VI.     Priorities for Renewal of Canadian Communities

The priorities cited above are to some extent mirrored in the importance attached to desirable features of a community that was reviewed in Section 3. Improving the environment is, in some ways, linked to green spaces and parks and a very desirable feature identified by most urban Canadians. Stimulating the local economy is related to a thriving business community, also a desirable attribute. The importance of modern infrastructure in a desirable community is reflected in the priority given to upgrading local infrastructure and improved community services as a priority is also reflected in the importance given to affordable housing.

While there is broad consensus about what is important in a community, it is also apparent that the gap between the ideal and the real is, in some cases, significant. When detailed comparisons are made, as they are in Figure 25, there are four attributes where the ideal is not being met.

In order to determine the extent to which a gap between the ideal and actual exists, the ratings of 6 and 7 on the seven point scale of desirability in an ideal community (as outlined in Section three) were subtracted from the 6 and 7 ratings on the seven point performance scale that measured how well urban residents believed their community performed on each of the attributes used to create the ideal community. These scores are shown in Figure 25.

According to urban Canadians, the four areas that make up a desirable community and where performance falls short of the ideal are: affordable housing, modern infrastructure, good public transit, and quality educational institutions. Significantly, three of these areas are the priorities rated most highly in the section above.

In the area of affordable housing the gap is quite large, being 27 points (while 86% of urban Canadians rated this attribute as important in a desirable community, only 43% rated the performance of their community as excellent or good in this regard).

Figure 25

Gap Analysis: Performance Ratings Compared to Desired Community Features

	GAP (+ / -) Percent that Rate City/Town as Excellent/Very Good (7, 6) Minus Percent that Rate Feature as Very Important (7)
	National Total (n=4200) %	Community Size
		< 50K (n=800) %	50K - 100K (n=800) %	100K - 500K (n=800) %	500K - 1M (n=800) %	1M+ (n=1000) %
High Level Priorities (Performance lagging perceived importance)
Affordable Housing	-27	-18	-19	-19	-23	-33
Modern infrastructure such as roads, highways and water treatment facilities	-16	-15	-13	-19	-17	-17
Good public transit	-14	-11	-6	-9	-14	-20
Quality schools, colleges and universities	-8	-10	-6	+3	-5	-13
Moderate Level Priorities (Performance keeping pace with perceived importance)
Services for newcomers and immigrants	0	0	0	+1	0	+1
Efficient composting and recycling programs	+1	0	+8	+6	+3	-3
Thriving business community	+4	-2	-5	-1	+13	+7
Thriving high technology sector	+5	-3	0	+1	+11	+7
Green space and parks	+6	+12	+11	+10	+13	0
Well preserved historic buildings and older neighbourhoods	+7	+6	+6	+13	+7	+3
Lower Level Priorities (Outperforming perceived importance)
Highly educated people	+11	+4	+7	+13	+18	+10
Active arts/cultural community	+13	+9	+18	+15	+15	+11
Easy access by air, rail or road to other cities/towns	+13	1	2	+11	+19	+15
Good sports/recreational facilities	+14	+10	+18	+16	+21	+12
Diversity (ethnic, religious, language)	+20	+7	+13	+12	+25	+24
High speed Internet access	+28	+16	+30	+29	+32	+27

Similarly with modern infrastructure, while 91% rated this as important only 61% rated their community as excellent or good along this attribute. The same pattern is apparent for the attribute of good public transit, where what is perceived as falling short of what is desired.

The one area where a gap exists that is not as troubling is that of quality education. While a gap exists, this is not as much because of poor performance, but because of very high ideals. In all, 57% of urban residents reported quality schools, colleges and universities to be an important attribute. Yet, when rating the performance of their community on these attributes, 49% rated the quality of schools, colleges and universities as excellent or good. This was the second highest of 16 attributes tested. This suggests that it is the very high expectations that are not being met rather then a poorly performing education system.

While the gap between expectations and performance exists across communities of all sizes, it is especially apparent in our major urban centers.

For many desirable attributes, there is no gap between expectations and performance and this suggests that the importance of an attribute and how performance is evaluated is in harmony. In other words, performance matches expectations. Such is the case with green spaces and parks, efficient composting and recycling, a thriving business community and others shown in Figure 25.

There are also instances where performance is well ahead of the importance assigned to an attribute. That is, residents of urban Canada do not ascribe this attribute with a lot of importance relative to other areas, but they are fairly positive regarding the performance on this attribute. Examples of these attributes include: highly educated people, an active arts community and diversity in the form of ethnic, religious and language groups. These attributes were not especially valued as important but urban Canadians rated the performance of their community in these areas as quite positive. This gap is especially large in the larger urban centers.

Of interest here is the fact that the areas cited above - diversity, an educated population, and an active arts and cultural community - are all the attributes that Richard Florida, in his work on what gives cities a competitive edge, has cited as key. It seems that urban Canadians do not value these attributes to any great extent although they believe their communities possess them and perform reasonably well along these attributes.