Course:GEOG350/2011ST1/Group 3 Chinatown-DTES

From UBC Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Millenium Gate, Chinatown Entrance[1]

The Neighborhood

Map of Vancouver's Downtown-Eastside

As one of Vancouver’s oldest neighborhoods, Chinatown is prized today for its identity as a place of rich historic and cultural value. The community is loosely bound by Carall, Gore, Union, and Hastings Streets, with Pender Street considered the core heritage area. Chinatown is part of the greater Downtown East Side (DTES) neighborhood, known infamously as “the poorest postal code in Canada”, and is surrounded by the residential district of Strathcona to the east, Gastown, Victory Square, and the Central Business District (CBD) to the West, Thornton Park to the south, and Oppenheimer to the north [2] The 11-block commercial and residential neighborhood covers a 5.3 square kilometre area making it North America’s second largest Chinatown [3]. The neighborhood is also demarcated by visual markers, such as the “Millennium Gate” which serves as an entrance to Chinatown from the Downtown core on Pender at Taylor Street, as well as a series of red lampposts which line the streets east to west from the Millenium Gate at Taylor Street to Gore Ave., and north to south from Hastings Street to Prior Street (“Vancouver Chinatown”). Chinatown (and its image) is deemed “protected” as a Historic Area District in order to “protect the historic fabric of Chinatown...and to ensure that new development is compatible with the area's character” [4].


streets of chinatown [5]

History of Chinatown

The community emerged in the 1880s when the government leased land in the area of Strathcona to the Chinese after a fire had destroyed previous settlements. Beyond the establishment of its spatial boundaries in the 19th century, Chinatown’s origins are entangled in the social construction of racial boundaries. The concept of “Chinatowns” had emerged with extreme connotations as an inferior, impure, deviant neighborhood of racially inferior others, “represent[ing] a geographical articulation of racial ideology” [6]. Systematic exclusion, discriminatory practices, limitations on civil liberties, and other forms of blatant racism pushed Vancouver’s Chinatown to become a self-contained community pursuing economic business opportunities and creating social institutions from within [7]. Exclusion intensified with the 1923 Chinese Immigration Act, which barred the entry of almost all Chinese into Canada. Vancouver’s Chinatown community survived through its self-created business and association activities [8]. Social associations were active and determined to alter their neighborhood’s negative image, and beginning in the 1930s campaigns began to promote and typify Chinatown as an exotic, cultural experience and tourist destination, a theme that persists today. After the Chinese Immigration Act was repealed in 1947 and political and civil rights were affirmed, the self-contained community was weakened with the disappearance of exclusionary practices [9]. Without social or legal pressures to reside in the same neighborhood or head taxes to discourage immigration, Vancouver saw an explosion in Chinese immigration that began to disperse beyond Chinatown in the 1960s, and in the 1970s Richmond rapidly emerged as a “satellite community” to Vancouver’s Chinatown [10]. By 1981, most Chinese in the city did not reside in Chinatown as other marginalized sectors of society moved in, though the area remained culturally significant as a specialty commercial district and as an area of social interaction for the Chinese [11]. Though it remains a tourist attraction, the cultural function of Chinatown has been challenged by the emergence of Richmond. Recent census data indicates that only 1-2% of Vancouver’s Chinese population now lives in Chinatown [12].


Demographic Shifts & Decline

Substantial changes to the socioeconomic composition and the spatial distribution of new waves of immigration, along with the continual economic and physical deterioration of its greater neighborhood, the DTES, led Chinatown into decline. Suburbanization of the Chinese community had begun in the 1970s, pushing both south and east from Chinatown. This was fuelled further into the 1980s by large-scale immigration from Hong Kong, which doubled Vancouver's Chinese Canadian population from 70,000 in 1986 to 143,000 in 1996 [13]. Shifts in federal immigration policy led to two substantive differences in new waves of immigration. Firstly, a preference for skilled and educated immigrants resulted in higher education levels than before, resulting in greater social capital and mobility. For example, in 1991 28% of new immigrants from Hong Kong had a university degree, a significantly higher rate than in the Canadian population [14]. Secondly,federal programs to recruit "business class immigrants" led to more affluent immigrants arriving in Vancouver, who could afford and often desired suburban lifestyles [15]. As the Chinese Canadian community shifted towards multiple centres in the suburbs, Chinatown's primacy declined. The rise of other urban and suburban population clusters such as Richmond, Victoria Drive, and areas along East 41st Avenue have provided competition to Chinese busineses in Chinatown, leading to a decline in the traditional goods and service-based businesses in this area, and an increasing number of vacanies seen between 1990 and 2000 [16]. A survey conducted by the City of Vancouver on the attitudes of Chinese Canadians towards Chinatown revealed that most common reason not to visit the area often was the distance, revealing that Chintown was no longer the primary centre for Asian goods. Other reasons included inadequate parking compared to suburban malls (39%), "crime and a sense of personal endangerment"(22%), and "the presence of drug and drug addicts, homeless people and the dirtiness of the streets and buildings"(14%) [17]. Today, Chinatown is no longer the area of initial settlement or investment for new Chinese immigrants [18]. Understanding the impacts of these demographic shifts are fundamental to understanding the physical ,economic, and social changes the area has seen, as well as understanding the issues it faces today.

Furthermore, the DTES neighborhood as a whole has been in decline as a result of de-industrialization and disinvestment. Since early in its history it had been a working-class neighborhood, home to industrial and resource-based economic acitivities. After World War II, these industries left in search of cheaper rents away from the downtown core, leaving the DTES' residents in search of work [19]. With the absence of industry, public transportation to the area was diminished, leading to further decline and decay of remaining businesses. The area has been further affected by other macro trends such as reduced job opportunity for low-skilled people, the de-institutionalization of mental health patients, and increased levels of drug addiction [20].

Revitalization Efforts

The City of Vancouver has played an active role in encouraging and implementing revitalization plans in Chinatown. Under the Downtown Eastside Revitalization Program, the Chinatown Revitalization Program began in 1999, partnering with 38 community organizations and 7 resident groups to improve safety and promote economic revitalization. In 2002, Council adopted "Chinatown Vision" as a guideline to further development in Chinatown, in which the City envisaged the future Chinatown as a "place that tells the area's history with its physical environments, serves the needs of its residents, youth, and visitors and acts as a hub of commercial, social, and cultural activities"[21]. The plan outlines 11 areas of focus, such as public realm improvements to increase appeal to visitors and tourists, creating easy transportation access and pedestrian comfort by capitalizing on the proximity to other areas of the city, marketing the area to attract tourists, and notably a desire to increase the number of residents by encouraging both market and affordable housing [22].

As of April 19, 2011, City Council voted to increase current height limits in Chinatown, with the possibility of further increases later. This was undertaken through the Historic Area Heights Review, which looked to increase density to improve the overall economic health of the area by attracting market housing [23]. This initiative was highly contested, particularly among members of the low-income community, who fear this decision will accelerate gentrification processes in the area and push them out of their community [24].

Current Demography

Chinatown is home to approximately 26,700 residents [25]. Given the ethnic history of the area, one-third of the area residents are of Chinese heritage and Chinese persists as the dominant non-official household language [26]. However, 66% cite English as their primary language, and the percentage of the population with Chinese is actually consistent with the rest of Vancouver at 33% [27]. The largest group of residents are of prime working age (25-44 years old), yet the area has a lower employment rate (53%) compared to the City of Vancouver (62%) and Metro Vancouver (63%). It is possible that this is due in part to the prominence of addiction and homelessness in the area. The area is predominantly considered poor, as approximately 70% of residents are considered low-income, with a median household income around $12,000[28]. 94% of the area's housing is made up of apartments and 69% of Chinatown residents are renters, which is substantially higher than 52% in Vancouver, and 35% in Metro Vancouver [29]. Since the area is largely made up of low-income renters, this means the population is highly vulnerable to shocks in the housing market, new developments, and the possibility of increased rents. There is also a considerable gender gap among residents in Chinatown, as 57% are men, and it has been suggested that this is due to the presence of non-market housing in the area.


Traditional Block in Chinatown [30]

Characteristics of the Built Form

Chinatown's urban landscape consists largely of 20th century heritage buildings, featuring 60, such as the iconic Wing Sang, Sam Kee, and Lee buildings. These buildings are preserved, protected, and renovated as needed under the area's heritage zoning (HA-1 and HA-1A) [31] Though Chinatown once came with an image of dirty, rundown buildings, efforts have been made to render this area both quaint and trendy. Many newly built landmarks in this area appear to try and re-create a Chinese aesthetic such as the Chinatown Gate which was constructed prior to the 1996 Vancouver World Fair, and the Millennium Gate constructed in 2002. The idea of an 'exotic' Chinatown is a considerable draw to young, urban professionals, making the exchange value for new residents considerably higher than the use value of the current low income residents.[32] A push towards a neo-Chinatown is seen with new businesses such as Bao Bei, Fortune Sound Club, and the Peking Lounge who capitalize on the area’s cultural history by cultivating and marketing the exotic appeal and image of Chinatown. Chinatown also features many cultural centres that have become tourist attractions, such as Sun-Yat Sen Gardens and the Chinese Cultural Centre Museum. The area has undergone some spatial restructuring as land uses have changed with recent demographic shifts. Ground-level shopping is a prominent feature of the neighborhood, but goods and service oriented stores along Pender and west of Main have incrasingly been replaced with stores focused on tourist and cultural goods [33]. The recently approved items of the Historic Area Height Review by the City of Vancouver threatens to substantially alter the physical appearance of Chinatown by allowing the construction of high-rise condominium developments.

Transportation Infrastructure

Chinatown’s centrality in Vancouver has rendered it an incredibly accessible neighborhood. It is within walking distance from the downtown core, is accessible by many frequent service bus routes (#3, #10, #4, #7, #19, #22), and is within close proximity of Stadium-Chinatown Skytrain station for quick access to the suburbs. Cars can easily access the area from most of its streets, notably primary roads such as Hastings and Main. Both Adanac and TransCanada bike routes provide east-west cycling, and the neighborhood also features many pedestrian streets.

Current Issues

As a part of Vancouver’s Downtown East Side, Chinatown shares the infamous title of being part of “the poorest postal code in Canada” [34]; and as such, many of the issues are grounded in the tension between the scarcity of wealth of the residents compared with the profit-maximizing plans of the real estate developers. The disinvestment that has plagued Chinatown since the mid-20th century [35] has caused much of the iconic neighborhood to fall into disrepair. Ironically, just as capital’s lack of interest signalled the decline of the neighborhood, its return threatens to exclude and push out the marginalized residents through the process of gentrification.

Neoliberal Development Ideology

Neoliberalism can be defined as a market-centric approach to economic and social policy, which emphasizes the retreat of the state and the heightened role of the private sector as the most efficient mechanism for allocating resources [36]. This idea that capital knows the best way to develop a city has come to prominence over the last few decades and has allowed a tight bond to form between international finance, real estate developers, construction firms and municipal governments. As capital can be derived from land, cities come to be seen as valuable real estate to produce profit. Under-developed, low-income areas can occupy valuable land and are therefore seen as economically inefficient under neoliberal development theory, especially in inner-city areas[37]. Such areas are often seen as a “blemish” on the rest of the city, thus revitalization or “cleansing” efforts are often invoked[38] in order to ensure profit-maximization of the scarce resource, land. Neoliberal development theory maintains that by ensuring the highest price of land, the best possible usage is realized[39]. This is problematic to many, who argue that the current regulatory system is biased towards property owners, necessarily disadvantaging those who are renters or cannot afford to own property. The reduction of social services and the retreat of the welfare state associated with neoliberalism contributes to a growing disparity of wealth between the rich and poor [40].

Proximity & Accessibility

The proximity and accessibility of Chinatown to other areas of the city render its land valuable. Hurd claims that it is these two attributes that determine the value characteristics of land, as people are willing to pay more for locations nearby to desirable amenities such as parks,shopping, and areas of employment [41]. As it is within less than two kilometres walking distance from Gastown, Yaletown, and the Central Business District of downtown, it captures tremendous economic potential as walkability is highly desired as part of a city's liveabiity. Furthermore, it is a highly accessible area with excellent transportation links to the rest of the city, including bus, Skytrain to the suburbs, and bike routes. Vancouver's housing market has boomed tremendously over the past few decades, and with people increasingly moving to the city, often with the affluence and desire to own property, housing demand has increased. Chinatown as well as the DTES provide some of the last few opportunities for high-density property development close to the city, which contributes to the land's value.

Heritage & Neoliberal Development

Cultural heritage has been widely used to acquire economic gain under the doctrine of neoliberalism, which can be observed in Chinatown's promotion of tourism and in the marketing of new developments. A city's unique properties are considered to be its assets, and thus they can be marketed to attain competitive advantage in global markets [42]. This is particularly true in the case of tourism, which has been identified as an ideal source of economic revitalization for this area. A City of Vancouver report determined that Chinatown's major strengths are its retail and cultural activities, and therefore it has been keen to promote tourism to Chinatown. The Chinatown Vision emphasized Chinatown's uniqueness and the subsequent need to preserve its historical features and improve its aesthetic [43]. The Vision promoted interest inthe area's history through the launch of historical walking tours,promoted the installation of public art landmarks to commemorate the area's history, such as the Millenium Gate in 2002 and the reproduction of a 2,200 year old bell in 2001, and it suggested that neon signs be re-instituted in the area to cultivate a desirable aesthetic[44]. Tourism Vancouver was also a key partner in revitalization discussions, advising the City to "create a 'Chinatown Experience'" to attract visitors, as well as facilitating agreements between tour bus companies and hotels in the area[45]. A mascot for Chinatown was developed to increase its marketability, as well as a series of events such as the Chinatown Festival, Canada Day celebrations, and the Chinatown Arts and Cultural Festival [46].

The link between neoliberalism and heritage is also seen in the marketing of new developments in Chinatown, which exploit the area's history to cultivate an exotic appeal. In the marketing of Ginger, a 78 suite apartment building constructed on Main St., the area was described as a "playground of worldly pleasures"[47], drawing on the area's reputation for illicit activities and propogating the racially-charged image of Chinatowns' as culturally exotic areas [48]. The East is a new housing development located on East Pender which was promoted on its website as having "the most attractive cosmopolitan living" among "Quaint Chinatown shops" [49]. It features 22 suites starting at $650,000, unattainable to the 70% of Chinatown residents who earn less than $12,000 per year. On East Pender St., the ultra-trendy Fortune Sound Club markets its trendy edge as being "nuanced by the grit and grime of its historic locale" [50]. These examples clearly demonstrate that history can be marketed and exploited to generate a fashionable, exotified image.


Neon sign at the Hip restaurant Bao Bei [51]

Gentrification

Theory and Indicators

Gentrification has typically been described as residential upgrading, whereby middle-class or high-income residents move into previously established low-income areas, a common process is the post-modern city [52]. This process is more complex than this definition suggests, as it is intimately tied to other forms of economic, social,and spatial restructuring. For example,the hyper-capitalist focus of neo-liberalism encourages and allows new developments and growth while reducing government interference; demographic shifts and the rise of a"new middle class" produce demand and affluence for certain lifestyles; and the shift towards a rejection of suburbanization and an enthusiasm for city-living creates demand for high-density urban housing[53].Gentrification also carries with it connotations of an "authentic past", suggesting upgrading has occurred at the expensive of the original others, a perspective which is embodied in evident in anti-gentrification perspectives [54].

Upward shifts in income levels, education, rents, housing values, and race are commonly perceived to be indicators of gentrification [55]. For example, revitalization efforts in an old neighborhood tend to attract new, more affluent residents, which would cause an increase in an area's median household income. Isolated census data is not readily available for Chinatown, but data from the "Strathcona" census area which encompasses Chinatown and the DTES indicates a rise in median household income from $12,143 in 1996 to$15,558 in 2006 [56].Expensive new housing developments in Chinatown will contribute to this number. With the arrival of new higher-income residents, economic and social change in the area is stimulated, which will feed back into the demand for rental housing. The speculated increase in future property value will lead to an increase in rents. Average gross rents in Strathcona have increased from $395 in 1996 to$500 in 2006[57]. Changes in service and goods providers offer a physical indicator of gentrification, which can also be seen in this area with an increase towards higher-income services. New businesses such as Bao Bei Chinese Brasserie (Fried Rice- $13), the London Pub (Daily Soup - $6), Storm Salon (Hair Cut -$50-65), Vancouver Film School (Yearly Tuition - $30,000-50,000), and the Erin Templeton Shop (Leather Bag - $300) are clearly beyond financial access to Chinatown's low-income residents, and are further indicative the new wealth in the area [58].

Zones of Exclusion

While higher rents and land values force low-income residents from their community, exclusionary zones, such as the new businesses described above, generate a sense of "internal displacement"[59]. Zones of exclusion are described as "spaces where people are unable to enter because they lack the necessary economic means for participation" [60]. As more businesses move into the area to provide services to its new residents, upward demand is placed on more similar services. The area will see cafes, restaurants, bars, retail stores, coffee shops, and other services emerging to cater to this new demographic, often at the expense of previous low-income services, and could lead to a feeling of no longer belonging to one's community.

While evictions do happen, much of this development is done much less explicitly through pricing and social constructions. As Cory Dobson claims, “In this context spatial boundaries become explicit to moral boundaries. In communities such as Vancouver, where there are vast inequalities in the distribution of status, power, and material rewards, feelings of insecurity surrounding this acquired wealth results in the erection of borders and the rejection of the‘threatening other”[61] This effect is amplified as the city's neighborhoods become more and more spatially polarized in not only their neighborhoods but in all levels for interaction as up-scale groceries, schools, and stores catering to the various income levels . While the high concentration of poverty does act as a disincentive to gentrification for some, it is far outweighed by the edginess of the neighborhood, growing amounts of cultural amenities, close proximity to downtown, the waterfront and a heritage housing stock with authentic aesthetics are making Chinatown increasingly appealing to developers,investors and even students.

Community Resistance

While there has been much support for urban revitalizaton in the Chinatown area, there has also been much condemnation. The Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council has been a key critic of gentrification and the Historic Area Heights Review. It has published documents, held rallies, gathered over 1000 signatures on a petition to fight the HAHR,and has been credited with delaying its approval through organized community resistance. Twenty-nine local university faculty from UBC and SFU joined together to send a statement to the Mayor and Council, warning increasing height restrictions would lead to further reduction of affordable housing inthe area which will "have a devastating effect on low-income residents"and could de-stabilize the vulnerable community [62]. Ley & Dobson explored the role of community resistance in impeding gentrification, suggesting it had previously played a role in the DTES' resistance to gentrification [63].Though previous efforts may have been successful, the forces of gentrification have entered Chinatown, and therefore the DTES.

Effect and Relevance

Without a doubt, those most effected by gentrification and neoliberal development in Chinatown are the current low-income residents. With neoliberal assumptions of efficiency, private property, ownership and land value, developers can avoid the ethical discussion of displacement [64]. Ley & Dobson suggest that gentrification's embeddedness in neoliberal approaches to public policy have enabled it to become a naturalized process, accepted for its "rationality" [65]. The process may appear superficially rational and just, but Blomley points out that this is in part due to a regulatory system that privileges property owners, which in turn disadvantages renters and those unable to afford property [66].

One of the most considerable concerns with the gentrification in Chinatown and the DTES and potential loss of this area is the fact that it is Vancouver's only surviving concentration of low-income housing. The area has a century-long history as a primarily low-income area, and with the loss of this area, many of its former residents could become homeless. The 4000 privately held SRO rooms are considered vulnerable to market forces and demand for housing increases with new developments [67].

Redeveloping spaces in Chinatown and increasing land values does have the advantage of increasing tax revenue for the government which could potentially be put to use housing the displaced. Yet, these statements rest heavily on the presumption that community targeted for renewal is indeed in need of such revitalization and that the government's response could always be equal or better than the status quo. This is in line with the research made by Jane Jacobs in the 60’s, citing that many inner-city neighborhoods already have an intense sense of community within them [68]. In the 1970’s, 40% of the residents had lived in the area for more than ten years, making it the second most stable community in the City [69]. While all everyone claims to have the best interest of the residents at heart, neoliberal development strategies encourage the best interest of the resident who carries the highest price. It is no coincidence that deterioration of neighborhood has only accelerated since the embrace of neoliberalism, with the availability of affordable single room occupancy units in downtown Vancouver decreasing from 13,300 in 1970 to around 7,500 by 1995. [70]. In a world guided by capital, those most affected are those who lack it.The feedback loop between development, demand and revitalization amplifies existing class problems that allowed the situation to arise in the first place. As the divisions between "us and them" solidifies, intra-class ignorance, apathy and conflict can sky rocket [71].

Recommendations

In recent years, there have been steps in the right direction. In order for developers to proceed with any new plan in Vancouver, they must provide 20% of their new units "free from the forces of the market" [72]. This means that this minority housing stock is to be provided at accessible rents set by the City rather than by the bidding process of buyers, renters and investors. Doing so helps ensure mixed neighborhoods with a variety of incomes, which helps dispel the myth of the un-pure 'other' by increasing intra-class interaction and empathy; no longer a scary sector of society to be avoided, but someone from your own community. Furthermore, it ensures a more equitable result from a city developed by capital, because even the poorest sectors of society can benefit from new developments. Unfortunately, this policy alone does not address the issue of the rising cost of living in gentrified neighborhoods nor the the issue of 'forced renewal' many of these neighborhoods are facing. Only active solicitation of feedback from the community on the part of the government and mobilization on the side of the residents can hope to overcome these obstacles.

The Pivot Legal society also offers a solution that involves a Master Lease program, whereby the City of Vancouver leases considerable units for the short-medium term to address the immediate needs of the marginalized and homeless. This would be combined with a $5,000 tax on all former SRO's that have been redeveloped, to help offset the costs of the master lease program and put additional funds into constructing more housing of the medium-long term.[73]

Other steps in the right direction can be exemplified by the Vancouver Agreement, and ambitious collaborative project between the City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia and the Canadian Federal Government; built on the four pillars of "Economic Revitalization, Safety & Security, Housing and Health & Quality of Life."[74] Of specific interest is the housing section, which maintains a strategy of "revitalization without displacement"[75] to encourage a range of housing options, balancing market housing with a variety of social and non-market housing. However, combining this strategy with economic revitalization in the neighborhoods and plans to make the area safer, helps all the residents benefit from improvements and form a basis for the area to once again become the most stable in the city. While the final decisions rested with agreement's partners, stakeholders were consulted at every step to help ensure an equitable result, receiving the prestigious United Nations Public Service award for "Improving transparency, accountability and responsiveness in the public service"[76]

Unfortunately, the agreement expired in 2010 and there is still a lot of work to be done; another agreement of this type is desperately needed to continue to support Chinatown and the residents of the Downtown-Eastside.

References

  1. Photo by rommy ghaly @ flickr.com
  2. Dobson, Cory 2004. ‘Ideological Constructions of Place: The Conflict over Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside,” University of Toronto. pg 1
  3. ( “Chinatown Neighborhood Profile”, Business Improvement Association http://www.bizmapbc.com/neighbourhood-profiles/chinatown-neighbourhood.pdf . pg 2)
  4. Ibid
  5. by Shaun Dunphy @ flickr.com
  6. Li, Peter S., and Eva Xiaoling Li. "Vancouver Chinatown in Transition." Journal of Chinese Overseas 7 (2011). Pg 8
  7. Li & Li, pg 17
  8. Li & Li, pg12
  9. Li & Li, pg 15
  10. Wong, Bernard P. "Chinatowns: Persistence and Change." Journal of Chinese Overseas 7 (2011). pg 4
  11. Li & Li, pg 15
  12. Li & Li, pg 21
  13. Yan, Andrew. "Summary of a Presentation for the Chinatown Business Improvement Association, Chinatown Revitalization Committee,Vancouver Chinatown Merchants' Association, and the City of Vancouver"(2001).Revitalization Challenges for Vancouver's Chinatown. Aug. 2001.Web. July 2011.<http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020723/rr2.htm>.
  14. Yan, Np
  15. Yan, Np
  16. Yan, Np.
  17. City of Vancouver, np. "Policy Report: Urban Structure", Chinatown Revitalization Committee. July 9, 2002. http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020723/rr2.htm
  18. Yan, Np.
  19. Dobson,3
  20. Dobson, 3
  21. City of Vancouver, Chinatown Revitalization Program:Chinatown Vision. July 23 2002.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020723/rr2.htm
  22. Ibid
  23. City of Vancouver, Historic Areas Heights Review. June 17 2011. vancouver.ca/commcvcs/planning/hahr.
  24. Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council, "Condo Towers=Gentrification". April 19 2011. https://sites.google.com/site/fightfor10sites/
  25. **BIZMAP 1
  26. BizMap, 1
  27. BizMap, 3
  28. BizMap, 4
  29. BizMap 4
  30. photo by Yoav Lerman @ flickr.com <http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoavlerman/5069984171/>
  31. BizMap 2
  32. Bunting, et al. Pg 350
  33. Yan, Np
  34. dobson, pg 1
  35. dobson, pg 3
  36. Bunting,Fillion, & Walker, pg. 29
  37. Bunting,Fillion, & Walker, pg 226
  38. dobson, pg1
  39. Bunting, Fillion,& Walker, pg 227
  40. Ibid
  41. Ibid,227
  42. Gunay, Zeynep. "Neoliberal Urbanism andSustainability of Cultural Heritage", Neoliberal Urbanism and CulturalChange. 2008: pg 1-12.www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1250.pdf
  43. City of Vancouver, "Chinatown RevitalizationProgram: Chinatown Vision"
  44. Ibid
  45. Ibid
  46. Ibid
  47. Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council, pg 6. "Zones of Exclusion", March 17 2011. https://sites.google.com/site/zonesofex/
  48. Li & Li, 7
  49. Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council, pg 4
  50. Ibid, 27
  51. photo by Samuel Wempe, all rights reserved
  52. Bunting, Filion, and Walker, pg 451
  53. "Chapter 3: Gentrification",pg173. Current Sociology, June 2004. Vol. 43 no.1. 173-182
  54. Ibid, pg.3
  55. Ibid,178
  56. Community Statistics Census Data:Strathcona. September2006.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/census/2006/localareas/strathcona.pdf
  57. Ibid
  58. Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council,"Zones of Exclusion"
  59. Ibid, 3
  60. Ibid
  61. Dobson, pg 13
  62. Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council, "29 SFU and UBC Professors, 19 January2011, https://sites.google.com/site/fightfor10sites/indiv
  63. Ley & Dobson, pg. 2481. "Are There Limits to Gentrification? The Contexts of Impeded Gentrification in Vancouver". Urban Studies 2008: 45(12). 2471-2498
  64. Dobson, pg 13
  65. Ley & Dobson, 2472
  66. Bunting, Filion, & Walker, pg 231
  67. Blomley, Ley, & Wyly, "Op-Ed: Gentrification Pushes the Poor Out", Vancouver Sun, 2 February 2011. sfu.ca/~blomley/op-ed.pdf
  68. Bunting, Trudi E., Pierre Filion, and Ryan Christopher Walker. Canadian Cities in Transition: New Directions in the Twenty-first Century. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford UP, 2010. pg 41
  69. Dobson, pg 21
  70. City of Vancouver. Housing Plan for the Downtown East Side. City of Vancouver, Oct. 2005. Web. 5 June 2011.<http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/dteshousingplan.pdf>
  71. Dobson, pg 23
  72. Dobson, pg 26
  73. "Housing Solutions for the Downtown Eastside." Pivot Legal Society. 2008. Web. 23 July 2011. <http://www.pivotlegal.org/pivot-points/publications/housing-solutions-for-the-downtown-eastside>. Pgs 13-14.
  74. City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, Government of Canada. Vancouver Agreement. June 2010. Web. 8 July 2011. <http://www.vancouveragreement.ca/wp-content/uploads/VA2010_Report_0810_15.pdf> pg 11.
  75. City of Vancouver, et al. Vancouver Agreement. Pg 27
  76. Vancouver Agreement. Vancouver Agreement Wins United Nations Award. Vancouver Agreement. 6 Mar. 2005. Web. <http://www.vancouveragreement.ca/wp-content/uploads/050506_ADVISORYUNAward.pdf>.

Bibliography

Blomley, Ley, & Wyly, "Op-Ed: Gentrification Pushes the Poor Out", Vancouver Sun, 2 February 2011. sfu.ca/~blomley/op-ed.pdf


Bunting, Trudi E., Pierre Filion, and Ryan Christopher Walker. Canadian Cities in Transition: New Directions in the Twenty-first Century. DonMills, Ont.: Oxford UP, 2010.


"Chapter 3: Gentrification" Current Sociology, June 2004. Vol. 43 no.1. 173-182.


Chen-Adams, J. "Chinatown Revitalization Program: Chinatown Vision." City of Vancouver. 9 July 2002. Web. 5 June 2011. <http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020723/rr2.htm>.


Chinatown: Neighborhood Profiles .Publication. Vancouver Economic Development Commission, 2009. Web. 3 June 2011.<http://www.bizmapbc.com/neighbourhood-profiles/chinatown-neighbourhood.pdf>.


City of Vancouver, Chinatown Revitalization Program: Chinatown Vision. July 23 2002.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020723/rr2.htm


City of Vancouver, Historic Areas Heights Review. June 17 2011. vancouver.ca/commcvcs/planning/hahr.


City of Vancouver. Housing Plan for the Downtown East Side. City of Vancouver, Oct. 2005. Web. 5 June 2011.<http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/dteshousingplan.pdf>.


City of Vancouver, "Vancouver Agreement". June 2010. Web. 8 July 2011. <http://www.vancouveragreement.ca/wp-content/uploads/VA2010_Report_0810_15.pdf>


"Community Statistics Census Data: Strathcona." Community Statistics Census Data: Downtown. City of Vancouver, 2006. Web. 5 June 2011. <Community Statistics Census Data: Strathcona>.


Dobson,Cory 2004. ‘Ideological Constructions of Place: The Conflict overVancouver’s Downtown Eastside,” University of Toronto. Delivered 24 June.


Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council, "Condo Towers=Gentrification". April 19 2011. https://sites.google.com/site/fightfor10sites/


Downtown Eastside Neighborhood Council. "Vancouver City Council Votes to Gentrify Chinatown and the Downtown Eastside." Orhood Council, 19 Apr.2011. Web. 5 June 2011.<https://sites.google.com/site/fightfor10sites/>.


Downtown Eastside NeighborhoodCouncil. "Zones of Exclusion." Downtown EastsideNeighborhood Council,17 Mar. 2011. Web. 5 June2011.<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11175341/DNC/Project%20ZOE%20report.pdf>.


Gunay, Zeynep. "Neoliberal Urbanism andSustainability of Cultural Heritage", Neoliberal Urbanism and Cultural Change. 2008: pg 1-12.www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1250.pdf


Ley, D., and C. Dobson. "Are There Limits to Gentrification? The Contexts of Impeded Gentrification in Vancouver." Urban Studies. 45.12 (2008): 2471-498.


Li, Peter S., and Eva Xiaoling Li. "Vancouver Chinatown in Transition." Journal of Chinese Overseas 7 (2011): 7-23.


Pivot Legal Society, "Housing Solutions for the Downtown Eastside." Pivot Legal Society. 2008. Web. 23 July 2011. < http://www.pivotlegal.org/pivot-points/publications/housing-solutions-for-the-downtown-eastside>. Pgs 13-14.


Vancouver Agreement. "Vancouver Agreement Wins United Nations Award". Vancouver Agreement. 6 Mar. 2005. Web. < http://www.vancouveragreement.ca/wp-content/uploads/050506_ADVISORYUNAward.pd


Wong, Bernard P. "Chinatowns: Persistence and Change." Journal of Chinese Overseas 7 (2011): 1-5.


Yan, Andrew. "Summary of a Presentation for the Chinatown Business Improvement Association, Chinatown Revitalization Committee, Vancouver Chinatown Merchants' Association, and the City of Vancouver"(2001). Revitalization Challenges for Vancouver's Chinatown. Aug. 2001.Web. July 2011.<http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020723/rr2.htm>.