Edmonton (Alta. ) - 1984 - Northeast district survey of residents_technical report (1984-12)

Northeast District Survey of Residents

DECEMBER

1984

THE

PLANNING LIBRARY

ARCHIVES 1984 - 9

@monton THE CITV OF

DO NOT REMOVE FROM LIBRARY

PLANNING

l 1 1

- i -

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

I

1.0

Table of Contents .....................................................

List of Tables .............................. . ........ : ............. ..... ..............................................................

Maps

i ii v

INTRODUCTION ......................................................

1

Purpose .........................................................

Methodology .....................................................

Time Frame .....................................................

Weighting Factors ................................................

Error Range .....................................................

Neighbourhood Clusters ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• How to Read the Printout •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

1 1 1 1 2 3 8

NORTHEAST DISTRICT RESIDENTS SURVEY RESULTS •,• • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

10

2.1

Preamble ........................................................

10

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Results of Introductory Questions • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Municipal Budget Responses ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Suburban Respondents' Satisfaction with Public Services • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Commercial Streetscape Improvements •••••••••••••~••••••••••••••••

10 11 13 14

2.6

Transit ........................................

...

15

2.7

Traffic and Roadway Issues ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

16

2.8

Tenure .............................................

.....

18

2.9

Neighbourhood Crime •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

18

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . •••••••••• . •••• .................... .........................

19 20

2.12 School Closures ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

20

2.13 Land Use Issues ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2.14 Day Care Services .. ..............................................

2.15 Respondent's Age Profile ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

21 24 25

CROSS TABULATION RESULTS •• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

26

I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

1 I

1 1

2.0

I I I

2.10 Community Spirit 2.11 Shopping Patterns

3.0

1 1 1 I

I 1

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12

Preamble ..... ...................................................

26 Transit Cross Tabs •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27 Roadway and Traffic Cross Tabs •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28 Parks and Recreation Cross Tabs •••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••• 35 Crime Cross Tabs ................................................

37 Community Related Cross Tabs •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 42 School Closure Cross Tabs • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 58 Social Services Cross Tabs .................................. ••••••• 70 Land Use Cross Tabs ..............................................

83 Neighbourhood Name Awareness Cross Tabs •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 93 Survey Administration • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 98 Respondent Profiles ............................................... 107

1 LIST

OF

TABLES PAGE NO.

TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11.

12 13 14

Opinions on Spending Levels of Municipal Services • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Suburban Respondents' Satisfaction with Parks • • ..• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Streetscape Improvement Priority •••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••• Local Traffic Problems •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Dissatisfaction Levels with Downtown Trip • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Response to "Adopt-a-Park" Concept ...............................

Response to School After Use Proposals ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Influence in Local Planning •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Reaction to Potential Redevelopment Types • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Satisfaction with Suburban Design Elements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Reaction to Special Neighbourhood Identity Elements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Opinions on Future Use of Vacant YDC Lands • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Transit Usage with Opinions on Transit Spending •••••••• Cross Tab of Transit User Satisfaction with Opinions on

12 14 15 17 18 19 21 21 22 23 23 24 27

............................

28

TABLE 15A

Cross Tab of New Roadway Budget Opinions with Specific Roadway Proposals in Older Neighbourhoods • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of New Roadway Budget Opinions with Specific Roadway Proposals in Mature Neighbourhoods • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of New Roadway Budget Opinions with Specific Roadway Proposals in Suburban Neighbourhoods • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Traffic Issues on Local Streets with Traffic as a Neighbourhood Issue •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Suburban Parks Satisfaction with Housing Type ••••••••• Cross Tab of Suburban Parks Satisfaction with Parks Budget Opinions ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Crime as a Neighbourhood Issue with Police Budget Opinions •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-••••• Cross Tab of Crime as a Neighbourhood Issue with Housing Type •••••• Cross Tab of Crime as a Neighbourhood Issue with Tenure •••••••••••• Cross Tab of Crime as a Neighbourhood Issue with

Transit Spending

TABLE 15B TABLE 15B TABLE 16 TABLE 17 TABLE 18 TABLE 19

TABLE 20 TABLE 21 TABLE 22 TABLE 23 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE

24 25 26 27

TABLE 28 TABLE 29 TABLE 30

...............

Neighbourhood Rating •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Respondents' Crime Concerns by Cluster .............................................. and Subgroup Cross Tab of Importance of Community League with Housing Type •••• Cross Tab of Importance of Community League with Tenure •••••••••• Cross Tab of Importance of Community League with Age • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Importance of Community League with .............................................

Household Type Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Rating with Housing Type • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

I

1 I

30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44

1 1 1 1

~ i

45 46

of Neighbourhood Rating with Community Spirit • • • • • • • • • • • of Willingness to Participate in Parks Self-Help with Age of Respondents ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• of Willingness to Participate in Parks Self-Help

47

TABLE 31

Cross Tab Cross Tab Program Cross Tab

Program with Housing Type ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Opinions on Local Traffic Problems with

50

TABLE 32 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE

Neighbourhood Satisfaction Ratings •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Influence in Local Planning with Housing Type •••••••••• Cross Tab of Influence in Local Planning with Tenure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Wanting More Local Planning Input with Housing Type ••• Cross Tab of Wanting More Local Planning Input with Tenure •••••••••

51 52 53 54 55

33 34 35 36

I

48

I

1 I

r PAGE NO. I

1 1 1

TABLE 37

Cross Tab of Community League Involvement with Housing Types ................................................

TABLE 38 Cross Tab of Community League Involvement in Local Planning with Tenure ..................................................

TABLE 39A Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue with Housing Type -Older Neighbourhoods •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• TABLE 39B Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue with Housing Type - Mature Neighbourhoods ••••••••••••••••••••••••...

TABLE 40A Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue with Age - Older Neighbourhoods •••••••••••••••••••••••••••...•.•...

TABLE 40B Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue with Age - Mature Neighbourhoods •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

TABLE 41A Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue with

56 57 58 59 60 61 62

TABLE 42A

Household Type - Older Neighbourhoods •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue with Household Type - Mature Neighbourhoods ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of School Closure Issue with Housing Types -

Older Neighbourhoods •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of School Closure Issue with Housing Types -

64

TABLE 42B

I

TABLE 41B

1 1

Mature Neighbourhoods

•••••••••••• .••••••••••••••••••••••••••

63

65

TABLE 43A Cross Tab of School Closure Issue with Age TABLE 43B

Older Neighbourhoods •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of School Closure Issue with Age Mature Neighbourhoods

66

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-•••

67

I

TABLE 44A Cross Tab of School Closure Issue with Household Type Older Neighbourhoods •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• TABLE 44B Cross Tab of School Closure Issue with Household Type -

68

I

TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE

Mature Neighbourhoods ........................ i ••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Day-Care Usage by Subgroup •••••• . ••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Types of Day-Care Services Used by Subgroup •••••••••• Cross Tab of Satisfaction with Day-Care Services by Subgroup •••••• Cross Tab of Day-Care Usage with Social Services

69 70 71 72

45 46 47 48

TABLE 49 TABLE 50

I 1 1 1

TABLE 51 TABLE 52 TABLE 53

Housing Types ................................................

Cross Tab of Clareview Institution Awareness with Tenure • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Clareview Institution Awareness with

Household Type ...............................................

TABLE 54 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE

55 56 57 58 59

TABLE 60 I

Budget Opinions ...............................................

Cross Tab of Social Services Budget Opinions with Ages of Respondents ...............................................

Cross Tab of Social Services Budget Opinions with Household Type ...............................................

Cross Tab of Clareview Institution Awareness with

TABLE 61

Cross Tab of Alternative uses for YDC Site with Social Services Budget Opinions ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Alternative Uses for YDC Site with Tenure • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Library Budget Opinions with Housing Types • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Library Budget Opinions with Age • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Library Budget Opinions with Household Type ••••••••••• Cross Tab of Opinions on CBD Improvements with Favorite Shopping Areas ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Opinions on Yellowhead Entrance Improvements withFavoriteShoppingAreas ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Opinions on Beverly Strip Improvements with

Favorite Shopping Areas

1

.......................................

73 74 75 76 76

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

85

- iv-

PAGE NO. TABLE 62 TABLE 63 TABLE 64

Cross Tab Favorite Cross Tab Favorite Cross Tab

of Opinions on Fort Road Strip Improvements with Shopping Areas ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• of Opinions on 97 Street Strip Improvements with Shopping Areas •••••••••••••••••••• .I •••••••••••••••••• of Adequacy of Bus Service with Transit

Budget Opinions ............... ................................

TABLE 65

86 87

88

Cross Tab of Adequacy of Recreational Services with

89

TABLE 67

Parks Budget Opinions ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...........

Cross Tab of Adequacy of School Facilities with Neighbourhood Rating ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••• Cross Tab of Adequacy of Commercial Facilities with

91

TABLE 68

Neighbourhood Rating ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Adequacy of Library Services with

Neighbourhood Rating ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness with Sexes of Respondents •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness with Housing Types ••••• Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness with Tenure ••••••••••• Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness with Receipt of Mayor's Letter •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Importance of Community League with

92

TABLE 66

TABLE 69 TABLE 70 TABLE 71 TABLE 72 TABLE 73 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Neighbourhood Name Awareness •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Survey Completions with Sexes of Respondents ••••••••• Cross Tab of Survey Completions with Housing Types • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Survey Completions with Tenure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Survey Completions with Age of Respondents ••••••••••• Cross Tab of Survey Completions with Household Types • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Survey Completions with Receipt of M ayor's Letter ................................................

Cross Tab of Sexes with Housing Types •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CrossTabofHousingTypeswithTenure ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Age with Receipt of Mayor's Letter • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Housing Types by Subgroup ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Cross Tab of Household Age Groups by Subgroup • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Tab of Household Types by Subgroup • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

1 1 1 1

90 I

93 94 95

I

1

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

I

1 I

1 1

1 1 1 1

I 1

- V -

1 MAPS PAGE NO.

I

I

1 1 1 A

1 a

6

1 1 I

1 1 I

1

MAP 1

Northeast District: Primary Neighbourhood Clusters . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

5

MAP 2

Northeast District: Secondary Neighbourhood Clusters • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

6

MAP 3

Northeast District: Tertiary Neighbourhood Clusters • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

7

1

1 NORTHEAST

t

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1

Purpose

DISTRICT

RESIDENT

SURVEY

This survey is the third of six surveys which will be administered across Edmonton, in order to obtain detailed responses from a wide cross-section of residents on a variety of topics, including transit and roadways, parks and recreational facilities, shopping habits, community problems and issues, social services and land use issues. The information collected will assist the Planning Department in identifying issues to be addressed in the District Planning Program, and to provide relevant information to other city departments, as well as community leagues and planning committees in the area.

1.2

I i

1

1 I

1 I I

Methodology

Each of the six surveys is to be administered to a geographical area of Edmonton, known as Districts. The District boundaries have been defined through City Council approval of the District Planning Program in 1982. Approximately 80% of each of the District surveys is identical, dealing with issues of City-wide relevance. The remaining questions deal with local issues particular to each District.

The surveys were administered by telephone, using both in-house Planning Department

staff and temporary workers. Provincial financial assistance through the STEP Program provided funds for some of these workers.

Each survey took approximately one month to design and bring on-line, and from five to eight weeks to administer.

Prior to administration, copies of a letter signed by Mayor Decore were circulated to prospective respondents who had been previously chosen by random sample, advising them to expect a call in the near future and outlining the reasons for the survey.

Following completion of the administration phase, completed surveys were coded, verified and recorded by in-house planning staff. The results of the completed surveys were then processed with the assistance of the Computer Resources Department and the User Support Services Unit of the Information Systems Management Section of the Planning Department. General frequency response results and certain cross tabulations of these responses are outlined in this document.

1.3

Timeframe

The Northeast District Survey was designed during March and April, 1984. Administration of the survey took from mid-May to the end of June, 1984. Computer analysis was completed in early October, 1984. Summaries of the survey results were circulated interdepartmentally and to participants in the survey in late November, 1984.

1.4

Weighting Factors

Because the populations of, and the number of completed surveys for, each District are varied, a weighting factor is assigned to each survey to ensure that the confidence rate (i.e., the accuracy of the results) are as high as possible.

2

1 I

In administering the survey, the Northeast District was divided into three types of residential neighbourhoods: older neighbourhoods (i.e., those built primarily prior to 1951), mature suburban neighbourhoods (i.e., those built between 1951 and 1971) and new suburban neighbourhoods (i.e., those built after 1971).

The weighting factors used for the sample were different for each of the three subgroups.

These factors are the numbers of people represented by each completed survey. The weighted response for each subgroup is proportional to the actual population in the subgroup. These weighting factors for the Northeast district survey are:

Older Neighbourhoods: 275 Completed Surveys Actual Population - 29,150 Weighting Factor - 106 Mature Neighbourhoods: 275 Completed Surveys Actual Population - 37,400 Weighting Factor - 136

Suburban Neighbourhoods: 251 Completed Surveys Actual Population - 36,144 Weighting Factor - 144 When reviewing results in the computer printouts, the percentage figures are the most appropriate measure for the purpose of data analysis. The weighted population figures are for illustrative purposes only and may be misleading for certain questions.

1.5

Error Range

For district-wide results, the error range is +5 % , 19 times out of 20.

For example: 30.0% of residents of Northeast Edmonton would like to see more money spent on fire protection.

Nineteen times out of twenty, if one were to do a survey of all of the persons in households in the Northeast, the results would be within plus or minus 5 % of 30.0%.

For subgroup results, the error range is Âą5%, 9 times out of 10.

For conditional questions (e.g., respondents in households with children under 13), and for some cross tabulations, the percentage figures have a larger error range because the sample size is smaller.

1 I

1 1 1 1 I

1 I

1 I

1

t 1 I 1 1

3

t

r 1 1 I

1.6

Neighbourhood Clusters

Information collected from this survey is collated in this report in several different ways.

As has already been pointed out, three distinct subgroups of neighbourhoods were identified prior to the survey (older, mature and suburban) and in fact, some survey questions were asked only in one or two of the subgroups because they were irrelevant to the other subgroups (e.g., no school closures in suburban areas). In Chapter 2 of this report, the general responses to the questions asked are compiled on this subgroup basis, and totalled up to give district-wide figures. In Chapter 3, however, cross tabulations of a variety of responses are calculated in many cases by "clusters" of neighbourhoods; that is, neighbourhoods with like characteristics, or particular geographical relationships. The reporting of data by clusters may allow data to be put on the basis of community league areas, area structure plan areas, and so on.

The 19 clusters developed for this purpose are as follows:

I

Primary Clusters (Total of 11)

1 1

Cluster 1 contains:

Bellevue Highlands Montrose Newton

Cluster

r

2 contains: Beacon Heights Bergman Beverly Heights

Cluster

3 contains: Abbottsfield Rundle Heights

I

Cluster

4 contains: Canon Ridge Homesteader Overlanders

Cluster

5 contains: Belmont Kernohan Sif ton Park

Cluster

6 contains: Bannerman Fraser Hairsine Kirkness

Cluster

7 contains: Casselman McLeod York

I

1 1 I

Cluster 8 contains: Evansdale Kildare Kilkenney Northmount

1

1 1

Cluster

9 contains: Delwood Glengarry Killarney

I

4

1 Cluster 10 contains: Balwin Belvedere

I Cluster 11 contains: Lago Lindo Secondary Clusters (Total of 4)

1

Cluster 12 contains: Abbottsfield Beacon Heights Bergman Beverly Heights Rundle Heights

I

Cluster 13 contains: Bannerman Belmont Canon Ridge Fraser Hairsine Homesteader Kernohan Kirkness Overlanders Sifton Park Cluster 14 contains: Casselman Evansdale Kildare Kilkenney McLeod Northmount York Cluster 15 contains: Balwin Belvedere Delwood Glengarry Killarney

Tertiary Clusters (Total of 4) Cluster 16 contains: Abbottsfield Beacon Heights Bergman Cluster 17 contains: Beverly Heights Rundle Heights Cluster 18 contains: Hairsine Kirkness Cluster 19 contains: Casselman McLeod In Chapter 3, only the results for the primary clusters are reported. The results for the secondary clusters (area structure plan or community sized clusters) and the tertiary clusters (formed to represent data for the Beacon Heights, Beverly Heights, Hairsine and McLeod Community Leagues) are unpublished but available on request from the Planning Department. The following maps illustrate the location of all the clusters in relation to the older, mature and suburban subgroups.

1 1

f 1

r

i

I

1 1 I

1 1 1

1 MAP 1

NORTHEAST DISTRICT PRIMARY NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTERS (FOR USE WITH SURVEY CROSS TABULATIONS)

I

I

1 I

•--

-- PRIMARY CLUSTERS OLDER NEIGHBOURHOODS

El

MATURE SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS

I

1 I

1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1

1

MAP 2 NORTHEAST DISTRICT SECONDARY NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTERS (FOR USE WITH SURVEY CROSS TABULATIONS)

I I

----- SECONDARY CLUSTERS OLDER NEIGHBOURHOODS

0

MATURE SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS

I

1

SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS i

MAP 3 NORTI-EAST DISTRICT TERTIARY NEIGHBOURHOOD CLUSTERS (FOR USE WITH SURVEY CROSS TABULATIONS)

I

I

-

1 1 1 I I

1 I I I

1 1 1 1 1 I

1

~

-- TERTIARY CLUSTERS OLDER NEIGHBOURHOODS. MATURE SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOOQS SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS

8

I

1

How to Read the Printout

1.7

Cross tabs are given in two forms: by subgroup and by cluster. Each of the three subgroups (older, mature and suburban neighbourhoods) contains several clusters. Clusters are also arranged, in some cases, to include neighbourhoods from more than one subgroup.

The example below depicts information cross tabulated by subgroup.

NORTNEAST DISTRICT SURVEY ROADWAY FILE NEST 'tCREATION

09/21/84

C R 0 S

S T

A B •

Sue ROY PCT SOLDER NATURE S SUBURBAN RO wCOL PCT UBURdAN TOTAL TOT PCT 1.I j.I 3.1 I-------•I••----•-1•••-----I •1.

I 29852 1 21376 1 30253 1/81481 I 26.2 1 36.6 1 37.1 IN, 80.3 1 74.5 1 e0.9 1 84.3 I 29. 4 1 I 21.1 I 29.8 I

-i.-•--•--•I-.

2.

NO

1 1 1

3704 30.4 12.9

1 1

54

DATE = 09/2,1/u41

• • • • • • • • • • YLLONU8111NTRCMG YELLO-82

YEi

PAGE

I

I I I

I 1 1

3602 29.5 10.0

I I I

•

F

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

SUBGROUP • • • • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

PAGE

1 OF

These variable names are listed separately in the Coding Master.

-- _1----•---I 48d5 40.1 13.2

•

0

12190 12.0

I 3.7 I 4.8 1 3.5 I -1--------I--------1--------I _._.3.

1 3598 .. 1. 2171..__3 2037 I 7786 NO OPINION 1 46.2 I 27.9 1 25.9 I 7.7 I 12.5 I 5.9 1 5.6 I I 3.5 I 2.1 1 2.0 I I••••-•--I---••---I COLUMN 369J8 35872 101457 TOTAL -IF2806-18 36.4 3S,4 ;0 0.0

These two variable names describe, in an abbreviated code, the cross tabulation. In this case, respondents' opinions on upgrading the Yellowhead Trail/82 Street interchange are cross tabulated with the 'subgroups where the respondents live.

These numbers give the weighted number and percentage that all the "yes" responses represent of the total number of responses (i.e., 80.3% of all respondents said that the intersection improvements should be made).

1

I

1 1 1 1 I

I

This describes how to read each of the cells in the cross tab. The first line in each cell is the count of individuals within each subgroup who would give that particular response.

This count is determined by multiplying the of respondents by a actual number predetermined weighting factor. The second line gives this number as a percentage of the particular row (i.e., all "yes" responses). The third line gives the number as a percentage of the column (i.e., all "older" subgroup responses). The last line gives the number as a percentage of the total of all the cells.

These numbers give the weighted number and percentage that all the responses from "older" neighbourhoods represent of the total number of responses (i.e., 28.3 % of all respondents come from "older" neighbourhoods).

This number represents the weighted number of surveys in which this cross tab could not be identified, either through omission of the information or through coding errors.

This page gives an example of a basic two-way cross tabulation. The example on the following page shows how to interpret a more complex three-way cross tabulation.

1 1 1 1

I 1

1

9

I

The printout shown below illustrates a cross tabulation given by cluster. This example shows respondents' opinions on the upgrading of the Yellowhead Trail/82 Street intersection, cross tabulated with respondents' opinions on whether city spending for new roads should be increased, maintained or decreased. The cross tabulation shown below is given for just one neighbourhood cluster, that is, Primary Cluster 3 (which falls in' the mature neighbourhood subgroup).

I 1 1 1 1 1

RGAOYAY NEST FILE •

•

•

•

•

ICREATION

•

•

YLLOHDBL

•

•

•

•

•

CONTROLLING FOR..

PCLUSTER SUBGROUP SUB 8Y • • • * • • * * • • * •

YEL0H082

•

DATE s

•

= •

•

•

•

r

1.

1221 39.1 75.0

I 407 I 13.0 I 100.0

I I I

1357 43.5 100.0

1

38.5

I

0 .0 .0

I 1 I

271 100.0 16.7

1 1 1

0 U .0

I 1 1

0 .0 .0

1 I 1

.0

I

7.7

1

.0

I

.0

1

NO

I

136 I 4.3 1 1 100. 0

I

YES

34.6

ROW TOTAL

3121 8e. 6

I 3.8 I 11.5 1 -.--I____-_--I__

i71 7.7

........ I ........ I -------- I -------- I 1

NO OPINION

.0

I

100.0

I

J

I I

a .0

I 1

.0 1 I .~ I 8.3 1 .0 I I .0 I .0 I I .0 I 3.8 -I--_-__--I-_------1-------_I------_-I 407 136 COLUMN 1357 1628 TOTAL

38,S

46.2

3.8

11.5

130 3.6

352e 10~.Y

I

I

1 1 1 1 1 I I

76

49/21/641

NEYROAD COUNT 1 ROCT IINCREASE MAiNTAIN DcCREASE NO OPINI MONEY s ON CURRENT Co! L PCT 1 MONEY 5 4.1 1.1 :..1 3.1 TOT PCT 1 -------__-1 I -------- I ---- ----I -------- I--_

I

1

PAGE

INTRCHG YELLO-82

k-

I

09/21/84

NORTH6A.~T DISTRICT SURVEY

This cell can be interpreted as follows: "There are calculated to be 1221 individuals in households in Primary Cluster 3 (the Abbottsfield and Rundle Heights area) who, if asked, would support the Yellowhead Trail/82 Street upgrading and who would also like to maintain current spending on This number of new roads in Edmonton. individuals represents 39.1% of all individuals in the cluster who would support this interchange 75% of all and represents improvement, individuals in the cluster who would support maintenance of current spending levels on new road construction. This number also represents 34.6% of all respondents in this cluster who gave an opinion on either issue."

Since there are 11 primary clusters, 4 secondary clusters and 4 tertiary clusters in the Northeast District, this particular cross tabulation would appear 24 times, on 24 separate pages in the printout with the data calculated The for each individual cluster. reason for 24 tables instead of 19 (one for each cluster) is that a few clusters overlap two subgroups and tables. therefore produce two also be three There would "undefined" tables, one for each cluster level, representing data not falling into one of the cluster (usually reflecting categories minor coding errors or because the clusters do not cover an entire subgroup).

I

-10-

I

1 1 1

2.0

NORTHEAST DISTRICT RESIDENTS SURVEY RESULTS

2.1

Preamble

The results of the Northeast District Survey will be listed as follows: 1.

Firstly, the responses to the individual survey questions will be listed. These will be listed as responses across the entire District, and where relevant, by subgroup (i.e., older, mature and suburban neighbourhood groups). Diagrams or charts may be included to illustrate the results. A brief analysis of the results may be given.

2.

Secondly, results of cross tabulations will be given. These are intended to give a more detailed analysis of the basic data; results may be given on a subgroup or cluster basis, in order to identify differences in opinion based on the type or location of certain groups of respondents.

3.

Thirdly, nonempirical data is contained in a separate report entitled "Northeast District Survey of Residents - Open Ended Responses to Survey". The purpose is to list the specific comments provided by respondents in response to particular issues raised in the questionnaire. These issues are grouped into clusters of three or four neighbourhoods each and each cluster is accompanied by a map to illustrate some of the points raised.

I

I

I

I

2.2 1.

Results of Introductory Questions Distribution of Completed Surveys

I .

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

I '

28.4% of completed surveys came from older neighbourhoods.

36.3% of the total came from mature neighbourhoods.

.

2.

35.3% of the total came from new neighbourhoods.

Completion of Surveys by Neighbourhood .

The percentage of completed surveys from each of the neighbourhoods in the Northeast District is as follows: * (M) (0) (S) (0) (0) (S) (0) (0) (0) (S) (S) (M) (M) (S) (M) (S)

Abbotsfield Balwin Bannerman Beacon Heights Bellevue Belmont Belvedere Bergman Beverly Heights Canon Ridge Casselman Delwood Evansdale Fraser Glengarry Hairsine -

1.3% 3.8% 3.9% 3.3% 1.8% 2.8% 4.5% 0.9% 4.4% 0.6% 2.7% 4.9% 5.7% 2.4% 4.4% 3.1%

(0) (S) (S) (M) (M) (M) (S) (S) (S) (0) (0) (M) (S) (M) (S) (S)

Highlands Homesteader Kernohan Kildare Kilkenny Killarney Kirkness Lago Lindo McLeod Montrose Newton Northmount Overlanders Rundle Heights Sifton Park York -

3.9% 2.8% 3.8% 3.0% 5.6% 5.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.8% 3.1% 2.5% 4.1% 2.7% 2.2% 1.8% 3.9%

*letters denote subgroup where neighbourhood is located; (0) is "Older", (M) is "Mature" and (S) is "New Suburban".

-11-

3.

Completion of Surveys by Sex Overall, 39.9% of respondents were male, and 58.2% were female. There were more male respondents from suburban neighbourhoods (42.2%) than from older (38.9%) and mature (38.5%) neighbourhoods. This reflects the assumption that more daytime calls would tend to be answered by women whose husbands were at work during the day.

Suburban areas, with a generally younger population, tend to have more households with both husband and wife working, and therefore, more evening calls were required to contact the suburban sample.

4.

Effect of Advance Letter People were asked if they had received Mayor Decore's letter advising them of the upcoming survey. Of those completing the survey, 58.5% recalled receiving the letter, while 40.8% did not. However, of persons refusing to start the survey, only 27.5% recalled receiving the letter. This would indicate very strongly that the advance letter was a significant aid in obtaining cooperation on the survey.

5.

1 1 1 1 I

1

Neighbourhood Name Awareness 40% of people asked knew their neighbourhood name.

I

34% of people asked gave the name of the larger community, such as the subdivision name or the area structure plan name.

I

7% of people asked gave their community league name. Where the community league and the neighbourhood name were identical, it was assumed these responses were the neighbourhood name.

1

20% of people asked gave other names, or didn't know.

1

Neighbourhood name awareness was highest in older neighbourhoods where 60% of respondents knew the correct name.

Only 43% of mature neighbourhood respondents and a mere 20% of suburban neighbourhood respondents identified their neighbourhood by name.

2.3

I

Municipal Budget Responses

People were asked to imagine themselves as City Aldermen making budget decisions.

They were asked to decide if they would increase, maintain or decrease the amount of money spent on a specific list of municipal services. Generally for all services combined, responses were as follows: 31% of respondents wanted spending increased. .

56% of respondents wanted current spending levels maintained.

.

5% of respondents wanted spending decreased.

I

1 1 1 1

8% of respondents had no opinion.

Specific responses on each of the 11 service areas included in the survey are given on Table 1, by subgroup.

I

1 1

1

- 12-

I

TABLE 1 Opinions on Spending Levels for Municipal Services

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I

I

Type of Service

SubGroup

Increase Spending

Maintain Current Levels

Decrease Spending

Transit

Older Mature Suburban

23% 19% 28%

58% 55% 55%

9% 13% 7%

Fire

Older Mature Suburban

26% 32% 31%

66% 60% 64%

2% 2% 1%

Garbage Co ll ection

Older Mature

10% 12%

87% 80%

0% 5%

Suburban

12%

82%

2%

Parks

Older Mature Suburban

24% 29% 38%

61% 59% 55%

5% 4% 6%

Police

Older Mature Suburban

42% 44% 45%

55% 49% 49%

2% 2% 2%

Social Services

Older Mature Suburban

34% 37% 35%

33% 31% 38%

5% 9% 6%

Road Maintenance

Older Mature Suburban

51% 45% 49%

47% 48% 49%

1% 4% 1%

New Road Construction

Older Mature Suburban

24% 30% 27%

51% 52% 58%

15% 8% 11%

Snow Removal

Older Mature Suburban

44% 50% 47%

51% 43% 47%

3% 3% 4%

Library Service

Older Mature

14% 18%

67% 65%

2% 3%

Suburban

24%

67%

2%

Older Mature Suburban

31% 34% 27%

52% 48% 53%

6% 7% 8%

City Bylaws

I

- 13 I Older neighbourhood residents were generally the most conservative, wanting fewer increases in spending than respondents in the other two groups, with the exception of wanting more road maintenance than the other two.

More mature neighbourhood respondents wanted increased spending on new road construction, better snow removal and better bylaw enforcement. Suburban respondents generally wished to see better transit service, parks and recreational facilities and library service.

These results are predictable, given that inner city roads are older and some carry more traffic than suburban roads; therefore, there is a demand for better road maintenance in older neighbourhoods. In suburban areas, transit cuts for budgetary reasons over the last few years have reduced service to these areas. Similarly, some new residential areas have parks sites which are designated but undeveloped, again for financial reasons.

The relocation of the Dickensfield Library to the Londonderry Mall was an often repeated problem, from the standpoints of access and aesthetics, that appears to be reflected in these figures.

29% of respondents also had additional comments on city services and the city budget.

These comments are summarized in the report listing open ended responses, which illustrates all specific and additional comments provided by respondents to this survey.

2.4

Suburban Respondents' Satisfaction With Public Services

Suburban respondents were asked several questions to determine their level of satisfaction with a range of public services in their particular neighbourhoods; firstly, respondents were asked if they were generally satisfied with the public services and shopping facilities in their neighbourhood, 75% indicated they were satisfied.

Of the 23% who found suburban services inadequate, the following percentages reflect the level of dissatisfaction with particular services: . . . . . .

Bus Service 49% Recreation 37% School 35% Shopping 11% Health Facilities - 4% Libraries 4% Other 18 %

This seems consistent with suburban respondents' inclination (as shown in the previous question on municipal services) to want increased spending on bus service and parks/recreational facilities.

The other services found to be inadequate by 18% of respondents who found suburban services overall to be inadequate are detailed in the "specific comments" document.

Suburban respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the size, location and number of parks in their neighbourhood. 79% replied affirmatively. Of the 19% who were dissatisfied with suburban parks, the most common complaints were that parks are too small and/or scattered, with poor accessibility.

Specifically, the responses were as follows:

I

1 I

1 I

I

1 1 I

I

I

1 1 1 1 1 1

1

-14-

I

TABLE 2 Suburban Respondents' Satisfaction With Parks I

Dissatisfaction With The Number Of Parks

1 1

No response

I I

1 I I I I I

I 1 1 1 I

t

Dissatisfaction With The Location Of Parks 16.3%

No response

46.7%

Don't like a single large park

7.0%

Too central, visible or dominant

2.2 %

Don't like a single small park

20.9%

Too scattered, poor accessibility

28.9%

Too many parks

2.3%

Too secluded

Too many large parks

2.3%

Other

Too many small parks

2.3%

Other

2.2% 20.0

48.8%

People were also asked how they felt about the availability of other recreational facilities in their part of the city. The responses were: .

66% of respondents (suburban) are satisfied with indoor swimming pools in their area. 25% were dissatisfied, with 9% having no opinion.

.

60% are satisfied with indoor arenas in their area. having no opinion.

23% were dissatisfied, with 17%

59% are satisfied with the availability of major sports fields in their area. were dissatisfied, with 15% having no opinion. .

51% are satisfied with access to the river valley from their area. dissatisfied, with 18% having no opinion.

2.5

Commercial Streetscape Improvements

26%

31% were

Respondents were asked to priorize streetscape improvements for key commercial strips within the Northeast District.

The downtown and the eastern Yellowhead Highway entrance were also included in the evaluation, as areas which could be subject to streetscape improvements.

These improvements could include landscaping, sidewalk upgrading with special paving techniques, improved street lighting and street furniture, removal of unsightly overhead wiring, and/or cleanup of signage clutter, particularly directional traffic signage. The responses were as follows:

I

-15-

1 TABLE 3 Streetscape Improvement Priority

I Area to be Improved

High Priority

Medium Priority

Low Priority

No Priority

No Opinion

Yellowhead entrance

25%

31%

22%

12%

10%

Downtown (central business district)

34%

34%

15%

12%

5%

Fort Road strip from 66 Street to 132 Avenue

36%

33%

14%

8%

9%

Beverly strip - 118 Avenue from 34 Street to 50 Street

23%

34%

20%

10%

13% -

97 Street strip - from 127 Avenue to 135 Avenue

14%

27%

31%-

18%

10%

These results appear to indicate that, for Northeast District residents, improving the Downtown and the Fort Road commercial strip are the highest priorities. 97 Street improvements were given the lowest priority, in part because many respondents felt that traffic improvements, which have been recently carried. out on 97 Street, are all that the area needs.

2.6

1 I 1 1 1 1 I

Transit

Several transit related questions were asked. The first was to determine the frequency of transit usage by Northeast District residents. The results were that:

.

47% of respondents rarely or never use transit services.

.

31% of respondents use transit less than four times per week.

.

22% of respondents use transit more than four times per week.

I

1 I

Of the 78% of respondents who are not regular transit users, the following percentages* indicate the reasons for not using transit:

. . . . . . . . .

Don't know why - I just don't 10% Bus is too slow 5% Service is too infrequent 4% Use own vehicle 61% Fares are too high 3% Use for major sports events only 4% Too many transfers 3% Doesn't serve my usual destinations - 8% Unspecified/various other reasons 18%

*NOTE:

Total is more than 100% because respondents sometimes gave more than one reason.

1 1 1 1 1 1

I

-16-

1 User satisfaction for the 22% of the respondents who are regular transit users was reported as:

I

1 1

I

1 1 1 I

1 I 1 1 I

1

52% are very satisfied with service

.

28% are satisfied with service

.

18% are dissatisfied with service

.

2% are very dissatisfied with service

Respondents, regardless of whether or not they are regular transit users, were asked to indicate.how long they would be prepared to wait for a transfer between buses, or from the LRT to a bus. Responses were given as follows:

I

I

.

0 to 3 minutes 3% 4 to 6 minutes 13% 7 to 10 minutes 30% 11 or more minutes 43% Transfer doesn't apply for respondent - 6% Respondent wouldn't accept transfer .1% No opinion 4% It appears that approximately three quarters of all respondents, including transit nonusers, are willing to wait for 10 minutes or longer for a bus, despite Edmonton's often inclement weather.

Therefore, reducing waiting times would not appear to be a factor in encouraging greater transit usage.

2.7

Traffic and Roadway Issues

A number of traffic related questions were asked to determine opinions on localized traffic problems, as well as current transportation improvement proposals. In the first of these questions, respondents were asked to identify traffic related problems in their immediate area. The specific locations of these problems were logged and appear on maps in the separate report on open ended responses. Of the total number of respondents, the following percentages indicate the frequency of problem responses: . . . . .

Traffic shortcutting on the respondent's street - 14% Too much traffic on the respondent's street 20% People failing to obey stop or yield signs 30% Too much on-street parking 26% Other various traffic problems 33%

By subgroup within the District, these responses are listed below. The most significant deviation appears to be the failure of drivers to stop or yield at marked intersections in older neighbourhoods. This is probably facilitated by the grid street system, in which drivers may be reluctant to slow or stop on a long stretch of straight road.

I

- 17-

I TABLE 4 Local Traffic Problems

I Problem

Older Neighbourhood

Mature Suburban Neighbourhood - Neighbourhood

Total

Traffic shortcutting

16%

16%

11%

15%

Too much traffic

23%

20%

16%

20%

Failure to obey stop/yield

40%

28%

24%

30%

Too much on-street parking

23 %

27%

28%

26%

Other problems .

32%

36%

31%

33%

Proposed transportation improvements in the Northeast District, as identified in Transplan or the Ten Year Roadway Plan prepared by the Transportation Department, are supported by Northeast District respondents as follows:

1 1 1 I

1 1 1

Outer ring road construction -

79%

Upgrading of the Yellowhead Trail/82 Street interchange to a standard similar to the Yellowhead/97 Street interchange -

80%

Extend Capilano Avenue north to Manning Freeway and intersecting with Yellowhead Trail -

87%

.

Widen 82 Street to six lanes between 127 Avenue and 132 Avenue -

48%

.

Construct 153 Avenue from 97 Street to 50 Street -

50%

I

.

Grade separate the Yellowhead Trail/50 Street interchange, including CN tracks-

65%

I

Respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the driving time and driving conditions from their home to the downtown.

69% indicated they were satisfied.

Suburban respondents were predictably the least satisfied with the trip, while mature neighbourhood respondents appeared to be the most satisfied. Of the 18% of all respondents who indicated that they were dissatisfied with this trip, specific reasons were given as follows:

I

1 1 1 1 1 I

- 18-

TABLE 5 Dissatisfaction Levels With Downtown Trip

Problem

Older Neighbourhoods

Mature Neighbourhoods

Suburban Neighbourhoods

District Average

Too much traffic along the route to Downtown

52%

55%

29%

43%

A particular bottleneck en route*

16%

17 %

27 %

22%

A particular hazardous or difficult intersection

5%

0%

0%

1%

26%

36%

38%

34%

Other problems*

*details are provided in the report on open ended responses.

2.8

Tenure

73% of respondents interviewed were owners while 27% were renters. This ratio is skewed more heavily towards owners. According to 1983 Civic Census information, the overall owner/renter ratio for the Northeast District was 63:37. Contact was more easily made with homeowners.

Renters often constitute single person households where telephone contact is more difficult.

In addition, renters may also be reluctant to participate because they are more transient and have less of a stake in their neighbourhood than owners. Greater transience of renters also increased the number of "no contact" calls because people had moved and the numbers called were no longer in service. Efforts were made to maximize renter input with these problems in mind, while keeping the sample selection as random as possible. More detailed cross tabulation of tenure related information is itemized in the report on open ended responses.

2.9

Neighbourhood Crime

Respondents were asked to indicate if they felt that crime was a concern in their particular neighbourhood. 57% indicated they were concerned.

Older neighbourhood residents were the most concerned about crime (65%), while suburban residents were the least concerned (52%). Of those concerned about local crime, the following types of crime* were identified as being of the greatest concern: . . .

Theft/break-and-enter Vandalism Sexual assault Assault Other crimes

*NOTE:

77% 17% 15% 7% 12%

Total is more than 100% because some respondents indicated more than one type of crime as a concern.

I

-19-

I

2.10

Community Spirit

Respondents were asked a variety of questions regarding their neighbourhood spirit and the importance of their community leagues, and were also asked to identify problems in their neighbourhoods.

Firstly, respondents were asked to rate their neighbourhoods overall, as a place to live. Responses were as follows: Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood

is is is is

excellent - 29% good 57% fair 12% poor 2%

Secondly, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of the community league.

Only 43% of all respondents felt that their local community league was important to them, while 55% did not. 2% had no opinion.

Thirdly, people were asked to indicate whether they would contribute labour and/or money, in the hypothetical situation that their local community league took on the responsibility for local parks development and/or maintenance (the Adopt-a-Park concept). The responses were as follows:

TABLE 6 Response to "Adopt-a-Park" Concept

Yes

No

No Opinion

Willing to contribute labour

62%

33%

5%

Willing to contribute money or participate in fund raising

65%

31%

4%

1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 I

I Fourthly, respondents were asked to indicate the level of community spirit in their neighbourhood. The responses were: I . . . . .

Definite sense of community 17% Probable sense of community 31% Everyone goes their own way 40% Everyone definitely goes their own way 4% No opinion 8%

Definite sense of community was much lower in suburban areas (12% of respondents) than in older and mature neighbourhoods (about 20% each).

Finally, respondents were asked to identify any urgent neighbourhood issues or problems.

Only 21% of respondents felt that there was some particular issue. Those who felt there was a problem identified these issues as follows:*

1 I

1 1 1 1

I

-20-

I . . . . . . .

1 I

1 1 1

Traffic problems 27% Crime 20% Rundown neighbourhood appearance 5% Poor maintenance of vacant lots 5% No community spirit 2% Student bussing 2% Other problems 49%

*NOTE:

The total is more than 100% because often more than one issue was mentioned by each respondent.

Traffic was much more of an issue in mature neighbourhoods than in older and suburban areas, while crime was cited by three times as many older area residents as a problem than by mature area respondents, and by twice as many as in suburban areas.

2.11

Shopping Patterns

Respondents were asked to identify the shopping area (commercial strip, plaza or mall) at which they made their largest dollar purchases, exclusive of groceries. Responses were as follows:

I

t I

1

. . . . . . . .

Londonderry Mall 51% Northwood (Northgate) Mall - 16% Kingsway Garden Mall 11% Downtown 6% Abbotsfield Mall 4% North Town Mall 3% West Edmonton Mall 2% Bonnie Doon Mall

.

Heritage Mall Southgate Mall Westmount Mall Beverly commercial strip 97 St. commercial strip Castle Downs Town Square 137 Avenue Co-op Mall Capilano Mall No one particular area Other areas/don't know -

I

1 1 1 1 I I

I

. .

less than 0.5% each

2% 2%

Nearly half of those shopping at Londonderry Mall are from suburban neighbourhoods.

Two thirds of Northwood shoppers are from nearby mature neighbourhoods, while more than half of those shopping at Kingsway Garden Mall and Downtown are from older neighbourhoods.

2.12

School Closures

In older and mature neighbourhoods, respondents were asked to react to the idea of the closure of the neighbourhood school, if that school were significantly under enrolled. 62% of respondents indicated they would support such a decision, while 29% would not. 9% had no opinion. In the hypothetical situation that the school was closed, respondents were asked to indicate if they would rather see the building demolished and the land sold and used for housing, or retained and converted to some other purpose. The responses were as follows:

1

- 21 -

I Demolish and sell - 15% Retain and reuse - 73% No opinion 12% .Respondents were asked to consider the hypothetical situation in which the local school was closed, and was recycled for some other use. A list of potential uses was read to the respondents, and they were asked to indicate which uses they felt to be most appropriate.

More than one use could be identified as appropriate by each respondent. The results were as follows:

I

TABLE 7 Response to School After Use Proposals

Potential

1 1

Agree

Q ualified Agreement

Disagree

No

With Use

With Use

With Use

Opinion

Government Office

52%

3%

35%

10%

Private Commercial Activities

47%

5%

42%

6%

Community Recreation

81%

2%

10%

7%

Private Club

45%

4%

43%

8%

Specialized Educational Facility

90%

1%

3%

6%

Private School

73%

2%

17%

8%

Housing for Senior Citizens

71%

3%

19%

7%

1 1 I

I 1 I

2.13

I

Land Use Issues

Respondents were asked if they felt they had any influence in local planning, if they wished they had more input to local planning, and if they would support their community league being involved in local planning matters. The responses were as follows: TABLE 8 Influence in Local Planning

Yes

No

No Opinion

Respondent feels he/she has influence in local planning

19%

76%

5%

Respondent wants more influence in local planning

62%

34%

4%

Respondent supports community 89% involvement in local planning league

7%

4%

1 1 1 1 1

t 1

1

-22-

I

1 1 1 1 1 I

I

People were asked if they would be in favour of small offices-in-the-home being opened up in their neighbourhood. It was explained that such businesses are to have only one employee and cannot generate excessive traffic, nor have signage or machinery visible on the property. 74 % of respondents indicated they would not object, while 21% would. 5% had no opinion. These opinions were consistent in all three subgroups.

Respondents were also asked if they would object to basement suites neighbourhood. 50% would not mind, while 45% would. 5% had no opinion.

in

their

A number of questions were directed at specific neighbourhood subgroups, and were not asked across the District. In older neighbourhoods, people were asked how they would feel about various kinds of residential redevelopment in their neighbourhoods over the next five years if such redevelopment were to occur.

The responses were as follows: TABLE 9 Reaction to Potential Redevelopment Types Type of Redevelopment

Would Support

Conditional Support

Would Oppose

No Opinion

Duplexes

36%

6%

54%

4%

Tri or quadruplexes

18%

2%

75%

5%

Row housing

16%

2%

78%

4%

I

I

I

1 1 1 1 I

I

I

Also in older and mature neighbourhoods, respondents were asked if they would support the idea of neighbours enlarging existing houses by adding rooms or a new floor. 85% would support the idea, while 11% would not. 4% of respondents had no opinion.

- 23 -

In the new suburban neighbourhoods, respondents were asked to indicate their level of The list of elements satisfaction with a variety of neighbourhood design elements. included the mix of housing types and densities, the amount of public (subsidized) housing, the roadway design and layout, and the grouping of schools and commercial facilities into clusters. The results were:

TABLE 10 Satisfaction With Suburban Design Elements Somewhat ' Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

No Opinion

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Housing mix

23%

58%

12%

5%

2%

Amount of public housing

17%

58%

12%

5%

8%

Roadway design

31%

52%

12%

5%

0%

Clustering of schools & commercial facilities

26%

56%

11%

3%

4%

Element

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

Of those responding to the above question, 24% also had other elements that they commented on as being either very satisfied or very dissatisfied with. This additional information is listed in the report on open ended responses.

It was postulated to suburban respondents that some neighbourhoods have been designed with certain features to create a sense of special identity. A short list of such features, including streets with names instead of numbers, architectural control, street layout and design, and neighbourhood name or gateway signs at major vehicular entrances, were read to respondents to determine how these features are thought to contribute to this special neighbourhood identity. The results were as follows:

TABLE

11

Reaction to Special Neighbourhood Identity Elements

Element

Does Add To Special Identity

Does Not Add To Special Identity

No Opinion

Named instead of numbered streets

43%

52%

5%

Architectural control

68%

27%

5%

Street layout

76%

21%

3%

Neighbourhood name gateway signs

67%

30%

3%

Of suburban respondents, 25% identified other elements or features which they felt could contribute to a special neighbourhood identity. Some of these elements are listed in the report on open ended responses.

1 I

I

1 1 1 1 1

t 1

- 24-

Suburban respondents were asked if they were aware of the existence and function of the Youth Development Centre (Y.D.C.) on 34 Street near 130 Avenue, and of the Belmont Correctional Centre on 137 Avenue at Victoria Trail. 68% replied affirmatively. This question was followed up by a question postulating future development of a piece of vacant land adjacent to the Y.D.C. ( there is vacant land adjacent to the Belmont Centre as well, but that site is already slated for future hospital de v elopment). Respondents were given a short list of potential uses for the vacant site next to the Y.D.C., and asked which of these they would support. The results were:

TABLE 12 Opinions on Future Use of Vacant Y.D.C. Lands

Agree With Use

Potential Use

Qualified Agreement With Use

Disagree With Use

No Opinion

Single family housing

52 %

0%

44%

4%

A mix of various types of housing

29%

6%

59%

6%

A community college

83%

1%

15 %

1%

Expansion of the existing Y.D.C.

50%

5%

38%

7%

84%

2%

12%

2%

facility Some other kind of institutional use, such as residential and training

facilities for the handicapped 2.14

Day-care Services

Respondents whose families contained one or more children aged 12 or under were asked several day-care related questions. The first was whether or not someone looked after the child(ren) besides the parents. Of the 37% of respondents who indicated they had children aged 12 or under, the response to this question was as follows: . . .

Daily care of the child(ren) - 18% Care for part of the week 8% Occasional care 18%

Never -

56%

Therefore, only 26% of respondents with children 12 or under (9% of total sample) use some form of day-care services either daily or for part of the week. Of these respondents using some form of day-care, the following table indicates the type of day-care services used:*

-25-

. . . . . . .

Nonprofit day-care centre Private day-care centre Baby sitter in the home Live-in nanny Private home care After school care program Other -

*NOTE:

18% 8% 36% 4% 33% 5% 7%

I

1

Total is over 100% because more than one type of service was identified by many of the respondents.

Respondents using day-care services were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the service they were currently using. The responses were as follows: . . . .

Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied -

No opinion 2.15

1 I

84% 8% 6% 0%

I

I

1

2% I

Respondents' Age Profile

The 801 respondents to this survey have the following age profile:

I . . . .

5% 51% 34% 10%

of of of of

respondents respondents respondents respondents

were were were were

between between between 65 years

13 20 40 or

and 19 years old and 39 years old and 64 years old older.

1 I

I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I 1 1

t I

1 I

I

I

1 I

I 1 1 1 1 I

1

- 26 -

3.0

CROSS TABULATION RESULTS

3.1

Preamble

Cross tabulation of the survey results is performed for several reasons; firstly, cross tabulation can be used as a method to check consistency of opinion. For example, answers from respondents who state that they want better transit service can be cross tabulated with whether or not they think increased spending on transit should occur.

If the percentage of respondents wanting better service and supporting increased transit spending is higher than the average, then the validity of the responses is reinforced.

Secondly, cross tabulation is used as a method of localizing specific issues or concerns by isolating responses based on sub-groups (i.e., older, mature and suburban neighbourhoods), or derived from clusters of similar or adjacent neighbourhoods. This technique would be used, to determine, for example, if certain road improvements are more heavily favoured by people in the immediate vicinity, or to determine if certain issues are more of a problem to suburban residents than to those in older neighbourhoods.

Cross tabulations in the following sections will be listed under the headings of transit, roadways, parks, crime, community, schools, social services, land use, neighbourhood name awareness and general information.

I

-27-

I 3.2

Transit Cross Tabs

Cross tab how often respondents use bus or LRT (4a, 4a, 7a)* by sub-group, with their opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing transit spending (2a, 2a, 2a).

I

TABLE 13 Cross Tab of Transit Usage With Opinions On Transit Spending

1

Transit Budget Responses

Never Uses Transit

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

15% 63% 9% 13%

26% 57% 10% 7%

38% 49% 7% 6%

46%

34%

20%

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

14% 60% 14% 12%

22% 49% 13% 16%

28% 52% 12% 8%

Percent of Subgroup Total

52%

30%

18%

Subgroup

Older

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Uses Transit Less Than 4' Times Per Week

Uses Transit More Than 4 Times Per Week

I

1 1 1 I

1 I

Suburban

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

20% 53% 9% 18%

27% 63% 5% 5%

42% 52% 6% 0%

Percent of Subgroup Total

44%

30%

26%

*NOTE:

Number/letter series in brackets indicates the survey question number in each of the three subgroups (older, mature, suburban).

Analysis: There seems to be a correlation between frequency of transit usage and desire to see increased transit spending. Frequent transit users, particularly in older and suburban neighbourhoods, are nearly twice as likely to want increased transit spending than to want spending maintained or reduced.

1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1

- 28 -

Cross tab how satisfied respondents are with transit service (4c, 4c, 7c) by subgroup, with their opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing transit spending (2a, 2a, 2a).

TABLE

14

Cross Tab of Transit User Satisfaction With Opinions on Transit Spending Level of Satisfaction with Transit Service Subgroup

Older

Transit Budget Responses Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

30% 56% 11% 3%

37% 53% 0% 10%

67% 17% 18% 0%

50% 50% 0% 0%

50%

35%

11%

4%

15% 63% 15% 7%

25% 58% 17% 0%

60% 20% 0% 20%

100% 0% 0% 0%

Percent of Subgroup Total

54%

24%

20%

2%

Suburban

37% 57% 6% 0%

23% 65% 12% 0%

77% 23% 0% 0%

100% 0% 0% 0%

53%

26%

20%

1%

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

Analysis: Again, there is a correlation between degree of dissatisfaction with transit service and demand for more spending in this area. The confidence rate of this cross tab is somewhat lower than average, due to the relatively small sample size involved.

(Transit satisfaction was only asked of those who indicated that they were regular transit users, about 21% of the total survey sample).

3.3

Roadway and Traffic Cross Tabs

Cross tab affirmative responses on the construction of six roadway improvement proposals affecting the Northeast District (7, 7, 10), by cluster within subgroup, with the respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on new road construction (2h, 2h, 2h).

In reviewing the results of this cross tab, please note that these roadway projects are:

1

-29-

I

.

Construction of an outer ring road circling the city;

.

Upgrading of the Yellowhead Trail/82 Street interchange to a standard similar to the Yellowhead Trail/97 Street interchange;

.

Extension of the Capilano Drive north to Manning Freeway, and intersecting with Yellowhead Trail;

.

Widening of 82 Street from 127 to 132 Avenue;

.

Construction/improvement of 153 Avenue from 97 to 50 Street; and

.

Grade separation of Yellowhead Trail from 50 Street and the CN tracks.

Also note that the clusters within each subgroup are: Older Areas Cluster 1 • • • •

Bellevue Highlands Montrose Newton

Mature Areas

Suburban Areas

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

. Abbottsfield

• Canon Ridge • Homesteader • Overlanders

. Rundle Heights Cluster 8

I

• Evansdale • Kildare

. Beacon Heights

. Kilkenney

. Bergman . Beverly Heights

. Northmount

• Belmont • Hernohan • Sifton Park

Cluster 9

Cluster 6

. Delwood . Glengarry . Killarney

. Bannerman . Fraser

• Balwin • Belvedere

1

Cluster 5

Cluster 2

Cluster 10

1 1 I 1 I

I

I

I

. Hairsine . Kirkness Cluster 7 . .

Casselman McLeod

I

I

. York Cluster 11

. Lago Lindo The percentages given in the following three tables represent the percentage of respondents who gave affirmative responses for construction of each of the respective roadway proposals, cross tabulated with these respondents' opinions on the municipal roadway budget.

1 1 1 1 I

- 30-

Cross tab how respondents feel about municipal spending for new roadways (2h, 2h, 2h) by subgroup and cluster, with their opinions on specific roadway construction proposals (7, 7, 10).

TABLE 15A Cross Tab of New Roadway Budget With Specific Roadway Proposals in Older Neighbourhoods

Affirmative Opinion on Implementing New Roadways

Subgroup

Cluster

Older

1

Opinion On New Roadway Spending

Outer Ring Road

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

25% 47% 22% 6%

23% 47% 22% 8%

23% 49% 23% 5%

17% 51% 25% 7%

20% 60% 20% 0%

20% 50% 22% 8%

77%

73%

82%

50%

33%

70%

30% 57% 7% 6%

29% 60% 3% 8%

29% -58% 4% 9%

36% 53% 6% 5%

44% 48% 0% 8%

30% 55% 7% 8%

73%

69%

82%

43%

27%

67%

33% 45% 14% 8%

31% 43% 15% 11%

28% 49% 15% 8%

37% 40% 17% 6%

31% 44% 20% 5%

33% 37% 20% 10%

80%

82%

87%

38%

49%

62%

Percentage of Cluster Total 2

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percentage of Cluster Total 10

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percentage of Cluster Total

Yellowhead 82 Street Interchange

Capilano Extension

82 Street Widening 122-132 Avenues

153 Avenue From 97-50 Streets

Yellowhead 50 Street Interchange

- 31-

TABLE

15B

Cross Tab of New Roadway Budget Opinions With Specific Roadway Proposals in Mature Neighbourhoods

1 1

Affirmative Opinion on Implementing New Roadways

I

Subgroup

Cluster

Mature

3

Opinion On New Roadway Spending

Outer Ring Road

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

42% 46% 4% 8%

44% 39% 4% 13%

40% 44% 4% 12%

50% 17% 8% 25%

40% 40% 0% 20%

43% 43% 0% 14%

92%

89%

96%

46°r6

58%

81%

Percentage of Cluster Total

Yellowhead 82 Street Interchange

Capilano Extension

82 Street Widening 122-132 Avenues

153 Avenue From 97-50 Streets

Yellowhead 50 Street Interchange

1 1 1 I

8

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percentage of Cluster Total 9

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percentage of Cluster Total

38% 50% 5% 7%

38% 47% 5% 10%

38% 50% 6% 6%

39% 45% 7% 9%

38% 50%

43% 42%

8% 4%

8% 7%

78%

79%

92%

54%

60%

57%

28% 52% 12% 8%

24% 56% 11% 9%

27% 53% 10% 10%

32% 45% 11% 12%

29% 47% 10% 14%

25% 52% 13% 10%

77%

82%

81%

51%

46%

57%

1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I -32I

1

TABLE 15C Crosstab of New Roadway Budget Opinions With Specific Roadway Proposals in Suburban Neighbourhoods

Affirmative Opinion on Implementing New Roadways I

I

Subgroup

Cluster

I

Suburban

4

I

I

Opinion On New Roadway Spending

Outer Ring Road

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

22% 66% 9% 3%

27% 57% 11% 5%

23% 62% 10% 5%

35% 47% 6% 12%

23% 71% 6% 0%

24% 58% 12% 6%

76%

88%

95%

41%

41%

79%

30% 60% 10% 0%

29% 55% 12% 4%

28% 57% 11% 4%

27% 60% 10% 3%

34% 50% 13% 3%

20% 70% 10% 0%

80%

86%

92%

51%

54%

68%

30% 60% 7% 3%

31% 61% 7% 1%

27% 63% 7% 3%

32% 65% 3% 0%

22% 70% 6% 2%

26% 68% 2% 4%

77%

81%

88%

44%

60%

65%

27% 59% 10% 4%

27% 56% 11% 6%

27% 55% 12% 6%

38% 52% 7% 3%

34% 47% 13% 6%

27% 60% 7% 6%

85%

87%

85%

48%

63%

75%

60% 20% 20% 0%

72% 14% 14% 0%

56% 22% 22% 0%

60% 40% 0% 0%

57% 29% 14% 0%

67% 17% 16% 0%

100%

70%

90%

50%

70%

60%

Percentage of Cluster Total

5 I

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Yellowhead 82 Street Interchange

Capilano Extension

82 Street Widening 122-132 Avenues

153 Avenue From 97-50 Streets

Yellowhead 50 Street Interchange

I Percentage of Cluster Total

1

6

I

1 1

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percentage of Cluster Total

7

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

I Percentage of Cluster Total

1 1 I

1

11

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percentage of Cluster Total

- 33-

Analysis: Respondents in Cluster 1 (Highlands/Montrose) were distinctly less inclined to support an increased or maintained new roadway budget than the average for older neighbourhoods (24% support an increase, 51 % support maintenance of current spending).

Respondents in Clusters 2 (Beverly) and 10 (Balwin/Belvedere) tended to be more supportive of increased or maintained spending levels on new roadways. In the mature neighbourhoods, Clusters 3 (Abbottsfield/Rundle - Heights) and 8 (Dickensfield/Londonderry) were dramatically more supportive of increased roadway spending than the average for the subgroup (30 % support increased spending on the average in the subgroup). As these areas are more distant from the city core than Cluster 9 (Northgate), in which there is marginally less than average support, this is a predictable result.

In the suburban clusters, responses were consistently slightly above average (about 3-5%) in terms of support for increased new roadway spending. Only in Cluster 11 (Lago Lindo) was support dramatically higher for increased spending ( 56 to 72%, depending on the facility, vs a subgroup average of 27%). Since Cluster 11 is located at a great distance from the city centre, and new road construction is incomplete in the area, this is a predictable result.

Overall, responses supporting increased or maintained roadway spending from those supporting improvement of specific facilities were higher than average for each subgroup.

1 1 1 I

I

1 1 1 I

j

I

I

1 I 1 I

1 1

- 34 -

1 I

1

Cross tab the respondents' opinions on a list of possible traffic-related problems on their street (6, 6, 9), by subgroup, with these respondents' opinions on traffic (16b(i), 16b(i), 19b(i)).

TABLE 16 Cross Tab of Traffic Issues on Local Streets With Traffic as a Neighbourhood Issue

I

I

I

t i

Subgroup

Traffic Is An Urgent Neighbourhood Issue

Traffic Shortcutting Is A Problem

Too Much Traffic On-Street

Failure To Obey Stop And Yield Signs

Too Much On-Street Parking

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Older.

Yes No

4% 18% 14% 62%

11% 8% 22%58%

7% 12% 34%45%

1% 18% 23% 56%

Mature

Yes No

7% 35% 2°r6 54%

11% 30% 11% 46°i6

17% 24% 15% 41°r6

13% 28% 20% 39°i6

Suburban

Yes No

4% 9% 18% 69°r6

11% 11% 11% 67%

9% 13% 22% 56%

6°y616% 18% 58%

•

A NOTE:

Percentages given are of total response to each traffic problem in a given subgroup, i.e., W + X + Y + Z = 100%, as shown in sample below.

I

1 I

1 1 1 I

Older

Yes No

Yes

No

W% Y%

X% Z%

Totals do not necessarily add to 100% due to some "no opinion" responses given in some categories.

Analysis: Given that approximately 4% of all respondents (20% of 21%) felt that traffic was an urgent neighbourhood issue, it is logical to observe a higher than average percentage of respondents citing particular traffic problems on their street also indicating traffic as a neighbourhood problem. Mature neighbourhoods seem to have the greatest percentage of respondents dissatisfied with local traffic problems, particularly with drivers disobeying traffic signs, and with too much on-street parking. This situation may have arisen because many respondents from mature neighbourhoods are long time dwellers in their neighbourhoods, dating from the time these neighbourhoods were on the outskirts of the city, and saw only local traffic. With the development of outlying suburban neighbourhoods, this traffic flow has increased through mature areas to the point where some problems are now being identified. Respondents in older neighbourhoods did identify too much traffic and failure to obey traffic signage as problem areas. The problems are a function of traffic from outlying areas coming through to the downtown and of the grid street pattern which encourages drivers to disobey traffic signage at intersections.

-35-

3.4

t

Parks and Recreation Cross Tabs

Cross tab suburban respondents' opinions on satisfaction with the number, size and location of parks in their area (4a - suburban only), with the respondents' housing types (12 - suburban only).

TABLE 17 Cross Tab of Suburban Parks Satisfaction With Housing Type

1 I

Respondent Is Satisfied With Parks In Area

Single Detached Housing

Semidetached Housing

Row Housing

Suite In Overall Walk-up An House/ Subgroup Apartment Other Average.

Yes

80%

73%

76%

88%

60%

79%

No

17%

27%

21%

12%

40%

19%

Don't Know

3%

0%

3%

0%

0%

2%

1 1 1 I

Percent of Subgroup Total

53%

5%

30%

10%

2%

100%

Analysis: There appears to be little correlation between housing type and satisfaction with neighbourhood parks. It appears that respondents without private yards (i.e., those in walk-up apartments) are the most satisfied with park facilities, possibly because they rely on these parks for children's play space and to fill other recreational and leisure requirements more than do those with private yards.

1

~ 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1

-36-

1 I

Cross tab suburban respondents' satisfaction with the number, size and location of parks in their area (4a - suburban only), by Clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with the respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on parks (2d - suburban only).

TABLE 18 Cross Tab of Suburban Parks Satisfaction With Parks Budget Opinions

1

1

Respondent Is Satisfied With Parks In The Area

Suburban Cluster Number Parks Budget Responses

4

5

6

7

11

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

26% 50% 5% 2%

22% 59% 3% 0%

33% 37% 7% 1%

20% 52% 2% 2%

20% 30% 0% 0%

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

10% 3% 3% 0%

9% 5% 2% 0%

8% 11% 1% 0%

17% 5% 0% 0%

40% 0% 0% 0%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

I

1 1 1

No

TOTAL *

I

1

1 1 1 I

1 I

t

*NOTE:

Columns that add to less than 100% have some "don't know" responses which are not included in the tabulation.

Analysis: There appears to be little correlation between dissatisfaction with parks facilities and the promotion of increased spending on parks, with the exception of Cluster 11, which is the recently developed Lago Undo neighbourhood. There is little developed parks space in Lago Lindo, so this result is predictable.

1 -37-

3.5

Crime Cross Tabs

Cross tab the respondents' opinions on crime as a neighbourhood problem (11a, 11a, 14a), by subgroup and cluster, with their opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on police protection (2e, 2e, 2e).

TABLE 19 Cross Tab of Crime As a Neighbourhood Issue With Police Budget Opinions Respondent Feels Crime Is A Local Problem Yes

Suburban Clusters

1

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

23%38%41% 31%29%31% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0%

46%24%26% 19%30%26% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%

19% 30% 27% 37% 20% 23% 32% 10% 25% 20% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%

56%70%73%

65%55%54%

42% 65% 40% 64% 40%

15% 5% 5% 27%25%21% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

19%14%20% 16%24%22% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 2%

21°i612°r6 37%18% 0% 2% 0% 3%

44%30%26%

35%43%46%

58% 35% 60% 36% 60%

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total *NOTE:

Mature Clusters

2

10

3

8

9

4

5

6

7

22°r610% 31% 23% 3% 0% 4% 3%

1

1

Police Budget Responses

Percent of Subgroup Total No

Older Clusters

I .1

11

30% 30% 0% 0%

Columns that add to less than 100% have some "no opinion" responses to "crime as a local problem" which are not included in this tabulation.

Analysis: Clusters 3 (Abbottsfield/Rundle Heights), 10 (Balwin/Belvedere), 2 (Beverly) and 7 (Steele Heights) respectively have the highest ratings for crime as a problem in neighbourhoods in these clusters, averaging about 10% higher than the average for each subgroup. There also appears to be a correlation between this issue and respondents wanting to see increased spending on police services in these clusters.

I I

1 I I 11

1 I

1 1

1 1 1 1

I

I

1

- 38 -

Cross tab respondents' opinions on crime as a neighbourhood problem (11a, 11a, 14a), by subgroup, with their housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 20 Cross Tab of Crime As a Neighbourhood Issue With Housing Type

I

1 1

Subgroup

Older

64% 35%

67% 33%

67% 33%

67% 33%

1%

0%

0%

0%

. 0%

Percent of Subgroup Total 82%

4%

1%

7%

1%

I

1 I

1 I

Housing Type Respondent Feels That Crime Is A Walk- High-. Suite Overall Local Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Problem Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average Yes No

No Opinion

Mature

50% 60% 50% 40%

88% 12%

65% 34%

0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

100%

67% 50% 33% 50%

33% 67%

55% 44%

Yes No

57% 42%

61% 39%

53% 47%

45% 55%

No Opinion

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Percent of Subgroup Total 63%

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

50% 50%

67% 33%

56% 44%

40% 60%

0% 0%

0% 0%

80% 20%

52% 48%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Percent of Subgroup Total 53%

5%

30%

10%

0%

0%

2%

100%

Suburban

Yes No No Opinion

I

t 1 1 I

I

I

Analysis: Only responses from single detached, row housing and walk-up apartment dwellers can be meaningfully considered in this cross tab, because of the low representation of the other groups. Walk-up apartment dwellers in mature and suburban neighbourhoods feel less concerned about crime as a neighbourhood issue than do the other groups, perhaps because of the inherent security aspect of many walk-up apartment buildings. Residents of older neighbourhoods appear more concerned about crime than do residents of mature and suburban neighbourhoods.

I

- 39-

Cross tab the respondents' opinions on crime as a neighbourhood problem (lla, lla, 14a), by sub-group with their tenure (10, 10, 13).

1 I

TABLE 21 Cross Tab of Crime As a Neighbourhood Issue With Tenure

I Subgroup

Older

Respondent Feels That Crime Is A Problem

Owner

Yes No No Opinion

64% 36% 0%

68% 30% 2%

65% 35% 0%

78%

22%

100%

57% 43% 0%

52% 48% 0%

55% 45% 0%

70%

30%

100%

52% 48%

51% 49%

52% 48%

0%

0%

0%

73%

27%

100%

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total Yes No

Suburban

No Opinion Percent of Subgroup Total

Analysis:

Tenure Renter

Overall Subgroup Average

Renters in older neighbourhoods are the most concerned about neighbourhood

crime, despite the fact that overall, walk-up apartment and row housing dwellers (per

Table 20), who are generally renters, are less concerned about crime than other groups.

This may indicate that there is more single detached rental accommodation in older areas,

or that there has been more crime apparent to residents of older neighbourhoods,

particularly renters.

1 1 1 1 I

1 I

1

t 1 1 1 1

t I

-40-

1

Cross tab the respondents' opinions on crime as a neighbourhood problem (lla, lla, 14a) by subgroup with their neighbourhood rating (12, 12, 15).

I

TABLE 22 Cross Tab of Crime As a Neighbourhood Issue With Neighbourhood Rating

1 I

1 I .1 I

1 I

1 I

1 I

1 1 I

Subgroup

Respondent Feels That Crime Is A Problem

Neighbourhood Rating Good

Fair

63% 37% 0%

61% 39% 0%

80% 18% 2%

86% 14 % 0%

65% 35% 0%

31%

50%

16%

3%

100%

44% 56% 0%

60% 39% 1%

58% 42% 0%

67% 33% 0%

56% 44% 0%

Percent of Subgroup Total

27%

60%

12%

1%

100%

Suburban

47% 53%

53% 47%

61% 39%

66% 33%

52% 48%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

29%

59%

9%

3%

100%

Older

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Yes No No Opinion

Yes No

No Opinion Percent of Subgroup Total

Excellent

Overall Subgroup Average

'

Poor

Analysis: There appears to be a correlation between an affirmative response to crime as a neighbourhood issue and a poor neighbourhood rating. The poorer the neighbourhood rating given, the greater the proportion of respondents in that rating group who feel that crime is a local problem. This result would indicate that there is a negative effect on the perceived quality of life, if one feels that crime is a problem in one's neighbourhood.

I

-41I Cross tab respondents' opinions as to which of several types of crime is the most significant crime concern in their neighbourhood (11b(i), 11b(i), 14b(i)), by cluster and subgroup.

I

TABLE 23 Cross Tab of Respondents' Crime Concerns by Cluster and Subgroup 'I

Subgroup

Cluster

Older

1 2 10

Most Significant Crime Concern of Those Respondents Concerned with Neighbourhood Crime

I

Theft/ Break-in

1

Vandalism

Sex Crimes

Assault

79% 83% 73%

15% 7% 24%

20% 21% 14%

5% 9% 7%

78%

15%

18%

7%

71% 83% 85%

24% 16% 19%

6% 8% 14%

12% 4% 10%

82%

18 %

10%

7%

I

I

Average Subgroup Response Mature

3 8 9

Average Subgroup Response

1 1 I

Suburban

4 5 6 7 11

67% 69% 68% 76% N/A*

22% 5% 32% 14% N/A

17% 23% 10% 19% N/A

6% 13% 3% 5% N/A

I

I

Average Subgroup Response Note*:

71%

18%

17%

7%

1

Sample was too small to include in analysis.

Analysis: Theft and break-ins seem to be the crimes of greatest concern in Clusters 2, 8, and 9, areas in which there are high concentrations of owner-occupied single detached dwellings. Vandalism seemed to concern people in areas where there is more rental accommodation (Clusters 3, 6, 10 and 4). Sex crimes were considered a problem by almost twice as many respondents in older and suburban areas than in mature neighbourhoods.

Results on this crime area may be skewed, as the survey was being conducted prior to the capture of the so-called "North Side Rapist", who had attacked women in some of the neighbourhoods in the District. Concern about assault was the lowest of these four crime types, and was generally evenly. distr ibu ted through all subgroups.

I

1 I

I 1

I

-42-

i

3.6

I

Cross tab the importance of the community league to the respondents (13, 13, 16) by subgroup, with respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

I

TABLE 24 Cross Tab of Importance of Community League With Housing Type

Community Related Cross Tabs

1

Housing Type

I Subgroup

Community League Is Important

Single

Semi-

Row

Detached detached Housing

Walk- High- Suite Overall up rise In A Other Subgroup Apt.

Apt. House

Average

I

1 1

~

Older

Yes No

46% 53%

25% 75%

33% 67%

Percent of Subgroup Total 82%

4%

1%

51% 48%

50% 50%

44% 56%

23% 0% 0% 0% 77% 100% 100% 67%

Percent of Subgroup Total 63%

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

49% 51%

50% 50%

40% 59%

20% 76%

0% 0%

0% 20% 0% 60%

43% 56%

Percent of Subgroup Total 53%

5%

30%

10%

0%

0%

Mature

Yes No

28% 0% 0% 38% 61% 100% .100% 50% 7%

1%

2%

3%

42% 56% 100%*

45% 54%

I

1 1

Suburban

*NOTE:

I

1 1 1 1

Yes No

2%

100%

Some totals add to less than 100% because "no opinion" responses have been deleted from this tabulation.

Analysis: There is not much difference in overall feeling towards community league importance between any of the three subgroups. Among housing types, however, it is interesting to note that respondents living in walk-ups, high-rise apartments, suites in houses, and other types of multi-family rental accommodation feel the community league is less important to them than do respondents living in single detached, two family and row housing units.

I

-43I Cross tab the importance of the community league to the respondents (13, 13, 16) by subgroup, with respondents' tenure (10, 10, 13).

TABLE 25 Cross Tab of Importance of Community League With Tenure Tenure Subgroup Older

Community League Is Important Yes No

Own Rent 45% 54%

30% 65%

Overall Subgroup Average 42% 46%

I

1 1 1 I

Percent of Subgroup Total

78%

22%

100%*

49% 50%

36% 63%

45% 54%

Percent of Subgroup Total

70%

30%

100%

Suburban

46% 52%

33% 65%

43% 56%

Mature

Yes No

Yes No

I

I Percent of Subgroup Total

*NOTE:

73%

26%

100%

1

Some totals add to less than 100% because "no opinion" responses have been deleted from this tabulation.

Analysis: Renters, as might be expected, consistently feel less strongly about the importance of the community league than do owners, by an average of about 12%. There does not appear to be any difference in opinion based on subgroups - results are consistent in all subgroups.

I

I

~ 1 1 I 1

I

I

1

-44-

Cross tab the importance of the community league to the respondents (13, 13, 16), by subgroup, with the respondents' ages (26b, 26b, 28b).

TABLE 26 Cross Tab of Importance of Community League With Age

I

Respondents' Ages

1 1 i

I

Subgroup Older

Community League Is Important

13 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 64,

Yes No

26% 74%

45% 54%

46% 51%

32% 65%

41% 57%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

53% 47%

48% 51%

47% 53%

18% 82%

45% 54%

6%

44%

44%

6%

100%

33% 67%

44% 56%

46% 48%

20% 80%

43% 56%

4%

75%

17%

4%

100%

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Yes No

1

Percent of Subgroup Total

i

Suburban

I

1 1 1 I

1 I

I

Yes No

Percent of Subgroup Total

65 +

Overall Subgroup Average

Analysis: Community leagues appear to be most important to the 20-39 year age group, those most likely to have children who may benefit from the usual types of community league children's activities. They are least important to seniors and to teenagers. This graph also illustrates the skewing of age groups in the subgroups, with a generally older population in the older neighbourhoods, getting progressively younger into the mature and suburban areas.

-45-

1 Cross tab the importance of the community league to the respondents (13, 13, 16), by subgroup, with the respondents' household types.

I

TABLE 27 Cross Tab of Importance of Community League With Household Type

t

Household Types

Subgroup

Older

Community League Is Important

Yes No

% of Subgroup Total Mature

Yes No

% of Subgroup Total

1 2 3+. Under 1 2 3+ 20 Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults House- Other House- House- House& & & hold hold hold Child- Child- Child- hold ren ren ren

Overall Subgroup Average

29% 65%

33% 64%

37% 59%

30% 70%

55% 45%

53% 47%

0% 100%

50% 40%

42% 56%

12%

30%

10%

4%

25%

15%

0%

4%

100%

25% 70%

29% 71%

42% 58%

54% 46%

60% 38%

52% 48%

0% 0%

0% 100%

45% 54%

7%

27%

13%

8%

34%

9%

0%

1%

100%

15% 77%

38% 60%

7% 80%

61% 39%

51% 49%

50% 50%

0% 0%

0% 100%

43% 56%

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

Suburban

Yes No

I

% of Subgroup Total

5%

24%

6%

5%

48%

9%

0%

3%

100% I

Analysis: Community leagues appear to be significantly more important to households with children than to adult-only households, although single parent households appear to ascribe less importance than do two or three adults-plus-children households.

1 I

1 1 I

I

I

I

-46-

Cross tab the respondents' neighbourhood ratings (12, 12, 15), by subgroup, with the respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

I

TABLE 28 Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Rating With Housing Type

I

1 1

Housing Type

Subgroup

Older

Neighbourhood Rating

33% 50% 14% 3%

42% 50% 8% 0%

0% 100% 0% 0%

17% 44% 33% 6%

0% 50% 50% 0%

Percent of Subgroup Total 82%

4%

1%

6%

2%

31% 39% 6% 0%

28% 50% 17% 5%

16% 56 % 24 % 4%

23% 55% 22% 0%

Percent of Subgroup Total 63%

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

40% 54% 5% 1%

8% 58% 34% 0%

16% 65% 13% 6%

24% 64% 8% 0%

Percent of Subgroup Total 53%

5%

30%

10%

I

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Walk- High- . Suite Overall Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average 20% 25% 40% 50% 40% 25% 0% 0%

31% 50% 16% 3%

I

1

Mature

r 1 1 1 1 I 1 I

I

1

Suburban

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Excellent Good Fair Poor

2%

3%

100%

33% 0% 33% 100% 33% 0% 0% 0%

33% 67% 0% 0%

27 % 60% 12% 1%

1%

100%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 20% 0% 80% 0% 0% 0% 0%

29% 59% 9% 3%

0%

0%

2%

100%

Analysis: Respondents in walk-up apartment and row housing units generally perceived a lower level of neighbourhood quality than did respondents in low density housing. It is interesting to note the very low level of "excellent" responses for suburban semidetached dwellers, much lower than the level for apartment and row housing.

I

-47-

1 Cross tab respondents' neighbourhood ratings (12, 12, 15), by subgroup, with their evaluation of their neighbourhood's community spirit (15, 15, 18).

TABLE

I

29

Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Rating With Community Spirit

I Sense of Community Spirit

People Neighbourhood Definite Probable People Definitely No Overall Subgroup Rating Sense Of Sense Of Go Their Go Their Opinion Subgroup Community Community Own Way Own Way Average Older

Excellent Good Fair Poor

58% 33% 9% 0%

31% 56% 10% 3%

22% 48% 26% 4%

13% 50% 37% 0%

17% 78% 5% 0%

31% 50% 16% 3%

20%

29%

40%

3%

8%

100%

38% 60% 2% 0%

22% 68% 10% 0%

27% 52% 18% 3%

27% 46% 27% 0%

24% 67% 9% 0%

28% 59% 12% 1%

Percent of Subgroup Total

19%

31%

38%

4%

8%

100%

Suburban

37% 53% 10% 0%

29% 61% 8% 2%

28% 56% 12% 3%

20% 50% 10% 20%

27% 73 % 0% 0%

29% 59% 9% 3%

12 %

34%

41%

4%

9%

100%

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Excellent Good Fair Poor

1 I

1 1 1

r I

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Percent of Subgroup Total

Analysis: There appears to be a general correlation between the level of interaction between community members and the perception of the quality of that neighbourhood; that is, the greater the sense of community, the better the neighbourhood rating. This correlation appears particularly well defined in the older subgroup and less defined in the suburban areas, which have not had as much time to evolve an identifiable community sense.

I

I

1 1 I

1 1 1

I

1 I 1 1

-48-

Cross tab the respondents' willingness to contribute labour and/or money to a parks selfhelp program (14a, 14a, 17a) (14b, 14b, 17b), by subgroup, with the respondents' ages (26b, 26b, 28b).

TABLE 30 Cross Tab of Willingness to Participate in Parks Self-Help Program with Age of Respondents Ages of Respondents Subgroup

Willing To Contribute...

13 to 19 Years Old

20 to 39 Years Old

40 to 64 Years Old

65 Years And Over

Overall Subgroup Average

Older

Labour - Yes Labour - No

74% 26%

60% 33%

55% 36%

31% 58%

53% *39%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

68% 32%

61% 32%

57% 36%

29% 55%

53% *38%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

71% 29%

71% 24%

58% 38%

47% 47%

64% *32%

6%

44%

44%

6%

100%

65% 35%

78% 19%

63% 37%

35% 59%

68% *29%

6%

44%

44%

6%

100%

44% 56%

67% 30%

80% 18%

33% 56%

68% *30%

4%

75%

18%

4%

100%

67% 33%

74% 24%

61% 34%

44% 44%

70% *27%

4%

75%

18%

3%

100%

I

I

t 1 1 1 1 1 1

Percent of Subgroup Total Money - Yes Money - No

Percent of Subgroup Total

Mature

Percent of Subgroup Total Money - Yes Money - No Percent of Subgroup Total Suburban

I

I

1 1

Labour - Yes Labour - No

Percent of Subgroup Total Money - Yes Money - No Percent of Subgroup Total NOTE:

I

Labour - Yes Labour - No

.

Totals come to less than 100% where "no opinion" responses have been deleted from tabulation ( about 5% of total in each subgroup).

-49I Analysis: In older neighbourhoods, the desire to contribute either time or money is highest in the youngest respondents and drops off with each older age group. The same is true of the labour contribution in mature neighbourhoods, but willingness to contribute money in mature areas is consistently high in all age groups except for seniors. In suburban areas, 80% of respondents between 40 and 64 said they would contribute labour, which is an unusual and interesting statistic, given that older respondents would presumably want to do less labour, and contribute money instead. Senior citizens, who may have limited sources of income, may wish to contribute neither, and this appears to be the trend. Support from older areas is lower for all age groups together, than the other two subgroups, presumably because these older areas have existing parks facilities and lower median incomes.

I

1 I

1 I

1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

t I

1

Cross tab the respondents' willingness to contribute labour and/or money to a parks selfhelp program (14a, 14a, 17a) (14b, 14b, 17b), by subgroup, with the respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 31 Cross Tab of Willingness to Participate in Parks Self-Help Program With Housing Type

I

1

Housing Types

Subgroup

Willing To

Single

Semi-

Row

Walk- High- Suite Overall up rise • In A Other Subgroup

Contribute Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Older

Labour - Yes Labour - No No Opinion

54% 37% 9%

36% 55% 9%

33% 67% 0%

50% 39% 11%

82%

4%

1%

7%

56% 36% 8%

55% 36% 9%

33% 67% 0%

44% 39% 17%

82%

4%

1%

7%

63% 33% 3%

55% 39% 6%

68% 27% 5%

71% 23% 6%

63%

7%

16%

11%

66% 31% 3%

67% 33% 0%

80% 20% 0%

65% 29% 6%

% of Subgroup Total

63%

7%

16%

11%

1%

Suburban Labour - Yes Labour - No No Opinion

70% 26% 4%

75% 25% 0%

64% 33% 0%

56% 44% 0%

% of Subgroup Total

53%

5%

30%

70% 27% 3%

83% 17% 0%

53%

5%

% of Subgroup Total Money - Yes Money - No No Opinion

I

1 1 1 I

1 1 I I

% of Subgroup Total

Mature

Labour - Yes Labour - No No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total

Money - Yes Money - No No Opinion

Money - Yes Money - No No Opinion % of Subgroup Total

50% 40% 50% 60% 0% 0%

Average 38% 50% 12%

52% 39% 9%

2%

3%

100%

0% 60% 100% 40% 0% 0%

38% 50% 12%

54% 38% 8%

2%

3%

100%

67% - 50% 33% 50% 0% 0%

67% 33% 0%

64% 32% 4%

1%

1%

100%

67% 100% 33% 0% 0% 0%

33% 33% 33%

68% 29% 3%

1%

1%

100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

100% 0% 0%

67% 30% 3%

10%

0%

0%

2%

100%

71% 27% 2%

64% 32% 4%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

80% .

20% 0%

70% 27% 3%

30%

10%

0%

0%

2%

100%

1%.

1%

1%

I - 51-

I Analysis: There appears to be little correlation between housing type and the willingness to contribute labour and/or money for local parks self-help programs. Overall willingness to contribute is much lower among older neighbourhoods than the other two subgroups.

Cross tab the respondents' opinions on local traffic problems (6a, b, c, d, 6a, b, c, d, 9a, b, c, d), by subgroup, with the respondents' neighbourhood ratings (1-2, 12, 15).

TABLE 32 Cross Tab of Opinions on Local Traffic Problems With Neighbourhood Satisfaction Ratings

Traffic Shortcutting

Too Much Traffic

Failure To Obey Signage

Too Much On-Street Parking

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

13% 18% 19% 14%

87% 79% 76% 86%

20% 80% 24%75% 29%69% 14%86%

38% 41% 38% 43%

62% 57% 58% 57%

16% 84% 21%76% 38%60% 29%71%

16% 81%

23% 76%

40% 59%

23°r6 76%

16% 15% 21% 0%

84% 82% 79% 100%

13%87% 21%78% 30% 70% 33% 67%

25% 26% 46% 0%

72% 72% 52% 100%

19%81% 28%72% 36% 64% 67% 33%

Percent of Subgroup Average

16% 83%

20% 79%

28% 70%

27% 73%

Suburban

3% 93% 15% 85% 17% 83% 0% 100%

14%84% 18% 82°r6 13°r6 87% 17% 83°r6

25% 74% 21% 78% 48% 52% 0% 100%

19%81% 30%70% 44% 56% 17% 83°r6

11% 87%

16% 83%

24% 75%

28°r6 72°r6

Subgroup Older

Neighbourhood Ratings

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Percent of Subgroup Average

I

1 1 1 1 I 1 I

Mature

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Percent of Subgroup Average

I

1 I

I

I Analysis: Generally, there is less likelihood of a fair neighbourhood rating if there are no traffic problems in that neighbourhood. Responses to "poor" neighbourhood ratings should not be considered in this cross tab because of the small sample size of this group. "Fair" ratings received the highest percentage of traffic related complaints.

1 1 1 I

1

-52-

I

1 1 I

1 1 1 I

Cross tab respondents' opinions on their influence in local planning matters (19a, 19a, 22), by subgroup with respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 33 Cross Tab of Influence in Local Planning With Housing Type Housing Types Respondent Feels He Has Influence Walk- High- Suite Overall Subgroup In Local Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Planning Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average Older

Yes No No Opinion

18% 76% 6%

25% 75% 0%

33% 67% 0%

11% 83% 6%

82%

4%

1%

7%

Yes No

20% 76%

11% 72%

9% 89%

13% 87 %

No Opinion

4%

17%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

% of Subgroup Responses

63%

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

Suburban

25% 67% 8%

33% 67% 0%

23% 72% 5%

8% 88% 4%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

20% 80% 0%

23% 71% 6%

53%

5%

30%

10%

0%

0%

2%

100%

% of Subgroup Responses

Mature

0% 0% 100%100% 0% 0%

13% 75% 12%

18% 77% 5%

3%

100%

0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

16% 80%

1%

2%

I

1 1

Yes No No Opinion

% of Subgroup Responses I

1 1 1 I

I

I

Analysis: Apartment dwellers tend to feel as if they have little influence in local planning. This may be due to the fact that there are more renters in apartment units than owners, and that the issue is actually one of tenure. Tenure is examined in the next cross tabulation.

- 53-

1 Cross tab respondents' opinions on their influence in local planning matters (19a, 19a, 22), by subgroup with respondents' tenure (10, 10, 13).

I TABLE 34 Cross Tab of Influence in Local Planning With Tenure I

Subgroup

Respondent Feels He Has Influence In Local Planning

Tenure Owner

Renter

Other

Overall Subgroup Average

1 I

Older

Yes No

18% 77%

15% 78%

5%

7%

50% 50% 0%

18% 77% 5%

77%

22%

' 1%

100%

18% 78% 4%

11% 84%

5%

0% 0% 0%

16% 80% 4%

Percent of Subgroup Responses

70%

30%

0%

100%

Suburban

Yes No

25% 68%

17% 79%

0% 100%

No Opinion

23% 71%

7%

4%

0%

6%

No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Responses Mature

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Responses

73%

26%

1%

1 1 1 1 I

I

100% I

Analysis: The result is more clear cut here than in the previous cross tab, in definitely feel that they have less influence than do owners of their Involvement seems highest in suburban areas, possibly due to the idea that perceive that they are coming in to a newly developing community, and can in its planning, rather than feeling like an outsider moving into an neighbourhood.

that renters own homes. people may get involved established

1 1 1

t 1 I

I

- 54 -

1

t 1 1 1

Cross tab respondents' opinions on wanting more influence in local planning (19b, 19b, 23a), by subgroup with respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 35 Cross Tab of Wanting More Local Planning Input With Housing Type

Subgroup

Older

Yes No

59% 34%

50% 50%

67% 33%

44% 56%

25% 75%

No Opinion

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

20%

12%

7%

82%

4%

1%

7%

1%

2%

3%

100%

Yes No

56% 37%

50% 39%

56% 42%

65% 35%

67% 33%

50% 33% 50% 67%

56% 38%

No Opinion

7%

11%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

% of Subgroup Responses

63%

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

Suburban

71% 28% 1%

58% 42% 0%

76% 20% 4%

64% 36% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 80% 0% 20% 0% 0%

71% 27% 2%

53%

5%

30%

10%

0%

0%

I

1 I

Housing Type Respondent Wants More Influence Walk- High-'Suite Overall In Local Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Planning Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average

% of Subgroup Responses

Mature

60% 88% 20% 0%

58% 35%

I

I

1 1 I

1 1 I

1

Yes No No Opinion

% of Subgroup Responses

2%

100%

Analysis: Respondents in multi-unit housing generally seem to want more influence than they feel they currently have, in local planning matters. An interesting statistic is that, even though more single detached residents have indicated that they feel they have influence in local planning than the other two subgroups, they are also significantly higher than the other two subgroups in wanting more influence than they currently have. This would be expected of respondents in neighbourhoods with a large number of fairly young families with children, who have an interest in future events in their neighbourhoods.

- 55-

1 Cross tab respondents' opinions on wanting more influence in local planning (19b, 19b, 23a), by subgroup with respondents' tenure (10, 10, 13).

I

TABLE 36 Cross Tab of Wanting More Local Planning Input With Tenure I

Subgroup Older

Respondent Feels He Wants More Influence In Local Planning

Owner

Renter

Other

Yes No No Opinion

59% 34% 7%

53% 40% 7%

100% 0% 0%

58% 35% 7%

77%

22%

1%

100%

54% 39% 7%

61% 36% 3%

0% 0% 0%

56% 38% 6%

70%

30%

0%

100%

Percent of Subgroup Responses Mature

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Responses

Tenure Overall Subgroup Average

1 1 I

1 1 1 I

Suburban

Yes No

No Opinion Percent of Subgroup Responses

73% 26%

67% 30%

100% 0%

71% 27%

1%

3%

0%

2%

I

73%

26%

1%

100%

I

Analysis: In older and suburban areas, owners would like to have more influence in local planning matters. As in the related cross tab of "wanting more influence by housing type", where positive responses from single detached unit respondents were greater than the other two groups, a higher percentage of suburban owners would like more influence in local planning.

It appears that single unit home ownership is a major factor in determining the level of commitment to involvement in local planning issues.

1 I

1 1 I

1

-56-

1 1

Cross tab respondents' support of community league involvement in local planning (19c, 19c, 23b), by subgroup with respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 37 Cross Tab of Community League Involvement With Housing Types

I

1 1 I

Subgroup

Older

Respondent Supports Housing Types Community League Involvement Walk- High- Suite Overall In Local Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Planning Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average Yes No No Opinion

86% 9% 5%

92% 8% 0%

33% 67% 0%

72% 28% 0%

82%

4%

1%

7%

1%

Yes No

91% 3%

89% 6%

89% 7%

90% 3%

No Opinion

6%

5%

4%

% of Subgroup Responses

63%

7%

Suburban

90% 6% 4%

53%

50% 100% 75% 25% 0% 0% 25% 0% 25%

84% 11% 5%

I

1

% of Subgroup Responses

Mature

I

1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I

Yes No No Opinion

% of Subgroup Responses

2%

3%

100%

67% 0%

50% 33% 50% 33%

89% 4%

7%

33%

0% 33%

7%

16%

11%

1%

100% 0% 0%

92% 7% 1%

92% 8% 0%

5%

30%

10%

' 1%

1%

100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 80% 0% 20% 0% 0%

91% 6% 3%

0%

0%

2%

100%

Analysis: There does not appear to be any significant correlation between housing types and the opinion of respondents on the issue of community league involvement in local planning. Although support is strong in all subgroups, it is lower in older neighbourhoods than in the other two subgroups.

- 57I Cross tab respondents' support of community league involvement in local planning (19c, 19c, 23b), by subgroup, with respondents' tenure (10, 10, 13).

I

TABLE 38 Cross Tab of Community League Involvement in Local Planning With Tenure

I Respondent Supports

Subgroup Older

Community League Involvement In Local Planning

Owner

Renter

Other

Yes No No Opinion

85% 10% 5%

82% 13% 5%

100% 0% 0%

84% 11% 5%

77%

22%

1%

100%

90% 4% 6%

87% 6% 7%

0% 0% 0%

89% 4% 7%

70%

30%

.0%

100%

Tenure Overall Subgroup Average

1 I

Percent of Subgroup Responses Mature

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Responses

1 1 I

Suburban

Yes No

92% 5%

89% 11%

100% 0%

91% 6%

No Opinion

3%

0%

0%

3%

I

73%

26%

1%

100%

1

Percent of Subgroup Responses

Analysis: Renters appear to be marginally less supportive of community league involvement in local planning than are owners, although support is consistently high in both groups.

Again, support for this concept is lowest in the older neighbourhood subgroup.

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

I

- 58-

3.7

School Closure Cross Tabs

Cross tab respondents' opinions on the demolition or retention of a closed school (25a, 24 older and mature only), by subgroup and by clusters 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, with the respondents' housing types (9, 9 - older and mature only).

TABLE 39A Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue With Housing Type - Older Neighbourhods Housing Types

Subgroup Cluster

Older

1

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Single SemiRow Detached detached Housing

Walk- High- Suite up rise In A Other Apt. Apt. House

14% 71% 15%

0% 0% 0%

Percent of Cluster Response85%

6%

0%

4%

1%

3%

1%

, 100%

13% 79%

8%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

20% 60% 20%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

25% 50% 25%

14% 76% 10%

Percent of Cluster Response89%

0%

0%

6%

0%

0%

5%

100%

14% 75% 11%

0% 80% 20%

0% 50% 50%

11% 89% 0%

0% 0% 67% 100% 33% 0%

0% 67% 33%

11% 76% 13%

Percent of Cluster Response68%

7%

3%

12%

4%

2%

4%

100%

4%

1%

7%

1%

2%

3%

100%

2

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Response

82%

50% 0% 25% 100% 25% 0%

0% 0% 33% 100% 67% 0%

Overall Subgroup Average

11% 75 % 14%

10

1 1 1 1 1 1

Respondents Opinion

12% 72% 16%

1 1

- 59-

TABLE

39B

Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue With Housing Type - Mature Neighbourhods

I Housing Types

Subgroup Cluster

Mature

3

Respondents Opinion

Walk- High- Suite up rise In A Other Apt. Apt. House

Overall Subgroup Average

10% 77% 73%

0% 100% 0%

42% 58% 0%

0% 100% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

22% 75% 3%

Percent of Cluster Response 29%

4%

45%

22%

0%

0%

0%

100%

12% 78% 10%

0% 100% 0%

16% 74% 10%

16% 0% 74°i6100% 10% 0%

0% 0% 0%

50% 50% 0%

13% 77% 10%

Percent of Cluster Response 69%

1%

14%

14%

0%

1%

100%

19% 62% 19%

25% 69% 6%

21% 57% 21%

33% 50% 0% 0% 67% 50% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21% 63% 16%

Percent of Cluster Response 62%

.15°r6

13%

5%

2%

2%

1%

100%

7%

16 %

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

8

9

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Single SemiRow Detached detached Housing

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Response

63%

1%

Analysis: Respondents in single detached homes give a slightly higher than average preference to building retention. Responses are fairly consistent in all areas, allowing for One discrepancies in some of the categories in which there were few respondents. significant deviation is in Cluster 9 (Northgate), where fewer than the average number of respondents favour retention.

1 I I

1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

I

1

- 60-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on the demolition or retention of a closed school (25a, 24 older and mature only), by subgroup and by Clusters 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, with the age of the respondents (26b, 26b - older and mature only).

TABLE 40A Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue With Age - Older Neighbourhoods Age Groups Subgroup

Cluster

Older

13 to 19

20 to 39

Demolish Retain

20% 80%

20% 74%

13% 74%

0% 65%

12% 72%

0%

6%

13%

35%

16%

5%

32%

36%

27%

100%

Demolish Retain

17% 83%

19% 76%

14% 76%

7% 73%

14% 76%

No Opinion

0%

5%

10%

20%

10%

7%

25%

50%

18%

100%

25% 75% 0%

11% 79% 10%

7% 78% 15%

8% 67% 25%

11% 76% 13%

11%

37%

36%

16%

100%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

No Opinion Percent of Cluster Response

Percent of Cluster Response 10

Overall Subgroup.

Average

Respondents Opinion

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response

40 to 64

65 +

I

1 I

1 1 I

1

Percent of Subgroup Response

- 61-

TABLE 40B Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue With Age - Mature Neighbourhoods Age Groups

Subgroup

Cluster

Mature

3

Respondents Opinion

13 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 64

65 +

Overall Subgroup Average

Demolish Retain No Opinion

0% 100% 0%

25% 70% 5%

0% 100% 0%

0% 0% 0%

19% 77% 4%

4%

77%

19%

0%

100%

0% 91% 9%

15% 75% 10%

14% 73% 13%

10% 90% 0%

13% 77% 10%

8%

44%

41%

7%

100%

20% 60% 20%

29% 66% 5%

17% 63% 20%

14% 57% 29%

21% 63% 16%

Percent of Cluster Response 8

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response 9

Demolish Retain No Opinion

1 1 1 I

1 1 I

1 1 I

Percent of Cluster Response Percent of Subgroup Response Analysis:

5%

35%

54%

6%

100%

6%

43%

44%

6%

100%

Younger age groups seem to prefer retention and reuse of a surplus school in

I

I

their neighbourhood. Older age groups don't have a stronger preference for demolition, but rather, voice "no opinion" as an answer, perhaps feeling that since they don't use

school facilities, they don't want to voice an opinion.

I

1 I

I

1 I

1 -62I

1

Cross tab respondents' opinions on the demolition or retention of a closed school (25a, 24 older and mature only), by subgroup and by Clusters 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, with respondents' household types.

I

Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue With Household Type - Older Neighbourhoods

TABLE

41A

t 1 1

Household Types

Subgroup Cluster

Older

1

I

1

2

I

1 1 1 1 1 I

1

Demolish Retain No Opinion

0% 69% 31%

18% 65% -17%

0% 78% 22%

0% 100% 0%

20% 76% 4%

10% .80% 10%

0% 0% 0%

0% 75% 25%

12% 72% 16%

15%

38%

8%.

3%

23%

9%

0%

4%

100%

18% 73% 9%

20% 72% 8%

0% 80% 20%

0% 0% 0%

11% 85% 4%

20% 70% 10%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 100%

14% 76% 10%

13%

30%

12%

0%

32%

12%

0%

1%

100%

Demolish Retain

0% 71%

12% 76%

13% 75%

0% 86%

20% 73%

11% 78%

0% 100%

0% 67%

11% 76%

No Opinion

29%

12%

12%

14%

7%

11%

0%

33%

13%

9%

22%

11%

9%

20%

24%

1%

4%

100%

13%

30%

10%

4%

25%

15%

0%

3%

100%

Percent of Cluster Response

I

1

Respondents Opinion

Demolish Retain No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response 10

1 2 3+ 1 2 3+ Under Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults 20 Overall House- House- House& & & House- Other Subgroup hold hold hold Child- Child- Child- hold Average ren ren ren

Percent of Cluster Response Percent of Subgroup Response

I - 63-

1 1

TABLE 41B Cross Tab of School Demolition/Retention Issue With Household Type - Mature Neighbourhoods Household Types

I 1 Subgroup Cluster

Mature

3

Demolish Retain No Opinion

1

2

3+

Under

33% 67% 0%

0% 100% 0%

29% 71% 0%

0% 100% 0%

33% 34% 33%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

19% 77% 4%

4%

23%

4%

27%

31%

' 11%

0%

0%

100%

Demolish Retain

20% 60%

16% 73%

7% 87%

0% 100%

15% 76%

10% 70%

0% 0%

0% 0%

13% 77%

No Opinion

20%

11%

6%

0%

9%

20%

0%

0%

10%

7%

27%

11%

8%

40%

7%

0%

0%

100%

Demolish Retain

11% 89%

12% 69%

30% 55%

75% 0%

17% 67%

33% 50%

0% 0%

0% 100%

21% 63%

No Opinion

0%

19%

15%

25%

16%

17%

0%

0%

16%

8%

29%

18%

4%

28%

11%

0%

2%

100%

7%

28%

13%

8%

34%

9%

0%

1%

100%

Percent of Cluster Response

9

3+

0% 100% 0%

Percent of Cluster Response

8

2

Overall Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults 20 Respondents House- House- House& House- Other Subgroup & & Opinion hold hold hold Child- Child- Child- hold Average ren ren ren

Percent of Cluster Response

1 1 1 1 1 I

I

Percent of Subgroup Response

Analysis: The intent here is to see if households with children perceive the issue statistically differently from those households without children. There is no consistent correlation that appears throughout all clusters, although in Clusters 1 (Montrose/Highlands) and 3 (Abbottsfield/Rundle Heights), households with children rate "retention" slightly higher than those without children.

I

1 1 1 1 1

I

1 1 1 I 1 I

-64-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on the closing of an underutilized school (24, 23 - older and mature only), by subgroup and by Clusters 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, with respondents' housing types (9, 9 - older and mature only).

TABLE 42A Cross Tab of School Closure Issue With Housing Types - Older Neighbourhoods Housing Types Underutilized Subgroup Cluster School Should Be Closed Older

1

Yes No No Opinion

Single SemiRow Detached detached Housing

Walk- High- Suite up rise In A Other Apt. Apt. House

Overall Subgroup Average

59% 29% 12%

43% 29% 28%

0% 0% 0%

Percent of Cluster Response85%

6%

0%

4%

1%

3%

1%

100%

59% 31% 10%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

40% 60% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 75% 25%

55 % 34 % 11%

Percent of Cluster Response89°r6

0%

0%

6%

0%

0%

5%

100%

63% 32% 5%

60% 40% 0%

0% 67% 33%

56% 100% 33% 0% 11% 0%

50% 50% 0%

33% 34% 33%

59% 33% 8%

Percent of Cluster Response69%

6%

4%

11%

4%

2%

4%

100%

4%

1%

7%

1%

2%

3%

100%

50% 100% 25% 0% 25% 0%

67% 0% 33% 100% 0% 0%

57% 30% 13%

I

I

2

I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1

10

Yes No No Opinion

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Response

82%

1 - 65-

I TABLE 42B Cross Tab of School Closure Issue With Housing Types - Mature Neighbourhoods

I

Housing Types

Underutilized Subgroup Cluster School Should Be Closed

Mature

3

Overall Subgroup Average

61% 26% 13%

100% 0% 0%

83% 17% 0%

67% 33% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

74% 22% 4%

Percent of Cluster Response 29%

4%

45%

22%

0%

0%

0%

100%

70% 24% 6%

.100% 0% 0%

63% 32% 5%

74% 0% 16% 100% 10% 0%

0% 0% 0%

100% 0% 0%

70% 24% 6%

Percent of Cluster Response69%

1%

14%

14%

0%

1%

100%

55% 33% 12%

63% 25% 12%

57% 29% 14%

83% 17% 0%

50% 100% 100% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

59% 30% 11%

I

Percent of Cluster Response62°r6

15%

13%

5%

2%

2%

1%

100%

I

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

8

9

Yes No No Opinion

Walk- High- Suite Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Yes No No Opinion

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Response

63%

1%

Analysis: There does not appear to be any relevant correlation in this cross tab.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

- 66-

I

1 1 1 1 1

Cross tab respondents' opinions on the closing of an underutilized school (24, 23 - older and mature only), by subgroup, and by Clusters 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, with the ages of the respondents (26b, 26 - older and mature only).

TABLE 43A Cross Tab of School Closure Issue With Age - Older Neighbourhoods Age Groups Subgroup

Cluster

Older

1

Underutilized School Should Be Closed

13 to 19

20 to 39

Yes No

60% 40%

53% 38%

64% 26%

52% 24%

57% 30%

0%

9%

10%

24%

13%

5%

32%

36%

27%

100%

Yes No

33% 67%

38% 62%

71% 22%

40% 20%

55% 34%

No Opinion

0%

0%

7%

40%

11%

7%

25%

50%

18%

100%

63% 37% 0%

57% 36% 7%

55% 38% 7%

77% 8% 15%

60% 32% 8%

10%

36%

37%

17%

100%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

No Opinion Percent of Cluster Response

i

1 i

1 1 1 1 I

1 1 I

1

2

Percent of Cluster Response 10

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response Percent of Subgroup Response

40 to 64

65 +

Overall Subgroup Average

- 67-

1 TABLE 43B Cross Tab of School Closure Issue With Age - Mature Neighbourhoods I Age Groups Subgroup

Cluster

Underutilized School Should Be Closed

13 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 64

65 +

Overall Subgroup Average

1 I

Mature

3

Yes No

No Opinion Percent of Cluster Response 8

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response 9

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response Percent of Subgroup Response

100% 0%

75% 20%

60% 40%

0% 0%

73% 23%

0%

5%

0%

0%

4%

4%

77%

19%

0%

100%

64% 36% 0%

64% 33% 3%

75% 13% 12%

80% 20% 0%

70% 24% 6%

1 1 1

8%

44%

41%

7%

100%

I

40% 60% 0%

61% 34% 5%

57% 26% 17%

86% 14% 0%

59% 30% 11%

5%

35%

54%

6%

100%

6%

44%

44%

6%

100%

With the exception of Clusters 1 (Montrose/Highlands) and 3 Analysis: Abbottsfield/Rundle Heights), support for school closure of an underutilized school is stronger in the older age groups. The teenage group was generally the least supportive.

1 I I

1 1 1 I I

1 1

1 1

- 68-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on the closing and by an underutilized school (24, 23 older and mature only), by subgroup, Clusters 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, with respondents' household types.

I

TABLE

44A

Cross Tab of School Closure Issue With Household Type - Older Neighbourhoods

I

Household Types I

1

1 2 3+ 1 2 3+ Under Underutilized Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults 20 Overall Subgroup Cluster School Should House- House- House& & & House- Other Subgroup Be Closed hold hold hold Child- Child- Child- hold Average ren ren ren

I Older

1

I

I

t i

I

1

Yes No No Opinion

63% 31% 6%

68% 17% 15%

34% 33% 33%

33% 67% 0%

56% 36% 8%

55% .36% 9%

0% 0% 0%

25% 50% 25%

57% 30% 13%

15%

37%

8%

3%

23%

9%

0%

4%

100%

Yes No

55% 18%

64% 32%

40% 30%

0% 0%

56% 41%

50% 50%

0% 0%

0% 0%

55% 34%

No Opinion

27%

4%

30%

0%

3%

0%

0%

100%

11%

13%

30%

12%

0%

32%

12%

0%

1%

100%

Yes No

86% 0%

52% 32%

38% 15%

57% 43%

56% 44%

78% 22%

100% 0%

20% 60%

59% 33%

No Opinion

14%

16%

12%

0%

0%

. 0%

0%

20%

8%

9%

23%

10%

9%

20%

22%

1%

6%

100%

12%

31%

10%

3%

25%

14%

0%

4%

100%

Percent of Cluster Response

2

Percent of Cluster Response

10

Percent of Cluster Response I

1

I 1 I 1

Percent of Subgroup Response

I -69-

1 1

TABLE 44B Cross Tab of School Closure Issue With Household Type - Mature Neighbourhoods Household Types

I 2 3+ 1 1 2 3+ Under Underutilized Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults 20 Overall Subgroup Cluster School Should House- House- HouseHouse- Other Subgroup & & & Be Closed hold hold hold Child- Child- Childhold Average ren ren ren

Mature

3

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response S

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response 9

Yes No No Opinion

Percent of Cluster Response

Percent of Subgroup Response

100% 0% 0%

100% 0% 0%

0% 100% 0%

71% 29% 0%

63% 25% 12%

67% 33% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

73% 23% 4%

4%

23%

4%

27%

31%

• 11%

0%

0%

100%

50% 20% 30%

78% 16% 6%

73% 20% 7%

73% 27% 0%

67% 29% 4%

60% 30% 10%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

70% 24% 6%

7%

27%

11%

8%

40%

7%

0%

0%

100%

78% 22% 0%

62% 22% 16%

74% 26% 0%

50% 25% 25%

53% 37% 10%

25% 50% 25%

0% 0% 0%

100% 0% 0%

59% 30% 11%

8%

30%

17%

4%

28%

11%

0%

2%

100%

7%

28%

13%

8%

34%

9%

0%

1%

100%

Analysis: With a few exceptions, the households with children are slightly less supportive of school closures when underutilized, than are those households without children.

Clusters 3 (Abbottsfield/Rundle Heights) and 8 (Dickensfield/Londonderry) overall were substantially more supportive of this concept that the other clusters.

1 1 I

,

I I

~ 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

-70-

1

ii 1 1 1

I I I

1 I

%

I

I

3.8

Social Services Cross Tabs

Cross tab respondents' use of day-care services (27a, 27a, 29a) with the three subgroups. *TABLE

45

Cross Tab of Day-care Usage by Subgroup Frequency of Day-care Usage

Subgroup

Daily

Older

19%

Mature

For Part Of The Week

Overall Subgroup Average

Occasionally

Never

9%

24%

48%

20%

12%

3%

13%

' 70%

33%

Suburban

21%

11%

18%

50%

47%

Percent of District Total

18%

8%

18%

56%

100%

*NOTE:

The percentages in this table are percentages of respondents with children 12 years and under, not percentages of the total sample survey. The sample for this cross tab is approximately 37% of the total survey sample.

Analysis: Day-care usage is highest in older and suburban neighbourhoods. The largest proportion of respondents is from suburban neighbourhoods, which is predictable because of the larger proportion of young families living in newer suburban neighbourhoods. The older neighbourhood subgroup had the smallest proportion of respondents, reflecting the older population in these areas.

- 71-

Cross tab the type of day-care services used by respondents with children 12 years and under (27b, 27b, 29b), with the three subgroups.

TABLE 46 Cross Tab of Types of Day-care Services Used by Subgroup Types of Day-care Services

Subgroup

Subsidized Baby-sitter Live-in Nonprofit Private In The Baby-sitter/ Private After School Other Centre Centre Home Nanny Home Care Program

Older

11%

16%

47%

5%

26%

0%

21%

Mature

7%

0%

50%

0%

36%

0%

0%

Suburban

24%

8%

26%

5%

34%

8%,

5%

Percent of District Total

18%

8%

36%

4%

33%

5%

8%

*NOTE:

Percentages given in this table are percentages of the respondents with children 12 years or under and who use day-care services, not of the total number of respondents. The sample size for this cross tab is approximately 9% of the total survey sample.

Analysis: Day-care services appear to be more popular in older and suburban neighbourhoods than in the mature subgroup. Baby-sitters and other private day-care systems seem to be more popular than larger day-care centres.

1 1 1 j I

1 1 1 1 1 I

f

1 1

I

1 1 I 1

-72-

Cross tab the respondents' levels of satisfaction with day-care services (27c, 27c, 29c), with the three subgroups.

*TABLE 47 Cross Tab of Satisfaction With Day-care Services by Subgroup Level of Satisfaction Subgroup

I I

I

t 1 I

1 1 I

I

1 1

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

.

Very Dissatisfied

No Opinion

Older

82%

6%

12%

0%

0%

Mature

92%

8%

0%

0%

0%

Suburban

83%

8%

6%

0%

3%

Percent Of District Total

84%

8%

6%

0%

2%

*NOTE:

percentages given in this table are percentages of the respondents with children 12 years and under, and who use day-care services, not of the total number of respondents. The sample size for this cross tab is approximately 9% of the total survey sample.

Analysis: The overall levels of satisfaction are very high.

The highest level of satisfaction is in the mature subgroup, which is also the subgroup which utilizes private services more than the other two groups. From this, it might be deduced that larger daycare centre services are not as satisfactory as the private in-home types of services.

- 73-

1 Cross tab respondents' use of day-care services (27a, 27a, 29a), by subgroup with their opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on social services (2f, 2f, 2f).

I TABLE 48 Cross Tab of Day-care Usage With Social Services Budget Opinions Respondents With Children 12 Or Under Use Day-care Subgroup Services...

I

Social Services Budget Should Be ...

Increased

Maintained

Decreased

No Opinion

Overall Subgroup Average

I

I Older

Daily Part Of Week Occasionally Never

26% 8% 26% 40%

0% 12% 25% 63%

0% 0% 40% 60%

31% 8% 15% 46%

19% 9% 24% 48%

i

% of Subgroup Response

51%

23%

7%

19%

100%

Daily Part Of Week Occasionally Never

17% 5% 14% *62%

3% 3% 17% 77%

0% 30% 0% 70%

0% 0% 14% 86%

12% 3% 13% *70%

i i

% of Subgroup Response

47%

33%

11%

8%

*100%

Suburban

Daily Part of Week Occasionally

23% 16% 20%

20% 11% 17%

14% 14% 0%

23% 0% 18%

21% 11% 18%

Never

41%

*50%

72%

59%

50%

37%

38%

6%

18%

*100%

Mature

% of Subgroup Response *NOTE:

Some totals may not add to 100% because some responses noted as "other" are not included in this tabulation.

Analysis: This cross tab is basically a consistency check to see if responses on related questions produce consistent results. There is a definite correlation between those respondents who use day-care services and who want social services budgeting increased.

Those who never use such services are much more likely to want spending cuts in this area.

I 1 1 1 1 I I

1 I .1

I

1 1 f

- 74 -

Cross tab respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on social services (2f, 2f, 2f), by subgroup, with the ages of the respondents (26b, 26b, 28b).

TABLE 49 Cross Tab of Social Services Budget Opinions With Ages of Respondents Respondents Opinion On Social Services Budget - It Should Be...

13 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 64

65 +

Overall Subgroup Average

Increased Maintained Decreased No Opinion

53% 17% 18% 12%

50% 29% 7% 14%

22% 34% 10% *33%

35% 29% 0% *29%

37% 31% 8% *23%

Percent of Subgroup Total

6%

43%

44%

6%

100%

Increased Maintained Decreased No Opinion

56% 33% 0% 11%

38% 37% 5% *18%

27% 39% 11% 23%

10% 40% 10% 40%

36% 38% 6% 20%

Percent of Subgroup Total

4%

74%

18%

4%

100%

Increased Maintained Decreased No Opinion

80% 20% 0% 0%

54% 29% 0% 17%

38% 26% 10% 26%

31% 41% 0% 28%

43% 31% 4% 22%

Percent of Subgroup Total

5%

32%

36%

27%

100%

Subgroup

Older

Mature

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1

Age Groups

Suburban

*NOTE:

-

Some totals may not add to 100% because some responses noted as "other" are not included in this tabulation.

Analysis: The younger the age group, the more likely the respondents are to support increased spending for social services.

The older age groups did not support a corresponding trend to decrease spending, however; they instead gave more "no opinion" responses. Overall support for increased spending is significantly higher in the suburban areas than in the other two subgroups.

- 75I Cross tab respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on social services (2f, 2f, 2f), by subgroup, with the respondents' household types.

TABLE 50 Cross Tab of Social Service Budget Opinions With Household Types

1 I

Household Types Respondents'

Subgroup

Older

Opinion On Social Services Budget - It Should Be...

1

15% 33% 22% 30%

60% 30% 0% 10%

39% 27% 9% 25%

42% 38% 3%.

17%

0% 0% 0% 100%

40% 30% 0% 30%

34% 33% 5% 28%

12%

31%

10%

4%

25%

14%

0%

4%

100%

40% 40% 5% 10%

28% 31% 7% 34%

31% 33% 8% *25%

64% 14% 13% 9%

40% 34% 6% *18%

36% 24% 20% 20%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 33% 67%

37% 31% 9% 23%

I

7%

28%

13%

8%

34%

9%

0%

1%

* 100%

I

Increased Maintained

39% 46%

30% 35%

27% 27%

61%.

8%

35% 43%

32% 41%

0% 0%

71% 29%

36% 38%

Decreased

15%

2%

6%

7%

8%

4%

0%

0%

6%

No Opinion

0%

*32%

40%

23%

* 13%

23%

0%

0%

20%

5%

24%

6%

5%

48%

9%

0%

3%

*100%

Increased Maintained Decreased No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total *NOTE:

Overall Subgroup Average

35% 32% 2% 31%

% of Subgroup Total Suburban

I

21% 41% 0% 38%

Increased Maintained Decreased No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total Mature

1 2 3+ 1 2 3+, Under 20 Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults & House- Other House- House- House& & hold Child- Child- Child- hold hold hold ren ren ren

Some totals may not add to 100% because some responses noted as "other" are not included in this tabulation.

Analysis: Respondents in households with children are much more likely to support an increase in social service funding, than those without children. Support was especially high in the single-adult-plus-children households.

1 1

1 1

1 1 1

I

-76I

1 1 1

~ I

Cross tab respondents' awareness of Clareview institutions (27a - suburb only), by clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' housing types (12 - suburb only).

TABLE 51 Cross Tab of Clareview Institution Awareness With Housing Types Housing Types Cluster Affirmative Responses 4 5 6 7 11

Single Detached

Semidetached

Row Housing

Walk-up' Apt.

0% 83% 100% 0% 0%

73% 75% 58% 53% 0%

62% 100% 86% 33% 0%

47% 97% 77% 60% 20%

Other

0% 100% 100% 0% 0%

Overall Cluster Average 56% 88% 73% 55% 20%

Analysis: Predictably, respondents living in Cluster 5 (South Clareview), the location of both provincial institutions, are more aware of the existence and function of these facilities than the other clusters. The greater the distance from Cluster 5, the lower the level of awareness. Single detached dwellers in all clusters are more aware of these institutions than multi-unit dwellers.

Cross tab respondents' awareness of Clareview institutions (27a - suburb only), by Clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' tenure (13 - suburb only).

TABLE

1 1 1 I

1 1 I

1

52

Cross Tab of Clareview Institution Awareness With Tenure Tenure Cluster Affirmative Responses 4 5 6 7 11

Own

Rent

50% 93% 73% 60% 20%

67% 71% 75% 40% 0%

Overall Cluster Average 56% 88% 73% 55% 20%

Analysis: Renters are more aware of the existence and function of these institutions than are owners, in Clusters 4(Hermitage) and 6 (North Clareview).

Awareness is significantly higher among owners in the other clusters. While not conclusive, this would appear to indicate that those respondents making the commitment of home ownership in the area are a little more likely to be aware of nearby non-residential land uses which could have some effect on their investment.

1 -77.

i

Cross tab respondents' awareness of Clareview institutions (27a - suburban only), by clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' household types.

I TABLE

53

Cross Tab of Clareview Institution Awareness - With Household Types

1 1

Household Types

Cluster Affirmative Responses

4 5 6 7 11

1

2

3+

1

2

3+

Adult Household

Adult Household

Adult Household

Adult & Children

Adults & Children

Adults & Children

50% 80% 67% 67% N/A

53% 80% 76% 39% 0

33% 100% 33% 50% N/A

50% 100% 100% 60% N/A

64% 88% 74% .57% 33%

67% •100% 100% 75% 0

Other

Overall Cluster Average

50% 0 50% 50% N/A

Analysis: Respondents from households with children appear to be more aware of the existence and function of these institutions than are respondents from childless households.

56% 88% 73% 55% 20%

I

i

1 1

1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 I

-78-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I

1

Cross tab respondents' opinions on a variety of uses for the vacant Y.D.C. site (27b suburban only), by Clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on social services (2f - suburban only).

TABLE 54 Cross Tab of Alte rnative Uses For Y.D.C. Site With Social Services Budget Opinions Budget Opinions - Social Services

Cluster

Affirmative Response To These Uses:

Increase

Maintain

Decrease

No Opinion

Overall Cluster Average

4

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

38% 13% 88% 38% 75%

50% 38% 75% 75% 88%

0% 100% 100% 0% 100%.

20% 0% 60% 20% 80%

35% 22% 78% 48% 83%

5

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

64% 36% 79% 71 % 71%

65% 31% 73% 46% 81%

25% 0% 25% 50% 75%

71% 14% 57% 14% 71%

63% 28% 69% 49% 77%

6

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

44% 28% 84% 44% 84%

65% 40% 100% 50% 95%

0% 0% 100% 0% 100%

70% 30% 100% 70% 90%

54% 32% 93% 49% 90%

7

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

39% 39% 92% 77% 100%

40% 20% 80% 33% 73%

33% 33% 100% 67% 67%

75% 50% 100% 50% 75%

43% 31% 89% 54% 83%

11

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

50% 50% 50% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Analysis: Support for the community college option was higher than average among respondents favouring an increase in social services spending. Due to the low number of responses in the "decrease" column, and in Cluster 11 (Lago Lindo), results in these areas cannot be considered statistically relevant.

There do not appear to be any other correlations in this cross tabulation.

- 79-

r

Cross tab respondents' opinions on a variety of uses for the vacant Y.D.C. site (27b suburban only) by Clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with the tenure of respondents ( 13 - suburban only).

TABLE 55 Cross Tab of Alternative Uses For The Y.D.C. Site With Tenure Tenure Cluster 4

6

7

11

Analysis:

Owner

Renter

Overall Cluster Average

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

18% 0% 73% 55% 91%

50% 100% 83% 42% 75°r6

35% 22% 78% 48% 83%

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

66% 29% 68% 46% 78%

50% 20% 70% 60% 70%

63% 28% ' 69% 49% 77%

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing

66% 34%

15% 23%

54% 32%

Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

96% 43% 89%

85% 69% 92%

93% 49% 90%

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing

45% 35%

33% 17%

43% 31%

Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

86% 48% 83%

100% 83% 83%

89% 54% 83%

Single Family Residential Mixed Housing Community College Expand Y.D.C. Some Other Institution

50% 50% 50% 100% 100%

Affirmative Responses To These Uses:

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

50% 50% 50% 100% 100%

There do not appear to be any consistent correlations in this cross tab.

1 1 1

1 1 I

1 I

r 1

r

1 1 1

1

t I

- 80-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on library services (2j, 2j, 2j) by subgroup, with respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 56 Cross Tab of Library Budget Opinions With Housing Types

I

Housing Types

r

Respondents' Opinions On Subgroup

Library Budget

Older

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

1

t 1 1 1 I

~ 1 1 I

1

up Apt.

15% 69% 2% 14%

8% 83% 0% 9%

33% 34% 33% 0%

11% 56% 0% 33%

82%

4%

1%

7%

21 % 61% 4% 14%

6% 89% 0% 5%

13% 69% 4% 14%

% of Subgroup Total

63%

7%

Suburban

27% 63% 2% 8% 53%

i

I

Walk- High-. Suite Single SemiRow Detached detached Housing

% of Subgroup Total

Mature

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total

Overall

rise In A Other Subgroup Apt. House Average

0% 20% 75% 60% 0% 0% 25% 20%

0% 38% 12% 50%

14% 67% 2% 17%

2%

3%

100%

13% 71% 3% 13%

0% 50% 67% 50% 0% 0% 33% 0%

33% 34% 0% 33%

18% 65% 3% 14%

16%

11%

1% ' 1%

1%

100%

8% 75% 8% 9%

24% 71% 0% 5%

12% 72% 4% 12%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

20% 40% 20% 20%

24% 66% 2% 8%

5%

30%

10%

0%

0%

2%

100%

1%

Analysis: There does not appear to be any strong correlation in this cross tabulation, although it does appear that the suburban subgroup has a significantly higher proportion of respondents wishing to see spending increased on library services than the other two subgroups. This may be tied to the recent closure and relocation of the Dickensfield Library.

-81-

t

Cross tab respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on library services (2j, 2j, 2j), by subgroup with respondents' ages (26b, 26b, 28b).

TABLE 57 Cross Tab of Library Budget Opinions With Age

I

Respondents'' Age Subgroup

Older

13 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 64 '

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

16% 74% 0% 10%

14% 75% 1% 10%

18% 65% 4% 13%

7% 58% 0% 35%

14% 67% 2% 17%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

I I

41% 41% 18% 0%

20% 71%

13% 62%

6% 71%

18% 65%

1

0% 9%

5% 20%

0% 23%

3% 14%

6%

44%

44%

6%

100%

67% 33% 0% 0%

23% 68% 3% 6%

18% 71% 2% 9%

20% 50% 0% 30%

24% 66% 2% 8%

4%

75%

17%

4%

100%

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

Suburban

t

Respondents' Opinions on Library Budget

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

1

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

65 +

Overall Subg ro up Average

Analysis: The younger the age group, the more inclined respondents are to support increased library spending, particularly in mature and suburban neighbourhoods.

Surprisingly, the teenage group in the mature subgroup had the largest percentage of respondents who felt that library spending should be decreased. ,

1

I 1

1 1 I

1

f I 1 1

1 1 1

-82-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on library services (2j, 2j, 2j), by subgroup, with respondents' household types.

TABLE 58 Cross Tab of Library Budget Opinions With Household Types

1 1 1 I

Household Types 1 2 3+ Respondents' 1 2 3 +. Under Opinions Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults 20 Subgroup On Library House- House- House& House- Other & & Budget hold hold hold Child- Child- Child- hold ren ren ren Older

1

t

r

1 1 1 1

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total Mature

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total Suburban

Increase Maintain Decrease No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total

1 1

r 1

Overall Subgroup Average

12% 50% 0% 38%

16% 67% 33% 15%

11% 70% 0% 19%

10% 80% 0% 10%

16% 70% 3% 11%

18% 70% 2% 10%

0% 100% 0% 0%

0% 80% 10% 10%

14% 67% 2% 17%

12%

31%

10%

4%

25%

14%

0%

4%

100%

15% 55% 10% 20%

16% 56% 1% 27%

8% 81% 6% 5%

18% 68% 0% 14%

20% 72% 3% 5%

28% .

52% 4%, 16%

0% 0% 0% 0%

33% 34% 0% 33%

18% 65% 3% 14%

7%

28%

13%

8%

34%

9%

0%

1%

100%

23% 54% 15% 8%

17% 72% 3% 8%

13% 67% 7% 13%

31% 69% 0% 0%

23% 70% 0% 7%

55% 41% 0% 4%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 57% 14% 29%

24% 66% 2% 8%

5%

24°r6

6%

5%

48%

9%

0%

3%

100%

Analysis: One and two adult households seem to favour decreases in library spending, while families with two or three adults-plus-children seem to favour increased spending in this area.

I

t

- 83 -

I

Land Use Cross Tabs

3.9

Cross tab respondents' opinions on streetscape improvements for the Downtown (3a(i), 3a(i), 6a(i)), by subgroup, with respondents' favourite shopping areas (17, 17, 20).

TABLE

r

59

Cross Tab of Opinions On CBD Improvements With Favourite Shopping Areas

I

Favourite Shopping Areas Priority Respondent West No One London- Northwoods/ Abbotta- Kingsway Overall Northgate field Garden Subgroup Subgroup Gives To CBD Down- Edmonton Particular derry Mall Mall Mall Average Improvements town Mall Area Mall

Older

High Medium Low No No Opinion

47% 22% 25% 3% 3%

83% 17% 0% 0% 0%

38% 12% 0% 0% 50%

28% 33% 20% 12% 7%

27% 32% 23% 14% 4%

36% 12% 24% 12 % 16%

36% 34% 11% 15% 4%

34% 28% 19% 11%.

8%

~

1 I

Percent of Subgroup Total

Mature

High Medium Low No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

Suburban

High Medium Low No

No Opinion Percent of Subgroup Total

*NOTE:

12%

2%

3%

42%

8%

9%

20%

100% *96%

33% 50% 17% 0% 0%

67% 33% 0% 0% 0%

0% 33% 33% 17% 17%

34% 34% 14% 12% 6%

21% 41% 14% 18% 6%

20% 30% 20% 30% 0%

38% 33% 10% 14 % 5%

30% 37% 14% 14% 5%

4%

1%

2%

41%

31%

4%

8%

100% *91%

50% 30% 20% 0%

40% 60% 0% 0%

60°i6 0% 20% 0%

35% 36% 13% 12%

41% 46% 9% 4%

0% 50% 0% 50%

39% 28% 11% 22%

37% 35% 13% 12%

0%

0%

20%

4%

0%

0%

0%

3%

9%

1%

7%

100% *95%

4%

2%

2%

70%

"Percent of Subgroup Totals" that do not add to 100% are due to respondents shopping at other areas not included in this tabulation.

AnTXsis: More downtown shoppers in all the subgroups rated CBD improvements as a high priority than respondents shopping at other centres. There does not appear to be any other significant correlation in this cross tab.

I

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1

- 84-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on streetscape improvements for the eastern Yellowhead city entrance (3a(ii), 3a(ii), 6a(ii)), by subgroup, with respondents' favourite shopping areas (17, 17, 20).

TABLE 60 Cross Tab of Opinions On Yellowhead Entrance With Improvements Favourite Shopping Areas Favourite Shopping Areas Priority Respondent Gives To West No One London- Northwoods/ Abbotts- Kingsway Overall Subgroup Yellowhead Down- Edmonton Particular derry Northgate field Garden Subgroup Improvements town Mall Area Mall Mall Mall Mall Average Older

High Medium Low No No Opinion

28% 19% 22% 6% 25%

67% 0% 33% 0% 0%

13% 25% 0% 12% 50%

21% 33% 27% 16% 3%

23% 32% 23% 13% 9%

24% 20% 24% 16% 16%

11% 44% 19% 13% 13%

21% 30% 24% 14% 11%

12%

2%

3%

42%

8%

9%

20%

100°Yo *96%

25% 17% 33% 17% 8%

67% 33% 0% 0% 0%

0% 33% 33% 17% 17%

23% 33% 23% 10% 11%

25% 31% 14% 10% 20%

20% 20% 20% 30% 10%

33% 24% 29% 9% 5%

27% 29% 20% 11% 13%

4%

1%

2%

41%

31%

4%

8%

*91%

High Medium

30% 20%

60% 0%

40% 40%

24% 34%

18% 41%

0% 50%

39% 33%

27% 33%

Low No No Opinion

40% 10% 0%

0% 40% 0%

20% 0% 0%

22% 12% 8%

18% 14% 9%

0% 50% 0%

11% 11% 6%

21% 12% 7%

4%

2%

2%

70%

9%

1%

7%

100% *95%

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

I

1

High Medium Low No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

100%

I

1 1 1 1

1 1

Suburban

Percent of Subgroup Total

*NOTE:

"Percent of Subgroup Totals" that do not add to 100% are due to respondents shopping at other areas not included in this tabulation.

Analysis: Since the Yellowhead entrance is not a shopping area, correlations for this cross tab are not as relevant as the other cross tabs for this question. Overall, it appears that suburban respondents give these improvements a higher priority than the other two subgroups, with older subgroup respondents giving the lowest priority ratings.

I - 85-

1

Cross tab respondents' opinions on streetscape improvements for the Beverly commercial strip (3a(iii), 3a(iii), 6a(iii)), by subgroup, with the respondents' favourite shopping areas (17, 17, 20).

I

TABLE 61 Cross Tab of Opinions On Beverly Strip Improvements With Favourite Shopping Areas Favourite Shopping Areas Priority Respondent Gives To West No One London- Northwoods/ Abbotts- Kingsway Overall Subgroup Beverly Down- Edmonton Particular derry Northgate field Garden Subgroup Improvements town Mall Area Mall Mall Mall Mall Average

1 1 1 I

Older

High Medium Low No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

Mature

High Medium Low No No Opinion

25% 34% 22% 9% 10%

0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

0% 38% 12% 12% 38%

18% 38% 24% 10% 10%

9% 50% 32% 9% 0%

28% 36% 16% 20% 0%

25 % 34% 17% 13% 11%

22% 36% 21% 11% 10%

12%

1%

3%

42%

8%

9%

20%

100% *95%

8% 25% 25% 8% 34 %

67% 33% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 50% 33% 17%

22% 31% 16% 10% 21%

21% 30% 14% 9% 26%

30% 30% 30% 10% 0%

9% 43% 29% 5% 14%

21% 31% 18% 9% 21%

â–

I

I Percent of Subgroup Total

Suburban

High Medium Low No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

*NOTE:

4%

1%

2%

41%

31%

4%

8%

100% *91°r6

~

10% 30% 60% 0% 0%

40% 60% 0% 0% 0%

40% 40% 0% 0% 20%

23% 38% 19% 13% 7%

46% 18% 27% 0% 9%

0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

33% 28% 22% 17% 0%

27% 35% 20% 11% 7%

~

4%

2%

2%

70%

9%

1%

7%

100% *95%

"Percent of Subgroup Totals" that do not add to 100% are due to respondents shopping at other areas not included in this tabulation.

1

Analysis: The older and suburban subgroups had more respondents giving Beverly strip improvements a high or medium priority than the mature subgroup. There does not appear to be any strong correlation between preferred shopping areas and priority ratings for the Beverly strip. Although not shown in this cross tab, the small number of older and mature subgroup respondents who picked the Beverly strip as their favourite shopping area all rated streetscape improvements as a high priority for this area.

1 1

1 -86I

r 1 1 1 I

Cross tab respondents' opinions on streetscape improvements to the Fort Road strip (3a(iv), 3a(iv), 6a(iv)), by subgroup, with the respondents' favourite shopping areas (17, 17, 20).

TABLE 62 Cross Tab of Opinions On Fort Road Strip Improvements With Favourite Shopping Areas Favourite Shopping Areas Priority Respondent Gives To West No One London- Northwoods/ Abbotts- Kingsway Overall Subgroup Fort Road Down- Edmonton Particular derry Northgate field Garden Subgroup Improvements town Mall Area Mall Mall Mall Mall Average Older

High Medium Low No No Opinion

1 I

r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1

25% 38% 3% 3% 31%

66% 17% 17% 0% 0%

13% 25% 12% 0% 50%

37% 31% 17% 8% 7%

32% 41% 23% 0% 4%

16% 32% 8% 16% 28%

27% 31% 21% 8% 13%

12%

2%

3%

42%

8%

9%

19%

*94%

High Medium

50% 33%

100% 0%

0% 33%

37% 40%

Low No No Opinion

25% 38%

0% 17% 0%

0% 0% 0%

60% 10%

29% 38%

17% 0% 50%

13% 2% 8%

14% 10% 13%

36% 36%

10% 20% 0%

14% 10% 9%

12% 6% 10%

4%

1%

2%

41%

31%

4%

8%

100% *91%

30% 30% 30% 10% 0%

20% 40% 20% 20% 0%

80% 20% 0% 0% 0%

39% 30% 15% 10% 6%

55% 32% 9% 4% 0%

0% 50% 50% 0% 0%

28% 44% 11% 17% 0%

39% 31% 15% 10% 5%

4%

2%

2%

70%

9%

1%

7%

100% *95%

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Percent of Subgroup Total

Suburban

High Medium Low No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

*NOTE:

31% 31% 16% 7% 15%

100%

"Percent of Subgroup Totals" that do not add to 100% are due to respondents shopping at other areas not included in this tabulation.

Analysis: The mature neighbourhood subgroup had the greatest level of support for Fort Road strip improvements, followed by suburban respondents. Older subgroup respondents had the lowest level of support. Shoppers favouring the Northwoods Mall had the highest overall level of support in all three subgroups.

I

1

- 87-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on streetscape improvements to 97 Street (3a(v), 3a(v), 6a(v)), by subgroup with respondents' favourite shopping areas (17, 17, 20).

I

TABLE 63 Cross Tab of Opinions On 97 Street Strip Impro vements With Favourite Shopping Areas

~

Favourite Shopping Areas Priority Respondent Gives To West No One London- Northwoods/ Abbotts- Kingsway Overall Subgroup 97 Street Down- Edmonton Particular derry Northgate field Garden Subgroup Improvements town Mall Area Mall Mall Mall Mall Average Older

High Medium Low No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

High Medium Low No No Opinion

Percent of Subgroup Total

9% 22% 22% 16% 31%

33% 33% 17% 0% 17%

13% 25% 12% 0% 50%

10% 27% 24% 22% 17%

5% 27% 27% 32% 9%

12% 20% 20% 16% 32%

12% 23% 33% 19% 13%

11% 24% 25% 20% 20%

12%

2%

3%

42%

8%

9%

19%

100% *94%

25% 42% 17% 16% 0%

33% 34% 33% 0% 0%

0% 17% 17% 16% 50%

13% 27% 35% 16% 9%

13% 23% 35% 22% 7%

30% 20% 20% 10% 20%

14% 24% 33% 29% 0%

16% 26% 33% 17% 8%

8%

100% *90%

4%

1%

2%

40%

31%

4%

High Medium

10 % 10%

0% 20%

0% 60%

12% 29%

Low No No Opinion

50% 30% 0%

40% 40% 0%

18% 27%

0% 50%

11% 33%

20% 20% 0%

37% 16% 6%

46% 9% 0%

12% 30%

0% 50% 0%

17% 33% 6%

35% 18% 5%

4%

2%

2%

70%

9%

1%

7%

100% *95%

i

~

1 1 I

1 I

Suburban

Percent of Subgroup Total

*NOTE:

"Percent of Subgroup Totals" that do not add to 100% are due to respondents shopping at other areas not included in this tabulation.

Analysis: Support for this concept, while generally low within all subgroups, is lowest in the older subgroup. There does not appear to be any clear-cut correlation within this cross tabulation. Although not shown in this cross tab, the small number of mature subgroup respondents who picked the 97 Street strip as their favourite shopping area all gave further streetscape improvements in this area a low priority.

1 1

1 1 1 1

t 1 I

1 1 1

-88-

Cross tab respondents' opinions on inadequate bus service (3b(i) - suburban only), by clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on transit (2a - suburban only).

TABLE 64 Cross Tab of Adequacy of Bus Service With Transit Budget Opinions Transit Budget Respondent Feels Service Is Adequate

Increase

Yes No

0% 100%

50% 50%

100% 0%

25% 75%

Percent of Cluster Total

63%

25%

12%

100%

Yes No

17% 83%

88% 12%

0% 100%

53% 47%

Percent of Cluster Total

40%

53%

7%

100%

Yes No

17% 83%

73% 27%

100% .0°Yo

60% 40%

Percent of Cluster Total

30%

55%

15%

100%

Cluster

4

Maintain

Decrease

Overall Cluster Average

I

1 1

5

I

1 1 1

6

7

.

Yes No

0% 100%

100% 0%

50% 50%

63% 37%

Percent of Cluster Total

25%

50%

25%

100%

Yes No

0% 100%

100% 0%

0% 0%

29% 71%

Percent of Cluster Total

71%

29%

0%

100%

I

1 1 1 I

1

11

Analysis: Predictably, most respondents who felt that bus service was inadequate in their neighbourhoods also supported an increase in transit spending. Correspondingly, those who felt service was adequate at present levels were more likely to support maintenance or decrease of current transit spending levels.

-89I Cross tab respondents' opinions on inadequate recreational services (3b(ii) - suburban only), by Clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' opinions on increasing, maintaining or decreasing spending on parks (2d - suburban only).

TABLE 65 Cross Tab of Adequacy of Recreational Services With Parks Budget Opinions

f

Parks Budget Cluster 4

Respondent Feels Service Is Adequate Yes No

Increase 60% 40%

Maintain

Decrease

100% 0%

100% 0%

I

Overall Cluster Average

1 1

78% 22% I

Percent of Cluster Total

56%

33%

11%

100%

Yes No

56% 44%

100% 0%

0% 0%

73% 27%

Percent of Cluster Total

60%

40%

0%

100%

5

II 1 I

6

Yes No

63% 37%

80% 20%

100% , 0°Yo

75% 25%

Percent of Cluster Total

40%

50%

10%

100%

1 I

7

Yes No

14% 86%

100% 0%

0% 0%

25% 75%

Percent of Cluster Total

88%

12%

0%

100%

Yes No

33 % 67%

100% 0%

0% 0%

43% 57%

Percent of Cluster Total

86%

14%

0%

100%

11

Analysis: The results here are surprising, because in most of the clusters, the majority of those who think parks spending should be increased do not feel present recreational services are inadequate. Clusters 7 (Steele Heights) and 11 ~Lago Lindo) appear to have the greatest levels of dissatisfaction with parks and recreation facilities in these neighbourhoods.

I I

1 1 1 1

-90-

1

Cross tab respondents' opinions on inadequate school facilities (3b(iii) - suburban only), by clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' neighbourhood ratings (15 - suburban only).

I

1 1 1

TABLE 66 Cross Tab of Adequacy of School Facilities With Neighbourhood Rating Neighbourhood Rating

Cluster

4

Respondent Feels School Facilities Are Adequate Yes No

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Overall Cluster Average

0% 0%

67% 33%

100% 0%

0% 100%

67% 33%

0%

67%

22%

11%

100%

50% 50%

71% 29%

33% 67%

100% 0%

60% 40%

27%

47%

20%

6%

100%

75% 25%

69% 31%

0% 0%

0% 0%

70% 30%

20%

80%

0%

0%

100%

0% 0%

75% 25%

0% 0%

0% 0%

75% 25%

0%

100%

0%

0%

100%

100% 0%

33% 67%

0% 100%

0% 0%

43% 57%

29%

43%

28%

0%

100%

I

1

~ I

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1

Percent of Cluster Total

5

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 6

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 7

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 11

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total

Analysis: Because of the small sample of responses this cross tab, it is difficult to draw a clear correlation, but it would appear that respondents' feelings that school facilities are inadequate, are more likely to occur in conjunction with a low neighbourhood rating.

-91-

1 Cross tab respondents' opinions on inadequate commercial facilities in the neighbourhood (3b(iv) - suburban only), by Clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 with respondents' neighbourhood ratings (15 - suburban only).

TABLE 67 Cross Tab of Adequacy of Commercial Facilities With Neighbourhood Rating

0% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

0%

67%

22%

100% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

1 1 II 1 1 1

27%

47%

20%

6%

100%

I

100% 0%

100% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0%

100% 0%

I

20%

80%

0%

0%

100%

1

0% 0%

88% 12%

0% 0%

0% 0%

88% 12%

I

0%

100%

0%

0%

100%

100% 0%

33% 67%

0% 100%

0% 0%

43% 57%

29%

43%

28%

0%

100%

Neighbourhood Rating

Cluster

4

Respondent Feels Commercial Facilities Are Adequate Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 5

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 6

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 7

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total

11

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total

I

Excellent

Good

.

Overall Cluster Average

Fair

Poor 0% 100%

89% 11%

11%

100%

•

Analysis: There was very little feeling that commercial facilities were inadequate in any of the clusters except for Cluster 11 (Lago Lindo), where shoppers have to go to Castle Downs for even convenience store facilities. In Cluster 4(Hermitage), all of those who felt that commercial facilities were inadequate gave a "poor" neighbourhood rating. It should be noted that the sample size in this cross tab is small, and therefore correlations have to be tempered accordingly.

1 1 1 1 1 1

-92-

1 1 1

Cross tab respondents' opinions on inadequate library services (3b(vi) - suburban only), by Clusters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11, with respondents' neighbourhood ratings (15 - suburban only).

TABLE 68 Cross Tab of Adequacy of Library Services With Neighbourhood Rating Neighbourhood Rating

I

Cluster

1

4

I

I

1 I

I

1 I

1 I

1 I

1

Respondent Feels Service Is Adequate Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 5

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total 6

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total

7

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total

11

Yes No

Percent of Cluster Total

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Overall Cluster Average

0% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

0% 100%

89% 11%

0%

67%

22%

11%

100%

100% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

27%

47%

20%

6%

100%

100% 0%

100% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0%

100% 0%

20%

80%

0%

0%

100%

0% 0%

88% 12%

0% 0%

0% 0%

88% 12%

0%

100%

0%

0%

100%

100% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

0% 0%

100% 0%

29%

43%

28%

0%

100%

Analysis: Clusters 5 (South Clareview), 6 (North Clareview) and 11 (Lago Lindo) had no respondents indicate they felt library services were inadequate. Clusters 4 (Hermitage) and 7 (Steele Heights) had some respondents indicate better library service is needed and "fair" and "poor" neighbourhood ratings accompanied these responses. As with Table 67, please note the small sample size for this cross tabulation.

I -93I 3.10

Neighbourhood Name Awareness Cross Tabs

Cross tab the neighbourhood name given by respondents (1, 1, 1), by subgroup, with the sexes of the respondents.

TABLE 69 Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness With Sexes of Respondents Name of Neighbourhood Given by Respondents

Subgroup

Sexes Of Respondents

None Given/ Correct ASP Or Community Don't Name Subdivision League Know Given Name Given Name Given

Some Other Name Given

1 II I

Overall Subgroup Average

1 I

Older

Male Female Not Coded

% of Subgroup Total Mature

Male Female Not Coded

39% 61% 0%

36% 62% 2%

57% 43% 0%

75% 25% 0%

43% 51% 6%

39% 58% 3%

7%

59%

3%

1%

30%

100%

57% 43% 0%

40% 59% 1%

38% 62% 0%

38% 62% 0%

31% 67% 2%

38% 61% 1%

II 1 1 I

% of Subgroup Total Suburban

3%

43%

32%

8%

14%

100%

Male Female

40% 40%

49% 47%

36% 63%

54% 46%

61% 39%

42% 56%

Not Coded

20%

4%

1%

0%

0%

2%

2%

19%

62%

10%

7%

100%

% of Subgroup Total

Analysis: In older and suburban neighbourhoods, male respondents knew the given neighbourhood name less frequently than female respondents. Male respondents seemed more likely to give the community league name or some other name (possibly an historic name) in response to this question.

II I

1

t II 1 I

I

1 1 1

-94-

Cross tab the neighbourhood name given by respondents (1, 1, 1), by subgroup, with the respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 70 Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness With Housing Types

t 1 1

Housing Types Name Of Neighbourhood Walk- High- Suite Overall Subgroup Given By Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Respondent Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average Older

None/Don't Know 5% Correct Name 63% ASP Name 3% Community League 2% Other Name 27%

0% 75% 0% 0% 25%

33% 0% 0% 0% 67%

17% 39% 0% 0% 44%

Percent of Subgroup Total 82%

4%

1%

7%

ASP Name 37% Community League 7% Other Name 5%

11% 50% 11%

0% 42% 16%

0% 28%

Percent of Subgroup Total 63% Suburban None/Don't Know 2% Correct Name 26%

I

'I

50% 20% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% •60%

0% 50% 0% 0% 50%

7% 59% 3% 1% 30%

2%

3%

100%

9% 10% 45%

33% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0%

0% 33% 34%

3% 43% 32%

11% 31%

10% 26%

0% 0% 67% 50%

33% 0%

8% 14%

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

0% 25% 67%

3% 12% 68%

0% 4% 80%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 40% 40%

2% 19% 62%

8% 0%

8% 9%

0% 16%

0% 0%

0% 0%

20% 0%

10% 7%

5%

30%

10%

0%

0%

2%

100%

1%

I Mature I

None/Don't Know Correct Name

1% 50%

I

1 I

ASP Name 55% Community League 12% Other Name 5%

I

Percent of Subgroup Total 53% I

1 I

I

1

Analysis: The correct neighbourhood name is given more often by respondents in single and two family units than by those in multi-unit accommodation. This result may be more closely allied with the tenure issue, than with housing type, which reflects an owner occupied bias in the single and two family unit groups.

I

-95I Cross tab the neighbourhood name given by respondents (1, 1, 1), by subgroup, with the respondents' tenure (10, 10, 13).

TABLE 71 Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness With Tenure

1 1

Name of Neighbourhood Given by Respondents I

None Given/ Correct ASP Or Community Don't Name Subdivision League Know Given Name Given Name Given

Some Other Name Given

Overall Subgroup Average

Subgroup

Tenure Of Respondent

Older

Owner Renter Other

61% 39% 0%

83% 16% 1%

100% 0% 0%

75% 25% 0%

68% 32% 0%

77% 22% 1%

% of Subgroup Total

7%

59%

3%

1%

30%

100%

Owner Renter Other

14% 86% 0%

80% 20% 0%

73% 27% 0%

81% 19% 0%

33% 67% 0%

70% 30% 0%

% of Subgroup Total

3%

43%

32%

8%

14%

100%

Mature

-

1 1 II 1 II I

Suburban

Owner Renter Other

% of Subgroup Total

100% 0% 0%

0 6% 14% 0%

68% 32% 0%

88% 8% 4%

56% 44% 0%

73% 26% 1%

1

2%

19%

62%

10%

7%

100%

I

Analysis: Owners generally tended to know the given neighbourhood name more often than did renters, who were apt to give some other name to their neighbourhood (not the ASP or community league name).

1 II I 1 1

I

I

-96-

1 I

1 I

1

t 1 1

Cross tab the neighbourhood name given by respondents (1, 1, 1), by subgroup, with whether or not respondents received the Mayor's letter, and did the survey.

TABLE 72 Cross Tab of Neighbourhood Name Awareness With Receipt of Mayor's Letter

Respondent Received The Mayor's Letter Subgroup (Completed Surveys Only) Older

Yes No

% of Subgroup Total

Mature

Yes No

I

% of Subgroup Total

I

Suburban

1

% of Subgroup Total

I

1 I

1 1 I

1

Yes No

Name of Neighbourhood Given by Respondents None Given/ Correct ASP Or Community Don't Name Subdivision League Know Given Name Given Name Given

Some Other Name Given

Overall Subgroup Average

29% 71%

71% 29%

86% 14%

100% 0%

63% 37%

67% 33%

6%

60%

3%

1%

30%0

100%

14% 86%

57% 43%

53% 47%

52% 48%

42% 58%

52% 48%

3%

43%

32%

8%

14%

100%

40% 60%

71% 29%

55% 45%

75% 25%

53% 47%

59% 41%

2%

19%

62%

10%

7%

100%

Analysis: Respondents who gave the correct neighbourhood name, the ASP or subdivision name, or the community league name, consistently gave a higher-than-average response to recalling having received the Mayor's letter informing them of the survey.

I

- 97-

1 Cross tab the importance of the community league to respondents (13, 13, 16), by subgroup, with the neighbourhood names given by respondents (1, 1, 1).

TABLE 73 Cross Tab of Importance of Community League With Neighbourhood Name Awareness

I

1

Name of Neighbourhood Given by Respondents I

Community League Is Subgroup Important To Respondent Older

Yes No No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total Mature

Yes No No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total

Suburban

Yes No No Opinion

% of Subgroup Total

None Some Given/ Correct ASP Or Community Other Don't Name Subdivision League Name Know Given Name Given Name Given Given

Overall Subgroup Average

33% 67% 0%

43% 55% 2%

43% 57% 0%

25% 75% 0%

42% 56% 2%

42% 56% 2%

7%

59%

3%

1%

30%

100%

29% 71% 0%

47% 51% 2%

47% 52% 1%

48% 52% 0%

36% 64% 0%

45% 54% 1%

3%

43%

32%

8%

14%

100%

60% 40% 0%

45% 53% 2%

41% 58% 1%

42% 58% 0%

44% 50% 6%

42% 56% 2%

2%

19%

62%

10%

7%

100%

Analysis: The expected correlation here would be that respondents who local community league is important to them, would be more neighbourhood identity, and give higher-than-average responses neighbourhood name. While this correlation does occur in this cross marginal difference from the average response.

indicate that the aware of their to the correct tab, it is only a

1 I

I 1 1 I

1 I 1 1 1 1 1

I

-98-

1 1 1 I 1 I

1 1 I

1 1 I

1 I

1 1 I

1

3.11

Survey Administration

Cross tab the survey completion statistics, by district and subgroup, with the sexes of the respondents.

TABLE 74 Cross Tab of Survey Completions With Sexes of Respondents Sex of Respondent Subgroup

Male

Complete Incomplete

Overall Subgroup Average

Female

Not Coded

97% 3%

98% 2%

100% 0%

98% 2%

39%

58%

3%

100%

98% 2%

98% 2%

100% 0%

98% 2%

Percent of Subgroup Total

38%

61%

1%

100%

Suburban

Complete Incomplete

97% 3%

98% 2%

100% 0%

98% 2%

Percent of Subgroup Total

42%

56%

2%

100%

Older

Survey Completion

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Complete Incomplete

Analysis: The relative proportions of completed and incompleted surveys in all subgroups are consistent, despite varying ratios of male and female respondents in each of the subgroups.

1 -99I Cross tab the survey completion statistics, by subgroup, with the respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 75 Cross Tab of Survey Completions With Housing Types Housing Types

Subgroup

Older

Walk- High- Suite Overall Survey Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Completion Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average Complete Incomplete

98% 2%

92% 8%

100% 0%

82%

4%

1%

98% 2%

100% 0%

96% 4%

Percent of Subgroup Total 63%

7%

16%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

98% 2%

92% 8%

97% 3%

96% 4%

0% 0%

0% 100% 0% 0%

98% 2%

Percent of Subgroup Total 53%

5%

30%

10%

0%

0%

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Suburban

Complete Incomplete

Complete Incomplete

94% 100% 100% 6% 0% 0%

88% 12%

98% 2%

3%

100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

98% 2%

7%

1%

2%

2%

I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1

100%

Analysis: There is no clear correlation here, other than the respondents in semi-detached units and in walk-up apartments tended to have more incompleted surveys. This could be due to questions left unanswered due to language, unfamiliarity with the subject matter and other problems (i.e., question was too complex for respondent to answer).

I

I

I

1

t 1 1

I

-100-

1 Cross tab the survey completion statistics, by subgroup, with the respondents' tenure (10, 10, 13).

I

1 1 1

TABLE 76 Cross Tab of Survey Completions With Tenure Tenure

Owner

Complete Incomplete

98% 2%

97% 3%

100% 0%

98% 2%

77%

22%

1%

100%

98% 2%

99% 1%

0% 0%

98% 2%

Percent of Subgroup Total

70%

30%

0%

100%

Suburban

99% 1%

94% 6%

100% ' 0%

98% 2%

73%

26%

1%

100%

Subgroup Older

Renter

I

1

Overall Subgroup Average

Survey Completion

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Complete Incomplete

Other

I

I

1 1 I

I

1 1 1 I

1

Complete Incomplete

Percent of Subgroup Total

Analysis: The largest block of incompleted surveys originated from suburban respondents who were renters. The results from all other groups appears to be fairly consistent with the percentage of completed surveys falling in the 97% to 99% range.

1 _101-

I Cross tab the survey completion statistics, by subgroup, with the ages of the respondents (26b, 26b, 28b).

I

TABLE 77 Cross Tab of Survey Completions With Age of Respondents I Age Groups Overall Subgroup Average

Survey Completion

13 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 64'

Complete Incomplete

100% 0%

99% 1%

99% 1%

96% 4%

98% 2%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

Complete Incomplete

100% 0%

99% 1%

97% 3%

100% 0%

98% 2%

Percent of Subgroup Total

6%

44%

44%

6%

100%

100% 0%

97% 3%

100% 0%

100% 0%

98% 2%

Subgroup Older

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Suburban

Complete Incomplete

65 +

I

1 1 1 1 1 I

Percent of Subgroup Total

4%

75%

17%

4%

100%

Analysis: The greatest percentages of incomplete surveys were produced by senior respondents in the older subgroup, middle-aged respondents in the mature subgroup and young adult respondents in the suburban subgroup.

1 I

I

I 1 1 1 I

1 1 1

- 102-

Cross tab the survey completion statistics, by district and subgroup, with the respondents' household types.

TABLE 78 Cross Tab of Survey Completions With Household Types

I

1 1 1 1 1

Household Types

Subgroup

Survey Completion

Older

Complete Incomplete

% of Subgroup Total

Mature

Complete Incomplete

1 2 3+ 1 2 3+, Linder Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults 20 House- House- House& & & House- Other hold hold hold Child- Child- Child- hold ren ren ren

Overall Subgroup Average

97% 3%

98% 2%

100% 0%

100% 0%

99% 1%

100% 0%

100% 0%

70% 30%

98% 2%

12%

30%

10%

4%

25%

14%

1%

4%

100%

100% 0%

99% 1%

100% 0%

95% 5%

98% 2%

100% 0%

0% 0%

67% 33%

98% 2%

7%

28%

13%

8%

34%

9%

0%

1%

100%

100% 0%

98% 2%

93% 7%

100% 0%

98% 2%

100% 0%

0% 0%

86% 14%

98% 2%

5%

24%

6%

5%

48%

9%

0%

3%

100%

I

I

% of Subgroup Total

'

Suburban

1 1 1 I 1 I

1

Complete Incomplete

% of Subgroup Total

Analysis: Mature subgroup households with one adult-plus-children and suburban subgroup households with three or more adults, produced the highest percentages of incompleted surveys. In addition, the "other household type" category in all subgroups produced significantly high percentages of incomplete surveys.

- 103-

Cross tab the survey completion statistics, by subgroup, with whether or not the respondents received the Mayor's letter and did the survey.

TABLE 79 Cross Tab of Survey Completions With Receipt of Mayor's Letter

1 1 I

Respondents Received Mayor's Letter Subgroup Older

Survey Completion

Yes

No

Complete Incomplete

98% 2%

97% 3%

Overall Subgroup Average

1 1

98% 2% I

% of Subgroup Total Mature

Complete Incomplete

67%

33%

100%

97% 3%

99% 1%

98% 2%

1 I

% of Subgroup Total Suburban

% of Subgroup Total

Complete Incomplete

52%

48%

100%

100% 0%

94% 6%

98% 2%

59%

41%

100%

Analysis: Incompleted surveys were more frequent in the older and suburban subgroups when the respondent could not recall receiving the Mayor's letter informing him of the survey.

1 1 1 I

1 I

1 I 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 I

1 1 I 1 I

1

-104-

Cross tab the sexes of respondents, by subgroup, with respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12).

TABLE 80 Cross Tab of Sexes With Housing Types Housing Types

Subgroup

Older

Sexes Of Single SemiRow Respondents Detached detached Housing Male Female Not Sure

Walk- High- Suite Overall up rise In A Other Subgroup Apt. Apt. House Average

39% 58% 3%

42% 58% 0%

67% 33% 0%

39% 50% 11%

82%

4%

1%

7%

41% 58% 1%

39% 61% 0%

31% 67% 2%

32% 68% 0%

% of Subgroup Total

63%

7%

16%

Suburban

46% 50% 4%

33% 67% 0%

53%

5%

% of Subgroup Total Mature

Male Female Not Sure

Male Female Not Sure

% of Subgroup Total

50% 50% 0%

40% 60% 0%

25% 75% 0%

39% 58% 3%

2%

3%

100%

33% 67% 0%

50% 50% 0%

33% 67% 0%

38% 61% 1%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

37% 63% 0%

40% 60% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

40% 60% 0%

42% 56% 2%

30%

10%

0%

0%

2%

100%

1% .

Analysis: In the older subgroup, there are more than the average number of male respondents living in multi-family accommodation, although it should be noted that the total amount of this kind of accommodation represents only a small amount of the total housing stock in the older neighbourhoods. In the mature neighbourhoods, there are more than the average number of females living in row housing and apartments. In the suburban subgroup, there is a greater than average number of females in semi-detached and row housing units.

I

- 105-

Cross tab respondents' housing types (9, 9, 12) by subgroup, with respondents' tenure (10, 10, 13).

TABLE 81 Cross Tab of Housing Types With Tenure

I

1 I

Housing Types

Subgroup

Older

Walk- High-,Suite Overall Tenure Of Single SemiRow up rise In A Other Subgroup Respondent Detached detached Housing Apt. Apt. House Average Owner Renter Other

88% 12% 0%

75% 25% 0%

100% 0% 0%

% of Subgroup Total

82%

4%

1%

Owner Renter Other

94% 6% 0%

56% 44% 0%

% of Subgroup Total

63%

7%

Suburban

Owner Renter Other

94% 6% 0%

67% 33% 0%

% of Subgroup Total

53%

5%

Mature

13% 75% 12%

77% 22% 1%

2%

3%

100%

40% 0% 0% 0% 60% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

33% 67% 0%

70% 30% 0%

16%

17% 0% 0% 83% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 7%

1%

11%

1%

1%

1%

100%

65% 0% 35% 100% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

20% 60% 20%

73% 26% 1%

30%

0%

0%

2%

100%

10%

1 1 1 1 I 1 I

I

I

Analysis: Predictably, the overwhelming majority of owners participating in the survey are in single detached and two family homes. The percentage of single detached owners is lowest in the older subgroup, but there are so many more single detached dwellers in the older subgroup than in the other two, that the overall ratio of owners to renters is actually highest in the older subgroup. Two-thirds of all row housing respondents in the suburban subgroup appear to be owners.

1 1 I

1 1 1

I

1 1 1 1

-106-

Cross tab the ages. of the respondents (26b, 26b, 28b), by subgroup, with whether or not respondents received the Mayor's letter and did the survey.

TABLE 82 Cross Tab of Age With Receipt of Mayor's Letter

Subgroup Older

*Respondents Who Recalled Receiving The Mayor's Letter

Age Groups

13 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 64

Yes No

42% 58%

67% 33%

73% 27%

65% 35%

67% 33%

7%

31%

41%

21%

100%

24% 76%

49% 51%

61% 39%

40% 60%

52% 48%

6%

44%

44%

6%

100%

56% 44%

58% 42%

71% 29%

56% 44%

59% 41%

4%

75%

17%

4%

100%

65 +

Overall Subgroup Average

I

1

Percent of Subgroup Total Mature

Yes No

-

I

1

Percent of Subgroup Total Suburban

Yes No

I

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1

Percent of Subgroup Total *Note:

All respondents in this cross tab did complete the survey.

Analysis: In all subgroups, the 40-64 year old respondents were more likely to recall having received the Mayor's letter. The lowest responses were given in the teenage group, who may not be the persons generally who open nonpersonal mail directed to their households.

- 107-

3.12

1 1

Respondent Profiles

Cross tab house types of respondents (9, 9, 12), by subgroups.

TABLE

83

Cross Tab of Housing Type by Subgroup I

Housing Types

Subgroup

Single SemiRow Walk-up Detached detached Housing Apt.

Highrise

Overall Suite In Subgroup A House Other Average

Older

36%

23%

2%

20%

51%

66%

43%

29%

Mature

35%

45%

35%

43%

49%

34%

21%

36%

Suburban

29%

32%

63%

37%

0%

0%

36%

35%

Percent Of District Total

64%

5%

17%

10%

1%

1%

2%

100%

Analysis: There is a substantially greater percentage of single detached housing in the older and mature subgroups than in the suburban areas. This compares favourably with City census statistics that indicate that 73% of inner-city housing is single family, compared with 52% in mature areas and 40% in new suburbs. Two family housing is found primarily in the mature neighbourhoods, followed by suburban and older areas. City census statistics indicate that northeast suburban areas generally have slightly more two family housing (7%) than mature (6%) or older (5%) areas.

Two-thirds of all the respondents living in row housing are in the suburban subgroup, with only 2% found in older neighbourhoods. City census data shows row housing predominates in suburban areas (41%), followed by mature (23%) and older (6%) neighbourhoods. Walkup apartments are found most frequently in mature areas, followed by suburban areas.

High-rise respondents are split half and half between older and mature neighbourhoods there are no high-rises in the northeast suburban neighbourhoods.

Two-thirds of all respondents living in a suite-in-a house were found in older neighbourhoods, with the other third in mature areas. None were surveyed in suburban neighbourhoods.

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 I

1

I 1 1 1 1

-108-

1 1 1 1

Cross tab the number of persons, in each of the age cohorts, in respondents' families (26, 26, 28) by subgroups.

TABLE 84 Cross Tab of Household Age Groups by Subgroup

Subgroup I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 I

Number Of Occupants In Each Age Cohort Per Household

Age Cohorts (Years) 0 '- 4

5- 12

13 - 19

20- 39

40 - 64

65 +

Older

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

86% 11% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

82% 13% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0%

74% 17% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0%

42% 29% 25% 3% 1% 0% 0°/6

46% 17% 36% 1% 0% 0% 0%

75% 15% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Mature

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

85% 11% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

74% 19% 6% 1% 0% 0% 0%

69% 15% 12% 3% 1%.

0% 0%

37% 30% 30% 3% 0% 0% 0%

38% 21% 40% 1% 0% 0% 0%

92% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Suburban

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

71% 23% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%

69% 21% 9% 1% 0% 0% 0%

71% 17% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0%

15% 23% 57% 5% 0% 0% 0%

67% 16% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%

95% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Analysis: Proportionally, families with the most- young children reside in suburban neighbourhoods, while the largest proportion of teenagers appears to reside in mature areas, followed closely by suburban areas. City census statistics bear this out, showing 11% of the Northeast suburban population is in the 0-4 group, with 6% of mature area population and 5% of older area population. 28% of mature neighbourhood populations in the Northeast are 5-19 years, with 26% in suburban areas and 21% in older areas.

The largest subgroup proportion of young adults appears to be in suburban areas, while the largest proportion of middle-aged people are in the mature subgroup. Again, this appears to be borne out by civic census figures, showing 46% of suburban populations in the Northeast to be in the 20-39 year bracket. 34% of mature area populations and 35% of older area populations are also in this group. 24% of the population in mature areas are middle aged people, while 23% is the older neighbourhood percentage, and 14% is the suburban percentage.

By far the largest concentration of seniors is in the older neighbourhood subgroup. Civic census figures for the Northeast indicate 11% of older neighbourhood populations are 65 and over, while only 5% of mature neighbourhood populations and 2% of suburban neighbourhood populations are senior citizens.

I

- 109-

1 1

Cross tab the household types of the respondents by subgroups.

TABLE 85 Cross Tab of Household Types by Subgroup

I

Household Types 1 Subgroup

2

3+

1

2

3+

Under

Adult Adult Adult Adult Adults Adults 20 House- House- House& & & House- Other hold hold hold Child- Child- Child- hold ren ren ren

Overall Subgroup Average

Older

44%

32%

29%

18%

20%

39%

100%

43%

29%

Mature

33%

37%

49%

50%

34%

32%•

0%

16%

36%

Suburban

23%

31%

22%

32%

46%

29%

0%

41%

35%

% of District Total

8%

27%

10%

6%

36%

11%

0%

2%

100%

Analysis: Most of the single adult households which participated in the survey are in the older subgroup area, as are the "three-or-more-adults-plus-children" households, and households undefined in these seven major cohorts. Most of the two-adult households are located in mature neighbourhoods, as are the "three-or-more-adults-only" households and the "single-adult-plus-children" households. The standard family unit of "two-adults-pluschildren" is the most commonly found in the suburban subgroup. The few "under 20" households, that is, with occupants all under 20 years of age, are found entirely in the older subgroup area.

1 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 I I

1 1 1 1 1