Southeast District Survey of Residents
BASIC RESULTS TABLES DECEMBER 1984
el THE C ITT OF e n.
lun
PLANNING
PREFACE During the months of August and September, 1984, 706 residents of Southeast Edmonton participated in a city-wide telephone survey conducted by the Planning Department. The following report provides the detailed responses to the questionnaire. Results tabulated on a neighbourhood basis are available in a separate report from the Planning Department. Residents from every Southeast Edmonton neighbourhood participated in our survey, with balanced representation from older neighbourhoods (those built prior to 1951), mature suburbs (those built between 1951 and 1971) and new suburban neighbourhoods (Mill Woods, built after 1971.) Please refer to Map 1 for neighbourhoods covered by the survey. Survey Reliability and Level of Accuracy The survey sample was designed to provide reliable results for the three neighbourhood groups. At the neighbourhood group level, the responses to most questions are within 5% of the responses that would be obtained if individuals from all the households had been surveyed. District level information is even more reliable. The survey respondents were representative of the overall District population in terms of their age, with 49% between 20 and 39 years, 32% between 40 and 64, and 12% over 65 years. Seventy-two percent of the respondents were homeowners and 27% were renters. For further information on the survey results, including detailed breakdowns by neighbourhood and selected cross tabulations of results, please contact Geoff Bocian (428-8438) or Cathy Raftis (428-8801), Southeast District planning team.
211.111//.11 L‘711rrele SOUTHEAST DISTRICT
MAP 1
IMMISIN•
AREAS COVERED IN SURVEY
.91121 1LVNIN No
OLDER NEIGHBOURHOODS
[]MATURE SUBURBS ElNEW SUBURBS
Illustrated Portion
h:tu Eastgate Business Pork 4'
?SOUTH ANNEXATION I AREA
:
Lambton Industrial —
Girard Industrial I r Davies Industrial (East) I „„.
;
- Weir —Industrial Southeast (Annexed) Industrial — TPI S2 II 22 WAS( ,
'•0(‘ Rosedale Industrial Imam _
\ Coronet , Industr ia I F= Papaschase Industrial -
Maple Ridge
INDUSTRIAL AREA TP SI 11.24 0.411.
TP 52 PI 22 II O.
1,52 It23 POP
EAST ANNEXATION AREA
,
• Strathcona' Industrial . Park iv.4rneos • 11:"'
:1
TI SI 11_22 22•15.
Meadows N'HD 4 Meadows N'HO 9
Edmonton Research and Development Park
It
CONTENTS PAGE
TABLE
1
Total Responses
1
2
Identification of neighbourhood name by respondents
1
3
Spending on City Services
2
4
Satisfaction with Public Services in neighbourhood
3
5
Satisfaction with parks in neighbourhood (number, size, location)
4
6
Satisfaction with recreational facilities in district
5
7
Priorities for landscaping and street improvement programs
6
8
Frequency of travel by bus or LRT; reasons for use and satisfaction
7
9
Length of time willing to wait for a transfer
9
10
Identification of traffic problems on respondents' local street
9
11
Priorities for suggested roadway projects
10
12
Satisfaction with the time it takes to drive downtown
11
13
Type of housing lived in by respondents
12
14
Housing tenure (own/rent)
12
15
Concern about neighbourhood crime
13
16
Assessment of amount of crime in neighbourhood
13
17
Type of crime of greatest concern in area
14
18
Neighbourhood rating (satisfaction)
14
19
Community League importance to respondents and their involvement
15
20
Neighbourhood sense of community (community spirit)
15
21
Urgent neighbourhood issues or problems
16
22
Identification of area where largest non-food shopping dollar purchases are made
17
23
Assessment of resident support for changes to homes in their neighbourhood
18
24
Assessment of residents' feelings on whether they have influence in local planning and development decisions
18
Support for various types of residential redevelopment in Older Neighbourhoods and Mature Suburbs
19
Support for local school closures in Older Neighbourhoods and Mature Suburbs
19
27
Satisfaction with the physical layout of neighbourhood in the New Suburbs
20
28
Assessment of features contributing to the special identity of a neighbourhood (New Suburbs only)
21
Preferences for design improvements for new neighbourhoods before City approval (New Suburbs only)
22
25 26
29
TABLE
PAGE
30
Concerns about the local street numbering system in the New Suburbs
23
31
Preferred type of residential development for Mill Woods Town Centre and Tawa sites
23
32
Number of people in household by age groups; age of respondents
24
33
Child care for the household; type of service used; satisfaction with service
25
34
Number of respondents having additional (final) comments on the survey
26
1
1.
TOTAL RESPONSES SUB-AREAS
MALE
Older
105 (14.9)
134 (19)
3 (0.4)
242 (34.3)
Mature
93 (13.2)
140 (19.8)
2 (0.3)
235 (33.3)
New
TOTAL
2.
FEMALE
99
129
(14.0)
(18.3)
297
403
(42.1)
(57.1)
UNSURE
TOTAL
229 (32.4)
1
(0.1)
6
706
(0.8)
(100)
IDENTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD NAME BY RESPONDENTS CATEGORY
NUMBER
PERCENT
None Given
26
3.7
Same Name
503
71.2
ASP/Subdivision Name
78
11.0
Community League Name
17
2.4
Other Name Given
82
11.6
TOTAL
706
100
2
3.
SPENDING ON CITY SERVICES SERVICE
INCREASE
MAINTAIN
Transit
171 (24.2)
428 (60.6)
55 (7.8)
50 (7.1)
Fire Protection
160 (22.7)
498 (70.5)
19 (2.7)
29 (4.1)
64 (9.1)
612 (86.7)
18 (2.5)
8 (1.1)
4 (0.6)
Provision of Parks (No Response = 1 (0.1%))
221 (31.3)
426 (60.3)
24 (3.4)
33 (4.7)
1 (0.1)
Police Protection
286 (40.5)
398 (56.4)
8 (1.1)
11 (1.6)
3 (0.4)
Social Services
256 (36.3)
277 (39.2)
27 (3.8)
139 (19.7)
7 (1.0)
Road Maintenance (Missing Values = 1 (0.1%))
356 (50.4)
323 (45.8)
18 (2.5)
4 (0.6)
4 (0.6)
Road Construction (22 (3.1%) No Response; 1 (0.1%) Missing Value)
144 (20.4)
407 (57.6)
69 (9.8)
57 (8.1%)
6 (0.8)
Snow Removal (1 (0.1%) No Response; 1 (0.1%) Missing Value)
299 (42.4)
368 (52.1)
19 (2.7)
16 (2.3)
2 (0.3)
Library Services (2(0.3%) No Response; 1 (0.1%) Missina Value)
89 (12.6)
544 (77.1)
16 (2.3)
53 (7.5)
1 (0.1)
Bylaw Enforcement (1 (0.1%) No Resnonse; 1 (0.1%) Missing Value)
217 (30.7)
400 (56.7)
43 (6.1)
41 (5.8)
3 (0.4)
General Trends
320.6 (29.15%)
663.2 (60.3%)
44.7 (4.06%)
62.6 (5.7%)
24.6 (2.2%)
Garbage Collection
With regard to services:
DECREASE
NO OPINION OTHER
- 5 (0.7%) had no resmonse, - 241 (34.1%) had further comments, - 458 (64.9%) had no further comments, - 2 (0.3%) didn't know if they had further comments.
2 (0.3)
3
4.
SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SERVICES IN NEIGHBOURHOOD ANSWER
NUMBER
PERCENT
Yes
569
80.6
No
125
17.7
11
1.6
1
0.1
No Opinion Missing Value
TOTALS
706
100.0
OF THOSE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICES IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD, THE FOLLOWING SERVICES WERE IDENTIFIED TO BE INADEQUATE: SERVICE
RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
MISSING VALUE
Public Transit
58 (46.4)
65 (52.0)
2 (1.6)
Recreational Facilities
25 (20.0)
98 (78.4)
2 (1.6)
Schools
32 (25.6)
91 (72.8)
2 (1.6)
Stores
123 (98.4)
2 (1.6)
Health Facilities
123 (98.4)
2 (1.6)
Library
123 (98.4)
2 (1.6)
Post Office
123 (98.4)
2 (1.6)
Other
22 (17.6)
101 (80.8)
2 (1.6)
Others
5 (4.0)
118 (94.4)
2 (1.6)
4
5.
SATISFACTION WITH PARKS IN NEIGHBOURHOOD
(A)
NUMBER: CATEGORY Too Many
PERCENT
17
2.4
Too Few
160
22.7
OK Number
501
71.0
No Opinion
21
3.0
No Response
6
0.8
Missina Value
1
0.1
TOTAL
(B)
NUMBER
706
100.0
NUMBER
PERCENT
SIZE: CATEGORY Too Large
23
3.3
Too Small
82
11.6
Right Size
547
77.5
53
7.5
No Response Missing Value
TOTAL
1
706
0.1
100.0
5
(C)
LOCATION: CATEGORY
PERCENT
NUMBER
Too Centrally Located
17
2.4
Too Scattered or Inaccessible
40
5.7
46
6.5
3
0.4
Poorly Laid Out in Terms of Security
.
Too Centrally Located and Too Scattered/Inaccessible
0.3
Too Centrally Located and Insecure 5
0.7
492
69.7
Other
59
8.4
No Opinion
29
4.1
No Response
12
1.7
Too Scattered and Insecure OK
Missing Value
TOTAL
6.
0.1
1
100.0
706
SATISFACTION WITH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN DISTRICT (THEIR PART OF THE CITY):
FACILITY
VERY SATISFIED
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
VERY DISSATISFIED
NO OPINION
MISSING NO RESPONSE VALUE
2 (0.3)
Indoor Swimming Pools
291 (41.2)
286 (40.5)
52 (7.4)
24 (3.4)
' 51 (7.2)
Arenas
187 (26.5)
285 (40.4)
85 (12.0)
36 (5.1)
108 (15.3)
3 (0.4)
2 (0.3)
Major Sportsfields
153 (21.7)
301 (42.6)
93 (13.2)
46 (6.5)
110 (15.6)
1 (0.1)
2 (0.3)
River Valley & Ravine Access
,263 (37.3)
187 (26.5)
96 (13.6)
57 (8.1)
100 (14.2)
1 (0.1)
2 (0.3)
7.
PRIORITIES FOR LANDSCAPING AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS:
LOCATION
HIGH PRIORITY
MEDIUM LOW NO NO NO MISSING PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY OPINION RESPONSE VALUES
TOTAL
SUBGROUPS
Downtown
269 (38.1)
183 (25.9)
123 (17.4)
97 (13.7)
28 (4.0)
3 (0.4)
3 (0.4)
706 (100.0)
All
Argyll Road
92 (19.3)
145 (30.4)
107 (22.4)
91 (19.1)
38 (8.0)
2 (0.4)
2 (0.4)
477 (100.0)
0&M
Whyte Avenue
151 (31.7)
167 (35.0)
58 (12.2)
71 (14.9)
26 (5.5)
2 (0.4)
2 (0.4)
477 (100.0)
0&M
Mill Woods Park and Golf Course
115 (50.2)
64 (27.9)
33 (14.4)
7 (3.1)
10 (4.4)
Highway 2
125 (54.6)
54 (23.6)
24 (10.5)
20 (8.7)
4 (1.7)
2 (0.9)
Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre Area
126 (17.8)
260 (36.8)
143 (20.3)
151 (21.4)
22 (3.1)
2 (0.3)
229 (100.0)
NOTE: Of the 706 completed responses: 244 (34.5%) Named another area for landscaping and street upgrading. 460 (65.2%) Did not name another area for landscaping and street upgrading. 2 ( 0.3%) Missina Values.
229 (100.0) 2 (0.3)
706 (100.0)
ALL
7
8.
FREQUENCY OF TRAVEL BY BUS OR LRT: CATEGORY
NUMBER
Not At All
429
60.8
Less than four times week
137
19.4
More than four times per week
136
19.3
4
0.6
706
100.0
Missing Values
TOTAL
B.
PERCENT
FOR THOSE WHO USE THE TRANSIT "LESS THAN FOUR TIMES PER WEEK" OR "NOT AT ALL", THE REASONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: (TOTAL = 566 RESPONSES) CATEGORY
RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
MISSING VALUE
Don't Know Why, I Just Don't
11 (1.9)
552 (97.5)
3 (0.5)
Takes Too Long By Bus
32 (5.7)
531 (93.8)
3 (0.5)
Service Not Frequent Enough
15 (2.7)
548 (96.8)
3 (0.5)
I Take My Car
452 (79.9)
111 (19.6)
3 (0.5)
Fares Too Expensive
10 (1.8)
553 (97.7)
3 (0.5)
Other
155 (27.3)
408 (72.1)
3 (0.5)
8
C.
FOR THOSE WITH "OTHER" REASONS FOR NOT USING TRANSIT, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: (155 RESPONSES) OTHER
PERCENT
Descriptive Response
93
16.4
Major Events Only
37
6.5
Doesn't Serve Destination
16
2.8
9
1.6
155
27.3
Too Many Transfers
TOTAL
D.
NUMBER
FOR THOSE 136 WHO USE TRANSIT "MORE THAN FOUR TIMES PER WEEK", THE SATISFACTION LEVEL WITH THE SERVICE IN THEIR AREA IS: CATEGORY
NUMBER
PERCENT
Very Satisfied
60
44.1
Somewhat Satisfied
39
28.7
Somewhat Dissatisfied
23
16.9
Very Dissatisfied
14
10.3
136
100.0
TOTAL
9
9.
LENGTH OF TIME WILLING TO WAIT FOR A TRANSFER:
CATEGORY No Response
9
1.3
0-3 Minutes
11
1.6
4-6 Minutes
98
13.9
7-10 Minutes
202
28.6
11 + Minutes
325
46.0
Transfer Not Applicable
24
3.4
Transfer Not Acceptable
6
0.8
27
3.8
4
0.6
706
100.0
No Opinion Missing Values
TOTAL
10.
PERCENT
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON RESPONDENTS' LOCAL STREET:
NO OPINION
MISSING VALUES
TYPE OF PROBLEM
YES
NO
Traffic Shortcutting
125 (17.7)
572 (81.0)
5 (0.7)
4 (0.6)
Too Much Traffic
145 (20.5)
555 (78.6)
2 (0.3)
4 (0.6)
Ignore Stop/Yield Sions
215 (30.5)
481 (68.1)
6 (0.8)
4 (0.6)
On Street Parking
164 (23.2)
537 (76.1)
1 (0.1)
4 (0.6)
Other
223 (31.6)
477 (67.6)
1 (0.1)
5 (0.7)
11. PRIORITIES FOR SUGGESTED ROADWAY PROJECTS:
LOCATION
HIGH PRIORITY
MEDIUM LOW NO NO NO MISSING PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY OPINION RESPONSE VALUES
TOTAL
SUBGROUPS
Ring Road
451 (63.9)
125 (17.7)
55 (7.8)
38 (5.4)
33 (4.7)
1 (0.1)
3 (0.4)
706 (100.0)
All
Eliminate Bonnie Doon Circle
130 (27.3)
92 (19.3)
89 (18.7)
141 (29.6)
22 (4.6)
1 (0.2)
2 (0.4)
477 (100.0)
O&M
Improve 99 Street
169 (35.4)
136 (28.5)
52 (10.9)
68 (14.3)
49 (10.3)
1 (0.2)
2 (0.4)
477 (100.0)
O&M
Ellerslie Road
116 (50.7)
56 (24.5)
34 (14.8)
12 (5.2)
10 (4.4)
1 (0.4)
229. (100.0)
NOTE: Of the 706 completed responses: 272 (38.5) had another area/roadway named for improvement 431 (61.1) did not have any further suggestions for roadway improvements 3 ( 0.4) missing values.
12.
A.
SATISFACTION WITH THE TIME IT TAKES TO DRIVE DOWNTOWN FROM HOME:
CATEGORY
NUMBER
PERCENT
B. RESPONDENTS SPECIFICALLY DISSATISFIED WITH:
CATEGORY
RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
Excess Traffic/ Congestion
11 (26.8)
30 (73.2)
64.0
Bottleneck on Route
11 (26.8)
30 (73.2)
163
23.1
Intersection Hazard
-
41 (100.0)
Somewhat DisSatisfied
29
4.1
Poor Road Conditions
Very Dissatisfied
12
1.7
Other
No Opinion
42
5.9
3
0.4
706
100.0
5
0.7
Very Satisfied
452
Somewhat Satisfied
No Response
Missing Values
TOTAL
2 (4.9)
39 (95.1)
22 (53.6)
19 (46.3)
12
13.
TYPE OF HOUSING LIVED IN BY RESPONDENTS:
NUMBER
PERCENT
551
78.0
Semi-Detached/Duplex
37
5.2
Row Housing/Town Housing
49
6.9
Walk Up Apartment
40
5.7
High-Rise Apartment
5
0.7
Suite in a House
3
0.4
18
2.5
3
0.4
TYPE Single Detached
Other Missing Values
TOTAL
14.
706
100.0
NUMBER
PERCENT
HOUSING TENURE (OWN/RENT):
CATEGORY Owner
509
72.1
Renter
187
26.5
Other
7
1.0
Missing Values
3
0.4
706
100.0
TOTAL
13
15.
CONCERN ABOUT NEIGHBOURHOOD CRIME: CATEGORY
PERCENT
Yes
386
54.8
No
313
44.4
Missing Values
3
0.4
No Opinion
3
0.4
705
100.0
TOTAL
16.
NUMBER
ASSESSMENT OF AMOUNT OF CRIME IN NEIGHBOURHOOD: CATEGORY
NUMBER
PERCENT
No Response
30
4.2
High
56
7.9
Medium
154
21.8
Low
405
57.4
None At All
33
4.7
No Opinion
25
3.5
3
0.4
706
100.0
Missing Values
TOTAL
14
17,
TYPE OF CRIME OF GREATEST CONCERN IN AREA: (607 = total)
THEFT/ BREAK -IN
CATEGORY
SEX-RELATED CRIMES
VANDALISM/ DAMAGE
ASSAULT
OTHER
Response
278 (45.8)
104 (17.1)
27 (4.4)
10 (1.6)
79 (13.0)
No Response
100 (16.5)
274 (45.1)
351 (57.8)
368 (60.6)
299 (49.3)
Missing Values
229 (37.7)
229 (37.7)
229 (37.7)
229 (37.7)
229 (37.7)
607 (100.0)
607 (100.0)
607 (100.0)
607 (100.0)
607 (100.0)
TOTAL
18. NEIGHBOURHOOD RATING (SATISFACTION):
CATEGORY
NUMBER
PERCENT
Excellent
283
40.1
Good
351
49.7
Fair
62
8.8
Poor
7
1.0
Missing Values
3
0.4
706
100.0
TOTAL
15
19. COMMUNITY LEAGUE IMPORTANCE TO RESPONDENTS AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT:
CATEGORY
COMMUNITY LEAGUE IMPORTANT
No Response
CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE MONEY/ TIME FUND RAISING
1 (0.1)
2 (0.3)
2 (0.3)
Yes
298 (42.2)
422 (59.8)
458 (64.9)
No
394 (55.8)
263 (37.3)
227 (32.2)
No Opinion
10 (1.4)
16 (2.3)
16 (2.3)
Missinn Values
3 (0.4)
3 (0.4)
3 (0.4)
706 (100.0)
706 (100.0)
706 (100.0)
TOTAL
20. NEIGHBOURHOOD SENSE OF COMMUNITY: (COMMUNITY SPIRIT) CATEGORY No Response
NUMBER 1
(Total = 706)
PERCENT 0.1
Definitely Sense of Community
148
21.0
Probably Sense of Community
207
29.3
Everyone Goes Own Way
286
40.5
Definitely Goes Own Way
21
3.0
No Opinion
38
5.4
5
0.7
Missino Values
16
21. URGENT NEIGHBOURHOOD ISSUES OR PROBLEMS:
A.
CATEGORY
PERCENT
Yes
160
22.7
No
535
75.8
No Opinion
7
1.0
Missing Values
4
0.6
706
100.0
TOTAL
B.
NUMBER
OF THE 160 "YES" RESPONSES, THE URGENT PROBLEMS OR ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED/CLASSIFIED TO BE:
ISSUE/PROBLEM
RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
Traffic
28 (17.5)
132 (82.5)
Crime
14 (8.7)
146 (91.2)
19 (11.9)
141 (88.1)
No Community Feeling
2 (1.2)
158 (98.7)
Run Down Appearance
3 (1.9)
157 (98.1)
Bus Kids Out of Neighbourhood
4 (2.5)
156 (97.5)
Poorly Maintained Vacant Lots
11 (6.9)
149 (93.1)
98 (61.2)
62 (38.7)
Basement Flooding
Other
17
22. IDENTIFICATION OF AREA WHERE LARGEST NON FOOD DOLLAR PURCHASES ARE MADE:
PERCENT
LOCATION
NUMBER
Bonnie Doon
277
39.2
Downtown
85
12.0
Southgate Mall
80
11.3
Heritage Mall
75
10.6
Capilano Mall
57
8.1
Millbourne Shopping Centre
38
5.4
No One Particular Area
34
4.8
West Edmonton Mall
19
2.7
Other
19
2.7
Kingsway Garden Mall
5
0.7
I Don't Know
4
0.6
Northwood/Northgate
3
0.4
Outside the City
2
0.3
Whyte Avenue/ Old Strathcona
1
0.1
Southpark Village
1
0.1
Stony Plain Strip
1
0.1
Argyll Road Co-op
1
0.1
Missing Values
4
0.6
706
100.0
TOTAL
18
23.
24.
ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENT SUPPORT FOR CHANGES TO HOMES IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD:
NO OPINION
MISSING VALUES
TOTAL
CATEGORY
YES
NO
Small Officesin-the-home
513 (72.7)
167 (23.7)
17 (2.4)
9 (1.3)
706 (100.0)
Addition to Home (Older neighbourhoods and Mature Suburbs only)
433 (90.8)
33 (6.9)
6 (1.3)
5 (1.0)
477 (100.0)
Basement Suites
399 (56.5)
276 (39.1)
23 (3.3)
8 (1.1)
706 (100.0)
ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENTS FEELINGS ON WHETHER THEY HAVE INFLUENCE IN LOCAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS:
CATEGORY YES
MISSING NO NO NO OPINION RESPONSE VALUES TOTAL
Feel Have Influence
155 (22.0)
519 (73.5)
26 (3.7)
Want More Influence
440 (62.3)
237 (33.6)
24 (3.4)
Support Community League Involvement
600 (85.0)
72 (10.2)
29 (4.1)
1 (0.1)
_
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
19
25. SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT IN OLDER NEIGHBOURHOODS AND MATURE SUBURBS: NO RESPONSE YES
TYPE
YESNO MISSING NO CONDITIONS OPINION VALUE TOTAL
Duplexes
1 (0.2)
177 (37.1)
257 (53.9)
18 (3.8)
20 (4.2)
4 (0.8)
477 (100.0)
Three Plexes/ Four Plexes
1 (0.2)
102 (21.4)
344 (72.1)
7 (1.5)
19 (4.0)
4 (0.8)
477 (100.0)
Town Housing/ Row Housing
2 (0.4)
66 (13.8)
379 (79.5)
8 (1.7)
18 (3.8)
3 (0.8)
477 (100.0)
26. SUPPORT FOR LOCAL SCHOOL CLOSURES IN OLDER NEIGHBOURHOODS AND MATURE SUBURBS:
CATEGORY
NUMBER
PERCENT
Yes
288
60.4
No
150
31.4
34
7.1
5
1.0
477
100.0
No Opinion Missing Values
TOTAL
27. SATISFACTION WITH THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF NEIGHBOURHOOD IN THE NEW SUBURBS:
CATEGORY
NO RESPONSE
VERY SATISFIED
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED
VERY DISSATISFIED
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
NO OPINION
MISSING VALUES
TOTAL
Housing Mix
1 (0.4)
57 (24.9)
114 (49.8)
36 (15.7)
17 (7.4)
2 (0.9)
2 (0.9)
229 (100 -)
Location of Public Housing
1 (0.4)
44 (19.2)
122 (53.3)
32 (14.0)
9 (3.9)
19 (8.3)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
Roadway Design
1 (0.4)
61 (26.6)
110 (48.0)
41 (17.9)
14 (6.1)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
Clustering of School/Commercial
1 (0.4)
66 (28.8)
118 (51.5)
24 (10.5)
12 (5.2)
6 (2.6)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
Transmission Lines/ Pipeline Locations
3 (1.3)
44 (19.2)
116 (50.7)
17 (7.4)
8 (3.5)
38 (16.6)
3 (1.3)
229 (100.0)
54 (23.6)
8 (3.5)
4 (1.7)
10 (4.4)
7 (3.1)
140 (61.1)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
Other Features (No --,- 4 (1.7%))
21
28. ASSESSMENT OF FEATURES CONTRIBUTING TO THE SPECIAL IDENTITY OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD (NEW SUBURBS ONLY): NO CATEGORY RESPONSE
YES
NO
NO OPINION
MISSING VALUES
TOTAL
Named Instead of Numbered Streets
1 (0.4)
103 (45.0)
17 (51.1)
5 (2.2)
3 (1.3)
229 (100.0)
Architectural Control
1 (0.4)
152 (66.4)
68 (29.7)
5 (2.2)
3 (1.3)
229 (100.0)
174 (76.0)
47 (20.5)
5 (2.2)
3 (1.3)
229 (100.0)
175 (76.4)
49 (21.4)
2 (0.9)
3 (1.3)
229 (100.0)
59 (25.8)
142 (62.0)
10 (4.4)
3 (1.3)
229 (100.0)
Street & Lot Layout Neighbourhood Name/Gateway Signs Other Features
-
15 (6.6)
29. PREFERENCES FOR DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO NEW NEIGHBOURHOODS BEFORE CITY APPROVAL:
HIGH A. CATEGORY PRIORITY
MEDIUM PRIORITY
LOW PRIORITY
UNNECESSARY
NO OPINION
MISSING VALUES
SUBTOTAL GROUP
Design Around Natural Features
175 (76.4)
42 (18.3)
5 (2.2)
5 (2.2)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.)
NEW
Planting Trees on Streets/Sidewalks
158 (69.0)
47 (20.5)
13 (5.7)
9 (3.9)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
NEW
B. WHEN RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED IF THEY HAD ANY FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY BEFORE APPROVING NEW SUBDIVISIONS, THE ANSWER WAS: CATEGORY No Response Yes No Missing Values
TOTAL
NUMBER
PERCENT
3
(1.3)
91
(39.7)
133
(58.1)
2
(0.9)
229
(100.0)
23
30. CONCERNS ABOUT LOCAL STREET NUMBERING SYSTEM IN THE NEW SUBURBS:
NUMBER
CATEGORY Yes No
PERCENT
78
(34.1)
148
(64.6)
No Opinion
1
(0.4)
Missing Values
2
(0.9)
229
(100.0)
TOTAL
31. PREFERRED TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MILL WOODS TOWN CENTRE AND TAWA SITES:
CATEGORY
Low-Rise Multiple Family Housing Medium-Rise Apartments High-Rise Apartments Other
NO RESPONSE
YES
NO
NO OPINION
MISSING VALUES
TOTAL
114 (49.8)
98 (42.8)
14 (6.1)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
70 (30.6)
145 (63.3)
12 (5.2)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
1 (0.4)
31 (13.5)
186 (81.2)
9 (3.9)
2 (0.9)
229 (100.0)
137 (59.8)
77 (33.6)
12 (5.2)
3 (1.3)
229 (100.0)
1 (0.4)
-
24
32.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD BY AGE GROUPS:
AGE GROUP
MISSING VALUES
NONE
ONE
0-4
565 (80.0)
100 (14.2)
34 (4.8)
2 (0.3)
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
5-12
568 (80.5)
81 (11.5)
47 (6.7)
5 (0.7)
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
13-19
549 (77.8)
98 (13.9)
34 (4.8)
19 (2.7)
1 (0.1)
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
20-39
249 (35.3)
150 (21.2)
268 (38.0)
28 (4.0)
6 (0.8)
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
40-64
387 (54.8)
135 (19.1)
174 (24.6)
3 (0.4)
2 (0.3)
5 (0.7)
706 (100.0)
65+
586 (83.0)
74 (10.5)
40 (5.7)
1 (0.1)
5 (0 .7 )
706 (100.0)
TWO
THREE
FOUR
TOTAL
B. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE BY AGE GROUPS IN THE HOUSEHOLDS SURVEYED IS: 0-4 5-12 13-19 20-39 40-64 65+ TOTAL
174 190 227 794 500 158 2,043
C. AND THE AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS IS AS FOLLOWS: AGE GROUP No Response
NUMBER 1
PERCENT 0.1
13-19
39
5.5
20-39
347
49.2
40-64
228
32.3
85
12.0
6
0.8
706
100.0
65+ Missing Values
TOTAL
25
33.
CHILD CARE FOR THE HOUSEHOLD:
A.
CATEGORY
NUMBER
No Response
3
Daily
35
15.4
Part of the Week
13
5.7
Occasionally
52
22.8
118
51.8
7
3.1
228
100.0
Never Missing Values
TOTAL B.
PERCENT
OF THOSE 48 RESPONDENTS WHO USE CHILD CARE SERVICES ON A "DAILY" OR FOR "PART OF THE WEEK BASIS", THE TYPE OF SERVICES USED INCLUDE:
SERVICE
NO RESPONSE
YES
NO
TOTAL
Subsidized NonProfit Centre
1 (2.1)
9 (18.8)
38 (79.2)
48 (100.0)
Private Centre
1 (2.1)
9 (18.8)
38 (79.2)
48 (100.0)
Baby-Sitter in the Home
1 (2.1)
15 (31.3)
32 (66.7)
48 (100.0)
Live-In BabySitter/Nanny
1 (2.1)
1 (2.1)
46 (95.8)
48 (100.0)
Private Home
1 (2.1)
13 (27.1)
34 (70.8)
48 (100.0)
After-School Care Program
1 (2.1)
47 (97.9)
48 (100.0)
43 (89.6)
48 (100.0)
Other
5 (10.4)
26
C.
OF THOSE 48 RESPONDENTS WHO USE CHILD CARE SERVICES, THEIR SATISFACTION RATINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
CATEGORY No Response Very Satisfied
NUMBER 1
PERCENT 2.1
38
79.2
Somewhat Satisfied
5
10.4
Somewhat Dissatisfied
2
4.2
Very Dissatisfied
1
2.1
Missina Values
1
2.1
TOTAL
48
(100.0)
34. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS HAVING ADDITIONAL (FINAL) COMMENTS ON THE SURVEY: FINAL COMMENTS:
CATEGORY
NUMBER
No Response
539
76.3
Response
161
22.8
6
0.8
Missing Values
TOTAL
706
PERCENT
(100.0)
.