Course:GEOG350/2024/Green Arcitecture

Green Architecture in Vancouver: Introduction

Vancouver is a beautiful city renowned for its seamless blend of urbanity and nature. Vancouver is often referenced as a case study for sustainability and the integration of natural elements into urban settings (2). But it is also a city torn by income inequality and capitalist motivations, especially in housing. This has created a demand for unique solutions tailored to Vancouver. Allowing for innovative architecture and inspiring further research on environmental impacts and cost effective solutions as reusing materials could satisfy both(948).The portrayal of Vancouver’s environment as an inherent feature of the city often obscures its association with wealth. In this research project, I want to analyze environmental inequality through a visual lens, seeking to answer: why does nature equate with wealth in Vancouver, and how is it used to manipulate the urban landscape, exacerbating disparity? I believe that the built environment of Vancouver uses nature as a marketing tool and as a mechanism of class alienation. The built environment, as a physical manifestation of political realities, reveals how the notion of nature can drive eco-gentrification. The commodification of nature has resulted in environmental inequality in the urban world. For the wealthy, nature is used to isolate them  from the burden of a gritty urban world and facilitate privileged  discussions of wealth and reconnecting with nature. Areas such as North Vancouver and West End are filled with greenery, parks, and scenic views, which drive up property values and the quality of life. Access to the view and well kept nature serve as signals of affluence and privilege and justify the impossible Vancouver prices. While for the low income residents nature is minimal and utilitarian. Existing through the concepts of communal gardens, recycling initiatives, and other sustainable practices that, while beneficial, do not provide the same level of aesthetic or recreational value. Placing the burden of the environment on the poor. Sax, Nesbitt and Hagerman state “there exist vast disparities in the distribution, accessibility, and experience of urban greening that disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities and residents…urban greening intended to rectify inequities, such as the renewal or installation of public parks or community gardens, can contribute to or elicit shifts in property value, encouraging novel speculative commercial and retail investment” (2009) outlining how simply focusing on adding greenery in low income areas is not a solution but  rather step one in gentrification. There needs to be consciousness around the concept of nature in urban planning, guided by class consciousness. Vancouver as a case study brings light to those who can experience the beauty of the green city and those who have to sacrifice to protect it. By analyzing the symbolic power of architecture and the built environment, the hidden agendas that perpetuate environmental inequality become apparent. Vancouver’s architectural design reveals a city where nature's integration is not merely an accidental  aesthetic choice but a deliberate strategy to enhance property values and segregate communities by class. This case study of Vancouver demonstrates how nature is leveraged to create and maintain urban disparities.

Overview

Vancouver Context

Oakridge proposal rendering

Vancouver is experiencing a trend of environmental commodification, especially in the context of luxury construction. Nature is used as a reference point, becoming a selling feature rather than a public good. This phenomenon is described by Noah Quastel, who notes that “Rhetorics of nature were modified into languages of safety, health, and cleanliness as a gentrified streetscape was favored…these became part of the sales pitch. Increasingly, private developers deployed similar language” (712-715). Through commodification, nature becomes something that can be purchased, something exclusive, and in need of protection from public access. The commodification of nature is evident in luxury developments where designers regularly cite the surrounding nature as they would an amenity. Proposal renderings of waterfront properties and high-rise condos show green roofs, vertical gardens, and perfect weather. In proposal renderings greenery is used as a perimeter around the proposed construction separating it from the city. Coupled with the multi-layered rooftop gardens and the overhead perspective the renderings aim to market itself as a natural development for Vancouver, it is hard to call green ugly or bad allowing it to work as a cosmetic touch. These features are heavily marketed, attracting affluent buyers who seek a connection to nature without sacrificing urban comforts. This results in eco-gentrification in Vancouver, transforming the city into a “green” metropolis that is paradoxically difficult to criticize. These developments often come at the expense of marginalized communities. The transformation of industrial or lower-income areas into upscale, green neighborhoods displaces long-term residents, pushing them to the fringes of the city where access to green spaces is only one of the many limited amenities.

Greening of Industrial Waterfronts

The redevelopment of False Creek, an industrial area turned into a vibrant, green neighborhood is an obvious example. This transformation was heralded as a major environmental achievement, showcasing sustainable design and urban greening. However, the high property values and living costs in the area have made it inaccessible to many, reinforcing social and economic divides. The emphasis on creating eco-friendly luxury spaces highlights how environmental benefits are often reserved for the wealthy, while marginalized communities bear the brunt of urban development pressures.The greening of Vancouver’s industrial waterfronts to make way for the current green metropolis was presented as an environmental effort but Stern, and Hall recognize another motivation, “to overcome the city’s longstanding reputation as industrial and gritty” (80), which was successful. Vancouver's reputation as a green city is bolstered by the inherent "good" of nature. As Angelo points out, “the intrinsic ‘good’ of nature … [as it] appear[s] to be asocial, ahistorical, and universally beneficial, greening projects can be taken to be self-evidently desirable” (8).

Green Language and Visuals

The use of language and visuals in these developments is crucial. The supposed apolitical are the vehicle for urban change. By employing visuals of nature in new development developers signal wealth and isolation from the urban grime. These visual elements are not merely aesthetic choices but strategic tools designed to attract a specific demographic. By incorporating preformative greenery, organic open design, and eco-friendly features, developers create an illusion of an untouched natural paradise within the urban environment. Moreover, the language used to describe these developments often obscures their exclusivity. Terms like “sustainable,” “green,” and “eco-friendly” carry positive connotations, suggesting inclusivity and public benefit. This serves to elevate the status of these properties.However, the reality is that these developments are frequently policed, privately owned, and often not actually environmentally conscious. The commodification of nature in this context serves to enhance property values and market appeal rather than providing genuine environmental or social benefits. I want to focus on the visual manifestations to show how this is not accidental but manufactured for profit. As the world increasingly turns towards green initiatives, it is imperative to recognize and critique the performative aspects of such developments. Unfortunately capitalism benefits more from performances like architecture rather than real change.This means that sustainable developments often prioritize aesthetic appeal and marketability over genuine environmental impact, perpetuating inequality under the guise of eco-friendliness.

Not Just Vancouver

Vancouver is recognized by Quastel as an important case study to further the study of eco-gentrification (694), but the issue is not isolated to Vancouver. Similar patterns are observed globally, where green architecture and sustainable design are used more as marketing tools than genuine efforts to address environmental concerns. James J.T Connolly states that urban greening is becoming a crucial part of “the contemporary planning orthodoxy in a manner that favors large scale, high profile, socially homogeneous spaces rather than small scale, heterogeneous and neighborhood oriented spaces.” (65). The trend of eco-gentrification in Vancouver is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a broader global pattern. Cities worldwide are increasingly adopting green initiatives that prioritize marketable aesthetics over meaningful change. This approach aligns with capitalist motivations, where the primary goal is profit rather than addressing environmental or social issues. Green architecture and sustainable design become tools for marketing and profit generation, rather than instruments of genuine environmental stewardship. For instance, the High Line in New York City, a linear park built on a disused railway track, has been praised for its innovative design and urban greening. By utilizing it's accidental landscape a product of years of abandonment. However, the development has also led to significant increases in property values and living costs in the surrounding area, displacing long-term residents furthering gentrification through using the negative effects of neoliberal urban governance to generate more profit. Similar patterns can be observed globally and are in accordance to neoliberal principles of profit over all.

Case Study: Three Projects

Eco-gentrification leads to increased property values and living costs, pushing lower-income residents out of their neighborhoods. For example the example of False Creek development once an industrial area open to the working class now filled with luxury apartments on the water. As developers market eco-friendly and green spaces, these areas become desirable for wealthier individuals, displacing the previous populations. The commodification of nature creates a psychological divide, where lower-income residents are alienated or excluded from the 'green' narrative of the city. Through creating a connection between wealth and the government there becomes an understanding of who deserves to experience beauty. To demonstrate I will focus on three constructions I feel demonstrate this trend, TELUS Garden, The Butterfly, and Belcourt Residence.

TELUS Garden

TELUS Garden interior

TELUS Garden

TELUS Garden is a mixed-use development located in downtown Vancouver, celebrated for its green design and advanced technological features. The building boasts over 10,000 square feet of green space, including two elevated roof forests that create an urban oasis amidst the city’s concrete jungle. TELUS Garden incorporates glass facades to maximize natural light and provide panoramic views of the surrounding cityscape, blending organic shapes and wooden detailing to merge the natural with the urban. According to Introba, the building's designers, TELUS Garden represents "a stunning and true representation of British Columbia".This emphasis on natural elements not only enhances the aesthetic appeal but also serves as a marketing tool, positioning the building as a high-end, eco-friendly living space that appeals to affluent buyers. The name TELUS Garden further hints to the motivation of making this building a natural oasis within the city. TELUS Garden is a preformative building that uses very direct and obvious natural design elements to position itself as a 'garden', Bozikovic is not impressed, stating "And yet walking through their own Telus Garden office space, it's clear that the rhetoric of innovation and the designers' touch only travels so far. Most of the space is a grey-on-grey cubicle farm, albeit with lovely rooftop terraces." .Bozikovic's critique highlights the irony within green architecture exemplified by TELUS Garden. If the designers were to remove all the trees inside and on top of the building, would it still be considered green? Without the trees planted in pots inside TELUS Garden, it would be just a regular skyscraper in downtown Vancouver. The indoor garden serves to give the building's privileged inhabitants the illusion of nature, offering the satisfying feeling of being within nature while still enjoying the comforts of air conditioning. The performative nature of TELUS Garden underscores a broader trend in urban development where green design elements are used more for their aesthetic and marketability than for genuine environmental impact. By incorporating visible greenery, developers can market the building as eco-friendly, appealing to buyers who see luxury through a connection to nature. However, the true environmental benefits of such designs are often superficial, prioritizing visual appeal over substantive sustainability. TELUS Garden represents the commodification of nature so that it can serve as a selling point. This development, while visually striking and technologically advanced, ultimately raises questions about the authenticity and true intent of so-called green buildings.

The Butterfly

The Butterfly

The Butterfly is located in West End and is a notable part of the skyline. Visually a very interesting building it uses mainly organic shapes and creates a cocoon effect. While different from TELUS Garden, The Butterfly does not incorporate physical greenery within its structure. Instead, it aims to evoke natural imagery through its design. The silhouette features organic shapes, and the asymmetry of the lower windows, which appear to almost engulf the adjacent First Baptist Church, contributes to a chaotic yet natural design. This is balanced through the rhythmic curves of the windows along the building, with dark glass that aligns with Vancouver's architectural style. There are rooftop gardens, and open concept breathable corridors to reduce the need for ventilation. Their mission statement is as follows: “It started out as an impossible idea: to build homes in the sky, housed within a vertical neighbourhood of outdoor spaces, a sense of being one with nature and of belonging in your built environment. To give familiarity to change and an openness, yet with privacy.”, again emphasizing a connection with nature through visual and experiential design elements, reinforcing the idea of an exclusive, elevated lifestyle that is intertwined with natural beauty yet remains detached from the grime of city life. The unique nature of The Butterfly is reflected in the pricing. With an average cost of $3,274 per square foot, an apartment in The Butterfly ranges from $3.5 million to $7.8 million. Even by Vancouver standards, the pricing is steep, driven by the design, access to panoramic views, and the convenience of being downtown. The Butterfly demonstrates the use of design to evoke a sense of connection with nature to drive up pricing. The Butterfly’s organic shapes and open spaces offer a visual and sensory experience of nature, appealing to buyers seeking luxury and a unique living environment. The Butterfly showcases how architecture can blend natural imagery with urban convenience, creating an exclusive lifestyle for its residents. While it lacks the physical greenery of other eco-friendly designs, its organic shapes and open spaces provide a sense of being connected to nature. The building’s high prices reflect its unique design and prime location, reinforcing its status as a luxury residence in Vancouver. The Butterfly highlights a broader trend in urban development, where the aesthetic and experiential aspects of nature are leveraged to create desirable, high-end living spaces, which are very profitable for developers.

Belcourt Residence

Belcourt Residence is located in Strathcona Village and designed by GBL Architects, garnered attention for its distinctive design that incorporates the aesthetic of shipping containers. The use of faux shipping containers is interesting as it reflects two primary goals of the project. The first being sustainability,  although it should be noted that using shipping containers for housing is not inherently sustainable, and in this case, the design merely replicates their appearance. Mimicking shipping containers is a popular trend in Vancouver as it symbolizes upcycling without actually implementing it. Using Shipping containers as a substitute to steel framing has positive environmental impacts but the steel frame is not visible and hard to market. Second, the project wanted to keep the industrial spirit of Strathcona and to create affordable housing. Here its success is again questionable. Belcourt Residence provides 70 units at discount pricing, 23 units at 80-90% of market value, 24 of the units at no more than $375/month, and 23 of the units are occupied by Housing Income Limits. While this is beneficial the rest of the 280 units are market properties. This limited provision of affordable housing amidst predominantly market-priced units raises questions about the project's overall impact on affordability in the area, potentially driving gentrification into the area. It is interesting to see how affordability changes the way in which nature is used as a reference point. In luxury housing, nature is depicted as clean and isolated from the urban environment. In contrast, in affordable housing projects like Belcourt Residence, nature is associated with concepts like upcycling and industrial aesthetics. This contrast highlights the differing ways in which natural elements and sustainability are marketed and perceived in various socio-economic contexts within the city.

Lessons learned

Vancouver is a city that is defined by its proximity and inclusion of the environment within the urban. This allows it to be a pioneer in green architecture and develop new visuals such as The Butterfly. However, Vancouver also demonstrates how green architecture serves capitalist interests and works to further urban inequality. Vancouver's urban landscape demonstrates how nature is commodified and used as a marketing tool to create exclusive, high-value properties. The portrayal of nature in luxury developments highlights a critical issue: environmental benefits are often reserved for the affluent. Benefits such as the view, the waterfront, and proximity to well kept parks are readily available and seen as amenities in new luxury developments. Simultaneously, in housing that is marketed as affordable nature is referenced in a protective manner. This outlines a deeper issue with performative sustainability that is isolated from material realities of a city torn by income inequalities and ecological impacts. through analyzing city visuals and what is being used to market we can begin to see to calculated and intentional exclusion within the city. Performative construction cannot be viewed as anything but, even if visually appealing and there has to be radical inclusion in the world of urban design to prevent further isolation and ostracization of marginalized communities, and the benefits that come from that exclusion to a privileged minority. Vancouver's green architecture offers valuable lessons on the complexities of urban development, environmental commodification, and social equity.

References

This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.