Course:GEOG350/2024/Unsafe spaces in Vancouver

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

Urban environments are where private, public, and unsafe spaces intersect, shaping how people live and feel. Understanding the design and management of these spaces is key to making sure all residents are safe and included. Urban safety includes various aspects like crime prevention, housing quality, and environmental care, all contributing to social equity. Social equity in urban planning means ensuring that everyone, no matter their socio-economic status, has access to the same resources and opportunities[1]. Urban safety also includes the aspect of forms of structural and economic violence.

The concepts of structural violence and epistemic violence, an aspect of structural violence, offer insights into the root causes of urban inequities. Structural violence refers to systematic ways social structures harm or disadvantage people, often through policies or institutional practices that perpetuate inequality[2]. For example, urban planning decisions that favor wealthy areas over poorer ones can create disparities in infrastructure, public services, and safety. Epistemic violence involves the marginalization of certain groups' knowledge and perspectives, influencing whose voices are heard and whose experiences are considered in urban development[3]. This type of violence can manifest in planning processes that exclude input from marginalized communities, leading to outcomes that fail to address their needs.

Additionally, incorporating Doreen Massey's concept of the "sense of place," we realize that places are not static but are constantly shaped by social relationships and power dynamics. Massey's idea emphasizes that places are defined by the interactions and connections they foster, which evolve over time[4]. This perspective helps us understand how different areas within a city can develop unique identities and levels of safety, influencing changes in social composition, economic conditions, and public policies. Livability of a city is given by various factors.

This part of the wiki delves into these issues by focusing on Vancouver, a city known for its livability and inclusivity but also facing significant safety and fairness challenges. Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES) serves as a focal point for understanding the broader dynamics of urban safety and social equity. Despite being home to a resilient community with a strong sense of identity, the DTES faces profound issues like high crime rates, homelessness, and substance abuse. These challenges are compounded by the area's socio-economic disparities and historical marginalization[5]. The high incidence of crime in the DTES is not just a result of individual behaviors but is deeply rooted in systemic issues such as inadequate housing, lack of mental health support, and economic marginalization[6]. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for creating inclusive and safe urban environments[7]. Effective policy-making and urban planning must recognize the interconnectedness of private, public, and unsafe spaces and address the underlying social and structural factors contributing to urban inequities.

A detailed overview

Vancouver is denoted the 5th most livable city in the world[8], Scoring high in healthcare, education, infrastructure and so on. However, in Vancouver, unsafe spaces are often found in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates, inadequate housing, and limited access to social services[9]. These areas can become hotspots for criminal activities like drug-related offenses and violence. The DTES is a well-known example, with long-standing social and economic issues making it an unsafe area[10]. Additionally, unsafe spaces can include areas prone to environmental hazards such as flooding or pollution, adding further dangers for residents[11]. Discrimination, classism and other forms of structural violence can also impact the safety of a space.

The DTES is notorious for its high crime rates. It has a dense population of low-income residents, many of whom struggle with addiction and mental health issues. Majority of the residents represent minorities. The area experiences elevated levels of violent crime, property crime, and drug-related offenses, making it a central issue for urban safety interventions[10]. Nearby areas like Gastown and Chinatown also face significant crime levels, particularly property crimes and drug offenses, due to their proximity to the DTES[11]. Additionally, Commercial Drive and parts of Southern Vancouver have elevated crime rates for similar types of crime. The socio-economic diversity in these areas contributes to these issues[12]. These neighborhoods often see higher incidences of violent crime and property crime due to economic disparities[13]. The scale of the issue is extensive, affecting thousands of residents across multiple neighborhoods.

West Point Grey has a relatively low crime rate compared to the DTES. Strathcona, a part of the DTES, has significantly higher crime rates across almost all categories compared to West Point Grey. For example, It has particularly high numbers in assaults (71 vs. 3), break and enter (27 vs. 9), and theft under $5K (60 vs. 3). West Point Grey has relatively low crime rates, with some categories such as sex offences, robbery, arson, mischief, and offensive weapons showing zero incidents for June 2023.

Significant increases in property costs and a rise in population of people have occurred. The most vulnerable are local businesses and minorities that live in the area. The stigma and marginalization faced by residents can hinder efforts to provide effective support and services. This stigma often results in discriminatory practices, both in terms of social interactions and institutional responses, which can exacerbate the problems faced by the community[14]. The high crime rates contribute to a pervasive sense of insecurity among residents and visitors alike. Along with this, businesses in the area suffer, as potential customers may avoid the DTES due to its reputation. This economic impact further entrenches the neighborhood in a cycle of poverty and crime.

The physical environment of the DTES is another factor that contributes to its status as an unsafe space. The neighborhood is characterized by aging and often poorly maintained infrastructure. Public amenities are insufficient, and the overall environment can feel neglected and unsafe. Issues such as poor lighting, lack of green spaces, and deteriorating buildings contribute to the sense of insecurity and neglect[13]. The physical decay of the DTES not only impacts the day-to-day lives of its residents but also symbolizes the broader neglect of the community. Efforts to revitalize the area must address these physical issues to improving safety and livability. Therefore, the DTES is often stigmatized, exacerbating the problems faced by its residents. However, it is also a community with a strong sense of identity and resilience, making it crucial for targeted interventions and support[10].

Crime is a common issue in many urban areas worldwide, driven by factors such as poverty, unemployment, and social inequality. Cities like Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, and Detroit face high crime rates and have neighborhoods similar to Vancouver's DTES. These issues often stem from economic disparities, poverty, and social inequality prevalent in these regions.

In Rio de Janeiro, for instance, neighborhoods such as Rocinha and Complexo do Alemão face significant social and economic challenges, including poverty and inadequate access to basic services. These areas are characterized by high crime rates, drug trafficking, and violence, similar to the challenges observed in Vancouver's DTES[15]. In Johannesburg, South Africa, townships like Soweto and Alexandra struggle with high levels of unemployment, poverty, and crime. These urban areas experience social exclusion and limited access to essential services, contributing to unsafe living conditions and high crime rates[16].

Similarly, in Detroit, Michigan, economic decline and urban decay have left many neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, unemployment, and crime. Areas such as the East Side and Southwest Detroit face challenges related to drug trafficking, violence, and inadequate housing, mirroring some of the issues seen in Vancouver's DTES[16].

Beyond economic disparities, environmental hazards also play a role in creating unsafe living conditions in urban areas globally. For example, informal settlements in cities across Asia, Africa, and Latin America often contend with environmental risks such as flooding, industrial pollution, and lack of sanitation infrastructure[15]. These issues manifest in various forms across different cities, highlighting the global nature of urban safety and the interconnectedness of urban development, social equity, and crime prevention strategies.

In Vancouver, rapid urbanization and gentrification present new challenges. Maintaining social cohesion and equity is more important than ever. Through inclusive policies and community engagement, Vancouver can address the underlying social and structural factors that contribute to urban inequities, fostering an environment where all residents can thrive.

Case Study: Downtown Eastside (DTES) in Vancouver

The Downtown Eastside, situated in the heart of Vancouver, is one of the city's oldest neighborhoods, comprising five areas: Chinatown, Gastown, Victory Square, Strathcona, and Oppenheimer, alongside a park and industrial zone. As stated above, The Downtown Eastside (DTES) is a prominent example of an unsafe space in Vancouver. Known for high rates of homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health issues, the DTES has been a key focus for city planners, social workers, and policymakers[6]. Around 2000 individuals at a time face one or more of the many problems in the DTES[17]. The neighborhood's deep-rooted social and economic challenges mean many residents experience marginalization and exclusion, often worsened by the stigma associated with living in the DTES.

Residents of the DTES deal with inadequate housing, limited access to healthcare, and insufficient social services. Many residents live in substandard conditions, with overcrowded and poorly maintained housing being common. The high rate of homelessness in the area exacerbates these issues. Homeless individuals often face daily struggles for survival, including finding safe places to sleep, access to food, and protection from the elements. The lack of affordable housing options and the increasing cost of living in Vancouver have further strained this vulnerable population.

Many individuals in this area struggle with addiction and mental health issues, compounding the difficulties they face[14]. The physical environment of the DTES, characterized by aging infrastructure and insufficient public amenities, further contributes to the challenges experienced by residents[13]. Many individuals suffer from untreated or inadequately treated mental health conditions, which can lead to behaviors that increase their vulnerability to crime and exploitation. The intersection of mental health issues and substance abuse creates a cycle of dependency and marginalization that is challenging to break without comprehensive support systems. Many of these issues overlap and intersect. For example, high levels of unemployment have been linked to alcoholism and health problems[17]. Despite these issues, the DTES community has shown resilience, making targeted interventions and support crucial[10]. Substance abuse is also a significant issue in the DTES, with a high prevalence of drug addiction contributing to the area's unsafe reputation. The opioid crisis has hit the DTES particularly hard, with many residents struggling with addiction to substances like heroin and fentanyl. This crisis has led to a high number of overdose deaths, further straining emergency services and healthcare providers in the area.

How it affects Vancouver

The urban population of Vancouver is directly and indirectly affected by issues related to urban safety, social equity, and city planning in the Downtown Eastside. Direct impacts include the quality of public spaces, access to services, and safety concerns affecting residents and visitors alike. Indirectly, these issues influence broader perceptions of the city's livability, economic attractiveness, and social cohesion, which can impact population dynamics such as migration, housing choices, and community engagement across Vancouver.

The conditions of public spaces in the DTES directly impact residents and visitors. Issues such as cleanliness, maintenance, and safety affect how these spaces are utilized and perceived. For instance, areas with high crime rates or visible homelessness may deter people from using parks or walking through certain neighborhoods. The availability and accessibility of essential services like healthcare, social services, and community resources vary across different parts of Vancouver, including the DTES. Residents in areas with inadequate services may face challenges in accessing healthcare facilities, social support networks, and educational opportunities. High crime rates and safety concerns in the DTES have direct implications for residents' and visitors' daily lives. Fear of crime can impact mobility and personal well-being, affecting how people navigate and interact within urban spaces. Issues such as drug-related activities and homelessness also contribute to safety concerns that directly affect the local population.

The conditions in the DTES also influence broader perceptions of Vancouver's livability and attractiveness. Positive perceptions can attract investment and tourism, while negative perceptions may deter potential residents and businesses. City planning and development decisions in the DTES impact Vancouver's economic vitality. Investments in infrastructure, housing developments, and cultural preservation in the DTES can contribute to economic growth and urban revitalization efforts. Efforts to address social disparities, promote inclusive urban development, and support community initiatives in the DTES can foster a more cohesive and resilient urban fabric across Vancouver.

Perceptions of safety, social services, and urban amenities in the DTES influence population dynamics in Vancouver. Residents and newcomers may choose neighborhoods based on factors such as affordability, safety, and community services availability. Issues in the DTES can impact housing choices and residential mobility patterns citywide. Community engagement efforts in the DTES can inspire citywide initiatives, shaping policies and practices that promote equitable urban development and enhance quality of life for all residents.

Crime Analysis

Analyzing crime data by type and its correlation with gender, age, race, and economic level provides a deeper understanding of the issues in the DTES and other unsafe spaces. Violent crimes like assault and homicide are predominantly committed by males, who also represent the majority of victims[18]. Young adults, particularly those aged 18-24, are more likely to be involved in violent crimes, either as perpetrators or victims[19]. Racial minorities often appear disproportionately in violent crime statistics[18]. Higher rates of violent crimes are found in lower socio-economic areas, linked to factors like poverty and lack of education[12].

For property crimes like burglary and theft, males commit the majority, though the gap is narrower than in violent crimes[18]. Young adults (18-24) are frequently involved in property crimes[19]. There are higher incidences among racial minorities[18]. Property crimes are more common in economically disadvantaged areas[9].

Drug-related crimes show that men are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses, though drug use rates between genders are similar[18]. Drug-related crimes are most common among individuals aged 18-30[19]. Certain racial minorities are disproportionately arrested for drug-related offenses due to policing practices[18]. Higher prevalence in lower-income areas is often due to economic desperation[12].

When analyzing crime data, violent crime rates are 80% male and 20% female[10]. The majority of crimes are committed by individuals aged 18 to 24, with 50% of the offenders being white[11]. Most crimes are committed by people from low-income backgrounds (60%)[12].

Initiatives and Interventions

Social housing projects and community-based organizations work to provide stable housing and support services for DTES residents. These projects aim to address the root causes of homelessness and poverty, offering not just shelter but also support services such as addiction treatment, mental health care, and job training[11]. The creation of mixed-income housing developments can also help to integrate the DTES with surrounding neighborhoods, reducing segregation and fostering social cohesion.

Supervised injection sites are a key component of harm reduction in the DTES. These sites provide safe spaces for drug use under medical supervision, reducing the risks associated with drug use, such as overdoses and the spread of infectious diseases. These programs are credited with saving lives and improving health outcomes for drug users[20]. In addition to supervised injection sites, needle exchange programs and access to naloxone kits are vital harm reduction strategies. These initiatives aim to reduce the harm associated with drug use while connecting individuals with addiction treatment and other support services.

Efforts to improve the physical infrastructure of the DTES include enhancing public spaces, improving lighting, and renovating or replacing aging buildings. These improvements can make the neighborhood feel safer and more welcoming, which can have positive effects on residents' quality of life and perceptions of safety. Projects such as the revitalization of public parks and the installation of public art can also play a role in transforming the physical and social landscape of the DTES.

Community policing initiatives aim to build trust between residents and law enforcement. These programs involve officers working closely with the community to understand their needs and concerns, fostering a sense of cooperation and mutual respect. Outreach programs also involve social workers and other professionals who can provide support and resources to residents, helping to address underlying issues such as addiction and mental health problems[21]. Programs like the Vancouver Police Department's Beat Enforcement Team (BET) focus on proactive policing and building relationships within the community, which can help to reduce crime and improve public safety.

Advocacy groups play a crucial role in highlighting the needs and rights of DTES residents. These groups work to influence policy at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels, pushing for changes that can lead to long-term improvements in housing, healthcare, and social services.

Policies that prioritize affordable housing, mental health services, and harm reduction are essential for addressing the systemic issues that contribute to the DTES's challenges. Collaboration between government agencies, non-profit organizations, and community groups is necessary to create and implement policies that are responsive to the needs of DTES residents.

Lesson learned

Implementing harm reduction programs, such as supervised injection sites and needle exchange programs, has proven instrumental in reducing health risks associated with substance abuse. For instance, initiatives like these not only mitigate overdose deaths but also curb the spread of infectious diseases among vulnerable populations[20]. This approach highlights the transformative power of public health strategies in enhancing urban safety, shifting the focus from punitive measures to supportive interventions that prioritize health outcomes.

Engaging local communities in the planning and implementation of solutions is equally crucial. By involving residents in decision-making processes, interventions can better address the specific needs and challenges of the area. Community-led initiatives are often more effective in fostering trust, cooperation, and sustainability in urban development efforts[22]. This participatory approach not only empowers residents but also ensures that interventions are culturally sensitive and contextually relevant, thereby enhancing their impact and acceptance.

Improving the physical environment of unsafe spaces plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions of safety and fostering community cohesion. Neglected urban areas, characterized by poor lighting, inadequate public amenities, and deteriorating infrastructure, contribute to feelings of insecurity and social isolation[23]. By investing in revitalization efforts—such as enhancing green spaces, renovating buildings, and promoting public art—cities can create environments that are not only safer but also more inviting and inclusive. These improvements contribute to a more livable urban environment where residents feel a stronger sense of belonging and pride.

Addressing the root causes of social and economic disparities requires integrated strategies that go beyond immediate solutions. Combining efforts in social services, affordable housing, and public health initiatives is essential for creating sustainable change[12]. Initiatives that provide stable housing, access to healthcare, and support for education and employment opportunities are critical in breaking cycles of poverty and marginalization. By addressing systemic inequities through comprehensive strategies, cities can foster environments where all residents have the opportunity to thrive.

In conclusion, the lessons learned from addressing challenges like those in Vancouver's DTES underscore the importance of multifaceted approaches in urban policy and planning. By prioritizing public health, community engagement, environmental enhancements, and systemic change, cities can effectively improve urban safety, promote social equity, and create more inclusive urban environments. These lessons serve as a blueprint for cities globally to tackle complex urban issues with compassion, innovation, and a commitment to improving quality of life for all residents.

References

  1. ↑ Anderson, J. "Urban Safety and Social Equity." Urban Studies Journal, 2018.
  2. ↑ Galtung, J. "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research." Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 1969, pp. 167-191.
  3. ↑ Spivak, G. C. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271-313.
  4. ↑ Massey, D. Space, Place, and Gender. University of Minnesota Press, 1994.
  5. ↑ City of Vancouver. "Downtown Eastside Plan." City of Vancouver, 2020.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Collins, D., & Wilson, K. "Urban Health and Safety." Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 2017.
  7. ↑ Smith, N. "Inclusive Urban Planning." Urban Planning Quarterly, 2020.
  8. ↑ Carey C. "Vancouver Ranks Third Most Liveable City in the World for 2023." CityNews Vancouver, 22 June 2023, https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/06/22/vancouver-most-liveable-city-ranking/#:~:text=For%20the%20second%20year%20in,for%20infrastructure%20and%20stability%2C%20respectively. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Johnson, R. Urban Crime and Infrastructure. Journal of Urban Affairs, 2019.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Vancouver Police Department. "Crime Data and Analysis." Vancouver Police Department, 2024.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 City of Vancouver. DTES Plan: Phase 2 Report. City of Vancouver, 2020.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Harris, M. Social Equity and Urban Safety. Urban Policy Review, 2021.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Wilson, J. Environmental Safety in Urban Areas. Environmental Studies Journal, 2018.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 City of Vancouver. "Community Safety Programs." City of Vancouver, 2014.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 UN-Habitat. World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2020.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Davis, M. Planet of Slums. Verso, 2006.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Vancouver Police Department. "Project Lockstep." Vancouver Police Department, June 2021, https://vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/vpd-project-lockstep.pdf.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Crime Statistics Report." Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2019.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 Statistics Canada. "Canadian Crime Statistics." Statistics Canada, 2020.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Wood, E., et al. "Impact of Supervised Injection Facilities on Neighborhood Safety." Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 94, no. 6, 2003, pp. 454-45
  21. ↑ Kerr, T., et al. "Community Policing and Public Health." The Lancet, 2006.
  22. ↑ Kerr, D., et al. "Community Policing in the DTES: A Collaborative Approach." Policing and Society, vol. 16, no. 3, 2006, pp. 245-262.
  23. ↑ Wilson, A. Urban Decay and Public Safety. Vancouver: Urban Press, 2018.
This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.



Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2024/Unsafe_spaces_in_Vancouver&oldid=841103"