Preferences of first-time buyers of affordable housing: evidence from grow homes in Montreal, Canada.

Friedman, Avi

Resume

Les acheteurs d'une premiere maison constituent un groupe unique sur le marche immobilier. Leurs attentes different de celles des acheteurs plus experimentes et la plupart fondent leur choix sur leur capacite financiere. Les etudes revelent que la localisation est egalement un critere important dans les choix qui motivent les futurs acheteurs. Au cours d'une etude post-occupation de sept projets immobiliers recents Montreal et dans les environs, l'auteur a recueilli des informations qui permettent d'identifier les preferences en matiere de localisation et d'habitation des accedants la propriete qui ont fait l'acquisition d'une premiere maison dans une gamme de prix de bas a moyen. Les resultats revelent que l'acquisition d'une maison neuve en banlieue se fait au detriment de la preference pour une maison detachee. Les caracteristiques de localisation que les acheteurs jugent importantes, comme la proximite du lieu de travail et des reseaux de transport en commun, sont egalement sacrifiees pour pouvoir acceder a la propriete.

Background

A narrow-from rowhouse, called the "Grow Home," was developed as a response to the need for affordable housing in Canada. The concept underlying the Grow Home is that the house is sold partially finished, and the owners finish certain components based on their future needs and means. The unit--a 1,000 square foot, 14-foot-wide rowhouse--was designed to employ cost-saving strategies in construction materials and layout. Reducing size and providing choice of finishing materials lowered the costs of land, infrastructure and construction, bringing the selling price within the $69,000 to $86,500 range in 1991, depending on location (Rybczynski et al. 1990; Friedman and Cammalleri 1992).

The first Grow Home developer--a small-scale builder from the east end of Montreal--placed an advertisement in a local newspaper and, bearing in mind the deep slump in home construction in Montreal in the early 1990s, did not know whether the concept would be accepted by home buyers. To his surprise, 24 units were sold the first weekend and all of the project's 87 units were sold within three weeks before any ground was broken. Following this developer's lead, 12 other builders undertook Grow Home-type projects in and around the Montreal area, constructing approximately 1,000 units by the end of the first year (1991). The sales were supported by provincial and municipal programs which assisted first-time buyers to purchase homes through interest-reduction incentives. By 1999, over 6,000 units had been built in Canada at prices ranging from $69,000 to $95,000 per unit. The Grow Home has become an accepted prototype of an affordable single-family unit by both builders and buyers.

Figure 1: Combined Effect of Government Subsidies on Housing Affordability (1991), demonstrates the accessibility of affordable homes in the Grow Home range to lower-income households in Montreal in 1991. Based on total carrying costs (including capital, interest, property tax and heating), and assuming a mortgage rate of 12.5%, an annual household income of $33,106 would be sufficient to purchase a $76,000 home, whereas an income of $49,513 would be required for a $110,625 home and $55,234 for a $126,677 home.

Of the 6,000 Grow Home units that have been constructed by private-sector developers in 25 locations, seven projects were selected for study due to their similarity in site plan, unit layout and construction methods. The majority of the occupants (89.4%) were first-time home buyers who constituted a suitable sample for the study of location and dwelling preferences--factors that are considered closely by this group (Kaynak and Stevenson 1981; Realty Research Group 1982). In an economic climate where affordability is of primary concern, the author wanted to know which location and dwelling characteristics first-time buyers deemed essential, and what type of trade-offs this buyer group was willing to make.

Literature Review

Several researchers have studied the correlation between the demographic profile and the location preferences of home buyers (Barrett 1976; Bartel 1990; Hempel 1977; Munsinger et al. 1975; Northrup 1981). These studies indicate that location is a key factor in the home-buying decision. In a survey conducted by the Realty Research Group Ltd. (1982), out of a stratified random sample of 65 home buyers in the $90,000 to $110,000 price range in the Metro Toronto area, the reasons listed for moving were, in order of importance: location, where the most important locational attribute was transportation/access to work; large size of home; desire for home ownership; and price. The average age of respondents was 33.5 years. One-third of the sample were first-time buyers. Although this price segment is slightly higher than the one studied in the survey of the Grow Home, these findings do indicate the priority many home buyers place on location.

Kaynak and Stevenson (1981) suggest that most of the demand for housing rests on the underlying premise that households choose the type of housing and its location in response to income and other socio-economic household characteristics. However, it was their view, that while a house typically represents the single most important financial outlay of a household's economic resources, the home and its location, more than any other factors, play a major role in determining the overall quality of life. Hurtubise (1991) studied home buyers in the province of Quebec (Canada) for their housing needs and preferences. He found that the female spouse considered the following priorities when looking to buy a house, in order of importance: price, location, style of house and neighbourhood. Male spouses felt that location, price and style of house were the most important characteristics. Factors which constituted location were: the municipality, the type of development, the immediate neighbourhood and the site. Distance to work, family and friends were considered less important. The significance of location as a major concern is once again emphasized as a factor of primary importance in the consideration of a home purchase.

These priorities in the decision to buy a house may not hold true for all buyer groups. First-time home buyers constitute a unique segment of the home-buying population. They usually have more pressing economic needs than experienced buyers, since they do not have the equity base from the sale of a previous house. They are typically 25 to 34 years old, have recently entered the job market, earn relatively low incomes and are often subject to periods of unemployment (Hurtubise 1991). With young children to take care of, one spouse often stays at home, thereby temporarily reducing household income (Fallis 1983). With children, the need for larger space becomes more acute and the pressure to buy a home mounts; expenditures are thus increased while household income is reduced (Miron 1984). These distinct characteristics influence the priorities of first-time home buyers when they contemplate the purchase of a house.

Kaynak and Stevenson (1981) have identified first-time home buyers and experienced home buyers as two distinct segments in the housing market, each group with its own needs and expectations, which demand appropriate responses from the market with regard to house design, promotion, site location and pricing. In their survey, they found that first-time home buyers' responses differed significantly from those of other buyers, with respect to the importance of specific house features, financial aspects, locational requirements and utilization of information sources. It was found that experienced buyers wanted larger, higher-quality houses with more features. First-time buyers, on the other hand, were motivated to buy their own property and did not have very specific requirements, since their main priority was to buy a house they could afford. First-time buyers were also found to be significantly more concerned about mortgage availability and terms of purchase. They also placed more importance on their proximity to work, to major highway arteries, and to friends and relatives. Experienced buyers were more concerned with the proximity to schools, the condition of surrounding houses, the social composition of the area and neighbourhood reputation. On the other hand, the main reasons listed for moving into a new house by first-time buyers were the desire for home ownership and the desire for affordable accommodations.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report, Consumer Housing Preferences in the 1990s (1995), although a study of the preferences of all potential home buyers and not specifically those of first-time buyers, does provide valuable information on the expectations and preferences of home-buying Canadians. The feature that the largest proportion of people (22%) cite as the one they "like most" about their home is location. Over half of potential buyers (52%) believe that they will get what they want in their next homes, while a third (34%) believe that they will have to settle for less. Of the compromises that potential buyers expect to make, 63% cite fewer features, 46% a smaller home, 45% a higher purchase price, 29% a different type of home and 27% location. A large majority of Canadians (78%) believe that young people should stop renting and buy homes as soon as they can afford to. The very same percentage also believes that high house prices prevent many people from buying homes.

Methodology

The location and dwelling preferences of Grow Home owners were examined and analyzed to see how the author's findings corroborated with past studies, and to determine the most important factors in the purchase of a house by first-time home buyers. Seven projects were selected for survey on the basis of their location and similarity in site planning, size and unit design. Six of the seven projects were located off the island of Montreal, and the seventh project was on the island at its eastern-most tip (Figure 2). All of the 236 households in the seven projects were visited in 1991 and asked to fill out a questionnaire. A total of 196 questionnaires (83%) were completed, with 38 households unwilling to participate (mostly due to lack of time) and two households that could not be reached despite repeated visits.

The 12-page questionnaire was composed of 54 questions: 11 on the previous dwelling, 15 on the search for a new home, 22 on the new home and 6 on household characteristics. The majority of the questions requested a multiple-choice answer or a ranking; eight questions were open-ended and solicited short written responses. The questionnaires were distributed in the fall of 1991, a year after the respondents moved in. The researchers left the questionnaires with the homeowners and returned to collect them after the respondents had completed them at their leisure. In all cases, the purchaser of the home was the respondent; in the homes where the joint owners were a couple, only one of the spouses was required to fill out the questionnaire. The response rate was similar across all seven sites.

The proximity to major services in the area such as shopping facilities, medical services, public schools and public transportation were similar for all units. Projects 3 and 4 were within walking distance to shopping and medical services, and Projects 3, 5 and 7 were within walking distance to schools and public transit. All of the other projects were within a 10-minute drive to these facilities.

Socio-Economic Profile of the Occupants

The age group with the greatest number of members was the 25- to 34-years category (43.7% of all respondents), and the household type with more respondents than any other type in the sample was couple with children (37.6%). Single parents made up 9.8% of households, while single adults constituted 16.5% of the sample (Table 1). The small size of the Grow Home was found to be suitable for smaller households, accounting for their increasing popularity among first-time home buyers (see Table 2 for general characteristics of the seven selected projects). All 87 units of Project 6 were sold in four weeks before any ground was broken. At the time of purchase, according to the survey, 59.9% of buyers were not actively looking to buy a house.

TABLE 1

Household Characteristics

HOUSEHOLD SIZE (%) OCCUPANT AGE (%)

One person 16.0 0 to 17 22.1
Two persons 40.7 18 to 24 12.8
Three persons 32.0 25 to 34 43.7
Four persons 7.2 35 to 44 15.2
Five persons 3.1 45 to 54 4.0
Six persons 1.0 Over 55 2.1

HOUSEHOLD TYPE (%) HOUSEHOLD INCOME (%)

One adult 16.5 Below $20,000 1.6
Two or more adults 3.6 $20,000 to $29,999 5.5
Single parent 9.8 $30,000 to $39,999 25.1
Couple 32.5 $40,000 to $49,999 30.1
Couple with children 37.6 Over $50,000 37.7

NUMBER OF
INCOME EARNERS (%)

One-income household 36.7

Two-income household 58.7

TABLE 2

General Characteristics of Selected Projects

[Part 2 of 2]

 Number No. of Units Density
 of Units per Grouping (Units/ha)

Project 1 18 9 51.3
Project 2 32 4, 8, 10 53.5
Project 3 73 3 41.4
Project 4 12 4 43.2
Project 5 26 4, 6 44.8
Project 6 87 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 55.0
Project 7 47 5, 7 58.5

TABLE 2 General Characteristics of Selected Projects [Part 1 of 2] Number Selling Floor Area of Units Price(1) (two floors) Project 1 18 $72,900 1010.8 ft²Project 2 32 $70,900 1010.8 ft²Project 3 73 $83,400 1139.5 ft²Project 4 12 $86,500 1049.1 ft²Project 5 26 $71,900 1020.1 ft²Project 6 87 $76,000 1014.7 ft²Project 7 47 $69,000 1010.8 ft²

1. Base model, including land and infrastructure; not including taxes

The majority of respondents (67.8%) claimed annual household incomes of $40,000 and over. Calculations based on the respondents' total carrying costs indicated that the buyers were spending from 18.5% to 26.1% of their incomes on their current dwellings. The projects provided starter homes for 89.4% of the respondents. A large majority were previously tenants (86.6%), 92.2% of whom had lived in apartments (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Occupant Background (by percentage of respondents)

FORMER DWELLING TYPE (%) TENURE AT FORMER DWELLING (%)

Apartment 80.6 Rented 86.6
Townhouse 3.1 Condominium ownership 2.6
Semi-detached 8.4 Co-op ownership 0.5

Single-family detached 7.8 Freehold ownership 10.3

Findings

Occupants were asked to rank various dwelling types in order of preference, the location they found preferable, and whether or not they were looking specifically for a newly-built house. The findings (Table 4) show a distinct desire to live in a setting further than 10 minutes from the city centre, in a new home. The single-family detached dwelling was favoured among 78% of respondents, while the majority (51.8%) rated the suburb as their preferred location (regardless of price), and another 21% rated it as their second choice. Only 3% considered the city centre as their preferred location. It is interesting to note that the lowest preference for a suburban location was from respondents living in Project 6, who found that a location 10 minutes from the city centre was also appealing. Project 6 is the only development located on the island of Montreal, which could account, at least in part, for the residents' choice to purchase units in this area.

TABLE 4

Buyers' Location and Dwelling Preferences

SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR A NEWLY-BUILT HOUSE

(percentage of respondents): 58.5%

PREFERRED TYPE OF DWELLING (by number of respondents; total of 196)

 1 2 3 4 No answer

 (Least preferred) (Most preferred)

Single-family detached 23 10 8 146 9
Semi-detached 20 40 115 6 15
Townhouse 8 100 43 25 20
Condominium apartment 134 18 11 11 22

PREFERRED LOCATION (by number of respondents; total of 196)

 1 2 3 4 5 No answer

 (Least preferred) (Most preferred)

City centre 142 24 4 8 5 13
10 mins, from city centre 22 67 35 25 38 9
10+ mins, from city centre 7 7 37 39 97 9
Small town 13 26 50 75 17 15

Country 44 33 39 26 42 12

The units satisfied both the suburban setting, which most buyers found preferable, and the desire for a new home. Although the single-family detached home was the dwelling type of choice, all the buyers were willing to settle for a rowhouse. The Kaynak and Stevenson report (1981) confirmed that, although single-family detached dwellings remain the most popular type of accommodation, a number of consumer surveys have indicated that attached housing is increasingly what home buyers actually select. Due to the increase in housing prices and land costs in the past two decades, the attached home can be seen as economically advantageous due to its smaller size, saving in land, construction, infrastructure and maintenance costs. First-time buyers were willing to choose a dwelling unit which was not their preferred dwelling type in return for becoming homeowners at an affordable cost.

Buyers' location preferences were measured in terms of the importance they placed on proximity to work, public transportation, medical services, shopping and schools (Table 5). Respondents were asked to rate the attributes on a scale of 1 to 5, according to the significance they held in the decision to buy a house, with 1 as "not important at all" and 5 regarded as "extremely important." Proximity to work and to public transportation were considered the two most important location characteristics, with 46.9% of the respondents rating closeness to work as extremely important and 37.8% of respondents rating closeness to public transportation as desirable. These findings are in accordance with the Kaynak and Stevenson (1981) study in which it was found that first-time buyers were more concerned with their proximity to work and major highway arteries than multiple-time buyers. The Realty Research Group study (1982) also found that transportation and access to work were the most important locational aspects for home buyers. The majority felt that proximity to medical services, shopping facilities and schools was less important. Only 37.6% had children; therefore, the concern for proximity to schools either did not exist or was not yet significant. As for shopping facilities, it has now become common to shop for large quantities and for long periods of time at a large centre which can be reached only by car. Since 98.5% of the occupants owned a car (52.4% owned one car, 43.9% owned two and 2.6% owned more than two), it can be assumed that errands requiring a car would not be an inconvenience.

TABLE 5

Importance of Location Characteristics

IMPORTANCE OF LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
(by number of respondents; total of 196)

 1 2 3 4 5 No answer

 (Least important) (Most important)

Proximity to work 10 5 34 53 90 4
Proximity to public transit 44 11 23 38 73 7
Proximity to medical services 27 33 61 42 27 6
Proximity to shopping facilities 29 26 75 35 24 7

Proximity to schools 57 23 21 36 46 13

Buyers were asked to list the general features that they appreciated most at the time of purchase (Table 6). The most appealing feature specified by 40% of the respondents in five out of seven projects was the unit selling price. Units in Projects 3 and 4, which sold at the highest price (over $80,000), were purchased for their location and pleasing design qualities. This finding indicates that price was the single most important factor in the lower-cost housing; most occupants were willing to put aside their preferences of location and design when offered home ownership at an affordable cost. It is also evident from this finding that buyers who were not as worried about price as a first priority considered location and its environmental attributes among the most significant factors in the decision to buy a house.

TABLE 6

Features That Were Considered Especially Appealing at the Time of Purchase
(by percentage)

PROJECT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL

Price 18.2 41.2 3.6 6.1 26.3 19.7 22.7 17.8
General layout 9.1 11.8 7.2 9.1 1.7 14.0 9.3 9.7
Total amount of
 space 18.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.3 14.6 8.0 8.3
Location 4.5 0.0 10.8 12.1 12.3 0.0 9.3 6.3
Useable basement 4.5 0.0 6.0 6.1 12.3 1.9 4.0 4.7

Second/large

 bathroom 4.5 0.0 8.4 0.0 5.3 2.5 4.0 4.0
Open plan 0.0 0.0 4.8 3.0 1.7 5.1 4.0 3.8
Cottage style/two
 storeys 9.1 0.0 3.6 6.1 7.0 2.5 2.7 3.8
Natural lighting 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 3.6

Second/large

bedroom 4.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 3.5 2.5 2.7 3.1

The author also attempted to gauge the degree of satisfaction buyers felt for the locational aspects of their new dwellings in comparison with their previous dwellings. The majority of residents were satisfied with all aspects of location (Table 7), with 1 being "very disappointed" and 5 "very satisfied," despite the fact that, in almost all cases, the new location had diminished their proximity to work and to three out of four services (Table 8), with 1 being "much worse" and 5 "much better."

TABLE 7

Satisfaction With Location of Current Dwelling
(respondents' average on a scale of 5)

[Part 1 of 2]

PROJECT 1 2 3 4

Proximity to:

Work 4.273 3.333 4.152 3.889
Public transportation 2.333 1.750 3.967 4.250
Medical services 4.000 3.889 3.967 3.556
Shopping facilities 3.900 4.000 3.903 3.600
Schools 4.375 3.500 3.636 3.600

TABLE 7

Satisfaction With Location of Current Dwelling
(respondents' average on a scale of 5)

[Part 2 of 2]

PROJECT 5 6 7 TOTAL

Proximity to:

Work 3.417 3.441 4.032 3.736
Public transportation 4.560 3.627 3.033 3.615
Medical services 3.783 3.561 3.667 3.718
Shopping facilities 3.440 3.530 3.690 3.656

Schools 4.263 3.538 4.000 3.766

TABLE 8

Comparison of Location Characteristics to Former Dwelling
(respondents' average on a scale of 5)

[Part 1 of 2]

PROJECT 1 2 3 4

Proximity to:

Work 4.000 2.667 3.107 3.375
Public transportation 2.833 2.500 3.267 3.125
Medical services 3.625 3.250 3.448 3.333
Shopping facilities 3.500 4.000 3.233 3.444
Schools 3.750 3.167 3.000 2.833

TABLE 8

Comparison of Location Characteristics to Former Dwelling
(respondents' average on a scale of 5)

[Part 2 of 2]

PROJECT 5 6 7 TOTAL

Proximity to:

Work 2.818 2.493 3.067 2.851
Public transportation 3.500 2.692 2.462 2.892
Medical services 3.409 2.905 2.893 3.138
Shopping facilities 3.217 2.609 2.767 2.983

Schools 3.812 2.911 3.520 3.196

There was no substantial difference in satisfaction among the majority of respondents for any one aspect of location, except in Projects 1 and 2, where residents reported a great dissatisfaction with their proximity to public transportation. This response can be explained by the fact that both projects were built in new developments which, for the time being, have limited access to public transportation. While there were marginal improvements in location over previous dwellings in two of the characteristics (proximity to medical services and schools), deterioration was reported in the remaining three. The greatest compromise was made in the proximity to work--the aspect considered of primary importance in location among the majority of buyers. Public transportation, which was ranked second in importance, was the second highest source of compromise, with 14% of respondents rating it as being much worse than their former dwelling. Ironically, satisfaction with the proximity to work was rated as the second most satisfactory aspect of location of the current dwelling. These results indicate that a high degree of compromise on the most important characteristics of location was deemed acceptable and satisfactory for the majority of home buyers, and demonstrates the strong willingness to make major trade-offs in all aspects of location in the interest of home ownership.

As a result of the new distance to work that the location of the Grow Home projects represented, it was interesting to determine how much more time was being spent in commuting and what method of transport was used (Table 9). The number of respondents with a commuting time of under 30 minutes was reduced by 15.8%. Most of these (13.8%) had increased their commuting time by 15 minutes or less compared with their previous dwelling. Similar compromises were made in the way the respondents got to work, with a 7.7% increase in car usage, a 3.5% decrease in public transit use, and a 4.1% decrease in walking. These findings indicate that, even though a greater distance from work constitutes a compromise, the widespread use of, and accessibility to, the car has enabled first-time buyers to situate themselves further away from their place of work with relative ease in a suburban setting.

TABLE 9

Occupants' Commuting Time to Work and Mode of Transportation
(by percentage of respondents)

MODE OF Former Current
TRANSPORTATION (%) (%)

On foot 4.6 0.5
Bicycle 0.5 0.5
Public transit 23.7 20.2
Car 71.2 78.9

COMMUTING Former Current
TIME (%) (%)

Less than 15 min. 36.1 22.3
16 - 30 min. 36.6 34.6
31 - 45 min. 18.8 22.9
61 - 90 min. 1.6 4.8

More than 90 min. 0.0 0.5

Conclusion

First-time home buyers are willing to make a number of compromises on dwelling preferences and their location. Although most of the housing developments satisfied the desire to live in a suburban setting and to have a new home, almost all other criteria related to location were sacrificed. There was a general preference for a single-family detached home among first-time buyers, but an attached home was not considered unacceptable. The fact that the buyers in the Montreal area chose not only attached homes, but narrow-front rowhouses, indicates the degree of compromise that was considered satisfactory among first-time buyers.

The single most appealing feature of the houses in the $69,000 to $76,000 range was the selling price. This criterion, above any others, was the determining factor in the purchase of the home in all cases except for those houses which sold for more than $80,000. In these higher-priced homes, the pleasing locational and environmental aspects were the main determinants for their purchase. This finding proves that first-time buyers in the lower-cost housing market consider price among the most important considerations in the home-buying decision.

The location of the buyers' new homes resulted in a longer distance to work and to public transit. Although these aspects were rated as significant location characteristics, the majority of occupants were satisfied with a longer commuting time to work. This increased distance represented a higher use of cars, and a decrease in the use of public transit and walking to work. Despite these trade-offs, the buyers were satisfied with their homes.

The proximity to work and to public transportation were the most important location characteristics for this sample of buyers. Proximity to other services such as medical facilities, shopping and schools was not considered as critical. The widespread use of cars and the relatively young age of the group can be seen as logical reasons for the lack of concern in these areas.

The findings corroborate past studies which have indicated that, although location was considered a primary factor in the purchase of house, for first-time buyers the most significant factor was the purchase price. Almost all other aspects were considered secondary. The author also underscores the importance most respondents placed on living in a new house at least ten minutes from the city centre in a suburban setting; in most cases, this environment entailed a longer travel time to work and to public transportation. One can therefore conclude that, if the selling price is appealing, first-time home buyers are more than willing to compromise on the type of dwelling they buy, general design qualities and travel time to work.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the research contributions of Vince Cammalleri and David Krawitz to the creation of this article.

Appendix

Occupant Questionnaire

Instructions

As you may be aware, the design of the home you have purchased is related to a concept which was developed at McGill University. As part of a follow-up study, the researchers would like to assess your initial satisfaction with your new home and how it compares with your former dwelling. The feedback will be used to identify the successes and failures of the design and to make whatever changes and recommendations are necessary for improvement in the future. It is important that the occupant who fills out the questionnaire be a registered owner of the property. Any additional comment she/she may have are welcome and may be added on the back side of the paper. All data obtained from this questionnaire will be used for statistical purposes only, and information contained within the individual questionnaires will remain strictly confidential. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

1. Were the occupants of your previous dwelling the same as those living in your current dwelling? If not, what were the differences?

2. How long did you live in your previous dwelling?

3. In what municipality was your previous dwelling located?

4. What type of dwelling was it?

5. How was the property held (rent, condo, co-op or freehold)?

6. What kind of parking did you have?

7. What kind of private outdoor space did you have?

8. What were your average monthly expenses in 1990 as a tenant or as an owner?

9. How close were you to each of the following: shopping, medical, schools, public transit?

10. How did you get to work most of the time: walk, bicycle, public transit, car?

11. How long did it take you on average to get to work?

12. How much time did you spend looking for your new home?

13. How many projects did you visit during that time (not including the one you now live in)?

14. Were you specifically looking to buy a newly-built house?

15. What type of dwelling would you have bought if you had done as you pleased? (rank options)

16. Where would you have liked to live (location)? (rank options)

17. How important were each of the following factors to you in your search for a new dwelling: proximity to work, public transit, medical, shopping, schools? (rank options)

18. How many bedrooms were you hoping to have in your new home?

19. Were there any particular features which were very important for you to have in your new home? If yes, what were they?

20. What especially appealed to you about this new home?

21. After visiting the Project for the first time, how long did it take you to make the decision to buy?

22. How many other projects did you visit after seeing this one?

23. Did you see a model unit prior to your purchase?

24. Were there any particular aspects about the design of your new home that you felt uneasy about at the time of purchase? If yes, what were they?

25. How important were each of the following factors in your decision to purchase your new house: exterior appearance, interior plan, price, potential for return on investment, outdoor space, parking? (rank options)

26. Did you qualify for the provincial and/or municipal subsidies which were being offered at the time of purchase? If yes, would you have purchased anyway if there were no subsidies?

27. When did you move into your new home?

28. Which of the following features do you have in your dwelling: washroom on first floor, open kitchen, separate shower, whirlpool bath, fireplace, front and rear balcony, window on side wall (end unit), finished basement?

29. Aside from the basic furnishings, have you done any work on your new home since you bought it? If yes, specify what type of work for each floor.

30. Is there any work which you plan to do? If yes, specify the type of work for each floor.

31. Would you have done more of the construction or finishing work yourself in exchange for a reduction in the cost of the home? If yes, what kind of work?

32. Would you have accepted an unpartitioned second floor (i.e., a loft space) for a price reduction of $5,000?

33. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following points and evaluate how they compare with your previous dwelling: 23 separate points in a total of three categories (location, site, unit). (rank options)

34. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the general use of each of the following spaces and evaluate how they compare with their previous dwelling: 10 separate areas. (rank options)

35. If you could redesign the unit, what changes would you make?

36. Are you having any problem sharing the yard area with your neighbours? If yes, specify.

37. Do you hear your neighbours through your common wall?

38. How many motor vehicles do you own?

39. How do you get to work most of the time?

40. How long does it take you to get to work?

41. Where is your work located?

42. What are your average monthly expenses in your new home (6 categories)?

43. Are these expenses higher than you anticipated? If yes, rate the difference.

44. How have your spending/saving habits changed since you moved into your new home?

45. Has there been any change in the way you spend your leisure time since you moved? If yes, how has it changed?

46. In general, how has your new home lived up to the expectations you had at the time of purchase?

47. How long do you plan to live here?

48. Would you recommend your purchase to a friend?

49. Please indicate the age, sex and relationship to you of each person who lives in this dwelling.

50. Aside from yourself, is any person registered as an owner of the dwelling you are now living in? If yes, indicate who else holds a title on the property.

51. What is the highest level of formal education which you and your spouse or companion (if applicable) have completed?

52. Which of the following categories best describes the current employment status of you and your spouse or companion (if applicable): self-employed, full-time or part-time employee, unemployed, student, retired, other?

53. Which of the following occupational groups come closest to describing your current occupation (or former, if retired) and that of your spouse or companion (if applicable)?

54. Considering all sources, approximately what is your total annual household income?

References

Barrett, Frank. 1976. "The Search Process in Residential Relocation." Environment and Behaviour 8, 2: 169-98.

Bartel, Henry. 1990. Housing Expenditures: A Look at How Demographic Factors Influence Them. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1995. Consumer Housing Preferences in the 1990s: An In-depth Study of What Baby Boomers, Empty Nesters, and Generation X Want in Housing--Now and in the Future. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Fallis, George. 1983. Housing Decisions in a Life-Cycle Framework. Toronto: York University, Department of Economics.

Filion, Pierre and Trudi E. Bunting. 1990. Affordability of Housing in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Friedman, Avi and Vince Cammalleri. 1992. Evaluation of Affordable Housing Projects Based on the Grow Home Concept. Montreal: McGill University, Affordable Homes Programs.

Hempel, Donald J. 1977. "Consumer Satisfaction with the Home Buying Process: Conceptualization and Measurement." In H. Keith Hunt, ed., Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, 276-78. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

Hurturbise, Jules. 1991. "L'Habitation et les Families, De Nouveaux Besoins et de Nouvelles Tendances." Association Provinciale des Constructeurs d'Habitation du Quebec (APCHQ), Atelier IX, Document de Travail.

Kaynak, Erdner. 1980. "Home Selection Criteria in Eastern Canada." Paper presented at the ASAC 1980 Conference, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Quebec.

Kaynak, Erdner and Lois Stevenson. 1981. Home Buying Behaviour of Atlantic Canadians. Mount Saint Vincent University, School of Business Administration.

Miron, John R. 1984. Housing Affordability and Willingness to Pay. Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies.

Munsinger, Gary M., Jean E. Weber and Richard W. Hansen. 1975. "Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and Wives." Journal of Consumer Research 1: 60-5.

Northrup, Shirley. 1981. Factors That Influence the Home Buying Decision. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Realty Research Group Ltd. 1982. House and Buyers Profile Pilot Study. Don Mills, ON: Realty Research Group Ltd.

Rybczynski, Witold, Avi Friedman and Susan Ross. 1990. The Grow Home. Montreal: McGill University, Affordable Homes Programs.