@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Applied Science, Faculty of"@en, "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "McKay, Lauri A."@en ; dcterms:issued "2010-09-24T03:46:37Z"@en, "1989"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts in Planning - MA (Plan)"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """Research on housing policy in Canada has been directed primarily towards the analysis of the policies made at the senior levels of government. As a result, there is abundant literature concerning the roles of the federal and provincial governments in housing. In contrast, little attention has focused on the municipal role. The need for studies that examine municipal involvement in housing policy and provision has become increasingly apparent in recent years, as many local governtments have begun to try to expand their role in housing beyond the traditional tasks of zoning and collecting property taxes. This thesis presents a case study of one municipality's experiences in planning for housing. Over the past three decades, housing problems have received a great deal of attention on the public agenda in Burnaby. In particular, three categories or types of housing problems have predominated since 1960; namely, apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. This research revealed that these housing problems have reached the municipal agenda on a recurrent basis and are all related to the disparity between two apparently contradictory goals: the goal of preserving the status quo in existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of encouraging and facilitating the development of a diversity of housing options for present and future residents of the Municipality. This thesis examines the process by which each of the three categories of housing problems has reached the municipal agenda and how the community has responded. An analytic framework is initially used to study the nature and complexity of the housing problems which have reached Burnaby's public agenda. By outlining the various stages in the lifecycle of a social problem, this framework made it possible to identify the origins of Burnaby's housing policies by tracing the housing issues through their initial recognition in the community as problems to the measures which were taken to alleviate them. There is a striking feature evident in the examination of housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda. At least once in every decade, the Municipality and the Region as a whole, are faced with what is widely defined as a "housing crisis". This case study suggests that the perception of a "housing crisis" in Burnaby appears to be related to periods of rapid growth in the Region during which time housing problems affect a large number of lower and middle income households. Similar to many other Canadian municipalities, the role of Burnaby in housing has been quite limited, restricted primarily to regulatory and zoning functions. Burnaby will continue to experience increased pressures for rapid growth and change due to its central location within the larger Metropolitan Area. There will come a point in the near future when the Municipality of Burnaby will have to seriously consider the expansion of its role in all aspects of housing. It is hoped that this study provides a useful analysis and summary of information about the Municipality's past role in housing. For understanding past events and policy decisions is essential to the development of better policies in the future."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/28678?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "THE MUNICIPAL ROLE IN HOUSING: A CASE STUDY OF BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA by LAURI A. MCKAY Bachelor of Arts, University of Calgary A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2 October 1989 © Lauri A. McKay, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: 2 October 1989 ABSTRACT Research on housing policy in Canada has been directed primarily towards the analysis of the policies made at the senior levels of government. As a result, there is abundant literature concerning the roles of the federal and provincial governments in housing. In contrast, little attention has focused on the municipal role. The need for studies that examine municipal involvement in housing policy and provision has become increasingly apparent in recent years, as many local governtments have begun to try to expand their role in housing beyond the traditional tasks of zoning and collecting property taxes. This thesis presents a case study of one municipality's experiences in planning for housing. Over the past three decades, housing problems have received a great deal of attention on the public agenda in Burnaby. In particular, three categories or types of housing problems have predominated since 1960; namely, apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. This research revealed that these housing problems have reached the municipal agenda on a recurrent basis and are all related to the disparity between two apparently contradictory goals: the goal of preserving the status quo in existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of encouraging and facilitating the development of a diversity of housing options for present and future residents of the Municipality. This thesis examines the process by which each of the three categories of housing problems has reached the municipal agenda and how the community has responded. An analytic framework is initially used to study the nature and ii complexity of the housing problems which have reached Burnaby's public agenda. By outlining the various stages in the lifecycle of a social problem, this framework made it possible to identify the origins of Burnaby's housing policies by tracing the housing issues through their initial recognition in the community as problems to the measures which were taken to alleviate them. There is a striking feature evident in the examination of housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda. At least once in every decade, the Municipality and the Region as a whole, are faced with what is widely defined as a \"housing crisis\". This case study suggests that the perception of a \"housing crisis\" in Burnaby appears to be related to periods of rapid growth in the Region during which time housing problems affect a large number of lower and middle income households. Similar to many other Canadian municipalities, the role of Burnaby in housing has been quite limited, restricted primarily to regulatory and zoning functions. Burnaby will continue to experience increased pressures for rapid growth and change due to its central location within the larger Metropolitan Area. There will come a point in the near future when the Municipality of Burnaby will have to seriously consider the expansion of its role in all aspects of housing. It is hoped that this study provides a useful analysis and summary of information about the Municipality's past role in housing. For understanding past events and policy decisions is essential to the development of better policies in the future. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii I. INTRODUCTION 1 1. The Municipal Role In Housing 4 2. Housing as a Social Issue 7 3. Organization of Thesis 12 II. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE 16 1. A Framework for Analysis 16 2. Housing Problems on Burnabys Public Agenda 22 III. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT 27 1. Emergence of the Problem 27 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem 28 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem 28 4. Preparation of the Official Plan of Action 29 5. Implementation of the Official Plan 30 6. Events Following the Implementation of the Plan 31 IV. SOCIAL HOUSING 40 1. Emergence of the Problem 41 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem , 47 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem 49 V. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION 54 1. Emergence of the Problem 54 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem 56 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem 58 4. Preparation of the Official Plan of Action 64 5. Implementation of the Official Plan 73 6. Events Following the Attempt to Implement the Plan 75 VI. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF \"HOUSING CRISIS\" 78 1. The Housing Crisis in the Late 1960s 91 2. The 1972 - 1974 Housing Crisis 95 3. The Housing Crisis of the Early 1980s 101 4. The Housing Crisis of the Late 1980s 105 5. Common Features of the Four Periods of Housing Crises 108 iv VII. SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 110 1. Summary of the Case Study 110 2. Conclusions 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY 121 APPENDIX A: CHRONOLOGY 137 APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL TABLES 153 List of Tables Table 1: Population of Burnaby and Metro-Vancouver 23 Table 2: Community Profiles (1986) 24 Table 3: Average Household Size in Burnaby 25 Table 4: Burnabys Social Housing Stock 50 Table 5: Proposed Residential Framework 70 Table 6: Summary of Compaction Actions 72 Table 7: Burnabys Multiple Housing Starts 106 Table 8: Apartment Vacancy Rates 1959-1976 153 Table 9: Apartment Vacancy Rates 1977-1989 154 Table 10: Multiple Dwelling Starts 155 Table 11: Single and Two Family Starts 156 Table 12: Consumer Price Index (Vancouver CMA) 157 Table 13: Provincial Net Migration 158 Table 14: Provincial Gross Domestic Product 159 Table 15: Provincial Unemployment Rate 160 Table 16: Conventional Five Year Mortgage Rates 161 vi List of Figures Figure 1: A Typology of Policy Analysis 3 Figure 2: Burnaby in the Region 11 Figure 3: Burnabys Vacancy Rates 33 Figure 4: Burnabys Population Growth 34 Figure 5: Apartments as a Percentage of Burnabys Dwelling Stock 37 Figure 6: Percentage of Renters in Burnaby and Vancouver 38 Figure 7: Metro—Vancouver Vacancy Rates 82 Figure 8: Burnaby Housing Starts 83 Figure 9: Metro—Vancouver Housing Starts 84 Figure 10: Change in the Consumer Price Index (1962-1971) 85 Figure 11: Change in the Consumer Price Index (1972-1988) 86 Figure 12: Provincial Net Migration 87 Figure 13: Change in the Provincial Gross Domestic Product 88 Figure 14: Provincial Unemployment Rates 89 Figure 15: Conventional Five Year Mortgage Rate 90 vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T I would like to express my appreciation to my thesis supervisors, Professors J. D. Hulchanski and B. Wiesman, for their guidance and advice in preparing this thesis. As well, I would like to thank all those individuals in Burnaby who shared their time and expertise during my research, particularly Beverly Grieve of the Planning Department. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge CMHC for the scholarship I received for the 1987—1988 academic year. To my family and friends, especially David, a special note of thanks for your never—ending support and encouragement. viii I. INTRODUCTION Planners must deal with the reality of constant change; change that they do not and cannot control. Macroeconomic conditions and societal norms and values are continually undergoing gradual and sometimes abrupt changes that ultimately shape the reality of life in our cities. Consequently, planners must be aware of prevailing values and conditions when developing policies and preparing plans, for these norms and values to a large extent guide and constrain the actions of the state and its agencies (Roweis, 1981). In an ideal model of a capitalist society, private enterprise is highly valued and is based on the workings of an unfettered marketplace. It is assumed that the prices of commodities, services and labour are entirely determined by the interaction of the forces of supply and demand. Since government intervention in the marketplace would not be permitted in such an ideal society, it is clear that such a pure capitalistic society does not exist today. Markets are rarely, if ever, completely unfettered. The nearest approximation to this ideal model were the early capitalist societies of the mid—seventeenth to the late nineteenth century. During this time period, the role of the state in the area of urban development and planning was clearly limited (Roweis, 1981:163). In Canada, a mixed version of capitalism has evolved that incorporates many aspects of a more planned society. Governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels intervene in many aspects of society, from banking to 1 INTRODUCTION / 2 health and welfare. One important area which has experienced a great deal of government intervention is housing. This is particularly true at the federal and provincial levels. Provincial governments have constitutional jurisdiction over housing and have created their own policies and programs which have worked in conjunction with federal programs. It is at the municipal level, however, where the inadequacies of many of the federal and provincial initiatives are manifested. For instance, growing numbers of homeless individuals and families are found on the streets of larger Canadian cities. As well, more and more households are experiencing affordability problems which threaten their security (Hulchanski, 1987; Peddie, 1987; Young, 1987). This is one of the major reasons why many municipalities are now considering an expanded role in housing and are searching for innovative means to address the housing problems of their residents. An important first step in the redefinition of the municipal role in housing is a review and analysis of what the municipal role has been and what this role should be. Understanding the past is essential to planning for the future. In order to do this, a foundation of knowledge must be built based on a number of case studies which examine the major issues and problems associated with planning for housing at the municipal level. The case study research method is well suited to this type of problem since a major strength of this approach is its \"ability to trace changes over time\" (Yin, 1989:116). As noted by Robert Yin, case studies are the preferred research strategy for understanding complex social phenomena within some real—life context (Yin, 1989:13—14). Thus, the primary purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the understanding of the INTRODUCTION / 3 municipal role in housing by presenting a case study of one municipality's experiences in planning for housing. A distinction is made by some authors1 between analysis of policy and the analysis for policy (See Figure 1). STUDY OF STUDY OF STUDY OF POLICY POLICY POLICY CONTENT PROCESS OUTPUTS INFORMATION FOR POLICY-MAKING PROCESS ADVOCACY POLICY ADVOCACY ANALYST AS POLITICAL POLITICAL ACTOR AS ACTOR ANALYST POLICY STUDIES (Knowledge of policy and the policy process) POLICY ANALYSIS (Knowledge in the policy process) Figure 1: A Typology of Policy Analysis (Source: Ham and Hill, 1985:9) Analysis of policy is mainly descriptive and is aimed at furthering the understanding of policy content, the policy process and the outcome of policy. Analysis for policy, on the other hand, is prescriptive and involves the gathering of information for policy—making, process advocacy, and policy advocacy. Evaluation or impact studies can involve either of the two general types of 'Hogwood and Gunn, 1981; Ham and Hill, 1981; and others. INTRODUCTION / 4 policy analysis and frequently incorporate both descriptive and prescriptive elements (Ham and Hill, 1985:8—10). This study focuses on the analysis of policy rather than the analysis for policy. It is primarily a study of policy content, in that it seeks to describe and explain the origin and development of housing policy within a typical Canadian municipality. A secondary concern is the analysis of the policy process, since this study also includes a discussion of the stages through which the major housing issues and policies in the municipality have passed. As this is not an evaluation or an advocacy study, the making of recommendations or prescriptions for solving the housing problems in the community is not an objective. The municipality chosen for this case study is Burnaby, British Columbia. As a constituent municipality in a larger metropolitan region, Burnaby is representative of numerous Canadian cities. As will be illustrated in later chapters, these constituent municipalities are of particular interest to planners, politicians, business organizations and residents alike, and, yet, relatively little research has been conducted on their public policy histories. 1. The Municipal Role In Housing There is abundant literature concerning the roles of the federal and provincial governments in housing.2 There is, however, a significant gap in the (Hulchanski and Grieve, 1984; Drover and Hulchanski, 1985; Grieve, 1985; Bacher, 1986) INTRODUCTION / 5 literature regarding the municipal role. The reasons for this are many. Perhaps the most important reason is that until relatively recently housing was not really on the municipal agenda. The Canadian Constitution (formerly the BNA Act of 1867) gives the provinces authority over housing matters and the power to delegate authority and responsibility to municipal governments at their discretion. A fact acknowledged repeatedly in the literature is that municipalities are basically the \"creatures\" of the province and have only limited powers delegated to them by the province (Cullingworth, 1985; Makuch, 1986; Lane, 1988). In Canada, responsibility for the development of housing policies and programs has rarely been given to municipal governments. Traditionally, municipal influence on housing development and policy has been limited to controlling private sector development through the use of regulatory devices such as zoning and maintenance and occupancy standards. Even the provision of infrastructure can only guide the general location of private sector development, it cannot determine if and when it will occur. A further restriction on municipalities' ability to intervene in the housing sector is their reliance on property taxes as their principal source of finances. The property tax is widely recognized to be an inadequate source of revenue for supporting the expanding needs and expectations in Canada's urban centres (Cullingworth, 1985; Makuch, 1986; Lane, 1988). Restricted constitutional authority and financial resources are not the only reasons for the limited role of municipal governments in housing. It has only been in recent decades that the need for public involvement in housing has increased. Rising housing costs, inadequate supply of rental accommodation and associated problems have contributed to the creation of a political atmosphere INTRODUCTION / 6 open to greater government involvement in housing. At the same time, growing dissatisfaction with federal and provincial housing polices and programs have led to calls for the increased involvement of local governments. Consequently, the role of municipal governments in housing has been changing in many Canadian cities (Burchinshaw et al., 1985; Makuch, 1986). In 1985 CMHC conducted a survey of municipal housing policies across Canada. The report provides a brief overview of local government activities in four key areas: 1. social housing; 2. housing conditions and rehabilitation; 3. rental housing; and 4. affordability. The survey found that the primary focus of municipal housing policies is on social housing; specifically, on determining which groups should be targeted for assistance and how that assistance should be provided (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:4). It was also found that the area of rental housing has received the least amount of attention by municipal policy—makers (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:4). Two main conclusions were drawn from the survey results. First, there was a distinct lack of policy directed at inter—municipal communication and, therefore, information on the successes and/or failures of any innovative housing related policies were not being disseminated through Canada's urban system (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:27). The second conclusion was that although most municipalities continue to function in either an administrative role or as a link between provincial and federal governments, some Canadian municipalities are INTRODUCTION / 7 directly involved in the provision of affordable housing. Efforts of these municipalities have largely focused on: 1. property tax exemptions; 2. development bonuses; 3. zoning incentives; 4. limiting condominium conversions; 5. expansion of duplex and apartment conversion rights for existing dwellings; 6. conversion of unused office and commercial space into residential units; and 7. leasing municipally owned land to social housing delivery agencies (Burchinshaw et al., 1985:29-30). 2. Housing as a Social Issue It is extremely important to note that until the post—war era the prevailing planning ethos in our society did not consider housing to be an area open to planning intervention. The municipal role was considered to exclude anything other than the zoning of land for the separation of land uses. This philosophy is exemplified in the 1928 Master Plan for Vancouver prepared by Harland Bartholomew and Associates (Bartholomew, 1928). In the Master Plan, Bartholomew argued that it was beyond the scope of town planning, as outlined by the Provincial Acts, to be concerned with the economic problems associated with the provision of housing. The following passage from the 1928 Master Plan for Vancouver illustrates this argument: INTRODUCTION / 8 \"Evidently zoning, as well as the other phases of a town plan, touch closely on the matter of housing. The housing problem, however, can only be solved when the city or state is in the position to guarantee to every individual householder a wage sufficient for the payment of reasonable rent. While town planning can go far to create and maintain desirable housing conditions, it is beyond its scope, as outlined by the Provincial Acts, to concern itself with the very important economic problem involved in such an understanding, a problem which demands separate study and treatment.\" (Bartholomew, 1928:234). Housing was, and is still, considered by many to be a market commodity and, as such, it is argued, the pricing and provision of housing is best left to market forces and the private sector. Housing problems are, in this view, economic problems which need not concern municipal planners.3 In contrast to this perspective is the argument that housing is much more than a market commodity. Shelter is a basic necessity of life and everyone has a right to housing.\" It is argued that housing has certain characteristics that differentiate it from other common commodities, both socially and economically (Stone, 1986:44-45; CMHC, 1987:24). As discussed by Stone, housing is a \"bulky, immobile, and very durable good\" (1986:44—45). These characteristics, combined with the fact that housing prices are determined primarily by the structure of the marketplace directly influence the standard of living for most ~* (Bartholomew, 1928; Research Committee of the League for Social Reconstruction^ 1935; Marcuse, 1978) * (Carver, 1948; Atchenberg and Marcuse, 1986a; McAfee, 1986; Stone, 1986; Young, 1987; CAHRO, 1988) INTRODUCTION / 9 households. If housing costs rise or household income declines it is very difficult for a household to reduce or substitute the amount of housing they consume and, as a result, they will be forced to reduce other household expenditures, including food. Additionally, since housing costs vary with location, many households may be excluded from particular neighbourhoods and this can affect their standard of living by limiting access to schools, transportation, various community services and facilities, and even employment opportunities. Consequentially, housing is very different than other market commodities and as pointed out by Stone \"no other consumption item is nearly as pervasive in its effects.\" (Stone, 1986:45). The way in which housing is bought and sold over time also distinguishes it from other commodities in three major ways. First, buying a house is the most substantial purchase that most households will ever make and it is also one of the most necessary expenditures. Second, housing units are usually bought and sold several times and the purchase price at each subsequent sale is not determined by actual construction cost but instead by replacement cost. As well, housing costs are directly linked to changes in land values which can easily become inflated by speculation in the land market. The third reason is that housing purchases rarely involve the direct payment of a lump sum but rather a series of incremental payments over time. Therefore, payment of interest to financiers or investors must be considered. Other costs, such as, property taxes, utilities and maintenance costs also add substantially to the total shelter costs for households (Stone, 1986:45). INTRODUCTION / 10 There are often opposing views about how to address housing needs and issues in the public sector. The difference depends on whether housing is considered to be a basic necessity of life, viewed by some to be a right of every individual, or an investment commodity to be bought and sold for profit with a minimum of government regulation. In recent years, however, it is increasingly recognized that every citizen is entitled to adequate housing and that the private sector, alone, cannot provide for all groups — particularly low income and special needs households (CMHC, 1987:12). Since World War II the federal government has established a presence in the housing sector and has instituted a number of policies and programs aimed at ensuring that all households are able to find adequate and affordable housing (Anderson, 1987; Young, 1987). For example, in the 1960s, amendments to the National Housing Act (NHA) stimulated the establishment of numerous provincial housing corporations, created to develop public housing. Additionally, in the mid— 1970s' CMHC spent over $700 million in direct loans through the Assisted Home Ownership (AHOP) and Assisted Rental (ARP) Programs (CHMC, 1987). INTRODUCTION / 11 BURNABY IN THE REGION Figure 2: Burnaby in the Region (Source: Official Community Plan, 1987:10) I N T R O D U C T I O N / 12 3. Organization of Thesis Burnaby is a city of approximately 145,000 residents (Census Canada, 1986) and is centrally located in the Metropolitan Region of Vancouver (See Figure 2). Burnaby occupies about 4% of the total land area of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and, in 1986, accounted for almost 1 1 % of the G V R D ' s total population (OCP, 1987:10). 5 The average household size in 1986 was 2.4 persons per household and the total number of occupied dwellings in Burnaby was 58,300. Over 4 8 % of the households in Burnaby are renters and apartments represent more than 3 6 % of the total housing stock (Census Canada, 1986). Research has tended to focus on the larger core cities of Canadian Metropolitan Areas rather than on the smaller constituent municipalities. One reason for the lack of investigation into the public policy histories of these smaller members of the metropolitan regions may be due to the fact that they have often remained as suburban \"bedroom\" communities for years, serving the residential needs of those employed in the core city, without ever establishing their own \"identity.\" In addition, the events and the policies of the core city exert significant influence over those of the constituent municipalities and, in many cases, this may have led to the mistaken assumption that there is nothing uniquely interesting to learn from the study of such municipalities. This case study of Burnaby focuses on those housing issues that have Burnaby Planning Department, Official Community Plan, 1987. INTRODUCTION / 13 become defined as problems and placed on the municipal agenda, thereby requiring a community response. Housing problems can be considered to be social problems and, as such, the best method for investigating the complexity of housing problems is to utilize a framework designed for the analysis of social problems. Thus, an attempt is made to apply the framework proposed by Herbert Blumer (1971) for studying the \"lifecycle\" of social problems to the examination of housing problems and community responses in Burnaby. \"Community\" response in this thesis is defined as both the unofficial citizen or neighbourhood response as well as the official municipal hall political and planning response. This study covers the period between 1960 and the late 1980s. It seeks to identify the housing issues which have been recognized as problems and reached the public agenda as well as the nature of the community response that followed. The study is limited to this period since there was little in the way of planning for housing in Burnaby before 1960 and residential development was primarily restricted to single family detached housing (Apartment Study, 1966; OCP, 1987). Also, it was not until relatively recently that Burnaby began to experience sustained pressures for growth and change that have led the Municipality to plan and work towards establishing its own identity and diversifying its land use from almost total low density residential development to include higher density residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Perhaps the best expression of this trend is the concept of a town centre for Burnaby that was initiated after 1960 and, now, by the 1980s, Metrotown has become a reality. The changes in the Municipality since 1960 provide an interesting INTRODUCTION / 14 illustration of the emergence of housing problems and community response that will hopefully provide useful insights to help guide the development of local housing policies and programs in the future. Examination of the housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda and the community response that followed illustrates how the Municipality has dealt with housing in the past and how extensive the municipal housing role has been. An important question is whether the municipal role has been limited primarily to the traditional municipal task of zoning or have there been examples of additional involvement and intervention in the provision and maintenance of housing. By developing a thorough understanding of how housing problems have been addressed in the past, a foundation of knowledge is established which will help Burnaby planners and other policy—makers to define the role of the Municipality in years to come. It is also hoped that this approach will be applicable to other similar Canadian municipalities and useful in the process of assessing the adequacy of their own involvement in the housing sector. This thesis is organized into three parts. Part I, is comprised of this introductory chapter and the following chapter in which the analytic framework is established. The framework is based on the social problem \"lifecycle\" sequence proposed by Blumer and is used in the examination of three important categories or types of housing problems which have reached the public agenda in Burnaby. The three categories are introduced and briefly discussed in Chapter Two. Part II (Chapters Three, Four, and Five) presents the main components of INTRODUCTION / 15 the case study of Burnaby's role in housing which can be best described as an \"embedded case study\" (Yin, 1989:49). What distinguishes this type of case study from other research strategies is that the units of analysis are embedded within the larger case study. Each of these units may be examined individually and together they can enhance our understanding of the main focus of the case study (Yin, 1989:52, 121). For this study the embedded units constitute the three most important categories of housing problems which have reached Burnaby's public agenda since 1960; namely, apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. The three chapters in Part II present a detailed examination of each of major categories in the context of the lifecycle framework presented in Chapter Two. Part III offers another examination of housing problems in Burnaby (Chapter Six). A different approach is taken than in Part II in order to place the problems within another context. Four periods are identified during which there was general agreement in the community that a \"housing crisis\" existed. These periods provide the context for a discussion of possible links between a set of seven socio-economic indicators and the perception of a \"housing crisis\" within the community. In the final chapter a summary of the case study of Burnaby's role in housing is presented. This is followed by conclusions about the main findings in the case study and thoughts as to the relevance of this study for other municipalities. In addition, appendices supplement the text and include a chronological overview of housing issues and community responses and a collection of housing and other related statistics for the study period. II. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE The process by which social problems emerge in society and reach the public agenda, thereby requiring a community response, is complex and involves a myriad of factors. In order to illuminate certain aspects of this process an analytical framework is utilized which divides the lifecycle of a social problem into distinct stages. A framework proposed by Herbert Blumer in 1971 is adopted as a guide for the investigation of the emergence of housing problems and the community response in Burnaby. Blumer's framework divides the \"career\" or lifecycle of a social problem into five distinct stages. 1. A Framework for Analysis According to Blumer's thesis, social problems are the products of a process of collective definition. Blumer developed this thesis in reaction to traditional sociological theory which, at that time, viewed social problems in a much different way, assuming that \"a social problem exists as an objective condition or arrangement in the texture of a society ... having an intrinsically harmful or malignant nature standing in contrast to a normal or healthful society.\" (Blumer, 1971:298). Blumer was critical of this approach and maintained that these sociological concepts were \"conspicuously impotent to detect or identify social problems\" (Blumer, 1971:299). One important argument against the traditional approach was that sociologists often identified and noted instances of deviance, dysfunction or social strain which never achieved the status of social problems on 16 HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 17 the public agenda and were, thus, never addressed by official plans of action. This inadequacy led Blumer to question the process by which a society collectively defines a social problem and how its resolution is approached by the society. He stressed that collectively defined social problems are always the focal point for the interaction of divergent and conflicting interests, intentions and objectives. The process of collective definition is an integral part of each stage in the lifecycle of a social problem. In order to examine this process, Blumer developed a five stage framework: 1. the emergence of a social problem; 2. the legitimation of the problem; 3. the mobilization of forces to address the problem; 4. preparation of the official plan of action; and 5. the implementation of the official plan. Stage One: Emergence of the Social Problem During the initial \"emergence\" stage some issue or condition in society begins to be recognized as a problem. Without this initial recognition, a social problem does not exist. It is important to note that societal norms and standards differ over time and among societies and those in one time period or society cannot simply be assumed to apply to another when analyzing social problems. As well, it must be acknowledged that the recognition of social problems by a HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 18 society is a highly selective process and issues or conditions which are ignored at one time may become matters of great concern at another, despite the fact that the issue or condition itself remains unchanged. As a result, relatively few collectively defined social problems emerge and the number and type change over time. Many problems never reach stage two. Stage Two: Legitimation of the Social Problem Once a social problem has been recognized by society, it must acquire social legitimacy. This second stage is what qualifies the problem to be addressed within recognized arenas of public discussion. In other words, this is the stage when the social problem is placed on the public agenda and is openly discussed by the media, community groups and considered by the political institutions. Recognition of a problem, alone, is insufficient to move it towards further public action. Social legitimacy and respectability are essential in the lifecycle of a social problem. As with the initial stage, the legitimation process is highly selective and many recognized problems will fade away without ever reaching the public agenda. Even fewer recognized problems ever reach stage three. Stage Three: Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem During the third stage, the social problem is not only discussed but can become the object of socio-political contention as the various interested parties express their opinions and concerns about the problem and the actions that should be taken to resolve it. At this stage, a common type of controversy HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 19 emerges between those who seek to change the status quo and those who fight to preserve their vested interests in maintaining it. This type of dispute is central to this study of housing problems, since the vast majority of housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda can be traced to the fundamental conflict between those who seek to preserve existing single family neighbourhoods and those who seek to create a more heterogeneous housing stock in the Municipality. The mobilization stage is characterized by discussion, advocacy, evaluation and the advancing of proposals in the media, as well as, in casual and organized meetings. The problem proceeds through a cycle of collective redefinition and evaluation of its worthiness for further action. This third stage is very important in determining the fate of the social problem because it sets the context for any official response that follows. It is by this third stage that a problem \"receives\" its \"official\" definition. That is, a consensus emerges over the fact that it is a problem with certain characteristics and that an official response is called for. Stage Four: Preparation of an Official P l a n of Action Stage four is reached once a collective decision has been made that the social problem warrants official action. At this point, official decision—makers select a course of action to address the social problem and the appropriate department or agency is directed to prepare an official plan of action. As Blumer notes, the official plan is usually a result of bargaining and compromise amongst diverse views and interests. Throughout this stage the definition of the social HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 20 problem is constantly being refined and often the official definition of the problem only remotely resembles the problem as defined in the initial' stages of its lifecycle. Consequentially, the official response may be directed towards an aspect of the problem not considered important by those who initially brought the issue or condition to the forefront of public discussion. Stage Five: Implementation of the P lan The final stage in Blumer's framework is the implementation of the official plan. It is entirely wrong to assume that this implementation stage automatically follows the preparation of a plan of action. There are numerous occasions when the actions recommended in the official plan are never set into motion. On other occasions the plan of action is manipulated and changed during the implementation process. It is also important to remember that the implementation process itself can lead to unintended consequences and in no way is there a guarantee that the implementation of the official plan will successfully address the social problem. Discussion of Blumer's Framework Blumer's framework outlines five distinct stages in the lifecycle of a social problem and implies that they follow one another in a linear manner, from social recognition of the problem to the implementation of an official plan of action which resolves the problem. This study has found that it is often very difficult to distinguish between the various stages, particularly the early stages. For HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 21 example, it is rarely possible to identify problems that have received social recognition but never gain social legitimacy and, thus, never reach the public agenda. As well, in practice it seems that there is rarely a linear progression from one stage to the next. A social problem may become stalled at any stage or simply slip from public awareness as other issues and problems gain prominence. The grey area that exists between the various lifecycle stages is especially troublesome in the analysis of complex social problems. Nonetheless, Blumer's framework helps to clarify the analysis of social problems and enables the researcher to associate certain types of actions with particular stages in the lifecycle process. It is important to understand that complex social problems, like the housing problems discussed here, are never really resolved. As pointed out, the process in which society recognizes social problems is highly selective. The collective definition of a problem is dependent on the societal conditions and values of the time. Over time different aspects or manifestations of the same issue often become recognized as different social problems as the importance of the issue is redefined by society. Wildavsky argues that social problems \"are not so much solved as superseded\" (Ham and Hill, 1985:6). In other words, it is not that the actions taken to alleviate the problem actually succeed in resolving the social problem, rather that the problem begins to recede from prominence on the public agenda as other problems are defined as more important by society. As a consequence, some aspect or manifestation of the same issue or condition may re—emerge as a collectively defined social problem which once more begins the five stage process outlined by Blumer. Thus, the same social problems, albeit HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 22 defined differently or with a different frame of reference, may continue to re—emerge in a cyclical manner through the lifecycle process over and over again without ever being resolved. At best, policy—makers may be able to ameliorate or reduce the harmful effects of some aspect of the social problem being experienced at a particular point in time (Ham and Hill, 1985:6). 2. Housing Problems on Burnabys Public Agenda An examination of official planning reports, Council minutes, Council Housing Committee files and other information sources (such as newspapers and personal interviews), has revealed that the specific housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda have been relatively limited in number and have tended to appear on a recurrent basis. 6 For example, apartment development first became an item on the public agenda in the early 1960s and has reappeared on the agenda several times since then. The most frequent housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda have been: 1. those associated with the type and location of apartment development within the Municipality; 2. those related to the provision and location of public or social housing in the Municipality; 3. those associated with the pressures for and attempts at residential intensification in Burnaby's low density single family \"E For an overview of the major housing issues, planning reports and community responses, refer to the Chronology in Appendix A. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 23 neighbourhoods. These three types of housing problems seem to arise from the disparity between two apparently contradictory housing goals: the goal of preserving existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of creating a diversity of housing options for present and future residents of the Municipality. Both housing goals have received priority in a number of planning studies carried out since 1960 and are referred to in Burnaby's first Official Community Plan which was approved in 1987 (OCP, 1987). Census Date Merto-Vancouver Burnaby Total Population Total Population Percent Of Metro 1941 394,588 30,328 7.6 1951 561,960 58,376 10.4 1956 605,017 83,745 12.6 1961 790,165 100,157 12.7 1966 993,091 112,036 11.3 1971 1,082,352 125,660 11.6 1976 1,164,793 131,599 11.3 1981 1,268,183 136,494 10.8 1986 1,380,729 145,160 10.5 Table 1: Population of Burnaby and Metro—Vancouver (Source: Statistics Canada Census, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986) Burnaby's central location in the Vancouver Metropolitan Region has been an extremely important factor in the development of its residential HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 24 neighbourhoods. Since the Municipality's incorporation in 1892, Burnaby's growth and character have been highly influenced by the events and trends in the two adjacent municipalities of Vancouver and New Westminster. (For an idea of Burnaby's size and population in a regional context, see Tables 1 and 2.) For years Burnaby remained primarily a suburban \"bedroom\" community for the City of Vancouver (Parr, 1970; OCP, 1987). As such, the type of housing constructed was mainly single and two family dwellings on relatively large lots (OCP, 1987). As late as 1970, 75% of all dwellings in the Municipality were of this type (Parr, 1970). In fact, numerous neighbourhoods in Burnaby still retain an almost rural character. Long—term residents take pride in this and often explain that an important reason for initially moving to the community was to get away from the more intensive development in Vancouver and New Westminster. Additionally, the relatively lower priced dwellings in Burnaby were a strong incentive for moving to the Municipality. Total Number of Total Land % of Land in Population Households Area (hectares) Residential Use B U R N A B Y 143,998 58,492 9,217 27 Vancouver 427,131 186,854 11,593 39 New Westminster 39,603 19,421 1,566 32 Richmond 107,763 38,165 13,313 22 Table 2: Community Profiles (1986) (Source: R.E.B.G.V., 1988) H O U S I N G P R O B L E M S A N D C O M M U N I T Y R E S P O N S E / 25 Low density residential development has remained the predominant land use in Burnaby throughout most of its history. This has created a homogeneous suburban landscape that has been highly valued by the residents of these neighbourhoods. In fact, the uniformity and stability of Burnaby's existing single family neighbourhoods continue to be prized by many long—term and new residents alike. Anything that threatens, or is even perceived to threaten this stability brings strong opposition from those who have a personal stake in preserving the existing single family neighbourhoods in their present form. Despite the fact that preservation of the existing character of single family neighbourhoods is valued by many, change is inevitable in our society. It is a continuous process that is manifested by shifts in household structure and the nature of the demand for housing which have clearly indicated the need for a greater diversity of housing options (see Table 3). Y E A R H O U S E H O L D S I Z E 1961 3.55 1966 3.55 1971 3.25 1981 2.59 1986 2.48 2001 (projected) 2.23 Table 3: Average Household Size in Burnaby (Source: Statistics Canada Census and Burnaby Planning Dept.) HOUSING PROBLEMS AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE / 26 In the 1960s alternatives to the single and two family dwellings began to appear in Burnaby and by the mid-1960s the construction of apartments and other higher density housing projects became the subject of much discussion and controversy among residents, politicians and planners alike. The creation and maintenance of a diversity of housing types and tenures in the Municipality has gradually become a valued goal. Encouraging a diversity of housing alternatives does not in itself preclude the existence of low density single family neighbourhoods. However, since the homogeneous residential character has already been long established the promotion of housing alternatives necessarily threatens the continued existence of at least some of the single family neighbourhoods. Thus, the apparent disparity that exists between the two valued goals has resulted in a steady source of controversy which has been manifested in numerous ways; specifically in controversies surrounding apartment development, social housing, and residential intensification. In Chapters Three, Four and Five, each of these categories of housing problems are examined within the context of Blumer's framework for the analysis of social problems. III. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT The 1960s were a time of change in the Municipality of Burnaby and the Vancouver Metropolitan Region as a whole. The Region was experiencing rapid growth and household formation rates were increasing as the Baby Boom generation reached maturity. The demand for housing was no longer limited to single family dwellings. It was also being expressed in a growing demand for alternative types of housing, especially apartment units. As a consequence, apartment construction rose significantly throughout the decade. The most visible example of this trend towards apartment development is in the City of Vancouver's West End. Apartment projects covered the area in the 1960s. Between 1959 and 1967, the number of apartments in the West End increased by over 96% to a total of 16,144 apartment units (R.E.B.G.V., 1959, 1968).7 In fact, the West End remained the area with the highest population density in the City of Vancouver and the nation for many years. 1. Emergence of the Problem The strong trend towards apartment construction in the Region and, particularly, the conspicuous highrise development of Vancouver's West End were matters of concern in the Municipality of Burnaby. Up until the mid— 1960s highrises were not even permitted within Burnaby's boundaries (Parr, 1988). However, by then the Council and planners could no longer ignore the growing 1 The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. 27 APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 28 trend. Pressures on existing neighbourhoods were increasing and Council began receiving proposals for apartment projects in the Municipality. As a consequence of the growing pressures, the desirability and locating of apartment developments, especially highrise apartments, became an issue that was increasingly being defined as a social problem. Thus, this housing problem had reached the first stage of its career as defined by Blumer. 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem It is extremely difficult to separate the second stage, legitimation, from the initial emergence stage since there is no way to determine if or when apartment development was defined as a problem before it was actually documented in official council minutes, planning documents and reported by the media. Therefore, once it can be determined that the citizens and officials of Burnaby considered the issue to be a problem, it is also correct to assume that it had indeed passed through the legitimation stage of its lifecycle. 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem The third stage, mobilization of forces to address the problem, followed quickly after its legitimation as a major housing problem. Recognizing that there were ever increasing demands and pressures for apartment construction in Burnaby, and after deciding that some apartment units should be permitted in APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 29 the community, Council began to consider the necessity for a policy to control and locate apartment developments. By early 1966, Burnaby Council had instructed the planning staff to prepare a plan for directing the type and location of apartment projects. 4. Preparation of the Official P lan of Action The fourth stage of Blumer's analytical framework was reached as planning staff prepared the 1966 Apartment Study (Burnaby Planning Department (BPD), 1966). This study sought to locate apartment development adjacent to the services and facilities required to support a higher density population. In the 1966 Apartment Study the planners designated 17 areas that were in close vicinity to existing commercial centres and which were adequately served by park and school facilities, as well as, transportation routes and utility servicing. By providing a plan for designated apartment areas, the planners and Council sought to achieve two objectives. First, and apparently most important, was to protect the interests of existing homeowners in the community. The plan provided homeowners within the existing single family neighbourhoods with increased security by guaranteeing that apartment buildings would not be permitted outside of the clearly defined apartment areas. The second objective achieved by the planned designations was to provide a beneficial service to developers. Designation of the apartment areas allowed prospective developers to locate their projects in areas where they were virtually assured of municipal approval. However, this was not necessarily the case as many developers experienced problems gaining APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 30 approval for their projects in later years, mainly due to the opposition of residents in adjacent neighbourhoods. Development of the apartment areas was to be gradual, through a process of phased rezoning following approval of the appropriate applications and plans for projects within the designated Apartment Areas. In the report, the planners were quick to point out that there was sufficient land designated for both present and future needs. The 1966 Apartment Study was a very influential document, as it first presented guiding concepts and principles that have played an integral part in Burnaby's development. The most important concept and closely related to the apartment area designations, was the hierarchical core concept. According to this principle, a hierarchy of centres were to be developed within Burnaby; from the low density neighbourhood and community centres to the higher density district and town centres. Various types and densities of apartment housing were to be associated with each level of centre. The hierarchical core concept has become an important principle in the planning of the Municipality and has been incorporated into all major planning studies that followed the 1966 Apartment Study. 5. Implementation of the Official Plan The implementation process of the 1966 Apartment Study began shortly after the planning staff presented a draft of the proposed plan to Council. Staff APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 31 was directed by Council to set up a series of public meetings to introduce and explain the proposals to residents and to invite them to express their opinions about the official plan. A brochure summerizing the plan, was distributed to all households and the public meetings were well attended. At the meetings the residents raised numerous concerns, most of which were related to the effects of apartment development on: 1. property values and taxes; 2. the costs of providing additional parks, schools, and community services; 3. views; and 4. existing zoning. These are common concerns of residents facing pressures on their neighbourhoods for change and have been documented in many discussions of neighbourhood planning. Despite the expressed concerns, residents were favourable towards the plan of action and on May 2, 1966 Council approved the Study's proposals for locating apartments within Burnaby. 6. Events Following the Implementation of the Plan In this instance, the collectively defined social problem — — if and where to locate apartment development — — successfully proceeded through the five stages of Blumer's framework. Strong market demand and the willingness of private sector developers to invest in the construction of apartments provided the stimulus to move the apartment development issue quickly through the lifecycle APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 32 process. Vacancy rates, as shown in Figure 3, indicate that the newly constructed apartment units were being absorbed rapidly by an ever increasing number of households in Burnaby and the Region. This trend continued through the rest of the 1960s as Burnaby's annual growth rate remained over 2.5% (See Figure 4 for an idea of Burnaby's population growth). The implementation of the apartment location policies contained in the 1966 Apartment Study did not signal the end of problems associated with apartment development on Burnaby's public agenda. In the late 1960s, Burnaby and the Region, were experiencing a critical housing shortage. Vacancy rates were extremely low and rents were increasing rapidly, despite the growing trend towards apartment development between 1966 and 1969. This trend is best illustrated by the fact that in 1961 apartments represented only 6% of the total dwellings in Burnaby (See Figure 5) and by 1969 apartments had reached 19% of the total housing stock (Apartment Study '69, 1969:8). Furthermore, apartment completions had represented an average of 60% of the total dwelling unit completions between 1962 and 1969 (Apartment Study '69, 1969:6). The construction of new apartments could not keep up with the growing demand, as indicated by the fact that vacancy rates in Burnaby remained low, and even dropped below 1% in June, 1966. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 33 Figure 3: Burnaby's Vacancy Rates (Source: R.E.B.G.V. and CMHC Vacancy Surveys) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 34 Burnaby's Population (1941 to 1986) tiOOOO-i 1941 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 Census Year Figure 4: Burnaby's Population Growth (Source: Statistics Canada) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 35 Burnaby Council became concerned over the changing housing situation and in 1969 instructed staff to undertake a review of the 1966 Apartment Study. In the Apartment Study '69, prepared by the Planning Department, the planners reported that the estimate of the future apartment potential for the Municipality appeared to be too low, in light of the development that had occurred since the 1966 study was completed. As a result, the planners increased the estimate from 26,000 to an eventual total of 35,600 apartment units (Apartment Study '69, 1969:6). Although the estimate of total numbers of apartments to be permitted in Burnaby was increased, no substantial changes were made to the apartment location policy formulated in the original study. The major conclusion reached in the review was that Burnaby needed to expand its range of housing options to meet the changing requirements of the family. Up until this point, single and two family dwellings supplemented with a limited number of three storey walk—up apartments were, for the most part, the only housing choices available to Burnaby residents. Vacancy rates clearly indicated a significant demand for family housing alternatives, such as apartments with three or more bedrooms. To illustrate, the vacancy rate for three bedroom apartments in Burnaby was only 0.3% in June, 1969 as compared to vacancy rates of 3.9% and 3.2% for bachelor and one bedroom apartments respectively. As well, three bedroom apartment represented only 7.2% of Burnaby's total apartment stock in 1969 (R.E.B.G.V., 1969). During another housing shortage in 1974, planning staff prepared a review of the report Apartment Study '69. This review, however, seemed to be more informal than the earlier 1969 review of the 1966 Apartment Study. One of the APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 36 main objectives of the 1974 review was to determine the amount and types of apartment development which had occurred between 1969 and 1974. Burnaby had experienced considerable growth in the number of apartment units and the amount of land occupied by apartment development. The number of apartment units added to the municipal housing stock averaged 1,350 units/year between June 1969 and April 1974. This was much higher than the 1,000 units/year rate that was originally predicted in the Apartment Study '69. Apartment development was expected to continue at an even higher rate of 2,000 units/year until 1981 and then level off to 1,500 units/year (BPD Report to Municipal Manager, May 1, 1974). As with the earlier review, no changes were made to the apartment area designations or any of the policies embodied in the earlier 1966 Apartment Study. The latest review of the Apartment Study '69 was conducted by planning staff in 1981. Although the apartment location maps were updated in the 1981 review, no changes were made to the original text and, therefore, no changes were made to the policies embodied in the 1969 report. This latest review was also undertaken during a time of critical housing shortage. Once again vacancy rates were extremely low (an average of 0% during 1980 and 1981) and housing costs, including rents, were skyrocketing. The number of renters in Burnaby had been increasing steadily since the 1960s (See Figure 5). APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 37 Apartments as a Percentage of Total Occupied Dwelling Stock SO-. 40-20-10-0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 2001 Years Figure 5: Apartments as a Percentage of Burnaby's Dwelling Stock (Source: Burnaby Planning Dept. and R.E.B.G.V.) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 38 Figure 6: Percentage of Renters in Burnaby and Vancouver (Source: Statistics Canada Census) APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT / 39 However, since no changes were made to the 1969 proposals one may question what the review contributed towards alleviating the housing problems of the times. This observation could also be made about the earlier reviews. During the interim periods between the official reviews of the apartment location policies, other controversies concerning apartment construction surfaced but, rarely, if ever, did they proceed past the first or second stages of Blumer's framework. For example, in the mid-1970s, there were numerous petitions received by Council which requested changes to apartment area boundaries. However, the petitions did not receive a great deal of attention, since the planners and Council agreed that the existing apartment area designations remained the best solution and, thus, the 1966 Apartment Study policies continued to be consistently applied. IV. SOCIAL HOUSING This category of housing problems is in many ways very different from others. Foremost, is the reality that the costs involved in constructing and maintaining social housing projects definitely preclude their initiation by municipalities without substantial assistance from other levels of government. It is the federal and provincial levels of government which set the policy and initiate the programs that are essential for the construction and maintenance of social housing. These programs constitute, for the most part, administrative and financial assistance programs and are well beyond the means of local governments. As a consequence, when problems associated with the provision or location of social housing reach the public agenda the municipality may be extremely limited in its ability to address them. This also means that the options open to local governments will be dependent on the particular philosophy of the current provincial and federal governments. For example, in British Columbia a change to the NDP government in 1972 proved to be a boon to public housing delivery agencies in Burnaby and all other areas of the Lower Mainland. In fact, it has been reported that a full 41% of the money spent on public housing and hostel beds between 1964—1974 was spent during the 1972-1976 NDP provincial administration (Grieve, 1985:48). All of this, however, does not mean that there is nothing that local governments can do to encourage and assist such developments. In fact, it is sometimes possible for municipalities to take an active role in the administration of social housing projects. There are options, including the selling or leasing of 40 SOCIAL HOUSING / 41 municipally owned land below market prices to social housing delivery agencies. Such direct involvement in non—market housing is highly controversial because government intervention, in general, is not agreed upon by all members of society and this type of housing has never been totally accepted in Canada. Public housing, is thus, often highly stigmatized and in many instances this results in strong opposition from existing residents to the integration of such projects into their neighbourhoods. Despite its contentious nature, the need for this type of housing option has been apparent since the 1960s. As noted by other researchers, the 1960s was the decade most clearly associated with public housing in Canada (Dennis and Fish, 1972) and it is during this period when problems related to social housing began to appear on Burnaby's municipal agenda. 1. Emergence of the Problem The first official mention of public housing projects in the Province of British Columbia was in the 1958 Provincial Budget Speech at which time public housing was rationalized on the basis of slum clearance and employment creation (Grieve, 1985:46). Public housing remained on the provincial agenda as the Federal Government continued to pressure the Provinces to increase their support for public housing projects. In 1964, the NHA was amended with the intention of encouraging the Provinces to play a greater role in funding public housing projects. Federal pressure on the Provincial Government to increase its participation in public housing provision translated into increased pressure on SOCIAL HOUSING / 42 municipalities, particularly the City of Vancouver, to facilitate the development of public housing. As would be expected, the City of Vancouver was the leader in public housing provision. For several years Vancouver remained the only regional municipality to address the need for public housing, despite the attempts of Vancouver officials to encourage neighbouring municipalities to build their fair share of social housing (Melliship, 1985:118). Early in 1966, at the Conference of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, a discussion was held concerning the role of local governments in assisting the provision of low cost housing. This influenced the Burnaby Council to unanimously carry a motion to appoint a special committee to investigate Burnaby's role in the provision of low cost and seniors housing (Council Minutes, June 13, 1966). A search of council minutes and other official documents of the time did not reveal any significant action resulting from the investigation of this committee. By the beginning of the following year, public housing seemed to be the most important housing problem on the public agenda in Burnaby. Council had begun to receive correspondence and delegations both in favour of and in opposition to permitting public housing projects within the Municipality. In particular, an organization known as United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area (UCS) began to exert pressure on Council to assist in any way possible the construction of social housing and asked for support for their bid to have the Province establish a Regional Housing Authority with the wide powers to deal with social housing on a regional basis. Representatives from the SOCIAL HOUSING / 43 organization also expressed concern over the current critical housing shortage in the Metropolitan Region and the fact that the City of Vancouver was still the only regional municipality with public housing (UCS Letter to Council, Jan. 13, 1967). The letters and delegations from groups, such as UCS, led the Special Housing Committee to urge its members and other municipal representatives to attend a February 3, 1967 Housing Conference in Vancouver (Housing Committee Minutes, Feb. 2, 1967). The later years of the decade were marked by what was considered to be a severe housing shortage. The Metropolitan Region was experiencing a period of unprecedented growth and the demand for housing accommodation reached record levels (McKeown, 1968:C-1). Between 1966 and 1971, Burnaby's population increased by 12.2% to a total of 125,660 persons (Canada Census, 1966, 1971). In 1966, apartment vacancy rates in Burnaby fell to below 1.0% for the first time. This situation was undoubtably the major impetus behind the Vancouver Housing Conference. During the Conference discussions focused on finding practical measures to solve the current housing shortage, as well as, ways to increase the supply of low cost housing in the Region (Melliship, 1985:30). The Conference helped influence Burnaby Municipal Council to direct planning staff to investigate the opportunities for public housing in Burnaby. In response to the Municipal Council's request for information on possible sites for public housing in Burnaby, the Planning Department prepared the report entitled Public Housing Study (Public Housing Study, 1967). As noted in the study, the need for public housing in Burnaby was made evident at the SOCIAL HOUSING / 44 Vancouver Housing Conference, particularly since Burnaby had an urban population of approximately 115,000 and had no provision for public housing. The report consisted of proposals for public housing projects on six sites in the Municipality. The planning staff reported that the considerable amount of municipally owned land represented a great asset in the development of public housing. The study did not include any discussion of goals or guiding principles for the provision of public housing within Burnaby. Thus, it did not prescribe a clear role for the Municipality in this area of housing. The six proposed projects were described in the planning document and, in April, 1967, Council submitted the proposals to the Provincial Government for approval. A review of Council Housing Committee records and official Council minutes revealed that senior government delays in approval of the proposals continued to frustrate the efforts of the Municipality. None of the six projects proposed in the Public Housing Study were ever developed. Since the sites were municipally owned land, however, they remained as potential sites for public housing development and, in fact, two of the sites were fully developed with non-profit housing in the 1970s. As well, a portion of another of the sites remains designated for social housing. It is very difficult to distinguish between the first and second stages of Blumer's framework when analyzing this category of housing problems. At first glance it may appear that the Public Housing Study, and the discussions surrounding it, indicated a move from the initial emergence stage of Blumer's framework to the second, legitimation stage. Closer examination, however, reveals SOCIAL HOUSING / 45 that it actually represents a failed attempt to gain legitimacy for the idea of Municipal involvement in public housing provision in Burnaby. The Municipal Council's decision to ask the planning staff to investigate the potential opportunities for development of public housing in Burnaby was initially prompted by growing pressure, mainly from outside the Municipality, to participate in public housing provision. In particular, the City of Vancouver continued to urge other regional municipalities to facilitate their share of public housing. The internal pressures for a greater municipal commitment came principally from one community organization (United Community Services) and a relatively small number of residents experiencing affordability problems. Other residents were clearly opposed to the possible introduction of public housing into Burnaby. Some did not want the projects to be located in their neighbourhoods, while others argued that public housing was not a municipal responsibility. It is clear, however, that the forces for public housing development were weak in comparison to the strong market forces which helped move the apartment development issue from its initial emergence as a problem through the process of legitimation and onwards towards public action. The residents contacting the Municipal Council to request that their names be added to waiting lists for public housing represented a need for affordable housing rather than an effective demand for housing. There was still a very strong belief in the ability of the market to provide housing for everyone. Undoubtably there were many who assumed that the great surge in apartment construction would soon alleviate the housing problems that existed in the Municipality. SOCIAL HOUSING / 46 It is evident that The Public Housing Study was too limited in scope to satisfy those groups pressuring Council for greater municipal involvement in public housing provision. UCS, for example, continued to ask for the establishment of a Regional Housing Authority and for investigation of the possibility of providing municipal land for social housing projects. As the discussions about social housing continued intermittently over the next few years, a variety of suggestions were made about the best methods for meeting the growing need for this type of housing. For instance, in June, 1968 Council and planning staff considered the idea of leasing municipal land to housing delivery agencies in an effort to cut land costs and retain municipal control of the land. Debate over this proposal dragged on for almost two years. By February, 1970 Council officially rejected the idea. During this period, Council and staff also discussed the possibility of establishing a Municipal Housing Authority to be the agent for public housing . development in Burnaby. Again the Council decided to reject the idea. The evidence suggests that there was no real agreement that the provision of public housing was a problem; at least not a problem for Burnaby to address. Some believed that the municipality should greatly expand its role, while others argued that social housing was the responsibility of senior levels of government or that it was unnecessary. Without agreement about what the problem was, or even that a problem existed, the public housing issue became stalled at the initial emergence stage outlined by Blumer. Despite the efforts of a few diligent groups, such as UCS, there was not a consensus in the community that the provision of public housing constituted a legitimate problem for serious public discussion. SOCIAL HOUSING / 47 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem During the early 1970s there was a significant increase in the degree of commitment to social housing provision at the provincial level. Vacancy rates in the entire Region dropped rapidly in 1972 and remained very low until 1977. In Burnaby the vacancy rate dropped from 3.0% in June, 1972 to 0.5% in December of the same year (R.E.B.G.V., 1972). This serious rental housing shortage became an important issue in the 1972 provincial election. This election saw the NDP elected to the Provincial Legislature, bringing with them a new approach to housing policy. The Party's political philosophy allowed for far greater government intervention into every aspect of housing. Support and encouragement was extended for all types and tenures of housing and provincial agencies, such as the Department of Housing and the Rentalsman's Office, were quickly established. This new provincial policy approach to housing was a dramatic change from the previous Social Credit Government's approach to housing. The NDP recognized cooperatives as a legitimate housing alternative and quickly took advantage of amendments to the NHA that encouraged the construction of co—operatives and non-profit housing through new federal programs. The Provincial Government was amicable to the initiation of social housing projects throughout the Metropolitan Region and several seniors' housing projects were developed in Burnaby. As well, Burnaby's first co-op was built in the mid-1970s. 8 Initiatives for public housing provision were occurring at other levels, as 8 The Norman Bethune Housing Co—operative was built in 1975. It is a relatively small project with only 24 units. SOCIAL HOUSING / 48 well. For example, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) created the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation in 1974 and with the support and cooperation of most of the regional municipalities initiated a program to acquire and build low cost rental accommodation. Additionally, projects, such as the False Creek and Champlain Heights Neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver, exemplified a new attitude towards social housing. The public had reached greater agreement on the value of social housing and that social housing projects should be of a much smaller size than in the past and that they should reflect a mix of tenures and income groups (i.e. a social mix). The projects that have been developed based on this philosophy have been far more successful than the large public housing projects of the 1960s. Despite the favourable provincial approach to social housing and the ambitious projects being initiated by the City of Vancouver, Burnaby continued to approach social housing in an ad hoc and reactionary manner. The Municipality's role was very limited. No initiatives were taken by Burnaby itself. Instead, the Municipality relied on external agencies, such as the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC), to initiate social housing projects. Burnaby's involvement was restricted to responding to requests from social housing delivery agencies to identify suitable sites for social housing development and making the requested sites available at market prices. By cooperating with the developers of social housing, the Municipality signaled that the provision of this type of housing was a legitimate concern. Although the need for social housing had, by this time, been clearly recognized and attained a certain degree of legitimacy it still had not gained enough acceptance to warrant the mobilization of forces to SOCIAL HOUSING / 49 address the problem in Burnaby. 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem To date, Burnaby remains without a comprehensive social housing policy. This does not mean that all there has been a total neglect of social housing provision in the Municipality. Quite the contrary, social housing has continued to be an important component of Burnaby's housing stock.9 Co—operative housing projects, in particular, are becoming a popular housing option for Burnaby residents (See Table 4). Lacking a comprehensive social housing policy, however, has meant that each project has been dealt with on an individual basis. A change in this situation appears to be imminent, as a Social Planner was hired by the Municipality in 1986 and he is currently examining the social housing needs in Burnaby and preparing a policy to address social housing provision within the Municipality. Additionally, the current Council is quite determined to increase the Municipality's involvement in housing by taking a proactive approach to social housing. 9 For example, in 1984, the GVHC completed 248 units in Burnaby. SOCIAL HOUSING / 50 Year Seniors' Rental Co-op Non-market Family-Projects Units Projects Units Projects Units 1970 1 55 - - 2 110 1971 1 127 - - - -1972 1 214 - - - -1973 - - - - - -1974 5 692 1 24 10 32 1975 3 430 - - - -1976 - - - - - -1977 1 63 - - - -1978 1 206 - - 1 6 1979 - - - - - -1980 - - 1 244 - -1981 - - 3 445 1 10 1982 - - - - - -1983 - - 1 103 - -1984 - - - - 3 248 1985 - - 5 379 1 86 1986 - - 2 73 - -1987 - - 3 149 1 32 1988 2 91 3 134 - -Total 15 1878 19 1551 19 524 Table 4: Burnaby's Social Housing Stock (Source: Preliminary Figures Supplied By Burnaby Plaruiing Department) SOCIAL HOUSING / 51 Currently there are several important new housing developments underway which include a strong social housing component. The Municipal Council and the planners are insisting on a social housing component of 20—25% in all housing projects involving the Municipality and are pressuring the Federal and Provincial Governments to increase their commitment to the funding and development of assisted housing within the Municipality. As well, Burnaby planners and Council are offering recommendations to senior levels of government on how to improve their social housing programs in an effort to meet the ever increasing need for this type of housing. There has even been discussion about the possibility of establishing a municipal development arm. Finally, planners are currently pressing Council to assign priorities to social housing problems and, as mentioned, the planners are working towards the development of a formalized social housing policy to replace the essentially ad hoc and reactionary approach to addressing social housing provision and problems that has existed in the community (Grieve, 1989). It is safe to assert that the social housing problem has finally reached the third stage in the lifecycle process described by Blumer. The Municipality has begun to mobilize forces to address the location and provision of social housing after years of relying on others to provide the needed social housing units. In contrast to the problems related to apartment development described in the previous chapter, the social housing problem remained suspended between the initial emergence stage and the second legitimation stage for years and only recently reached the third lifecycle stage. In the case of apartment development, strong market forces appear to have provided the impetus needed to move the SOCIAL HOUSING / 52 problem successfully through the five lifecycle stages outlined in Blumer's framework. There are no corresponding forces behind social housing. Those households requiring social housing represent a need for housing rather than an effective market demand. There are no potential profits to motivate private sector investment in social housing. It is also difficult for municipalities to initiate their own social housing projects, given their restricted financial resources. Consequently, senior government cooperation and assistance has been essential to the development of social housing. It is true that social housing represents a more complex social problem than apartment development. Since our society is built around a profit—oriented marketplace, the private sector cannot be depended upon to provide any type of housing that lacks a strong market demand and potential for profit making. Thus, the provision of social housing requires a greater degree of involvement and commitment from the public sector. Several of those involved in the development of social housing in the Metropolitan Region consider Burnaby's role in social housing provision to be backward and entirely lacking in serious commitment, particularly in contrast to the stance taken in the neighbouring City of Vancouver. Granted the need for social housing has been greater in Vancouver and the resources of the City are greater but there has also been a much stronger commitment to facilitating the development of social housing by Vancouver's officials and planners. One example of this commitment was Vancouver's policy of leasing land to social housing delivery agencies in the 1970s that resulted in the construction of numerous co—operatives and successful projects such as the False Creek and Champlain Heights Neighbourhoods. SOCIAL HOUSING / 53 In Burnaby, this level of commitment is only recently being approached. Social housing has been built in Burnaby but not on the initiative of the Municipality. At best, the Municipality has cooperated with senior levels of government and social housing delivery agencies by making building sites available at market values. The situation is changing in the late 1980s. There finally appears to be agreement that the Municipality should take a more active role and is trying to mobilize its forces to address the social housing problem. What Burnaby's role will be has yet to be determined. V. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION Discussion of the residential intensification of Burnaby's existing neighbourhoods has taken several forms, from the controversy over secondary suites and multi—family housing projects to the \"infamous\" Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study (RNES) of 1984. During the early 1980s the Planning Department undertook an ambitious process of proactive planning, culminating in the preparation of a series of discussion papers (Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers, 1984) which were presented to the public for their approval. The vehement opposition from residents that ensued was unexpected and quickly brought an end to the RNES proposals. Although the RNES experience is the most important example of this category of housing problem in Burnaby, it was not the first time that problems associated with residential intensification had reached the public agenda. In fact, residential intensification, which clearly reflects the conflict between the goal of preserving existing single family neighbourhoods and the goal of creating a diversity of housing options has figured prominently on the municipal agenda since the 1970s. 1. Emergence of the Problem During the 1960s the vast majority of residential construction was limited to low density single and two—family dwellings. This and the fact that there was still an abundance of undeveloped land in the Municipality kept residential intensification far from the public agenda. The only related housing concern was 54 RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 55 the growing interest in apartment development but, as already discussed, this development was initially quite isolated and the Apartment Area designations clearly delineated the zones where this type of higher density housing was permitted. It is important to remember that one of the explicit aims of the Apartment Areas was to ensure the preservation of single family neighbourhoods (Apartment Study, 1966). As a consequence, little discussion about the effects of higher density development in existing neighbourhoods took place during the decade. By 1969, however, new ideas were beginning to be expressed in discussions of Burnaby's future development. Concurrently, there was concern over a growing housing shortage, particularly for family housing options. In the Apartment Study '69 there was what seemed to be a decisive step towards expanding the range of housing options available to Burnaby residents. Until this time, only three storey frame apartments were being added to the overwhelmingly single family housing stock. In the review, the planners concluded that there was interest in alternative types of housing, including condominiums, garden apartments and row housing. Thus, Burnaby needed to develop a wider range of housing options to meet the changing requirements of families and other households. Additionally, they concluded that there was a growing need for residential development at densities slightly higher than those found in single and two—family areas. It seems clear, however, that the higher density development was not intended to occur in existing single family neighbourhoods. Instead, it was to be restricted to the designated Apartment Areas. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 56 2. Legitimation of the Social Problem In 1970, two studies were prepared by the Planning Department marking the acceptance of residential intensification as a legitimate social problem requiring official consideration. These two studies were Group Housing: A Study of Moderate Density Forms of Family Accommodation and Urban Structure. Both explored the idea of increasing densities in some of Burnaby's existing neighbourhoods. Building on the conclusions of the Apartment Study '69, the Planning Department prepared the Group Housing study. The main objective of this study was to investigate the various forms of family housing that could be encouraged within the Municipality to ease the shortage of housing alternatives for families. The planners expressed concern that Burnaby's housing stock consisted of only two options — — the low density single family detached house and the three storey frame apartment, which was considered to be unsuitable for family accommodation (Group Housing, 1970:1). Consequently, the study presented an examination of various household characteristics and their relationship to housing needs, as well as, a discussion of the requirements for group housing. The Group Housing Study did not prescribe precise locations for group housing (as was done for apartments in the 1966 Apartment Study), since this type of housing was considered by the planners to be compatible with lower density residential development. It was argued that a flexible approach to group housing location would be preferable. However, the study makes explicit the fact that areas zoned or proposed for single family housing should be preserved for this use only (Group Housing, 1970:30). Despite this apparent commitment to preserving low density single family neighbourhoods, the Group Housing Study did contain several statements RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 57 which reflected a definite dissatisfaction with the homogeneous spread of this type of suburban housing alternative. The following passage illustrates this sentiment: \"In addition, continuous development of single family dwellings, which attenuates the dimensions of urbanization, has become cumbersome as a town form. The automobile, which first presented the opportunity for such an outward sprawl of low density development, offers no answer to the resulting problems. The development of family housing in denser forms will, in addition to providing a suitable alternative to the single family house, also enrich and vary the residential environment.\" (Group Housing, 1970:1). This sentiment was central to the controversial Urban Structure report which was also prepared by planning staff in 1970. Recognizing that Burnaby was at a critical stage in its development process and realizing that there was a need for a longer term statement of development goals than those incorporated in the Apartment Study '69, the Urban Structure report was prepared with the intention of stimulating discussion about the Municipality's future growth and development. This report was surrounded by a great deal of debate about its merits and failings which lasted for several years. Much of the controversy focused upon the implied support for a conceptual plan that presented a physical structure for Burnaby which was radically different from the existing character of the Municipality. The proposed physical structure in the report was based on an intermittent grid pattern of six high density town centres, each supporting a population of 100,000. The ideas expressed in Urban Structure were in reaction to the expansive suburban development of the 1950s and 1960s and echoed RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 58 many of the anti—suburb ideas prevalent at that time. 1 0 Urban Structure successfully prompted serious discussion about the most desirable direction for Burnaby's future and although a number the basic concepts set forth were agreeable to many, the high densities presented in the report were unacceptable to virtually everyone. Council never officially approved the Urban Structure report although they did spend a great deal of time debating its value as a Master Plan for the Municipality. As well, in May 1973, Council authorized planning staff to establish a program of public meetings to discuss any subject directly related to the future of Burnaby and, if possible, related to the proposed policies set forth in the Urban Structure report. At this point, it seems evident that Blumer's third lifecycle stage, the mobilization of forces to address the problem, had been reached. 3. Mobilization of Forces to Address the Problem The main intent of the series of public meetings in the summer of 1973 was to allow interested parties to express their views and opinions about the future development of Burnaby. A report entitled Public Meetings: Phase One was prepared after the conclusion of the series of public meetings. In this report an attempt was made to incorporate, wherever appropriate, the concerns and opinions expressed at the meetings into policy recommendations (Public Meetings, 1974:8). •~° For an example of these ideas see Jane Jacobs — The death and life of great American cities, 1961. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 59 The general consensus of residents participating in the public meetings was that Burnaby's low density single family neighbourhoods were one of the Municipality's most valuable resource and should not only be preserved but also enhanced through whatever means available (Public Meetings, 1974:10). While there was recognition that multiple family housing was a legitimate housing option, this was clearly a situation in which the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor at work (Robinson, 1989). Multiple family housing was generally considered by residents to be incompatible with established single family residential areas and they sought guarantees that existing intrusions be removed and potential intrusions be prevented (Public Meetings, 1974:10). The strong propensity for neighbourhood resistance to change in existing low density single family neighbourhoods was duely noted in the Public Meetings: Phase One report. After examining the opinions and concerns expressed during the public meetings program, the planners recommended that they be authorized to undertake a review of those single family areas where the residential character should be preserved and densities remain unchanged (Public Meetings, 1974:11). The commitment to preserving single family neighbourhoods was explicit throughout the policy recommendations set forth in the report and planning staff clearly recognized that a change to higher residential densities in most of the Municipality (as proposed in the Urban Structure report) would meet with very strong public resistance (Public Meetings, 1974:24-25). Several other planning reports related to residential intensification were prepared in 1974 including a review of the Apartment Study '69 which was authorized by Council in January of that year and completed in May. Two other RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 60 reports must be mentioned here. First is the Multiple Housing Questionnaire Report which was prepared to gage the quality of development of the growing number of multiple family dwellings being constructed in Burnaby. Planning staff administered what was essentially a satisfaction survey that asked questions primarily related to transportation, facilities and services, noise and accessibility. The survey was conducted within the designated apartment areas. Results of the survey were compiled and presented in the report, which did not contain any analysis, recommendations, or conclusions that would have tied the information together and related it to other planning studies. As a consequence, the value of such a survey is questionable, particularly since it is not referred to in other planning studies. The second study that should be mentioned is Residential Conversions: A Background Report. The timing of this report was directly linked to rising housing costs and the growing housing shortage which was being experienced in the Metropolitan Region (R.E.B.G.V., 1974—75). The Residential Conversions Study was intended to \"serve as background material with which to better understand the process and implications of converting single family dwellings to a more intensive residential use.\" (Residential Conversions, 1974:1) Four main reasons were cited in the report for the increased interest of Council in an active policy on residential conversions: 1. \"the worsening shortage of rental accommodation, especially ground oriented family units\" 2. \"the problem posed by increasing numbers of illegal suites\" 3. \"the interest residents have demonstrated concerning conversions\" RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 61 4. \"the Provincial Government $12,000 conversion mortgage loan available to individuals wishing to convert their homes\" (Residential Conversions, 1974:4). These factors led Council to direct planning staff to determine the impacts, implications, and the potential of residential conversions; specifically, the duplexing of single family dwellings and the fourplexing of duplexes. Council suggested that the planners examine the possibility of granting temporary permission for conversions in an attempt to ease the worsening housing shortage, however, this option was quickly ruled out, since it was believed that such a temporary measure would be virtually impossible to phase out. Planning staff seemed to approach the idea of encouraging residential conversions with optimism noting that conversions had \"the potential of accommodating more people in existing neighbourhoods without reducing the quality of the environment.\" (Residential Conversion, 1974:4). In fact, it was maintained that conversions could actually help to revitalize some of the older neighbourhoods in Burnaby by attracting young families to them. Additionally, allowing residential conversions represented a way to help meet Burnaby's Regional obligations to provide a diversified range of housing opportunities, encouraging homogeneity and stability in local neighbourhoods, as set out in the 1972 GVRD Report on Livability. Despite the apparent optimism with which planning staff approached the idea of allowing residential conversions, they were not able to recommend this plan of action based on the results of their study and those of the Public Meetings program. Two main reasons were given in the report for not allowing residential conversions: 1. conversions would actually narrow the range of housing RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 62 opportunities by destroying an essential part of the range of alternatives in Burnaby — — namely, the low density single family neighbourhoods; and 2. such a plan would evoke negative reactions from residents. Although the discussion in Residential Conversion: A Background Report seemed to imply support for the general idea of promoting more intensive residential land use within the Municipality, little action towards this end took place until the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study of the early 1980s. The interest in residential intensification did decrease substantially as the regional housing shortage ended. Furthermore, initiatives at the senior levels of government, such as the federal RRAP and NIP programs,1 1 strongly supported the nation's single family neighbourhoods. At the provincial level, a change in administration back to the Social Credit Party marked a resurgence of support for homeownership and the single family home. During the late 1970s Burnaby's Municipal Council expressed growing concern over the increasing number of illegal secondary suites in single family neighbourhoods and began to crack down on homeowners with second suites in their homes. Secondary suites were (and are still for many) considered to be a threat to the viability of and quality of life within the Municipality's single family neighbourhoods, since they potentially increase the residential density. In November 1976, Burnaby Council was accused of taking drastic measures to rid its single family neighbourhoods of suites (Vancouver Sun, Nov. 5, 1976). The 1 1 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and Neighbourhood Improvement Program RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 63 hard—line approach, as it was called, included consideration of $1,000 plus fines for illegal suite landlords and possible prison terms for repeat offenders (Vancouver Province, Nov. 5, 1976). The suggestions of stiff penalties for illegal suite landlords appear to have been idle threats since none of the measures were ever put into practice. However, in 1978, Council ordered a house to house inspection for illegal secondary suites that lasted until early 1980. The crackdown on illegal suites was discontinued undoubtably because of increased pressures on Council due to a severe housing shortage that gripped the Lower Mainland. The house to house inspection program led to many disagreements between Council members who wanted to continue the intensive search and those who wanted to return to a policy of action on a complaint basis only. Throughout the 1980s the problem of illegal suites in single family neighbourhoods has emerged on and receded from the public agenda. The only attempt to to address the problem of how suites actually affect existing neighbourhoods in Burnaby was the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study which was never implemented. Since the RNES there have been no further attempts to address the illegal secondary suite problem by the Municipality. To take a definitive stand and act towards legalizing second suites or eliminating them would be a no win political situation for any Council since there is a strong body of support for each side of the issue. As a consequence, most Councils have chosen to adopt a policy of action against second suite owners on a complaint basis only. This remains the official policy on second suites as of 1989. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 64 4. Preparation of the Official Plan of Action By 1980 there seemed to be a concerted effort in the Planning Department to prepare a plan for the densification of Burnaby's single family neighbourhoods. The same planner who had prepared the earlier Residential Conversions: A Background Report (1974) initiated the effort in response to the need to plan for the preservation and change in Burnaby's neighbourhoods which had become evident during the Municipality's participation in the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. The timing of these efforts coincided with the recognition of a growing \"housing crisis\" in the Lower Mainland. Housing prices increased sharply during the 1979—1981 period. As well, vacancy rates were very low (Planistics, 1980). With the growing housing shortage there was pressure on the Municipality to find ways to increase Burnaby's housing stock. The greatest demand was for ground—oriented family housing and the best and perhaps only way to meet this demand was to increase residential densities in the existing single family neighbourhoods that predominate in the Municipality. As a first step towards neighbourhood intensification the prevailing residential framework was reviewed to determine its appropriateness for directing future residential growth. This task was undertaken by planning staff during 1980 and the Residential Growth Management Study: A Draft Report For Discussion Purposes (RGMS) was completed in September of that year. In this report the existing residential framework was examined in relation to projected demographic patterns and trends, current Regional and Municipal development objectives and plans, as well as, prevailing public attitudes (RGMS, 1980:129). Six goals were developed which formed the basis for a revised residential framework: RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 65 1. \"To accommodate growth and accompanying change to the extent that it provides for a properly structured environment that will satisfy the residential and commercial needs of the Municipality and, at the same time, enhance community self—sufficiency and identity. 2. To ensure that the Municipality's residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, recreational and transportation land uses are mutually supportive and located within an appropriate municipal framework. 3. To create and maintain identifiable and stable residential neighbourhoods which collectively offer a range of living environments within the Municipality in a variety of appropriate locations. 4. To increase community identity and residential and commercial self—sufficiency in the Municipality in keeping with the assigned functions of a hierarchy of multi—family residential/commercial centres. 5. To ensure appropriately scaled and compatible uses, forms and relationships between higher density residential and/or commercial centres and adjacent lower density residential neighbourhood areas. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 66 6. To help ensure an effective and co-ordinated planning approach for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) through the development of a concept and strategy that will provide a comprehensive means for dealing with issues raised by the continuing growth of the Region.\" (RGMS, 1980:130). The revised residential framework included a number of objectives with the aim of increasing the density of some of the Municipality's single family neighbourhoods. Smaller lot subdivisions and properly located and scaled cluster housing projects were considered to be compatible with the existing suburban character in some neighbourhoods and to be acceptable methods for addressing the need for affordable family housing, the diminishing supply of residential land and, also, to reflect the changing demographic characteristics of Burnaby's present and future residents (RGMS, 1980:131). A wide range of compact family housing was to be accommodated according to the following principle: \"Within the dominant suburban character for the existing and proposed low density neighbourhood areas of the Municipality, the possible introduction of compact family housing forms must be evaluated against the prevailing local character, conditions, resident attitudes and the extent to which the introduction of compact housing can make a positive contribution to the development objectives for that area as a whole.\" (RGMS, 1980:131). In order to implement this principle the revised residential framework incorporated the development of a neighbourhood classification system which was intended to identify and prioritize residential areas to determine where preservation and RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 67 maintenance of the existing character was desirable and where residential redevelopment or a change in land use was the most realistic and desirable approach. This classification system was being prepared concurrently with the Residential Growth Management Study and was the initial stage of the controversial Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study (RNES). The Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study began in 1980 and consisted of three separate phases: 1. preparation of comparative neighbourhood profiles which indicated the neighbourhoods considered to be best suited for change and those that were considered to be the best candidates for preservation of the existing character (Planistics, 1980) 2. a resident opinion survey conducted to determine residents' opinions towards their neighbourhoods and identify problems facing individual neighbourhoods (The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group, 1981) 3. preparation of a series of discussion papers that outlined a residential intensification strategy known as Compaction (Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers, 1984). Although consideration of a number of aspects of the residential environment was included in the preparation of the RNES, it seems clear that the central aim of the study was to develop a strategy for accommodating greater housing densities within some of Burnaby's existing low density RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 68 neighbourhoods. In the initial phase of the study, the Municipality commissioned a consulting firm to prepare a series of neighbourhood profiles that identified and prioritized neighbourhoods according to the pressures for change being exerted on each residential area. Central to this process was the inclusion of opinions from the real estate and financial groups operating in Burnaby. Each neighbourhood was assigned a rank based on the appropriateness of the area for a change in residential character or land use. As well, those neighbourhoods where preservation and enhancement of the existing residential character was considered to be most appropriate were identified (Planistics, 1980). Over 1,700 households were surveyed in phase two of the RNES. All residents surveyed lived in neighbourhoods which had been identified, in the previous neighbourhood profiles, as those where maintenance of the existing character would be the best planning approach. Questions in the resident opinion survey focused on a variety of aspects of the residential environment, including transportation and commercial facilities. The consultants' report summarized a number of policy implications, two of which were directly related to potential increases in residential densities. First, it was determined that any proposal to generally increase residential densities in the neighbourhoods surveyed would be met with strong opposition from residents. The only forms of housing found to be generally acceptable to the respondents were the single family detached house, the single family house with one suite and one design of a duplex; any higher density of housing was expected to be opposed. Furthermore, respondents indicated that the existing low density character was one aspect of their neighbourhoods that should never change (The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group, 1981:40). RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 69 The second policy implication identified was that a significant majority of the households surveyed responded negatively to the idea of allowing further subdivision of residential lots (The Eikos Group and DWD Planning Group, 1981:41). This is a particularly interesting observation considering the fact that, in December of the previous year, Council approved a new zoning category, R9, which enabled many homeowners to subdivide their lots. The R9 program was intended to help ease the housing shortage of the early 1980s by providing a new supply of relatively low cost housing units. The final phase of the study was based on consideration of the two previous consultants' reports and other planning studies, such as the Residential Growth Management Study and the Conceptual Transportation Plan. The Compaction Strategy proposed in the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers was based on the following conclusion: \"compact family housing forms have the potential to make a positive contribution to the development objectives of the Municipality and that if properly designed and controlled it is possible to introduce specific types of compact housing into some neighbourhoods without major disruption to the local character, conditions or residents of an area.\" (RNES, 1984:6-4). RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 70 General Land Use Type Variety of Neighbourhood Environments Range of Housing Options SUBURBAN Rural small holdings Single detached Suburban low density Single detached Single detached; single detached Suburban medium density conversion internal suite; single detached conversion internal or external suite; semi-detached; duplex URBAN Urban medium density Single detached; single detached conversion internal suite; single detached conversion internal or external suites; semi-detached duplex; conversion to triplex or fourplex; small 3-8 unit in-fill; over 8 unit in-fill; R8 group house; R6 row house Multiple low density Small 3-8 unit in-fill; over 8 unit in-fill; R8 group house; R6 row house; garden apartment Multiple medium density Small 3-8 unit in-fill; over 8 unit in-fill; R8 group house; R6 row house; garden apartment; low rise apartment Multiple high density High rise apartment Table 5: Proposed Residential Framework (Source: RNES Discussion Papers, 1984:8-17) The strategy RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 71 itself consisted of three steps which were outlined in the discussion papers: 1. \"Introduce compaction into designated neighbourhoods utilizing a. secondary suites b. compatible scale duplexes c. small lot development in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. 2. Introduce limited seniors' housing alternatives into designated neighbourhoods near appropriate services. 3. Pursue small scale multiple i n — f i l l housing alternatives such as zero lot line and townhouses in accordance with the design guidelines on qualities suggested by residents in the opinion survey.\" (RNES, 1984:6-4). The Compaction Strategy was used as a foundation for the development of a residential framework that incorporated a wide range of housing options and a variety of neighbourhood environments (RNES, 1984:7—26). Neighbourhoods were designated for preservation and for Compaction based on their type as outlined in the revised residential framework (See Table 5). Areas designated as Urban Medium Density were the areas proposed for the greatest amount of Compaction Actions. These areas were located near town centres and were older areas tending towards urban development and offering potential for change (RNES, 1984:8—15). Neighbourhoods designated as Suburban Medium Density were to retain their single and two family residential character. Thus, only limited RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 72 changes were proposed for these areas. In order to increase the number of ground oriented units in Suburban Medium Density areas the addition of internal secondary suites in single family houses constructed prior to 1984 and some small lot development under the R9 program were to be permitted (For a summary of Compaction Actions See Table 6). Those neighbourhoods classified as Suburban Low Density were to be preserved as single family in order to maintain this housing option within the Municipality (RNES, 1984:8—16). Multiple family areas were discussed in the previous Residential Growth Management Study and the 1981 Apartment Study Review and were not reviewed for the RNES. Recognizing the potential for conflict associated with the implementation of the Compaction Strategy, the planners proposed a consultation approach for the refinement of the neighbourhood designations. Compaction Action for Residential Intensification Suburban Medium Density Areas Urban Medium Density Areas 1) Internal Suites X X 2) Small Lots (R9) X 3) Triplex/Fourplex Conversions X 4) Small 3-8 Unit In-Fill X 5) Over 8 Unit In-Fill X Table 6: Summary of Compaction Actions (Source: RNES Discussion Papers, 1984:8—16) RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 73 This approach was to involve discussions with the Council, other Municipal staff and residents. The first step in the consultation process was to explain the proposed strategy, the revised residential framework and the proposed neighbourhood designations. The second step was to refine and adjust the neighbourhood designations and set appropriate implementation guidelines, in consultation with each neighbourhood slated for Compaction Action. Neighbourhoods were to be dealt with on an individual basis in order to indicate a willingness to involve residents in the planning process at the neighbourhood level. 5. Implementation of the Official P lan In March 1984, Council approved in principle the residential framework outlined in the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study: Discussion Papers and authorized the Council Housing Committee and planning staff to proceed with the consultation phase. No one was prepared for the overwhelming opposition that erupted as the RNES Compaction Strategy was presented to the public. A series of five public meetings were held during a two week period in June, 1984. Before each public meeting, brochures were sent out to local residents inviting them to attend the meeting. Each meeting began with an informative presentation by planning staff that explained the RNES proposals and was followed by discussion and questions from the audience. Turnout at the meetings was heavy; one meeting was attended by over 500 residents. Opposition to the proposals was intense. In fact, only a handful of people, at all of the meetings combined, spoke out in favour of proposals. The concerns expressed by residents focused on RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 74 parking, transportation, overburdening of existing services and the general destruction of the quality of life in Burnaby's single and two family neighbourhoods. Opposition at the meetings was mainly from long—term residents. However, many newcomers to the Municipality also spoke out against Compaction. There was even an organized group of residents formed called \"People Against Compaction\". Council and planning staff were inundated with letters and petitions all strongly opposed to any implementation of Compaction Actions in their neighbourhoods. Residents raised concerns about the timing of the study. Many questioned why the RNES background research had been underway for three years before it was presented to the public. Others complained that the timing of the public meetings during the summer months was suspicious, arguing that many residents were on holidays at that time of year. Additionally, residents complained that the meetings were held too close together and asked for more time for citizen input. Residents were clearly expressing feelings of alienation from the Council and planners, arguing that their views were being ignored and that Council was only concerned with making money and not with the quality of life in Burnaby's single and two family neighbourhoods. On August 7, 1984, after receiving a petition with over 4,000 names, Council voted to abandon the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study and its Compaction Strategy. The Municipal Council's vote came even before its own Housing Committee had presented its report on the study and the public meetings. Subsequent tabulations of citizen response during the RNES consultation R E S I D E N T I A L I N T E N S I F I C A T I O N / 75 phase indicated that 3,650 responses were received by August 31, 1984, and of these, 3,064 were petition responses in opposition to R N E S . Only 55 individual responses were in favour of the proposals. A full 11.6% of all households in single and two family dwellings had responded (Municipal Manager 's Report (MMR) No. 70, Nov. 5, 1984). 6. Events Following the Attempt to Implement the Plan The failure of the Residential Neighbourhood Environment Study has been attributed to numerous factors. One commonly held explanation is that the proposals were misunderstood by residents. Others maintain that the scale of the R N E S proposals was too all encompassing. In other words, that the Compaction Strategy potentially affected too many households. What is obvious, however, is that the Council and the planners grossly underestimated the potential for conflict that had led them to propose the consultation process in the first place. The R N E S Compaction Strategy became a black mark on the Municipality's public record, one that residents have not easily forgotten. As a consequence, there has been little serious discussion of residential intensification in Burnaby's low density residential areas since the R N E S proposals were abandoned. Even the relatively new R9 rezoning program was affected by the outcome of the R N E S experience. Unt i l recently, approval of R9 rezoning applications was discontinued while planning staff reviewed how the zoning category was being used. Council wanted assurance that the subdivisions were actually being developed into two single family dwellings and not into two duplexes or single family dwellings with suites. RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 76 Presently, applications for R9 rezonings are again being accepted and the small lot subdivisions are permitted in areas where previous R9 rezonings have occurred. As would be expected the residential goals presented in the Official Community Plan, adopted in 1987, reflect the RNES experience. There are three goals identified for residential development: 1. GOAL - HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES To provide a balanced range and choice of living opportunities and neighbourhood types (OCP, 1987:41). 2. GOAL - NEIGHBOURHOOD LIVABILITY To maintain and improve neighbourhood livability and stability (OCP, 1987:42). 3. GOAL - SPECIAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS To , help ensure that Burnaby's residential environments accommodate the needs of those having special housing requirements (OCP, 1987:42). Further discussion of the Housing Opportunities Goal indicates a strong commitment to maintaining the predominantly low density single and two family suburban character of Burnaby, while at the same time trying to achieve the seemingly contradictory objective of encouraging a diversity of neighbourhood types and housing opportunities. On the surface it appears that the Municipality has truly abandoned the RNES concepts and objectives. However, closer analysis RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION / 77 reveals that the residential framework proposed in the Official Community Plan is basically the same as the one presented in the RNES and RGMS, albeit softened to reflect a stronger emphasis on the preservation of existing neighbourhoods. With the residential framework as a guide, it will be interesting to see how the Municipality handles the increasing pressures for residential growth and change over the next few years. Will there be a reactive approach to future pressures on existing neighbourhoods or will the Municipality, once again try a proactive approach and try to revive some of the features of the more aggressive RNES proposals. VI. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF \"HOUSING CRISIS There is a striking feature evident in the overview of housing problems on Burnaby's public agenda. At least once in every decade the Municipality, and the Region as a whole, are faced with what is widely defined as a \"housing crisis\". Usually a \"crisis\" becomes recognized when there is a period of rising housing costs and a shortage of supply of lower cost rental accommodation. Most of the conditions that lead to the emergence of a \"housing crisis\" are far beyond the control of any local government. For instance, business investment cycles, interest rates and migration patterns are important determining factors in \"housing crises\" but are almost totally immune to municipal government intervention. As a consequence, there are few avenues for action open to municipalities to help alleviate housing problems during these periods and even less they can do to prevent these \"crises\" from emerging. Municipal Councils and the planners are left to react to the problems to the best of their ability. Consequently, there is rarely development of an official plan of action to deal with a \"housing crisis.\" Instead, there are a variety of measures that are attempted during each period which may or may not help to alleviate the housing problems. As mentioned previously, there is growing agreement in our society that housing is much more than just a common economic commodity; at the very least it is considered to be a necessity of life, at best it is considered to be a right of all individuals. Speculative buying and selling of residentially zoned lots and homes force house prices up. As well, since housing provision is left 78 AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF \"HOUSING CRISIS\" / 79 primarily to the profit—oriented private sector, investment in the production of various types of housing is controlled and limited by the profitability of the venture as compared to other investment opportunities (Achtenberg and Marcuse, 1986a:5). Thus, the type of housing constructed often does not meet the need for lower and moderate priced housing that exists. Investors are more apt to direct their capital towards the construction of luxury condominiums or single family dwellings which would be more profitable for them. Many housing analysts argue that \"housing crises\" of affordability and availability are endemic to our capitalist society (Achtenberg and Marcuse, 1986a+b; McAfee, 1986; Stone, 1986). They argue that it is a failure of the market system that is the underlying reason for \"housing crises\" and that without drastic reforms to the system (for example, the decommodification of housing), these \"crises\" will continue to plague our society. From this perspective, until housing ceases to be treated as a common market commodity, there will continue to be housing affordability and availability problems for many individuals and families, resulting in increasing numbers of homeless. The nature of housing, itself, makes it extremely difficult to address a housing shortage, at least in the short—term. On the one hand, housing is immobile: it cannot be moved from place to place in order to meet shifting demands. On the other hand, it takes time to construct housing units and even if the units were started the exact moment that the \"housing crisis\" was recognized, there would still be a lag between the growing need and the new supply. Again, it must be emphasized that in Canada, the private sector is AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF \"HOUSING CRISIS\" / 80 almost completely relied on for the provision of housing and the relatively small component of social housing that exists is directly funded and controlled by senior levels of government. Therefore, there is very little that municipalities can do during periods of \"housing crisis.\" Usually, the \"crisis\" ends before the municipalities have formulated plans for any action aimed at alleviating the housing problems. Since the majority of discussions of and emphasis on housing problems occurs during these periods of so called \"housing crisis,\" it is useful to examine the societal conditions during each of the four periods in an attempt to identify any possible trends or common features that help to explain what led to general agreement in the community that there was a \"housing crisis.\" In this chapter, seven indicators of growth and change are examined in order to determine if their have been socio-economic conditions or changes common to all four periods of \"housing crisis\" that have been recognized in Burnaby and the Metropolitan Region since 1960. It must be emphasized that it is beyond the scope of this paper to include an in depth analysis of each of the seven socio-economic indicators. What is intended here is an exploration of the possible factors behind the perception of these periods of \"housing crisis\" in Burnaby and the Region. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF \"HOUSING CRISIS\" / 81 The seven socio-economic indicators examined in this discussion are: 1. Apartment Vacancy Rates for Burnaby and Metropolitan Vancouver (see Figures 3 and 7); 2. Housing Starts for Burnaby and Metropolitan Vancouver (see Figures 8 and 9); 3. Consumer Price Index for Metropolitan Vancouver (see Figures 10 and 11); 4. Provincial Net Migration (see Figure 12); 5. Provincial Gross Domestic Product (see Figure 13); 6. Provincial Unemployment Rates (see Figure 14); and 7. Rates for a Conventional Five Year Mortgage (see Figure 15). 1 2 The four periods during which time there was the recognition of a \"housing crisis\" within the community are indicated by the shaded areas on Figures 7 through 15. In the following sections, the seven socio-economic measures are discussed as they pertain to each period of \"housing crisis\". As well, a brief summary of the community response during the \"crisis\" is included. The actual values for each of these indicators are provided in Appendix B. AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF \"HOUSING CRISIS\" / 82 Figure 7: Metro—Vancouver Vacancy Rates (Source: CMHC Vacancy Surveys) AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PERIODS OF \"HOUSING CRISIS\" / 83 Housing Starts in Burnaby (1959-1988) SOOO-i