Housing tenure and condos: ownership by immigrant generations and the timing of arrival.
Article Type: Report
Subject: Condominiums (Social aspects)
Home ownership (Social aspects)
Immigrants (Homes and haunts)
Immigrants (Social aspects)
Immigrants (Economic aspects)
Land tenure (Research)
Authors: Kim, Ann H.
Boyd, Monica
Pub Date: 06/22/2009
Publication: Name: Canadian Journal of Urban Research Publisher: Institute of Urban Studies Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Social sciences Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Institute of Urban Studies ISSN: 1188-3774
Issue: Date: Summer, 2009 Source Volume: 18 Source Issue: 1
Topic: Event Code: 290 Public affairs; 310 Science & research
Product: Product Code: E198450 Immigrants SIC Code: 1522 Residential construction, not elsewhere classified
Geographic: Geographic Scope: Canada Geographic Code: 1CANA Canada
Accession Number: 229218930
Full Text: Abstract

A status attainment perspective of immigrant integration suggests that the socioeconomic mobility of immigrants occurs over time and over generations, with first generation immigrants expected to have the least desirable outcomes. We examine this proposition in terms of homeownership, long viewed as an indicator of socioeconomic status, and compare the likelihood of ownership across immigrant waves and generations in Canada. Our analysis reveals a non-linear process of housing integration, the timing of arrival does affect tenure in the expected direction but levels stabilize after 20 years in Canada. We find that these earliest immigrants, arriving prior to 1981, are the most likely to own. In general, the 1.5 and second generations are as likely to own as this latter group but by the third-plus generation, homeownership drops somewhat. Distinguishing the type of homeownership is also important as newcomers are more likely than others to enter the condominium market.

Keywords: homeownership, immigrants, second generation, condominiums


L'etude sur l'integration des immigrants selon la perspective des modeles d'acquisition de statut suggere que la mobilite socioeonomique des immigres se produit sur periode de temps prolongee et sur plusieurs generations, avec l'attente que la premiere generation possede les resultats les moins favorables. Nous examinons cette proposition en termes d'accession a la propriete, un indicateur traditionnellement utilise pour mesurer le statut socio-economique, et comparons la probabilite d'acces a la propriete a travers plusieurs vagues d'immigration et de generations au Canada. Notre analyse revele un processus non lineaire quant a l'acquisition d'une propriete : la periode de l'arrivee au Canada affecte l'accession dans la direction prevue mais les niveaux se stabilisent apres une periode de 20 ans. Nous constatons que les premiers immigres arrives avant 1981 sont les plus susceptibles de devenir proprietaire. En general, la probabilite de devenir proprietaire pour les 1.5 et deuxieme generations est comparable mais pour ce qui est de la troisieme generation, l'accession diminue legerement. La distinction entre les divers types de proprietes est egalement importante car les nouveaux venus sont plus portes que les autres vers le marche des condominiums.

Mots cles: d'accession a la propriete, immigrants, deuxieme generations, condominiums


With increasing exposure to the immigrant-receiving society, initial differentials in social and economic resources between new immigrants and the native born are expected to decline or disappear. One such visible resource is homeownership, long viewed as an indicator of socioeconomic status, social and economic mobility, and quality of life (Hiebert et al. 2006; Myers and Lee 1998). As a relatively secure financial investment, homeownership offers social stability to individuals and families, and access to desirable neighbourhoods. It has also been linked to political incorporation (Gilderbloom and Markham 1995; Verberg 2000), educational outcomes (Conley 2001) and other social benefits (Rossi and Weber 1996). For immigrants whose economic mobility may be constrained in the labour market, homeownership provides an avenue for upward mobility for themselves and their children. However, as their financial resources are likely to be limited, their opportunities for ownership may also be limited resulting in low rates of ownership, at least until the second generation.

A testament to the social and economic significance of homeownership, a number of studies on ownership patterns and immigrants have been conducted in various settings such as Australia, Israel and the United States (Alba and Logan 1992; Bourassa 1994; Coulson 1999; Flippen 2001; Fong and Shibuya 2000; Freeman and Hamilton 2004; Gabriel and Painter 2003; Krivo 1995; Lewin-Epstein and Semyonov 2000; Myers and Lee 1998; Painter, Gabriel, and Myers 2001; Ramer 1996; Rosenbaum 1996). Several studies have also examined the homeownership patterns of immigrants in Canada (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Darden and Kamel 2000; Gyimah, Waiters, and Phythian 2005; Haan 2005, 2007; Mendez, Hiebert, and Wyly 2006; Owusu 1998; Ray and Moore 1991; Skaburskis 1996).

Historically, studies in Canada have shown that as an aggregate, immigrant levels of homeownership have been found to be higher than the native-born (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Owusu 1998; Ray and Moore 1991), although recently this immigrant advantage has been observed to be on the decline (Jakubec 2004; Haan 2005). However, the diversity of racial and ethnic groups within this classification as well as important differences by timing of arrival have lead to further examination of these dimensions. Past research that examined these differences revealed that the newest arrivals, typically those arriving within the previous 5 to 15 years, had the lowest likelihood of owning their homes (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Darden and Kamel 2000; Gyimah, Waiters, and Phythian 2005; Jakubec 2004; Owusu 1998; Ray and Moore 1991; Skaburskis 1996). Although some of these studies were not exclusively focused on immigrant outcomes, they all showed that earlier immigrant cohorts had higher levels of homeownership than the native-born. However, the distinction between successive generations of immigrant origin groups, defined as the 1.5 generation, second and third-plus generations, has been less of a defining feature of this body of work, which can be explained by the lack of data on parents' places of birth prior to 2001.

Using the 2001 Public Use Microdata File based on Canadian census data, which includes data on the place of birth of parents, housing type, age at immigration and immigration period, our study contributes to the literature on homeownership by: 1) examining the impact of the length of exposure, i.e. generational status, in localized markets; and 2) by distinguishing the type of ownership, i.e. homeowners versus condominium owners.

According to various theoretical perspectives considered in this paper, assimilation theory, the social psychological approach, housing discrimination and urban ecology, there is reason to expect that the first generation and more recent immigrants would be less likely to own their homes than residents born in the country, even after controlling for socio-economic, household and racial characteristics. But for those immigrants who do own, condominium ownership may be a more accessible form of ownership, particularly for the recent arrivals.

In local housing markets in North America, buyers primarily have two main options: freehold housing, for which owners have full ownership of the property and responsibility for its maintenance (i.e. homeowners); and condominiums, for which ownership and maintenance of common areas of the property are shared among unit holders to some degree (i.e. condo-owners). As a distinctive housing type, the rise in condominium units is an important late twentieth century development for the housing stock of many North American cities, and its growth has implications for homeownership patterns. Condominiums are valued at about $15,000 to $39,000 less than freehold housing or what are typically single family dwellings in metropolitan areas, (1) and may be a popular choice among those with more limited economic resources. Research shows that for many immigrants, affordability is the major barrier in accessing housing (Murdie et al. 2006); thus condominium ownership rather than housing ownership may represent a more obtainable goal for new immigrants. We examine whether the former path to ownership is more likely among immigrants and compare across the generations.

Finally, we compare patterns of housing tenure and housing type by host society exposure across five geographic regions; the three largest metropolitan areas, other CMAs and non-CMAs. This builds on much of the previous research on housing in the Canadian context, which focuses largely on Toronto. While the prominence of Toronto as Canada's global city justifies the attention of immigration researchers, a broader geographic analysis will allow us to determine whether the effect of exposure is a localized or a generalized experience across the country.

Explaining Homeownership Differentials by Exposure and Nativity

Why should differentials in homeownership exist between groups that are recent immigrants and those most distant from the migration experience? With respect to ownership patterns across the generations, three perspectives help to explain differentials by host society exposure. First, cultural and socioeconomic differences between immigrants and non-immigrants are invoked by assimilation theory to argue that the most recent immigrants, or newcomers, are culturally distinctive from the native-born population and lack the socioeconomic capital to purchase property. Recent arrivals are likely to situate in the larger urban gateways with low paying jobs and are thus unable to afford the high housing costs associated with ownership. They would be expected to be initially housed with relatives or friends. This results in homeownership differentials by nativity and timing of arrival (Alba and Logan 1992).

Over time, as immigrants adjust and acquire the necessary social, cultural and economic capital, their levels of homeownership should increase, implying that the highest rates would be observed in the third-plus generation, that is, those who were born in Canada of Canadian parentage. According to the perspective, this latter group is the benchmark against which immigrant integration ought to be assessed. In short, exposure to a place in terms of time, with all the associated adjustments that are expected to occur, is a key dimension of assimilation theory, and it predicts the parity of outcomes--in homeownership for example--particularly between the second and subsequent generations.

A second explanation identified in studies of immigrants and homeownership that is helpful for understanding changes by the length of time spent in a country utilizes a social psychological perspective (Owusu 1998; Ray and Moore 1991). The social psychological approach considers a new immigrant's commitment to the destination country and posits that newcomers are more likely to perceive of their stay as temporary thereby directing them to transitory modes of housing tenure such as the rental market. Moreover, the motivation to return to their country of origin may be coupled with the desire to expeditiously accumulate capital in the host country and invest in the home country. For example, Owusu (1998) found that the low rates of ownership of Ghanaians in Toronto were associated with their transnational linkages and desire for homeownership in their country of origin. And among some Somali newcomers, the desire to return to Somalia was a reason for not wanting to buy a home (Murdie 2002). Thus, the longer an immigrant spends in the country of destination, the more likely they are to recognize their stay as permanent and subsequently, to make that financial and psychological investment in their country of settlement. By the second and third-plus generations, it is highly doubtful that individuals would consider returning to their parents' or grandparents' country of origin. Rather, they would be expected to be more firmly rooted, socially and psychologically, in Canada, which can manifest as a greater investment in housing and neighbourhoods.

A third explanation of differences in ownership rates between immigrants and non-immigrants identifies the barriers and processes in housing markets reflective of inequalities in the wider society that prevent immigrants from having access to property acquisition and to particular neighbourhoods. Several studies investigating the housing outcomes of new immigrants argued that discrimination against immigrants in the housing market impeded newcomers, especially visible minority newcomers, from obtaining affordable and adequate housing (Danso and Grant 2000; Darden 2004; Darden and Kamel 2000; Dion 2001).

The concept of steering, described in the work of Galster and colleagues (1990, 2005) to explain racial and ethnic steering in housing markets, can be applied to explain how first generation immigrants, particularly the more recent arrivals, might be directed by real estate agents in discriminatory ways. Applied to immigrants, this would suggest that immigrants may be shown fewer homes, directed to neighbourhoods with large immigrant populations or directed to less desirable neighbourhoods as well as on the receiving end of editorialized comments by real estate agents (Galster and Godfrey 2005). In the context of the current study, agents can also steer immigrants to the condominium market, where buildings and neighbourhoods are not yet identified with any particular ethnic community, or steer them away from the housing market entirely toward renting. This role may be played by co-ethnic agents, who can encourage newly arriving community members with limited official language abilities to rent from co-ethnic landlords. Co-ethnic agents of more established communities also play a role in restricting access to homeownership by selling only to co-ethnics, which translates into the reduced availability of ownership for newer immigrant communities. However, the longer one is exposed to a place, the better informed one is likely to be about local neighbourhoods and is likely to be less reliant on the information provided by agents.

Finally, homeownership rates of immigrants and non-immigrants are also determined by the structural conditions that exist in the local urban environment in terms of housing stock, housing development, and economic conditions, which are shaped in turn by broader economic, socio-demographic and policy changes (Bunting 2004). As a result, it is important to consider not only the duration of time in a place, but also the local ecological context which shapes whether immigrants are able to find jobs to pay for appropriate housing, and which shapes the types and costs of housing that are in supply. For example, areas with recent booms in housing developments such as Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver, where 19.2 percent, 11.8 percent and 12.6 percent of owner-occupied dwellings were built between 1996 and 2001, respectively, would provide greater ownership opportunities for recent immigrants compared to places like Montreal, where the level of new construction was 6.9 percent.

The growth in condominium development in some of these major gateways may also explain why they are a common path to ownership for immigrants. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2008) released 2008 data on dwelling unit completions that reveals that 74 percent of completed housing units in Vancouver were condominiums. The rates for Toronto and Montreal were 40 and 29 percent, respectively. Thus, given that the supply of homes for ownership relative to condominiums may have declined in the larger centres, it is to be expected that recent immigrants would have fewer opportunities to buy these homes in more established residential areas. Rather, those with less exposure to a place are likely to find ownership in emerging areas, and new condominium developments tend to serve that purpose by revitalizing grey-field sites (Bourne 1993).

Together, these perspectives point to ownership differences between immigrants and non-immigrants across metropolitan areas without clearly specifying when the levels should converge, although the expectation would be convergence by the second generation at the latest. They suggest that recent immigrants would have the lowest levels of housing ownership, but higher levels of condominium ownership. In the next section, we explore these issues with an empirical analysis of ownership differentials not only by nativity but also by timing of arrival and across the generations and as well, we examine condominium ownership.

Data, Variables and Methods

We use data from the 2001 Public Use Microdata File (PUMF) of individuals from the Census of Canada, which consists of a 2.7 percent sample of the population. The sample analyzed in this paper is restricted to private households and primary household maintainers 30 years of age to 65 years old, and excludes non-permanent residents. This age grouping should ensure that most respondents have completed their education, have left their parents' homes, are participating in the labour force and have not yet retired. Based on this selection of cases, the total number of observations in the sample is 218,068. All values and analyses presented in the tables are weighted. In our multivariate analyses, we employ a downweighting technique that ensures that the estimates are based on a nationally representative sample but also calculates statistical tests of significance on the basis of the actual sample size.

The PUMF of individuals contains data primarily on individual characteristics although a few household characteristics are also available. We use the characteristics associated with the "primary householder," defined in the census as the person who contributes the greatest amount toward shelter expenses, or the first person listed where two or more people share expenses equally. Consistent with past work (Alba and Logan 1992; Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Darden and Kamel 2000; Gyimah, Waiters, and Phythian 2005), we include the primary household maintainer's age, gender, marital status and educational attainment but we also add employment status and mobility status in the one-year period. We control for the latter two variables as an individual's employment status is likely to determine whether they invest in residential property, and as we know that movers tend to be renters (Painter et al. 2001). We further incorporate three household variables of the primary maintainer: household type, number of maintainers, and household income. Household type includes family versus non-family households, with family being defined as married or common-law couples with or without children. The number of maintainers refers to the number of persons who contribute to the costs and expenses of a household. A description of all individual and household level variables and their summary statistics are provided in Table 1.

Immigration studies have long distinguished between the first generation of new arrivals, their offspring, and successive generations. We are interested in the effect of immigrant generation, which is constructed by combining parental birthplace with information on a respondent's birthplace, age at arrival and period of immigration for the foreign born. This is one of the advantages of the 2001 Census of Canada; respondents were asked to provide information on the birthplace of parents for the first time since 1971, permitting the identification of immigrant generations. The first generation is operationalized as those primary household maintainers who obtained landed immigrant status at the age of 13 years or older and are grouped by period of immigration. The timing of arrival is a key distinction within this generation as earlier migrants would have had a longer opportunity to obtain the resources for purchasing their homes as well as the psychological realization that their settlement is likely to be permanent. Moreover, by dividing this generation into migration waves, we can also account for the differential economic opportunities and constraints that each wave has faced giving them differential advantages in local housing markets.

We also distinguish between the 1.5 and second generations. The 1.5 generation includes those who were born abroad and arrived as children, before the age of 13, and the second generation is defined as those born in Canada with at least one immigrant parent. Although immigrants who arrived as children are often grouped into the second generation (Portes and Rumbaut 2001), we differentiate them from both the first and second generations. Rumbaut (2004) argues for disaggregating the first and second generations as the ages and life stages of immigrants at their time of arrival are important to their adaptation processes. The extent to which the housing outcomes of the 1.5 generation diverge from the other two generational groups then, warrants further examination as they are characterized by foreign born status but their degree of social integration would be expected to be akin to the native born second generation.

Finally, the third-plus generation includes all those born in Canada with both parents Canadian-born. The largest group found in each of the five geographic sub-samples is this latter group, although they account for less than half of the population in Toronto and Vancouver. In Toronto, the first generation arriving prior to 1981 comprises about one quarter of the sample whereas in Vancouver, the second largest category is the second generation. In our analysis, we also control for the impact of racial composition on the homeownership rates of immigrant generation groups using data on the primary householder. Reflecting changes in immigration regulations and laws from the 1960s on, many recent immigrants are visible minorities and from areas other than the United States or Europe. "Visible minority" is a term first used in the early 1980s, and was developed by the federal government to meet the data needs of federal employment equity legislation and program requirements. It is a socially constructed measure generally equated with "people of colour" other than Aboriginal Peoples, and it rests on self-identification. In the PUMF, information on specific visible minority groups exists for Blacks, Chinese and South Asian. If Aboriginals are excluded from the "non-visible minority" category, as they are in this paper, the "non-visible minority" population can then be considered "White." However, the classification of "White" includes many different ethnic origins groups who vary in rates of homeownership. In particular, persons of Southern European birth or ancestry have been noted to have very high rates of homeownership (Ray and Moore 1991; Teixeira and Murdie 1997). As a result, we create two groups representing the white majority in Canada: those who are of Italian, Portuguese and Greek ethnic origins, and those who are not.

Variations in local housing markets, particularly in the development of housing over time and composition of the housing stock (including the proportion of properties in the owner's market and the relative proportion of condominiums), variations in population composition and the differential flows of international migrants across the country justify the identification of immigrant generational patterns by geographic area (Haan 2005; Murdie et al. 2006). Geographic variables as proxies of the net effect of supply-side considerations have been applied elsewhere (Skabursis 2004). We examine three metropolitan areas (CMAs), Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and make comparisons to respondents from other CMAs and those not resident in CMAs. Of the five geographic areas, the largest sub-sample can be found in non-CMAs (81,706) and the smallest in Vancouver (14,666).

The dependent variable is a dichotomous variable of housing tenure, measured by whether the home occupied by the household maintainer is owned or rented. As shown in Table 1, a majority of respondents live in owner-occupied housing across all five geographic areas with the lowest percentage in Montreal at 56 per-cent, again a reflection of the differences in housing markets.

With a dichotomous dependent variable, we run a binomial logistic regression model to compare generational differences in the likelihood of living in an owner-occupied home versus renting, controlling for other individual and household characteristics. In a second logistic model, we test the effect of immigrant generation on the likelihood of condominium ownership versus freehold housing for those who live in owner-occupied private dwellings, controlling for the same individual and household characteristics.

Host Society Exposure and Homeownership

Overall, the foreign born in the current sample is observed to have lower levels of homeownership than the native born in Toronto (63 versus 68 percent, respectively) and in Montreal (48 versus 58 percent, respectively). However, in Vancouver and non-CMAs the foreign born are more likely to own than the native born (Vancouver--66 versus 62 percent, non-CMAs--81 versus 77 percent, respectively). In other CMAs, there is no difference. (2) When we disaggregate the sample according to the timing of arrival and generation, the rates of homeownership are lowest among the most recent immigrant arrivals across all five geographic areas, as expected. The bivariate analysis presented in Table 2 shows that for all areas, ownership rates increase by timing of arrival peaking for the earliest immigrant group (first generation arriving prior to 1981) and then falling again for the third-plus generation. A oneway ANOVA test reveals that the differences in ownership rates across the generations within each geographic area are statistically significant (p<.001). Table 2 also reveals that the levels of homeownership vary somewhat across the geographic areas but vary little between the 1.5 and second generations. The rates are lowest overall in Montreal, yet the generational patterns are similar across cities.

This initial look at the association between generation and homeownership does not control for other individual and household characteristics that are also associated with ownership. Results from the logistic regression model that includes these other characteristics are presented in Table 3 as odds ratios.

Controlling for respondents' socioeconomic status, lifecycle characteristics and visible minority status as well as their household traits does not diminish significant differences in ownership between the newest arrivals and all other generation groups. We use the newest arrivals as the reference group in the analysis shown, as this is the group expected to have the lowest rates of ownership. The logistic model reveals that first generation immigrants arriving prior to 1981 are 2.3 times as likely as newcomers to own their homes in Vancouver and more than 5 times as likely as newcomers in Montreal. ]hose in Toronto are 3.6 times as likely as newcomers and in other CMAs, almost 4 times as likely. These earliest arrivals are about 2 times as likely as newcomers to own their homes in non-CMAs.

Since all of the immigrant generational categories are compared to the reference group, it is not possible to assess whether there are statistically significant differences between the other categories, particularly compared to the third-plus generation. To examine whether differences exist between the third-plus generation and the earliest immigrants, 1.5 and second generations, we run separate analyses taking the third-plus generation as the reference category. Based on these results (available upon request), we find that the third-plus generation has significantly lower levels of homeownership than first generation immigrants who arrived before 1981. While they have significantly higher levels of homeownership compared to newcomers, they have lower levels compared to the earlier immigrants in all geographic areas across all geographic areas with the exception of Vancouver, lower levels compared to the 1.5 generation only in Toronto and other CMAs, and lower levels compared to second generation respondents in all areas except Montreal, contrary to expectations. These findings are nuanced; host society exposure does have an impact on homeownership in the expected direction but not beyond the earliest arrivals of the first generation. First generation immigrants arriving prior to 1981--a most distinctive group--are as likely as the second generation in Toronto, Vancouver and non-CMAs to own their homes. And in contrast to expectations, they are more likely to own than the second generation in Montreal and other CMAs.

Generational differences in the likelihood of homeownership, net of covariates, is illustrated as predicted probabilities and converted into percentages in Figure 1.3 The bars in the graph show visually that the most recent immigrant arrivals have the lowest levels of homeownership across all geographic areas and that levels rise with increasing exposure, peaking in most areas for first generation immigrants who have been resident in Canada for at least 20 years, even after controlling for demographic, socioeconomic and lifecycle characteristics at the individual and household levels.

All other covariates also emerge as important predictors of homeownership with geographic variations. For example, consistent with past studies (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Darden and Kamel 2000; Gyimah, Walters, and Phythian 2005; Skaburskis 1996), visible minority status and ethnicity are significant determinants of homeownership, holding constant other individual and household traits. Chinese and Southern Europeans, i.e. Italians, Portuguese and Greeks, are more likely than other Whites to own homes in all of the metropolitan areas whereas Blacks and others are much less likely than Whites. The high rates of ownership among the Chinese and Southern Europeans have been noted elsewhere (Myles and Hou 2004; Ray and Moore 1991; Teixeira and Murdie 1997) and may be a contributing factor to enduring ethnic neighbourhoods (Myles and Hou 2004). South Asians appear to be more affected by local housing markets as their patterns vary across geographic areas, being as likely to own homes as Whites in Toronto, other CMAs and non-CMAs, less likely than Whites in Montreal and more likely than Whites in Vancouver.

A limitation of the analysis of homeownership thus far is that we cannot distinguish between the types of homes owned. Yet in order to gain a greater understanding of ownership differentials, it is important to ask whether the type of ownership matters. Those hoping to invest in residential property may not have access to, may be steered away from or may prefer not to live in single dwelling, detached family houses, which are typically freehold housing. There is a diversity of housing options in most urban housing markets and one advantage of the PUMF dataset of individuals is the inclusion of a variable that identifies whether the home is part of a registered condominium. We answer the question of whether differences exist in the type of homeownership, by examining generational effects on condominium ownership versus other types of housing.

Condominiums: A Newcomer's Entry into Homeownership

We observe large differences in the level of condominium ownership across the five geographic sub-samples under study, a finding that is consistent with local variations in housing development and with affordability. Among all homeowners, the greatest level of condominium ownership is found in Vancouver at 28 percent, followed by Toronto (27 percent), Montreal (14 percent) and other CMAs (14 percent). Only 5 percent of owners in non-CMAs live in registered condominiums.


Controlling for other individual and household traits, the effect of generational status on condominium ownership is the reverse of that found for homeownership in general. All generational group members who own their homes are less like ly to own registered condominiums than first generation immigrants arriving in the 10-year period prior to the census, although statistically, the immigrant group that arrived between 1981 and 1990 are not significantly different from newcomers in Montreal and non-CMAs. In all of the metropolitan areas, the results show that the earliest cohort of first generation immigrants as well as later generations are at least 50 percent less likely than newcomers to own condominiums as opposed to other types of housing, a statistically significant difference.


Figure 3 provides a clearer picture of the effect of immigrant generation in the regression results, holding constant all other covariates as in Figure 1. The predicted probabilities are again converted to percentages and the distinctiveness of newcomers in condominium ownership versus other housing types compared to other generation groups across all of the geographic areas becomes evident. An average newcomer in the sample would have a 37 percent chance of owning a condominium whereas the likelihood of condominium ownership is 23 percent for the next cohort of immigrants, the first generation arriving in the 1980s, in Vancouver. In Toronto, Montreal and other CMAs, the levels decrease significantly again for the first generation who arrived prior to 1981. Compared to this latter group, there is little difference in ownership patterns for respondents with longer host society exposure, including the third-plus generation, in Montreal, Vancouver and other CMAs. In Toronto and non-CMAs, the third-plus generation has much lower levels of condominium ownership compared to the earliest migrants.

The effect of visible minority status on condominium ownership follows a different pattern than observed with homeownership in general, which also supports the idea that condominium ownership may be a path to ownership for disadvantaged groups. With the exception of South Asians, all other non-White groups are more likely than Whites to own condos versus other housing in Toronto while Southern Europeans are much less likely in all metropolitan areas. In Vancouver, the Chinese and South Asians as well as the Southern Europeans appear to be less attracted to condominiums than Whites. With the exception of the Chinese in non-CMAs, non-White groups in Montreal, other CMAs and non-CMAs are not statistically different in their levels of condominium ownership than Whites, although small sample sizes within some of the categories are likely to explain the lack of statistical significance. In contrast to our observations on homeownership, the association between visible minority status and the ownership of condos is highly variable across the country.


Discussion and Conclusions

As expected, exposure to the host society is linked to status attainment in terms of homeownership. Our analysis showed that the most recent arrivals have the lowest levels of homeownership compared to other immigrants and the 1.5, second and third-plus generations, after controlling for individual and household characteristics. In metropolitan areas, members of the first generation with more than 20 years in Canada have done very well in homeownership across the country exceeding most other generational groups, particularly the third-plus generation. This coincides with other work that demonstrates how many immigrants possess a strong desire for ownership and join the owners market within the first generation (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Gyimah, Waiters, and Phythian 2005; Murdie 2002; Ray and Moore 1991), although the speed with which this occurs is likely to vary by admissions category (Hiebert et al. 2006; Mendez, Hiebert, and Wyly 2006). Nevertheless, our results demonstrate that the length of time in place is an important factor for understanding housing attainment and supports the idea that longer exposure is likely to lead to homeownership status even within the first generation.

These findings underscore a number of key points for the study of immigrant incorporation by exposure and of immigrant housing, and there are both methodological and theoretical implications. First, the significant differences between later and earlier immigrants demand that the migration waves of immigrants be distinguished when examining generational outcomes. As with past studies (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Gyimah, Walters, and Phythian 2005; Ray and Moore 1991), future studies should define first generation immigrants by their length of exposure. Nativity in itself, i.e. foreign birth versus native birth, is not theoretically viable in research on generational change as it likely conceals either the gains made by the earliest generations of immigrants or the difficulties faced by newcomers.

Second, we find some empirical justification for disaggregating the 1.5 generation from both the first and second generation groups in studies of immigrant adaptation. Both this and the previous point have been advanced by others (Rumbaut 2004) and as a result of this study, substantiated for the Canadian context. In terms of housing outcomes, members of the 1.5 generation are not completely nor consistently indistinguishable from either the first or second generation across the country although the differences are not striking. The unique social location of this immigrant generation calls for further study, which involves highlighting it as a distinct group. Theoretically, we can only gain a more comprehensive picture of the complex nature of integration processes by comparing the experiences of immigrants who arrived as children in relation to those arriving as adults and to the native born. The methodological implication of this is to identify the age at which immigrants arrived, important not only to identify the 1.5 generation but also for the second generation--at what age did their immigrant parents migrate?

Third, we confirm past studies that show newcomers are at a disadvantage

in the housing market (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992; Gyimah, Walters, and Phythian 2005; Mendez, Hiebert, and Wyly 2006; Ray and Moore 1991), arguably due to some combination of the lack of cultural and socioeconomic capital, social psychological state and discrimination or steering in the housing market. Although we are limited in the extent to which we can accurately specify the underlying process as well as in the extent to which we can infer that the length of time in Canada is a causal variable due to our cross-sectional data, we do observe significant improvements according to the timing of arrival and generational status. Although the time period in which immigrants entered are also relevant, we find evidence that the incorporation process is not linear, calling into question and supporting a main critique of one of the assumptions of assimilation theory. That is, rates of homeownership do not increase monotonically by length of exposure, but peak for the earliest immigrants of the first generation and then fall again to some degree by the third-plus generation.

This is contrary to the pattern expected under the supposition that homeownership differentials across groups reflect gaps in social, cultural, and financial resources, with the corollary that homeownership should steadily increase across generations. Rather, ownership levels appear to decline by the third-plus generation. We have no ready explanation for the diminished homeownership of the third-plus generation, but one possibility is that it is long-time immigrant residents and the second generation who are unusual rather than the third-plus generation. The Canadian census does not collect social-psychological information necessary to test alternative explanations, but perhaps the higher observed homeownership for immigrants arriving before 1981 and the second generation reflects the realization of these groups that they are "here to stay" and the accompanying social-psychological and economic value placed on homeownership. It may also be the case that the more established residential enclaves of the earlier immigrants are inaccessible even to members of the third-plus generation.

While we have not framed our analysis in terms of period effects, our measurement of exposure may be reflective of this process as well. Immigrants arriving prior to the 1980s faced drastically different job and housing markets across the country than immigrants arriving in the more recent period. And there is evidence to suggest that the immigrant advantage in homeownership may be waning in contemporary local housing markets, particularly in Toronto and Montreal (Haan 2005). This is likely due to declining immigrant earnings for recent cohorts combined with rising house prices in the major metropolitan areas. Current research has shown that recent immigrant cohorts have higher low income rates than earlier waves (Picot, Hou and Coulombe 2008) and that rather than moving to areas with more affordable housing, immigrants will remain or move to areas with high housing costs which also happen to be areas with a sizable population of co-ethnics and employment opportunities (Ley 2007).

Fourth, we also find that the association between exposure and homeownership reflects a generalized experience across the metropolitan areas of Canada. Consistent with past studies that demonstrate intermetropolitan differences in housing affordability (Bunting 2004; Skabursis 2004), there are some variations in levels of ownership by place of residence. This is suggestive of the importance of ecological conditions such as local housing development and the particularities of local housing markets, yet, the disadvantage in ownership for the most recent immigrants is evident in all regions. The effect of immigrant generation on homeownership is relatively consistent across the three metropolitan areas and other regions, with levels rising after 20 years of residence in Canada for the foreign born and then stabilizing until the third-plus generation when it falls, suggesting that this adaptive process occurs regardless of the local housing context. However, when we differentiate homeownership by housing type, we find that the local context is as important for understanding ownership patterns as is generational status. The significance of urban ecology in terms of housing stock and recent condominium developments is evident in these geographic variations.

This consideration of condominium ownership as an alternative to freehold housing for immigrants and their offspring is a fifth major contribution of this paper. Our analysis shows that of those who live in owner-occupied housing, newcomers have the highest rates of condominium ownership versus other types of housing compared to other immigrants and successive generations. And in contrast to the patterns we find for homeownership, levels of condominium ownership decline significantly by 20 years of residence in Canada for the first generation and remain low in most geographic areas.

Yet, there is greater geographic variation in the levels of condominium ownership compared to homeownership, unquestionably a result of differences in condominium development, as described at the outset. However, the common generational pattern suggests that condominiums have become a feasible avenue into homeownership for newcomers. For those able to invest, the condominium market seems to be the route to the owners market. To elaborate on the significance of the condominium market for newcomers, future work in this area might examine whether condominiums are an alternative to the rental market, and/or are an intermediate step toward housing ownership. Given that the increase in condominium units has occurred alongside a decrease in affordable rental units and the elimination of rent control (Bunting 2004), condominiums may be seen as an alternative to the rental market and lack the social and psychological benefits associated with owning a house.

Moreover, the high rates of condominium ownership among newcomers suggest that if we were to omit this type of housing from the measurement of homeownership which may be justifiable if there are differential benefits between houses and condominiums--the rates of ownership among newcomers would obviously be lower and differences much greater among first generation immigrants according to the timing of arrival.

To summarize, there are a number of issues raised by our analysis that present at least two potential avenues for future work. First, we need to explain the falling homeownership rates for the third-plus generation, and its implications for theories of integration. If members of the first or second generation outperform later generations, does that support the view that the third-plus generation is falling behind? Is assimilation then a curvilinear process? It may be that we are seeing the effects of a segmented process of assimilation where selected groups of the third generation are falling behind. Second, the growth in condominium developments in contemporary urban Canada may mean greater numbers of recent immigrants may find themselves in owner-occupied units, a possible alternative to renting for some. The implications of this type of housing for immigrants and their offspring --and not only in terms of whether this leads more expeditiously to becoming homeowners but also related to questions about lifestyle and the quality of life are likely to become of greater interest to immigration and housing researchers.


Funding for this project comes from the SSHRC research grant 410-2004-0650 on "Socio-economic Integration, Acculturation and Intermarriage of Immigrant Offspring" awarded to Monica Boyd.


Alba, Richard D. and John R. Logan. 1992. Assimilation and stratification in the homeownership patterns of racial and ethnic groups. International Migration Review 26: 1314-1341.

Balakrishnan, T.R. and Zheng Wu. 1992. Home ownership patterns and ethnicity in selected Canadian cities. Canadian Journal of Sociology 17: 389-403.

Bourassa, Steven C. 1994. Immigration and housing tenure choice in Australia. Journal of Housing Research 5: 117-137.

Conley, Dalton. 2001. A room with a view or a room of one's own? Housing and social stratification. Sociological Forum 16: 263-280.

Coulson, N. Edward. 1999. Why are Hispanic- and Asian-American homeownership rates so low?: Immigration and other factors. Journal of Urban Economics 45: 209-227.

Danso, Ransford K. and Miriam R. Grant. 2000. Access to housing as an adaptive strategy for immigrant groups: Africans in Calgary. Canadian Ethnic Studies 32: 19-43.

Darden, Joe T. 2004. The Significance of White Supremacy in the Canadian Metropolis of Toronto. Lewiston, N. Y.: E Mellon Press.

Darden, Joe T. and Sameh M. Kamel. 2000. Black and white differences in homeownership rates in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area: Does race matter? The Review of Black Political Economy 28: 53-76.

Dion, Kenneth L. 2001. Immigrants' perceptions of housing discrimination in Toronto: The Housing New Canadians Project. Journal of Social Issues 57: 523-539.

Flippen, Chenoa. 2001. Racial and ethnic inequality in homeownership and housing equity. The Sociological Quarterly 42: 121-149.

Fong, Eric and Kumiko Shibuya. 2000. Suburbanization and home ownership: The spatial assimilation process in U.S. metropolitan areas. Sociological-Perspectives 43: 137-157.

Freeman, Lance and Darrick Hamilton. 2004. The changing determinants of inter-racial home ownership disparities: New York City in the 1990s. Housing Studies 19: 301-323.

Gabriel, Stuart and Gary Painter. 2003. Pathways to homeownership: An analysis of the residential location and homeownership choices of black households in Los Angeles. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 27: 87-109.

Gilderbloom, John I. and John P. Markham. 1995. The impact of homeownership on political beliefs. Social Forces 73: 1589-1607.

Gyimah, Stephen Obeng, David Waiters, and Kelli L. Phythian. 2005. Ethnicity, immigration and housing wealth in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 14: 338-363.

Haan, Michael. 2005. The decline of the immigrant home-ownership advantage: Life-cycle, declining fortunes and changing housing careers in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, 1981-2001. Urban Studies 42: 2191-2212.

Hiebert, Daniel, Annick Germain, Robert Murdie, Valerie Preston, Jean Renaud, Damaris Rose, Elvin Wyly, Virginie Ferreir, Pablo Mendez and Ann Marie Murnaghan. 2006. The Housing Situation and News of Recent Immigrants in the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver CMAs: An Overview. CMHC Research Report Volume 2. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Jakubec, Lance. 2004. 2001 Census Housing Series Issue 7 Revised: Immigrant Households. Research Highlights: Socio-economic Series 04-042. December. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Krivo, Lauren J. 1995. Immigrant characteristics and Hispanic-Anglo housing inequality. Demography 32: 599-615.

Lewin-Epstein, Noah and Moshe Semyonov. 2000. Migration, ethnicity and inequality: Homeownership in Israel. Social Problems 47: 425-444.

Mendez, Pablo, Daniel Hiebert, and Elvin Wyly. 2006. Landing at home: Insights on immigration and metropolitan housing markets from the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 15: 82-104.

Murdie, Robert, Valerie Preston, Sutama Ghosh and Magali Chevalier. 2006. Immigrants and Housing: A Review of Canadian Literature from 1990 to 2005. CMHC Research Report Volume 1. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Myers, Dowell and Seong Woo Lee. 1998. Immigrant trajectories into homeownership: A temporal analysis of residential assimilation. International Migration Review 32: 593-625.

Myles, John and Feng Hou. 2004. Changing colours: Spatial assimilation and new racial minority immigrants. Canadian Journal of Sociology 29: 29-58.

Owusu, Thomas Y. 1998. To buy or not to buy: Determinants of home ownership among Ghanaian immigrants in Toronto. The Canadian Geographer 42:40-52.

Painter, Gary, Stuart Gabriel, and Dowell Myers. 2001. Race, immigrant status, and housing tenure choice. Journal of Urban Economics 49: 150-167.

Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ratner, M.S. 1996. Many routes to homeownership: A four-site ethnographic study of minority and immigrant experiences. Housing Policy Debate 7: 103-145.

Ray, Brian K. and Eric Moore. 1991. Access to homeownership among immigrant groups in Canada. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 28: 1-29.

Rosenbaum, Emily. 1996. Racial/ethnic differences in home ownership and housing quality, 1991. Social Problems 43: 403-426.

Rossi, Peter H. and Eleanor Weber. 1996. The social benefits of homeownership: Empirical evidence from national surveys. Housing Policy Debate 7: 1-35.

Rumbaut, Ruben G. 2004. Ages, life stages, and generational cohorts: Decomposing the immigrant first and second generations in the United States. International Migration Review 38: 1160-1205.

Skaburskis, Andrejs. 1996. Race and tenure in Toronto. Urban Studies 33: 223-252.

Teixeira, C. and R.A. Murdie. 1997. The role of ethnic real estate agents in the residential relocation process: A case study of Portuguese homebuyers in suburban Toronto. Urban Geography 18: 497-520.

Verberg, Norine. 2000. Homeownership and politics: Testing the political incorporation thesis. Canadian Journal of Sociology 25: 169-195.

Ann H. Kim

Department of Sociology

York University

Monica Boyd

Department of Sociology

University of Toronto


(1) According to the 2001 census, the mean value of a condominium was $159,000 versus $192,000 for freehold housing in Toronto, $152,000 versus $191,000, respectively, in Vancouver, $114,000 versus $128,000 respectively, in Montreal, and $113,000 versus $142,000, respectively, in all other CMAs.

(2) All differences in homeownership levels are statistically significant at p<.001, with the exception of other CMAs in which the ownership rates are not different between immigrants and non-immigrants. The city specific homeownership rates for Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver differ slightly from those presented in Hiebert et al, (2006) and in Haan (2005) because of differences in the populations studied. Hiebert et al (2006) draw on special tabulations of immigrant households produced off the entire census database by Statistics Canada for researchers associated with the Metropolis Project, while Haan (2005) calculates rates for ages 25-54 years, where age refers to the highest earner in the economic family, also using the full 2B 2001 census database at Statistics Canada. Our analysis does not use the household or family public use files because extreme aggregation of variables both diminishes their utility and prevents the capacity to study variations in home ownership by generational status.

(3) Covariates are held constant by applying the characteristics of the average person according to the proportional distribution of the pooled sample (n=218,068). This permits us to compare predicted rates across the five areas.
Table 1. Variables and Sample Statistics in Percentages

Variables     Description            Toronto   Montreal   Vancouver

Tenure        Renter                 34.4      44.0       36.5
              Owner                  65.6      56.0       63.5

Primary Maintainer Characteristics

Age (means)   30-65 years            45.6      46.1       45.8

Gender        Male                   67.7      62.3       66.2
              Female                 32.3      37.7       33.8

Marital       Single                 14.8      20.0       18.0
status        Married                62.3      42.8       56.1
              Common-Law             5.5       16.2       6.2
              Divorced/              17.4      21.0       19.8

Education     Highschool or less     39.3      45.9       37.7
              Trades/College/        30.4      31.2       35.3
              Some university
              University degree      30.3      22.9       27.1
                or higher

Employment    Employed               83.1      76.8       79.6
              Unemployed             3.2       5.0        4.2
              Not in labour          13.7      18.2       16.2

Visible       White                  55.5      82.0       65.6
minority      White, Italian,        10.9      6.5        2.4
status        Portuguese,
                Greek (A)
              Chinese                8.1       1.4        14.8
              South Asian            8.6       1.3        6.1
              Black                  6.6       3.5        1.1
              Other                  10.4      5.4        10.0

Mobility      Non-mover, 1 year      89.3      89.6       87.4
status          period
              Mover, 1 year          10.8      10.4       12.7

Generation    1st, arrived 13+       17.3      6.3        15.4
                years, 1991-2001
              1st, arrived 13+       11.9      4.7        8.2
                years, 1981-1990
              1st, arrived 13+       18.8      8.0        13.3
                years, before 1981
              1.5, arrived 0-12      7.2       2.7        5.5
              2nd, Cdn-born, 1+      16.2      7.5        19.2
                parent abroad
              3rd+, Cdn-born,        28.8      78.8       38.4
                parents Cdn-born

Household Characteristics

Household     One family             75.4      70.8       69.1
type          Multiple family        4.5       1.3        3.8
              Non-family             20.1      28.0       27.2

Number of     One                    58.2      67.7       60.8
maintainers   Two                    38.9      31.4       36.4
              Three or more          2.9       0.9        2.8

Household     <$10,000               5.8       8.8        7.5
income        $10,000-$29,999        12.2      18.2       14.9
              $30,000-$49,999        17.3      22.9       20.4
              $50,000-$69,999        17.0      18.0       17.8
              $70,000-$119,000       29.6      23.6       27.1
              $120,000+              18.2      8.5        12.3
              N                      32,632    26,519     14,666

Variables     Description            Other    Non
                                     CMAs     CMAs

Tenure        Renter                 29.2     22.9
              Owner                  70.8     77.1

Primary Maintainer Characteristics

Age (means)   30-65 years            45.8     46.7

Gender        Male                   66.7     71.0
              Female                 33.3     29.0

Marital       Single                 15.2     11.7
status        Married                55.3     57.9
              Common-Law             8.9      11.0
              Divorced/              20.6     19.4

Education     Highschool or less     41.2     51.7
              Trades/College/        35.7     36.1
              Some university
              University degree      23.1     12.2
                or higher

Employment    Employed               80.6     75.3
              Unemployed             3.4      5.8
              Not in labour          16.0     19.0

Visible       White                  86.4     93.2
minority      White, Italian,        3.0      1.0
status        Portuguese,
                Greek (^)
              Chinese                1.8      0.3
              South Asian            1.6      0.4
              Black                  1.5      0.3
              Other                  5.7      4.9

Mobility      Non-mover, 1 year      87.2     89.5
status          period
              Mover, 1 year          12.8     10.5

Generation    1st, arrived 13+       4.0      9
                years, 1991-2001
              1st, arrived 13+       3.7      1.0
                years, 1981-1990
              1st, arrived 13+       7.2      3.2
                years, before 1981
              1.5, arrived 0-12      3.9      2.3
              2nd, Cdn-born, 1+      15.7     12.1
                parent abroad
              3rd+, Cdn-born,        65.5     80.6
                parents Cdn-born

Household Characteristics

Household     One family             74.2     78.0
type          Multiple family        1.6      1.4
              Non-family             24.2     20.7

Number of     One                    60.8     63.1
maintainers   Two                    38.0     36.1
              Three or more          1.2      0.7

Household     <$10,000               6.1      7.7
income        $10,000-$29,999        14.4     18.8
              $30,000-$49,999        19.9     23.3
              $50,000-$69,999        19.5     20.5
              $70,000-$119,000       28.6     23.6
              $120,000+              11.6     6.1
              N                      62,545   81,706

Weighted values.

(^) These groups are included in the first "white" category
(omitted) for Halifax in "Other CMAs," and the Territories and
Atlantic provinces in "Non-CMAs."

Table 2. Percentage of Owners by Explanatory Variables

Variables       Description       Toronto   Montreal   Vancouver

Primary Maintainer Characteristics

Age (means)     30-65 years       46.8      47.1       47.4
Gender          Male              70.6      62.5       67.0
                Female            55.2      45.1       56.6
Marital         Single            36.3      27.0       37.5
status          Married           78.0      75.2       77.6
                Common-           58.6      67.0       55.8
                Divorced/         48.2      35.9       49.3
Education       Highschool        61.7      49.8       61.8
                  or less
                Trades/           67.6      59.9       64.3
                University        68.6      62.9       64.7
                  degree or
Employment      Employed          68.0      61.3       66.1
                Unemployed        41.7      27.0       42.5
                Not in labour     56.3      41.6       56.0
Visible         White             67.0      57.7       62.3
minority        White, IPG        85.3      72.0       74.5
                Chinese           76.8      55.7       77.0
                South Asian       59.3      32.3       72.3
                Black             39.3      29.1       36.8
                Other             50.4      32.6       46.1
Mobility        Non-movers,       67.8      59.0       68.5
status            1 year period
                Movers, 1 year    50.0      33.2       34.3

Generation      1st, arrived      42.3      20.6       54.1
                  13+ years,
                lst, arrived      63.3      39.3       67.3
                  13+ years,
                1st, arrived      79.1      68.8       79.6
                  13+ years,
                  before 1981
                1.5, arrived      73.5      61.9       63.9
                  0-12 years
                2nd, Cdn-         73.3      58.3       65.3
                  born, l+
                  parent abroad
                3rd+, Cdn-        65.5      58.3       59.8
                  born, parents

Household Characteristics

Household       One family        72.2      66.7       71.4
type            Multiple          82.0      68.9       85.4
                Non-family        37.4      28.1       40.4
Number of       One               56.3      47.7       57.0
maintainers     Two               79.5      73.8       74.1
                Three or more     66.4      51.2       66.1
Household       <$10,000          27.9      17.0       30.0
income          $10,000-          33.9      26.0       39.9
                $30,000-          46.7      46.8       53.1
                $50,000-          64.4      67.3       67.1
                $70,000-          81.8      81.4       79.9
                $120,000+         91.5      90.2       88.3

Variables       Description       Other   Non
                                  CMAs    CMAs
Primary Maintainer Characteristics

Age (means)     30-65 years       46.6    47.5
Gender          Male              76.2    82.3
                Female            60.0    64.4
Marital         Single            39.8    49.2
status          Married           86.7    89.5
                Common-           67.3    73.8
                Divorced/         52.5    59.0
Education       Highschool        64.4    73.8
                  or less
                Trades/           73.7    79.6
                University        77.7    83.7
                  degree or
Employment      Employed          74.4    80.5
                Unemployed        46.8    64.0
                Not in labour     57.7    67.4
Visible         White             71.9    78.6
minority        White, IPG        86.7    89.1
                Chinese           74.3    76.2
                South Asian       72.8    83.3
                Black             46.3    64.3
                Other             51.4    47.1
Mobility        Non-movers,       74.7    80.8
status            1 year period
                Movers, 1 year    44.5    45.3

Generation      1st, arrived      44.3    60.6
                  13+ years,
                lst, arrived      68.5    80.3
                  13+ years,
                1st, arrived      84.3    86.9
                  13+ years,
                  before 1981
                1.5, arrived      77.3    81.7
                  0-12 years
                2nd, Cdn-         76.1    81.4
                  born, l+
                  parent abroad
                3rd+, Cdn-        69.4    76.1
                  born, parents

Household Characteristics

Household       One family        79.3    83.1
type            Multiple          82.7    76.8
                Non-family        44.0    54.7
Number of       One               62.3    71.0
maintainers     Two               84.6    88.0
                Three or more     67.4    69.4
Household       <$10,000          28.8    46.1
income          $10,000-          38.1    58.1
                $30,000-          60.0    75.7
                $50,000-          77.6    85.6
                $70,000-          89.4    91.8
                $120,000+         95.0    95.4

Statistically significant differences within geographic
regions at p<.05.

Table 3. Odds Ratios of Homeownership

Ownership                            Toronto    Montreal   Vancouver

Primary Maintainer Characteristics
Age                                  1.033      1.032      1.051
Gender (Male omitted)                --         --         --
Female                               .998 ns    .945 ns    1.167
Marital status (Single omitted)      --         --         --
Married                              2.186      3.367      2.449
Common-law                           .727       1.858      .967 ns
Divorced/Separated/Widowed           1.156      1.202      1.057 ns
Education (HS or less omitted)       --         --         --
Trades/College                       1.321      1.448      1.107
University degree or higher          1.222      1.331      .983 ns
Employment (Employed                 --         --         --
Unemployed                           .622       .508       .658
Not in labour force                  .978 ns    .788       .917 ns
Visible minority (White omitted)     --         --         --
White, IPG                           2.347      1.480      1.617
Chinese                              3.146      2.056      3.628
South Asian                          1.085      .540       1.567
Black                                .502       .466       .542
Other                                .771       .619       .845
Mobility status (Non-movers          --         --         --
Movers, 1 year period                .760       .464       .365
Generation (1st, 91-01 omitted)      --         --         --
1st, 81-90                           2.183      2.198      1.732
1st, B1981                           3.594      5.150      2.341
1.5 generation                       3.495      3.636      1.987
2nd generation                       3.570      3.256      2.383
3rd+ generation                      2.707      4.358      2.045

Household Characteristics
Household type (One family           --         --         --
Multiple family                      1.627      1.221 ns   1.757
Non-family                           .533       .653       .711
No. of maintainers (One omitted)     --         --         --
Two                                  1.366      1.157      .955 ns
Three or more                        .601       .513       .542
Income (<$10,000 omitted)            --         --         --
$10,000,429,999                      1.160      1.437      1.334
$30,000-$49,999                      1.751      2.724      2.331
$50,000-$69,999                      3.122      4.926      3.795
$70,0004119,000                      6.056      8.153      6.285
$120,000+                            11.490     14.254     10.265
Likelihood Ratio                     11770.81   10363.98   4657.76
Degrees of Freedom                   29         29         29
N                                    32,632     26,519     14,666

Ownership                            Other      Non-
                                     CMAs       CMAs
Primary Maintainer Characteristics
Age                                  1.032      1.042
Gender (Male omitted)                --         --
Female                               .9910 ns   .762
Marital status (Single omitted)      --         --
Married                              3.256      2.729
Common-law                           1.194      1.406
Divorced/Separated/Widowed           1.282      1.139
Education (HS or less omitted)       --         --
Trades/College                       1.370      1.232
University degree or higher          1.326      1.238
Employment (Employed                 --         --
Unemployed                           .618       .774
Not in labour force                  .780       .740
Visible minority (White omitted)     --         --
White, IPG                           1.852      1.757
Chinese                              1.247      .727 ns
South Asian                          .945 ns    .969 ns

Black                                .478       .559
Other                                .596       .312
Mobility status (Non-movers          --         --
Movers, 1 year period                .377       .248
Generation (1st, 91-01 omitted)      --         --
1st, 81-90                           2.436      1.966
1st, B1981                           3.980      2.021
1.5 generation                       3.293      1.798
2nd generation                       3.323      1.858
3rd+ generation                      2.642      1.655

Household Characteristics
Household type (One family           --         --
Multiple family                      1.086 ns   .621
Non-family                           .707       .755
No. of maintainers (One omitted)     --         --
Two                                  1.174      1.341
Three or more                        .508       .591
Income (<$10,000 omitted)            --         --
$10,000,429,999                      1.229      1.324
$30,000-$49,999                      2.493      2.285
$50,000-$69,999                      4.469      3.485
$70,0004119,000                      8.341      5.356
$120,000+                            15.399     8.335
Likelihood Ratio                     10746.63   21322.71
Degrees of Freedom                   29         29
N                                    62,545     81,706

All statistically significant at p<.05 unless otherwise indicated.

ns denotes not significant.

Table 4. Odds Ratios of Condominium Ownership for Owners

Condominium                           Toronto    Montreal   Vancouver

Primary Maintainer Characteristics
Age                                   .999 ns    1.033      .987
Gender (Male omitted)                 --         --         --
Female                                1.270      1.557      1.488
Marital status (Single omitted)       --         --         --
Married                               .505       .417       .456
Common-law                            1.026 ns   .717       1.020 ns
Divorced/Separated/Widowed            .767       .690       .756
Education (HS or less omitted)        --         --         --
Trades/College                        .922 ns    1.286      1.340
University degree or higher           1.130      1.649      1.441
Employment (Employed                  --         --         --
Unemployed                            .889 ns    1.211 ns   .824 ns
Not in labour force                   1.040 ns   .980 ns    .889 ns
Visible minority (White omitted)      --         --         --
White, IPG                            .500       .627       .523
Chinese                               1.275      .634 ns    .627
South Asian                           .153       .832 ns    .365
Black                                 1.365      .740 ns    1.015 ns
Other                                 1.443      1.014 ns   1.033 ns
Mobility status (Non-movers           --         --         --
Movers, 1 year period                 1.360      2.021      1.094 ns
Generation (1st, 91-01                --         --         --
1st, 81-90                            .706       .703 ns    .526
1st, B1981                            .476       .344       .500
1.5 generation                        .413       .311       .593
2nd generation                        .395       .396       .456
3rd+ generation                       .394       .394       .464

Household Characteristics
Household type (One family omitted)   --         --         --
Multiple family                       .761       .409       .399
Non-family                            2.818      3.052      2.840
No. of maintainers (One omitted)      --         --         --
Two                                   .895       1.014 ns   1.110 ns
Three or more                         .657       .569 ns    .708 ns
Income (<$10,000 omitted)             --         --         --
$10,000-$29,999                       .793 ns    .883 ns    .980 ns
$30,000-$49,999                       1.001 ns   1.076 ns   1.133 ns
$50,000-$69,999                       .833 ns    1.166 ns   .945 ns
$70,0004119,000                       .585       1.231      .873 ns
$120,000+                             .416       1.290 ns   .517
Likelihood ratio                      1118.55    514.45     1428.73
Degrees of freedom                    29         29         29
N                                     21,377     14,825     9,272

Condominium                           Other      Non
                                      CMAs       CMAs

Primary Maintainer Characteristics
Age                                   1.024      1.019
Gender (Male omitted)                 --         --
Female                                1.666      1.593
Marital status (Single omitted)       --         --
Married                               .417       .536
Common-law                            .734       .648
Divorced/Separated/Widowed            .751       .970 ns
Education (HS or less omitted)        --         --
Trades/College                        1.123      1.005 ns
University degree or higher           1.196      1.270
Employment (Employed                  --         --
Unemployed                            .823 ns    .577
Not in labour force                   .913 ns    .954 ns
Visible minority (White omitted)      --         --
White, IPG                            .439       .576 ns
Chinese                               .933 ns    2.030
South Asian                           1.113 ns   1.336 ns
Black                                 1.004 ns   .667 ns
Other                                 .993 ns    .801 ns
Mobility status (Non-movers           --         --
Movers, 1 year period                 1.860      2.124
Generation (1st, 91-01                --         --
1st, 81-90                            .678       .601 ns
1st, B1981                            .352       .602
1.5 generation                        .395       .508
2nd generation                        .354       .556
3rd+ generation                       .310       .306

Household Characteristics
Household type (One family omitted)   --         --
Multiple family                       .842 ns    .553 ns
Non-family                            2.359      2.010
No. of maintainers (One omitted)      --         --
Two                                   .936 ns    .962 ns
Three or more                         .543       1.452 ns
Income (<$10,000 omitted)             --         --
$10,000-$29,999                       .946 ns    1.014 ns
$30,000-$49,999                       1.305      1.455
$50,000-$69,999                       1.144 ns   1.584
$70,0004119,000                       1.012 ns   1.232 ns
$120,000+                             .789 ns    1.057 ns
Likelihood ratio                      2612.124   847.934
Degrees of freedom                    29         29
N                                     43,994     59,844

All statistically significant at p<.05 unless otherwise indicated.

ns denotes not significant.
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.