Course:GEOG350/2024/Gentrification in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside

From UBC Wiki

Still editing

Introduction

　　Urban spaces are more than just physical areas that are distinct from our daily lives, but are shaped by the social and cultural factors, which are developed as humans build their living in a certain space. Therefore, cities are more than just two-dimensional, but are where humans have the agency to shape these urban spaces developed in our daily lives. As Massey described in a discussion of the definition of place, she argues “it may be useful to think of places, not as areas on maps, but as constantly shifting articulations of social relations through time: and to think of particular attempts to characterize them as attempts to define, and claim coherence and a particular meaning for specific envelopes of space-time” [1]. This relationship between humans and their places can also be enhanced through the notion that individuals feel rooted to the place they live in, and how these urban spaces are adapted to the social and cultural identities of its residents. These factors are what makes urban spaces rich, diverse and in-depth, with complex systems of multiple factors intertwined into one space. However, in contemporary urban spaces, these relationships and connections are greatly endangered due to the citizen’s agency being lost through the control of governments or other authorities. Gentrification is one example of this, which is defined as a process involving the redevelopment of urban areas and neighborhoods, although its definition is in broad discussion in current academic fields. Therefore, this page aims to delve into the significant impact of gentrification on the lifestyles, culture and behaviors of low-income communities, and its consequent influence on shaping urban spaces. Through this discussion, it highlights how the social and cultural aspect of a place profoundly shapes the behaviors and inequalities of low-income residents, ultimately contributing to the structuralization of a hyper-commodified and unlivable city.

Map showing the location of Downtown Eastside in Vancouver
Location of Downtown Eastside in Vancouver

　By focusing on the case study of gentrification in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside [DTES], this discussion delves into three key examples. Firstly, it will investigate the eviction of youth to ‘supporting housing’, in the DTES, and how it exacerbates the issue of drug addiction in Vancouver. Secondly, it will focus on the disadvantageous housing policies affecting low-income drug users, who lack tenant protection rights, and which places them in a vulnerable position. Finally, this page will also examine the emergence of public art through gentrification, highlighting its potential to foster solidarity within the low-income community while also potentially triggering further gentrification by funding the authority, as well as beautifying the urban spaces of the DTES.

In addition to the case study, this discourse will also refer to the “Right to the city” theory by Henri Lefebvre, in order to identify the loss of human agency by low-income communities through the change of gentrified urban spaces. It will also be used to provide suggested solutions for the city that can both prevent displacement and improve community engagement within the DTES. In order to provide validity to this thesis, this page will also be reviewing Vancouver’s ‘Downtown Eastside Plan’ conducted between 2017 to 2019, and explore its potential to prevent Vancouver from evolving into a commodified and affluent urban space.

Overview of issue/focus

Gentrification

　The phenomenon of gentrification contains a wide range of definitions discussed by different scholars. For example, Smith describes gentrification as “a global urban strategy, a neoliberal urbanism that represents a shift in the role of the city to one of capital accumulation rather than social reproduction” [2]. On the other hand, Tolfo and Doucet emphasizes negative urban transformation, claiming gentrification as a “process connected to the creative and destructive tendencies of capitalism” [3]. Both definitions touch on the work of capitalism, and how they develop and manifest an urban space for real estate investment. Although gentrification can be perceived as a positive response against the undeveloped land, especially from the high-income residents, it poses a huge threat in eliminating the physical and social space linked to the low-income residents who were living in that area. This process can displace social and cultural elements shaped by lower income residents, as these gentrified areas adapt to accommodate higher and middle income earners. Therefore, gentrification can be perceived as a global widespread phenomenon with the recent rise in civilisation and urbanization in various parts of the world, leading to the worldwide focus of profitable capitalist economies. In the case of Vancouver, an urban redevelopment project led to the construction of upscale condos and luxury housing, accompanied by a significant surge in middle-income population. Specifically, Vancouver’s downtown population grew from 6,000 in the 1970s and 1980s, to 43,000 by 2006 [4]. These factors lead to the displacement of lower income residents to suburbs or smaller rented rooms due to the lack of affordable housing options [5]. Subsequently, it widened the gap between the wealthy and the impoverished, exacerbated social inequalities and transformed Vancouver into a hyper-commodified and unaffordable urban space. Peck also discusses this point, describing that “market imperatives, mass-produced novelty in urban design and marketing, pervasive privatism and friendly looking half-measures to soften the shape edges of deepening inequalities have come to constitute Vancouver’s centripetal suburbanism” [6]. Overall, gentrification, driven by the city’s focus on financial value, can force low-income communities out of their homes. This can result in homelessness and a disruption of their lifestyles, influencing urban spaces and the behaviors of these people.

Lefebvre's "Right to the City" Theory

　This inequality triggered by gentrification can be examined through Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the ‘Right to the city’, which advocates that the people should have the ‘rights’ to make their own decisions on how their urban space ought to be. Lefebvre, a French Marxist philosopher and sociologist, developed and published his theories between the 1930s until 1991 [7]. In ‘Right to the city’, Lefebvre argues that residents should be responsible for shaping, developing, and planning their urban space, rather than wealthy authorities prioritizing financial interests. Moreover, using Kofman and Lebas’s words “The rights not to be excluded from centrality and to participate politically in decision-making were particularly significant for the working class” [8]. This is especially significant in a gentrified urban society, where the low-income residents do not have the rights to claim opposition against the capitalist-driven urban development, which results in their displacement from their urban space. Hence, it is with great importance to discuss whether the problem of gentrification lies on the ignorance of the citizen’s rights to be involved in the decision making process of their city. This can be examined through investigating the changes in social, cultural aspects and the behaviors of the gentrified community, and how they exacerbate the inequality and the difficulty in living in the urban space.

Downtown Eastside [DTES]

Shows a map of the Downtown Eastside with specific districts outlined
Map of Downtown Eastside

　In this page, it will discuss how gentrification affected the social and cultural life of low-income residents in the context of Vancouver’s DTES. The DTES is situated on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations and consists of seven mixed-income neighborhoods, including Chinatown, Gastown, Oppenheimer District, Thornton Park, Strathcona, Victory Square, and Industrial Lands [9]. The DTES has experienced a significant increase in homelessness, with the number reaching 2233, the highest since the counting began [10]. These factors are due to many low-income and mentally unwell individuals moving to the DTES in search of affordable housing, only to face challenges in maintaining their livelihoods [11]. This can be recognized from the census data in which between 2006 to 2016, average rent has increased by more than 39 % in Downtown, highlighting the effect of gentrification in increasing unaffordable housing [12]. Consequently, the DTES is recognized as one of Canada’s most impoverished urban neighborhoods, [9], characterized by high rates of crime, poverty, and drug use. These poor conditions shaped the DTES into becoming the target for gentrification. These gentrification measures in the DTES included increased policing, private security, ongoing surveillance, criminalization of homelessness, and disciplinary design [13], thus greatly disadvantaged the low-income community. This page will examine these strategies in detail, offering specific examples from scholarly articles and the ‘Downtown Eastside Plan’ by the city of Vancouver. It will delve into the impact of these strategies on low-income residents in the DTES and explore how they have further reshaped the region's urban spaces into inhospitable environments for these marginalized communities.

Case Study of the issue

　In Vancouver, the Downtown Eastside [DTES] presents a compelling case study for examining the impact of gentrification on its low-income residents and the resulting portrayal of the area as being hazardous and commodified. This page will delve into three specific examples in the DTES including the displacement of the youth, the eviction of long-time addicted residents, and the proliferation of public art as a consequence of gentrification, in order to discuss how this Vancouver imaginary was shaped through social and cultural changes due to gentrification.

Impacts on the youth with drug use

Supportive Modular Housing in Vancouver

　The city’s policies in mobilizing the homeless in the DTES to government-provided residential housing has caused a mental dislocation. According to Fast and Cunnigham, “state sponsored processes of gentrification are often accompanied by the forcible removal of homeless people from areas of the city that they previously inhabited, and their banishment to the margins of urban space” [14]. These include the youth living in the DTES, who end up living in temporary supportive housing [15]. However, there is an issue to this gentrified social action, in which these youth feel mentally dislocated from the city as they transfer between these temporary rooms. These feelings of “loss” can result in the aggravation of drug use in the DTES, thus shaping Vancouver’s urban space. For example, the young people’s experiences in living in supporting housing “instead surfaced flashbacks of the trauma they had endured in other institutional settings” [16]. Their way of overcoming this agony is the frequent use of drugs which "kept them from ‘going crazy' "[16]. In addition, due to the frequent mobility from room to room, they are unable to develop a sense of attachment to the places they live, leading to feelings of depression and a lack of a true sense of home [16]. As a result, the increase in drug use among the youth, exacerbated by evictions to supporting housing, highlights how gentrification in the DTES worsens drug issues in the city of Vancouver.

　Therefore, in order to implement a housing policy that satisfies the needs of the youth and effectively tackles the serious drug issues, Lefebvre’s “Right to the city” theory is key, as it involves people in the community change processes. As the City of Vancouver’s efforts are worsening drug use in the DTES, it indicates how it should implement the voices of the displaced youth, as they are the one who understands what is best for them. This can also be supported from the citizen’s voices towards the DTES Plan through a questionnaire conducted by the City of Vancouver between June 20th and July 31st, 2019 [17]. For example, one respondent stressed, “For the DTES to be successful as a whole, the lives and voices of the vulnerable and marginalized must be at the forefront in the discussion and planning stages” [18]. Additionally, people expressed the need for more social and mental support, as well as to acquire permanent secured housing, emphasizing the significance of Lefebvre’s claim that people should have the authority to make decisions regarding their urban spaces. Overall, this case study underlines how gentrification, and its subsequent displacement of young drug users to supporting housing, has triggered an increase in drug use in the DTES, further solidifying the region’s image as a hazardous zone. Therefore, through analyzing this case study with Lefebvre’s theory, along with public opinion, it highlights that the City of Vancouver should do more than just build affordable unstable housing, but focus on providing a stable lifestyle, thus achieving the needs of the people.

Residential eviction of people with drug use

　Residential eviction resulting from gentrification can force the marginalization of low-income residents struggling with drug use, which is exacerbated by Vancouver’s city and housing policies [19]. A notable example is the “criminalization of drug-using populations” [20], which can hinder people with drug use from obtaining housing. This policy contributes to heightened social inequality, leading to situations where people with drug use experience violence and unjust evictions by their landlords. As a result, “almost a quarter of participants in a Vancouver-based longitudinal cohort study on injection drug use have reported at least one instance of residential eviction” [20]. In addition, the Residential Tenancy Policy of the government of British Columbia, which highlights tenant protection, does not extend to “living accommodation provided for emergency shelter or transitional housing” [21]. Transitional housing, according to Fleming et al., can be defined as a type of residential housing that is “temporary, government funded and intended as a step towards independent living”, which is also provided to people with drug use. This exclusion highlights the inability for the tenancy law to protect tenants who are in these non-profit housing, thus can position low-income people with drug use to the risk of losing their homes or facing violence. It indicates the importance of granting rights and protection to individuals dealing with addiction, further underscoring the validity of Lefebvre’s “Right to the city” theory.

　However, this example of residential eviction also highlights the downfall of this theory. This is because Lefebvre’s definition of the citizen or the working class includes people who do not use drugs. Therefore, following Lefebvre’s theory may result in certain community voices not being heard. Moreover, justifying drug use is not acceptable, hence prioritizing the opinions and rights of people with drug use will not be successful. Considering these aspects, gentrification policies should place more emphasis on the recovery and reduction of drug use in the DTES to safeguard the tenancy rights of all low-income residents in the area. When reviewing the City of Vancouver’s DTES Plan, it describes the construction of Temporary Modular Supportive Housing as part of the BC Government Rapid Response to Homelessness [22]. This initiative is considered a success as the housing specifically targets the homeless and individuals facing social barriers when seeking affordable and stable housing [23]. However, drug overdose remains a major public health issue in Vancouver today [24], and many citizens still believe the city’s inaction towards drug issues is a major problem in the DTES Plan [25]. While efforts are being made to address drug issues, such as the work of the Vancouver Community Action Team focusing on providing peer advocacy, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted these services [26]. This evidence highlights the need for the City of Vancouver to prioritize the revitalization of the DTES as a means of reducing the number of people with drug use and providing additional support to help them overcome their addiction, in order for all people to have stable housing with their tenant rights protected.

Emergence of Public art through gentrification

　Gentrification can create new emerging cultures that highlights resistance against urban renewal. Specifically, public art that promotes anti-gentrification can have both positive and negative effects on the low-income community, in which both play a major role in shaping urban spaces of the DTES.

　Firstly, public art serves as a powerful tool for artists to voice their opposition to gentrification, while also fostering empathy among residents, making them feel that their marginalized presence was being acknowledged publicly [27]. For example, one resident of the DTES expressed how public art “Makes me feel like I’m at home. I’m outcast. I can relate to it. I walk past it everyday” [27]. Therefore, public art against gentrification strengthens community engagement and support of the low-income residents, thus solidifying social solidarity and raising awareness against authorities promoting gentrification. This also empowers these communities to have a say in decisions that shape their urban spaces, aligning with Lefebvre’s ‘Right to the City’ theory. However, public art can also have negative impacts as it can lead to providing economic value to the gentrified region. This is because public art provides benefits such as “enhancing local distinctiveness, attracting investment interest” and “creating sites for cultural tourism” [28]. In this context, these public art can conversely improve the appearance of the streets in the DTES, enhancing displacement of the marginalized. In addition, public art is established through the funding from “individual developers, BIAs [Business Improvement Areas], and city enhancement funds” [29]. This highlights the controversy of public art, in which even though it was originally intended to oppose gentrification-induced displacement, the funding can end up supporting the key actors involved in gentrification. This can potentially lead to the lack of engagement from artists who may feel guilty in perpetuating the issue.

　These effects can also be recognized in other regions worldwide. Artists in Porto, Portugal, utilized public art to protest against the rise of gentrification and touristification, advocating for “regulation and protection of the most vulnerable groups” [30]. Since Porto is a small town, there were frequent alliances made between people, resulting in a collective resistance against intense gentrification. This role of public art holds its significance as without it, “civic mobilisation in Porto remains very low” and “demonstrations are seldom held and activist groups tend to fade quickly” [31]. Nevertheless, public art can have negative effects as it is supported by private institutions, potentially altering the original purpose of the resistance. Moreover, since the state tends to support artists who are more influenced by the idea of urban beautification, public art can eventually lead to the strengthening of gentrification [32].

　Overall, the role of public art in the DTES highlights positive and negative aspects it can have on urban spaces. More specifically, it has the potential to build a sense of community among those displaced, while it can also be a factor in assisting the process of gentrification through the reliance on funding from the capitalist-driven authorities. Hence, in order to prevent this development of gentrification from happening, it is essential to incorporate the message and claims made through public art into the urban planning process, and understand that they are not intended to make any contributions to urban gentrification. Furthermore, it is also important for the residents to recognize these public art, in order to strengthen the movement against displacement through solidarity.

Lesson learned

  • What can be perceived from this page is that urban spaces are a reflection of our daily activities and lifestyles, and that in order to construct a livable and ‘utopian’ city, it is essential to prioritize the voices of the citizens. While the gentrification and revitalization efforts have contributed to Vancouver’s economic development, the current situation highlights how these urban renewal projects are focusing on supporting the wealthy, affluent community, and often neglecting the needs of middle and low-income people. This can lead to significant behavioural and mental challenges for the impoverished community, as their living spaces undergo rapid transformation, creating an environment that may be challenging to adapt to. These factors all outline the significance of citizens having the rights to make decisions of their own urban space.
  • Another lesson being learned is that there is a lack of recent statistical data on the social demographics within Vancouver’s DTES. Despite the city facing significant challenges in housing affordability, the municipal government only publishes quantitative data as recent as 2016. Additionally, there has been a lack of official data regarding the prevalence of drug use in the DTES and the associated health issues arising from its addiction. These factors highlight the city’s limited efforts in researching the challenges faced by the displaced communities, and the significance of avoiding a focus on developing affluent areas in Downtown. It is crucial to conduct statistical investigations to raise awareness about the negative effects of gentrification, and to facilitate meaningful engagement between government officials and those in need of assistance.
  • Finally, a very important aspect of gentrification is that it has a major impact on low-income people, and they are actively working against it. In the DTES, citizens are the ones who are fighting against displacement caused by gentrification. This grassroots movement is also recognized in other parts of the world, such as Seoul in South Korea, where solidarity is significantly formed amongst the citizens to resist commercialized gentrification. For example, Takeout Drawing, an art gallery cafe, has become a base for anti-gentrification action in Seoul, which artists and creators who had to move out from their businesses due to gentrification, formed solidarity [33]. As a result, the Takeout Drawing perpetuated a great population of people other than artists to protest against the Seoul government’s gentrification processes, in order to protect their own rights from residential eviction. Therefore, this resistance shows that gentrification is a global issue, and grassroot opposition helps people unite and strengthen anti-gentrification movements. This case study highlights the importance of involving local communities in urban planning and decision making, as they best understand their needs and how their urban space should ought to be.

References

  1. ↑ Massey, Doreen (1 March 1995). "Places and Their Pasts". History Workshop Journal. 39 (1): 188. doi:10.1093/hwj/39.1.182 – via Oxford Academic.
  2. ↑ Burnett, Katherine (2014). "Commodifying poverty: gentrification and consumption in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside". Urban Geography. 35 (2): 158. doi:10.1080/02723638.2013.867669 – via Taylor & Francis.
  3. ↑ Tolfo, Giuseppe; Doucet, Brian (2022). "Livability for whom?: Planning for livability and the gentrification of memory in Vancouver". Cities. 123: 2. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2022.103564 – via Elsevier ScienceDirect.
  4. ↑ Peck, Jamie; Siemiatycki, Elliot; Wyly, Elvin (2014). "Vancouver's suburban involution". City. 18 (4–5): 399. doi:10.1080/13604813.2014.939464 – via Taylor & Francis.
  5. ↑ Peck, Jamie; Siemiatycki, Elliot; Wyly, Elvin (2014). "Vancouver's suburban involution". City. 18 (4–5): 411. doi:10.1080/13604813.2014.939464 – via Taylor & Francis.
  6. ↑ Peck, Jamie; Siemiatycki, Elliot; Wyly, Elvin (2014). "Vancouver's suburban involution". City. 18 (4–5): 404. doi:10.1080/13604813.2014.939464 – via Taylor & Francis.
  7. ↑ Lefebvre, Henri (1996). Kofman, Eleonore; Lebas, Elizabeth (eds.). Writings on Cities. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. p. 3.
  8. ↑ Lefebvre, Henri (1996). Kofman, Eleonore; Lebas, Elizabeth (eds.). Writings on Cities. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. p.19
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Plan Three Year Summary of Implementation (2017-2019). Sept. 2020. p. 5
  10. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Plan Three Year Summary of Implementation (2017-2019). Sept. 2020. p. 7
  11. ↑ Wittmer, Josie; Parizeau, Kate (2016). "Informal recyclers' geographies of surviving neoliberal urbanism in Vancouver, BC". Applied Geography. 66: 93. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.10.006 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  12. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Neighbourhood Social Indicators Profile 2020. Oct. 2020. p. 56
  13. ↑ Szőke, Teréz; Parizeau, Kate (13 December 2018). "Community-Based Public Art and Gentrification in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver". GeoHumanities. 5 (1): 162. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2018.1543554 – via Taylor & Francis.
  14. ↑ Fast, Danya; Cunningham, David (2018). ""We Don't Belong There": New Geographies of Homelessness, Addiction, and Social Control in Vancouver's Inner City". City & Society. 30 (2): 238. doi:10.1111/ciso.12177 – via American Anthropological Association.
  15. ↑ Fast, Danya; Cunningham, David (2018). ""We Don't Belong There": New Geographies of Homelessness, Addiction, and Social Control in Vancouver's Inner City". City & Society. 30 (2): 242-243. doi:10.1111/ciso.12177 – via American Anthropological Association.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Fast, Danya; Cunningham, David (2018). ""We Don't Belong There": New Geographies of Homelessness, Addiction, and Social Control in Vancouver's Inner City". City & Society. 30 (2): 247. doi:10.1111/ciso.12177 – via American Anthropological Association.
  17. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Six Year Review Capital Grant Summary. Apr. 2020. p. 55
  18. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Six Year Review Capital Grant Summary. Apr. 2020. p. 68
  19. ↑ Fleming, Taylor; Damon, Will; Collins, Alexandra B.; Czechaczek, Sandra; Boyd, Jade; McNeil, Ryan (2019). "Housing in crisis: A qualitative study of the socio-legal contexts of residential evictions in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside". International Journal of Drug Policy. 71: 169 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Fleming, Taylor; Damon, Will; Collins, Alexandra B.; Czechaczek, Sandra; Boyd, Jade; McNeil, Ryan (2019). "Housing in crisis: A qualitative study of the socio-legal contexts of residential evictions in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside". International Journal of Drug Policy. 71: 170 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  21. ↑ Government of British Columbia. “Residential Tenancy Act.” Www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca, 2024, www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/02078_01#part7. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  22. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Plan Three Year Summary of Implementation (2017-2019). Sept. 2020. p. 3
  23. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Plan Three Year Summary of Implementation (2017-2019). Sept. 2020. p. 15
  24. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Plan Three Year Summary of Implementation (2017-2019). Sept. 2020. p. 46
  25. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Six Year Review Capital Grant Summary. Apr. 2020. p. 63
  26. ↑ City of Vancouver. Downtown Eastside Plan Three Year Summary of Implementation (2017-2019). Sept. 2020. p. 45
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Szőke, Teréz; Parizeau, Katie (2019). "Community-Based Public Art and Gentrification in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver". GeoHumanities. 5 (1): 166. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2018.1543554 – via Taylor and Francis.
  28. ↑ Szőke, Teréz; Parizeau, Katie (2019). "Community-Based Public Art and Gentrification in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver". GeoHumanities. 5 (1): 159. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2018.1543554 – via Taylor and Francis.
  29. ↑ Szőke, Teréz; Parizeau, Katie (2019). "Community-Based Public Art and Gentrification in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver". GeoHumanities. 5 (1): 171. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2018.1543554 – via Taylor and Francis.
  30. ↑ Barbosa, Inês; Lopes, João Teixeira; Ferro, Lígia (May 30 2023). "Artists against tourism gentrification: analysing creative practices of resistance in Porto". Debats. 8: 46. doi:10.28939/iam.debats-137-1.2 – via ProQuest. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  31. ↑ Barbosa, Inês; Lopes, João Teixeira; Ferro, Lígia (May 30 2023). "Artists against tourism gentrification: analysing creative practices of resistance in Porto". Debats. 8: 47. doi:10.28939/iam.debats-137-1.2 – via ProQuest.
  32. ↑ Barbosa, Inês; Lopes, João Teixeira; Ferro, Lígia (May 30 2023). "Artists against tourism gentrification: analysing creative practices of resistance in Porto". Debats. 8: 48. doi:10.28939/iam.debats-137-1.2 – via ProQuest.
  33. ↑ Lee, Seon Young; Han, Yoonai (2020). "When art meets monsters: Mapping art activism and anti-gentrification movements in Seoul". City, Culture and Society. 21: 3. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100292 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.



Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2024/Gentrification_in_Vancouver%27s_Downtown_Eastside&oldid=840991"