t e n mentioned reason by False Creek and West End respondents (37% and 28% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) was to obta i n a b e t t e r q u a l i t y u n i t . 16 I t should be noted that the number of F a i r v i e w Slopes and False Creek respondents who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y was small (21 and 35 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . As a r e s u l t , only a few respondents g i v i n g a reason equates to a r e l a t i v e l y large percentage (e.g. 4 respondents equates to 19% of the Fair v i e w Slopes respondents expecting to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y ) . How-ever, even i f the r e s u l t s are considered with t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n mind, they s t i l l appear to give some i n d i c a t i o n of why i n n e r - c i t y respondents would move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . TABLE 8-3: Reasons Given for Expecting to Move Within the Inner-city 1 Reason Given: For an ownership u n i t 15 For a co-op u n i t 7 For a b e t t e r q u a l i t y u n i t 18 For a l a r g e r u n i t 22 For a s m a l l e r u n i t 3 For a d i f f e r e n t type of u n i t 14 For a s a f e r neighbourhood 7 R i s i n g Rents/To f i n d cheaper housing Other T o t a l No. of Respondents who Expect to move w i t h i n I n n e r - C i t y CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END N % 23 11 28 34 5 22 11 13 5 64 FALSE CREEK N % 9 1 13 15 4 10 0 1 5 35 26 3 37 43 11 29 0 3 14 FAIRVIEW SLOPES N % 21 29 10 24 43 10 19 0 14 14 \ 1 Included i n the households who would c o n s i d e r moving w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y are households who expect to move e i t h e r w i t h i n or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . Respondents c o u l d i d e n t i f y up to three reasons f o r doing so; hence the t o t a l of respondents g i v i n g each reason exceeds the t o t a l number of respondents e x p e c t i n g to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . For the same reason, the percentage columns do not t o t a l to 100%. Not shown on the t a b l e are reasons given by l e s s than 10% of the respondents from a l l three areas. These reasons i n c l u d e : f o r a r e n t a l u n i t ; f o r a low maintenance u n i t . -148-This was the t h i r d most often mentioned reason given by Fairview Slopes respondents (24%). The second most often mentioned reason by Fairview Slopes respondents was to obtain an ownership unit (29%). This reason was also given by a r e l a t i v e l y large percentage of False Creek and West End respondents (26% and 23% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . These findings are generally consistent with those of the extant studies reviewed i n chapter 2. Michelson found that lack of space, p a r t i c u l a r l y storage space, was a source of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r dwelling units for apartment residents. Further, he found that the number of bedrooms i n a suite was a primary factor influencing persons to move from one downtown apartment to another. Forbes et a l found that the size of a suite was the second most often mentioned reason for choosing a p a r t i c u l a r suite i n the West End. Previous studies did not i d e n t i f y obtaining a better q u a l i t y unit per se as a motivation for moving. However, both Michelson and Forbes et a l found that the i n t r u s i o n of noise and p o l l u t i o n was a source of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with i n n e r - c i t y housing and motivation for moving. It i s possible that the i n t r u s i o n of noise and p o l l u t i o n might be reduced by moving to a better q u a l i t y u n i t . The l i t e r a t u r e also indicates that housing cost i s also a major reason for moving. Forbes et a l found that housing cost was the most often given reason for moving from the West End and most important factor i n choosing a residence i n the West End. Michelson also found that a sharp increase i n rent was an often-mentioned motivation for moving. F i n a l l y , the desire to obtain an ownership unit was i d e n t i f i e d by Michelson as a major reason for renters moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . A reason for moving -149-i d e n t i f i e d by both Michelson and Forbes et a l but not found i n the current study was problems with the management of the b u i l d i n g . A large p r o p o r t i o n of False Creek respondents (29%) gave "to o b t a i n a d i f f e r e n t type of u n i t " (e.g. townhouse, apartment) as a reason f o r moving. This reason was a l s o mentioned by a r e l a t i v e l y large p r o p o r t i o n of F a i r v i e w Slopes and West End respondents (19% and 22% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . F a i r v i e w Slopes and West End respondents were more concerned with r i s i n g housing costs than False Creek respondents, with approximately 13% from each area g i v i n g i t as a reason f o r moving compared to only 3% of False Creek respondents. "To f i n d a safer neighbourhood" was mentioned by 11% of the West End respondents compared to none of the False Creek and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents. As shown on Table 5-1 i n s e c t i o n 5.0, the l a r g e s t percentage of respondents who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y expected to do so w i t h i n t h e i r current areas. A n a l y s i s shows that the reasons f o r expecting to move w i t h i n t h e i r own areas were the same f o r respondents from a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas (see Table 8-4). The most of t e n given reason was to move to a l a r g e r u n i t , while the second and t h i r d most of t e n given reasons were to ob t a i n a b e t t e r q u a l i t y u n i t and to ob t a i n an ownership u n i t . 8.2.2 Respondents Who Would Consider Moving Within the I n n e r - c i t y Respondents who would consider moving w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y were asked to i d e n t i f y three reasons f o r doing so (shown on Table 8-5). A c c e s s i b i l i t y to work was the reason given most o f t e n by West End and F a i r v i e w Slopes respon-dents (41% and 39% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) but by only 26% of False Creek respondents where "character of neighbourhood" was given the most often (47%). TABLE 8-4: Reasons f o r Expecting to Move Within Current R e s i d e n t i a l A r e a 1 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES N % N % N . % Reason Given: For a l a r g e r u n i t 15 37 12 40 7 54 For a b e t t e r q u a l i t y u n i t 12 29 10 33 4 31 For an ownership u n i t 11 27 8 27 4 31 R i s i n g Rents/To f i n d cheaper u n i t 7 17 1 3 2 15 For a d i f f e r e n t type of u n i t 6 15 8 27 2 15 T o t a l No. of Respondents who expect to move w i t h i n C u r r e n t Area 41 30 13 1 Respondents c o u l d i d e n t i f y up t o three reasons f o r expeating .to .move w i t h i n t h e i r c u r r e n t r e s i d e n t i a l a reas; hence, the t o t a l of respondents g i v i n g each reason exceeds the t o t a l number of respondents e x p e c t i n g t o move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y . For the same reason, the percentage columns do not t o t a l to 100%. Only the most o f t e n mentioned reasons are shown on t h i s .table. TABLE 8-5: Reasons Given by Households f o r C o n s i d e r i n g Moving Within the I n n e r - c i t y l CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA WEST END FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES N % N % N % Reason Given: A c c e s s i b i l i t y to work 54 41 25 26 18 39 A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o downtown 26 20 18 19 7 15 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to parks 28 21 15 16 7 15 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to body of water 32 24 25 26 8 17 A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o shopping 17 13 3 3 5 11 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to c u l t u r a l / e n t e r t a i n . f a c i l i t i e s 13 10 7 7 14 30 Low-maintenance housing a v a i l a b l e 14 11 10 10 3 7 Tenure of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e 17 13 25 26 6 13 Type of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e 40 31 23 24 8 17 Q u a l i t y of i n n e r - c i t y housing 23 18 27 28 11 24 Character of neighbourhood 52 40 46 47 17 37 A reason w.r.t. low c o s t of housing 10 8 4 4 11 24 No Answer 12 9 7 7 4 8 1 Not shown are reasons which were given by l e s s than 10% of the respondents from each of the i n n e r - c i t y areas. These i n c l u d e d : small housing u n i t s a v a i l a b l e ; to purchase a unit.; access to view; investment p o t e n t i a l ; to o b t a i n a l a r g e r u n i t ; given n o t i c e / e v i c t i o n ; s i z e and type of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e ; access i n g e n e r a l ; and o t h e r s . -152-Character of neighbourhood was a l s o important to West End and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents, being mentioned by cl o s e to 40% from both areas. Other often-mentioned reasons given by West End respondents f o r c o n s i d e r i n g moving w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y were the "type of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e " (31%), " a c c e s s i b i l i t y to a body of water" (24%), and " a c c e s s i b i l i t y to parks" (21%). " A c c e s s i b i l i t y to a body of water" and "type of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e " were a l s o mentioned o f t e n by a large p r o p o r t i o n of False Creek respondents, but only 16% mentioned a c c e s s i b i l i t y to parks. None of these three reasons were important to F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents. The second most of t e n mentioned reason given by False Creek respondents was " q u a l i t y of i n n e r - c i t y housing" (28%). This f a c t o r was a l s o i d e n t i f i e d by a r e l a t i v e l y large percentage of West End and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents (18% and 24% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . F a l s e Creek respondents were more concerned with the tenure of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e than West End or F a i r v i e w Slopes respon-dents; 26% gave i t as a reason compared to 13% of both West End and F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents. " A c c e s s i b i l i t y to shopping" was mentioned by only 3% of False Creek respondents compared to approximately 12% of those i n the West End and F a i r v i e w Slopes. Factors mentioned more o f t e n by F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents than those i n the West End and False Creek includ e " a c c e s s i b i l i t y to entertainment/cul-t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s " and a reason r e l a t i n g to low-cost housing. "Access to e n t e r t a i n m e n t / c u l t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s " was given by 30% of the F a i r v i e w Slopes respondents compared to only 10% and 7% r e s p e c t i v e l y of those i n the West End and False Creek while a reason r e l a t i n g to low-cost housing was given by -153-24% of Fairview Slopes respondents compared to 8% and 4% of those from the West End and False Creek r e s p e c t i v e l y . It seems l i k e l y that the Fairview Slopes respondents who said they would move within the i n n e r - c i t y because low-cost housing i s av a i l a b l e are persons l i v i n g i n old low-rent houses (many awaiting demolition) who expect to move into s i m i l a r premises. Part of the reason for the differences i n reasons given by respondents from the three areas l i e s i n where each group would consider moving. As des-cribed i n section 5.2 the largest percentage of respondents who would consi-der moving within the i n n e r - c i t y would do so within t h e i r current areas. Table 8-6 shows why i n n e r - c i t y respondents would consider moving within t h e i r own areas. " A c c e s s i b i l i t y to work" was the most often mentioned reason for West End and Fairview Slopes respondents; however, "character of neighbourhood" was given most often by False Creek respondents for cons i -dering moving within False Creek (53%). It was also given as a reason for moving by approximately one-third of the West End and Fairview Slopes r e -spondents who would consider moving within t h e i r current areas. 8.3 Reasons for Suburban Residents Considering Moving to the Inner—city As shown on Table 8-7, the reason most often given by suburban respondents for considering moving to the i n n e r - c i t y was "character of neighbourhood", given by 35% of the respondents. The next most often given reasons were " a c c e s s i b i l i t y to parks" and "type of units a v a i l a b l e " (29% each), followed by " a c c e s s i b i l i t y to work", " a c c e s s i b i l i t y to a body of water", " a c c e s s i b i -l i t y to entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s " , and "tenure of units a v a i l a b l e " (24% each). TABLE 8 - 6 : Reasons Given by Households f o r Consi d e r i n g Moving Within T h e i r Current R e s i d e n t i a l Areas WEST END WITHIN WEST END FALSE CREEK WITHIN FALSE CREEK FAIRVIEW SLOPES WITHIN FAIRVIEW SLOPES N % N % N % Reason Given: A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o work 32 44 17 27 13 39 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to downtown 17 24 11 17 6 18 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to parks 22 31 8 13 5 15 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to body of water 21 29 13 20 5 15 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to shopping 14 19 1 2 3 9 A c c e s s i b i l i t y to c u l t u r a l / e n t e r -tainment f a c i l i t i e s 7 10 4 6 11 33 Low maintenance housing a v a i l a b l e 8 11 5 8 2 6 Tenure of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e 7 10 17 27 4 12 Type of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e 19 26 15 23 4 12 Q u a l i t y of housing 8 11 20 31 7 21 Ch a r a c t e r of neighbourhood 22 31 34 53 11 33 A reason w.r.t. low c o s t of housing 7 10 3 . 5 8 24 No answer 12 17 4 6 2 6 1 Not shown are reasons which were given by l e s s than 10% of the respondents from each of the i n n e r - c i t y areas. These i n c l u d e d : small housing u n i t s a v a i l a b l e ; to purchase a u n i t ; access to view; investment p o t e n t i a l ; to o b t a i n a l a r g e r u n i t ; g i v e n n o t i c e / e v i c t i o n ; access i n g e n e r a l ; and o t h e r s . -15 5^ TABLE 8-7: Reasons G i v e n by Suburban Respondents f o r Moving t o the I n n e r - c i t y Reason: C h a r a c t e r of neighbourhood N 6 g. • o ' 35 Type of u n i t s a v a i l a b l e 5 29 A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o p a r k s 5 29 A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o work 4 24, A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o body of water 4 24 ; A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o e n t e r t a i n m e n t / c u l t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s 4 24 Tenure of u n i t s 4 24 Q u a l i t y of i n n e r - c i t y h o u s i n g 3 18 Low-maintenance h o u s i n g a v a i l a b l e 3 18 Other 3 18 A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o downtown 2 12 . No reason 5 29 T o t a l no. of respondents who would c o n s i d e r moving t o the i n n e r - c i t y 17 1 Respondents c o u l d i d e n t i f y up t o 3 r e a s o n s . T h e r e f o r e , the t o t a l of respondents g i v i n g each reason exceeds t h e t o t a l no. of respondents who would c o n s i d e r moving t o the i n n e r - c i t y and the percentage column t o t a l s t o more than 100%. Not shown are the reasons g i v e n by l e s s than 10% o f the r e s p o n d e n t s . - 1 5 6 -Table 5-2 i n section 5.2 shows that the largest percentage of suburban respondents would consider moving to False Creek (71%) and B.C. Place (53%). It i s not s u r p r i s i n g that False Creek i s the most popular because i t s character i s the most suburban of the three i n n e r - c i t y areas: lowest density; mix of f a m i l i e s , s ingles, etc. It also has spacious parks, i s on the water, and has a v a r i e t y of types and tenure of u n i t s . It i s somewhat sur p r i s i n g , however, that B.C. Place i s highly rated by the suburban respon-dents because i t does not yet e x i s t and therefore i t s neighbourhood charac-te r , type of units, etc. are not known. Only one respondent mentioned the a v a i l a b i l i t y of small units i n the inner-c i t y as a reason for considering moving there. However, of the s i x suburban respondents who expected to move to the i n n e r - c i t y , three mentioned " f o r a smaller u n i t " as one of t h e i r reasons. "For a low maintenance u n i t " and "for a safer neighbourhood" were given as reasons for moving by two of the si x respondents expecting to move to the i n n e r - c i t y . No other reason was given by more than one of those respondents. 8 . 4 Summary People want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y because of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods and housing, and the a c c e s s i b i l i t y to work, shop-ping, downtown and so on. Price of dwelling unit was the factor given the most importance i n determin-ing where current i n n e r - c i t y respondents l i v e . Other features given a very high l e v e l of importance were the q u a l i t y and type of dwelling u n i t , and the safety and cleanliness of the neighbourhood. Access factors given the most - 1 5 7 -importance were access to shopping, downtown, and parks. Inner-city res-pondents d i f f e r e d from suburban respondents i n that access to downtown was not important to suburban respondents. Inner-city respondents also rated access to a body of water, parks, and entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s as more important than did suburban respondents. Analysis of the reasons for expecting to move within the i n n e r - c i t y does not indicate that any inherent i n n e r - c i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are keeping these people i n the i n n e r - c i t y (e.g. a c c e s s i b i l i t y to downtown). People expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y primarily to change some aspect of t h e i r dwelling u n i t . They wanted to move to larger units, to better q u a l i t y u n i t s , and to ownership u n i t s . However, analysis of the reasons given for considering moving within the i n n e r - c i t y does indicate that the i n n e r - c i t y has some spe c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s that people value. Inner-city residents appear to value the a c c e s s i b i -l i t y to work and the character of i n n e r - c i t y neighbourhoods; these were the reasons given most often for considering moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Other reasons frequently given were a c c e s s i b i l i t y to a body of water, down-town, and parks, and the type and q u a l i t y of dwelling units a v a i l a b l e . Also, a large proportion of Fairview Slopes respondents gave a c c e s s i b i l i t y to entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s as a reason for moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Character of neighbourhood was also the reason given most often by suburban respondents for considering moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . Other reasons men-tioned were a c c e s s i b i l i t y to parks, entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s , work -158-and a body of water. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n n e r - c i t y housing were also given as a reason by suburban respondents who would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y ( i . e . the tenure, type and small si z e of units a v a i l a b l e ) . - 1 5 9 -9.0 CONCLUSIONS The objective of t h i s study was to analyse the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing, answering the following questions: Who wants to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? What kind of housing do people want to occupy i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? Where i n the i n n e r - c i t y do people want to l i v e ? How much are people w i l l i n g to pay for i n n e r - c i t y housing? Why do people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y ? In conducting the study i t was found to be d i f f i c u l t to answer any one of the above questions without at least considering the answer to one of the other questions. For example, i t was impossible to i d e n t i f y the type of people who want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y or the kind of housing they want to occupy without considering the area i n which they currently l i v e and want to l i v e . Each area comprising Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y i s d i f f e r e n t i n char-acter and appeals to d i f f e r e n t types of people who want to occupy d i f f e r e n t types of housing. Therefore, rather than concluding by providing a separate answer to each of the questions outlined i n the introduction, eleven conclusions on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing have been developed. Together these eleven conclusions answer the questions outlined i n the introduction to the study. Most of the conclusions are general i n nature ( i . e . could apply to any i n n e r - c i t y ) ; however, several are s p e c i f i c to Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y (conclusions 8 to 11); for example< conclusions on where people want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y are s p e c i f i c to Vancouver. None of the extant studies reviewed dealt s p e c i f i c a l l y with analysis of the r e l a t i v e appeal of areas within a c i t y ' s i n n e r - c i t y . -160-Conclusion #1: Only a small proportion of suburban households will move to the inner-city The current study found that only a small proportion of suburban households want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y (less than 5% of the suburban households surveyed expected to move to the i n n e r - c i t y and only 13% would consider doing so). This f i n d i n g i s consistent with the extant studies (e.g. Michelson). There are, however, differences i n the findings of the current study and previous studies with respect to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of suburban households who move to the i n n e r - c i t y . The current study i d e n t i f i e s such households primarily as those headed by persons 25 to 34 years of age and comprised of three or less persons; suburban respondents with one c h i l d were more l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y than c h i l d l e s s households. Because of previous studies i t was anticipated that households who would move to the in n e r - c i t y from the suburbs would be c h i l d l e s s households and comprised of eith e r persons under 35 years of age or persons 45 and older whose chi l d r e n have grown and l e f t home ("empty nes t e r s " ) . An explanation for suburban households with a c h i l d considering moving to Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y i s i n the area to which they would move; almost a l l such households i d e n t i f i e d False Creek as t h e i r destination, an area designed for f a m i l i e s , unlike most i n n e r - c i t y housing developments. There i s no evident reason for empty nesters not being interested i n Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y . -161-Conclusion #2: A relatively large proportion of inner-city residents will move within the inner-city. The current study's findings indicate that a r e l a t i v e l y large proportion of in n e r - c i t y residents w i l l move within the i n n e r - c i t y . The majority of the respondents would consider doing so and, of the i n n e r - c i t y respondents who expected to move, approximately one-third expected to move within the in n e r - c i t y . This f i n d i n g i s consistent with those of the extant studies i n that they found that most i n n e r - c i t y residents previously occupied another i n n e r - c i t y residence. It i s d i f f i c u l t to characterize households that w i l l move within the inner-c i t y because few of the demographic and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s con-sidered i n the study appear to have any bearing on whether households move within or out of the i n n e r - c i t y . Households most l i k e l y to expect to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y were those headed by persons under 35 years of age; however, the majority of these households would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . The reason households headed by persons under 35 years are more l i k e l y to expect to move out of the i n n e r - c i t y than households headed by older persons may be that the younger households want to move to a more suburban environment to have a family. However, once persons reach age 35, they may decide not to move to the suburbs because e i t h e r they have not yet had a family, have decided not to have a family, or have concluded that i t i s not necessary to move to the suburbs to rai s e a family. Michelson's study supports the conclusion that some households with children decide to continue l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y . -162-Conclusion #3: Households who want to live in the inner-city are primarily those whose primary income earner is a "white collar" worker, a sales or service worker, or retired. The extant studies indicate that the majority of i n n e r - c i t y residents are employed in one of the following employment categories: professional-technical c l e r i c a l manager-proprietor-administrator sales service r e t i r e d These categories comprised over 80% of the primary income earners of the surveyed i n n e r - c i t y households. Of these households, the only ones l i k e l y to leave the i n n e r - c i t y were those whose primary income earners were profes-s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l workers; however, since households whose primary income earners were in t h i s category were the most l i k e l y suburban households to move to the i n n e r - c i t y , p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l workers w i l l continue to comprise a part of the market for i n n e r - c i t y housing. Conclusion #4: The effect of work location on the desire to live in the inner-city is not clear. The extant studies indicate that proximity to work i s one of the major reasons for households wanting to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y . However, the current study sheds some doubt on t h i s conclusion. Proximity to work was a very important reason given by Fairview Slopes respondents for l i v i n g i n the i r current residences, but less so for False Creek and West End -163-respondents. Part of the reason for work location being more important to Fairview Slopes households than other i n n e r - c i t y households i s that F a i r -view Slopes had the highest proportion of two-income-earner households and the lowest proportion of r e t i r e d income earners. Of respondents who expect-ed to move, those from False Creek and Fairview Slopes were more l i k e l y to move within the i n n e r - c i t y i f the primary income earner worked within the City of Vancouver than when he/she worked outside the c i t y . However, West End households were less l i k e l y to move within the i n n e r - c i t y when the primary income earner worked within the c i t y than when he/she worked outside the c i t y . Seemingly contrary to this f i n d i n g , the reason most often given by West End households for moving within the i n n e r - c i t y was access to work. This reason was also the most often given by Fairview Slopes respondents who would consider moving within the i n n e r - c i t y but was not one of the most often given reasons by False Creek respondents. F i n a l l y , work location had no bearing on whether suburban respondents would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . Conclusion #5: A primary reason households move within the inner-city is to obtain a larger unit. Other important reasons are to obtain better quality housing and for renters to obtain ownership housing. The extant studies in d i c a t e that a major reason for moving within the inner-c i t y i s to obtain a larger u n i t . This conclusion i s supported by the findings of the current study; "to obtain a larger u n i t " was the most often given reason for moving by respondents from a l l three i n n e r - c i t y areas who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y . Approximately 70% of False Creek and Fairview Slopes respondents who expected to move within the i n n e r - c i t y stated they would require two or more bedrooms i n a new dwelling unit, while -164-78% of West End respondents said such a dwelling unit would be desirable but was required by only 34%. Also i d e n t i f i e d as a major reason for moving within Vancouver's i n n e r - c i t y was "to obtain a better q u a l i t y u n i t " . While extant studies did not use these exact words i n describing a reason for moving within the i n n e r - c i t y , several studies i d e n t i f i e d the i n t r u s i o n of noise and p o l l u t i o n as a promin-ent reason. Factors i d e n t i f i e d i n the current study as contributing to the d e s i r a b i l i t y of dwelling units were the presence of private outdoor space and of 24-hour reserved parking. These findings are consistent with the extant studies. The extant studies and the current study are consistent i n i d e n t i f y i n g the desire to obtain an ownership unit as a major reason for renters moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Conclusion #6: P r i c e of housing i s an important f a c t o r i n determining where i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s l i v e . In the current study, p r i c e of housing was a very often mentioned factor by i n n e r - c i t y respondents i n determining where they currently l i v e d . It was ranked as a more important factor by i n n e r - c i t y respondents than i t was by suburban respondents. Low-income households i n p a r t i c u l a r gave price as an " e s s e n t i a l " determinant of where they l i v e , but households of a l l incomes said that i t was very important. Also, r i s i n g rents were an often given reason for moving within the i n n e r - c i t y . Few of the extant studies reviewed dealt with the price of housing as a determinant of why households l i v e i n -165-the i n n e r - c i t y . However, Forbes et a l i d e n t i f i e d i t as a major factor i n choosing to l i v e i n Vancouver's West End while both Forbes et a l and Michel-son i d e n t i f i e d r i s i n g rents as a stimulus for moving for i n n e r - c i t y house-holds. Conclusion # 7 : Access to downtown, to parks, to shopping, to entertainment-cultural facilities, and to a body of water are a l l factors influencing why people want to live in the inner-city. A c c e s s i b i l i t y to downtown, to shopping, and to entertainment/cultural f a c i -l i t i e s were i d e n t i f i e d as determinants of why people want to l i v e i n inner-c i t y areas i n the studies reviewed i n chapter 2. These a c c e s s i b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were also found to be important factors i n the current study; they were important determinants of why current i n n e r - c i t y respon-dents l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y , why i n n e r - c i t y respondents would move within the i n n e r - c i t y , and why suburban respondents would consider moving to the i n n e r - c i t y . A c c e s s i b i l i t y to a body of water and to parks may not generally be determin-ants of why people l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y but apply only to Vancouver (or to a c i t y s i m i l a r l y endowed with waterfront access and parks within i t s inner-c i t y ) . These factors were found to be important determinants of why people l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y i n the current study and by previous studies of Vancouver (e.g. Vischer-Skaburskis, Forbes et a l ) but were not mentioned i n studies conducted i n other c i t i e s (e.g. Michelson — Toronto; F l a v i n — Calgary). -166-Conclusion #8: The character of the inner-city neighbourhoods is an important determinant of why people want to live in Vancouver's inner-city. "Neighbourhood character" was another often mentioned reason i n the current study for i n n e r - c i t y respondents choosing to l i v e i n the Vancouver inner-c i t y . It i s not clear exactly what respondents meant when they said "neigh-bourhood character". However, i t seems l i k e l y that this term i s used to describe a combination of neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that make the i n n e r - c i t y a t t r a c t i v e : the proximity to good qu a l i t y parks and the ocean; the q u a l i t y of housing and public services; the safety and cleanliness of the neighbourhoods; and so on. Neighbourhood character was not mentioned as a reason for l i v i n g i n the i n n e r - c i t y i n the studies reviewed i n chapter 2; however, some of the factors that might create neighbourhood character, such as access to parks and the ocean, were mentioned in previous studies of Vancouver's inner-c i t y . Conclusion #9: The market for housing differs in each of the areas comprising Vancouver's inner-city. Results of the questionnaire survey show differences between the households r e s i d i n g i n each of the i n n e r - c i t y areas (e.g., there are more seniors l i v i n g i n the West End and False Creek than i n Fairview Slopes). This factor combined with the fact that the majority of households expecting to move plan to do so within t h e i r current areas r e s u l t s i n there being d i f -ferences i n the housing markets i n each of the i n n e r - c i t y areas. These differences have been pointed out i n chapters 4 to 8; some of them are b r i e f l y reviewed as follows: -167-the type of units desired i n the False Creek and Fairview Slopes areas are townhouses and low-rise apartments (3 storeys or less) whereas high-rise apartment units are desired i n the West End i n addition to townhouse and low-rise apartment units units with two or more bedrooms, private outdoor space, and reserve parking are more i n demand i n False Creek and Fairview Slopes than i n the West End the market for West End housing i s households with lower i n -comes than those i n False Creek and Fairview Slopes there i s a greater market for housing for 18 to 24-year-olds i n the West End and Fairview Slopes than i n False Creek there i s a greater market for housing for seniors and r e t i r e d persons i n False Creek and the West End than i n Fairview Slopes there i s a greater market for family housing i n False Creek than i n Fairview Slopes or the West End access to work and entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s i s more important to Fairview Slopes residents than to other i n n e r - c i t y residents i n determining why they l i v e i n t h e i r current l o c a -tion -168-neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g. q u a l i t y of parks, public services, streets and curbs, etc.) are more important to False Creek residents than other i n n e r - c i t y residents, p a r t i c u l a r l y Fairview Slopes residents, i n determining why they l i v e i n th e i r current l o c a t i o n In general, persons of a l l incomes and ages want to l i v e i n the i n n e r - c i t y , but the age and income d i s t r i b u t i o n of the market varies with each inner-c i t y area. It i s not clear that low-income households want to l i v e i n the in n e r - c i t y ; they may do so because they can afford to ( t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of residents of subsidized housing i n False Creek and the West End). It seems l i k e l y that the i n n e r - c i t y areas of other c i t i e s also d i f f e r ; however, this observation was not made i n any of the studies reviewed because generally the studies dealt with only one i n n e r - c i t y area. It i s also not clear to what extent the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the housing market i n each i n n e r - c i t y area i s determined by the current s i t u a t i o n i n the area. For example, i t i s not cl e a r whether people wanting to move within the West End say they want to l i v e i n one-bedroom units i n high-rise buildings because they have a strong desire to l i v e i n such units or because they want to l i v e i n the West End where the majority of units are of this type. Conclusion #10: Within Vancouver's inner-city False Creek appears to be the area with the broadest market. In the current study, a large proportion of the respondents from other i n n e r - c i t y areas would consider moving to False Creek and i t was the most -169-often mentioned destination by suburban respondents who would consider mov-ing to the i n n e r - c i t y . Fairview Slopes i s also a t t r a c t i v e to residents of other i n n e r - c i t y areas and the suburbs, though to a lesser degree than False Creek. The West End i s the least a t t r a c t i v e of the currently developed r e s i d e n t i a l areas to residents of other i n n e r - c i t y areas ( p a r t i c u l a r l y to False Creek residents) and to suburban residents. B.C. Place and Yaletown-South Downtown appeal to residents of other inner-c i t y areas and to suburban residents but to a lesser degree than the e x i s t -ing i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t i a l areas. The appeal of the downtown as a residen-t i a l area i s very l i m i t e d with Fairview Slopes residents being the most l i k e l y of current i n n e r - c i t y residents to consider moving there. It i s d i f f i c u l t to measure the appeal of housing at B.C. Place with any degree of accuracy because i t i s not yet a r e a l housing choice and people have trouble imagining things they have yet to experience. S i m i l a r l y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to measure the appeal of Yaletown-South Downtown, and Downtown housing because only a small amount of housing has been developed i n these areas, most of that only very r e c e n t l y . Hence most people are not f a m i l i a r with the housing opportunities i n these areas. Conclusion #11: On the basis of the incomes and expenditures of the house-holds likely to move to or within the area, development in Fairview Slopes and False Creek would entail less risk than in the West End. Fairview Slopes and False Creek households who expect to move within the i n n e r - c i t y are w i l l i n g to pay considerably more for t h e i r housing than households i n the West End. The majority of West End households were w i l l i n g to spend less than $500 per month on t h e i r housing while the largest -170-propor t i o n of False Creek and Fairview Slopes households would spent $500-$699 and $700-$999 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Part of the reason f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s that the West End had the lowest average household income while Fairview Slopes had the hig h e s t . Because most households who expected to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y expected to move w i t h i n t h e i r current areas, i t appears that developing housing i n the West End, on the basis of p o t e n t i a l revenue, would e n t a i l more r i s k than i n False Creek or F a i r v i e w Slopes. A l s o , the suburban respondents most l i k e l y to consider moving to the i n n e r -c i t y were those from high-income households and False Creek was the area most would consider moving t o ; and high-income West End households were more l i k e l y to expect to leave the i n n e r - c i t y than other West End households. One of the reasons o f t e n given by i n n e r - c i t y respondents f o r expecting to move w i t h i n the i n n e r - c i t y was to obta i n an ownership u n i t . Based on the amount that these households sta t e d they were w i l l i n g to pay f o r housing i t i s questionable whether the market e x i s t s f o r ownership housing, p a r t i -c u l a r l y i n the West End. However, there may be a gap between what house-holds s t a t e they are w i l l i n g to spend and what they do spend ( i . e . house-holds may understate what they are w i l l i n g to spend). In her study of the market f o r housing i n downtown Calgary, F l a v i n (1981) found that households tended to give unreasonably low estimates of what they would be w i l l i n g to spend on housing. -171-BIBLIOGRAPHY Alonso, W. 1980. "The Population Factor and Urban S t r u c t u r e " i n Arthur P. Solomon, ed., The Prospective C i t y , pp. 32-51. Boston: MIT Press B.C. Place Corporation. 1982. B.C. Place Report No. 2 — The B r i t i s h Columbia Place Concept Pla n . Vancouver B e l l , W. 1968. "The C i t y , Suburb and Theory of S o c i a l Choice" i n S. Greer et a l , ed., The New U r b a n i z a t i o n , pp. 132-168. New York: St. Martins Press Black, J.T. 1980. " P r i v a t e Market Housing Renovation i n C e n t r a l C i t i e s " i n S.B. Laska and D. Spain, eds., Back to the C i t y : Issues i n Neighbourhood Renovation, pp. 3-11. Toronto: Permagon Press Inc. Bourne, L.S. 1978. Perspective on the Inner C i t y : I t s Changing Character, Reasons f o r Decline and R e v i v a l , pp. 55-62. Toronto: Research Paper No. 24, Centre f o r Urban Community Studies, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Bourne, L.S. 1967. P r i v a t e Redevelopment of the C e n t r a l C i t y , S p a t i a l Pro- cesses of S t r u c t u r a l Change i n the C i t y of Toronto. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1979. P u b l i c P r i o r i t i e s i n Canada: A Survey of Communities Concerns. Ottawa C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department. Q u a r t e r l y Review, Oct. 1980, Jan. 1981, Oct. 1982. Vancouver C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department. 1979. Vancouver Local Areas. Van-couver C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department. 1982. North and East False Creek: Development Objectives f o r B.C. Place. Vancouver C i t y of Vancouver S o c i a l Planning Department. 1982. "A S o c i a l P r o f i l e of Residents and Housing C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Downtown South Area of Vancou-v e r " . Unpublished r e p o r t . Downtown Research and Development Centre. 1979. Downtown Idea Exchange, v o l . 26, no. 14. New York F l a v i n , J . 1981. "The Planning of Downtown R e s i d e n t i a l Areas". Unpublished Master's Thesis, F a c u l t y of Environmental Design* U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary: Calgary Foote, N.M.; M.M. Foley and L. Winnick. 1960. Housing Choices and Co n s t r a i n t s . New York: McGraw-Hill Books -172-Forbes, J . ; M. Goldberg and R. K e l l y . 1970. "Survey of West End Residents". Unpublished report prepared for Marathon Realty, Vancouver Gale, D.E. 1980. "Neighbourhood Resettlement: Washington, D.C." i n S.B. Laska and D. Spain, eds., Back to the Ci t y , pp. 95-116, Toronto: Permagon Press Inc. Gallagher, K.M. 1981. Unpublished survey of Vancouver West End condominium residents. Vancouver Goldberg, M.A. and J . Mark. 1981. "Consumer S a t i s f a c t i o n and D i s s a t i s f a c -t i o n with Housing: A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e and an Analysis of the CS/D Survey Response Data". Report prepared for the Consumer Research and Evalu-ation Branch, Consumer and Corporate A f f a i r s , Ottawa Hamilton, S.W. and R. Roberts. 1973. Condominium Development and Ownership. Vancouver, B.C.: Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver James, F.J. 1980. "The R e v i t a l i z a t i o n of Older Urban Housing: i n Arthur P. Solomon, ed., The Prospective C i t y , pp. 130-160. Boston: MIT Press Johnston, R.J. 1971. Urban Residential Patterns. London: G. B e l l and Sons Ltd. Lansing, J.B. and E. Mueller. 1964. Residential Location and Urban Mobil- i t y . Ann Arbour, Michigan: University of Michigan Survey Research Centre Lansing, J.B. 1966. Residential Location and Urban M o b i l i t y : The Second Wave of Interviews. Ann Arbour, Michigan: University of Michigan Survey Research Centre Laska, S.B. and D. Spain, eds. 1980. Back to the C i t y : Issues i n Neighbour- hood Renovation. Toronto: Permagon Press Inc. Lipton, G. 1980. "Evidence of Central-City Revival" i n S.B. Laska and D. Spain, eds., Back to the C i t y , pp. 42-60. Toronto: Permagon Press Inc. McAfee, R.A. 1967. "Residence on the Margin of the Central Business Dis-t r i c t " . Unpublished Master's Thesis. Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Col-umbia Mark, J . 1979. "Household Preference, Housing and Housing P o l i c y " i n Great- er Vancouver Real Estate Trends, 1979. Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, Vancouver. Michelson, W. 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential S a t i s f a c t i o n . New York: Oxford University Press Moore, E.G. 1972. Residential M o b i l i t y i n the C i t y . Washington, D.C: Association of American Geographers, Resource Paper No. 13 -173-Norcross, C. 1973. "Townhouses and Condominiums: Residents' L i k e s and D i s -l i k e s " . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e P a t i l l o , R. 1969. The West End of Vancouver: A S o c i a l P r o f i l e . Vancouver: United Community Services Pickvance, C.G. 1971. " L i f e c y c l e , Housing Tenure and Intra-Urban M o b i l i t y : A Causal Model" i n The S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, v o l 21, pp. 279-91 Rapkin, C. and W.G. Grigsby. 1960. R e s i d e n t i a l Renewal i n the Urban Core. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Pennslyvania Press Richmond Planning Department. 1981. South C e n t r a l Richmond Plan and Broad- moor Neighbourhood Pla n . Richmond, B.C. Ross, L.G. 1961. "Reasons f o r Moves To and From a C e n t r a l C i t y Area" i n S o c i a l Forces, v o l . 40, pp. 261-63 R o s s i , P.H. 1980. Why F a m i l i e s Move, 2nd ed. Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a -t i o n s Sabagh, G.; M.D. Van A r s d o l , J r . and E.W. B u t l e r . 1969. "Some Determinants of I n t r a m e t r o p o l i t a n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y " i n S o c i a l Forces, v o l . 48, pp. 88-98 Simmons, J.W. 1966. "Changing Residence i n the C i t y : A Review of Intra-Urban M o b i l i t y " i n The Geographical Review, v o l . 58, pp. 622-51 Simmons, J.W. 1974. Patterns of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y i n Toronto. Toronto: Research p u b l i c a t i o n no. 13, Dept. of Geography, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Solomon, S.P., ed. 1980. The Prospective C i t y . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Spearne, A.; S. Goldsteen and W.H. Greg. 1974. R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y , Migra- t i o n and M e t r o p o l i t a n Change. Cambridge, Mass.: B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Co. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1983. Population and Dwelling Counts f o r Enumeration Areas by Federal E l e c t o r a l D i s t r i c t s , 1981 ( c a t . E486). Ottawa S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1982. Selected P o p u l a t i o n , Dwelling, Household, and Cen- sus Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r Census T r a c t s , 1981 ( c a t . 95-931). Ottawa S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1978. Selected P o p u l a t i o n , Dwelling, Household, and Cen- sus Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r Census T r a c t s , 1976 ( c a t . 95-758). Ottawa. V i s c h e r , J . and A. Skaburskis. 1980. False Creek Area 6, Phase 1: Post Occupancy E v a l u a t i o n . Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Wright, Mansell and A s s o c i a t e s . 1978. The Economics of Downtown R e s i d e n t i a l Development. Calgary, A l t a . : C i t y of Calgary Planning Department -17 5-APPENDIX B: SUBURBAN QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Do you l ike l i v i n g iu your neighbourhood? Like Very Much Like IJislike Dislike Very Much No Opinion _5X%_ 2J% D_ „. _Q_ 2. Do you l ike l i v ing in yuur current residence (dwelling unit)? Like Very Much Like Dislike Dislike Very Much No Opinion _5&.% ±2*% o _ J L % 3. How important are each of the following factors in determining where you currently Live? (Please check the appropriate apace for each factor . ) 1-^ For Office Use Only Accessibility to work Acce s s i b i l i t y to downtown Accessibility to parks Accessibility to a body of water Accessibility to shopping Accessibility to entertainment/ cultural f a c i l i t i e s Character of neighbourhood Safety of neighbourhood Quietness of neighbourhood Type of people in neighbourhood Number of chiIdren in ne ighbourhood Cleanliness of neighbourhood Qua 1 i ty of ne ighbourhood hous i ng Quality of streets, curbs, etc. Quality of neighbourhood parks Quality of neighbourhood shopping Quality of neighbourhood public services (library, school, etc. ) Price of your dwelling unit Size of your dwelling unit Quality of your dwelling unit Type of unit (townhouse, apartment detached house, etc.) Dwelling unit amenities (yurd, balcony, pool, view, etc.) Amount of maintenance required Type of tenure ( i . e . rental, owne rsh i p or coop) Essent i a l Very Important Unimportant No Important Opinion /6 %, 47o I'lo y% 1 4V. 10% 11*/« x% 3 % 5Y. 2f% s/% t>% /o i /*V. 32% 7% II 3% 6% i 7 % 37% IV .. n°u 11% l/Vc 0 3% Ti 35% 3 ? % 21 % 25 i<, 11 u% 2 ? % 1% 1% it /?'/* 33% 3(.% 9% 37c it, 17 , 7% /8% 3?% 3/% Sr% 3S% Hb % 32 % 0 3% it 21% Ho % yt % / % 5 % n n % 32 % 3 7 % ?% ¥% J O 21% IL% 5% XI wu 31 % n% 12% 1% 11 19 % ii% 13% H% tr% ^3 17% 4o% 32% *•/. 3% 12 % fVV. 31% 1% if 13 % n% 19% i % 5% il, '29% *?% 25% t % av. 3.1 % 3 ; % Zl% 4 % a% 9% u v. S5% 10 % 3 % % ft-/. 2.7% U a% Percentages do not always t o t a l to 100% due to rounding and multiple responses ( i . e . to some questions respondents gave more than one answer). -176-4. Vancouver's inner -c i ty comprises the neighbourhoods shown on the map below. s West End b Downtown c Yaletown/South Downtown d B.C. Place e False Creek f Fairview Slopes a) Would you consider moving to Vancouver's inner -c i ty t Yes CU -1''"7) No B 7 " / , ( i f "no", skip to question 06) b) Which of the following neighbourhoods would you consider moving tot West End 2-3'k S B.C. Place S 3 % Downtown Yaletown/South Downtown False Creek . ~li % Fairview Slopes . , . . . . . . „ „ „ , n , „ . a\ most important reasons for considering moving to the. if bHide^he eecoSd^o-t important, and #3 beside the t h i r d s important.^ Reason Rank Access ib i l i ty to work "7 Access ib i l i ty to downtown Access ib i l i t y to parks Access ib i l i ty to a body of water Access ib i l i ty to shopping Access ib i l i ty to entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s Low-maintenance housing available Small housing units available Tenure o£ units available ( i . e . renta l , coop, ownership) Type o£ housing available (e.g. apartment, townhouse* etc. ) Quality of inner-city housing _____ Character of neighbourhood JL Other (please s p e c i f y ) Skip t o Ones': ton #7 3-7 z. 3 5 3 J2L Mil* 113,* -; -17 7-6. P lease' indicate your three (3) most importapt reasons for not considering moving to the inner—city, ranking them in importance by placing a #1 beside the most important reason, #2 beside the second most important, and #3 beside the th i rd moat important. Reason Not enough parks Lack of safety in neighbourhood Noise and pol lut ion Type of housing available Price of inner -c i ty housing Sire of inner -c i ty housing Quality of inner -c i ty housing Prefer suburban environment Other (please specify) St 13 _1L_ 7. Do you expect to Move froa your current residence some time In the future? Yes -r/W No ( i f "no", skip to question #15) 8. When do you expect to move? Soon (within 1 year) In the near future (2-3 years) Sometime in future (don't know when) Other (please specify) 9* For what reasons do you expect to move? (Check up to three (3) reasons.) To obtain an ownership unit To obtain a rental unit To obtain a coop unit To obtain better qual i ty housing To obtain a larger dwelling unit To obtain a smaller dwelling unit To obtain a d i f ferent type of dwelling unit (e .g . townhouse, apartment) To obtain low-maintenance housing To find a more suburban environment To find a cleaner neighbourhood To find a safer neighbourhood To find a better environment for chi ldren To obtain housing closer to your job/some other household member's job To obtsin housing closer to downtown To obtsin housing closer to a park To obtain housing closer to a body of water To obtain housing closer to shopping To obtsin housing closer to entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s Other (please specify) ' Y X fen -173-10. In what area do you expect your new residence will be l o c a t e d ? UeBt End Yaietown/South Downtown False Creek j ^ B , C ' p l a c a lilS" Fairview Slopes ~***/<» Elsewhere in Greater Vancouver % Downtown _!•*/_ Some other city I-UQA Don't know/Other (if "other", please specify) -t.A *i£ 11. What type of housing would you like to move toT > Single-detached house „ (I , Semi-detached or duplex T"V<» Row house/Townhouse (no unit above or below) __i___o Stacked townhouBe (units above or below) ~ Apartment in a building of 3 or less storeys Apartment in s building of 5 or more storeys n Other (please specify) _t-0/jft. 12. Would you like your new unit to be a rental unit, an ownership unit or a i coop unit? 7oy / V Rental unit )^ T-% Ownership unit Q / /* Coop o ?o 13. a) Would the following housing unit featurea be "required", "desirable", or "not wanted" in your new housing unit? Desirable but Mot Required Not Required 2 or more bedrooms 2 bathrooms _____ 3 £ Private outdoor space (patio, balcony, yard) T.4-*/. l£°A 3 'A b) Would accesa to the following amenities be "required", "desirable", or "not wanted" with your new housing7 Desirable but Not Required Not Required Wanted Recreation facilities (e.g. pool, courts, gym) 3oV. Sy X j l V . Reserved parking (5 p.m. - 9 a.m.) l°t'A —'/ Reserved parking (24 hours/day) 6& '/. \U V. | S V. 14. How much would you be willing to spend per month (including heat, lights, taxes and maintenance) on your new housing? $200-$499 XQV. $700-$999 2J 'A $500-$699 2/1% $1000-91499 tH-'/. $1500 or more 1% It ie important that 1 know something about you to interpret these answers. Please help me by answering the following questions. 15. How many people are there in your household? 1 2 3 2.L% 4 5 or more tO'A 16. How many children are there in your household in each of the following age groups? 0 to 4 yrs. 0. - * f 5 to 13 yrs. Q-50 14 to 18 yrs. Q./4 -179-17< l a which of the following age brackets are you? 18-24 years 2.o/» 35-44 years £4% 25-34 years 45-64 years 3^ >/. 65 or over 12-% 18, How many income earners are there in your household? 0 1 2 more than 2 5% 19. Where do the household's highest income earner and any second income earner work? Work Location Highest Income Earner Second Income Earner Downtown U&PA IL*/* West End ^ •/ %,*>A Elsewhere in City of Vancouver a_J * A IS V» Elsewhere in GVRD %& y« CfrVC o t h e r , A (8% . l a V / l Don't work/Not applicable — 20. In what type of employment i s the highest income earner and any second income earner? Type of Employment C l e r i c a l Sales Manager, proprietor, administrator Labourer or foreman (manufacturing/processing) Labourer or foreman (construction) Professional , technical Service worker Transportation/communication Materials handling Highest Income Earner Second Income Earner I V/. 8% 3>y. a IV/. 17% -7% &'/. a% O ± % 0 "77o u% 2.V. ? •/. ll°/o Retired Unemployed Other 21. Row do the highest income earner and any second income earner usually t ravel to work? Usual mode of travel to workt Highest Income Earner Second Income Earner "y c « t n v C **-y» "•^ l-Va 0 T H E R „ , L c L. SVa V / a PIT -18 0-22. What ia your gross annual household income (before tax)? Less than $20,000 13 V. $35,000 - $39,999 $20,000 - $24,999 Q V , $40,000 - $49,999 $25,000 - $29,999 A'A $50,000 - $59,999 $30,000 - $34,999 I \ % $60,000 or more \<f*A 23. What type of tenure ia your present dwelling unit? previous dwelling unit? Present Previous Rental *>&tt *fffl4 Ownership ffi y_ Coop ^.y . 24. What type of dwelling unit i s your present residence? previous residence? Present Previous Single-detached house *TVa ^r*/-Semi~detached or duplex -yoA Row house/Townhouse (no unit above or below) || v « Stacked townhouse (units above or below) Q Apartment in a bui ld ing of 3 or less storeys Ii'/ l - f V ^ Apartment in s bui ld ing of 5 or more storeys Ct Other (please specify) ft fey. 25. If you are not currently rent ing, have you l ived in a rental unit within the past f ive years? Yes _2J»% "0 11% 26. How large ia your present residence? previous residence? Present Previous Bachelor 2.% HV* 1- Bedroom 2- Bedroom Jfro/, 1.%% 3 or more bedrooms */a Sffr°/o 27. Are any of the following amenities accessible to your present residence? previous residence? Present Pre yious Private outdoor space (balcony, patio, yard) • Reserved parking (5 p.m. - 9 a.m.) mft _ Reserved parking (24 hours/day) _&1*3& _ Recreation f a c i l i t i e s (e .g . pool, courts, gym) s t l 7 ^ M . 28. What ia your tota l monthly housing cost , including heat and l ights taxes, maintenance, e tc . of your present residence? previous residence? Present Previous less than $200 $200 - $499 _2kfiy. $500 - $699 15% $700 - $999 -7% $1000 - $1499 h-Y* $1500 or more Thank you very much i I T -EE -j I ? -IS W -181-APPENDIX C: INNER-CITY QUESTIONNAIRE qCESTIORHAIRE 1. Do yoo l i k e l i v i n g i n your neighbourhood? Like Very Much Like , D is l ike Dis l ike Very Much (01JA __2& _3=% - t % No Opinion _ _ - ° / o TI For Off ice Use . Only 21% ?P% h%% XL% in __V VA %M 2fi% j _ % 10% 31% n % ___> 34>% If-—-* i3v, 37% i _ * /oYo 2.1% _av. 15% _o% 2a% ' #% 2.8% /6% 28/. 31% 33% _0% 11% 2_* 2)1% 8% 2 . Do you l i k e l i v i n g i n you r c u r r e n t r e s i d e n c e ( d w e l l i n g u n i t ) ? Like Very Much Like Dis l ike D is l ike Very Much No Opinion y_% it&% u4_ ___ 3. How impor tan t a re each o f the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g where you c u r r e n t l y l i v e ? ( P l e a s e check the a p p r o p r i a t e space f o r each f a c t o r . ) Factor Essent ia l Very Important Unimportant Important Access ib i l i t y to work Access ib i l i t y to downtown Access ib i l i t y to parks Access ib i l i t y to a body of water Access ib i l i t y to shopping Access ib i l i t y to entertainment/ cul tural f a c i l i t i e s Character of neighbourhood Safety of neighbourhood Quietness of neighbourhood Type of people in neighbourhood Number of children in neighbourhood . Cleanliness of neighbourhood Quality of neighbourhood housing Quality of st reets , curbs, etc . Quality of neighbourhood parks Quality of neighbourhood shopping Quality of neighbourhood public services ( l ib rary , school, e tc . ) Price of your dwelling unit Size of your dwelling unit Quality of your dwelling unit Type of unit (townhouse, a partition detached house, etc . ) Dwelling unit amenities (yard, balcony, pool, view, etc . ) Amount of maintenance required Type of tenure ( i . e . renta l , ownership or coop) lYA toy. it* 11% No Opinion 5 % 3y-5% 1% J% 3% »•% _£% 5'A 5% (0% 8% 3X~ 31 Percentages do not always t o t a l to 100% due to rounding and multiple responses ( i . e . to some questions respondents gave more than one answer). -182-4. Vancouver's inner-city comprises the neighbourhoods shown on the map below. West End Downtown Yaletown/South Downtown B.C. Place False Creek Fairview SlopeB a) Would you consider moving to another dwelling unit in Vancouver's inner-city? N° V* (if "no", skip to question #6) b) Which of the following neighbourhoods would you consider moving to or within? West End B.C. Place Downtown (s^/a False Creek Yaletown/South Downtown [ 5 % Fairview Slopes 5. Please indicate your three (3) most important reasons for considering moving to another residence in the inner-city, ranking them in importance by placing #1 beside the most important reason, #2 beside the second-most important, and #3 beside the third. % Reason Accessibility to work Accessibility to downtown Accessibility to parks AcrossibiIity to a body of water Accessibility to shopping Accessibility to entertainment/cultural facilities Low-ma intenance housing available Smal\ housing units available Tenure of units avaiLable (i.e. rental, coop, ownership) Type of units available (apartment, townhouse, etc.) Quality of inner-city housing Character of neighbourhood Other (please specify) _ _ Skip to Question #7 Rank 2. Jo_ 3<-13 »8 4-3 - 4 -183-6 . Please indicate your throe (3) moat important reaaona for not couaiduriug moving to another residence in the inner-city, ranking them in importance by placing #1 beuide the moat important reason, #2 beside the second moat important, and #3 beside the third. Reason Rank Not enough parks Lack of safety in neighbourhood Noise and pollution Type of housing available 3^ Price of inner-city housing _JL._ Size of inner-city housing —3— - I *"t" Quality of inner-city housing V> Prefer suburban environment ^ 14* Other (please specify) ^ "J \ < ^ \ Do you expect to move from your current residence sometime in the future? *es ' i f skip to question #15) 8. When do you expect to move? Soon (within 1 year) In the near future (2-3 years) Sometime in future (don't know when) Oth«;r (please specify) 2faV. 9 . For what reasons do you expect to move? (Check up to three (3) reasons.) 21?. To obtain an ownership unit To obtain a rental unit K To obtain a coop unit V To obtain better quality housing ^ K>9 To obtain a larger dwelling unit l L , | °t To obtain a smaller dwelling unit To obtain a different type of dwelling unit (e.g. townhouse, apartment) To obtain low-maintenance housing To find a more suburban environment To find a cleaner neighbourhood )t To find a safer ne ighbourhood ..VOT* -To find a better environment for children y To obtain housing closer to your job/some other household member's job • ^ To obtain housing closer to downtown \ To obtain housing closer to a park • y To obtain housing to a body of water X To obtain housing closer to shopping x To obtain housing closer to entertainment/cultural f a c i l i t i e s il Other (please specify) 353^ X v*eAVio*dL less + W c * - 1 0 % -184-10. In what area do you expect your new residence w i l l be located? . West End / f f o o Yaletown/South Downtown _ir-% False Creek B.C. Place fo% Fairview Slopes /p% Elsewhere in Greater Vancouver "3)1 °/o Downtown Some other c i t y /OVo Don't know/Other ( i f "other", please specify) _2=it3i What type of housing would you l i k e to move to? Single-detached house Semi-detached or duplex Row house/Townhouse (no unit above or below) Stacked townhouse (units above or below) Apartment in a bui lding of 3 or less storeys Apartment in a bui lding of 5 or more storeys Other (please specify) 12. Would you l i k e your new unit to be a rental uni t , an ownership unit or a coop unit? Rental unit % Ownership unit fiCcJ% Coop unit 13. a) Would the following housing unit features be "required", "desirable", or "not wanted** in your new housing unit? Desirable but Not Required Not Required Wanted 2 or more bedrooms g"T^ J^-Vo 2 bathrooms 2 5 % <f*t# 7^% Private outdoor space (patio, balcony, yard) fy*A , ? b) Would access to the following amenities be "required", "desirable", or "not wanted" with your new housing? Desirable but Not Requ ired Not Required Wanted Recreation f a c i l i t i e s (e .g . pool, courts, gym) _2£3?o (fHmYs f4 "/a Reserved parking (5 p.m. - 9 a.m.) %QP/+ XI % ~55% Reserved parking (24 hours/day) <!W"H / / % % 14. How much would you be w i l l i n g to spend per month (including heat, l i g h t s , taxes and maintenance) on your new housing? $200-$499 Jfci^ . $700-$999 %J % $500-$699 , $1000-$1499 " 7 % $1500 or more I t i s important that I know something about you to interpret these answers. Please help me by answering the following questions. 15. Sow many people are there in your household? „ 1 2 3 1| 4 _ & > % 5 or more 2-#> -185-. 16. How many children are there in your household in euch ot the following une giuups? 0 to 4 yrs. Q. >3 5 to 13 yrs . 0.l5 14 to 18 yrs . 0. 0^ 17. In which of the following age brackets are you? 18-24 years faV» 35-44 years 2Jo 7o 25-34 years V _ , % 45-64 years ? j 65 or over \£> 18. How many income earners are there in your household? income earners are there in your households 0 _Jjy. 1 Ut% 2 _Q% more than 2 2-7o 19. Where do the household's highest income earner and any second income earner work? Work Location Highest Income Earner Second Income Earner Downtown «f-QV» ~ West End B Elsewhere in City of Vancouver « ^ Elsewhere in GVRD __lZ2-S Other - ^ V . Don't work/Not applicable 20. In what type of employment is the highest income earner and any second income earner? Type of Employment Highest Income Earner Second Income Earner C le r i ca l LL_4_ _ J Q % Sales BV, *=) % Manager, proprietor, administrator Labourer or foreman . . ^ . (raanufac taring/process ing) -L /o Labourer or foreman (construction) __q/o Q Pro fess iona L, technical _) ^ /^Q. ., 3| | Service worker _5~*_> Transportation/comraunication '2.*?/** Materials hand Iing O O Agriculture, f ish ing , raining worker O Q Retired b% Unemployed —L%_ ^)0/° 21. How do the highest income earner and any second income earner usually travel to work? Usual mode of travel to work: Highest Income Earner Second^ Income Earner By Car 51 VT «T_ »/b B y B u s 2-_i_-Walk / B V. «7 'A -186-22. What i s your gross annual household income (before Lax)? Less than $20,000 $35,000 - $39,999 $20,000 - $24,999 _jE5o $40,000 - $49,999 $25,000 - $29,999 /2*% $50,000 - $59,999 $30,000 - $34,999 _J&% $60,000 or more 23. What type of tenure is your present dwelling unit? previous dwelling uniL? Present Pre vious Rental &1% Ownership Coop 24. What type of dwelling unit is your present residence? previous residence? Single-detached house Semi-detached or duplex Row house/Townhouse (no unit above or below) Stacked townhouse (units above or below) Apartment in a building of 3 or less storeys Apartment in a building of 5 or more storeys Other (please specify) _ _ Present s*.. 25. Have you lived i n a suburban area within the past 5 years? Ves *ft% No 26. In which neighbourhood was your immediately previous residence? West End 2-7°^ Somewhere else in Greater Vancouver False Creek _ "2^%/9 In the "inner-city" of some other city Fairview Slopes A,0^ In the suburbs of some other city Downtown O In a rural area Yaletown/South Downtown © 27. If you are not currently renting, have you lived in a rental unit within the past five years? , — _ Ves h-5% No 55°/ 28. How large is your present residence? previous residence? Present Previous Bachelor _LL% 1- Bedroom H^t-V. ~bc\% 2- Bedroom 2t^A Ji^J-3 or more bedrooms J£] °/-2 9 . Are any of the following amenities accessible to your present .residence? previous residence? Present Previous Private outdoor space (e.g. balcony, patio, yard) __f i k f i % T"l QA Reserved parking (5 p.m. - 9 a.m.) l.*A 1*V» Reserved parking (24 hours/day) *ftt\*Ji Recreation f a c i l i t i e s (e.g. pool, courts, gym) J$*±% 30. What is your total monthly housing coat, including heat and lightu taxes, Maintenance, etc. of your present residence? previous residence? Present Previous less thsn $200 fcV„ ">U^^ $200 - $499 SI*/. JtfsU. $500 - $699 RV. $700 - $999 fry, gy. $1000 - $1499 fiV. 2lX $1500 or more ?>% 1. ^ / Thank you very much 11 xo xi TX— X3— W~ I F -IS M W~ 3° ai 3 1 33 3fc W~ it COMMENTS: -187-Appendix D: Procedure f o r Weighting the I n n e r - c i t y Results The i n n e r - c i t y sample was comprised as f o l l o w s : Number of Respondents Percentage of T o t a l (Households) I n n e r - c i t y Respondents West End 220 47 False Creek 188 40 Fa i r v i e w Slopes 59 13 Un s p e c i f i e d I n n e r - c i t y l o c a t i o n s 2 0 To t a l 469 100 However, according to the 1981 census*, the i n n e r - c i t y was comprised as f o l -lows : Number of Respondents Percentage o f T o t a l I n n e r - c i t y Households West End (census t r a c t s 060 to 068) 25920 90 False Creek (census t r a c t 049.02) 1170 Fair v i e w Slopes (census t r a c t .049.01) 1105 Yaletown-South Downtown (census t r a c t 059.02) 655 28,850 100 So that the survey f i g u r e s f o r the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t the s i t u a t i o n f o r the i n n e r - c i t y as a whole, the r e s u l t s f o r each of the areas have been weighted by the percentage of t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y households each area represents. For example, the weighted average household income f o r in n e r -c i t y households has been produced as f o l l o w s : (West End average income x .90) + (False Creek average income x .04) + (F a i r v i e w Slopes averate income x .04) = Average Income f o r t o t a l I n n e r - c i t y Households. l S t a t i s t i c s Canada, c a t . 95-937, 1981. Selected Population D w e l l i n g , House- h o l d , and Census Family C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . -188-Results f or Yaletown-South Downtown have not been considered i n producing the weighted i n n e r - c i t y t o t a l figures because no questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d i n t his area. As a r e s u l t of th i s exclusion, t o t a l l i n g the weighted inner-c i t y t o t a l r e s u l t s for any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s should only y i e l d 98.0%. The exclusion of Yaletown-South Downtown information should have l i t t l e bearing on the weighted t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y figures because the area represents such a small percentage of the t o t a l i n n e r - c i t y households. APPENDIX E: DATA ON CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD AND EXPECTATION OF MOVING SUBFILE WESTENO O* • * • • • • • * • • • • • . . « . C R O S S T A CHPHH NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD I 0 N 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? 07 COUNT I BOW PCT I YES COL PCT ] ROW TOTAL CHPHH NONE COLUMN TOTAL 151 69.6 30.4 217 100.0 -.N,MU2UEX?ECTED Jlii'fcgu.Scy™ 0^2 """" ™*N 5 °' O^MBERV^ISIING o a s ? p v ! ? ! o N ? ' : H 3 ' ° E G " E E S " S I 0 N I F ' " N « • 0 . M . 1 FAIRVIEW • C R O S S T A NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD U L A T ION BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? 0 ] 131 I 67.9 I 86.8 I 62 I 32. 1 I 93.9 I 193 S8.9 CHPHH NONE 1 ] 1 17 I ai .0 I 11.3 I 4 I 19.0 I 6. 1 I 21 9.7 ONE 2 ] I 3 I 100.0 I 2.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 3 1.4 2 OR 07 COUNT I ROW PCT IYES COL PCT I I 0 I COLUMN TOTAL I 10 I 100.0 I 19.2 I 2 I 100.0 I 3.6 53 88. 1 11.9 ROW TOTAL I BS.1 1 14.9 I 76.9 I 100.0 I 0 I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I I 0 I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I 47 79.7 2 3.4 3 OUT OF 6 ( SO.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY • 0.237 RAW CHI SOUARE • 2.02782 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEOOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.3628 00 I * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF CHPHH NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? 07 COUNT I ROW PCT IYES COL PCT I ROW TOTAL CHPHH NONE I 1 1 2 1 0 45 I 60 I 105 42.9 I 57. 1 I 59.3 54. S I 63.2 I 1 18 I 17 I 35 51.4 I 48.6 I 19.8 22.0 I 17.9 I 2 19 I 18 I 37 MORE 51.4 I 48.6 I 20.9 23.2 I 18.9 I COLUMN 82 95 -I 177 TOTAL 46.3 53.7 100.0RAW CHI SOUARE • 1.25040 WITH ONUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 2 OEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.5352 RICHMOND * C R O S S T A NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD U L A T I 0 N BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? ROW PCT COL PCT IYES I I 1 NO I 2 , ROW TOTAL 0 I 35 I 29 I 64 NONE I 54.7 I 45.3 I 50.4 I 49.3 I 51 .8 I -I -I 1 I 16 I 10 I .26 ONE I 61.5 I 38.5 I 20.5 I 22.5 I 17.9 I 2 I 20 I 17 I 37 1 OR MORE I 54. 1 I 45.9 I 29. 1 I 38.3 I 30.4 I COLUMN 71 56 ' 127 TOTAL 55.9 44 . 1 1O0.0 RAW CHI SOUARE - 0.42463 WITH 2 DEGREES SIGNIFICANCE • 0.8087 APPENDIX F: DATA ON G.GG.UPATIGN OF HOUSEHOLDS 1 HIGHEST . INCOME EARNER AND, EXPECTAT ION OF MOV I NG SUBFILE WE5TEND O* • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F Q20A EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? SUBFILE FALCREEK 07 COUNT 1 ROW PCT IVES COL PCT I I ..., t I I I -I 2 I MAN. PROP . ADMIN. MANUFACT WORKER i i a 34 6 BO.O 20.0 16. 1 8.7 13 2 66. 7 13.3 8.7 3.2 21 6 77.6 22.2 14. 1 9.7 e i 1 BO.O 1 10.0 6.0 I 1.6 CONSTRUCTION WOR PROF.-TECH. ROW TOTAL SERVICE WORKER TRANS-COMMUN. MATERIAL' HAND UNEMPLOYED 12 I 9 70.6 I 29 4 6.1 I 6 1 66.7 I 13 3 6.7 I 3 2 . 10 4.7 37 7.5 29.4 211 100.0 EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCDMEMRNER I 0 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT 07 I IVES I I 1 NO I 2 ROW TOTAL i 1 I 4 I 26.6 I 4.6 I 10 I 71.4 I 11.6 I 14 I 8.3 I 2 I 6 I 61. 5 I 9.6 I 9 I 38.9 I 9.6 I I 13 I 7.7 I 3 AOMIN. I 19 I 92.6 I 22.9 I 17-I 47.2 I 19.8 -I I 36 I 21.3 I 4 WORKER I 1 I 33.3 1.3 I 3 I 66.7 I 2.3 I I 3 I 1.8 I I CONSTRUCTION WOR I 0 0.0 I I : {-._Q.0. I ,_1 .2 1 100.0 PROF.-TECH. SERVICE WORKER TRANS-COMMUN. AGR.FISH.MINING 33 61 . 1 39.8 20.0 1.2' 21 38.9 24.4 80.0 4.7 83.3 6.0 UNEMPLOYED 24. 7. 33.3 1.2 0 0.0 0.0 19 76.0 66. 2.; 3 42.9 I -] 4.8 I 3.5 14 I 0 I 1 I 0.0 I 100.0 I - I O.O I 1.2 COLUMN TOTAL MINIMUS^P^TEO'CELL^EN^ "29S C E L L S E X P E C T E D C E L L F B E 0 U E N C , L E S S T H 1 N 5 0 C ^ ' o F ^ I s l l N G OBSERVATIONS' 1:" f DEGREES .OF FREEDOM. 63 49. 1 169 100.0 SIGNIFICANCE • 0.0018 MIN.'MUM^PE'CTEO^LLNREOUESC,™' 0A4 L9? C E U S H A V E E X P E C T E ° « " " E°"NCY " S S THAN 5.0. ONUMBER^ITsllNG OBIERSJ;?ON?':H ° E G R E E S ° F F R E E D 0 M - SIGNIFICANCE • 0.0499 SUBFILE RICHMOND CROSSTABULATION OF • EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? COUNT I ROW PCT COL PCT IYES I I 1 NO I 2 I ROW TOTAL t CLERICAL I 1 I 33.3 I 1.5 I 2 I I 66.7 I I 3.8 I 3 2.5 2 SALES I 8 I 50.0 I 11.9 I 8 I I 50.0 I I 15. 1 I 16 13.3 3 MAN.PROP.ADMIN. I 20 I 69.0 I 29.9 I 9 I I 31.0 I I 17.0 I 29 24.2 ! 4 MANUFACT WORKER I 7 I 77.8 I 10.4 I 2 I I 22.2 I I 3.8 I 9 7.5 5 CONSTRUCTION WOR I 1 I 50.0 I 1.5 I 1 I I 50.0 I I 1.9 I 2 1.7 6 PROF.-TECH. 12 52.2 17 .9 I 111 I 47.8 I I 20.8 I 23 19.2 7 SERVICE WORKER 6 75.0 9.0 I 2 I I 25.0 I I 3.8 I 8 6.7 s TRANS-COMMUN. 4 40.0 6.0 I 6 I I 60.0 I I 11.3 I 10 8.3 9 MATERIALS HAND i 3 100.0 4.5 I 0 I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I 3 2.5 to 1 AGR.FISH.MINING I 0 0.0 0.0 I 1 I I 100.0 I I 1.9 1 1 0.8 1 n"! RETIRED I : 4 50.0 6.0 I 4 I I 50.0 I I 7.5 1 8 6.7 12 UNEMPLOYED I ] 0 0.0 0.0 I 2 I I 100.0 I I 3.8 1 2 1.7 13 ] . OTHER I , 1 1 20.0 1.5 I 4 I I 80 0 I I 7.5 1 5 4.2 14 1 STUDENT I I 0 0.0 0.0 I 1 I I 100.0 I I 1.9 1 I 0 8 -1 I NOT APPLICABLE I I 2M 0.0 0.0 I 3M I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I 5M 0.0 0 I NO ANSWER I - T 2M 0.0 0.0 I OM I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I 2M 0.0 COLUMN 67 53 120 TOTAL 83.8 4 4 . 2 100 .0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 7 -192-APPENDIX G: DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND EXPECTATION OF MOVING SUBFILE WE ST END 021A MODE OF TRAVEL - HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BV 07 EXPECT TO MOVE7 COUNT I ROW PCT I YES NO ROW COL PCT I TOTAL 1 I 2 02 IA 1 I 54 1 18 I 72 BY CAR 75.0 I 25 .0 I 4 1.1 40.0 I 45 .0 2 I 31 I e I 37 BY BUS 63.8 I 16 .2 I 2 1.1 23.0 I 15 .O 3 I 33 I 11 . I 44 WALK 75.0 I 25 .0 I 25 . 1 24 .4 I 27 . 5 _ 4 I 9 I 2 I 1 1 OTHER 81.6 I 18 .2 I 6 . 3 6 . 7 I 5 .0 5 1 8 I 3 I 1 1 BUS & WALK 72 . 7 I 27 .3 1 6.3 5.9 I 7 .5 -1 COLUMN 135 40 175 TOTAL 77.1 22.9 100.0 2 OUT OF 10 ( 20.0*/.) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 2.514 RAW CHI SOUARE = 1.48550 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0.8292 ONUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS * , 45 C R O S S T A B U L A T MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BY I O N 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT 07 I IYES I ROW TOTAL I 1 I 2 I 021B - I - -I- -I BY CAR ^ I 21 I 16 I 37 I 56 8 I 43 .2 I 61 .7 1 60 0 I 64 .0 I -I- -I 2 I 9 I 5 I 14 BY BUS I 64 .3 I 35 .7 I 23.3 I 25 7 I 20 .0 •I -I- -1 - -I 3 I 4 I 4 I B WALK I 50 .O I 50 .0 I 13.3 I 1 1 .4 I 16 .0 I -I- -1 5 I 1 I 0 I 1 BUS & WALK I 100 .O I 0 .0 I 1 .7 I 2 .9 I 0 .0 I -I- -I- -I COLUMN 35 25 60 TOTAL 58 .3 41 .7 100.0 4 OUT OF 8 ( 50.0%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.O. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY » 0.417 RAW CHI SOUARE ' 1.18478 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • O.7567 ONUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 128 -193-SUBTILE FAIRVIEW (>••••• C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF 02 1A MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BV 07 EXPECT TO MDVE7 07 COUNT I ROW PCT IVES NO ROW COL PCT 1 TOTAL I 1 I 2 I 1 1 •>9 I 5 I 34 BY CAR I oc . 3 I 14 7 I S3. 6 1 38 . () I 71 4 I 2 I 9 I 1 I 10 BY BUS I 90 .0 . I 10 0 I 17 .5 I 1? 1 14 3 I 3 I 8 I O I 8 WALK I 100 O I 0 O I 14.0 1 1G O 1 0 0 I 4 I 2 I 0 I 2 OTHER I 100 .0 I 0 0 I 3.5 I 4 .0 I O 0 I -I- -I- -I 5 I 2 I 1 I 3 BUS S WALK I 66 7 I 33 3 I 5.3 I 4 O I 14 3 I -I- -I- -I COLUMN 50 7 57 TOTAL 87 7 12 3 100.0 7 OUT OF 10 ( 70.0%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0.246 RAW CHI SOUARE - 2.86820 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.5801 ONUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 2 RICHMOND C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? 07 COUNT I ROW PCT IYES NO ROW COL PCT I TOTAL I 1 1 2 1 02 1A I 1 1 1 1 57 I 40 I 97 BY CAR I 58.8 I 4 1.2 I 87.4 I 89.1 I 85.1 I _! ! j 2 1 2 1 5 1 7 BY BUS I 28.6 I 71.4 I G.3 I 3.1 I 10.6 I -j , I 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 WALK I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.9 I 1.6 I 0.0 I -j I I 4 1 3 1 2 1 5 OTHER I 60.0 I 40.0 I 4.5 I 4.7 I 4.3 I -I I I 6 I 1 I 0 1 1 BUS AND CAR I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.9 I 1.6 I 0.0 I _j j 1 - 1 1 6M 1 9M I 15M NOT APPLICABLE I O.O I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I O.O I -j j 1 0 1 1M I OM I 1M NO ANSWER I 0.0 I O.O I O.O I O.O 1 0.0 I - I I 1 COLUMN 64 47 111 TOTAL 57.7 42.3 100.0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 16 -194-APPENDIX H: DATA ON MONTHLY HOUSING EXPENDITURE AND EXPECTATION OF MOVING WE STEND C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF • TOTAL MONTHLY COST - PRESENT D.LI. BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT I Y E S I I ROW TOTAL 200 I e I 9 15 I 40 0 i so 0 7.2 I 4 O i 15 3 - I -350 I 1 14 i 39 153-$499 I 74 5 i 25 5 73 .6 I 76 5 I G6 1 GOO I 19 i 5 24 $899 I 79 2 i 20 8 11.5 I 12 8 i 8 5 850 I 7 i 2 I 9 $999 1 77 8 i 22 2 I 4 . 3 I 4 7 i 3 4 1250 I 3 i 1 4 $1499 I 75 0 i 25 0 1 1.9 1 2 0 i 1 7 1SOO I O I 3 I 3 I 0 .0 i 100 .0 I 1.4 I 0 .0 i 5 . 1 COLUMN 149 59 208 TOTAL 7 1 .e 28 . 4 100.0 6 OUT OF 12 ( 50.0%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5 . 0 . MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY « 0.851 RAW CHI SQUARE - 16.44586 WITH 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0 .0057 0NUM8ER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 1 2 C R O S S T A B U L A <Sf7 EXPECT TO MOVE? I 0 N BY 030A TOTAL MONTHLY COST -PRESENT D U NO ANSWER .... .... ... * * * * * * ... *.*..** ... 030A COUNT ROW PCT K $200 $200- $500- $700 $1000- $1500+ NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT $499 $699 $999 $ 1499 R TOTAL I 200 I 350 I 600 I 850 . 1250 I 1500 I 0 I , 1 I 35 I 26 I 9 6 I 5 I 3M I 82 I 1 2 I 42 .7 I 31.7 I 1 1 0 I 7 3 I 6 1 I 0 0 I 46 . 3 I 1 1 1 I 43 .2 I 50 .0 I 56 3 54 5 I 62 5 I 0 0 I 2 8 I 46 I 26 I 7 5 I 3 I 2M I 95 I 8 4 I 48 .4 I 27 .4 I 7 4 I 5 .3 I 3 2 I 0 0 I 53 .7 I 88 9 I 56 .8 I 50 .0 I 43 8 I 45 5 I 37 5 I 0 0 I 0 OM I OM I 1M i 2M 1M I OM I 2M I 6M I 0 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 I 0 0 1 O.O I 0 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I COLUMN 9 8 1 52 16 t 1 8 7M 177 TOTAL 5 1 45 .8 29 . 4 9 0 6 .2 4 5 0 0 100.0 4 OUT OF 1? I 33 .3%l OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0.' MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 3 .706 RAW CHI SQUARE = 6 .86139 WITH 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0.2312 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = -195-SUBFILE RICHMOND * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N 03OA TOTAL MONTHLY COST-PRESENT D . U . BY 07 EXPECT TO MOVE? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ^ ^ ^ i * * * * ^ , , ' , , 07 COUNT I ROW PCT IYES NO ROW COL PCT I TOTAL I 1 I 2 I 030A 200 I 3 I 7 1 10 < $200 I 3 0 . 0 I 7 0 . 0 I 8 . 3 I 4 . 3 I 13.7 I 350 I 23 I 19 I 42 $200- $499 I 54 . 8 I 45 . 2 I 34 . 7 I 32 .9 I 37 . 3 I 600 I 1 1 I 7 I 18 $500- $699 I 61.1 I 38 . 9 I 14.9 I 15.7 I 13.7 I 850 I 20 I 1 1 I 31 $700- $999 I 64 . 5 I 35 . 5 I 25 .6 I 28 . 6 I 21 .6 I 1250 I 1 1 I 4 I 15 $1000- $1499 I 73 . 3 I 26 . 7 I 12.4 I 15.7 I 7.8 I I- -I- -I 1500 I 2 I 3 I 5 $ 1500+ I 4 0 . 0 I 6 0 . 0 I 4 . 1 I 2 . 9 I 5 .9 I - I - -I- -I 0 I 1M I 5M I 6M NO ANSWER I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I -COLUMN 70 51 121 TOTAL 57 . 9 42 . 1 100.0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 6 -196-APPENDIX I : DATA ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE SUBFILE WESTEWD * • * " • " * * * ' • • * • • * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F • • • * • • • • • - • • MOVEIC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 015 NO. OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD 015 COUNT I ROW PCT I 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 OR MOR NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT I S S E R TOTAL I 1 I 2 ] 1 3 I 4 : [ 0 I 10VEIC 2 I 35 I 17 ] [ 2 I i ] I OH I 55 VAN I-C I 63.6 I 30.9 1 [ 3 .6 I 1 .8 1 [ 0.0 I 37.2 I 4 1 .7 I 32. 1 ] [ 22 .2 I 50 .0 ] [ 0.0 I 3 I 31 I 20 1 4 I 1 1 : OM i 56 ELS: VAN -OTHER I 55.4 I 35.7 1 I 7 . 1 I 1 .8 ] [ 0.0 I 37 .8 I 36.9 I '37.7 ] 44 .4 I 50 .O ] t O.O I A I 5 I 3 1 1 I 0 3 [ OM I 9 BOTH 2 A 3 I 55.6 I 33.3 ] 11. . 1 I O -O 1 [ O.O I 6. 1 I 6.0 I 5.7 ] 11 . 1 I 0 .0 1 I 0.0 I 5 I 13 I 13 I 2 I 0 1 OM I 28 O.K. I 46.4 I 46 . 4 I 7 . . 1 I o. .0 ] O.O I 18.9 I 15.5 I 24.5 1 22. .2 I 0 .0 1 0.0 I 0 I 44M I 23M I 2M I 1M ] 2M I 72M NO ANSW. I 0.0 I O.O I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 84 53 9 2 2M 148 TOTAL 56.6 35.8 6. . 1 1. 4 O.O 100.0 9 OUT OF 16 ( 56.3%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.O. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 0.122 RAW CHI SOUARE = 4.01018 WITH 9 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.9107 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS * 72* SUBFILE FALCREEK • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F « • . • • • • • • • • • • « LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 015 NO. OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD ROW PCT I 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 OR MOR NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT I S S E R TOTAL I 1 ] [ 2 ] ! 3 ] I 4 ] [ 0 I 2 I 7 1 ! 10 1 [ 9 1 1 3 1 I 1M I 29 VAN I-C I 24 . 1 1 34.5 ] [ 31 .0 1 [ 10.3 I 1 0.0 I 35.8 I 43 .8 ] 35.7 1 [ 45 .0 1 [ 17.6 ] I 0.0 I 3 I 6 1 12 1 7 1 10 1 [ OM I 35 ELS. VAN--OTHER I 17 . 1 1 34.3 ] 20 .0 1 2B.6 ] [ 0.6 I 43.2 I 37 .5 I 42.9 ] 35 .0 ] 56.6 ] [ O.O I 4 I 1 I 3 1 0 1 1 ] [ OM I 5 BOTH 2 a 3 I 20 .0 I 60.0 1 0 0 1 20.0 I [ 0.0 I 6.2 I 6 .3 I 10.7 1 0 .0 1 5.9 ] [ 0.0 I 5 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 3 ] OM I 12 O.K. I 16 .7 I 25.0 1 33 .3 I 25.0 ] 0.0 I 14.8 I 12 .5 I 10.7 I 20 .0 I 17.6 ] 0.0 I 0 I 41M I 29M I 16M I 15M 1 5M I 106M NO ANSW. I O .0 I 0.0 I O. .O I O.O J O.O I O.O I o. .0 I O.O I 0. .0 I O.O I 0.0 I COLUMN 16 28 20 17 6M 81 TOTAL 19. 8 34 .6 24. ,7 21 .O O.O 10O.O 8 OUT OF 16 ( 50.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 0.988 RAW CHI SOUARE = 6.71590 WITH 9 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.6667 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 107* < — - • in I n c l u d e s .respondents who do not expect t o move -197-C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N MOVE IC COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT 015 I 11 PERSON 2 I S I 1 I PERSON 3 S 2 I PERSON 3 I 4 OR E MOR 4 I ROW TOTAL VAN I-C 2 I S I I 47.1 I I 33.3 I 8 I 47. 1 I 34.6 I 1 I 5.9 I 50.0 I 0 0 0 I .0 I .0 I 17 33.3 ELS. VAN 3 -OTHER I 1 1 1 I 42.3 I I 45.8 I 13 I 50.0 I 56.5 I O I 0.0 I 0.0 I 7 100 2 I .7 I .0 I 26 51 .0 BOTH 2 & 4 3 I 1 I I 25.0 I I 4.2. I 2 I 50.0 I 8.7 I 1 I 25.0 I 50.0 I 0 0 0 I .0 I .0 I 4 7.8 O.K. 5 I 4 I I 100.0 I I 16.7 1 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0. 0 I .0 I 0 I 4 7.8 NO ANSW. 0 I 3M I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I 5M I 0.0 I 0.0 I OM I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0. 0. OM I 0 I 0 I 8M 0.0 COLUMN TOTAL 24 47.1 23 45. 1 2 3.9 3. 2 9 51 100.0 MTMr'u,,!!UIv2r,.Tr„'6 * 7 5 0 X ) ° F T H E viL1D CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.O. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - O.157 RAW CHI SOUARE . 12.69701 WITH 9 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.1768 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 8* *. Includes respondents who do not expect to move APPENDIX J : DATA ON CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD AND WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE SUBFILE WESTEND . . . . . . . . . . . C R O S S T A B LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN U L A T I O N O F BY CHPHH NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD CHPHH COUNT I ROW PCT INONE COL TCT I MOVE IC VAN I-C ELS-. VAN-OTHER BOTH 2 S 3 2 OR MOR E I 2 I 85.5 36.4 12.7 I 43.8 I I 85.7 I I 37.2 I 6 10.7 37 .5 1 I 11.1 I 6.3 I 2 3.6 66.7 ROW TOTAL 0.0 I 0.0 I COLUMN TOTAL 92.9 20.2 7.1 I 12.5 I 66M I 0.0 I 0.0 I 5M I 0.0 I 0.0 I 129 87.2 0.0 I 0.0 I OM I 0.0 I 0.0 I 71M 0.0 148 100.0 6 OUT OF 12 ( S0.O%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY • 0.182 RAW CHI SOUARE = 2.09646 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE » 0.91O6 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 72* _ Includes respondents who do not expect to move -198-SUBFILE FALCR£EK • * * » • • • * • • • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF • * . • . • • - - . • • • LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BV CHPHH NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD CHPHH COUNT I ROW PCT INONE ONE 2 OR MOR ROW COL PCT I E TOTAL I O I 1 1 2 1 MOVEIC 1 1 --I I 2 1 17 I 6 1 6 1 29 VAN I-C I 58.6 I 20.7 I 20.7 I 36.3 I 39.5 I 33.3 I 31.6 I I I I--- I 3 1 19 I 6 1 9 1 34 ELS. VAN-OTHER I 55.9 I 17.6 I 26.5 I 42.5 I 44.2 I 33.3 I 47.4 I -l I T__ i 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 BOTH 2 8 3 I 60.O I 20.0 I 20.0 1 6.3 I 7.0 I 5.6 I 5.3 I -I i 1 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 12 D.K. I 33.3 I 41.7 I 25.0 I 15.0 I 9.3 I 27.B I 15.B I -I 1 — i — I O I 64M I 20M I 18H I 102M NO ANSW. I O.O I O.O I O.O I O.O I O.O I O.O I 0.0 I -I I 1 1 COLUMN 43 18 19 80 TOTAL 53.8 22.5 23.8 lOO.O 5 OUT OF 12 { 41.7%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. -MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY • 1.125 RAW CHI SOUARE = 3.75281 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.7101 NUMBER OF MISSIES OBSERVATIONS = 108**" * Includes respondents who do not expect to move SUBFILE FAIR* I f * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF • • • > • . • « • • > - • • • * • MOVEIC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY CHPHH NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD MOVEIC VAN I ROW PCT INONE ONE 2 OR MOR ROW COL PCT I E TOTAL I 0 I 1 I 2 I 2 I 13 I 4 I 0 I 17 I 76 .5 I 23 .5 I 0 .0 I 33.3 I 33 .3 I 40 .0 I 0 -0 I 3 I 19 I 5 I 2 I 26 l-OTHEP I 73 . 1 1 19 .2 I 7 .7 1 51 .0 I 48 .7 I 50 .0 I 100 .0 I j I 3 I 1 I 0 I 4 3 I 75 .0 I 25 .0 I 0 .0 I 7.8 I 7 .7 I 10 .0 I 0 .0 I 5 I 4 I 0 I 0 I 4 I 100 .0 I 0. 0 I 0 0 I 7.8 I 10 .3 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0 I 8M OM I OM I 8M I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 1 o. 0 I 0. O I o. O I COLUMN 39 io 2 51 TOTAL 7G. 5 19. 6 3. 9 100.0 9 OUT OF 12 ( 75.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 0.157 RAW CHI SOUARE = 3.23180 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.7792 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 8** X- Includes respondents who do not expect to move -199-APPENDIX-K; DATA ON NUMBER OF INCOME EARNERS AND WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE „_ .„ , , „ . . . . . . C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . '^"V?","™"™ I°.M°VE 1"°* W I I M I N . B * 0 1 6 NO. OF INCOME EARNERS IN HOUSEHOLD 018 COUNT I ROW PCT 11 2 MORE MOVE IC VAN I-- - . .J ANSWE ROW co<- p CT I THAN 2 R TOTAL I ' I 2 1 3 1 9 1 1 44 I 8 1 1 1 2M I 53 I 83.0 I 15.1 I 1.9 I o.O I 36.3 I 41.1 I 21.6 I 50.0 I O.O I 41 I 15 I 0 1 OM I 0.0 ELS. VAN-OTHER I 73.2 I 26.8 I 0.0 I 38.3 I 40.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I "I 1-- I- -I 4 1 5 1 4 1 0 1 OMI BOTH 2 8 3 I 55.6 I 44.4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I 4.7 I to.6 I 0.0 I O.O I 3 1 1/ I 10 I 1 1 OM I 28 I 60.7 I 35.7 I 3.6 I 0.0 I 19.2 I 15.9 I 27.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I -I j , j 1 0 1 59M I lOM I IN I 2M I 72M I O.O I 0.0 1 O.O I O.O I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 107 37 2 4M 146 TOTAL 73.3 25.3 1.4 O.O 100.0 M . N.MIl2 ULpcrT C n'^. (, 4J „ I ' ' ) ° F ™ E V 1 U D C E L L S H A V E EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN S.O. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY . 0.123 RAW CHI SOUARE » 8.38632 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.2111 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 74* SUBFILE FALCREEK C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F MOVEIC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 018 NO. OF INCOME EARNERS IN HOUSEHOLD COUNT ROW FCT 10 1 2 MORE NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT THAN 2 R TOTAL I 0 I 1 I 2 I 3 I 9 I 2 I 1 I 14 I 14 I 1 I OM I 30 VAN I-C 1 3.3 I 46.7 I 46.7 I 3 3 I O.O I 36.6 I 100.0 I 34 . 1 I 37.8 I 33 3 I 0.0 I 3 1 0 I 16 I 17 I 2 I OM I 35 ELS. VAN-OTHER I O.O I 45.7 I 48.6 [ 5 7 I 0.0 I 42.7 I O.O I 39.0 I 45.9 I 66 7 I 0.0 I 4 I . 0 I 3 { 2 I 0 I OM I 5 BOTH 2 8 3 I 0.0 I 60.0 I 40.0 I 0 0 I 0.0 1 6. 1 I 0.0 I 7.3 I 5.4 I 0 0 I 0.0 1 5 I 0 I 8 I 4 I 0 I OM I 12 D. K. I 0.0 I 66.7 I 33.3 I 0 0 1 0.0 I ' 14.6 I 0.0 I 19.5 I 10.8 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 0 I 10M I 62M J 27M I 4M I 3M I 106M NO ANSW. I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I O.O 1 0.0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 1 41 37 3 3M 82 TOTAL 1.2 50.0 45. 1 3 7 0.0 100.0 lO OUT OF 16 ( 62 5%) OF THE VALI D CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY -RAW CHI SOUARE = 4.23697 WITH 0.061 9 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • O.S951 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS ^ I n c l u d e s respondents who do not expect t o move -200-SUBFILE FAIRV1FW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF MOVEIC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 016 NO. OF INCOME EARNERS IN HOUSEHOLD 018 MOVEIC COUNT I ROW PCT I COL PCT I 0 0 I 1 2 I 2 ROW TOTAL 2 1 I 11 I 5 I 17 VAN I-C 5 9 I 64 7 I 29 4 I 33 .3 50 0 I 35 5 I 27 8 I 3 1 1 15 I 10 I 26 ELS. VAN OTHER 3 B I 57 7 I 38 5 I 51 .0 50 0 I 4B 4 I 55 6 I 4 0 I 1 I 3 I 4 BOTH 2 & 3 0 0 I 25 0 I 75 0 I 7 .8 0 0 I 3 2 I 16 7 I 5 0 I 4 I 0 I 4 D:K. 0 0 I 100 0 I 0 0 I 7 .8 0 0 I 12 9 I 0 0 I O OM I 5M I 3M I 8M NO ANSW. 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 .0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I - I COLUMN 2 31 18 51 TOTAL 3.9 60.8 35.3 100.0 8 OUT OF 12 ( 66.7%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 0.157 RAW CHI SOUARE - 5.85846 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.4392 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 8 ^ * Includes respondents who do not expect to move - 2 0 1 -APPENDIX L: DATA ON TENURE AND WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE • • C R O S S T A B U LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN A T BY I O N O F PRESENT TENURE COUNT ROW PCT COL PCI MOVEIC VAN I-C E L S . VAN-OTHEP BOTH 2 & 3 RENTAL OWNERSHP COOP ROW TOTAL COLUMN TOTAL i 1 i 2 I 3 I 0 I I 5 1 1 3 I 0 I 1M I 54 I 94 .4 I 5 . 6 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 36 . 7 I 36 .7 I 37 . 5 I 0 0 I 0 0 I I 52 I 4 I 0 I OM I 56 I 9 2 . 9 I 7 1 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 38 . 1 I 37 .4 I 50 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I I 9 I 0 I 0 I OM I 9 I 100.0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 6 . 1 I 6 . 5 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I I 27 I 1 I 0 I OM I 28 I 96 .4 I 3 6 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 19 .0 I 19.4 I 12 5 I 0 0 I 0 0 I I 52M I 1 IM I 5M I 4M I 72M I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 139 8 0 5M 147 94 .6 5 4 o 0 0 0 100.0 4 OUT OF S ( 50.07.) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY LESS THAN 5 MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0 . 4 9 0 ROW CHI SOUARE = 1.02450 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE •= 0 .7953 NUMBER OF MISSIN? OBSERVATIONS SUBFILE F ALCRE E.K * * * • « • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 023A PRESENT TENURE COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT MOVEIC VAN I -C BOTH 2 S 3 023A RENTAL OWNERSHP COOP NO ANSWE R ROW TOTAL I 1 2 I 3 I 0 I 2 I 13 10 I 6 I 1M I 29 I 4.1.8 34 .5 I 20 .7 I 0 0 I 36 . 3 I 38 .2 I 4 0 . 0 I 28 6 I 0 0 I 3 I 14 1 1 1 I 9 I OM I 34 -OTHER I 4 1.2 I 32 . 4 I 26 5 I 0 0 I 42 .5 I 4 1.2 I 44 . 0 I 42 9 I 0 0 I 4 4 I 1 I 0 I OM I 5 3 B O O I 2 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 6 .3 11.8 I 4 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 1 5 3 I 3 I 6 I OM I 12 25 .0 I 25 .0 I 50 0 I 0 0 I 15.0 8 .8 I 12 .0 I 28 6 I 0 0 I 0 36M I 27M I 40M I 3M I 106M O . C I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 . 0 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I COLUMN 34 25 21 4M 80 TOTAL 42 .5 31 .3 26 3 0 0 100.0 f n r „ M u H x P E C T E 0 ! C . E L L J F R E O U E N C Y T " E l ' ^ " E 0 U E N C Y 5 ° 7.26608 WITH 6 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0 .2969 PAW CHI SOUARE IIUMEER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 108 - 2 0 2 -SUBFILE FAIRVIEW • ! - > * * * * * * » - ! • * * * * * * * * C R O S MOVEIC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR :1' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * S T A B U L A T I O N O F * * * * * * WITHIN BY Q23A PRESENT TENURE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 023A COUNT ROW PCT I RENTAL OWNERSHP ROW COL PCT TOTAL 1 2 I MOVEIC I 2 13 4 I 17 VAN I-C I 76 . 5 I 23 .5 I 33 . 3 I 32 . 5 I 36 .4 I 3 21 5 1 I 26 ELS. VAN -OTHER I 80 . 8 I 19 . 2 I 51.0 I 52 . 5 I 45 .5 I T J 3 1 1 I 4 BOTH 2 S 3 I 75 .0 I 25 .0 I 7.8 I 7 . 5 I 9 . 1 I - I 5 3 1 I 4 O.K. I 75 .O I 25 .0 I 7 . 8 I 7 . 5 I 9 . 1 I - I o 5M 3M I 8M NO ANSW. I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I - I COLUMN 40 1 1 51 TOTAL 78 .4 21 .6 100.0 5 OUT OF 8 ( 62.5%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0.863 RAW CHI SOUARE = 0.17832 WITH .3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0.9810 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 8*" Includes respondents who do not expect to move - 2 0 3 -APPENDIX M: DATA ON MONTHLY HOUSING EXPENDITURE AND WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE • * • • • • • * * • - CROSSTABULATION OF LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 030A TOTAL MONTHLY COST-PRESENT D.U. 030A COUNT I ROW PCT I< $200 $200- $500- *700- SIOOO- $1500+ NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT I $499 $699 $999 $1499 R TOTAL I 200 I 350 I 600 I 850 I 1250 I 1500 I 0 I MOVE IC 1 1 1 1 I i 1 j 2 1 3 1 38 I 7 1 4 1 II 0 1 2M I 53 VAN I-C I 5.7 I 71.7 I 13.2 I 7.5 I 1.9 I O.O I 0.0 I 36.6 I 50.0 I 34.5 I 36.B I 57.1 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I "I I I I I I I --I 3 1 3 1 47 I 4 1 0 1 II 0 1 1M I 55 ELS. VAN-OTHER I 5.5 1 85.5 I 7.3 I 0.0 I 1.8 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 37.9 I 50.0 I 42.7 I 21.1 I 0.0 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 41 01 81 01 II 01 01 OMI 9 BOTH 2 8 3 I 0.0 I 88.9 I O.O I 11.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I O.O I 6.2 I .0.0 I 7.3 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 51 01 17 I 81 21 11 01 OM I 28 D.K. I 0.0 I 60.7 I 28.6 I 7.1 I 3.6 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 19.3 I 0.0 I 15.5 I 42.1 I 28.6 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 1 9M I 45M I 5M I 2M I tM I 3M I 7M I 72M NO ANSW. I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I O.O I 00 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I " I " I 1 1 1 1 --I 1 COLUMN 6 110 19 7 3 0 10M 145 TOTAL 4.1 75.9 13.1 4.8 2.1 O.O O.O 100.0 14 OUT OF 20 { 70.0%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0.186 RAW CHI SOUARE = 16.64514 WITH 12 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1634 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS » 75"* SUBFILE FALCREEK CROSSTABULATION OF • • • • • • • • • * * . » MOVEIC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY Q30A TOTAL MONTHLY COST-PRESENT D i 030A COUNT I ROW PCT I< $200 $200-COL FCT I $499 I 200 I 350 $500- $700-$699 $999 I 600 I 850 *1000-$1499 I 1250 $1500+ NO ANSWE ROW TOTAL ELS. VAN-OTHER BOTH 2 8 3 1 1 11 t 8 I 5 I 1 I 3 I IH I 29 3.4 1 37.9 1 27.6 I 17 .2 I 3 .4 I 10.3 I 0 .0 I 36.7 100.0 ] 32.4 1 32.0 I 55 .6 I 20 .0 I 60.0 I 0 .0 I 0 I 16 i 1 111 4 I 1 I 2 I 1M I 34 0.0 I 47 . 1 ] I 32.4 I 11 8 I 2 .9 I 5.9 I 0 .0 I 43.0 0.0 I 47. 1 J [ 44.0 I 44 .4 I 20 .0 1 40.0 I 0 .0 I 0 I 0 1 1 4 I 0 I 0 I 0 I IH I 4 0.0 I 0.0 ] I 100.0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 5.1 0.0 I 0.0 1 I 16.0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I 0 .0 I 0 I 7 1 2 I 0 I 3 I 0 I OM I 12 0.0 I 58.3 1 16.7 I 0 .0 I 25. .0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 15.2 0.0 I 20.6 1 6.0 I 0. 0 I 60. .0 I O.O I 0. 0 1 8M I 47M I 28M I 9M I 7M I 3M I 4M I 106M 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0. 0 I 1 34 25 9 5 5 7M 79 1.3 43.0 31.6 11. 4 6. 3 6.3 0. 0 100.0 COLUMN TOTAL U,M,'U,,S UL^ " 1 792%) °F T H E VA1-ID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.O. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0.051 RAW CHI SOUARE • 23.63397 WITH 15 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.0716 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS 109' Includes respondents who do not expect to move - 2 0 4 -SUBFILE FAIRVIEW * * * * • • * • • • * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 030A TOTAL MONTHLY COST-PRESENT O.U. 03OA COUMT I ROW PCT I< $200 $2O0- $500- $700- $1000- $1500+ NO ANSWE ROW COL TCT I $499 $699 $999 $1499 R TOTAL I 200 I 350 I 600 I B50 I 1250 I 1500 I 0 I MOVEIC ---I 1 1 1 1 - - i I I 2 1 0 1 7 1 3 1 5 1 2 1 0 1 OMI 17 VAN I-C I 0.0 I 41.2 I 17.6 I 29.4 I 11.8 I O.O I 0.0 I 34.0 I 0.0 I 36.8 I 25.0 I 50.0 I 50.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 3 1 3 1 10 I 8 1 4 1 O I 0 1 IM I 25 .- ELS. VAN-OTHER I 12.0 I 40.0 I 32.0 I 16.0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 50.0 I 60.0 I 52.6 I 66.7 I 40.0 I 0 . 0 I O.O I O.O I "I I I - - - . 1 1 1 1 1 <* I 1 .1 0 1 I I I I I I 0 1 OM I 4 BOTH 2 ft 3 I 25.0 I 0 . 0 I 25.0 I 25.0 I 25.0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 8 . 0 I 20.0 I 0 . 0 I 8.3 I 10.0 I 25.0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 5 1 I I 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 OMI 4 D K - I 2 5 . 0 I 5 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I O.O I 2 5 . 0 I 0 . 0 I O.O I 8 . 0 I 2 0 . 0 I 10 .5 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 2 5 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 1 OM I 4M I 1M I IM I 1M I 1M I OM I 8M ANSW. I O.O I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 5 19 . 12 10 4 O 1M 50 TOTAL 10.0 38.O 24.O 20.0 8.0 O.O 0.0 100.0 16 OUT OF 20 ( 80.0%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 0.320 RAW CHI SOUARE * 14.25136 WITH 12 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.2849 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 9 Includes respondents who do not expect to move APPENDIX N: DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE SUBFILE WESTEMO " • • • " * " • ' • * • • • * ' C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOVE IC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO 00 WITHIN BV 02IA MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER 03 IA MOVEIC VAN I-C COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT I BY CAR I 1 BY BUS I 2 WALK I 3 OTHER I 4 BUS S WA LK I 5 NOT APPL ICABLE -1 NO ANSWE R 0 I ROW TOTAL 2 I 19 I 41.3 I 35.2 I 10 I 2(7 I 34.5 I 10 I 21.7 I 30. 3 I I 10 I 55 5 9 6 I 2 I 4.3 I 25.0 7M 0.0 0.0 2M I 0.0 I 0.0 I 46 34.6 ELS. VAN 3 OTHER I 24 I 45. 3 I 44 . 4 I 12 I 22.6 I 4 1.4 I 12 I 22.6 I 36.4 I I 1 I 1 1 1 9 I 4 I 7.5 I 50.0 2M O.O O.O IM I 0.0 I O.O I 53 39.8 BOTH 2 S 4 3 I 3 I 37.5 I 5.G 1 3 I 37 .5 I 10. 3 I 1 I 12.5 I 3.0 I I 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 1 I 12.5 I 12 .S IM 0.0 O.O OM I 0.0 I O.O I e 6.0 O.K. 5 I 8 I 30.8 I 14.8 I 4 I 15.4 I 13.8 I 10 I 38.5 I 30.3 I I 11 I 33 3 5 3 I 1 I S.B I I 12.5 I 2M 0.0 0.0 OM I O.O I 0.0 I 26 19.5 NO ANSW. 0 I 18M 0.0 I 0.0 I BM I O.O I O.O I 1 IM I 0.0 I O.O II 0 I 0 2M 0 0 I 4M I I 0.0 I I 0.0 I 26M 1 O.O I 0.0 I 3M I O.O I 0.0 I 72M O.O COLUMN TOTAL 54 40.6 29 21.8 33 24.8 6 9 8 8 6.0 38M O.O 6M 0.0 133 100.0 11 OUT OF 2C ( 55.0*/.) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0.481 RAW CHI SOUARE = 10.66654 WITH 12 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE * 0.5577 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS * 87^ -•^cf- Includes respondents who do not expect to move - 2 0 5 -„-,,... • • • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F " . , . . L. : " . I 0 N . EJECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 021A MODE OF TRAVEL -HIGHEST INCOME EARNER MOVE IC VAN I ELS. VAN-OTHER BOTH 2 S 3 02 1A COUNT I ROW PCI IB Y CAR COL PCT I I t I 80.8 I 11.5 I 45.7 I 21.4 I 16 I 8 I 51.6 I 25.8 I 34.8 I 57.1 COLUMN TOTAL BUS & WA BUS AND NOT APPL NO ANSWE ROW l - K CAR ICABLE R TOTAL I 5 I V6 I - I I 0 1 20.0 I 33.3 I 3 1 I I 9.7 I 3.2 I 60.0 I 33.3 I O 0.0 0.0 3.2 too.o I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I O.O 0.0 O.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.O I 33.3 I 33.3 I 33.3 I O.O O.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.O 0.0 O.O I 72.7 I O 0.0 O.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38M I 0.0 I O.O I 13M I 0.0 I 0.0 I 11M O.O O.O O.O O.O 6M I O.O I O.O I 1M I O.O I O.O I 31M 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.O 46 64.8 14 19.7 2.8 37M 0.0 0.0 7.0 4.2 1.J M.N.'^L^CTED'cELL'FRfoUEScY™ 6 " o « EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.O. " 13.27905 WITH 15 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE, = 0.580B 11 7 ^ RAW CHI SOUARE = NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS 106M 0.0 • - • • • • * • • • • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN BY 021A MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER MOVE IC VAN I-C ROW PCT I BY CAR BY BUS WALK OTHER BUS I WA NOT APPL ROW COL F'CT I LK ICABLE TOTAL I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 -1 I 2 I 10 I 4 I 2 I O I 0 1M I 16 I 62 .5 I 25 0 I 12 5 I 0 0 I 0 0 0.0 I 32.7 I 34 .5 I 44 4 I 25 O I 0 0 I 0 0 O.O I 3 I 14 I 3 I 6 1 0 { 2 1M I 25 -OTHER I 56 0 I 12 0 I 24 0 I 0 0 I 8 0 0.0 I 51 .0 I 48 3 I 33 3 I 75 0 I 0 0 I 100 0 0.0 I 4 I 3 I 1 I 0 I 0 ! 0 OM I 4 3 I 7S 0 I 25 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0.0 I 8.2 I 10 3 I 11 ' I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0.0 I 5 I 2 I 1 I 0 I 1 j 0 I OM I 4 I 50 0 I 25 I 0 0 I 25 0 I 0 0 I O.O I 8.2 I 6 9 I 1 1 ' I 0 0 I 100 0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I O I 5M I 1M I OM I 1M ! 1M I OM I 8M I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 6 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 29 9 8 1 2 2M 49 TOTAL 59 2 18 4 16 3 2 0 4 1 0.0 100.0 18 OUT OF 20 ( 90.0%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0 MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 0.082 RAW CHI SOUARE = 16.94652 WITH 12 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.1516 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 1 0 ^ Includes respondents who do not expect to move -206-APPENDIX 0: DATA ON OCCUPATION AND WHERE RESPONDENTS EXPECT TO MOVE .SUBFILE WESTEND 020A * ' * * C R O S S T A EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER B U L A T I O N O F BY MOVE IC 'LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN COU'.'I ROW PCT COL PCT I VAN I-C I I 2 E L S . VAN BOTH 2 S O . K . ROW TOTAL 6 26 . 1 11.5 e 34 . 8 14.3 2G . 21 . 23 15.9 2 I 7 I 3 I 0 I 3 I 2M I 13 SALES I 53 .8 I 23 . 1 I 0 . 0 I 23. 1 I 0 . 0 I 9 . 0 I -1 13.5 I 5 . 4 I 0 . 0 I 10.7 I 0 .0 I 3 I 9 I 9 I 0 I 3 I 6M I 2 1 MAN.PROP.ADMIN. I 4 2 . 9 I 4 2 . 9 I 0 . 0 I 14 . 3 I 0 . 0 I 14.5 I - I 17.3 I 16 . 1 I 0 . 0 I 10.7 I 0 . 0 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 1 I 0 I 1M I 9 MANUFACT WORKER I 44 . 4 I 44 . 4 I 11.1 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 6 . 2 I - I • 7 . 7 I 7 . 1 I 11.1 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 5 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 1 I 1M I 3 CONSTRUCTION WOR I 3 3 . 3 I 3 3 . 3 I 0 . 0 I 33 .3 I 0 . 0 I 2. 1 I -I -1 . 9 I 1 . 8 I 0 . 0 I 3 . 6 1 0 . 0 I 6 I 9 I 14 I 2 I 7 I 14M I 32 P R O F . - T E C H . I 28 . 1 I 43 . 8 I 6 . 3 I 2 1 . 9 I 0 . 0 I 22 . 1 I - I -17.3 I 25 .0 I 22.2 I 25 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 7 I 5 I 5 I 0 I 1 I 6M I 1 1 SERVICE WORKER I 4 5 . 5 I 4 5 . 5 I 0 . 0 I 9 . 1 I 0 . 0 I 7 .6 I -1 -9 . 6 I 8 . 9 I 0 . 0 I 3 .6 I 0 . 0 I 8 I 4 I 5 I 2 I 2 I 2M I 13 TRANS-COMMUN. I 30 .8 I 38 . 5 I 15.4 I 15.4 I 0 . 0 I 9 . 0 I -1 -7 . 7 I 8 . 9 I 22 . 2 I 7 . 1 I 0 . 0 I " I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1M I 0 MATERIALS HAND I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 1 1 I 7 I 2 I 1 I 2 I I-26M I 12 RETIRED I 5 8 . 3 I 16.7 I 8 .3 I 16.7 I 0 . 0 I 8 . 3 I 13.5 I 3 .6 I 11.1 I 7 . 1 I 0 . 0 I 1? I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I OM I 1 UNEMPLOYED I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 10O.0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 7 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 3.6 I 0 . 0 I 13 I 0 I 5 I 0 I 1 I 2M I 6 OTHER 1 0 . 0 I 8 3 . 3 I 0 . 0 I 16.7 I 0 .0 I 4 . 1 I _ i _ O.O I 8 . 9 I 0 . 0 I 3 .6 I 0 . 0 1 14 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I OM I 1 STUDENT I 0 . 0 I O .O I 0 . 0 I 100.0 I 0 . 0 I 0 .7 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 3 .6 I 0 . 0 I 0 I 3M I OM I OM I OM I 4M I 7M NO ANSWER I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I COLUMN 52 56 9 28 72M 145 TOTAL 3 5 . 9 38 . 6 6 . 2 1 9 . 3 0 . 0 100.0 39 OUT OF .18 ( 8 1.3%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5 O MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0 .062 RAW CHI SOUARE = 32 .54213 WITH 33 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0.4898 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS 75" who do not expect t o move -207-r i J B F l L E FALCREEK C R O S S T A B U L EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER T I 0 N O F BY MOVEIC LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN COUNT ROW PCT COL TCT IVAN I-C E L S . VAN BOTH 2 8 O . K . MAN.PROP.ADMIN, I 5 0 . 0 I I 6 . 9 1 I 4 I I 5 0 . 0 I I 13.8 I •OTHER 3 2 50 .0 5 .7 I 10 I I 55 .6 I I 3 4 . 5 I 12.5 2 .9 5 27 .8 14.3 0 0 . 0 O 0 . 0 2 11.1 4 0 . O I ANSW. ROW TOTAL 0 I 1 10M I 4 0 . 0 I 4 . 9 0 . 0 I --I 5M I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 1 19M I 18 0 . 0 I 22 .2 0 . 0 I 8 9 . 9 MANUFACT WORKER I 5 I CONSTRUCTION WOR I P R O F . - T E C H . SERVICE WORKER TRANS-COMMUN. AGR.F ISH.MINING UNEMPLOYED NOT APPLICABLE NO ANSWER 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 2M 0 .0 I 100.0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 0 .0 I 2 .9 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1M 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I o.o • 9 I 18 I 1 I 4 I 25M 28 . 1 I 56 .3 I 3 . 1 I 12 .5 I 0 . 0 31 .0 I 51 .4 I 20 .0 I 33. 3 I 0 . 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 4M 0. 0 I 0 . 0 I 0. 0 I 100. 0 I 0 . 0 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I O. 0 I 8 . 3 I 0 . 0 0 I 2 I 0 I 3 I 1M 0. 0 I 4 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 60 . 0 I 0 . 0 0 . 0 I 5 . 7 I 0 . 0 I 25. 0 I 0 . 0 0 . 0 I 100.0 I 1 OM I 0 . 0 I COLUMN TOTAL 40 OUT OF 44 ( MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY RAW CHI SOUARE = 41 .67305 WITH O 0 . 0 5 6 .2 I 0 .0 I 2 .9 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I I 2 I 2 I 2 I 0 I 20M -1 I 6 , I 33 .3 I 33 . 3 I 33 .3 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I 7 .4 I 6 . 9 I 5 . 7 I 40 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 2M -1 I ' 1 I 0 .0 I 100 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I 1 .2 I 0 .0 I 2 .9 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I I 2 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 3M • I I 4 I 50 .0 I 50 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I 4 . 9 I 6 . 9 I 5 . 7 I 0 .0 I 0 0 I 0 . 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1M I I O I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 I 0 .0 I 0. 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I I OM I OM I OM I OM I 8M I I 8M I 0 . 0 I 0. 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I O.O I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0. 0 I 0 . 0 I I 1M I OM I OM I OM I 5M I I 6M I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 29 35 5 2 106M I E 11 35 . 8 43 . 2 6 . 2 14 . 8 0 . 0 100. 0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS 90.9%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5 O ' 0 .062 30 DEGREES OF TREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0763 107 1 -208-SUBFILE FAIRVIEW * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F 02OA EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BY MOVEIC - * * * * * * • • • * * .LOCATION EXPECTED TO MOVE TO OR WITHIN COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT Q S O A CLERICAL SALES MAN . P R O P . A D M I N . MANUFACT W O R K E R P R O F . - T E C H . SERVICE WORKER T R A N S - C O M M U N . •10 AGR.FISH.MINING OTHER 14 STUDENT 1 NOT APPLICABLE COLUMN TOTAL MOVEIC VAN I-C ELS. VAN -OTHER BOTH 2 3 & D . K . NO ANSW. ROW TOTAL 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 0 I 2 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 1M I 3 i es . 7 1 33 . 3 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 6.0 i 11 . 8 I 4 . 0 I 0 .O I 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 1 I 3 I 0 I 1 I 2M I 5 r 20 .0 I 60 .0 I 0 0 I 20 .0 I 0 .0 I 10.0 r 5 . 9 I 12 .0 I 0 0 I 25 0 I 0 0 I 4 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 2M I 6 [ 66 7 I 33 . 3 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 12.0 t 23 5 I 8 .0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 3 I 0 I 0 I OM I 3 [ 0 0 I 100 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 6.0 0 0 I 12 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 8 I 14 I 2 I 1 I 2M I 25 32 0 I 56 0 I 8 0 I 4 0 I 0 0 I 50.0 47 1 I 55 0 I 50 0 I 25 0 I 0 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1M I 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0.0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I I 0 I 2 I 0 I 1 I OM I 3 0 0 I 66 7 I 0. 0 I 33 3 I 0. 0 I 6.0 0 0 I 8 0 I 0. 0 I 25 . 0 I 0. 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I OM I 1 0.0 0.0 33 . 3 5 . 9 0.0 0.0 100. 25 . 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2 66 . 7 50.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 1 I 100.0 I 5 .9 I 1-OM I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1-17 34 .0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1-1M I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1-25 50.0 0 0.0 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I 0 I 0 OM I 0 0 OM 0 0 OM 0.0 0.0 OM 0.0 0.0 I I 0. I 0. I OM 0 0 4 8.0 4 8.0 0 8M 0 2.0 3 6.0 1 2.0 1M 0.0 50 100.0 34 OUT OF 36 ( 94.4%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY = 0.080 R A W CHI SOUARE = 42.08383 WITH 24 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0126 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS Includes respondents who do not expect to move •209-APPENDIX P: DATA ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY SUBFILE WESTEHf OFOURA * ' . C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N C O M S » D E H M O V I N G 1 U OR W I T H I N I N N E R - C I T Y ? B Y 0 1 5 NO. O F P E R S O N S I N H O U S E H O L D NO A N S W E R C O U N T I ROW rc" I 1 P E R S O N 2 P E R S O N 3 P E R S O N 4 OR MOR N O ANSWE ROW C O L r c r I S S E R T O T A L 1 2 3 4 0 I I I 7 7 4 4 8 2 OM I 13 1 5 8 . e 3 3 .6 6 1 1 5 0 0 I 6 0 . 9 6 1.1 5 8 .7 7 2 7 G 6 7 0 0 I 2 1 4 9 3 1 3 1 2M I 8 4 5 8 .3 3 6 . 9 3 6 1 2 0 0 I 3 9 . 1 . 9 4 1.3 2 7 3 3 3 3 0 0 I 0 I 2M 1M OM OM OM I 3M I 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I C O L U M N 1 2 6 7 5 1 3 2M 2 1 5 T O T A L 5 8 .6 3 4 , 9 5 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 3 O U T O F 8 I 3 7 . 5 % ) O F T H E V A L I D C E L L S H A V E E X P E C T E D C E L L F R E O U E N C Y L E S S T H A N 5 . 0 M I N I M U M E X P E C T E D C E L L F R E Q U E N C Y • 1 . 1 7 2 RAW C H I S O U A R E " 0 . 8 4 7 7 1 W I T H 3 D E G R E E S O F F R E E D O M . S I G N I F I C A N C E - 0 . 8 3 8 0 N U M B E R O F M I S S I N H O B S E R V A T I O N S • 5 * * • * ' C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F O F O U R A ^ C O N S I D E R M O V I N G T O OR W I T H I N I N N E R - C I T Y ? BY 0 1 5 NO. O F P E R S O N S I N H O U S E H O L D ROW r e i 1 P E R S O N 2 P E R S O N 3 P E R S O N 4 OR MOR N O ANSWE ROW C O L PCI I S S E R T O T A L I 1 2 I 3 I 4 0 I 1 I 2 8 3 3 I 16 I 16 4 M I 9 3 I 3 0 . 1 3 5 . 5 I 1 7 . 2 I 17 . 2 0 . 0 I 5 1 . 1 I - j 4 9 . 1 5 7 .9 1 4 4 . 4 I 5 0 . 0 0 , 0 I 2 I 2 9 2 4 I 2 0 I 16 2M I 8 9 I 3 2 .6 2 7 .0 I 2 2 . 5 I 1 8 . 0 0 . 0 I 4 8 . 9 I -1 5 0 . 9 4 2 . 1 I 5 5 . 6 I 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 I C O L U M N 5 7 5 7 3 6 3 2 6 M 1 8 2 T O T A L 3 1.3 3 1.3 1 9 . 8 17 . 6 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 S Q U A R E • 1 . 7 9 5 9 9 W I T H 3 D E G R E E S O F F R E E D O M S I G N I F I C A N C E N U M B E R OF MISSINrt OBSERVATIONS • 6 -210-APPENDIX Q: DATA ON CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY SUBFILE WESTEND C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF . - . * » • • • • • • • * QFOURA CONSIDER MOVING TO OH WITHIN INNER-CITY? BY CHPHH NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD CHPHH COUNT I ROW P C T INONC ONE 2 OR MOR ROW COL P C T I E TOTAL I 0 1 t I 2 1 OroURA " I I I I I I t15 I 14 1 2 1 131 YES I 87.8 I 10.7 I 1.5 I 60-6 1 59.9 I 66.7 I 66.7 I -t I-- I I 2 1 77 I 7 1 I I 85 NO I 90 - 6 I 8 . 2 1 1.2 I 39 4 I 40.1 I 33.3 I 33.3 I _I i I I 0 1 3M I OM I OM I. 3M 'JO ANSWER 1 0 . 0 1 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 I O . O I 0-0 1 0.0 I - I I I I COLUMN 192 21 3 216 TOTAL 88.9 9.7 1.4 1OO-0 2 OUT OF 6 < 33.3%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED C E L L FREQUENCY » 1.181 > RAW CHI SOUARE = 0.40979 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.8147 , N U M B E R OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 4 * ' • • * * * * * • * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N DF CONSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN INNEH-CITV? BY CHPHH NO. OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD CHPHH COUNT I ROW PCT INONE ONE 2 OR MDR ROW COL PCT I £ TOTAL I 0 1 I I 2 1 OFOURA YES NO 1 I 56 I 18 I 19 I I 93 I 60.2 I 19.4 I 20.4 I 51.1 [ 52.3 I 47.4 I 51.4 I 2 ; [ 51 I 20 I 18 I I 89 t 57.3 I 22.5 I 20.2 I 46.9 i t 47 . 7 I 52.6 I 46.6 I COLUMN 107 38 37 I 182 TOTAL 58.6 20.9 20.3 1O0.0 RAW CHI SOUARE = 0.27816 WITH 2 DEGREES DF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = O.B702 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS * 6 -211-APPENDIX R: DATA ON WORK LOCATION AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY CONSIDER MOVING TD OR WITHIN INNER-CI TV? S S T A B U L A T I O N 0 F ^ ' I 0 N - H , G M £ S T INCOME EARNER Ro2""cI IDOWNTOWN W E S T E N D E L S W H E R E E L S W H E R E O T H E R N O T A P P L N O A N S W E R O W 019A ™ S |O NTuwn* . „ . t „ ^ . . ^ ^ . . o ICABLE • TOTALI 1 I 2 I 3 1 A I 5 1 - 1 1 0 1 VES I 49.6 I 8.0 I 18.6 I 19-5 I 4.4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 65.7 69.1 I 69.2 I 60.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 25 I I 14 I 7 1 9 1 25M I 2M I 59 'iu . . I 23.7 I 11.9 I 15.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 34.3 I 30.9 I 30.6 I 40.0 I 24. 1 I 64.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 1 _I 1 I j 1 1 I 1 0 1 I H I OM I 2M I OM I OM I OM I OM I 3M NO ANSWER I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I O.O I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I O O I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I . j I 1 1 1 1 1 1 COLUMN 81 13 35 29 14 39M 6M 172 TOTAL 47.1 7.6 20.3 16.9 8.t O.O O.O 10O.0 2 OUT OF IC ( 20.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY « 4.459 PAW CHI SOUARE = 7.91546 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0947 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F . - . . - • * • • - • • • » - * OFOURA CONSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN INNER-CITY? BY 019A WORK LOCATION-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER OFOURA YES ROW PCT IDOWNTOWN WEST END ELSWHERE ELSWHERE OTHER NOT APPL NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT CITY GVRD ICABLE R TOTAL I 1 2 I 3 4 5 I -1 0 I I 26 2 I 27 15 10 I 9M 8M I 80 I 32.5 2 5 I 33.8 18 .8 12.5 I O.O O.O I 58.0 I 56.5 100 0 I 51.9 60.0 76.9 I 0.0 O.O I 2 I 20 0 I 25 10 3 I 30M I 3M I 58 I 34 . 5 o O I 43 . 1 17.2 5.2 I 0.0 I O.O I 42.0 I 43.5 0 0 I 48. 1 40.0 23. 1 I 0.0 I 0.0 1 COLUMN 46 2 52 25 13 39M 11M 138 TOTAL 33.3 1 4 37 . 7 18. 1 9.4 0.0 O.O 1OO.0 2 OUT OF «0 ( 20.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CEL! MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY = 0.841 RAW CHI SOUARE = 4.22899 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEOOM. SIGNIFICANCE FREQUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. 0.3759 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 50 - 2 1 2 -APPENDIX S: DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING WITHIN THE INNER-CITY * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F * • • . . • . . • • • • • • • • » CONSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN INNER-CITY? BY 021A MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER PCT I B i CAR BY BUS WALK OTHER BUS 6 WA NOT APPL NO ANSWE ROW F-CT 1 LK ICABLE R TOTAL I 1 I 2 I ' 3 I 4 I 5 I -1 0 I 1 I 43 I 25 I 31 I 9 I 6 I 13M 4M I 1 14 I 37 .7 I 21 .9 I 27 .2 I 7 .9 I 5 .3 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 I 65 .9 I 6 2 . 3 I 6 7 . 6 I 70 .5 I 8 1 . 8 I 5 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 0 . 0 I 2 I 26 I 12 I 13 I 2 I 6 I 25M 2M I 59 I 44 . 1 I 2 0 . 3 I 2 2 . 0 I 3.4 I 10.2 I 0 . 0 0 . 0 I 34. 1 I 37 .7 I 32 .4 I 2 9 . 5 I 18.2 I 5 0 . O I 0 . 0 O.O I O I 3M I OM I OM I OM I OM I OM I OM I 3M I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I O.O I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I. 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I K N 69 37 44 11 12 38M 6M 173 AL 3 9 . 9 21 .4 25 .4 6 .4 6 . 9 O.O 0 . 0 100.0 u....i~UI.oc 1 0 ' 20°*> 0 F T H E V l u o CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY .LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY . 3.751 R A V CHI SOUARE . 3.43588 KITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE » 0.4877 N U M B E R OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • . . . . . . . . . . C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0FOURA_ _ CONSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN INNER-CITY? BY 021A MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME 021A COUNT I ™ 111 ' B V " R B V B U S « A L K O T H E R B U S 8 W A B U S A N D N O T A P P L N O A N S W E i ROW CAR ICABLE R TOTAL O I , e,l , ,„ ! I 8 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 BM I 3M I 86 , V, , ! « ? 9 3 1 2 3 1 3 5 1 2 3 1 0 0 " 0.0 I 60.1 I 63.1 I 66.7 I 50.0 I 33.3 I 42.9 I 66.7 I O.O I O.O I J =.3^ I .= » ' 8 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 J 9 " I 5M j 57 , lit I III 1 1 4 0 1 7 0 1 7 0 1 '- 8 1 O.O I O.O I 39.9 I 36.9 I 33.3 I 50.0 I 66.7 I 57.1 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 8 4 " '6 6 7 3 ' i™"' BM~' 143 5 8 - 7 1 8 9 "-2 " 2 4.9 3.1 0.0 O.O 100.0 C O L U M N T O T A L M I NISUS UIXPE F C T ED' C%L L 5 F R?O\1ENCY™ E ,',96 C E L L S E X " E C T £ D C E L L " E 0 U E * " " S S THAN 5.0. R A W CHI SOUARE - 4. 19622 WITH 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.5215 N U M B E R OF HISSIt.'S OBSERVATIONS • 45 -213-APPENDIX T: DATA ON WORK LOCATION AND CONSIDERATION TO THE INNER-CITY ' C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF QFOURA . CDfJSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN INNER-CITY? BY Q19A WORK LOCATION-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER QFOURA YES ROW per 1 DOWNTOWN WEST END ELSWHERE ELSWHERE OTHER NOT APPL NO ANSWE ROW COL per CITY GVRD ICABLE R TOTAL 1 1 2 3 4 5 I -1 0 I 1 I 5 0 3 6 2 I IM OM I 16 I 3 1.3 0 0 IB a 37.5 12.9 I 0.0 0.0 I 14.3 I 19.3 0 0 13.0 14 . 3 10.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 2 I 21 1 20 36 18 I 1 IM 2M I 96 I 2 1.9 1 0 20.8 37.5 18.8 I 0.0 CO 1 85.7 I 60. B 100 0 87 .0 85.7 90.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0 I OM OM OM OM OM I IM OM I IM ANSWER I 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I COLUMN 26 1 23 42 20 13M 2M I 12 TOTAL 23.2 0 9 20.5 37.5 17.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 5 OUT OF tO ( 50-OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTEO CELL FREQUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY « 0.143 PAW CHI SQUARE * 1.01488 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0,9076 WMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 15 APPENDIX U: DATA ON MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N CONSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN INNER-CITY? BY Q21A COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT QFOURA ' ES 02 IA BY CAR MODE OF TRAVEL-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BY BUS WALK BUS AND CAR NOT APPL NO ANSWE ICABLE R ROW TOTAL 1 I 2 3 I 4 6 I - i I 0 I 14 I 1 0 I 1 0 I 1M I OM I 16 87 . 5 I 6.3 0.0 I 6 3 0.0 I 0.0 I 0,0 I 14.4 14.4 I 14.3 0.0 I 20 0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 83 I 6 1 I 4 1 I 13M I IM I 95 87.4 I 6.3 1.1 I 4 2 1.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I' 85.6 85.6 I 85 . 7 100.0 I 80 0 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I OM 1 OM OM I OM OM I 1M I OM I I IM 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0 0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 97 7 1 5 1 15M IM I 1 11 87.4 6.3 0.9 4 5 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 COLUMN TOTAL 7 OUT OF 10 ( 70.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN B.O. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 0.144 RAW CHI SOUARE = 0.46341 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.9770 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 16 APPENDIX V: DATA ON NUMBER OF INCOME EARNERS AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY SUBFILE RICHMOND ' * ' " ! ' " " I • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N OF NO. OF INCOME EARNERS IN HOUSEHOLD OFOURA YES COUN1 ROW PCT 10 1 ~~ 2 - MORE NO ANSWE ROW CCL FCT THAN 2 R TOTAL I 0 I 1 I 2 I 3 I 9 I 1 I 0 I 8 I 9 I 0 I OM I 17 I 0.0 I 47 . 1 I 52.9 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 13.6 I 0.0 I 14.8 I 15.5 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 2 I 5 I 46 I 49 I 8 I IM I 108 I 4.6 1 42 6 I 45.4 I 7 4 I 0.0 I 86.4 I 100.0 I 85 . 2 I 84.5 I 100 0 I 0.0 I 0 1 OM I IM I OM I OM I OM I 1M I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 5 54 58 a IM 125 TOTAL 4.0 43.2 46.4 6 4 0.0 100.0 3 OUT OF 8 ( 37.5%) OF THE VALIO CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY • 0.680 RAW CHI SQUARE • 2.29555 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.5134 I NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 2 -214-APPENDIX W: DATA ON OCCUPATION AND CONSIDERATION OF MOVING TO THE INNER-CITY RESPONDENTS WHO WILL CONSIDER MOVING WITHIN I-C ^ 11/08/82 PAGE FILE SPSS2 I GREAT ION DATE - 10/19/82) SUBfILE RICHMOND . . . . . . . . . . . C R O S S T A EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER U L A T I O N O F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BY OFOURA CONSIDER MOVING TO OR WITHIN INNER-CITY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 1 OF 2 COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT 020A CLERICAL MAN.PROP.ADMIN. MANUFACT WORKER CONSTRUCTION WOR PROF.-TECH. SERVICE WORKER TRANS-COMMUN. MATERIALS HAND COLUMN TOTAL O.C 0.0 , '3j I aye-- I ML 13 81.3 1**ft T* 13?8 IV 86.2 22.2 11.8 77.8 6.9 2 100.0 2.0 26.1 I 73.9 I 12.5 5.9 87 .5 6.9 ROW TOTAL O O.O O.O 100.0 9.8 0 0 I lOO.O I (CONTINUED) 102 85.7 0.0 O.O 0.0 I O.O I OM I 0.0 1 O.O I I OM I C L 6 I O Q„- I OM J> , 0.0 0.0 OM I 0.0 I 0.0 I OM I 0.0 I 0.0 I O.O 0.0 OM I O.O I 0.0 I 119 100.0 RESPONDENTS WHO WILL CONSIOER MOVING WITHIN I-C FILE 5PSS2 (CREATION DATE - 10/19/82) SUBFILE RICHMOND . . . . . . . . . . « * • • . . C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F • • „ . , . „ „ 020A EMPLOYMENT TYPE-HIGHEST INCOME EARNER BY OFOURA CONSIOER MOVING TO ^ 1 ™ ^ * PAGE 3 OF COUNT ROW PCT I YES NO NO ANSWE COL FCT R 1 I 2 I 0 10 O I 1 I OM AGR.FISH.MINING I 0 0 I ICO 0 I 0.0 I 0 0 I 1 0 I 0.0 1 1 1 I 6 I 1M RETIRED I 14 3 I 85 7 I O.O I 5 9 I 5 9 I 0.0 12 0 I 2 I OM UNEMPLOYED I 0 0 I 10O O I 0.0 I 0 0 I 2 0 I 0.0 13 0 I 5 I OM OTHER I 0 o I too O I O.O I 0 o I 4 9 I 0.0 14 0 I 1 I OM STUDENT I 0 0 I 100 0 I 0.0 I 0 0 I 1 O I 0.0 - 1 OM I 5M I OM NOT APPLICABLE 1 0 O' I 0 O I 0.0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0.0 0 OM I 2M I OM NO ANSWER I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 0 0 ,1 o O I O.O COLUKH 17 102 1M TOTAL 14 3 85 7 0.0 ROW TOTAL 2M 0.0 119 100.0 21 OUT OF 28 ( 75.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5.O. MINIMUM EXPECTEO CELL FREOUENCY • 0.143 RAW CHI SOUARE •= 7.86589 WITH 13 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.8522 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS =- 8 - 2 1 5 -APPENDIX X: CROSS-TABULATION OF DESIRED TENURE WITH CURRENT TENURE SUBFILE WESTEtlU ' • • . . . . . . . . . . . * * « • » C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F . . . » • • • OTWEL1 DESIRE RENTAL UNIT BY 023A PRESENT TENURE 0234 COUNT I ROW PCT I RENTAL OWNERSHP NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT I R TOTAL I I I 2 1 0 1 QTWELI I I I I 1 I 35 0 I IM I 35 YES I ioo:o 0 0 I 0.0 I 55.6 I 58.3 I 0 0 I 0.0 I 2 I 35 I 3 I OM I 28 NO I 89.3 I 10 7 I 0.0 44.4 I A 1 .7 I 100 0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 60 3 IM 63 TOTAL 95.2 4 8 0.0 100,0 2 OUT OF 4 ( 50.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN B.O. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY • 1.333 CORRECTED CHI SOUARE • 1.92937 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM, SIGNIFICANCE • 0.164B RAW CHI SOUARE - 3.93750 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0472 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • 1 C R O S S T A B U L A T I O DESIRE OWNERSHIP UNIT BY 023A PRESENT TENURE COUNT ROW PCT IRENTAL OWNERSHP NO ANSWE ROW COL PCT R TOTAL I 1 I 2 0 I 1 I 22 I 3 OM I 25 I 88.0 I 12 0 0.0 I 39.7 I 36.7 I 100 0 0.0 I 2 I 38 I' 0 1M I 38 I 100.0 I 0 0 0.0 I 60.3 I 63.3 I 0 0 0.0 I COLUMN 60 3 IM 63 TOTAL 95.2 4 8 0.0 100.0 2 OUT OF 4 ( 50.OX) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY " 1.190 CORRECTED CHI SOUARE • 2.50757 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEOOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.1133 RAW CHI SOUARE - 4.78BOO WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE . 0.0287 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 1 C DESIRE RENTAL UNIT BY Q23A PRESINI S T A B U L A T I O N OF 023A COUNT I ROW PCT I RENTAL COL PCT I I OWNERSHP COOP NO ANSWE ROW . R TOTAL 26 76.5 COLUMN TOTAL 1 I 2 I 3 I 0 7 I 1 I 0 I OM 87.5 I 12.5 I 0 0 I 0.0 41.2 I 9.1 I 0 0 I 0.0 10 I 10 I 6 I OM 38.5 I 38.5 1 23 1 I 0.0 58.8 I 90.9 100 0 I 0.0 OM 1 OM OM 1 IM 0.0 I 0.0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0 0 I 0.0 17 1 1 6 IM 50.0 32.4 17 6 0.0 4 OUT OF 6 ( 66.7X) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCY LESS THAN 5.0. RTC'HI' I ™ * " " " G ^ S T W I T H '^'.E-EES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0.0482 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS • - 2 1 6 -• • • • * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N DESIRE OWNERSHIP UNIT BY 023A PRESENT TENURE 0 2 3 A C O U N T I R O W P C T I R E N T A L O W N E R S H P C O O P N O A N S W E R O W COL PCT I R TOTAL I I I 2 1 3 1 0 1 QTWEL2 I I I I I I I 9 1 10 I 3 1 OM I 22 YES I 4 0 . 9 I 4 5 . S I 13 .6 I 0 . 0 I 64 .7 I 5 2 . 9 I 9 0 . 9 I 5 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I - I I I I I 2 1 8 1 I I 3 1 OM I 12 NO I 6 6 . 7 I 8 . 3 I 2 5 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 3 5 . 3 I 47 .1 I 9 .1 I 5 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I - I I I I I 0 1 OM I OM I OM I 1M 1 1M NO ANSWER I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I - I I I I I COLUMN 17 11 6 1M 34 TOTAL 5 0 . 0 3 2 . 4 17 .6 0 . 0 100.0 3 OUT OF 6 ( 50.0%) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTEO CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5 o ' MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY - 2 . 1 1 8 RAW CHI SOUARE • • 4 . 90565 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0 .0861 ! NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 1 I C R O S S T A B U L A T 0TWEL1 DESIRE RENTAL UNIT BY 023A PRESENT TENURE 023A COUNT I ROW PCT IRENTAL OWNERSHP ROW COL PCT I TOTAL I I I 2 1 0TWEL1 1 1 1 1 I 7 I 2 I 9 YES I 7 7 . 8 I 2 2 . 2 1 4 2 . 8 I 4 3 . 8 I 4 0 . 0 I - I I I 2 1 9 1 3 1 12 NO I 7 5 . 0 I 2 5 . 0 1 57 .1 I 5 6 . 3 1 6 0 . 0 1 - I I I COLUMN 16 5 21 TOTAL 7 6 . 2 2 3 . 6 100 .0 2 OUT OF 4 ( 5 0 . O X ) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY IE5S THAN B . O . j MINIMUM EXPECTEO CELL FREOUENCY • 2 .143 ' CORRECTED CHI SOUARE • 0 . 0 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 1.0000 RAW CHI SOUARE • 0 .02187 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0 .8824 , • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F • ' 0TWEL2 DESIRE OWNERSHIP UNIT BY 023A PRESENT TENURE 023A COUNT I ROW PCT IRENTAL OWNERSHP ROW COL PCT I TOTAL I I I 2 1 QTWEL2 I 1 1 I I 9 1 3 1 12 YES I 7 5 . 0 I 2 5 . 0 I 57 .1 I 6 6 . 3 1 6 0 . 0 1 - I I I 2 1 7 1 2 1 9 NO I 7 7 . 8 I 2 2 . 2 I 4 2 . 9 I 4 3 . 8 I 4 0 . 0 I - I '—I I COLUMN 16 5 21 TOTAL 7 6 . 2 2 3 . 8 100 .0 2 OUT OF 4 ( 5 0 . O X ) OF THE VALID CELLS HAVE EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY LESS THAN 5 . 0 . MINIMUM EXPECTED CELL FREOUENCY • 2 . 1 4 3 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE • 0 . 0 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEOOM. SIGNIFICANCE ' 1.0000 RAW CHI SOUARE • 0 .02187 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEOOM. SIGNIFICANCE • 0 .8824
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Business Administration - Urban Land Economics
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
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.
Graduate
An analysis of the characteristics of the market for inner-city housing
Text