RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY STUDY FOR PORTLAND, OREGON

Transcription

1 RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY STUDY FOR PORTLAND, OREGON Report Prepared for the Office of Planning and Development Policy Development and Research Section City of Portland, Oregon by Richard Lycan, Pete Pendleton, and James Weiss Center for Population Research and Census Portland State University Project Leader: Patricia Bugas-Schramm Office of Planning and Development City of Portland 17 April 1978

2

3 Notes on the 2006 reconstructed version of the Portland Residential Mobility Study In 1977 the Population Research Center at Portland State University was asked to carry out a study of the reasons why households in Portland chose to move and the issues involved in making their choice of new residence. At the time the project was referred to as the Portland Mobility Study or PMS. The City (Neil Goldschmidt was mayor at the time) was aware that fewer families were choosing to live in the City and that the mix of households was changing. The large baby boom generation was in their early thirties and was making choices about their first or second home purchase. The study was based on survey data. A telephone survey of 3,824 households was carried out to identify movers and get some broad idea of the issues involved in moving to a new residence. 876 households were chosen from the telephone interview group and a rather long detailed interview was carried out at the home of the subject. The content of the home survey instrument was based on results of the telephone survey and existing research on residential mobility the patterns of mover and non mover households, the reasons for moving, and the decision making process involved in deciding to move and in selecting a new residence. Although thirty years has passed since this study was done, the research literature on residential mobility still shows that housing space, housing cost, and life cycle changes in households are the main factors influencing the decision to move. However, today the baby boom generation is passing into retirement age. The Portland Metropolitan area is a much larger place and the City of Portland fills a different role today in providing housing and employment opportunities to the region s residents. It may be time to update our understandings of residential mobility in the region. The PMS provides some baseline information from an earlier period and perhaps some guidance on how to dissect current residential mobility patterns. Not many copies of the PMS exist today. The document was printed using a color overlay for the graphs and maps. The photo-litho reproduction of the original document was less than ideal and it does not copy well using Xerox type reproduction. The use of optical character recognition (OCR) technology, spreadsheets, and computer mapping made the reconstruction process fairly easy, requiring about a week s effort. The text of the original document was not changed, other than a few typos and spelling errors that were highlighted by the word processing software. The tables were captured using OCR software and reformatted in a spreadsheet. The maps and diagrams were reconstructed and reformatted using better colors to enhance their readability. One item that was difficult to reconstruct was the map of neighborhood boundaries circa The maps used in this reconstruction show all of the neighborhoods existing in 1976, but the accuracy of the boundaries is not guaranteed. In 2001 Gary Blackmer, Auditor for the City of Portland, commissioned the Survey Research Laboratory at Portland State University to carry out a survey of the reasons that families were leaving the City. This study was based on a sample drawn from student records at Portland Public Schools that identified students who had left the district. It showed that housing related issues were still the most important factor in residential mobility decisions and that schools had some but not a large influence. It examined issues related to race which were not considered in the 1977 PMS. Small sample sizes made it difficult to support a great deal of in depth analysis. The 2001 survey results are included on the CD with the 1977 PMS, so if you have the CD you may also want to read the 2001 study.

4

5 Acknowledgements This report is the work of a large number of persons. Credit should go first to the CETA-Special Project interviewers who braved the Fall rains of Portland and who worked evenings and odd hours to track down elusive movers. Patricia Bugas-Schramm, the City of Portland Coordinator for the Study, was extremely helpful in her dedication to the management of the sprawling field efforts, her facilitation of the many practical solutions to problems, and her helpful comments on the draft of the study. Many persons offered helpful advice and acted as sounding boards for ideas but Donald Mazziotti and Bruce Martin of the Policy Section of the Office of Planning and Development were particularly helpful. Dr. Larry Bourne of the University of the Toronto Urban Studies Center also offered valuable advice, and a chance to draw some comparisons with Toronto. The authors, while receiving much helpful advice and accepting some of it, accept full responsibility for all interpretations and conclusions presented in this study. i

6 Table of Contents Subject Page I. Introduction...1 A. Scope and purpose...1 B. General statement of methods...2 C. Definitions...7 II. Summary of results...8 III. Determinants of residential mobility...19 A. Major theories and concepts...19 B. National trends reflected in Portland...22 IV. Description of Portland residential mobility...28 A. Characteristics of movers by mobility class...29 B. Planning district analysis...38 V. Analysis of reasons for moving...44 A. Responses to open ended questions...44 B. Analysis of lists of lists of 40 possible reasons for moving...47 C. Reasons for moving - all persons...51 D. Analysis for reasons for moving for subgroups...55 E. The decision-making process...66 VI. Residential satisfaction...70 A. General neighborhood "likes" and "dislikes"...70 B. Satisfaction with sub-areas...71 C. Ideal neighborhoods...84 Appendices: A. Questionnaires... B. Survey methodology... C. Methods of analysis... ii

7 List of Tables Table Page 1 Sample Sizes for Portland Mobility Study Telephone and Home Interviews Moves During the Life Cycle Average Household Size, Portland, Oregon Number Tracts Above SMSA Median Within 2 Miles of Central Business District Estimated Number of Persons by Mobility Class: Comparison Between Portland Mobility Survey and 1970 Census of Population Age of Head of Household as Percent of Mobility Class Household Types as Percent of Mobility Class Household Size as Percent of Mobility Class Number of Persons in Household Under 18 Years Age as Percent of Mobility Class Family Income Group as Percent of Mobility Class Years of Education as Percent of Mobility Class Occupation of Head of Household as Percent of Mobility Class Present Housing Tenure as Percent of Mobility Class Tenure Change as Percent of Mobility Class Type of Unit for Present Residence as Percent of Mobility Class Times Moved as Percent of Mobility Class Years at Present Address City and Suburb Mobility Class for Planning Districts General Reasons for Leaving - Open Ended Question by Mobility Class Detailed Reason for Leaving - Open Ended Question by Mobility Class Principle Components - Reasons for Leaving Correlation Between Means for Forty Items on List of Reasons for Leaving and Choosing and Residential Satisfaction Reasons for Leaving Old Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with New Residence, All Movers iii

8 Table Page 24 Biggest Problem Finding a New Residence by Mobility Class Number of Units Looked at by Mobility Class Where Looked by Mobility Class Important Sources in Locating New Residence by Mobility Class Response to Satisfaction Questions by Planning District Residential Satisfaction Indices by Planning District Reasons for Leaving Indices by Planning District Correlations Between Indices of Reasons for Leaving and Indices of Residential Satisfaction for Planning Districts and Counties Ideal Neighborhoods, Reason for Citing Least Preferred Neighborhoods by Reason for Citing iv

9 List of Figures Figures Page 1 Study Area for Portland Mobility Study The Ideal Type City A Model of the Residential Location Decision Process Population Change by Age & Sex, Population Change by Age & Sex, Mobility Class Distribution for Planning Districts Movers to Metropolitan Area Movers from Suburban Residences Movers from City Residences Grouping of Reasons for Leaving of Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with Residence Reasons for Leaving Old Residency, Choosing New Residency and Satisfaction with New Residences - All Movers Reasons for Leaving Old Residences, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with New Residences by Mobility Class Reasons for Leaving Old Residences, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with New Residences for Change in Housing Tenure Reasons for Leaving by Planning District Reasons for Choosing by Planning District Reasons for Leaving Old Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with New Residence for Special Groups Residential Satisfaction by Mobility Class Residential Satisfaction for Neighborhoods Residential Satisfaction Residential Satisfaction by Planning District Residential Satisfaction Index Reasons for Leaving Index Most and Least Preferred Neighborhood...86 v

10 Chapter I Introduction Moving from one residence to another is one of the major events in the life of city residents, along with such other major landmarks as marriage, changing jobs, high school graduation. The term that demographers apply to these residential shifts in the City is "residential mobility". Residential mobility in Portland, Oregon is the subject of this report. In addition to being a major event in the lives of individuals, residential mobility is the major force shaping the social geography of the city. The decisions of individuals and households about whether to move and where to move coupled with housing opportunities and costs are the major forces that bring about the differentiation of wealthy from poor neighborhoods, family type neighborhoods from those comprised of young and elderly, and neighborhoods of growing from declining school age population. I-A. Scope and Purpose The Portland Mobility Study was commissioned in August 1977 by the Office of Planning and Development of the City of Portland, Oregon to develop a body of data on residential mobility in Portland to serve as a partial basis for the evaluation of policies that are being formulated in such areas as housing, energy, neighborhood environments, economic development, and air quality. The major focus of the study is on the recent residential mobility history for households in the City of Portland and the surrounding suburban area. The principal instruments used to gather information on moves by residents of this area were two surveys: (1) a brief telephone survey of 3,824 residents of the Portland Metropolitan Area (including that part in Vancouver, Washington), and (2) lengthy 40-minute interviews of 876 movers and non-movers to determine their reasons for (a) moving from their previous residence, (b) choosing their present residence, and (c) satisfaction with their present housing, location, and neighborhood. Questions regarding reasons for moving were asked only about the most recent move occurring during the five years preceding the interview. 1

11 Because this study was intended for use in evaluating proposed City policies, its inquiry was directed toward those issues that might be affected by such policies. Consequently such problems as urban services, quality of schools, and neighborhood environments are given special attention, even though these factors probably exert less influence on residential mobility than do such factors as birth rates, family formation, and divorce rates, which normally lie outside the scope of local government programs. The study also focuses on special groups that will be critical over the next several decades in determining the growth or decline of the City of Portland's population, and, to a degree, the economic and political viability of this City. To some extent, the results of this study are representative of residential mobility patterns for medium sized American metropolitan areas. For example, the importance of life cycle related reasons for moving noted in Chapter V of this study, would be replicated in any other American city of similar size. On the other hand, the attractiveness of urban services and neighborhood environments in the City of Port-land may be unusual for a one million plus population metropolitan area. I-B. General Statement of Methods The information analyzed in the Portland Mobility Study is derived from two related surveys that were conducted in the Portland Metropolitan Area. A telephone survey was conducted during October 1977, interviewing 3,824 residents to determine basic information about their households, particularly on how long they had lived at their present location and where the household lived previously. This data was used to (1) identify households for more detailed home interviews and (2) analyze residential mobility for Portland neighborhoods. Households were selected to be interviewed in depth at their residences from the list of 3,824 persons interviewed by telephone. The households chosen for home interviews were carefully selected by "mobility class" (see definition, Part 1C). This ensured that a sufficient number of households from each of the mobility classes would be included; for example, households that moved from City to suburb, suburb to City, or within the City (Table 1, Figure 1). The particular households chosen were selected by serial sampling (e.g., every fifth household) from name and address lists by mobility class obtained from the telephone survey. Details of the sampling methodology are included in Appendix B and the questionnaires are included in Appendix A. The general issues involved in sample design, and data analysis are discussed below. 2

12 Table 1. Sample Sizes for Portland Mobility Study Telephone and Home Interviews Telephone Survey Home Interviews No. % No. % Portland - City Non-movers City-City Suburb-City to SMSA Balance of SMSA Non-movers Suburb-Suburb City-Suburb to SMSA Total Sample design - The telephone survey was intended to approximate a "simple random sample" of Portland and Portland Suburban households; that is, each household in the study area would have an equal chance of being polled by telephone. In the telephone survey, current Portland, Portland Suburban, and Vancouver, Washington telephone directories were used as a source of names, addresses, and telephone numbers. To reduce bias resulting from the difficulties of contacting certain types of households by telephone (e.g., husband and spouse both employed), as many calls as possible were made during evening hours when such persons were more likely to be home. In addition households selected were re-contacted several times if no one answered the telephone calls. This procedure resulted in a reasonably broad coverage of various mobility and socio-economic groups, but fell short of a true random sample in several ways. a) Households without telephones were not reached, resulting in some underrepresentation of low income families and new arrivals without telephones. Also, persons in group quarters, such as boarding houses, were generally not represented in the survey. b) The identification of mobility classes (e.g., City to suburb movers) through the telephone survey was somewhat inaccurate because of the inability of some 3

13 respondents to accurately describe where they previously lived. This was a particular problem along the Portland City-Multnomah County border where mover respondents were often inaccurate in recalling whether their previous residence was in the City or in Multnomah County. Figure 1. Study Area 4

14 c) Little control was exerted over which member of the household was interviewed by telephone. This tended to result in a high proportion of females interviewed (71.3 %) which could bias some of the attitudinal data collected on reasons for moving. The problems identified above present some difficulties in the analysis of the telephone survey data, but the list was a reasonably representative source from which to draw the sample for the home inter-views. 2. Home interviews - Table 1 shows the number of home interviews for each mobility class. Since many non-movers were identified in the telephone survey, only a small proportion was chosen for interviews. Conversely, all of the respondents that were interviewed in the telephone survey who moved from the suburb to the City were listed for home inter-views, since this group was not numerous (163 of the 3,824 telephone interviews). In suburban areas, the households chosen for interviews were clustered geographically to reduce the interviewers' time spent in travel. A sufficient number of households in several special interest groups (e.g., elderly homeowners) and for planning districts was maintained to permit generalization of results from the sample. 3. Analysis of the Data - Most of the analysis of the data consisted of cross tabulations of responses of the persons interviewed, e.g., age of head of household by respondent's reasons for choosing the present residence. These analyses were made using the cross tabulation package from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and were run on the Harris Computer at the Portland State University Computing Center. In addition to producing tables, these programs also compute measures showing degree of relationship and amount of statistical risk due to sampling. The analyses of the reasons why people decided to move and how they chose their new residences were based on responses to a list of 40 different possible reasons for moving. The technique of "factor analysis" was used to simplify this list of 40 possible reasons to a smaller number of groups of related reasons such as housing related reasons, schools, and neighborhood social environments. This analysis also utilized the SPSS programs, but was run on the CYBER computer system at Oregon State University. Generally, the factor analysis allowed the discussion of reasons for moving based on about eight major categories rather than the 40 reasons on the original lists. 5

15 Considerable use is made of graphic presentations: maps, tables, and figures. The reader should spend time perusing these because not all of the relationships shown in the data have been explained in the text. Also, the reader may well draw different conclusions from these figures than did the authors of this report. The data discussed in this study constitute only a part of that collected. Limits on time and resources dictated judgment on the part of the investigators with respect to which tables would be produced by computer runs. Researchers and others desiring to examine unpublished tables or make use of the computer tapes of the interviews should contact the authors. I-C. Definitions The following terms have special meanings as used in this study. Mobility - Moves of persons and households from one residence to another. Movers - As used in this study, households that changed residence during the five years preceding the interview. Non-movers - Households that did not change residence during the five years preceding the interview. City - Within the City of Portland corporate limits, as they existed at the time of the interview, or at some earlier date, as in the case of a respondent's prior residence having been annexed. Suburb - The non-city portion of the Portland Standard Metropolitan Area (SMSA), including nearby portions of Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington and Clark Counties, but excluding persons in more distant rural areas of these counties and in service center communities(e.g., Gaston) located in these rural areas. Mobility Class - Based on changes in place of residence of Portland City and suburb residents. Includes: (1) movers within City, (2) movers within the suburbs, (3) movers from City to suburb, (4) movers from suburb to City, (5) movers to the City from outside the Portland SMSA, (6) movers to Portland suburbs from outside the Portland SMSA, and (7) non-movers. Not included are persons who moved away from the Portland SMSA. Neighborhoods - Includes both areas of City with recognized neighborhood organizations and other areas bearing neighborhood names, to facilitate the classification, discussion, and graphic presentation of data. Planning Districts - As defined by the Portland Planning Bureau in January, "Leaving" - Factors associated with the decision to move from a previous residence. "Choosing" - Factors associated with the choice of a new residence. 6

16 "Satisfaction" - Elements of satisfaction of households with their present residence. Home Interview - Refers to data gathered in 876 home interviews which averaged approximately 40 minutes each. Telephone Survey - Refers to data gathered in the 3,824 telephone interviews of approximately 5-minute duration. Portland Mobility Study - This study, including the home interviews and telephone survey and related analysis. Abbreviated "PMS". 7

17 Chapter II Summary of Findings The following sections briefly summarize the findings of this study and direct the reader to sections of the report where more detail can be found on various issues. (Chapter numbers in parentheses). The first section, IIA Conclusions, presents the results of this study in the broadest terms. Sections IIB - IIF summarize the results of the major sections in the body of the study. II-A. Conclusions 1. Housing - Housing considerations are the most important reasons for moving. This is true for all groups examined including movers to and from the City, renters, owners, young families, and the elderly. These housing considerations include wanting to own a home, living space, room arrangements, privacy, appearance, and to a lesser extent costs. Tax rates are not an important reason for moving. Housing considerations are important reasons for moving in all areas of Portland and in its suburbs. There will be a strong demand for single family housing during the 1980's and 1990's by the children of the WWII baby boom, now in their 30's. The large inventory of older homes in the City coupled with high prices for suburban housing may cause many of these families to consider buying, or renting in the City. 2. Neighborhood Environments - The quality of neighborhood environments was also stressed as a reason for moving and as an important consideration in finding a new residence. The condition of nearby homes, dangerous traffic, street noise, trees, and open space were most frequently mentioned as important considerations. Zoning related problems including nearby apartments and commercial activities were stressed less often. These environmental factors were important reasons for moving from or to suburban and City neighborhoods, but were especially important issues for persons moving from the Inner Southeast, Northwest, and Downtown- Lloyd Center Planning Districts. 8

18 3. Services - The quality of urban services was a relatively unimportant reason for deciding to move, but was of more importance in choosing a new residence. Perceptions of crime rates and quality of police protection were important both in deciding to move and in finding a new residence. Homeowner movers who owned before they moved were particularly sensitive to the quality of such services as sewers and sidewalk conditions in deciding where to live. The quality of services was an important consideration in choosing a residence in all Planning Districts except the Northwest, Downtown-Lloyd Center, and Inner Southeast Planning Districts. 4. Locations - Location relative to shopping and parks and the social characteristics of neighborhoods had little influence on the decision to move. Living close to work was important in the choice of a new residence; particularly for renters and persons living in inner portions of the City. However, good public transportation was not rated as important in choosing a place to live. 5. Schools - The quality of schools is not generally an important reason for deciding to move, but is important in choosing a new residence. However, for persons moving from the City to the suburbs of Portland, schools are an important reason for deciding to move. Schools were particularly important for persons moving to or from residences in the Far Northeast, North Portland, and Inner Northeast Planning Districts. Persons who moved to the suburbs expressed more satisfaction with schools there than did persons moving to or within the City of Portland. 6. Loss of families from City - The City is losing families with children to its suburbs through net out-migration. Also, families with children who move to the SMSA tend to settle in suburban areas. Housing considerations are the most important issues influencing homeowner families with children to move and guiding their choice of a new residence, particularly space, privacy, room arrangements, and the desire to own. The quality of schools is also an important consideration in the choice of a new residence, but not important in the initial decision to move. Households moving from residences in the City may be influenced to bypass looking at housing in City neighborhoods due to concerns with the quality of schools. 7. Concerns of Renters - Renters are mainly concerned about housing size, arrangements, privacy, appearance and costs when they decide to move and when they choose a new residence. They are more concerned about a convenient location with 9

19 respect to shopping and work than are other movers. Their concern for school quality is slight. Renters who purchase a home are similarly concerned with housing space, quality, and costs; and similarly unconcerned with school quality. They express more concern about the physical characteristics of their old and new neighborhoods (traffic, run down housing, noise, size of yards, untidy streets) than do other movers. 8. The Elderly - The elderly do not move as often as other groups and include a high proportion of homeowners. Data on their reasons for moving produced by this study are thus limited. However, their responses to questions about how satisfied they are with their residences indicate that they are quite satisfied with their housing and its locational convenience (as were most groups). They were less satisfied than most with the quality of services, except public transportation. They were also less satisfied with most aspects of their neighborhood environment. Their reaction to taxes, maintenance, and heating costs showed some dissatisfaction, but no more than for other groups. On the issue of schools, most didn't pass judgment. 9. Movers to the Metropolitan Area - Persons moving to the SMSA constitute a major factor in changing the balance of City-suburb population composition. Those moving to the City include a substantially larger number of low income persons than do those moving to Portland's suburbs. However, in-migrants to the SMSA, City and suburb, are above average in education. Those settling in the City tend to be younger, of modest income, but relatively well educated. The factors which influence this group in their choice of housing are similar to persons moving within the SMSA. If they settle in the City, their considerations are much like others who choose housing there. The way they go about finding housing does vary, in that they make less use of the advice of their friends and of newspaper ads and are more likely to use a real estate agent. 10. Problems in Securing Housing - Financial problems were the biggest impediment faced by persons who are seeking new housing, particularly rental or mortgage payments and down payments. Persons moving to the SMSA less frequently indicated financial problems, but cited such problems as lack of time more often than other mobility classes. 11. The Search for Housing - Most respondents looked at at least five units in selecting a new residence. Generally, persons who settled in the City looked mainly in the City, although 27 per cent of those who moved from the City to the suburbs also 10

20 looked in the City. Persons moving to the SMSA tended to look exclusively in the City or the suburbs. Movers used a variety of sources in finding new housing. Newspaper advertisements and driving around were most common, the use of real estate agents and the advice of friends and relatives were relied on slightly less often. Persons moving within the City made more use of the advice of friends and less use of real estate agents. Persons moving to the City from outside the SMSA made more use of the advice of relatives than others and the least use of real estate agents. II-B. Demographic Background (Chapter III Summary) Over the past decade the post World War II "baby boom" children have passed into their twenties and have been responsible, in part, for the strong demand for apartment type housing. The decline in birthrates and postponement of marriage has amplified this tendency. The 1980's will see this age cohort in their thirties and early forties, an age when typically such families would be moving to single family housing and often to subsequent ownership of larger units. The increasing purchase costs of new single family units will pose difficult choices for this group; requiring them to allocate more of their income to housing, to continue to live in apartments or other rental housing, or possibly to rent or buy older single family housing. Because the major share of older housing in the Portland Metropolitan Area is in the City of Portland, this demographic phenomenon may lead to increased demand for housing in the City. II-C. Portland's Patterns of Residential Mobility Because such a large proportion of residence changes are caused by life cycle type reasons (e.g., marriages, divorces, the birth of children, children growing up, retirement), residential mobility in Portland is similar to that in other medium sized metropolitan areas, where the same life cycle considerations govern. Some of the characteristics that Portland shares with other similar sized metropolitan areas include the following: 1. Mobility for Age Groups - Throughout the United States, the highest mobility rates occur for persons in their late teens, twenties, and early thirties. This period of most persons' lives includes such events as leaving their parents' homes, changing jobs, marriage, and the birth of children. These events frequently involve a change of 11

21 residence. For persons moving within the City of Portland, 56 per cent of all movers were in the year age group. By contrast, this same age group contained only 8 per cent of the City non-movers (during the five years preceding the survey). 2. Geographic Patterns - The largest number of moves occur over relatively short distances. In the Portland SMSA 38 per cent of moves (during the five years preceding the survey) occurred between residences in the City of Portland and an additional 16 per cent were between residences in Portland's suburbs. Fewer moved from the City to the suburbs (15 per cent) and from the suburbs to the City (10 per cent). About 20 per cent of all movers living in the Portland SMSA moved from residences outside the Portland Metropolitan Area, approximately half to the City and half to suburban residences. City to suburb moves of Portland City residents are mainly to residences in East Multnomah County. By contrast, a high proportion of households in suburban Washington and Clackamas County moved there from outside the Portland SMSA. 3. Movers to and from the City - The exchange of population between the City of Portland and its suburban areas is complex. For example, low income families move both from the City to the suburbs and from the suburbs to the City. The mean family income of city-suburb mover house-holds is slightly higher, $18,900 versus $18,000 for suburb-city movers (2.92 versus 2.67 persons per household), the per capita income is greater for persons moving to the City ($6,740) than for persons moving from the City to the suburbs ($6,470). There is a sharp contrast in the types of household involved in the City-suburb exchange. Movement from the City to the suburbs includes a larger proportion of families with children than does suburb-city movement (45.6 versus 38.9 per cent). Movement from the suburbs to the City includes more one person households than Citysuburb movement (19.1 versus 12.7 per cent) and more couples without children than does the counter-stream from the City (18.5 versus 12.2 per cent). Generalizing from several data tabulations it appears that movement from the suburbs to the City has three major components: a) the movement of young into apartment housing in the city, b) the movement of smaller families into smaller rental and owner occupied houses in the City, and c) the movement of families into "suburban type neighborhoods" in the City. 4. Moves to Portland SMSA - Persons moving to the Metropolitan area from elsewhere include a mixture of young households, many of which occupy rental housing 12

22 in the City; and middle aged households which typically rent or buy houses in the suburbs. Those moving to the City are more educated than other movers (47 per cent have over 16 years education compared to 39 per cent for movers within the City and 29 per cent for City non-movers) but earn family incomes similar to movers within the City or from the suburbs to the City. A much larger percentage of lower income families moving to the Metropolitan area settle in the City than in the suburbs. Of those households who moved to the Metropolitan Area and settled in the City 42 per cent had incomes under $10,000 per year. Only 22 per cent of the comparable group settling in the suburbs had incomes under $10,000. II-D. Why People Move Housing size and space needs of families are the most important reasons for moves within the Portland SMSA. For persons moving into the SMSA, job related reasons predominate. The decision to buy a house also causes a substantial number of moves. In the discussion which follows, the reasons why people move are divided into two stages: 1) the decision to seek new housing and leave their prior residence (leaving) and 2) the selection of a new residence (choosing). Most of the following discussion is based on the responses of movers to the lists of 40 possible reasons for moving which respondents rated on a seven point scale, ranging from "1" equals important to "7" equals unimportant. The relative importance of various reasons for moving (e.g., school location, street noise, taxes) have been calculated by averaging the responses on this seven point scale. For example, school location averaged a 3.46 rating for all movers as a reason for choosing a new residence, nearly in the middle of the seven point scale. The decision to leave a prior residence is abbreviated "leaving" and the process of selecting a new residence is abbreviated "choosing". 1. Moves within the City - Housing needs were the main reasons both for the decision to leave a prior residence and in the choice of a new residence. Housing size, room arrangements, and privacy were with few exceptions the most important reasons for leaving and choosing. This generalization holds true for all sub-populations examined, including homeowners, renters, and all City Planning Districts. Financial considerations, including the desire to buy a house, rental or house payments, and heating costs were of particular importance to families moving within the 13

23 City. Taxes, although a source of dissatisfaction, were of little importance as a reason for moving. Presumably, movers within the City didn't hope to escape taxes by moving. The physical environment of Portland neighborhoods was frequently stressed as a reason for moving. The appearance of streets, condition of neighborhood housing, and dangerous traffic were frequently mentioned as important reasons for leaving and choosing. However, zoning related issues such as the presence of commercial activities and apartments were rated as less important reasons for leaving and choosing. The quality of services was less important than housing or neighborhood environment as a reason for leaving, except that the related issues of crime and adequacy of police protection were cited as important. The several issues related to schools (overall quality, facilities, curriculum, teachers, discipline and location) were rated as relatively less important. The main problems cited by persons moving within the City could be classified as financial, including such responses as "housing too expensive" and "couldn't afford down payments" (mentioned by 42 per cent). Only a small number of respondents moving within the City cited inability to find a residence with the characteristics they desired (12 per cent for movers within City versus 19 per cent for all movers). Movers within the City made considerable use of the advice of friends and relatives in finding housing (52 per cent for movers within the City versus 31 to 39 per cent for other mobility classes) and tended to look for housing exclusively in the City (90 per cent). 2. Moves from the City - Persons moving from the City to the suburbs also indicated that housing size, characteristics, and privacy were important reasons for leaving and choosing. However, housing costs were less important reasons for leaving for this group than for persons moving within the City. As might be expected, wanting to own a home was a particularly important reason for moving for this group. The sharpest contrast between the City to suburb movers and the City to City movers was the strong emphasis by movers to the suburbs on the quality of schools as a reason for leaving their residence in the City and choosing their suburban residence. In part, this is due to the larger number of families with children among the households leaving the City. The physical environment of Portland neighborhoods was frequently stressed as a reason for moving. More stress was given to environmental factors by persons moving to the suburbs than by persons moving to or within the City. 14

24 The quality of services in the City was not stressed as a reason for moving from the City except that the issues of crime and the quality of police protection were rated important, as was the case for movers within the City. Persons moving from the City to the suburbs stressed financial problems, as did movers within the City, but also indicated that they experienced difficulties finding the particular type of house or apartment (23 per cent versus 12 per cent for movers within the City). A substantial percentage of this group looked for housing in the City as well as in the suburbs. In fact, 13 per cent looked mainly in the City. This group tended to use a real estate agent to help them in the search (45 per cent versus 36 per cent for movers within the City). 3. Moves to the City - Generally, persons moving from the suburbs into the City considered the same factors in choosing a new residence as did movers within the City. As did the two previous groups, persons moving to the City from the suburbs stressed housing as the major consideration, particularly space, arrangements, and condition as reasons for leaving a suburban residence and choosing a residence in the City. They also stressed house or rent payments as a major consideration in choosing a new place in the City. Schools were an even less important issue to this mobility group than to households moving within the City. Most persons moving from the suburbs to the City looked only for housing in the City (78 per cent). Compared to persons moving within the City, more use was made of newspaper advertising (56 per cent versus 51 per cent) and real estate agents (42 versus 36 per cent) and less of the advice of family and friends (38 versus 52 per cent). This group, suburban to City movers, looked at more units and found more difficulty in locating suitable housing than did movers within the City. II-E. Satisfaction of Residents with Sub-Areas of City Persons who moved to a different residence usually expressed satisfaction with their new residence. Most persons appeared to have achieved their objectives in finding suitable housing arrangements, but were somewhat dissatisfied with costs. Most were satisfied with their access to shopping, parks, and place of work as well as the socioeconomic characteristics of their neighborhood. However, the reactions to the 15

25 quality of schools, the physical environment of neighborhoods, and the quality of services varied considerably by area. 1. Schools - The two groups least satisfied with the quality of schools were nonmovers within the City and persons moving within the City. Still, this group rated Portland schools between 2.4 and 3.4 on a scale ranging from "1" satisfied to "7" dissatisfied. Ratings of schools by persons moving to the suburbs, by contrast, averaged about 2.2 on this same scale. It appears that residents of the Far Northeast and Southwest Planning Districts are most satisfied with schools, and those in North Portland the least satisfied. 2. Physical Environment - Non-movers in the city and movers from City to suburb were most satisfied with their neighborhood physical environment. The least satisfied were movers within the city who rated their neighborhood physical environment near the middle on the satisfied-dissatisfied scale. Interestingly, persons moving from the suburb to the city were more pleased with their neighborhood physical environment than those moving within the city. Along with other evidence, this suggests that those households moving from suburb to city are exercising voluntary choice in making this move, whereas many intra-city movers may be barred by financial considerations from choosing a preferred suburban type environment. Persons moving to higher housing value neighborhoods in the suburbs and to Portland's Southwest Planning Districts are most satisfied with their neighborhood physical environments and those moving to the North Portland, North-west and Southeast Planning Districts are the least satisfied. 3. Services - Persons moving from the suburbs to the city were most pleased with neighborhood services (e.g., streets, sewers, lighting, and public transportation) and movers from the city to the suburbs were least satisfied (particularly with sewers, streets, and sidewalks). Portland city residents were most pleased with neighbor-hood services in the Far Northeast, Mid Southeast, and Southwest Planning Districts; and least satisfied in the Northwest, Inner North-east, and North Portland Planning Districts. 4. Neighborhoods - At the neighborhood scale, city residents were most satisfied overall in such neighborhoods as Alameda, Grant Park, Laurelhurst, and several West Hills neighborhoods. When respondents were asked what neighborhoods they would consider "ideal" in Portland, they identified these same neighborhoods where residents were highly satisfied. These neighborhoods contain relatively spacious but expensive housing in generally good condition and are pleasantly landscaped or in attractive 16

26 natural setting. It is no surprise that residents enjoy living in these settings or that others see them as ideal. II-F. Mobility for Special Groups The demographic trends summarized in section B of this summary suggested that there may be strong demand by the now "thirtyish" baby boom children for older housing in the city. This housing is presently occupied by older households mainly through ownership and by younger households largely on a rented basis. Because market mechanisms may tend to transfer some part of this housing to ownership by young families, residential mobility data was examined for three special groups: homeowner families with children in the city, renters in the city, and the elderly. 1. Homeowner Families with children - As was the case with other groups, homeowner families with children gave size, arrangements, and condition of housing as their most important reasons for moving away from their previous residence. Wanting to own a home was also an important reason for deciding to move. The neighborhood physical environment and quality of services were also important reasons for moving, but less important factors in the choice of a new residence. Schools were a minor reason for deciding to move, but quite important in the choice of a new residence. 2. Renters - Renters were most concerned with acquiring adequate housingspace/arrangements, condition, and costs; both with respect to the decision to move and the choice of new housing. The other issue that concerned them was the neighborhood physical environment. This was important in the decision to move and in the choice of new housing, particularly for renters who purchased homes. Schools, neighborhood social environment, location, and services (except police protection) had less influence on their decision. 3. Elderly Homeowners - Data on elderly movers produced by this survey is limited, since most elderly are non-movers. However, data on residential satisfaction suggests that the elderly are most pleased with the owner-ship of their homes, and the size, space, arrangements, and privacy that their housing provides to them. They are less satisfied with maintenance and heating costs and the most dissatisfied group studied with respect to tax costs. They are generally very satisfied with the location of their residence relative to parks, shopping, friends, and relatives but only moderately satisfied with neighborhood services, environment, and social characteristics. Most 17

27 declined to comment on schools. Overall, they are less satisfied with most aspects, except housing and location, than are other homeowner groups or non-movers. If one were to speculate on what might be a preferred housing alternative to their present situation, the satisfaction data suggest that it would need to continue to provide adequate space; be well located with respect to shopping, parks, friends, and relatives; reduce housing costs, and offer a more attractive neighborhood environment and services. Housing costs and the neighborhood environment appear to be the areas with the most room for improvement. 4. Movers to the SMSA - Persons moving to the SMSA divide into two main groups: 1) young persons who more frequently settle in rental housing in the city and 2) an older, more affluent group which most frequently purchases suburban housing. The factors considered by these groups in choosing a residence are similar to those of other persons seeking housing in the city or suburbs. The way they go about finding housing does differ however. While financial aspects are less troublesome, their lack of time and knowledge of the area are an impediment. Those that settle in the city don't look at as many alternatives as other movers. Those that settle in the suburbs are more inclined to use a real estate agency than other groups. Also persons moving to the SMSA tend to look exclusively in the city or suburbs but don't cover both areas in their search. 18

28 Chapter III Determinants of Residential Mobility The decision to move is a complex one, since many personal and situational factors are involved. changes in residence stem in part from individual personalities and their interaction in household decision-making; in part from changing conditions in household (children born, rising income); in part from changing neighborhood environments; and in part from the nature of alternative housing opportunities available. Major elements of the study of residential mobility include determining : (1) who moves, (2) why they move, and (3) where they move (Simmons, 1968, p. 623). Because this study attempts to provide information of use in evaluating policies for the city of Portland, its emphasis is on the second category - why they move. Data from studies of other cities and from the census of Population provides relatively complete information on who moves and where they move. III-A. Major Theories and concepts The major reasons for moving originate in life cycle changes, including such events as birth, marriages, increasing or decreasing numbers in the family, retirements, deaths (Rossi, 1955, p.9). Rossi indicates that life cycle changes, with associated shifts in family composition and housing needs, account for five of the eight moves made in a typical lifetime (Table 2). Of particular interest is the rapid succession of moves typically made during the late teens, twenties, and early thirties. Other reasons for moves include such factors as loss or change of jobs, evictions, divorces, and moving to better quality housing. 1. Spatial form of city - The classic literature on changing social patterns in cities recognizes three distinctive geographic patterns in cities. These are: (1) family life cycle forces which tend to differentiate older sections of the city from the newer suburban areas occupied by families with children; (2) socio-economic status forces differentiating poorer from wealthier sections of the city, and (3) racial and ethnic differences such as the geographically well defined Polish neighborhoods of Chicago. Figure 2 shows an idealized map of the social geography of a large city. 19

29 Table 2. Moves During the Life Cycle Age Stage Moves 0 Birth Child 1 10 Adolescent. 20 Maturity 1 Marriage 1 30 Children 1 40 Children mature Retirement. 70 Death.. 5 Figure 2. The Ideal Type City The geographic patterns which develop in most American cities are much more From Johann Georg Kohl, Der Verkehr and die Ansiedlung der Menshen in Ihrer Abhangigkeit von der Gestaltung der Erdoberflache. Leipzig: Arnoldische Buchandlung, 1841 as presented in Contemporary Urban Ecology, B. J. L. Berry and J. D. Kasarda, Macmillan Co., 1977, p

30 The geographic patterns which develop in most American cities are more complex than that shown in Figure 2. Portland, for example, is influenced by the geography of the West Hills, the historical role of the Willamette River as a focus for settlement, and by differing approaches to regulating urban development by the several political jurisdictions in the region. Contemporary research on residential mobility is directed less at explaining geographic patterns and more at the decision-making processes of movers. The two approaches: "spatial" and "behavioral" are at opposite ends of the continuum of research styles and are complementary. More is known presently about the decision-making processes of movers. However, the more that can be learned about the decision making of movers, the better we will understand the evolution of the spatial form of cities. 2. The decision to move - Much contemporary research on residential mobility is concerned with the decision-making process of movers. Brown and Moore propose a model based on the decisions of individual households (Brown & Moore, 1970, pp ). They divide the decision-making process into two parts: (1) the decision to seek a new residence and (2) the relocation decision. Since the questionnaire used in the Portland Mobility Study was patterned after the Brown and Moore model, this model will be discussed further. In the decision to relocate, it is assumed that the members of a household form a closely tied group or "behavior system." The environment of this system includes the characteristics of the dwelling unit, its neighborhood, and its location relative to important places in the household's daily movements (e.g., schools, work, shopping). This environment provides a continuous source of stimuli to which the household responds. Some of these stimuli generate stress. For any single household, this stress may be reduced to tolerable levels by: (1) adjusting its needs, (2) restructuring the environment relative to the household so that it better satisfies the household's needs, or (3) relocating the household (Figure 3). Brown and Moore give the example of a household head who busses to work. This person is offered a better position at a company not accessible by public transportation from the present residence site. If this situation is perceived as generating stress and the stress exceeds some threshold level, then it may be resolved by: (1) forgoing the advancement (adjustment of needs), (2) buying an automobile (restructuring of the environment), or (3) moving to a new location which is more accessible to the new employment opportunity. The point is that the decision to 21

31 change residence is viewed in varying degrees of importance, and changing residence is but one of several responses to stress. Once the decision to move is made, a different set of considerations come into play. The household must define a set of aspirations that will limit the search. They must gather information and examine vacancies. A decision will then be made on whether to actually move, or to reconsider and find some other solution, such as remodeling their present residence. In the approach outlined by Brown and Moore, considerable emphasis is placed on the search and selection process. What factors are important? What sources of information are utilized? How is the decision actually reached? Subsequent sections of the Portland Mobility Study will discuss what factors were important: in the decision to move (chapter V, Part B); in the selection of a new residence (chapter V, Part c); in how the search for new housing was made and how a decision was reached (chapter V, Part E). In addition, an assessment is made of how satisfied movers are with their new residences and their environment (chapter VI). III-B. National Trends Reflected in Portland Many changes occurring in Portland are local manifestations of nationwide trends. David Goldfield examines some of these trends as a background for a discussion on the limits of suburban growth in Washington, D.C. (Goldfield, 1976, pp ). He notes the following major facets of changing patterns of fertility and family formation: (1) the decline in average household size; (2) the increase in numbers of households; (3) the pursuit of professional rather than family careers by women; (4) the decline in the fertility rate; (5) the proclivity for urban, high density living. In the case of Washington, D.C., he sketches out how increasing numbers of unmarried persons and couples with few or no children will impact housing. He argues that the marked shift from large child-oriented suburban households will limit suburban growth. Steven Golant, in an article on the competing housing needs of the young and the elderly, points out that the under 30 age group (the "post WWII baby boom") has been a major cause of increasing housing demand during the past decade. Due to their age and the factors identified above by Goldfield, the demand has been largely for apartments. Golant notes that during the 1980's this same age cohort will be in their 30's and 40's. 22

32 Figure 4. A Model of the Residential Location Decision Process From L. A. Brown and E. G. Moore the "Intra-urban Migration Process: a Perspective", in Internal Structure of the City, L. S. Bourne, Oxford University Press, 1971, p

33 Many such families will probably move from rental units to ownership, and concurrently from the ownership of smaller to larger units. Golant expresses concern over the pressure on the supply of older housing occupied by the elderly resulting from this increased demand for family homes (Golant, 1977, pp ). 1. Current Demographic Shifts in Portland - Available current demographic information on Portland, Oregon was examined to determine whether these same trends could be noted locally. Population pyramids for 1970 and 1975, which group persons in five year age/sex categories, illustrate the following: the increase in absolute numbers of persons in their late 20's and early 30's in Port-land; a corresponding decline in numbers of persons in their 40's, a decline in the number of teen aged children in the city (Figure 4). By examining projections of Portland's population in 1990, one can see the point that Golant makes. If one assumes modest return migration to the City of Portland (to a Figure 4. Change in Population from Population Change by Age and Sex ,000 15,000 10,000 5, ,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Male Female Total population: ,967 Sources: 1970 Census of Population and Housing ,329 and CPRC 1975 Estimates 24

34 population just over 400,000 in 1990) along with low fertility rates, then by 1990 one can expect to find some very large increases in the year age groups plus a modest increase in the number of teen aged children (Figure 5). This increase in numbers of Figure 5: Population Change by Age and Sex for Population Change by Age and Sex ,000 15,000 10,000 5, ,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Male Female Total population: ,329 Sources: CPRC Population estimates and ,128 projections persons, coupled with small household sizes, would result in a very large demand for housing. Household size has been decreasing in Portland, particularly for single family households (Table 3). From 1970 to 1976 single family household size in Portland has declined from 3.09 to 2.71 persons per household. The decline has been greatest in mature suburban type neighborhoods within the city where children have left home. There are slight tendencies shown toward increases in household size in older neighborhoods of lower cost housing in the city. The "WWII baby boom children" are settling here and beginning to raise families. 25

35 Table 3. Average Household Size Type Unit Single Family Multiple Family Overa U.S. Census of Population, special tabulation of summary tape. 2. Center for Population Research and Census sample surveys of 4,000 households in 1974 and Includes a small number of mobile homes. 2. Movement Back to the city - Gregory Lipton examined the extent of movement of middle and upper income families back into areas within two miles of the central business district of twenty of the largest U.S. Cities (Lipton, 1977, pp ). He studied shifts from 1960 to 1970 in income and education levels for these cities, using census tract data from the federal population census. He concluded that such movement back to the city is indeed occurring in a number of these cities: Boston, New York, and Chicago in particular. However, this occurrence is not universal: Southern cities, such as Atlanta, show loss of higher income and education groups in and around the core of the city. Application of Lipton's approach to Portland suggests that such movement of upper and middle income groups back to the core of the city did not occur in Portland during the 1960's (Table 4). In Portland, the number of tracts with median years of education over the SMSA median stayed the same, 17, in a zone two miles around the central business district. The number of tracts with family income higher than the SMSA median declined from 13 to 11. The only central city tract shifting upward during this decade was Corbett-Terwilliger, which rose from below to above the SMSA median education level. 26

36 Table 4. Number Tracts Above SMSA Median Within Two Miles of central Business District Family Med-Years Total No. Year Income Education Tracts Portland Oregon Atlanta Georgia Seattle Washington Washington D.C *1960 tract values compared to 1960 SMSA median; 1970 tracts compared to 1970 SMSA median. 27

37 Chapter IV Description of Portland Residential Mobility Tabulations from the 1970 census of Population show that 48.7per cent of the Portland Metropolitan Area's residents lived in a different residence in 1970 than they did in 1965: 9.4 per cent moved within the City of Portland; 12.4 per cent moved within the suburbs; 2.0 per cent moved from the suburbs to the city; 6.6 per cent moved from the city to the suburbs, and 18.3 per cent moved from outside the Portland Metropolitan Area (Table 5). More generally, these data suggest that about half of the Portland Metropolitan Area population lives in a different residence than they did five years previous, that almost one fifth of all movers came from outside the metropolitan area, and that the City was losing population to the suburbs through migration. The Portland Mobility Study asked about the most recent move made by the respondent's household, while the U.S. Census inquired only about how residence differed from five years earlier. Only the most recent moves made during the five year period preceding the interview was studied in the PMS. This was done because it was important that respondents be able to recall their reasons for moving. Table 5 shows the number of persons by various mobility classes that were interviewed in an initial set of interviews conducted over the telephone. In this sample, persons residing in the City are intentionally overrepresented compared to the remainder of the SMSA. Whereas in 1977, 34.2 per cent of the Metropolitan Area population resided in the city of Portland, 59.1 per cent of the telephone inter-views were conducted with City residents. Table 5 shows how the PMS figures compare with the data from the 1970 population census. There are significant differences between the 1970 census and the PMSdata because of the different mobility questions. One major difference is the smaller percentage of movers into the SMSA (9.9 per cent in the PMS versus 18.3 in the census data), Many recent intercity movers interviewed by PMS on the telephone had already moved again when contacted for a home interview, and are included in the PMS in the four classes of intra metropolitan area movers. 28

38 Table 5. Estimated Number of Persons by Mobility Class: Comparison between Portland Mobility Survey and 1970 Census of Population 1 Mobility class 1970 Census no (000) 2 % PMS (1977) no (000) 2 % City Non-movers city-city Suburb-city To SMSA Balance SMSA Non-movers Suburb-Suburb City-Suburb To SMSA Total Notes: 1. The mobility questions in the two sources are different: the Census asked residence five years previous; the PMS asked last residence, defining movers as those changing residence during past five years. 2. Inflated from census to sum to SMSA total to account for "unknown" responses. 3. The results of the two sources particularly lack comparability for persons moving to the Portland SMSA. The apparent disparity results from the socio-economic composition of the group moving to the SMSA: they are predominately young and are a group that moves frequently. Almost 20% of Portland's residents in 1970 lived outside the SMSA five years earlier, but only about 10% of household's last moves were from outside the SMSA. Such inter-city moves are much less frequent than intra-city moves. IV-A. Characteristics of Movers by Mobility class At the outset, it should be made clear that the flows of population between city and suburb in Portland are complex. Young families are moving from the City; other young families are returning. Both low and high income families are moving to the City. Yet even relatively small differences in the socio-economic characteristics of the streams of persons moving to and from the city can have a major effect on the characteristics of the city. This is especially pertinent to sub areas of the city over a period of five to ten years. Most of the patterns discussed in this section will be illustrated by use of the data generated by the telephone screening inter-views because (a) the sample is much larger 29

39 than that utilized for household interviews and (b) the sampling pattern for the telephone interviews more closely approaches a simple random sample, allowing simpler interpretations of general patterns. 1. Characteristics of Movers and Non-Movers - The following discussion will be organized around the differing socio-economic characteristics of eight different "mobility classes", comparing non-movers with movers to and from the City of Portland. a. Household Size and Composition - Generally non-movers (during the previous five years) in the city tended to be older and to consist of smaller households than mover households (Tables 6 and 7). Couples with no children, with children who have left home, and one-person households constitute 57.1 per cent of the non-mover groups in the city, as shown by the PMS telephone survey data (Table 7). By contrast, these same groups constitute only 47.5 per cent of the migrant stream from the city and 38.8 per cent of the suburban non-mover population. Movement from the City to the suburbs is dominated by families with children, 45.6 per cent of the city out-migrant stream. This same group, families with children, is also the largest group among those moving from the suburbs to the City: 38.9 per cent. However, the suburb to City movement includes more one-person households and more couples without children than does the counter-stream from the City. Persons moving to the Portland Metropolitan Area from other places vary considerably according to city versus suburb destinations in Portland. The in-migrant stream to the 'suburbs is dominated by couples with children (45.6 per cent), whereas one-person households and couples without children predominate in migration to the city (together, 41.5 per cent, Tables 7 and 8). Data on the ages of heads of households shows that non-movers are older than movers, particularly in the City where 50.3 per cent of non-movers were in the 60 years and over age group (Table 6). Comparison of city-suburb with suburb- City movers shows that heads in the age group predominate in both streams. Young heads of house-holds in the age group are more numerous among suburb-city movers than in the counter stream to the suburbs.* The numbers of persons under eighteen years of age in each house-hold is smallest for non-movers in the City with 71.0 per cent of the non-mover households having no children under 18 (Table 9). For movers, those households with the largest numbers of children are found moving to or within the suburbs. 30

40 Table 6. Age of Head of Household as Percent of Mobility Class Age of Head Mobility class Total City to city % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % city Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 869 Data from PMS household interviews Table 7. Household Types as Percentage of Mobility Class Mobility Class Couple with Child One Person H.H. One Parent H.H. Couple No Child Couple Child Gone Non K Group Other Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 3766 Data from PMS telephone survey Table 8. Household Size as Percent of Mobility Class Number of Persons in Household Mobility Class Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 3808 Data from PMS telephone survey 31

41 b. Income, Education, and Occupation - Mobility groups are clearly differentiated by family income; survey results for education and occupation are less clear. Generally, it appears that there is a net shift of higher-income families from the city to the suburbs (Table 10). The mean family in-come for City-suburb movers was approximately $18,900, but for suburb city movers it was $18,000. Table 9. Number of Persons in Household Under 18 Years Age as Percent of Mobility Class Number of Persons in Household Under 18 Mobility Class Total City to City % Suburb to city % Non SMSA to City % city Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb Suburban Non-Mover Total % Sample size = 3758 Data from PMS telephone survey Thus, even if the numbers of moves between the City and the suburb balanced, each household moving to the suburb would result in a net loss of $900 income earned within the City, assuming that the family incomes were the same before and after the move. Such a loss in income would have an adverse impact on localized markets in the City for goods and services. Among households moving to the Portland Metropolitan Area, it appears that a larger number of those moving to the City have low income compared to immigrants to the suburbs. For movers to the SMSA settling in the city, 33.2 per cent had incomes under $7,500 per year, whereas for the suburbs, only 19.3 per cent were below this figure. *Differences between City-suburb and suburb-city movers are based on relatively small numbers of home interviews, but the overall difference between the age composition of the streams is statistically significant, allowing a 5 per cent risk of error through sampling. 32

42 Table 10. Family Income Group as Percent of Mobility Class Family Income Under 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 20,000 30,000 40, and Mobility Class over Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 821 Data from PMS home interviews Table 11. Years of Education as Percent of Mobility Class Years of Education Mobility Class & Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % city to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 863 Data from PMS home interviews 33

43 Examination of education levels for various mobility classes shows only one distinct pattern. That is that persons moving to the Portland Metropolitan Area from elsewhere tend to have more education than non-movers and movers with the Metropolitan Area (Table 11). Of those movers to the SMSA who settled in the City and the suburbs, 47.3 per cent and 45.0 per cent, respectively, had sixteen or more years of education (generally "college educated"). However, what is not shown in this data is that the out-migrants from the SMSA are also more educated than the general populace. PMS data does not permit the examination of net differences, since persons moving away from the Portland SMSA were not interviewed. Data on general occupational group for the various mobility classes shows no striking patterns (Table 12). As shown by the education data, heads of households moving to the SMSA tend more often to be in managerial, technical, or professional occupations than non-movers or movers within the SMSA. Generally, heads of households who move to or within the City tend more often to be in "white collar" occupations, probably reflecting the nature of employment opportunities in the city. Table 12. Occupation of Head of Household as Percent of Mobility Class Occupation, General Group Mobility Class M T P Other Skilled Unskilled Service Other Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 676 Data from PMS home interviews "White Collar" "Blue Collar" c. Housing Characteristics - As might be expected, moves to or within the City include a large number of persons who settle in rented housing (Table 13). Of those moving within the City, 59.5 per cent were renters. By contrast, most moves to or within the suburbs are to owned units. Of those moving from the City to the suburbs of Portland, 61.0 per cent settled in owner-occupied housing. Since homeowners move 34

44 Table 13. Present Housing Tenure as Percent of Mobility Class PresentTenure Mobility Class Own Rent Total city to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 3,814 Data from PMS telephone survey much less frequently than renters, 81.7 per cent of non-movers in the city and 92.1 per cent in the suburbs were homeowners. For persons moving within the City, most move from one rented unit to another (Table 14); the next largest number shift from renting to owning. Moves from the city to the suburb most frequently are from ownership of a home in the City to one in the suburbs (42.6 per cent), with the next largest group shifting from rental to ownership (28.7 per cent). Table 14. Tenure Change as Percent of Mobility Class Mobility Class Owner- Owner Owner- Renter Renter- Owner Renter- Renter Total City to City % Suburban to City % Non SMSA to city % City Non-Mover Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover Total % Sample size = 636 Data from PMS home interviews 35

45 The counter stream of moves from the suburbs to the City shows the largest number moving from a rental unit in the suburbs to one in the city (35.5 per cent), but also substantial numbers of suburban renters buying homes in the city (30.6 per cent) and suburban home-owners buying homes in the city (25.6 per cent). For persons moving to the Portland SMSA, most persons settling in the suburbs are moving from an owned home elsewhere to one in Portland's suburbs (61.2 per cent), whereas the predominant group moving to the SMSA and settling in the City is moving from one rental unit to another (49.4 per cent). The results for moves to various types of units (single family, duplex, apartment or mobile home) show somewhat less contrast between city and suburb than do the previously presented data on housing tenure (Table 15). Reflecting the greater numbers of apartments in the City, more movers to or within the City settle in apartments than do movers in the suburbs. A large number of movers to the SMSA who settled in the City occupy apartments (33.1 per cent). A surprisingly large number of SMSA in-migrants who settle in the suburbs occupied mobile homes (8.1 per cent in mobile homes versus 17.4 per cent in apartments). Table 15. Type of Unit for Present Residence as Percent of Mobility Class Type of Unit Mobility Class Single Family Duplex Apartment Mobile Home Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % City to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburb Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 3820 Data from PMS telephone survey 36

46 Mover households in the city include many who have moved a number of times during the five years preceding the survey (Table 16). The group most inclined to stay put are those moving to the suburbs; 61.2 per cent of this mover group had moved only once during the preceding five years. Generally, City residents show high turnover of persons living five years or less at their present residence, but stability for those residing there for longer periods. This reflects the dichotomy between high turnover in apartments and long-term occupancy of older owner-occupied homes (Table 17). Table 16. Times Moved as Percent of Mobility Class Times Moved in Previous 5 Years Mobility Class Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non SMSA to City % City Non-Mover % Suburb to Suburb % city to Suburb % Non SMSA to Suburb % Suburban Non-Mover % Total % Sample size = 673 Data from PMS home interviews Table 17. Years at Present Address City and Suburb 1 Years at City Suburb Address No. % Cum.% No. % Cum.% Total From Portland Mobility Study telephone survey. City residents are over represented. 37

47 IV-B. Planning District Analysis Planning districts in the City are significantly different with respect to the proportions of non-movers and various types of movers (Table 18 and Figure 6). Those districts with a large proportion of owner-occupied housing show a preponderance of non-movers (on Figure 6: Far Northeast, Mid Southeast, Far Southeast) and those districts with many apartments show many movers (for example: North-west and Downtown-Lloyd Center). The three Southeast planning districts show the largest percentages of inter-city movers. Together, the two Southwest planning districts show the largest percentages of movers from the suburbs (Figure 6). Those districts displaying the largest percentages of movers from outside the Portland SMSA are areas with many apartments and rental homes. Examples are the Inner Southeast and Northwest, and the two Southwest Planning Districts where large numbers of new homes are for sale Population census data shows in greater detail where persons moving to the City have settled. These general trends are probably still valid (Figures 7, 8, and 9). Persons moving from the suburbs to the City are found in substantial numbers in two areas of Portland: (1) around the periphery of the City, where short distance moves have resulted in the shift of suburban population back into the "suburb-like" border areas of the City and (2) to the apartment areas in the Northwest-Downtown area. Persons moving to the Metropolitan Area were previously noted to be a mix of younger, lower income renters and older, wealthier homeowners. Their settlement patterns in the SMSA reflect these characteristics. The largest numbers settled in houses and apartments in the Southwest suburbs outside the City, including the Northwest-Downtown-Lloyd center and Southwest Planning Districts. 38

48 Table 18. Mobility Class for Planning Districts. Movers From: Planning District of Present Residence City Suburb Elsewhere Non- Mover North Portland Downtown-Lloyd Center Inner Southeast Inner Northeast Northwest Southwest Hills Mid Southeast Far Southeast Far Southwest Far Northeast Total No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No % % % % % % % % % % %

49 Figure 6.Mobility Class Distribution for Planning Districts 40

50 Figure 7. Movers to Metropolitan Area 41

51 Figure 8. Movers from Suburban Residences 42

52 Figure 9. Movers from City Residences 43

53 Chapter V Analysis of Reasons for Moving Questions regarding the decision of households to move were divided into two phases: (1) the decision to seek a new residence and (2) the search for and selection of a new residence. This approach follows that of Brown and Moore as outlined in Chapter III. The major source of information utilized in this section is the responses of mover households to lists of 40 possible reasons for moving from a previous residence and for choosing a new residence. A secondary source of information was responses to an open-ended question regarding why households decided to move from their previous residence. Both types of questions were used because the lists of 40 items were biased toward reasons that could be addressed by City policies (e.g., urban services, noise, or housing), whereas many responses to the open ended questions identified personal reasons which would not normally be influenced by City policies (e.g., marriage or the birth of children). V-A. Responses to Open Ended Questions Each respondent who changed residence during the five years preceding the study was asked: "What was the main reason that (you/your family) moved from your previous residence?" The first responses given by movers to this question are shown in Tables 19 and Reasons, Overall - Overall, the most common responses were in the category labeled "house-financial" (23.2 per cent). Within this category, the most common reason given was wanting to own rather than rent. The next most frequently cited categories were life cycle related reasons (16.0 per cent) such as marriage or the birth of children and size of housing (15.8 per cent). In many cases the size of housing category relates to life cycle factors, such as the need for an additional bedroom or a nursery. 44

54 Table 19. General Reasons for Leaving Open Ended Question by Mobility Class Reason for Leaving Employment Life Cycle House - size House - financial House - structure Location Neighborhood Services Total Mobility Class Non SMSA 1 City- City- Suburb- Suburb- Total City Suburb City Suburb City Suburb No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % Movers from outside of SMSA. Percentages aggregated for movers to city and suburbs due do small numbers and dominance of employment reasons. Source: PMS home interviews. Sample size

55 Table 20. Detailed Reason for Leaving Open Ended Question By Mobility Class Non SMSA - City Non SMSA - Suburb City - City - Suburb - Suburb - City Suburb City Suburb Total 1. Employment a. job transfer b. got job c. school d. other Life cycle a. widowed, separated, divorced, death in family b. Newly married, est. household c. Other House-size a. too small b. too large c. other House-financial a. wanted to own b. lower payments c. other House-structure Location a. work b. friends & rel c. other Neighborhood a. displaced by private action b. social c. other Services TOTAL Source: PMS home interviews Sample size:

56 Employment reasons were also important (15.5 per cent), but were cited mainly by persons moving to the Portland SMSA from elsewhere. Less frequently cited were neighborhood characteristics (13.5 per cent), location relative to services (10.0 per cent), condition of the housing unit (5.1 per cent), and the quality of services (0.6 per cent). 2. Reasons by Mobility Class - The six classes of movers (e.g., city to city, suburb to city) vary greatly in the type of reason given for a move. (Compare the rank orders of reasons within mobility classes in Table 19). a. Employment - Employment related reasons are clearly of overriding importance for persons moving to the Portland SMSA. These reasons are also more important for persons moving from the suburbs to the City than for other classes moving within the SMSA. b. Life Cycle and Housing Size - Life cycle related reasons were important to all mobility groups. Housing size was important to all groups moving within the SMSA as a reason for leaving. c. Housing, Financial - Housing costs and the desire to own were frequently given as reasons for moving from the prior residence by all except movers to the Portland SMSA. These reasons were mentioned most frequently by suburb to suburb movers (41.2 per cent), and by City to City movers (30.2 per cent). In both classes, wanting to own was the dominant response. d. Housing, Structure - The condition, room arrangements, and architecture of the unit were cited most frequently by City-City movers (9.6 per cent). e. Location - Suburb to City movers cited convenience to work, friends, and shopping considerably more frequently than any other class of movers (21.8 per cent, whereas the next highest response was 13.5 per cent). f. Neighborhood - This factor includes being displaced for such reasons as sale of a rental unit and moving because of social aspects of a neighborhood. It was cited most frequently by City - City movers (17.3 per cent), where displacement type reasons pre-dominated; and City - suburb movers (23.5 per cent), where social aspects of neighborhood were most important. V-B. Analysis of Lists of 40 Possible Reasons for Moving Persons interviewed who had moved during the preceding five years were asked to indicate the importance of 40 reasons for deciding to leave their old residence and for choosing a new residence. The reasons on the two lists, for leaving and for choosing, were the same, but were presented in a randomized order when read to the respondents. Each of the 40 reasons was rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from "important" to "unimportant". All respondents, whether they moved or not, were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the same 40 aspects of their residence. The 40 47

57 items on "satisfaction" matched the earlier lists of 40 on "leaving" and "choosing", but in some cases needed to be reworded. For example, "wanted to buy" was an item on the lists for "leaving" and "choosing" but was reworded as "satisfaction with owning" on the "satisfaction list". 1. Correlation Analysis of Responses to lists - For each of the lists - "leaving", "choosing", and "satisfaction", the responses were correlated to find out which items were given similar ratings by respondents. For example, it was discovered that if a respondent mentioned school quality as an important factor in choosing a new residence, then the respondent also typically mentioned curriculum, teachers, discipline, and facilities as important factors. It was also discovered, that in citing reasons for leaving a previous residence, the rating of the issue of school location was more closely related to other location issues such as shopping and work than to school quality. However, in choosing a new location and expressing degree of satisfaction with present residence, the rating of school location tended to correlate with other school issues (Table 21). The details of this analysis (specifically, a factor analysis are presented in Appendix C. A synthesis of the three analyses is presented in Figure 10. The grouping of the questionnaire items into: schools, neighborhood, location, and house will be used in the subsequent discussions of reasons for moving. 2. Leaving, Choosing, and Satisfaction Differences - Because mover respondents were read the same list three times, one might have anticipated similar responses to items stemming from boredom caused by the repetition. An examination of Table 21 shows that this was not the case, and thus that respondents paid careful attention to the questions being asked. For example, school location was a relatively unimportant reason for moving, moderately important issue in choosing a new residence, and an aspect of schools with which most people were satisfied. Table 22 shows only very low or moderate correlation between the values given to reasons on the three lists. This indicates respondents discriminated the differences between the questions asked. 48

58 Table 21. Principal Components Reasons for Leaving Schools Neighborhood Env. Location House I II III IV V Neighborhood Phy. Facilities House Commu- Schools A B Env. A B Type & Q Size nality Curriculum Teachers Quality Discipline Facilities N'hood Run Down Income of N'bors Sewer Problems Street Conditions Age of N'bors Crime Rates Junky Streets Street Lighting Too Many Apts Police Protection Sidewalk Conditions Commercial Activities Racial Composition Wanted to Own Traffic Dang Street Noise Trees - Open Space Work Friends Shopping School Parks Quality of Parks Privacy Household Quality of Shopping House Outside App Payments Heating Costs Maintenance Probs Taxes Room Arrangement Number Rooms Overall Size Public Transp Size Yard Weight of factor Percent The decimal values in the columns of this table are called factor loadings and can be viewed as correlations between the 40 original items and eight composite variables (Schools, Neighborhood A and B, Physical environment, Location A and B and House type, quality, and size. The last column labeled communality shows how completely the information from each of the 40 variables is included in the indices. The loadings can range in value from to The communalities can range from 0.00 to At the bottom of the page weights are given for each factor, eg for schools. These values can be interpreted as equivalent to a number of variables. Thus the 4.96 weighting for schools is equivalent to 4.96, or about 5, of the original 40 items or 12.4% of the variance in the original responses. In total the eight factors account for 67.5% of the variance in the original data, the remaining 37.5% is largely unique to each variable and cannot be grouped with more general factors. 49

59 Figure 10 Figure 10. Grouping of Reasons for Leaving of Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with Residence I II III IV HOUSE SCHOOLS NEIGHBORHOOD 2 LOCATION facilities park location curriculum park quality quality Physical Environment Public Services Social shopping location Size and condition Costs teachers junky streets sewer problems income of neighbors shopping quality overall size wanted to own 4 discipline trees, open space street conditions racial composition re work no. of rooms level of taxes location 1 dangerous traffic street lighting age of neighbors re friends & rel. room arrangement house, rent payments commercial activities sidewalk conditions privacy 3 heating costs neighborhood run down police protection outside appearance too many apartments crime rates maintenance size of yard public transportation street noises Notes: 1. On reasons for leaving, school location is more related to other location factors, III. 2. On reasons for leaving, the physical, services, and social items form a more general factor suggestive of discontent with older city neighborhoods. 3. On reasons for leaving, privacy is associated with location variables. It perhaps represents a misunderstanding of what what meant by privacy the first time the lists were read to respondent. 4. Wanted to own generally tended not to group with any other variable and is included under House - costs for logical rather than empirical reasons. 50

60 Table 22. Correlation between Means for Forty Items on Lists of Reasons for Leaving, Choosing, and Residential Satisfaction Choosing Leaving Satisfaction Choosing Leaving Satisfaction Mean Standard deviation V-C. Reasons for Moving, All Persons The first two columns of Table 23 show the average rating by movers for each of 40 reasons for leaving a previous residence and for choosing their present residence. The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being "primary concern" and 7 being "not a significant reason". The last column shows satisfaction with present residence, 1 being "delighted" and 7 being "unhappy". Note that the averages for the first column, leaving present residence, are 4s, 5s, and 6s, which correspond to "mixed feelings", "unimportant reason", and "not a significant reason". The relatively low ratings probably reflect the fact that they pertain to a decision made as much as five years previous. The ratings in the second column, choosing the present residence, are higher, as are the ratings for satisfaction with present residence. This reflects the respondents' greater concern with the present. In Figure 11, the ratings are keyed by lighter and darker shadings. The ten most highly valued items are colored in the darkest shade; the next ten highest items are one shade lighter; continuing down to the ten least cited factors in the lightest shade. Several patterns emerge. They are discussed below under the categories of leaving, choosing, and satisfaction. The results in this table are for all movers. Subsequent sections will detail results for subgroups. 51

61 Table 23. Reasons for Leaving Old Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with New Residence, all Movers Reasons for: Neighborhood Housing Schools Location Physical Services Social Structure Cost Leaving Previous Residence Choosing present residence Satisfaction now Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Data from PMS home interviews Sample size: at least

62 Figure 11. Reasons for Leaving Old Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with New Residence - All Movers ` Neighborhood Housing Schools Location Most important reasons Next most important reasons Less important reasons Least important reasons Physical Services Social Structure Cost Leaving Previous Residence Reasons for: Choosing present residence Satisfaction now Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Data from PMS home interviews. Sample size equal to at least 400. Values are color coded into quartiles for each column. 53

63 1. Leaving a previous residence - The most important reasons cited for leaving the previous residence were related to the structure: size, room arrangements, number of rooms, privacy, appearance, and maintenance problems. The desire to own was very important to those who decided on leaving. Financial considerations were important in decisions to leave, but not as important as characteristics of the structure itself. This result is consistent with the importance of life cycle related reasons previously noted as responsible for the majority of moves: newly married couples needing larger spaces, families with additional children needing larger spaces, or couples whose children have grown up and left home seeking smaller and more manageable housing. The second most important group of reasons for leaving falls under the category "neighborhood physical environment". Included are such factors as traffic, street noise, and run down houses in the neighborhood. The qualities of services in the neighborhood are rated slightly less important, in comparison, except for the issues of crime and police protection. Neighborhood social considerations appear to play only a minor role in influencing persons to move out. However, respondents may not have been completely candid on these items, particularly the importance of neighbor-hood racial composition. Some elements of location appear to have a modest influence on decisions to leave. In particular, being near good quality shopping, work, friends, and relatives was rated fairly important. In general, schools were not an important reason for moving away from the previous residence. Although, as will be shown later, it was important for some groups. 2. Choosing present residence - By contrast, schools were moderately important issues in the choice of a new residence, particularly facilities and overall perceptions of quality. However, the most important issue both in "leaving" and "choosing" were considerations related to the housing unit itself. The issue of housing size, including overall size, number of rooms, room arrangement, and privacy, are cited as being very important in the choice of a new residence. The desire to own a home, consideration of rent or mortgage payments, and heating costs also are important issues. The neighborhood environment was also important in choosing a new residence, especially the physical environment of the neighborhood and the quality of services. Social considerations concerning the kinds of neighbors (age, income, race) were not rated as important, but respondents may have been uncomfortable in citing these 54

64 factors. Trees, open space, untidy streets, rundown housing, and perceived crime rates were strongly cited. The location of a new residence with respect to schools, parks, and friends was not cited as an important issue. The only element of location that was of much concern was location relative to place of work. 3. Satisfaction - Chapter VI presents a detailed description of residential satisfaction. The results for Table 23 will be briefly summarized here. It should be noted that figures for residential satisfaction include the responses of both movers and nonmovers. Generally, respondents appeared satisfied with schools, social characteristics of their neighborhood, and the general structural aspects of their housing. Exceptions were dissatisfaction with school discipline and housing maintenance problems. Their satisfaction with physical characteristics of their neighborhood was mixed, displeasure being noted with traffic, street noise, and "junky streets". Two areas where respondents expressed only moderate satisfaction were with the quality of services: sewers, street and sidewalk conditions and lighting, and crime and police protection. Respondents were more pleased with public transportation than other services. The lowest levels of satisfaction were expressed with the cost of housing, particularly taxes and heating costs. V-D. Analysis of Reasons for Moving for Subgroups The reasons given for "leaving" and "choosing" as well as "residential satisfaction" is tabulated and displayed for the following subgroups: 1) Mobility classes - City to suburb movers, suburb to City movers, intra-city movers, and movers to the Portland Metropolitan Area; 2) Tenure change groups - Households shifting from renter to owner status as well as those continuing to own or rent (but not those shifting from ownership to rental, due to small size of this sub-sample); 3)Special concern groups -Renters, young families with children, and elderly; and 4)Planning districts. 1. Mobility class - Some issues are important for moving in all mobility classes, for example, the size and arrangement of the house (Figure 12). Other issues are important to certain groups, for example, schools were a considerably more important element of choice for movers from City to suburb than for suburban movers to the City. 55

65 Neighborhood Housing Most important reasons ` Next most important reasons Less important reasons Least important reasons Schools Location Physical Services Social Structure Cost Figure 12. Reasons for Leaving Old ` Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction with New Residence - By Mobility Class City - Sub Mobility Class Sub - City City - City To SMSA LV CH SA LV CH SA LV CH SA CH SA Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Data from PMS home interviews. Sample size equal to at least 50. Color shadings are divided into quartiles for each column. Abbreviations: LV = reasons for leaving, CH = reasons for choosing, and SA = residential satisfaction. 56

66 Nearly all issues related to the size, arrangement, and features of housing were important both in the decision to leave an old residence and in choosing a new one. The costs of housing (payments, taxes, heating) were important reasons for leaving a residence, except that intra-city movers gave only moderate weight to house or rent payments and heating costs. In the choice of a new residence, house or rent payments were cited as an important consideration by all mobility classes. Surprisingly, taxes were not cited as a very important element in the decisions to leave a residence or choose a new one. Taxes were, however, a major element of dissatisfaction by residents, as were other cost elements (except for intra-city movers who were relatively more satisfied with housing costs, other than taxes). Schools, as an element in choosing a new residence, sharply differentiate movers to the suburbs from movers to or within the City. This is due in part to the larger numbers of families with children in the group moving to the suburbs, but also probably reflects a greater concern by these families about schools. Persons moving from the City to suburbs indicated that the quality of schools was a relatively important issue in their decision to leave the City (except for the location of schools which was cited as a less important issue). Schools also played an important part in the choice of suburban neighborhood. Apparently, persons who had moved from the City to the suburbs were pleased with the suburban schools, since they gave a high satisfaction rating to all aspects of schools. By contrast, persons moving from the suburbs to the City or within the City did not attach much importance to schools as a reason for moving or choosing a new place. City residents also expressed less satisfaction with their schools, except that they were quite satisfied with school location. It should be noted that the above discussion is based on residence in the City of Portland, and not the somewhat differently bounded Portland School District. Responses of persons moving to the Portland Metropolitan Area do not show reasons for leaving. As noted previously in the discussion of responses to the open ended question on reasons for leaving, movers to the Metropolitan Area give substantially different reasons for moving, mostly related to job and to family ties. The members of this group reside in both the city and the suburbs. The group's ratings on the "choosing" and "satisfaction" lists there-fore tend to fall between the City-suburb and suburb-city movers. 57

67 The physical environment of the neighborhood was generally a more important issue, both for leaving and choosing, for persons moving from the City to the suburbs. Yet, persons moving from the suburbs also cited too many apartments, traffic and traffic noise, and size of yard as reasons for moving. Suburban residents were generally satisfied with the physical environment of their neighborhood. Persons moving to and within the City were generally less satisfied. The quality of services was a more important issue for persons moving to or within the City than for persons moving from the City to the suburbs. Also, residents of the City appeared to be slightly more satisfied with services. One universally important issue is that of crime and police protection. It is cited as an important reason for "leaving" and "choosing" by all groups and is an area where residents express less satisfaction. The issue of location (parks, shopping, work, and friends) appears to differentiate movers to the suburbs from those moving to or within the City. It is a more important consideration for "leaving" and "choosing" for moves to and within the City. Also, persons moving within the City appear to be most satisfied with their location. 2.Tenure change groups - This group includes persons shifting from rental housing to ownership and movers who continue to rent or own. It does not include persons who shifted from ownership to rental, because the sub-sample was too small to allow generalization. As previously discussed, issues related to housing are important to all groups. They are an area where movers seems to be able to find satisfaction, except for housing costs which are a matter of some dissatisfaction (Figure 13). Schools were a particularly important issue to persons moving from ownership of one home to another. They appeared to be quite satisfied with all aspects of schools at their new location. Per-sons shifting from renting to owning apparently paid less heed to school issues, both in the decision to leave and in choosing a new residence. It appears that they were relatively less satisfied with schools at their new location than they were with other aspects of their new residence. Renters were less concerned about schools in "leaving" or "moving". However, they were relatively satisfied with schools at their new location. This may reflect lesser expectations on the part of renters. The neighborhood physical environment is an important reason for "leaving" and "choosing" for all groups. The main factors are traffic, street noise, rundown housing, and size of yards. Persons who continued to own or became owners were quite satisfied 58

68 Neighborhood Housing Most important reasons Next most important reasons Less important reasons Least important reasons Schools Location Physical Services Social Structure Cost Figure 13. Reasons for Leaving Old Residence, Choosing New Residence, and Satisfaction ` with New Residence - By Change in Housing Tenure ` Change in Housing Tenure Rent - Own Rent - Rent Own - Own LV CH SA LV CH SA LV CH SA Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Data from PMS home interviews. Sample size equal to at least 50. Color shadings are divided into quartiles for each column 59

69 with the physical environment of their new neighborhood. Renters were much less satisfied with this aspect of their new residence. All three groups showed moderate concern over services, both as a reason for leaving and for choosing. Persons who moved from owning one home to another paid most heed to this area, no doubt reflecting their experiences in owning a home previously. Satisfaction with services was only moderate for both ownership classes, but somewhat at higher for renters. Renters expressed particular satisfaction with the availability of public transportation. The issue of crime and police protection again appears to be of universal concern. Location issues, while not a major concern to any group, were most important to persons moving from rental to rental, particularly as a reason for leaving a previous residence. All groups were generally satisfied with the location of their new residence with respect to work, parks, shopping, schools, and friends. 3. Planning districts - Reasons for leaving the previous residence and for choosing a new residence is discussed for Port-land Planning Districts and for the suburbs. Because the sample size was insufficient to allow generalization, two groups of Planning Districts were aggregated : (1) Northwest and the Downtown-Lloyd Center District and (2) North Portland and the Inner Northeast District. Also, the figures used in this section (Figures 14 and 15) are color-coded in a slightly different way. Rather than showing the highest and lowest values for each column, the categorization applies to all values displayed on the page. For example, note that residents of the Southwest Planning District are shown to have given many fewer strongly-felt reasons for moving than per-sons moving from other districts. Leaving -Some issues are important to all movers, especially those related to housing; while others, such as schools, sharply differentiate the districts. Schools appear to be a particular concern for persons leaving the Far Northeast and the aggregated North Portland-Inner North-east districts, but were of little concern to persons moving from the suburbs or Southwest Planning District. However, it should be noted that while schools were cited as a reason for leaving the Far Northwest District, they were also a strong element of satisfaction for residents of that district. 60

70 Schools Physical Services Social Structure Cost Location Neighborhood Housing Most important reasons Next most important reasons Less important reasons Least important reasons Far NE Figure 14. Reasons for Leaving by Planning District Far SE Mid SE District SW Inner SE NW, DT, LC NP & Inner NE Suburbs Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Data from PMS home interviews. Sample size equal to at least 40. Color shadings are divided into quartiles by column. Districts abbreviated by sector plus: NW, DT, LC = Northwest, Downtown, and Lloyd Center; NP = North Portland. Some districts aggregated due to small sample size. 61

71 Most important reasons Next most important reasons Less important reasons Least important reasons Figure 15. Reasons for Choosing by Planning District District Far NE Far SE Mid SE SW Inner SE NW, DT, LC NP & Inner NE Suburbs Physical Services Social Structure Cost Schools Location Neighborhood Housing Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Data from PMS home interviews. Sample size equal to at least 50. Color shadings are divided into quartiles by column. Districts abbreviated by sector plus: NW, DT, LC = Northwest, Downtown, and Lloyd Center; NP = North Portland. Some districts aggregated due to small sample size 62

72 Several aspects of the neighborhood physical environment were important reasons for moving from most Portland neighborhoods. How-ever, they were unimportant reasons for moving from the Southwest Planning District or the suburbs (with the exception of traffic and street noise). Quality of service was moderately important as a reason for leaving, particularly police protection which was rated high by all districts except the Southwest Planning District. Location issues as reasons for leaving appear not to differentiate Portland's planning districts; however, distance from work, friends, and relatives appears to be an important reason for moving from suburban areas. Choosing - Housing issues, again, were important in the choice of housing in all planning districts, particularly those issues related to size and arrangements. Costs were also important issues in the choice of housing in all areas, except that taxes were not a major consideration in any district. The neighborhood physical environment was an important element in choosing housing in most districts. It was less important in the Inner Southeast and the aggregated Northwest -Downtown-Lloyd Center Districts, perhaps because these districts presented fewer options in this respect (e.g., open space, lack of traffic, few apartments). The quality of services was an important issue in choosing housing in most districts. But with the neighborhood physical environment, it was less important in the Inner Southeast and the aggregated Northwest - Downtown - Lloyd Center Districts. Location was a moderately important issue in choosing housing in all districts, particularly the desire to be close to work and good shopping. 4. Special groups - Three special groups were evaluated re garding their reasons for moving and how satisfied they were with where they lived. The groups were: homeowner families with children, renters, and elderly homeowners. For the elderly, only residential satisfaction was evaluated, because of the relatively small number of elderly movers. With respect to opinions on structural aspects of housing, location and social aspects of neighborhoods, these groups were similar to each other and to other movers. There were significant differences in the response to questions about schools, housing costs, and neighborhood environment. 63

73 A. Schools - One mildly surprising result was that homeowner families with children gave less emphasis to schools as a reason for leaving a previous residence than did movers as a whole (Figure 16). However, this group indicated that schools were a particularly important element in their choice of a new residence. Renters indicated that schools played only a minor role in leaving their previous residence or in choosing a new one. Both renters and homeowner families with children indicated that they were moderately satisfied with schools at their new location. B. Neighborhood physical environment - Renters and homeowner families with children both indicated that such elements as trees, open space and street noise played a major role in leaving and choosing. However, homeowner families with children were much more satisfied with their new neighborhood than were renters. The owner group was quite pleased with all aspects of their new neighborhood, except traffic and street noise, but renters did not indicate any aspect of their neighborhood physical environment that pleased them. Elderly homeowners also were not particularly satisfied with the physical environment of their neighborhood. C. Services - Both homeowner families with children and renters indicated that services exerted a moderate influence on their decision to leave their previous residence and in their choice of a new one. However, it appears that the homeowner group was some-what less satisfied with services at their new location than were renters. The issue of crime and police protection appears to be an important area of dissatisfaction with all three groups. Elderly homeowners appeared to be slightly more satisfied with their residence than homeowner families with children. Both renters and elderly homeowners express particular satisfaction with public transportation. D. Costs - Rental payments were a particularly important factor in "leaving" and "choosing" for renter households. Surprisingly, they indicated that they were relatively satisfied with rental costs at their new location. Otherwise, all aspects of housing costs (rents, house payments, heating costs, and taxes) were major areas of dissatisfaction for renters, elderly homeowners, and homeowner families with children. 64

74 Neighborhood Housing Figure 16. Reasons for Leaving Old Residence, Choosing New Residence, and ` Satisfaction with New Residence - for Special Groups ` Most important reasons Special Groups Next most important reasons Elderly Homeowner families Less important reasons Renters homeowners with children Least important reasons LV CH SA LV CH SA SA Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Schools Location Physical Services Social Structure Cost Data from PMS home interviews. Sample size equal to at least 40. Color shadings are divided into quartiles for each column. Abbreviations: LV = reasons for leaving, CH = reasons for choosing, and SA = residential satisfaction, 65

75 V-E. The Decision-Making Process The data presented in this section will examine the process used by individuals in their decision to locate a new place of residence. The analysis looks at several specific elements of the decision process: (1) problems encountered in the search for a new residence; (2) the length of the search process; and (3) the methods used in finding a new residence. 1. Problems encountered - In the Residential Mobility Study an open ended question was used to obtain responses concerning the biggest problem encountered in locating a new place of residence. Approximately 30 per cent of all individuals interviewed indicated that they had encountered no problem in finding a new residence (Table 24). Table 24 shows that for a large percentage of individuals (37 per cent) changing residence within the last five years, some type of financial problem was encountered in locating a new residence. For those individuals moving within the Portland SMSA, financial problems (housing too expensive, down payments, etc.) accounted for 42 per cent of all the problems encountered in this process; while individuals moving to the Portland SMSA from outside this area indicated that financial problems were somewhat less of a barrier in finding a new resident. The lower rate of financial difficulty encountered by people moving between metro areas is partly explained by the fact that this group is generally of a higher economic status. Table 24. Biggest Problem Finding a New Residence by Mobility Class Biggest Problem Mobility Class City to City Suburb to City Non SMSA City City to Suburb Non SMSA to Suburb No Problem Financial Problem Landlord/ Owner Requirement Finder Limitations Specific Needs Total% Total Sample size: 650 Source: PMS home interviews 66

76 A relatively small percentage, between 3-5 per cent, of all movers indicated that landlord-owner requirements (first and last months' rent, down payments, no pets, etc.) accounted for the biggest problem they encountered in the search for a new residence. For individuals changing residence within the Portland Metropolitan Area, approximately 6 per cent indicated that the biggest problem they faced in finding a new residence was some type of finder limitation (not enough time, transportation problems, etc.) But for individuals moving to the Portland SMSA from outside this area, 14 per cent indicated that finder limitation was the biggest problem they encountered in locating a new residence. The final broad category of responses, specific needs, accounts for approximately 20 per cent of the biggest problems faced by individuals in locating a new residence. The category of specific needs includes such things as: extra bedroom, garage, large lot, etc. Table 24 indicates that individuals moving with the City of Portland listed specific needs less frequently than did individuals in the other mobility classes. 2. Extent of Search - A second element in the process of locating a new residence is the length of the search process. Table 25 shows the number of units looked at by mobility class. Perhaps the major point made by this table is the extensive search process made by the people looking within the Portland SMSA. Over 50 per cent of the individuals within the Portland SMSA looked at between 6 and 31 plus units before deciding to purchase a specific residence, with about 18 per cent of all people moving within the Portland SSA looking at 31 or more units. Table 25. Number of Units Looked at by Mobility Class Number of Units Mobility Class Total City to City Suburb to City Non SMSA to City City to Suburb Non SMSA to Suburb Total Sample size: 564 Source PMS home interviews 67

77 Table 26 shows the area in which people primarily looked while searching for a new residence. Tables 25 and 26 show that not only does this process lead people to look at a large number of residences, but that a number of people are looking throughout the SSA before making their final decision. For people moving within the City of Portland, 10 per cent looked at some units in the sub urban areas; for people moving from the City to the suburbs, 27 per cent looked at units within the City; for people moving from the suburbs to the City, 22 per cent looked at some units within the suburbs. Table 26. Where Looked by Mobility Class Area Looked City Suburb Both Total City to City % Suburb to City % Non-Mover City % City to Suburb % Non-SMSA to Suburb % Total % Sample size: 564 Source: PMS home interviews. 3. Nature of search - In order to determine what factors were most helpful in the search for a new residence, the Residential Mobility Survey asked people to rate a series of elements that might have been helpful in their search process. Table 27 presents the results of this line of questioning by mobility class. There appears to be a significant difference in the degree of helpfulness provided by some elements for specific mobility classes. For example, newspapers proved helpful to both people moving within the City of Portland and from the suburbs to the City of Portland, while not being as helpful to other mobility classes. This figure for intra-city movers may be partly influenced by a high number of people moving from renter-to-renter status and therefore having to rely more heavily on newspaper advertisements. It may also reflect a more detailed advertisement of houses located in the City by the local newspapers. Driving around appears to have approximately the same degree of helpfulness for all individuals moving within the Portland SMSA. But for people moving to the Portland SMSA from other areas, the helpfulness of this element is slightly lower. 68

78 For people moving within the City of Portland, the use of friends appears to be very helpful, while being much less helpful for all other mobility classes. These figures are probably a reflection of the fact that the friends of people moving within the City of Portland are more likely to be located in the City and therefore have a greater knowledge of the housing opportunities existing within the City. The other types of moves are those that are likely to take individuals away from friends. The friends of this class of movers are more likely to have a greater knowledge of the housing opportunities in the area being left, rather than of the area of final destination. Relatives do not appear to be a very helpful source of locating housing for individuals moving within the SMSA and seemed moderately helpful to those moving to Portland from outside the SMSA. The use of real estate agencies proved most helpful to three groups of movers - suburb to City, City to suburb, and those moving to the SMSA and settling in the suburbs. These are likely to be predominantly individuals buying a home. Traditionally, the real estate agency has been a useful source of information concerning housing opportunities for home buyers. For people moving to sub-urban Portland from outside the SMSA, real estate agencies were the major source of useful information. Again, these people are likely to be predominantly persons purchasing a home who see the real estate agency as the logical source of information. Table 27. Important Sources in Locating New Residence by Mobility Class Information Sources Newspaper Driving around Friends Relatives Real Estate Agency City to City Suburb to City Non SMSA to City City to Suburb Non SMSA to Suburb Sample size = 629 Source: PMS home interviews 69

79 Chapter VI Residential Satisfaction As was the case with the analysis of reasons for moving, both open and closed ended questions were asked regarding respondents' degree of satisfaction with their present residence. These questions also attempted to determine their principal areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The closed ended questions were in the form of a list of 40 elements of satisfaction that, as was the case with reasons for moving, tended to stress problems that might be influenced by City policies. In the following section, the responses to open ended questions are discussed first because they allow a somewhat broader view of the respondents' feelings about their residences, locations, and neighborhoods. VI-A. General Neighborhood "Likes" and "Dislikes" Survey respondents were asked for their particular likes and dislikes about the place where they presently lived. The questions were addressed to the separate issues: the residence itself; the location of the residence; and the surrounding neighborhood. Only the first response given was coded and tabulated. Generally, the responses regarding things that respondents liked about their neighborhood were meaningful. The responses to the question about dislikes, however, very frequently drew no response. Also, the frequency of individual responses regarding likes and dislikes was too low to allow comparison of planning districts. 1. Residence, likes - The most frequently mentioned "likes" for residence were adequate size (19.2 per cent), room arrangement (5.8 per cent), minimal maintenance (5.6 per cent), and comfort (5.1 per cent). 2. Neighborhood, likes - A cluster of responses citing quiet, friendly, and dependable neighbors (43.1 per cent) was the most frequently noted "like" for the respondents' neighborhood. The second most frequently cited "like" included such items as neatly-kept yards, trees, open space, and quiet (33.1 per cent). 3. Location, likes - The locational "like" cited most frequently was being close to shopping (23.8 per cent), followed by proximity to work (15.2 per cent), mass 70

80 transportation (14.2 per cent), schools (7.7 per cent), freeway access (4.8 per cent), parks and recreation (4.1 per cent). 4. Dislikes, general - Most respondents indicated that there was nothing they disliked about their residence (58.4 per cent), neighborhood (50.6 per cent), and location (85.5 per cent). The only frequently-mentioned response was an indication that unfriendly neighbors were a negative aspect of the respondents' neighborhood (4.3 per cent). No other "dislike" was mentioned by over 2.9 per cent of the respondents. VI-B. Satisfaction with Sub-Areas The data from the analysis of the 40-item lists concerning reasons for "leaving" and "choosing", as well as for residential satisfaction, have been discussed previously with respect to the residential mobility process. These data, particularly those 'for "satisfaction", will be re-analyzed in the following section with respect to variations between City and suburb, and between City Planning Districts. 1. Residential Satisfaction by Mobility Class - Figure 17 shows various elements of residential satisfaction for movers to, from, and within the City and for non-movers. There are some clear differences between the mobility classes. Overall, movers from the City to suburbs and non-movers are the most satisfied; movers with-in the City are least satisfied. With few exceptions, all respondents were relatively satisfied with social characteristics of their neighborhood; their location relative to shopping, parks, schools, work, friends, and relatives; and with the structural aspects of their residence. Conversely, most respondents were not very satisfied with the costs of housing. Some exceptions to the above generalizations include the following: a) Persons moving to the suburbs were not very satisfied with the location and quality of parks. b) Movers within the City were more pleased than others with housing costs, and non-movers were especially pleased with their mortgage or rent payments. c) City to suburb movers were considerably. happier with house maintenance than others. Services - Persons who had moved from the City to the suburbs were the least satisfied with the quality of services, particularly street condition and lighting, sidewalk condition, and public transportation. 71

81 Most important reasons Next most important reasons Less important reasons Least important reasons Figure 17. Residential Satisfaction by Mobility Class Mobility Class Schools Physical Services Social Structure Cost Location Neighborhood Housing City - Suburb Suburb - City City - City To SMSA Non-Mover Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs Data from PMS home interviews. Sample sizes equal to at least 80. Color coding is divided into approximate quartiles of all values shown on this page. 72

82 Physical environment - Non-movers and City-suburb movers were generally the most satisfied with the physical environment of their neighborhoods; movers within the City were the least satisfied. Schools - Movers from the City to the suburb were the most pleased with the quality of schools, although the counter-stream of suburb-city movers was also reasonably satisfied. Movers within the City and non-movers in general were the least satisfied with schools, perhaps because they had fewer options in their choice of housing. 2. Residential Satisfaction by Planning District - Several measures of residential satisfaction by planning district are available from the Portland Mobility Study telephone and home interviews. They include the following: a. A telephone survey question concerning satisfaction with present residence. Was the respondent "very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied"? Since the sample size for the telephone survey was large (generally over 3,500 valid responses), this data can be displayed at neighborhood as well as planning district levels. b. Responses to a question asking respondents how satisfied they were with their residence, location, and neighborhood. c. The 40-item list concerning elements of residential satisfaction. d. The 40-item list concerning elements influencing persons to leave a previous residence. Averaged by planning district, one would expect a mirror image relationship between reasons for leaving a district and the elements of satisfaction for persons residing there; if schools are an important reason for leaving a district, presumably, some persons are dissatisfied with the quality of schools in that district. 3. Overall Satisfaction for Neighborhoods - During the course of the telephone interviews, 2,278 City residents were asked how satisfied they were with their present residence; 2,241 responded to the question. Figure 18 shows the distribution of their responses, divided into quartile groups. The lowest quarter of neighborhoods mapped had a mixture of satisfied and dissatisfied responses; the highest quarter mainly gave a "very satisfied" response. Generally, the high satisfaction areas are of high housing value or high rent and areas of high home ownership (e.g., West Hills, Eastmoreland, and Alameda). The lowest satisfaction areas are mainly rental housing and lower housing values (e.g., 73

83 Figure

84 Buchanan, Elliot, and Humboldt neighborhoods). Some neighborhoods run counter to this generalization (e.g., Kerns, which shows high satisfaction but has lower housing values and is principally rental housing). Some of these apparent anomalies are due to sampling error. 4. Satisfaction with Residence, Location, and Neighborhood - Approximately 550 Portland City respondents in the household inter-views responded to a question concerning how satisfied they were with their residence, their location, and their neighborhood. Table 28 displays the responses made by owners and renters in each planning district. Values approaching 1.00 indicate nearly universal satisfaction. Table 28 and Figure 19 show that owners and renters show similar variations between planning districts, but that generally owners are more satisfied with their residence, location, and neighborhood than are renters. Owners residing in certain areas of the City appear to show high levels of satisfaction with residence, location, and neighborhood (for example, Northwest, mid-southeast, and Southwest Hills). The Far Northeast District also is rated as very satisfying by renters in the three aspects. Table 28. Response to Satisfaction Questions By Planning District Planning District Residence Location Neighborhood Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent North Portland Downtown/Lloyd Center (2) 1.91 (2) 1.45 (2) 1.82 Inner Southeast Inner Northeast Northwest Southwest Hills 1.38 (2) 1.23 (2) 1.48 (2) Mid Southeast Far Southeast Far Southwest Far Northeast Average of responses on 1-7 scale on which 1 indicated satisfied and 7 dissatisfied 2. Too few to permit generalization to district Source: PMS home interviews 75

85 Figure 19 Data from PMS home interviews. Sample size equal to at least 20. Color shadings are divided into quartiles for all values shown on this page. Districts abbreviated by sector plus: NW, DT, LC = Northwest, Downtown, and Lloyd Center; and NP = North Portland. Some districts aggregated due to small sample size. 76

86 By contrast, the Inner Northeast and Inner Southeast Districts are rated in the lowest or next to lowest quartiles by owners and renters for satisfaction with residence, location, and neighborhood. 5. Satisfaction, Elements from 40-Item List - Figure 20 shows the average responses by planning district for 40 items concerning residential satisfaction. The analysis is the same as that used above in the description of satisfaction for mobility classes. Figure 20 suggests that the Southwest Planning Districts (Far Southwest and Southwest Hills) and the Far Northeast Planning District enjoy the highest levels of residential satisfaction in the City. The pattern is similar to Portland's suburbs, but these respondents were more satisfied with services than suburban residents. These districts register considerably higher satisfaction with schools than other City Planning Districts. The Far Southeast and the aggregated North Portland and Inner Northeast Districts register the lowest levels of satisfaction, displaying high satisfaction values mainly for convenient location issues. These 40 items of satisfaction were aggregated into indices of residential satisfaction (Table 29) and mapped (Figure 21) for the City and suburban areas by county. Two major features can be seen on these maps. First, respondents in nearly all planning districts are quite pleased with the locational aspects of their residence and somewhat dissatisfied with the several elements of housing costs that comprise the housing cost index. Second, certain Planning Districts are above the median (top two values on map) on nearly all characteristics (e.g., the Far Southwest and Southwest Hills Planning Districts); whereas other districts are low on nearly all indices (e.g., North Portland, which rates above average only on satisfaction with location aspects). 6. Reasons Why Respondents Moved from Planning Districts - The final measure of residential satisfaction is somewhat complex. It consists of an analysis by Planning District of persons' reasons for moving from residences located in each of the Districts. The rationale is that if persons move out of their residences in a particular district, stressing a particular reason, say the quality of schools, then one can infer that schools are a matter of some dissatisfaction to some residents of that district. The analysis makes use of the same type of composite indices for "reason for leaving" as were utilized in the analysis of satisfaction. The indices for Planning Districts are tabulated in Table 30 and displayed in map form on Figure

87 Table 29. Residential Satisfaction Indices By Planning District North Portland School Physical Environment Service Social Location House size House cost Index No Downtown-Lloyd Center Index No Inner Southeast Inner Northeast Northwest Southwest Hills Mid Southeast Far Southeast FarSouthwest Far Northeast Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Multnomah County Washington County Clackamas County Clark County Index No Index No Index No Index No Average of responses on 1-7 scale on which 1 indicated most important and 7 the least important. Source: PMS home interviews 78

88 Figure 20 Most important reasons Next most important reasons Less important reasons Least important reasons Figure 20. Residential Satisfaction by Planning District District Far NE Far SE Mid SE SW Inner SE NW, DT, LC NP & Inner NE Suburbs Neighborhood Housing Schools Location Physical Services Social Structure Cost Facilities Curriculum Quality Teachers Discipline Location Junky streets Trees, open space Dangerous traffic Commercial activities Neighborhood run down Too many apartments Size of yard Street noise Sewer problems Street conditions Street lighting Sidewalk condition Police protection Crime rates Public transportation Income of neighbors Racial composition Age of neighbors Parks - location quality Shopping - location quality Location re work Location re friends, rel Overall size No. of rooms Room arrangement Privacy Outside appearance Maintenance Wanted to own Level of taxes House, rent payments Heating costs

89 Figure 21 80

90 Table 30. Reasons for Leaving Indices by Planning District North Portland Downtown-Lloyd Center Inner Southeast Inner Northeast Northwest Southwest Hills Mid Southeast Far Southeast FarSouthwest Far Northeast Multnomah County Washington County Clackamas County Clark County Suburbs, All School Physical Environment Service Social Location House size House cost Index ' No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Index No Average of responses on 1-7 scale on which 1 indicates most important reason and 7 the least important. 2. Source: PMS interviews 81

91 Figure 22 82

92 Since the Planning District indices for "reason for leaving" are measures of dissatisfaction with the prior residence, it was hypothesized that their correlation with the indices for "satisfaction" would be negative when compared by Planning District. Table 31 shows that this hypothesis is only partly sustained. Of the seven correlations, only five are negative as hypothesized and only the correlation for "location" is even moderately strong. The correlations for housing costs and structure are positive, implying that while persons who moved into a neighborhood are satisfied with housing structure (e.g., size, arrangements, and maintenance), persons moving away from the neighborhood tend to cite housing structure as a reason for leaving. Table 31. Correlation between Indices of Reasons for Leaving and Indices of Residential Satisfaction For Planning Districts and Counties 1 Index Correlation Neighborhood, physical environment Neighborhood, social environment Quality of schools Neighborhood, quality of services Location re. shopping, work, etc Housing, size and quality of structure 0.33 Housing, costs Correlations by Pearson s method based on values in Tables 29 and 30. Districts with low frequencies of responses excluded from calculation. One possible explanation for this apparent contradiction lies in the preponderance of "life cycle" type reasons for moving. Size and cost of housing must be judged relative to the needs of house-holds. A family with three children could move from a two bedroom house and indicate that house size and room arrangements were important reasons for leaving. The same house might become occupied by a couple with no children, moving from an apartment, who were looking for more space and thus indicate satisfaction with the roominess of their new unit. To the extent that such life cycle moves dominate mobility within, to, and from a planning district, it is not 83

93 unreasonable to find a district rated high both on the housing-structure "reasons for moving" index and on the housing structure "satisfaction" index. The mapped indices for "reasons for leaving" (Figure 22) show that housingstructure is a universally important reason for moving, reflecting less on particular neighborhoods than the relative spaciousness of the respondents' earlier residence. Conversely, social aspects of the neighborhood was shown to be generally unimportant reasons for leaving, therefore not a major area of dissatisfaction to persons moving away. However, note that respondents in the Inner Northeast District give the highest rating to social elements as a reason for leaving. Schools are shown to be important reasons for leaving in North Portland, the Inner Northeast, and the Far North-east Planning Districts but relatively unimportant elsewhere. This conflicts with the previously displayed "satisfaction index" maps which also showed a relatively high level of satisfaction with schools for the Far Northeast District. The map of the housing cost index for "reasons for moving" shows considerably more geographic variation than did the housing cost index map for "satisfaction". Two interesting contrasts appear on this map. First, housing costs are suggested to be an important reason for moving from housing in Washington County, but not for moves from the relatively similar Far Southwest District of Portland. Second, the Inner Northeast District stands out because of the greater stress given to costs by respondents moving from housing in that district. This no doubt reflects the fact that this district includes a number of low income neighborhoods and many lower cost housing units. The map of physical environment appears to show similar results for the indices derived from "reasons for leaving" and residential satisfaction. The two maps of services appear somewhat similar, showing greater satisfaction in the City than in the suburbs. VI-C. Ideal Neighborhoods Respondents to the home interviews were asked if there was any neighborhood in the City of Portland that they would consider an "ideal neighborhood". They were shown a map of the City with neighborhood names on it to assist them in their response. If they named a neighborhood, a probe question sought to determine why they had named that particular neighborhood. A similar pattern of questions was used to determine if there was some neighborhood in the City that they would not consider living in, followed by a probe asking why. Respondents needed some urging to name an undesirable neighborhood. 84

94 1. Ideal Neighborhoods - Eleven of Portland's neighborhoods were mentioned as "ideal" by three per cent or more of the respondents who indicated that they would consider looking for housing in the City. Laurelhurst, Eastmoreland, and Southwest Hills were most frequently mentioned (Figure 23, Table 32). The reasons given for citing these neighborhoods (Table 32) fell principally into the categories of housing quality and character, neighborhood physical environment, and general familiarity with the neighborhood. These same features were also cited for other neighborhoods, but "general familiarity" is more frequently a reason for citing these other neighborhoods than for the top eleven. There are some obvious differences in reasons given for citing the top eleven; for example: Laurelhurst for housing, Eastmoreland for trees and general physical environment, and Southwest Hills for view. Generally, the number of responses is too small for further interpretation of this data (Table 32). 2. Least Preferred Neighborhoods - Seven Portland neighborhoods were identified by over three per cent of the respondents as neighborhoods where they would not consider looking (Figure 23, Table 33). The Eliot and St. Johns neighborhoods were mentioned by 15.8 and 10.8 per cent respectively and the general Northeast quadrant of the City was mentioned by 7.2 per cent. The most frequent reasons for citing these neighborhoods pertained to the their social and physical environments. One can infer that the issue of race was of particular importance in indicating a disinterest in looking for housing in the Eliot neighborhood. The characteristics of other least preferred neighborhoods were similar to those for which reasons were tabulated, except that nearly all mentions of "crowding" were for the aforementioned eight neighborhoods. 85

95 Figure 23 86