Citation
A comparative analysis of amounts of private open space in relationship to residential satisfaction

Material Information

Title:
A comparative analysis of amounts of private open space in relationship to residential satisfaction
Creator:
Urbanowski, Teresa
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
70, [20] leaves : illustrations, charts, forms, maps ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Personal space -- Psychological aspects ( lcsh )
Dwellings -- Psychological aspects ( lcsh )
Dwellings -- Psychological aspects ( fast )
Personal space -- Psychological aspects ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 66-69).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Landscape Architecture, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
submitted by Teresa Urbanowski.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
11968285 ( OCLC )
ocm11968285
Classification:
LD1190.A77 1984 .U72 ( lcc )

Full Text
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Of
AMOUNTS OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE in relationship to RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION
Submitted by
Teresa Urbanowski


ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AURARiA LIBRARY
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of
AMOUNTS OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE in relationship to RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION
Submitted by
Teresa Urbanowski


THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DEGREE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLLEGE OF DESIGN AND PLANNING GRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Bernie/Jones,/Associate Director for Research, Center for Community Development and Design; Associate Professor of Planning and Community Development
June 15, 1984


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.........................................................1
Housing as a Social Indicator....................................1
Purpose of Study.................................................2
Scope of Study...................................................2
Historical Context...................................................4
Theoretical Issues and Related Literature............................10
Housing and Quality of Life......................................10
Territoriality, Individuality, Privacy, and Control..............12
Post Occupancy Evaluations.......................................14
Problem Identification...............................................21
Hypothesis.......................................................22
Subproblem Identification........................................22
Subhypothesis....................................................23
Other Factors....................................................23
Assumptions......................................................24
Importance to the Profession.....................................24
Methodology..........................................................26
Site Selection...................................................26
The Selected Sites...............................................28
Data Collection..................................................33
Sampling and Distribution........................................33
Analysis Procedure...............................................35
Results..............................................................39
Demographics of the Residents....................................39
Frequency of Use and Satisfaction................................42
Territoriality...................................................45
Past Housing Experience..........................................48
Present Housing Situation........................................50
Previous Housing Types...........................................50
Amount of Private Open Space.....................................55
Interpretation.......................................................58
Conclusions and Implications.........................................64
Bibliography.........................................................69
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
1. Design Process...................................................it>
2. Design Process?...................................................I7
3. Development Exploration...........................................27
4. Development Location..............................................29
5. Southampton Siteplan..............................................31
6. The Colony Tbwnhcmes..............................................32
7. Cinnamon Village Cluster Hemes....................................34
8. Sample Sizes......................................................36
9. £ge...............................................................40
10. Marital Status....................................................40
11. Households with Children..........................................41
12. Number of Wage Earners............................................41
13. Private Open Space Activities.....................................44
14. Communal Open Space Activities....................................44
15. Frequency of Use of Private Open Space...........................46
16. Frequency of Use of Communal Open Space...........................46
17. Satisfaction by Frequency of Use of Private Open Space..........47
18. Satisfaction by Frequency of Use of Communal Open Space.........47
19. Additions to Private Outdoor Space................................49
20. Satisfaction by Addition to Private Outdoor Space............49
21. Own or Rent.......................................................51
22. First Occupant....................................................51
23. Length of Residence...............................................53
24. Moved From........................................................54
25. Other Residences..................................................53


Purpose of the Study
This study is an analysis of one particular aspect of the man/environment relationship. That aspect is the relationship between a person and his or her residential environment. As previously stated, the house can be considered an indicator of many social factors. Our society is changing and our housing is also changing. Economic and social factors are increasing the number of denser, multi family developments in our cities. The result of this is that more outdoor open space is shared by a group of residents rather than by one single owner.
There is an implication in our culture that a connection to the land is good and healthy. Through the generations the connection to the land has become more and more distant. The shift to denser cluster and townhouse developments loosens people's connection to the land. In somes cases, residents have no outdoor open space to personally manipulate.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the amount of privately owned and controlled outdoor open space and its effect on the resident.
Scope of the Study
The scope of the study is narrow both in terms of number of developments studied and ability to be generalized. The study was conducted within the Denver metropolitian area. The developments choosen for study represent a variety of open space rather than a representative sample of existing developments. The development criteria were based primarily on cost and location. Therefore, generalization of the data collected is limited to developments meeting


similar criteria
3


HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Before the industrial revolution, the majority of the population was located in the farmlands and hinterlands. The cities that existed at that time were often densely populated, but the size of the cities was small compared to modern times. The connection between man and his environment was close and very direct. With the industrial revolution a major redistribution of the population occurred. People relocated to the cities to find work in factories and industries. The cities were not prepared for the large influx of people. The resulting conditions were highly congested, dirty cities. Streets were too narrow to handle the traffic and houses were often too small and compact to provide comfort for the masses of people. With this occured a break of the direct link between people and the natural environment. Nature occurred in the city only where it was brought in and nurtured, (Mason, 1982).
As the conditions within the cities worsened, the wealthier
residents began to move away to escape the noise, congestion, and filth.
On the outskirts of the city they could enjoy the clean spacious attributes of the country, with its natural setting and clean air, while still within the range of convenience of the city.
The trickle of population to the outskirts of the cities slowly increased. With the addition of better and less expensive forms of transportation, greater and greater segments of the population were able to move from the cities. The importance of this trend was that the concept of qualtiy of life was planted in the American consciousness. People wanted a single family dwelling on a parcel of land. The desire for the illusion of "that country feeling" and its artifical connection


to the land became the most desired and preferred form of housing, (Chermayeff, 1965).
The trend of moving to the newly forming suburbs increased and was boosted by several factors in this country. One of these was the prosperity of the 19201s. Building and loan associations were responsible for much of the sudden growth. Institutions offered working class families the opportunity to borrow mortgage money safely and inexpensively. The people and the money lending groups preferred suburban sites.
The suburbs provided a clear expression of the private home as a haven for the family, a temple of refined culture, and sound investment in land and property. In theory, each suburban home was unique. Its facade, shape, size and decoration of rooms offered recognizable signs of the family taste, interests, and place in the social order.
The pleasures of outdoor life, fresh air and exercise came to be a major promotional theme for the suburbs. Nature supposedly offered health and well-being. This was represented in the suburbs with large yards and open windows. An author in Cosmopolitan "hoped that each suburban dwelling would have stateliness enough to compare with general dignity and breadth of the American landscape." Other magazines and books of the time depicted women and children in cities being away from nature and less able to withstand the stresses and congestion. Advertising featured the suburbs as the "right" place to raise a family, (Wright, 1983).
After both the wars, the housing markets were far short of the demand for housing for the returning veterans and newly forming


families. With help from federal legislation, developers hastily threw up housing to keep up with the demand. The majority of which was monotonous, poor quality, tract housing, (Roske, 1983). A miniature vision of the bounty and splendor of their country was difficult to attain in the bare, muddy, and often cramped lots of many new subdivisions. During this period, social scientists studied the "average family" in the suburbs, and psychologists published "livability studies" that correlated the domestic environment with statistics on crime and family stability. "Scientific analyses" were also conducted of family activities and values. Builders tried to provide what the majority of the surveyed families wanted.
One of the things buyers wanted was a big picture window or sliding glass door. Preferably this was located in the back facing the outdoor living room. This is where so many of the activities associated with the suburban lifestyle took place. Here was the barbeque pit, the junglegym, the flower garden, and the well mowed lawns. All this represented what one study called "healthy happy ways of using up surplus energy", (Wright, 1983).
As suburban families multiplied, many sociologists and psychiatrists became concerned about the effect of suburban living on the families who lived there and on society as a whole. Women in the suburbs were isolated from work opportunities and from contact with other adults. Children and teenagers had limited experiences available to them. A man had the role of a distant provider who should spend his time at home "improving the property", (Wright, 1983).
In addition, there was a definite social pattern to the household who


moved out to the suburbs. They were generally young, many had young children, and few of the women worked outside the home. "Mass produced, standardized housing breeds standardized individuals" was one claim.
The suburbs seemed to be the epitomy of the lack of uniqueness and individuality which they were intended to create, (Roske, 1983).
The boom of the suburbs, which contained the majority of housing built, catered only to middle and upper class families. Many groups including urbanites, childless couples, single individuals, and the poor required an alternative to suburban sprawl. Governmental programs began to encourage construction of more varied housing for the low income groups. At the same time several authors, the most widely known of which is Jane Jacobs, began to preach the vitality of urban life.
Assets of the city included the visual interest, the social contacts, and the cultural diversity of city living. Partly as a result of this cluster housing began to appear, (Jacob, 1962). Developers again began to support medium density, multi family housing. The government sponsored thousands of low and moderate income projects, while prestigious communities for middle and upper income groups were developed. The more exclusive of these featured tennis courts, swimming pools, or artificial lakes in their common space. These new kinds of communities provided alternatives to the high-rise and the detached suburban home. During the 1970's both the middle class private market and federal housing programs declined sharply. Inflation cut into the number of private housing starts; and in 1973 President Nixon issued a moratorium on government funds for low and moderate income housing. Several factors affected the middle income home buyers. One was the


rapid rise in interest rates. Another was the rapid rise in land costs in relationship to income. Maintenance costs which included heating, electicity and water to maintain a dwelling also rose. Further, the energy crisis created questions on whether fuel for the trip to the suburbs daily would even be available, (Schnidman, 1983).
What has resulted from these combined factors? Many people, especially first time homebuyers, have been priced out of the housing market. Historically two out of three new houses in the United States went to first time homebuyers, and the third to a current homeowner who needed or could afford more space. The situation is reversed today. Two out of three of those houses go to people who are trading-up. If the traditional budget formula is used only 10% of Americans can afford a single family dwelling, (Morrow, 1981). The median price of a home has risen from $26,000 in 1970, to $76,000 in 1980.
Builders and developers have had to react in an effort to amend the situation and create affordable housing. Unit sizes have decreased and densities have increased to provide a greater number of housing units for less money. This is evident in the increasing number of cluster, townhouse, condominium developments, and apartment conversions.
The demographic and social trends seem to coincide with the economic factors. The market for which the suburbs were built is decreasing.
The number of married couples looking for housing is decreasing, while the number of singles and unrelated individuals living together is increasing. The age structure is changing. The post war baby boom is maturing and entering the housing market. Composition of lifestyles and lifecycles are also changing. Divorce rates are increasing. There are


more childless couples and single parents, (Davis, 1977). Both the economic and social trends point to attached, cluster and condominium housing as a natural direction to satisfy peoples needs and desires. However, all survey and perference studies point to the single family detached dwelling as still the one most preferred by the majority of Americans, (Davis, 1977, Gers, 1984, Roske, 1983, and Tasker, n.d.).
This could result from the television specials and newspaper stories during the mid-seventies on "the housing crisis". These portrayed cluster housing as the necessary, but less than desirable solution for young families. Townhouses, trailers and cooperative buildings were constantly presented as inadequate, makeshift substitutes for detached suburban dwellings, (Wright, 1983).
The impact of media portrayal of denser housing and its negative connotations, is not known. Regardless, the single family home is still the most desired housing type. It has been the basis of out work ethic, our symbol of success to the outer world and a symbol of family life and values to the inner world. It is what Time Magazine called the core of American hopes, a tender combination of expectation and nostalgia", (Morrow, 1981). And it is a diminishing dream.


THEORETICAL ISSUES AND RELATED LITERATURE
Housing and Quality of Life
As stated, housing is in all societies a sign of how the inhabitants relate to each other, their communities and their environment. It can also be considerd to be an indicator of the overall health of each level of our society.A positive relationship between
the individual to the neighborhood, the neighborhood to the city, and the city to the environment has obvious benefits to society as a whole. These relationship levels of housing can be divided and studied separately. The interactions of the levels mesh to form the statement of our society. The goal of our society should be to increase positive connection within each level of our system.
The assumption is that the society and the individual would further benefit and, therefore, add to the quality of life of both.
The house itself is at the core of this cycle. It is the most important element for two reasons. First, it is the level of interaction to which individuals are closest. In the anonymity of a large city, we may or may not relate to the neighboring suburb, but we can all relate to the place we consider home. Second, it is the place where we spend the most time. Therefore, we are constantly interacting with our environment and it constantly influences us. It is the environment that has the greatest effect on our lives.
The relationship between the way people in the United States feel about where they live and their quality of life has been clearly established. One researcher has discovered that between 10 and 14 percent of the middle class and 19 percent of the working class included


housing within their most important areas for overall life satisfaction.
Even though a person's assessment of his finances, family life, and health are more germane to the overall quality of life, the residential environment is subject to greater alteration by design and planning than any other situations of the individual, (Weideman, 1982). A person's home is the environmental setting that people feel most free to manipulate in order to reflect their own lifestyle, values, and activities.
The term "home" involves many factors, some of which are appearance, location, the layout of the dwelling itself, and area surrounding it. In research conducted on six multi family housing projects in England, the relationship of estate satisfaction to different aspects of the housing environment were studied. The desire for a garden ranked third after balconys and better play areas for children, (Reynolds, Nicholson 1978). Their anaylsis ranked satisfaction with the dwelling itself, as closely related to overall satisfaction. Other facters related to satisfaction were views to the outside, parking, access, and privacy. The existence or size of garden were not aspects considered to be related to overall satisfaction,
(Reynolds, Nicholson 1978). Other studies have found outdoor private areas to be more important. Clare Cooper in her study of Easter Hill Village, found most residents considered their backyards to be one of their dwelling's most valued possessions, (Cooper, 1975).
Another study of subsidized housing in Albuquerque found that the lack of territoriality, site security and private outdoor open space were the most constant issues arising out of an analysis of site design,
(Kantrowitz, Nordhaus, 1980).
11


Territoriality, Individuality, Privacy and Control
Humans, possibly from ancient evolution, have and require territorial control. Territoriality can defined as an individual's or a group's ability to control access and activites within an area, (Becker, 1975) and (Sommer, 1978). Becker refers to territoriality as an "essential behaviorial and psychological component", (Becker, 1975). The psychologist Carl Jung believes that territories are important and cannot be replaced by anything else. "Each person should possess his own piece of land, then the old instincts will florish again." While Jung believes territoriality will bring the "old instincts", an ecologist believes that territoriality and the display of property ownership reaches its highest development in the human species, (Sommer, 1978). In addition to the psychological requirements and effects, territoriality can be considered an organizer of human behavior. It promotes efficiency in individuals interaction to the environment and thereby adds order and reduces the stresses of life. Julian Edney states "Without territories there would be literally no place to settle. Social existence would be a huge Grand Central Station experience", (Edney, 1976).
Closely related to territoriality are the concepts of privacy and individuality. "Privacy" is defined as the right of the individual to decide what information about himself should be communicated to others and under what conditions, (Pastalan, 1978) and (Chermayeff, Alexander 1965). Individuality is the quality or qualities which distinguish one
12


person from another, (Woolf, 1979). In this study, territoriality, individuality and privacy are associated with the physical form of the built environment. The concepts themselves are abstract and cannot be measured. Forms that are commonly used in outdoor areas are, however, measurable indications of these concepts. Plants, fences and furniture can be considered physical manifestations of territoriality, individuality and privacy, (Jackson, 1978).
As discussed earlier, economic pressures have had an effect on the transition from single fanily housing toward denser developments. A comparative study which encompassed density and satisfaction conluded that as density increases, residential satisfaction decreases,
(Norcross, 1973). The major elements which are lost in this transition are the ones defined above: territoriality, privacy and individuality. In their book, Community and Privacy,
Chermayeff and Alexander define a hierachy of urban spaces. These range from "urban public" to the "individual private". Two of these, "group private" and "family private", have been compressed in the transition to denser developments such as townhomes. They have lost their distinction, (Chemayeff, Alexander 1965). This loss of distinction between outdoor spaces in townhouse developments is considered to be a trade-off of increased density.
The implication is that with increasing density., the opportunity for territorial defintion becomes more difficult, (Newman, 1972). Drury Sherrod in his work, "Density, Personal Control and Design", states that density itself does not directly lead to negative effects in humans.
It is the lack of control of the environment that has been shown to be


responsible for negative effects, (Sherrod, 1978). In a single family home situation, the land owner has the ability to add plants, fences, change the color of the dwelling or any number of other things to determine level of individuality and privacy with which he is most comfortable. Their is control over the situation. In a townhouse setting, many of the avenues of control are predetermined by the designer or builder. Some developments provide outdoor patios with no screening, and therefore, no territorial definition of privacy. Others have wing walls or fences. In most cases the occupant has a predetermined, often generic level of privacy and definition. The ability to add, delete, or change is often severely limited by covenants. The control over the environment is gone.
Post Occupancy Evaluations
Historically the relationship of the designer to the user or homeowner has been a very direct, close connection. Users were often the designers of their own homes and spaces. Gradually through generations of increasing technology and social complexity people's functions have become extremely specialized. As a result, designers have taken on the job of interpreting the needs of the users. In addition the bureacracy and complex of society added a large number of people and influences that are involved in the design process between designer and user, (Jones, 1975).
The increasing gap between designer and user has created additional problems for the design profession. Designers have traditionally interpreted the needs of people in residential environments through intuitive means. Studies have shown, however, that designers differ from


laymen in their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about the environment, (Wanderman, 1976). The range of different lifecycles, lifestyles, social and economic groups and combinations of these in our society have made the interpretation of needs a difficult, if not impossible task. These are the factors which create individual values, are the underlying criteria for our needs and choices, (Chemayeff, 1965 and Harmon, 1976). To complicate the situation further, preferences and desires are expressions of values, but may or may not directly relate to a single or obvious value. The task of the designer is to filter through the needs and preferences to relate to the values which establish them. The next task is to then, by intuition, correctly reach a successful and fitting form. This has created in our society many examples of residential and other environments that either do not relate or relate negatively to the people who are intended to use them.
The negative results in some designed environments and continued mistakes lead to the conclusion that there are problems within the design process, (Figure 1) (Koberg, 1973). The feedback which gives indications of mistakes and allows for corrections in future projects is missing, (Figure 2). When designer and user were one in the same, mistakes were readily obvious and easily corrected. The gap between designer and user has in many situations severed this connection. The problem, however, has not gone unnoticed. One of the solutions has been in the form of post occupancy evalutations (POE).
Post occupancy evaluation can easily be defined by its title. It is an evaluation which focuses on lived-in residential environments of any kind which collect data from the users/occupants concerning their


DESIGN PROCESS
FIGURE 1
16


DESIGN PROCESS ?
FIGURE 2
17


reactions to their living environments. The evalutation is made after occupancy in order to provide enough time for people to adjust to and establish opinions on their new surroundings. Research by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has provided an overview of the number, type, and uses of POEs being conducted. The research included the groups performing POEs, the population types being studied, the areas on which POEs were conducted, the methodologies and analysis forms used, and items being studied by POEs. Results showed that the number and extent of POEs conducted far exceeded expectations. From this HUD concluded that post occupancy evaluations could be considered "the main movement within evironmental design research." Of the 1,305 POE studies reviewed, the conclusions were as fol1ows:
1. POEs have generally been conducted disportionately in the northern states and California.
2. Highrise buildings are over represented in POE studies.
3. Elderly, blacks and low income families were studied in greater proportion than other populations.
4. The majority of POEs were conducted by university departments but most of these were not utilized.
5. Behavior measured by POEs included preferences, attitudes, perceptions, activities and complaints.
6. Most POEs did not use statistical analysis.
7. Favorite topics studied were internal spatial, physical functional, and living environment related attributes; followed by social behavioral, service and human aspects; external spacial and functional attributes; and site, community, and neighborhood related attributes.
Of those POEs focusing on social, behaviorial, service, and human aspects, two dealt with control of yards, one dealt with feeling of privacy, and three dealt with territoriality. Of the POEs dealing with specific building areas, none dealt with the amount of private yard,
(Bechtel, 1978).
18
i


Specific post occupancy evaluations reviewed dealt with patterns of outdoor open space usage. Sidney Brower conducted a three year study which focused on high density, low income rowhouses in Baltimore. The study included uses of streets, alleys, sidewalks and parks. After observing behavior, he concluded that the activities could be divided into two major catagories, home based and facility based (those which occured in playgrounds and playfields). Home based recreation accounted for the major portion of recreation time. This was a result of convience and safety, (Brower, 1972, 1974). Herbert Bangs found similiar results in his studies of rowhouse developments. The focus was to determine the effectiveness of parks within developments in terms of size, shape, and access. His conclusions showed that most people will not regularly use a local open space if it is further than 400 feet away from their homes. This distance can be increased if the open space is large or if its visually linked with the home, (Bang, 1970).
Results of other studies dealt more with residents' likes and dislikes of their outdoor area. Clare Cooper's study of Easter Hill Village included the areas of the back yard, front yard, and front porch. Backyards, even though small and open to view were considered important to the residents. More than two-thirds of the residents used their back yards as play areas for babies and small children. Half of the women in the development and one fifth of the men used the yards for sitting.
The yards also functioned as extra storage space and a semi-public buffer for protection. Cooper also found a relationship between the length of stay and the degree to which individual yards were converted into gardens, (Cooper, 1975). In a study of subsidized housing in


Albuequerque, Min Kantrowitz found backyards to be important for a variety of outdoor activities such as gardening, hanging clothes, dog run and play area for children. Patios, balconies and small outdoor activity areas which were not completely enclosed satisfied a few of the needs for territoriality, but did not allow the residents a sense of privacy. Residents most frequently mentioned methods of territorial definition as the changes they most desired including fences, defined territory, private outdoor space and landscaping, (Kantorwitz, 1972).


PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Historically the traditional evaluators of housing have focused in three areas of criteria. These are economic, physical, and social. Economic criteria look at the relationship between cost and income. Physical criteria cover structural integrity in aspects such as the presence of plumbing and electricity. The third evaluator is social criteria. These have generally been measured in terms of incidence of diseases, crime, or degree of crowding, (Weidemann, 1982).
There is, however, another factor which needs to be considered. That is the effects of the physical environment on the users and residents.
How does the environment add to, or detract from, the quality of life of the people who use it. This is the objective of the growing numbers of post occupancy evaluations.
As developed earlier, our society is in transition, both economically and demographically. In this transition there seems to be a growing discrepancy between what people desire and what they can afford. The single family home is still the most preferred form of housing.
Economics, however, have made this an increasingly difficult goal.
In the evolution from single family dwellings to denser attached developments, what is being lost? The basic shelter requirements themselves are still being met. Square footage of the dwelling itself does not necessarily change between a detached and attached dwelling.
The major change occurs in how the dwellings are sited in relationship to each other. The changes occurs in the amount and


hierarchy of open space around the dwelling. The single family home has a large ratio or private open space compared to common open space.
The townhouse style dwelling is just the opposite. The majority of open space area is shared and a small amount, if any, is controlled privately by owners of the individual units. The major loss in this housing transition, then, appears to be the amount of controlled private area.
In that is also lost the ability to control amounts of privacy, individuality, and territory.
The major question, therefore, is whether this lack of control over private open space is what makes people prefer single family housing.
If this is true, can a compromise be reached in terms of outdoor open space? If people had a small but defined area to manipulate and control, would attached housing become more acceptable? The central problem and the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between amounts of private open space and residential satisfaction. Hypothesis
The amount of private open space in middle income multi family
housing has a relationship to overall residential satisfaction.
Subproblem Identification
In looking at the major question we need to answer three minor questions. The first of these is how often do people use their outdoor areas. If people are satisfied with their dwelling but never use the area surrounding it, then the outdoor area cannot be considered to be a factor in their satisfaction. While the presence of the open space may still have a positive psychological effect, it is assumed that whether this open space is private or common is irrelevant. The second question is whether the degree of territoriality is related to satisfaction.
22


Territoriality for the purpose of this study is considered to be placing objects in or changing the physical environment. This can take the form of adding plants, pots of flowers, fences, furniture or anything that indicates exercising personal control over an area. If people have control of their private open spaces, do they take advantage of that control? Does the ability to control and change their environment add to their satisfaction and the quality of their lives?
The third question is how does past residential experience affect people's view of their present situation. Individuals moving from an apartment or highrise could consider the move to a townhouse as an improvement in the amount and control of private open space, if that control is an important issue to them. A person raised in a single family suburban house could have the opposite reaction, viewing a move to a townhouse as a decrease in control.
Subhypotheses
1. There is an association between the frequency of use of outdoor open space and residential satisfaction.
2. There is an association between territoriality in the form of physical additions in the private outdoor area and overall residential satisfaction.
3. There is an association between people's past housing experience and their satisfaction with their present housing situation.
Intervening Variables
Because post occupancy evaluation must occur in situations where many factors cannot be controlled, there are other factors that intervene in the relationship between private open space and satisfaction. The most important are life cycle and life style.
Life cycle is a demographic categorization based on general life


phases rather than age. The traditional life cycle sequence is infancy, childhood, adolesence, single adulthood, young couple, couple with small children, couple with teenage children and empty nesters. This has expanded to include individuals who stay single, single parents, and divorced individuals.
Where people are, in relationship to their life cycle, has a great effect on their needs and desires in housing. Single adults and couples may perceive a patio to be enough area to define territory and perform their daily activities. A couple with young children, however, may want area for lawn and play area which is enclosed and within view.
Life-style can also greatly influence needs for housing. Single individuals or couples with two wage earners may have less home-centered activity and therefore require less space. Additional maintenace required by yard areas could be a detriment to the time needed for other activities. These factors are interwoven in individuals and cannot be overlooked in their influence on the residents and their housing needs and satisfaction. Therefore, they must be considered along with the hypothesis and subhypotheses.
Assumptions
1. There exists a reasonable point at which needs and desires can be
meshed and an acceptable level of satisfaction can be reached.
2. Individuals are aware of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
3.Individuals can accurately report their true feelings of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Importance to the Profession
In the past, designer, builder, and user were all one and the same. Feedback was immediate and direct. Society has become increasingly more complex and individuals have become specialized.


The number of people involved in the process from concept to occupancy has increased. The process has lost the feedback connection between designer and user. The feedback itself now requires a specialists.
In addition to the growing gap between designer and user is the problem that landscape architecture lacks a solid base of research. The profession had been based on the intuitive understanding of the designer to meet the needs of society. With a diverse society of sub-cultures and economic backgrounds, this cannot be depended on.
Landscape Architects, as a profession, need to establish a solid base of research on which to base our design decisions. This could provide landscape architects with the means to convince clients, official etc. that planning can have benefits and monetary gains which have a positive impact on them and on the society as a whole.


METHODOLOGY
Site Selection
The general requirements for selecting a site encompassed finding three or four developments which were similiar except for the amount of private open space. Preliminary investigation established cost and general location as major factors. The cost of individual units limits the target market. Income range of the buyers influences their life-style. The location also influences cost. Initial exploratory research was based on these factors.
An initial price range chosen was under $80,000, for two reasons. First, this would limit the research to middle income housing. Middle-income households were choosen because that group is most affected by the transition from single family to townhouse developments. Upper income households have the flexibility and mobility to choose any style of housing. Lower income groups have been in dense housing situations since the industrial revolution and are likely to remain there. Second, by choosing a price range under the median of single family housing, which in Denver is approximately $96,100, we are probably looking at residents who are not able yet to acquire single family dwellings, (Gallo, 1983). Therefore, the transition is having the greatest influence on the middle income group.
Approximately forty possible sites were found through such real estate sources as Living, Development Sales Information Catalog, the daily papers, (Figure 3), (See Appendix A), (Living, 1983 and Cauble, 1981). Of these, ten were choosen at random for in-depth analysis. The developments were viewed in terms of layout, density, open space size


FIGURE 3
27


and location and opinions of residents. The results were compared and used to establish the site selection criteria.
The information established six factors as important. They are:
1) Cost
2) Age
3) Development Size
4) Location
5) Homogeneity of the Units
6) Architectual Style
Cost as discussed previously is an important limiting factor. The exploratory research, however, showed that the initial price range was too low. Housing within that range tended to be very dense with little variation in the amount of open space. It also became obvious that many of these developments were too new. Many of the units were still unoccupied, or the residents had lived there a very short time. Therefore, the same real estate sources were cycled through again. This time, however, the sources were two years old. Those units that were priced in the $70,000 80,000 range were re-established as potential sites, (Living, 1982 and Cauble, 1981). These sites were explored in terms of development size, location, homogeneity of the units and architectual style. Based on the selection criteria, four developments were chosen for study, (Figure 4).
The Selected Sites Southampton
This is a development of 166 units. The units are attached row houses in rows of four to eight units. Each unit has two patio areas. One is located in the front between the unit and detached garages. They are concrete, small, about 8' x 12', surrounding by gravel and have varying amounts of privacy. The other patio area is


DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
FIGURE 4
29


located at the back of the unit facing onto the common open space areas. The patios are again small, 8' x 12', do not have fences, and the units themselves provide no privacy. Other than the patio areas there is no provision for gardening, planting, or other manipulation. The development does provide a number of common amenities including clubhouse, swimming pool, and tennis courts, (Figure 5).
Colony Village West and the Colony at Hampton Hills
These two developments were built by the same developer. They contain the same size units and the same layout, but are in different locations. Both were studied to form a basis of comparison between the amounts of open space with the other two studied developments and the location at opposite ends of the city.
These developments are row houses. The rows vary from two to four houses per row. The units have both a small frontyard and a small backyard. The front yards are open and unfenced but are subject to landscaping and changes by the owner. The backyards are small, some are fenced and some are not. The amount and shape of the yard area varies but all contain enough area for a patio, deck, garden, or lawn. The owners have contol over the area and are free to add fencing within the restrictions of the covenants. The backyards orient onto a small amount of common open area which contains walkways. Colony at Hampton Hills has 89 units and the Colony at Village West has 99, (Figure 6).
Cinnamon Village
Cinnamon Village is a detached cluster development. The housing units are clustered in groups of four. The units' entries are oriented in four different directions. The private outdoor areas are therefore,


SOUTHAMPTON SITEPLAN
FIGURE 5
31
WADSWORTH


THE COLONY TOWNHOMES
FIGURE 6
32


oriented together in the center of the duster and separated by privacy fences. The area contains enough space for a patio, deck and some garden or yard space. Within the fenced area residents have control over their areas. The development contains a total of 122 units, (Figure 7).
Data Collection
The method selected was the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 33 questions in three major areas: demographics, use of open space, and overall opinions of the development. Types of questions employed included check lists, multiple choice, fill-in, rating, yes/no and open ended. The questionnaire was kept short to avoid loss of interest by the residents. Questions were kept free of sensitive material to encourage response.
The content of the questionnaire, as stated, covered three major areas. The demographic questions included whether the residents owned or rented, were the first occupants, past housing types, housing type preference, age, marital status, children and number of wage earners. Questions on use of open space included existing conditions, physical additions, type of use, frequency of use, and reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Auxiliary areas of questioning covered the amount of common open space, amenities provided, frequency of use, views to open space, and views to other areas, including the mountains. Overall opinion questions included changes desired, whether this was an improvement over the previous housing situation, overall satisfaction, overall development appearence and anticipated length of stay.
(Appendix B).
Sampling and Distribution


CINNAMON VILLAGE CLUSTER HOMES
FIGURE 7
34


Because the demographic characteristics of each site were not known, a large sample of 20% was considered to be appropriate. Therefore, every fifth dwelling was to be surveyed, starting with a unit selected at random.
The questionnaire was distributed in person to the residents. They were told the purpose of the survey and asked if they would be willing to respond. This was done to encourage response by personal contact.
If the resident was willing, the questionnaire was left with instructions for a pick-up the following day. Each respondent was given an envelope for the completed questionnaire and asked to place it outside for pick-up. If upon pick-up there was no envelope, the residents were contacted to see if they had forgotten to set out the completed questionnaire.
As a result of the method of distribution, the sampling procedure required adjusting. The success of the intended sampling procedure depended on all residents being home and willing to respond. Many residents were not home. Therefore, the next unit was contacted until someone was home and willing to partake in the the survey.
In each of the developments, the questionnaire was distributed to twenty percent of the residents. Of that twenty percent, response rates varied from 55% at the Colony at Village West to 75% at Cinnamon Village. This gave an overall representative sample that varied from 11% to 14%, (Figure 8).
Analysis Procedure
The first step after data collection was coding the information for


SAMPLE SIZES
Southampton Colony at
32
Total # of Units
166 83
Sample Size Percentages
11% 13%
Response Rate
59% 67%
HH Colony at
20
99
11%
55%
VW
Cinnamon V
122
14%
75%
FIGURE 8
36


the computer for analysis. The multiple choice, rating, and yes/no questions were given a number to represent the coinciding response. The open-ended and fill in the blank questions were reviewed, appropriate catagories developed for the responses, and then were given a coded number. (See Appendix C). The coded information was then entered into the Prime computer at the University of Colorado at Denver. The anaylsis was compiled using the Statistical Program for Social Scientists, version 9.
The next step of the data analysis was to determine the frequency distribution of each of the responses and to check on the accuracy of the data entry. After the initial review, several of the catagories were combined in order to allow greater quantities, i.e. the catagories within length of residence, under 1 year, between 1-2 years, between 2-3 years, and more than 3 years were combined into the two categories, less than 2 years and 2 years or more.
Relationships between the different variables were determined by the use of Chi Square tests. The Chi Square test is a mathematical equation which compares the expected frequency of each cell in a two-way table against the observed frequency. The test determines whether a relationship exists as compared to the probability of the same response occurring by chance. Statistical significance is reported for values under 0.05 probability. Significance levels between 0.05 and 0.10 are reported to be trends, but not statistically significant.
In order for the chi square test to be valid, no more than twenty percent of the cells should have an expected frequency of less than five. In the situation of inadequate expected frequencies, it is


recommended to combine responses as described earlier. The data analyzed in this study were combined and condensed as much as possible. Since there were four developments being compared, further combination was not possible. Therefore, the margin of error of the statistical significance cannot be determined. In the cases where two by two comparisons existed, the computer automatically corrected for this discrepancy.
Chi square tests were performed on each variable in relationship to the four different developments. This was done to look at differences and similarites in order to conduct the comparative ananlysis. Tests including all four developments were conducted to test the relationship between variables. These tests were conducted according the research questions established by the hypothesis and subhypotheses. A total of 157 chi square tests were performed.


Demographics of the Residents
RESULTS
The demographic profiles of the four developments studied were determined by analyzing the age, marital status, number and age of children, and the number of wage earners per household. The age ranges of the residents in the four developments were similiar. The majority of the residents in all developments fell in the 34 years or under range. Southampton had the lowest percentage (52.6%), while Cinnamon Village had the highest (77.8%). The average for all developments in the under 34 age group was 63.0%. The average percent of residents in the 34-44 age group was only 23.3%. The range varied from 15.8% to 36.4% in the individual developments. Southampton contained the largest percentage of residents over 44 years of age, (Figure 9).
Marital status in the four developments was also similiar from development to development. The residents in each showed an equal or slightly higher percentage of marrieds as opposed to singles. The Colony at Village West had the widest range of variation. There unmarrieds made up 36.4% of the residents and marrieds made up the remaining 63.6%, (Figure 10).
The number of households with children was much lower than those not having children. The average of all four developments showed that 72.9% of the residents were childless. Of the 28.1% households with children, over half had only one child. The ages of the children were not concentrated in any particular age group. All the developments appeared to have a mix of different aged children, (Figure 11).
The number of wage earners per household had the widest range of the


AGE
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
FIGURE 9
77.8%
n=14
16.7% n=3
5.6%
n=l
63.0%
n=38
23.3% n=14
13.4% n=8
3" ^3
CO co CO CO CO
S- ^3* d* S- s-
TJ 1 + TD 1 + O 1 TO 1 + ~o 1 +
C LO LO C LO LO c LO c LO LO c: LO LO
ZD CO ZD CO ZD CO ZD CO ^3- ZD CO
MARITAL STATUS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V
All Areas
57.9% n=11
42.1% n=8
50.0% 50.0% n=6 n=6
63.6%
n=7
36.4%
n=4
55.6%
n=10
.4%
n=8
56.7% n=34
43.3% n=26
O O -a ~o TD
CD cd p~ r r t f r l r r r
S- CD s- CD s- CD S- CD CD
i- C s. C S- C i- C S-. C
03 r 03 t 03 r 03 i 03 i
s: oo 21 U1 OO GO :z oo
FIGURE 10
40


HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN
100% 90%. 80%. 70% 60% J 50% 40%
30% 20% 10%
0
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
77.8%
n=14
22.4%
n=4
66.7%
n=8
33.3% n=4
81.8%
n=9
18.2%
n=2
66.7% n=12
33.3%
n=6
72.9% n=43
28.1%
n=16
to to to to to
o 0) o z >- Z >- z >- z >- z >-
FIGURE 11
NUMBER OF WAGE EARNERS
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
100%
FIGURE 12
41


demographic factors. The Colony at Village West had 20.0% one wage earner families as compared to 80.0% two wage earner families. The remaining three developments had equal or slightly larger numbers of two wage earner families, (Figure 12).
Frequency of Use and Satisfaction
The anaylsis of the frequency of use was divided into three areas. They included activities of the residents, frequency of use, and the relationship between frequency of use and satisfaction. This relationship was tested for all developments combined and then each developments separately.
The major activities of the residents in their private outdoor areas were barbequing, entertaining, reading, sunbathing, gardening and childrens' playing. Of these activities barbequing was the most popular in all four developments. Overall 82.1% of the residents used their outdoor areas for barbequing. The range varied little with a low at Southampton of 73.7% and a high at the Colony at Village West of 86.7%.
Sunbathing was the next most popular activity. Thirty-five percent of the total number of residents used their patios for this. There was, however, a very significant difference in the usage between developments. Southampton, which has small patio areas and no fencing or screening, showed only 10.5% of the residents use the patio area for sunbathing. At Colony at Village West, 72.7% of the residents engaged in sunbathing. The third most popular activity was entertaining. Twenty-five percent of the residents in all developments entertained in their outdoor areas. The residents at the Colony at Hampton Hills used their areas for entertaining most often, but not significantly so.


The other activites tended to occur less often. The amount of
gardening that the residents engaged in varied greatly from development to development. Nobody at Southampton gardened. The residents at both Colony developments engaged in this activity more than the other developments. Use of outdoor areas for a dog run, play area, or reading area occurred among less than 15% of the residents and showed no significant difference among developments, (Figure 13).
Activities which occurred in the communal open space were based on the amenities provided. Southampton has the greatest number of amenities. The amenities include walkways, swimming pool, clubhouse, and tennis courts. The other three developments contain trails and walkways through varing amounts of open space. Cinnamon Village and the Colony at Village West, which are located together, are near tennis courts and a park. These are city operated, but were considered by several of the residents to be amenities.
There was a significant difference in the use of communal amenities. Southampton had the highest use of the greatest number of amenities (63.2%). The Colony at Village West showed a significantly higher usage of a single amenity (70.0%), (x(2)=36.407, p=0.006) (Figure 14). Frequency of Use
The frequency of use for both private and communal areas showed significant differences among the four study areas (x(2)= p= ).
Private open space was used much less often by the residents of Southampton. Sixty-two percent of the residents used their patios only occasionally. Residents at the Colony at Village West and Cinnamon Village used their patios more often on a daily basis. Use at the


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ACTIVITIES
Southampton Colony at HH
Colony at VW
Cinnamon V
All Areas
r^
CO cr> .
II r-H c CO
o ^ ^ O r II O C H (\J
ro
H
II LOiI
II C\J
cco
r^.
LO
C\J
ii
3
B
s- s- . S- S- . s- S- . S- S- . S-
CD CD TD O 3 4-> O 3 4-> S- s: o 3 4-> s- SZ o 3 4-5 S- .3 o 3 4-5 s- -3
CO 3 3 CO 3 3 03 4-> CO 3 3 03 4-5 CO 3 3 ta 4-5 CO 3 c 03 4-5
CO in LU CO in LU CD O CO in LU CD O CO m LU CD o CO CO LU CD o
FIGURE 13
COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE ACTIVITIES
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V
All Areas
n=4 n=4
36J-% 36.450
n=7
70.0%
n=3
30.0%
n=9
52.9%
n=3
35.3%
n=2
11.8%
n=22 n=22
36.8% 36.8%
n=lL
CD
C
o
CD 3 CD o CD c o 3 o 3 O 3 O 3
o 1 2: o 2: O 1 O
o
CD
3
o
FIGURE 14
44


Colony at Hampton Hills occurred more frequently on a weekly basis, (Figure 15).
Frequency of use of communal amenities occurred most often at Southampton. Sixty-three percent of the residents used their amenities on a weekly basis. The Colony developments showed the highest percentage of occasional use (54.6 and 55.6%). Cinnamon Village had the highest percentage of daily users, (Figure 16).
The activities engaged in and the frequency of use of both private and communal open space were tested in terms of overall satisfaction. There were no significant relationships between satisfaction and the variables discussed in this section. One exception to this was found.
In testing satisfaction against frequency of use in each development separately, there was a relationship at the Colony at Hampton Hills. Residents who were satisfied overall, used their private open space either daily or weekly, whereas, those residents who were not satisfied used the area only occasionally, (Figures 17 and 18). Territoriality
The relationship of territoriality to overall satisfaction was tested in three steps. The first step compared additions to the private outdoor areas. The possibilities looked at were plants, furniture, gras fences, patios, and no additions. Next the additions were analyzed for a relationship to satisfaction by each development separately.
The addition of physical changes to the private outdoor area showed significant differences among developments for all possible additions (x(2)=8.984, p=0.029). The addition of some type of plant material occurred in the range of 54.5% to 68.8% for three developments.


100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
30% 20% 10%
FREQUENCY OF USE OF PRIVATE SPACE Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW
n=10
62.5%
n=3
18.81
n=3
18.8%
11
n=7
63.6%
n=2
18.2%
1
n=2
18.231
n=5
45.5%
n=4 36.4% n=2 18.2%
Cinnamon V
All Areas
n=6
40.0% n=5
|n=4 33.3
26.7% _
>> co >> >> CO >> >> in >> >> CO
as r as as 03
(I) CJ r- CD cj r CD u r (D o
CD 3 O Q 3 o Q 3 o Q 3 O
n=16
30.2%
n=18
34.0%
n=
35
19
.8%
FIGURE 15
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
FREQUENCY OF USE OF COMMUNAL SPACE
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
n=12
75.0%
n=4 25.0%
n=6 n=5 54.52
45.5% =
n=5
55.6%
n=2 n=2
122.2%22.2%!
1
n=5
33.3%
n=7
46.6%
n=3
20.1%
n=26
50.9%
n=7
13.7%
n=18
32.7%
. >> . >> . >> >>
r CO f CO >> r CO >, r CO >> CO
J*' 03 as r ra r 03 ra
(D CJ CD u r CD u t CD CJ 1 CD CJ
3 o 3 O O o a o Q 3 o
FIGURE 16
46


SATISFACTION by FREQUENCY OF USE IN PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
Daily
Weekly Occassional^y Total
100% 90% _
+-> ro
rC CO
00 O
. 4-> +-> . 4->
03 4-> 03 +-> 03
03 to 03 to 03 to
OO Q 00 Q 00 O
FIGURE 17
SATISFACTION by
FREQUENCY OF USE IN COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE
Daily
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
n=3
42.9%
n=4
57.1%
Weekly
n=19
73.1%
n=7
26.9%
Occassionally
n=10
66.7%
n=5
33.3%
Total
n=32
75.0%
n=16
25.0%
. 4'
+-> 03
03 tO
OO Q
. +-> . +->
-M 03 03 03
03 to 03 to 03 to
00 O 00 O OO o
FIGURE 18


Southampton was the exception: only 21.1% of the Southampton residents added plants to their patio areas. The addition of furniture followed the same trend. Fifty to 72.7% of the residents at both Colony developments and Cinnamon Village placed furniture in their private space. Southampton residents added furniture at the rate of only 15.8%. Additions of other items were less frequent in all developments: patios (34.5%), grass (24.1%), fences (22.4%). None of these items, however, were added by any of the respondents at Southampton, (Figure 19).
Overall, some physical item was added by 72.2 to 75.0% of the residents in the Colony at Village West, the Colony at Hampton Hills and Cinnamon Village. Only 36.8% of the Southampton residents added to their areas.
In testing the physical additions against satisfaction in all developments there was one significant relationship. Those who were not satisfied with their development showed a significantly higher percentage, 41.2% as compared to an expected frequency of 23.6%, of adding grass, (x(2)=12.160, p=0.006). No other associations were found between the considered additions and satisfaction in all developments, neither were any associations found in looking at the relationship separately for each development, (Figure 20).
Past Housing Experience
The connection between satisfaction and past housing experience is the focus of the third and final subhypothesis that was considered in the data analysis. Before considering past experience, the present housing situation of the residents was established. Factors considered were length of residence, whether they own or rent, and if they were the
48


ADDITIONS TO PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE
oo 00 to to
+-> +-> 00 CD O +-> 00 CD O 00 CD O
3 c c 3 to U r C 3 to (J r c 3 CO U r
03 S- 03 S- 03 c +-> 03 s- 03 3 03 S- 03 3 4->
r 13 r 3 S- CD 03 r 3 S- CD 03 r 3 S- CD 03
CL Ll Q_ Li- CD Ll Q- CL Ll CD Ll CL Q_ Ll O Ll Q-
FIGURE 19
PERCENT SATISFACTION by ADDITIONS TO PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE
All Areas
Addi tions
No Additions
Total
n=22
62.9%

n=18
81.8%
n=4
18.2%
n=40
70.2%
n-17
29.8%
. . +-> . 4->
4-> 03 4-> 03 03
03 to 03 00 03 00
GO o 00 O GO o
FIGURE 20
49
Furn. ----- -------| n =26 44.9%
Grass ! n=14 24.9%
Fence llll|||||| n=13 22.4%
Patio -T'.'v I n=20 34.5%


first occupants of the unit. The question of what previous housing types the residents had lived in and moved directly from was also considered. These factors were then tested for relationships to satisfaction, whether the residents felt their present situation was an improvemnt over previous residences, and what their housing type preference was. Present Housing Situation
In comparing the four different developments on the variable of ownership, first occupancy, and length of residence, there were signigifcant differences. The ownership of the surveyed residents at Southampton was 100%. The other three developments had ownership percentage which ranged from 54.6 to 72.2%, the Colony at Village West being the lowest, (Figure 21). The Southampton residents surveyed were also all the first occupant of their units. Again the other three developments were lower, but had less variation, 58.3 to 66.7%,
(Figure 22). The third factor, length of residence, showed similiar patterns. All the Southampton residents had lived in the development for two years or less. The residents at Colony at Village West and Colony at Hampton Hills had very close to half residing two years or under and half more than two years. Cinnamon Village had 61.1% living there two years or less, (Figure 23).
Because of the difference among developments, these three variables were tested against overall satisfaction. No relationship was found between any of the variables and overall satisfaction. The length of residence related to satisfaction was tested for each development separately. Again no relationship was found.
Previous Housing Types


OWN OR RENT
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
Southampton
Colony at HH
Colony at VW
Cinnamon V
All Areas
g
3
o
4-> 4-> +->
C c c: c C c c
CD 3 CD 3 CD 3 CD
CC o C£ o CC o cc
FIGURE 21
FIRST OCCUPANT
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V
All Areas
100%
n=19
58.3%
n=7
41.7%
n=5
63.6%
n=7
36.4%
n=4
66.7%
n=12
33.3%
n=6
75.0%
n=45
25.0%
n=15
to to to to to
CD CD O (D O CD O CD o
>- >- >- 21 >- >-
FIGURE 22
51


Previous housing types lived in was analyzed in two ways. First the realationship was looked at between last previous housing type occupied and development. Then all previous housing types lived in were considered. A large number of the residents in the four developments moved directly from an apartment or condominium (56.9%). Southampton had the lowest percentage of residents moving from a condominium or apartment (47.4%). In contrast, Southampton residents had the highest incidence of moving from single family dwellings (52.6%). The other developments ranged from 18.8 to 33.3% of residents moving from single family homes. The lowest occurrence of previous dwellings was in the area of townhomes or duplexes. The highest percentage of residents moving from a townhouse or duplex, 18.2, occured at the Colony at Village West. None of the Southampton residents had moved directly from a townhouse or duplex, (Figure 24).
In considering all previous residences lived in, results were generally fairly consistent from development to development. Overall 23.7% of all residents had lived in a townhouse, 27.1% had lived in a condominium, and 76.3% had lived in an apartment. There were differences among developments in other previous housing types. The residents at the Colony at Village West had a higher percentage of residents who have lived in single family homes (100%) at some time.
The Colony at Hampton Hills had a lower percentage (58.3%) who had lived in this type of dwelling, (Figure 25).
In looking at the relationship between where people moved from, to satisfaction, there was no evidence of a relationship, neither were there relationships between, the variables when tested development by
52


LENGTH OF RESIDENCE
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
50.0%
n=6
33.3%
n=4
16.7%=
11
36.4%
n=4
45.5%
n=5
|16.4%|
r
44.4%
n=8
16.7%
n=3
1
28.9'
n=7
38.3% n=23 31.7% 30.10% n=19 n=18
i/i
in
CD
O
CD CO CD CO 01 CO CD
i- CO s- CO CO S-
O CD O 01 o CD o
CM e: _J CvJ s: I C\J e: CM e;
o S- s- O S-. o S- O s-
4-3 o o 4-3 o o 4-3 o o 4-3 o
rH C\J r-H r-H CM rH r-H CM r-H r-H CM
FIGURE 23
OTHER RESIDENCES
#/% Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
15 6 9 15 45
Apt 78.9% 50.0% 81.8% 88.2% 76.3%
4 2 2 6 14
Twnh 21.1% 16.7% 18.2% 35.3% 23.7%
17 7 11 14 49
SFH 89.5% 58.3% 100% 82.4% 83.1%
6 1 3 6 16
Condo 31.6% 8.3% 27.3% 35.3% 27.1%
8 0 1 7 16
Duplx 42.1% 0.0% 9.1% 41.2% 27.1%
FIGURE 25
53


U1
FIGURE 24
SFH
CD
SFH
CD
no CJ cn cn oo VO >* o
o o o o o o o o o o
as as as as as as as
1 1 1 rs
13 cn it ro
O cn
as
IlllllllllllllllllUj^
VO
00
TH '1 CJ 3 CJ ^ ii cj
SFH CJ
1 O'*
CD 11111111111111111111
3 II 00
TH no 3 no
ii i cn
3
II 00
CJ
CO
iiiiiiiiniimiiiiiiiiii J
00
as
TH
SFH
CD
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC^
as
3 oo n on cn
3 OJ II -P=.
____- ro
I o cn
as
llllllllllllllllllllllll tI g
CO OO CO
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas


development. No association was found between all previous residence types and satisfaction. Residents in all four developments did overwhelmingly agree that their present situation was an improvement over their previous residence. The average level of agreement for all developments was 89.7%. The range was only from 83.3% to 100%,
(Figure 26).
Amount of Private Open Space
The hypothesis was tested in three major steps. First the overall satisfaction of the residents in the different developments was analyzed. Next their overall satifaction was tested for a possible relationship to satisfaction with the sizes of the yard and patio areas. The last major test of association was the housing type preference to satisfaction with the yard and patio sizes.
The overall satisfaction of the residents in the four developments differed somewhat, but not significantly. The Colony at Village West had the lowest percentage of satisfied residents (60.0%). The Colony at Hampton Hills and Cinnamon Village both had 66.7% satisfied residents. Southampton showed the highest satisfaction (82.4%), (Figure 27).
Satisfaction with the private outdoor areas were looked at in terms of the size of the yard area and size of the patio area. No relationships were found between the size of the yard or patio in relationship to satisfaction. These analyzess were also conducted for each separate development. Again, no relationships were found.
There was also no difference found between the developments and satisfaction with the size of yard. For those not satisfied with the size of their yard area, the lack of privacy and/or size was the


IMPROVEMENT
100% 90%. 80%, 70% 60% J 50% 40%
30% 20% 10%,
0
Southampton Colony at HH Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
89.5%
n=17
10.5%
n=2
JL
83.3%
n=10
16.7%
1
100%
n=10
88.3%
n=15
89.7%
n=52
11.7% 6.7%
n=2 n=43.3%
n uf2

CD CD
to to to to £ to E
cu o CD o CD CD fO CD o ns
>- -Z1 >- >- >- OO >- z: OO
FIGURE 26
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% J 50% 40%
30% 20% 10% 0
OVERALL SATISFACTION Southampton Colony at HH
n=14
82.4%
n=3
17.6%
n=8
66.7%
n=4
33.3%
Colony at VW Cinnamon V All Areas
n=6
60.0%
n=4
40.0%
n=12
66.7%
n=6
33.3%
n=40
70.2%
n=17
29.8%
ro
OO
LT)
o
ns
00
(V
to
Q
ns
OO
n3
to
Q
4->
ns
OO
ro
Q
+->
fQ
OO
ns
to
Q
FIGURE 27
56


prime reason. Overall, 62.0% of the residents gave this as the reason for dissatisfaction.


INTERPRETATION
In looking at the demographic profiles of the four developments the following generalizations can be made. The majority of the residents fall into the baby boom age group of 25-44 years of age, (Schnidman, 1983). Residents of the developments are divided relatively equally between the number of marrieds and singles. The largest percentage of the residents do not have children. Those who have children do generally have only one. The households contain slightly higher percentages of two wage earner families than one wage earner families. The Southampton residents are slightly but not significantly older in age. The number of two wage earners is slightly higher in the Colony at Village West. Overall the demographics of the four developments can be considered similiar. Therefore, differences in other dependent variables cannot be considered a function of demographic differences. Frequency of Use
Based of the results of the data collected the residents of Southampton tended to use their private outdoor areas the least. Residents of the other developments used their private outdoor areas often. Conversely, the Southampton residents showed a greater use of common areas and amenities than the other three areas. In light of the existing physical conditions, these results are not surprising. Southampton outdoor areas have small amounts of space, the least amount of privacy and the least amount of residential control. It seems logical, therefore, that these residents would use the private areas the least. On the other hand, Southampton has provided its residents with


several amenities that the other developments do not have: clubhouse, swimming pool, and tennis courts. The residents do use these facilities.
From these observations, it appears that people utilize whatever facilties are available to them. Unfortunately, none of the developments provided equivalent amounts of private and communal open space on which to base a comparison. Previous research has shown that most activity takes place within close prosimity to the home, (Bang, 1970).
According to the data collected there appears to be no assocication between the frequency of use of outdoor areas, either private or communal, and overall satisfaction, thus negating the main hypothesis.
In looking at the developments individually, the Colony at Hampton Hills showed a significant relationship between people who used their yard areas more often and those who were satisfied with their development.
In none of the other comparisons is there an indication of reasoning for this. Because of this and with the very small number of cases involved, I do not consider it a basis of support for the corresponding subhypothesis.
Territoriality
The additions of physical elements also seemed to split between Southampton and the three other developments. Residents of Southampton tended to add physical elements to their patio areas less often than the other three developments. Part of this could stem from the amount of control over the patio areas. The patio sizes are standard and in place upon occupancy. It is assumed that covenants prevent the addition of


fences, since no residents had added one. Therefore the ability to add physical items is limited to potted plants, furniture, and barbeques. The lack of privacy and ability to control access to the patios probably acts as a further deterrant to adding items to the patios. Since the possible additions are highly mobile, there is no means of protection against theft.
Comparison of satisfaction to physical additions or the lack of privacy showed no association. Therefore, from the collected data, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
Previous Housing Type
The responses about the present living situations show that the residents of Southampton have a much more homogeneous pattern than the other developments. All the respondents of Southampton were owners of their units, were the first occupant, and had lived in the development two years or less. The other developments showed the situation to be much more mixed on these variables.
At first, comparison between this and overall satisfaction gives a indication of a possible association. Southampton, in addition to the factors listed above, has the highest occurrence of overall satisfaction. It would appear that these variables could be related. Tests of overall satisfaction against these variables, however, did not indicate this. The tests used to analyze the data are restricted to two variable comparisons. It is possible, therefore, that the combined effect of ownership, first occupancy, and length of residence could affect overall satisfaction.
In looking at the type of housing moved from most recently, one finds again the pattern of distinguishing Southampton from the other


three developments. The other three developments show that
most of the residents moved from an apartment, condominium or townhouse.
Fewer than one third moved from single family homes. Southampton respondents had moved from a single family home in over half the cases.
This, it appears, is closely related to housing type preference.
The residents of Southampton prefered townhome living more than the other developments. The others clearly indicated single family homes as the number one preference. Therefore, it seems that the distinction between Southampton and the other developments lies in their housing preferences. The Southampton residents have lived to a large extent in both apartment and single family homes. They appear to have choosen townhome living specifically. Residents of the other three developments, on the other hand, are ultimately looking toward a single family home. The townhouse or cluster home, therefore, can be thought of as a transitional step between an apartment or condominium and a single family house.
This idea is also supported by the satisfaction levels. The Southampton residents are the most satisfied proportionately, probably because they have obtained their preferred housing type. The residents of Colony at Hampton Hills, Colony at Village West, and Cinnamon Village have yet to attain their ultimate goal, and therefore, show satisfaction less frequently.
Whether or not the present situation was the preferred housing type, the majority of residents felt that their present situation was an improvement over their previous residences. Reasons for this were indicated in the original questionnaires. People often stated that ownership was the reason for satisfaction. This would suggest that
61


previous lack of ownership was a factor in satifaction. This, however, was not within the scope of the study. Neither was an analysis of factors that could have necessitated a move, such as a job transfer.
More detailed information about these factors could have affected the results of the analysis of previous housing experiences to overall satisfaction. Based on the data collected, however, there is no support for whether housing satisfaction is associated with past housing experiences. Instead, the data indicates that overall satisfaction may be related to housing type preference.
Amounts of Private Open Space
Testing of the hypothesis relating overall satisfaction to the amount of private open space either in the yard or patio areas. An association did surface between housing preference and, satisfaction with the amount of yard space. Those people who preferred single family homes are the least satisfifed with the amount of yard space. Therefore, it appears that housing preference is the controlling factor in satisfaction with the amount of yard.
In analyzing the relationship between overall satisfaction and amount of private open space, there was no support of the hypothesis. Indications from the original questionnaires, however, indicated that the amount and layout of open space is a factor. The unit itself, however, seems to be the most important factor in overall satisfaction. The analysis did not test the amount of influence that yard space had in satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the unit. Since there is an association between prference and amounts of open space, it can be concluded that the amount of private open space does have an influence in residential
62


satisfaction, but is not the major factor


CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The results and anaylsis of the data collected show no support for the hypothesis or subhypotheses being tested. An auxiliary factor of housing type preference, however, did show itself to be an influence in both satisfaction overall and satisfaction with the amount of yard space.
The implication here is that people's expectations and values are the overriding factors in residential satisfaction.
The face value of this finding has negative implications to the role of landscape architects in site planning. The layout and location of people's dwellings and the surrounding open space did not surface as a factor in their satisfaction.
Looking deeper at the issue, however, presents the situation that site planning is a factor in residential satisfaction, but not the major factor. People were aware of the development's overall appearance, views, the existence of open space, and entry appearances. These, therefore, play a part in their daily experiences, and have an effect on them. Since the study did not rate the influence of site planning on residential satisfaction, it cannot be stated to what degree site planning influences daily acitivites, just that it is not the major factor.
Beyond the question of level of influence, the study raises questions concerning the role of the designer in general. Is our role merely to discover people's needs and wants and to produce according to those needs, or do we have an obligation to improve the quality of the existing environment? The natural response it to improve the quality of the environment. There exists in this idea, however, two dangerous
64


assumptions. These are 1) that we truly perceive human
needs and desires, and 2) that our proposals are truely improvements.
It is only by constant interaction with the users of our designs that we can be certain that we are meeting needs and improving on past mistakes. Therefore, a greater number and more in-depth studies of this nature need to be undertaken.


BIBLIOGRPHY
Bangs, Herbert P. and Stuart Mahler. "Users of Local Parks." AIP Journal, No. 10, (September, 1970), pp. 330-334.
Becker, Franklin D. Design for Living The Resident's View of Multi-Family Housing. New York: Center for Urban Developments Research, Cornell University, 1975.
Bechtel, Robert B. Post Occupancy Evaluation of Housing: A Final Report. Arizona: Environmental Research and Development Foundation, 1978.
Berg, Mary and Elliott A. Medrich. "Children in Four Neighborhoods The Environment and Its Effect of Play and Play Patterns." Environment and Behavior, 12, No. 3, 1980, pp. 320-348.
Brower, Sidney N. The Design of Neighborhood Parks. Baltimore: Baltimore City Planning Comission, Department of Planning, 1972.
Brower, Sidney N. and Penelope Williamson. "Outdoor Recreation as a
function of the Urban Housing Environment." Environment and Behavior, 6, No. 3, (September 1974), pp. 295-345.
Buttimer, Anne. "Social Space and the Planning of Residential Areas." Environment and Behavior, 4, No. 3, (September, 1972), pp. 279-318.
Cauble, Allen L. ed. The Development Sales Information Catalogue.
Denver: General Communications, Inc., March, 1981.
Chermayeff,Serge and Christopher Alexander. Community and Privacy. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1965.
Cooper, Clare C. Easter Hill Village Some Social Implications of Design. London: Collier MacMillan, 1975.
Davis, Sam. The Form of Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1977.
Driver, B. L. and Richard C. Knopf. "Personality, Outdoor Recreation and Expected Consequences." Environment and Behavior, 9, No. 2, (June 1977), pp. 169-194.
Edney, Julian J., "Human Territories: Comment on Functional Properties." Environment and Behavior, 8, No. 1, (March 1976), pp. 31-48.
Gallo, William. "Denver's High Cost of Housing." The Rocky Mountain News. October 23, 1983, pp. 36-37.
Geddes, Robert and Robert Gutman. "Assessment of the Built Environment for Safety: Research and Practice." In The Effect of the Man-Made Environment on Health and Behavior. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government


Printing Office, 1972.
Gers, Barbara. "Home Buyer Preferences Survey for 1983." Builder, 6, No. 1, (January 1984), pp. 138-149.
Greenbaum, Paul E. and Susan D. Greenbaum. "Territorial Personalization: Group Identity and Social Interaction is a Slavic-American Neighborhood." Environment and Behavior, 13, No. 5, (September 1981), pp. 574-589.
Harmon, Elizabeth J. "The Nature of the Applicability Gap in the Design of Residential Environments." In. P. Suedfeld and J. Russell, eds.
The Behaviorial Basis of Design, Book 1: Selected Papers. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., 1976.
Hiscox, Gary. "Mearsuring Housing Quality." Habitat Ottawa, 22. No. 2, 1979, pp. 2-7.
Jackson, John B. "Fences and Hedges." In. Steven Kaplan and Rachel
Kaplan, eds. Humanscape. Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1978, pp. 270-273.
Jacbos, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961.
Jones, Bernie. "Doing Sociology with the Design Professions.",
Unpublished Paper, 1975.
Kantrowitz, Min. and Richard Nordhaus. "The Impact of Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study." Environment and Behavior, 12, No. 4, (December, 1980).
Koberg, Don and Jim Bagnall. The Universal Traveler. California: William Kaufman, Inc., 1973.
Lewis, Charles A. "People/Plant Proxemics: A Concept for Humane Design." In. P. Suedfeld and J. Russell, eds. The Behaviorial Basis of Design Book 1: Selected Papers. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & ross, Inc., 1976.
"Map It." Living, 10, No. 5, (September/October 1983).
Mason, Joseph B. History of Housing in the U. S.. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1982.
Morrow, Lance. "Downsizing an American Dream." Time,118, (October,
1981), pp. 95-96.
Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1972.
67


Norcross, Carl. Townhouses and Condominium: Residents Likes and Pi si ikes. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1973.
Pastalan, Leon A. "Privacy as an Expression of Human Territoriality."
In Steven Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan, eds. Humanscape. Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1978, pp.324-331.
Rapport, Amos. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Ha11, lSo.
Reynolds, Ingrid and Charles Nicholson, "Housing Site Evaluation." In Arnold Friedmann, Craig Zimring, and Ervin Zube, eds. Environmental Design Evaluation. New York: Plenum Press, 1978.
Roske, Mildred Deyo. Housing in Transition. New York: CBS College Publishing, 1983.
Sailing Mark, and Milton E. Harvey. "Poverty, Personality, and
Sensitivity to Residential Stessors." Environment and Behavior, 13, No. 2, (March 1981), pp. 131-164.
Schnidman, Frank and Jane A. Silverman, eds. Housing Supply and Affordability. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1983.
Sherrod, Drury R. and Sheldon Cohen. "Density, Personal Control, and Design." In. Steven Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan, eds. Humanscape. Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1978.
Sommer,Robert. "Territory." In Steven Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan, eds. Humanscape. Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1978, pp.267-270.
Tasker, Richard E. "Housing Trends in the 80's: A Land Planner's Look at the Future or Housing." Unpublished Paper.
Ulrich, Roger S. "Nateral versus Urban Scenes Some Psycho Physiological Effects." Environment and Behavior, No. ,
(September 1981), pp. 523-556.
Wandersman, Abraham. "Applying Humanism, Behavior, and a Broader Social Developmental View to Understanding the Design Process."
In. P. Suedfeld and J. Russell, eds. The Behaviorial Basis of Design, Book 1: Selected Papers. Pennsylvannia: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., 1976.
Weidemann, Sue James R. Anderson, Dorothy I. Butterfield, and Patricia M. O'Donnell. "Perceptions of Satisfaction and SafetyA Basis for Change in Multifamily Housing, Environment and Behavior, 14, No. 6 (November 1982), pp. 695-724.
Woolf, Henry Bosley, ed. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
Massachusetts: G. & c. Merriam Company, 1979.


Wright, Gwendolyn. Building the Dream, A Social History of Housing in America. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1983.
Zimring, Craig M.nand Janet E. Reinzenstein. "Post Occupancy Evaluation An Overview", Environment and Behavior, 12, No. 4 (December 1980).



APPENDIX A
70


Ooo

3a
1
ao
3-1
5
lO
3l
15
DL
?
I 5 i 5
(,
T
M
Hi'. r \cp rrv c\V LA \ c_ (Lunv>
Ak<
A
A
f. O
pc~rr fK(c\ c*-\Oc-rfO
0,0 A Roc
i o' ^ y ^cv r\\vn 0A\v^,
tkr-vuo-.^ WvAArvK Vo c J^C GWoc\ Or-W
0
-S
(Jeoc) S >clo \AlW<:C,
FWjouO WAV
SorvAof.e lOovV Wvc^devo la CxC\C 1 \l \cv-J b\of\ v AV RcV^COr) A-kcVjevs A^wovjj V\ '< A
"'. V'c^',r
^ 1 > .1
3y. uy:- \ v. i' o.\
' 6 C\r,-L
'A-TnmA \': A -
pv. V. X- OVA UyC
57,5 50
l_-tCUCY\Y\oA ^ViO T A
L ic.Vcv n\e.f\ m yTo LL
1A V \r\c\_ M 6.00 tW
V-Wc i! A 750 TV
ot l. A-As, 5 1, coo lL
RicA'f'c (\ci Vcii'c- 52, 4 50 LL
SicVRrr L'SV W 54j SOO LL
nb.c TOT TH tc',f 5H, /50 5 5, ^ SO LL L L
VX S'i/ioo T A
TV Lc*Ov\x- A>"-'I'P 57,ISO Xi-i
VWc SljMoO TVV
9v.A\c- 5 A iOO A
T.V.C X; <*so L 0
Vv A CY- p5 7ij 6c-o TR
k\V VA 7 7, 550 LL
V^ecL 1 lY\(jV \ t\ '(A " r ;
i \c \ n-i..
A\v\ V. (X/ccA 1 T" v\
Or 1 mcKyyox/ / C' <*'C C c?V - T, A
4-
+


^>Cxjlck>-

10 J 11 4 t^[CC-)c:Cme*\V lQ??, 5jO 4 L J c(C O 4 Vlc O'V Tl\ LL. ~r\\



loc: ^

p \Vn \ 1 OevjeAcp me<\V l)c*. 0 -Vr.\c 6V\ \OY\ 2,8,4^ ~rv\
1-5 Thc^VrvjY LieR)c"r'f V; DuVcV RVv r Kc^c_aV C\rr\ PoVVc. 5t; T5o TVV
XO Ro \V<- .5?) ciCO "ni
"t "\ v - \JA W, L\-A- lcxo.A1\,, tvw> 0 j M ry A 1L 7% -XT : .ri
So {*Vc]<*frY'<- V'cooV 'TT
- ) 1 f J j u_- A. -N vc | i A K.IX. £>0 c.r.r ,
OovAVuic^V
rVci V--~ r)c^Aoprr.rc>T l\)r.\nc_ [)r^.;lcpc.V Pv^5^
lyL BvxiWctc- TV MW Gnwp SOccrjb
c \ Cc i\ \ Vc> \ !.. 'j ' /* ... V'.'
\ x ' \ O \{_ t '' M?'\r\<. T L_ ,iV Yf V.l; T T t
TV < i,= T)
A V.... C V~ V vA:>-- LVl-y.r* \r 1v'-. -
P A; p. t\ J 1 V \ L {v / r.-v -
.. ,vU ,. -- tv 4
Pi A, A. ' \ i '* * j
j'r \ \ A
: '. 1 IT \ -Vi. = ., -
lV\V



ro
oo
CO
fc-


BROOMFIELD
WEST
MLVSTEK
36 ^
Ralston Rd
WHEAT
RIHGE
Colfax
S3rsS$! f g
>tSloans-" (Nsv/7>^ 1 % -JJL-J
255


00 ca

Kipling.
Wadsworth*
Sheridan
Federal
Sa"'a <,
v&vwexjmmr:
* inr nr~mNWiwr_
,(W ... mu in..... ,..mmim


' v v.'i*
1 i.. \ i § _ *_*
103



APPENDIX B


UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
COLLEGE OF DESIGN AND PLANNING Graduate Divisions 1100 Fourteenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 629-2755
Dear Resident:
The economics of housing is making the "American Dream" of owning the perfect home a more and more distant goal. Although inflation forces us to give up part of our dreams, there are others we can keep. Please take 10-15 minutes of your time to help pinpoint some of the aspects of your housing which make it desirable.
The purpose of this study is to determine how you feel about the open space surrounding your home. Does the amount of area meet your needs and those of the others in your household. Your devlopment was selected because of its layout, location and open space character!'sties
While the information you provide cannot change your present situation, it will provide valuable information for the people who design developments like yours. Your input will allow improvement in future developments, possibly one you may live in.
The data collected will be the basis for my master's thesis in Landscape Architecture, UCD College of Design and Planning. I would be happy to share the results with you, should you so desire. The information you provide is confidential and your arionymity is guaranteed.
Please take just a few minutes of your time to complete the questionnaire. If you will put it in the envelope and place it in a visible location I will pick it up tommorrow. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
March 28, 1984
Thank you for your time,
Terri Urbanowski 399-2547


YOUR SITUATION
1. Do you own or rent your present residence? ________Own ________Rent
2. Are you the first owner or occupant of your residence? Yes No Unsure
3. Did you move here from
An apartment? A condominium?
______A townhouse? _____A duplex?
______A single family home?
______Other Please explain______________________
4. Do you feel that your present residence is an improvement?
______Yes ________No Why?________________________________
5. What other types of homes have you lived in?
Apartment Condominium
Townhouse _____Duplex
Single family house
______Other Please explain_____________________
6. Which do you prefer?
7. How long have you lived in this particular home?
______Less than 1 year _____3+ to 4 years
______1 to 2 years _____More than 4 years
______2+ to 3 years
8. Are you
______Single?
______Separated?
Widowed?
Married?
Di vorced?
Living together?
9. Do you share your home with _____________Spouse?
______Roommates? _________How many?
______Children? _________How many? Ages?
______Other? Please explain__________________'
10. What age group are you in? 18 to 24 25 to 34
_____35 to 44
_____45 to 64
Over 65
11. Does your house have
______One wage earner?
______Two wage earners?
______Other? Please explain


YOUR YARD
12. Does your home have
_____A deck? ______A patio?
_____A balcony? Yard space?
13. Is your yard, balcony, or patio private from your neighbors? Yes No
14. Does your yard or patio have a fence? __________Yes ________No
15. How tall is it?_____________________________________________
16. How do you feel about the following? (Write N/A if not applicable to your situation)
situation2
Not
Satisfied Satisfied No Opinion
Size of Balcony?
Size of Patio?
Size of Yard?
Privacy from Neighbors?
If your not satisfied, why?
17. How often do you and others in your household use your outdoor area?
18. What activities do you and others in your household use your patio, balcony, or yard for?
19. What was existing in your yard or patio area when you moved in?
______Nothing _____Deck or patio
______Shrubs or Trees _____Grass
______Other Please Explain____________________________________
20. What have you added to your yard area?
______Nothing _____Deck or patio
______Shrubs or trees _____Flowers
______Table and chairs _____Chaise lounge
______Grass
______Fence What type?____________________________
______Other Explain_______________________________
21. Does this development have common open space areas? Yes No


22. What types of areas does it
_____Trails or walkways
_____Childrens play area
_____Switiming pool
Other What?
have?
______Park
______Clubhouse
Tennis court
23. Which, if any, do you or other members of your household use?
24. How often?
25. Can you see the mountains from your patio? Yes No
your balcony Yes No
your resi dence Yes No
---------------------------------YOUR OPINION---------------------
26. How would you rate each of the following? (Write N/A if not applicable)
Good No Opinion Bad
Views from balcony
Views from patio
Views from residence
Overall appearence of development
Maintenance of development _____
27. If you could, what would you change in your outdoor area?
28. What would you change in the overall development?
29. How long do you anticipate living here?____________________________
30. How satisfied are you overall with living here?____________________
31. If you were to move, would you like to live in another place like
this? Yes No Unsure
32. Would you recommend this place to one of your friends if they were
looking for a place to live? _______Yes ________No
33. Would you be willing to have a personal interview at your home? No-
_____Yes If so, please write your name and phone number an
appointment will be schedualed at a convienant time for you.___________________________________________________
34. Comments (Please feel free to continue on the back of the page)
If you have any questions, please call Terri Urbanowski, 399-2547


APPENDIX C


TOWNHOUSE OPEN SPACE SURVEY CODING INSTRUCTIONS
Column
1-2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12
Question
Coding Instructions
Development I.D. 01-24 = Southampton
25-49 = Colony at Hampton Hills 50-74 = Colony at Village West 75-99 = Cinnamon Village
Ownership 1 = Own
2 Rent
First Occupant 1 = Yes
2 = NO
Moved Fran 1 = Apartment
2 = Townhouse
3 = Single Family Herne
4 = Condon ini urn
5 = Duplex
6 Other
Improvement 1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = Same
Other Residence 1 = Yes
Apartment 2 = No
Other Residence 1 = Yes
Townhouse 2 = No
Other Residence 1 = Yes
Single Family Herne 2 No
Other Residence 1 = Yes
Condominium 2 = No
Other Residence 1 = Yes
Duplex 2 = NO
Other Residence 1 = Yes
Other 2 = NO


13 Preference 1 = Apartment
2 = Townhouse
3 = Single Family Heme
4 = Condon ini urn
5 = Duplex
6 Other
14 Length of 1 = Less than 1 year
Residence 2 = 1 to 2 years
3 = 2+ to 3 years
4 = 3+ to 4 years
5 More than 4 years
15 Marital Status 1 = Single
2 = Separated
3 = Widowed
4 = Married
5 = Divorced
6 = Living Together
16 Share Hone With 1 = Spouse
2 = Roonmates
3 = Children
4 = No One
5 = Other
17 No. of Roonmates 1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = More than 3
5 = Not Applicable
18 No. of Children 1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = More than 3
5 = Not Applicable
19 Age of Children 1 = 0-5
2 = 6-10
3 = 11-15
4 = Over 15
5 = Mixed
6 = Not Applicable
20 Age Group 1 = 18-24
2 = 25-34


21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3 = 35-44
4 = 45-64
5 = Over 65
No. of Wage 1 = One Wage Earner
Earners 2 = Two Wage Earners
3 = Other
Exisiting Deck 1 = Yes
2 No
Existing Balcony 1 = Yes
2 = No
Existing Patio 1 = Yes
2 No
Yard Space 1 = Yes
2 No
Privacy fran 1 = Yes
Neighbors 2 No
Existing Fence 1 = Yes
2 ~ No
Height of Fence 1 = Less than 41
2 = 4'
3 = 6'
4 = Not Applicable
Size of Balcony 1 = Satisfied
2 = Not Satisfied
3 = No Opinion
4 Not Applicable
Size of Patio 1 = Satisfied
2 = Not Satisfied
3 = No Opinion
4 Not Applicable
Size of Yard 1 = Satisfied
2 = Not Satisfied
3 = No Opinion
4 = Not Applicable
Privacy fran 1 = Satisfied
Neighbors 2 = Not Satisfied
3 = No Opinion
4 = Not Applicable


33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Why Unsatisfied 1 = Outdoor Area too Snail
2 = Lack of Privacy
3 = Other
4 = Not Applicable or Satisfied
Frequency of Use 1 = Daily
2 = A Few Times a Week
3 = Weekly
4 = Occassionally
5 = Rarely
6 = Don't Know
Use - Bar-B=0 1 = Yes
2 ~ NO
Use - Entertaining 1 = Yes
2 = NO
Use - Reading 1 = Yes
2 No
Use - Sunbathing 1 = Yes
2 = No
Use - Dog Run 1 = Yes
2 NO
Use - Gardening 1 = Yes
2 No
Use - Play Area 1 = Yes
2 = NO
Use - Other 1 = Yes
2 No
Existing 1 = Nothing
2 = Deck or Patio
3 = Grass
4 = Shrubs or Trees
5 = Patio, Grass & Shrubs
Added - Nothing 1 = Yes
2 No
Added - Plants 1 = Yes
2 No
Added - Furniture 1 = Yes
2 = No


47 Added Grass 1 = Ye
2 = No
48 Added Fence 1 = Yes
2 NO
49 Added Patio 1 = Yes
2 rz: NO
50 Canmon Open Space 1 - Yes
2 - NO
51 Have Trails 1 Yes
2 No
52 Have Playground 1 = Yes
2 = No
53 Have Pool 1 = Yes
2 = No
54 Have Park 1 = Yes
2 No
55 Have Clubhouse 1 = Yes
2 ~ No
56 Have Tennis Court 1 = Yes
2 = No
57 Have Other 1 = Yes
2 = No
58 Which do you use 1 = Yes
2 =s No
59 Frequency of Use 1 = Daily
2 = A Few Times a Week
3 = Weekly
4 = Occasionally
5 = Rarely
6 Don't Know
60 See Mountains - 1 = Yes
Patio 2 = No
3 = Not Applicable
61 See Mountains - 1 = Yes
Balcony 2 = No
3 = Not Applicable


62
63
64
See Mountains -Residence
View frcm Balcony-
View frcm Patio
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = Not Applicable
1 = Good
2 = No Opinion
3 = Bad
4 = Not Applicable
1 = Good
2 = No Opinion
3 = Bad
4 = Not Applicable
65
66
67
View frcm Residence 1
2
3
4
Overall Appearance
Maintainance
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Good
No Opinion Bad
Not Applicable Good
No Opinion Bad
Not Applicable Good
No Opinion Bad
Not Applicable
68
69
70
71
Changes in Outdoors 1
2
3
4
5
Add Pool Improve Upkeep Decrease Density
1
2
1
2
1
2
Nothing
Larger Yard Area More Privacy Improve View Other
Yes
NO
Yes
NO
Yes
No
1 = Yes
72
Leave it Alone


Other Change Anticipated Stay
Satisfaction
Another Place Like This
Reconmend to Friends
Interview
= Yes = NO
= Less than 1 Year =1-2 Years = 2+ 3 Years = 3+ 4 Years = More than 4 Years = Dont Know
= very Satisfied = Satisfied = Somewhat Satisfied = Not Satisfied = No Opinion
= Yes = No = Unsure
= Yes = No
= Yes = No
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
1
2