Course:GEOG350/2024/Urban Isolation in Shaughnessy

From UBC Wiki
Neoclassical mansion behind a metal gate and stone wall, showing the level of privacy and defensive architecture present in Vancouver's Shaughnessy neighbourhood.

Introduction

Cities have always been subject to changes, due to their nature of being social, political, and economic centers of human civilization, with high numbers of transient inhabitants and hosting a variety of urban activities. These changes are often results of rapidly shifting political ideologies and values, and are constantly in flux and contestation among urban inhabitants, institutions, and governments. With increasing globalization, urbanization and immigration to cities, these changes will only become stronger and more frequent. When urban areas within cities do not follow the trends of change, it can result in urban isolation through their disconnection from the rest of the city and from the interest of the general public.

In many cases, this condition of isolation in particular areas can be seen as desirable for urban inhabitants, which explains their existence. Exclusive neighbourhoods, such as gated communities, are designed specifically to foster a sense of safety and security due to their physical separation from the surrounding area using barriers such as gates, walls, hedges and fences.[1] Less obvious spatial strategies, such as cul-de-sacs, restrictive zoning, and larger lot sizes can also be used to promote a sense of separation from the larger urban environment.

Isolated urban districts such as these tend to be largely residential, and can have an extremely private character, attributed to the spatial strategies used to create a sense of separation from the city. This privateness is most obvious in gated communities, as outsiders cannot gain any access to the inside; but for neighbourhoods that are still connected to the surrounding street layout, this impression of privateness remains, even in its supposedly public spaces such as its streets, sidewalks and parks. Although private spaces are often equated with safety, public spaces that feel private can make outsiders feel unsafe and uncomfortable. This is an important consideration for urban space, because the subjective and objective indicators of private and public influence how people interact with and inhabit urban spaces. Private spaces and exclusive neighbourhoods, in particular, may be welcoming for some, and exclusionary for others, worsening social and spatial inequality in cities. To create a more equitable urban space, we need to critically examine the interplay between private and public in cities. For this reason, this chapter falls under the section of the course concerned with private, public and unsafe space.

The following case study examines the Shaughnessy neighbourhood in Vancouver, British Columbia as a local example of an exclusive area that is spatially and socially isolated from the rest of the city. This chapter's Overview will provide historical context behind the current status of urban isolation in Shaughnessy. Then, the chapter will discuss the Disadvantages of Shaughnessy's Urban Isolation, for its residents as well as outsiders. Finally, the Potential Solutions section will provide information on current actions that are being done on a municipal level to help resolve some of these issues in part, and propose future actions that could help to mitigate the adverse effects of Shaughnessy's urban isolation.

Overview

1924 aerial photograph of Shaughnessy Heights, looking North. Granville Island can be seen at the top left.

Development

From the beginning, the neighbourhood of Shaughnessy was conceptualized as a way for Vancouver's wealthy elite to resist and retreat from the changes brought by the burgeoning city at the turn of the 20th century.[2] In 1907, the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) decided to develop 250 acres of company land south of False Creek into a prestigious residential area that would attract affluent families who were living in the rapidly-changing West End to purchase land and settle there.[2] This area would become known as Shaughnessy Heights. The CPR invested millions into laying out curved, tree-lined boulevards and large building lots. The minimum price for building a house was set at $6000, significantly more than the standard $1000 bungalow, thus preventing most Vancouverites from being able to afford a lot.[3] The houses that were built were often designed by the city's leading architects and were modelled after English country manors.[2] This approach to the design of the neighbourhood evoked pastoral myths of the English countryside, and served as an idyllic retreat from the chaos and grittiness associated with industrial city life.[4] Indeed, the main appeal of Shaughnessy Heights was that residents would find "greater amenities and fewer threats of encroachment by businesses and the lower social orders".[2] Soon, most of the city's elite resided here, and the CPR and residents worked tirelessly over the years to ensure it stayed that way.

Exclusionary Zoning

Shaughnessy's exclusivity was legally entrenched in legislative actions, largely driven by the CPR, such as the Shaughnessy Settlement Act of 1914 and the Shaughnessy Heights Building Restriction Act of 1922, which restricted development in the neighbourhood to one single-family house per lot.[3]

In 1982, additional municipal bylaws were enacted for First Shaughnessy (the northernmost and oldest area of Shaughnessy) in response to the rapid transformation of neighbourhoods in East Vancouver.[4] Around the same time, many properties in Shaughnessy were being purchased by wealthy Chinese immigrants and redeveloped with what Anglo-Canadian residents disdainfully referred to as "monster houses", due to their unusually large size and incompatibility with the aesthetic of the older British-style manor houses.[4] Thus, with pressure from the Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Association, First Shaughnessy was rezoned to an entirely new category called the First Shaughnessy District, which aimed to protect its "historic and aesthetic character".[4] In conjunction with this rezoning, City Council approved a series of extremely detailed design guidelines for new development in First Shaughnessy, and created the First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel, which required development applications to go through another stage of scrutinizing review.

In 1992, the Property Owners Association wanted the city to enact similar bylaws in Second and Third Shaughnessy, but were unsuccessful due to allegations of racist zoning and unfair community consultation practices against Chinese residents.[5] To this date, Second and Third Shaughnessy remain under standard residential zoning due to the efforts of the Chinese community to defend their property rights.

In 2015, the city gave First Shaughnessy heritage conservation status to prevent demolitions of heritage character houses.[6] Previously, First Shaughnessy was only dedicated a heritage "character" area, and did not prevent demolitions.

Today

Over the years, as Vancouver has expanded, densified and rezoned to accommodate new populations and economic interests, Shaughnessy has done the opposite. This resistance to accept and accommodate these changes has resulted in its urban isolation. Shaughnessy was designed to be spatially isolated from the city, and the effects of it are even more apparent today compared to when the streets were laid out in the early 20th century. The curving street layout, the mature trees that cast the streets in eternal shadow, and the enormous lots with only single-family houses, all set Shaughnessy apart from the rest of Vancouver. The exclusionary zoning as described above still persists and has left a legacy of unaffordability and low housing supply in this neighbourhood, resulting in a very low population relative to the rest of the city.[7]

The following section explains several disadvantages of Shaughnessy's urban isolation, which mainly stem from its low population density. This discussion is particularly relevant today during the housing and unaffordability crisis in Vancouver, where Shaughnessy's large land area, low population density and central location present a unique opportunity to help address these issues. By critically examining Shaughnessy's exclusivity and isolation, we can propose solutions to "open up" the neighbourhood to the rest of the city and revitalize a dormant community, subsequently increasing safety and a sense of belonging for residents and outsiders.

Disadvantages of Shaughnessy's Urban Isolation

The following claims on the disadvantages of Shaughnessy's urban isolation were derived from an informal urban ethnographical approach to research. Urban ethnography qualitatively studies social aspects of urban society through fieldwork and researcher observation.[8] This method allows for insights that could not be achieved through quantitative means or secondary sources alone. Thus, this chapter does not intend to give a comprehensive picture of Shaughnessy, but attempts to reveal some of its social issues by framing it as an isolated urban area. This viewpoint comes from the author's observations of being in the neighbourhood and residing in Vancouver. Thus, many of the points derive from these observations, but are supported with secondary sources.

Perceived Lack of Safety

Even though Shaughnessy's streets are open for public use, walking through the neighbourhood gives an impression similar to a private gated community, where outsiders do not belong. With most properties fenced, gated, or walled with tall thick hedges, boundaries within Shaughnessy are made extremely apparent with little connection to the streets. Even when one approaches the neighbourhood, the mature trees seem to create a giant hedge around its perimeter, with only a few openings for entry. Combined, these spatial qualities of privateness through clear boundaries and fortification give a sense of impermeability, a concept that supports Oscar Newman's idea of defensible space.[9] Newman argues that closed and impermeable environments (i.e. with no through-traffic, and little interconnectivity with the surrounding environment) have an effective natural policing mechanism where inhabitants can recognize strangers as intruders and challenge them. Thus, strangers are viewed as a source of danger in these environments.

Two signs on metal gates outside a private property in Shaughnessy to deter trespassers and potential criminals.

Although Shaughnessy appears to be defensible in this context, there is one fundamental flaw: the low population density, combined with large, fortified properties that often block views to other houses, makes defending the neighbourhood through natural policing impossible. Many properties have security systems to compensate for this, but these systems are intended to protect their own land, not others. The absence of street surveillance and street activity can lead to feelings of unease for residents and even more so for outsiders, for if a crime were to happen in the street, no one would be able to witness it. This perceived lack of safety is exaggerated further by the curved, maze-like street layout and large, leafy trees of Shaughnessy, which suppress noises on the street and limit visibility from afar.

This lack of "eyes on the street", due to an absence of activity on the street and policing from residents, has dangerous implications. In April 2022, the body of Chelsea Poorman, a 24-year-old Cree woman, was found in the overgrown backyard of an empty mansion in Shaughnessy by a construction worker.[10] She had been declared missing for 593 days, and likely went unnoticed due to the lack of community surveillance and the fortified property lines in Shaughnessy, which prevent people from seeing inside.

Research has shown that the frequency of crime in residential areas decreases when buildings are joined together, with no secondary access routes, arranged linearly such that they face the front entrances of other buildings to maximize the intervisibility of the entrances, and are well-integrated with the street network.[11] Under this criteria, the only advantage that Shaughnessy seems to have to prevent crime is a lack of secondary access routes, with fewer back alleys compared to the city at large. Otherwise, the neighbourhood is quite vulnerable to certain kinds of criminal activity despite its affluence and private nature. When compared to all crimes committed in Shaughnessy in 8 weeks from this time of writing, Shaughnessy has a residential break-and-enter rate of 11% compared to the city's 3%.[12] Shaughnessy also has a theft from vehicle rate of 25% compared to the city's 19%. These crimes typically require private conditions with few witnesses, and Shaughnessy supplies those conditions due to its isolated spatial qualities.

Disconnection from the City

Uncontrolled crosswalk at W King Edward Avenue and Selkirk Street in Shaughnessy. Note the existence of a paved sidewalk on the median, implying that pedestrians can cross, but no stop sign or traffic light to allow them to cross safely.
Figure 1. Street access diagram map of the Shaughnessy neighbourhood (highlighted in yellow). Black lines represent arterial streets, and blue circles represent marked pedestrian crosswalks on arterial streets. Red lines indicate streets coming from outside Shaughnessy and where they end (i.e. where a left or right turn is required).
Figure 2. Street access diagram map of the Oakridge neighbourhood. Compared to Figure 1, the street layout is much more integrated with the surrounding urban fabric and perpendicular street intersections aid navigation within. Pedestrian crosswalks are more evenly distributed than in Shaughnessy.

Shaughnessy's street and block organization inhibits its interconnectivity to the surrounding urban fabric of Vancouver. Its warped grid street layout poses an inconvenience for residents and visitors, by interrupting the regular and predictable grid of the surrounding city. Only a few major street arterials cut through and bound the neighbourhood, and serve as the primary access points. Unlike other areas of the city where one could theoretically travel in a straight line along one of the avenues and streets to reach a desired destination, the layout of Shaughnessy disrupts this pattern and requires diversion to alternate routes, which was likely intentional. However, the result of this is that navigation within the neighbourhood is more difficult.

Additionally, there is a lack of controlled crosswalks leading into Shaughnessy. Often the crosswalks that do exist must cross several lanes of traffic and thus can feel unsafe for pedestrians. City blocks are also larger on average in Shaughnessy than its surroundings, which also poses an issue for interconnectivity, because it requires residents to travel greater distances to reach a destination. The lack of crosswalks and large city blocks promote the use of personal vehicles and discourage walking, which is another strategy to promote exclusivity because personal vehicle ownership is often limited to people with middle to high incomes. However, not only is this environmentally unsustainable, but it results in fewer amenities and necessitates car use to access job sites and services when compared to denser neighbourhoods in Vancouver. Figure 1 and Figure 2 attempt to illustrate this disconnection from the city by comparing street access in Shaughnessy and Oakridge, two landlocked neighbourhoods in Vancouver with similar land areas.

Scarcity of Services and Job Sites

As mentioned above, access to services and job sites around Shaughnessy is more limited than in other neighbourhoods. This can be attributed to its low population density, which results in lower overall demand for services in the area, including those utilized by residents of surrounding areas. This negatively impacts residents of and around Shaughnessy by requiring them to travel further distances to access the services they need. This may also explain the higher use of personal vehicles as the main mode of travel to work, with 65% of residents driving to work, relative to the city's 45%.[13]

Due to Shaughnessy's strict single-family home zoning, particularly in the First Shaughnessy District, there is no commercial zoning permitted within Shaughnessy, except for a few isolated spots near major intersections.[14] There are no major businesses located within the neighbourhood itself, even on important transit corridors running through it, such as Granville Street, King Edward Avenue and 33rd Avenue. This means that residents who live in the geographic centre of Shaughnessy would have to walk at least 20 minutes to the nearest grocery store, according to Google Maps.

Absence of Community

Since the 1970s, Shaughnessy's population has been in decline.[7] With an already low population density and restrictive zoning that keeps it that way, it is difficult for new residents to move in and maintain the population. This fact, combined with the large lots and an obsession with privacy and exclusivity, results in a weaker sense of community in Shaughnessy, compared to other areas in the city. A sense of community is often associated with the thoughtful placement and design of common public areas, which facilitate interaction.[15] Public areas that offer opportunities for regular activities, such as shopping, as well as special rituals like events, are the most successful at fostering a sense of community. However, in Shaughnessy, public spaces are confined to the streets and a few isolated parks, where it seems their only use is passive recreation and dog-walking. Additionally, residents who walk in their neighbourhoods are more likely to develop relationships with their neighbours.[15] As was discussed above, the spatial marginalization of commercial and mixed-use spaces along the periphery results in increased use of personal vehicles and fewer opportunities for interaction, contributing to a weaker sense of community.

This public bookcase, located at Spruce Street and W 15th Avenue in Vancouver's Fairview neighbourhood, is only a few blocks away from Shaughnessy. It appears to be highly used by locals with books rotating frequently, indicating a high level of community engagement from neighbours.

One surprisingly useful indicator of community vibrancy is trick-or-treating activity during Halloween. This can be attributed to how trick-or-treating is a manifestation of civic participation from many kinds of demographics, due to the event's secular and community-oriented nature.[16] The 2023 annual "Treat Count", hosted in partnership with CBC and SFU's City Program, showed no reports of trick-or-treaters in Shaughnessy. Yet, just two blocks away from the eastern edge of Shaughnessy, around Douglas Park, over 2000 trick-or-treaters were reported.[16] This indicates that Shaughnessy is poorly equipped to facilitate such an activity, with low numbers of children in the neighbourhood, thick hedges that block visibility to home entrances, and otherwise hostile architecture that makes it difficult for trick-or-treaters to go up to the doors of properties, let alone feel comfortable going into the neighbourhood at night.

There is also a lack of shared community assets in Shaughnessy, which can be another indicator of a healthy community dynamic. Community gardens are often created in areas to increase food security and promote neighbourly interaction.[17] Although they are common throughout Vancouver, community gardens are lacking in this neighbourhood with only two on its northern edge along 16th Avenue.[18] Similarly, there is a lack of public bookcases or Little Free Libraries in Shaughnessy relative to its surroundings.[19] Although these are just two examples of how a sense of community can manifest itself physically, they can indicate a neighbourhood's attitude towards sharing with others.

Limited Housing Supply and Unaffordability

As described in the Overview, Shaughnessy's legacy of strict single-family zoning and abnormally large lots pose an obstacle to adding much-needed housing in this area. This adds pressure on the housing supply of more affordable neighbourhoods across Vancouver, and may push Vancouver residents to live outside of the city in search of better housing options,[20] exacerbating spatial inequality in the city. Additionally, most dwellings in Shaughnessy have over five bedrooms, but with an average household size of 2.8 people in 2016, most houses likely have empty bedrooms.[21] Additionally, in 2023, Shaughnessy had a home vacancy rate of 4%, one of the highest in the city.[22] Both of these facts demonstrate that there are opportunities to allow more people to live here, even without building new infill housing.

Shaughnessy's central location, idyllic setting, and exclusivity maintained over the years have resulted in extremely high exchange values of real estate in the area. With an average dwelling value of $3.6 million and with 31% of households annually earning above $200,000 in 2016, it is apparent that living in Shaughnessy is out of reach of most wage-earners in Vancouver.[23] Even if new market housing was introduced, it would not necessarily be affordable, due to these same reasons of location and exclusivity.

Potential Solutions

The disadvantages to Shaughnessy's urban isolation as outlined above demonstrate the necessity to work towards potential solutions for the benefit of residents as well as the common good. The key to mitigating these adverse effects is to further integrate it into the surrounding city through increased population density and accessibility.

Current Actions

R1-1 Zoning

In Fall 2023, the City of Vancouver amended existing single-family residential zoning bylaws to allow for up to eight dwellings on a single lot.[24] This aims to increase housing supply by allowing (and incentivizing) developers to create multi-unit housing in previously low-density areas of the city. Currently, Second and Third Shaughnessy are also zoned under R1-1 like most other residential areas in the city, and therefore are subject to the same density increase allowances. However, this new zoning does not require property owners to introduce more housing onto existing lots if they do not wish to do so. This may mean that Shaughnessy may be slower to densify than other neighbourhoods, due to preexisting values of privacy and the single-family character of the neighbourhood.

Another advantage of R1-1 zoning in addressing urban isolation in Shaughnessy is its conditional allowances for small-scale commercial and institutional activities.[25] In particular, farmers markets and neighbourhood grocery stores are permitted, and if implemented, would provide Shaughnessy residents with greater access to food and reduce the need to travel far distances.

First Shaughnessy District Schedule Amendments

In November 2023, the provincial government enacted three pieces of legislation to enable small-scale multi-unit housing in "restricted" residential areas.[26] The First Shaughnessy District (FSD) schedule had to be amended by the city to comply with the provincial legislation. In an effort to allow for increased density and to streamline the development application process in FSD, City Council decided to make the following amendments:

  • Repeal the requirement for applications to be reviewed by advisory groups such as the First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel, as well as property owners and tenants.
  • Allow up to six dwelling units across all sites.
  • Enable a density bonus structure, similar to R1-1.
  • Modernize the structure of the district schedule.

Despite these density allowances, all development applications in FSD will still be subject to the existing Heritage Conservation Area Design Guidelines, as well as other policies around the management of heritage property to ensure the protection of the neighbourhood's character.[26] Existing heritage-designated buildings must remain, and only converted secondary suites and infill are permitted.

Although there are still restrictions in place for the aesthetic qualities of FSD, these increased density allowances are a major step in increasing Shaughnessy's future housing supply. However, as with the R1-1 zoning in Second and Third Shaughnessy, it is up to the homeowners whether or not they wish to create additional dwelling units on their properties, and therefore, densification is not guaranteed.

Future Actions

The increase of allowable density in Shaughnessy will not only provide additional housing and reduce pressure on other neighbourhoods, but has a myriad of other benefits. It will support the preservation of currently under-utilized historic buildings by making them useful for more people, create a more complete community with affordable housing options for middle-income households, and improve accessibility to Shaughnessy's extensive tree canopy and heritage.[20]

Increased housing supply, and hence the increased population in Shaughnessy, would also help solve many of the problems discussed earlier. More people in the streets would help contribute to an increased sense of safety and natural policing would be more effective.[9] It would also generate greater demand for job sites and services in the area, leading to the emergence of more businesses nearby to meet that demand, benefiting residents in and outside of Shaughnessy. Increased population would also help support a sense of community with more public activities and more opportunities to encounter other residents on the streets.[15]

Some other actions that can be done to address the issues associated with Shaughnessy's urban isolation include the following:

  • To increase the perception of safety in the neighbourhood, property owners can increase the intervisibility of the front entrances by trimming hedges and reducing the height of fences. Placing infill buildings closer to the street will aid this as well.
  • To improve interconnectivity and accessibility, more controlled crosswalks along arterial streets can be installed, and more streets (particularly in the north-south direction) can be dedicated as bicycle-friendly routes.
  • To provide services and job sites, the City can rezone certain areas for more mixed-use development. Rezoning would be most appropriate at the intersections of arterial streets within Shaughnessy, where there is currently a deficit of services and job sites. Mixed-use development would be more beneficial than strictly commercial development as it can provide services and housing.
  • To foster a sense of community in Shaughnessy, shared community assets can be established such as community gardens, which will create opportunities for neighbourly interaction.

Conclusion

Although we have yet to see an immediate change in the exclusivity of Shaughnessy, the increased density allowances enacted by the city will make a significant impact in mitigating the adverse effects of Shaughnessy's urban isolation. Other urban contexts with exclusive neighbourhoods likely face similar issues around urban isolation and thus would benefit from similar approaches. However, these neighbourhoods are often the hardest to change due to the power their residents often hold in society. Therefore, change will require political will that may not be possible in certain contexts. The best thing that city planners can do is refuse to build new communities that are inherently exclusionary, and instead promote communities that are integrated with cities and provide more equitable access to housing, jobs, services and recreation, for the benefit of all residents.

References

  1. ↑ Blakely, Edward J., and Mary G Snyder. “Fortress Communities: The Walling and Gating of American Suburbs.” Land Lines, Sept. 1995, https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/fortress-communities. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 McDonald, Robert A. J. Making Vancouver: Class, Status and Social Boundaries, 1863-1913. UBC Press, 1996, pp. 154-155. Accessed June 22, 2024.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 “Shaughnessy.” City of Vancouver, vancouver.ca/news-calendar/shaughnessy.aspx. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Mitchell, Katharyne. “Conflicting Geographies of Democracy and the Public Sphere in Vancouver BC.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 22, no. 2, 1997, pp. 163-168. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/622307. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  5. ↑ Mitchell, Katharyne. “Conflicting Geographies of Democracy and the Public Sphere in Vancouver BC.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 22, no. 2, 1997, pp. 172. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/622307. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  6. ↑ Chan, Kenneth. “First Shaughnessy Neighbourhood in Vancouver to See Densification: Urbanized.” Daily Hive, 19 Apr. 2024, dailyhive.com/vancouver/first-shaughnessy-neighbourhood-vancouver-densification. Accessed June 22 2024.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 “Shaughnessy Social Indicators Profile 2020.” City of Vancouver, 5 Oct. 2020, pp. 8,10. vancouver.ca/files/cov/social-indicators-profile-shaughnessy.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  8. ↑ Imilan, Walter, and Francisca Marquez. “Urban Ethnography.” The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies, 15 Apr. 2019, p. 1, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0500. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Hillier, Bill. "Can Streets be made Safe?" Urban Design International, vol. 9, no. 1, April 2004, p. 31. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/can-streets-be-made-safe/docview/194522636/se-2. Accessed June 23, 2024.
  10. ↑ Ghoussoub, Michelle. “Chelsea Poorman’s Body Lay Outside a Vancouver Mansion for a Year. But Her Death Was Not Considered Suspicious.” CBC News, CBC/Radio Canada, 13 May 2022, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/chelsea-poorman-death-shaughnessy-over-1-year-not-suspicious-1.6451091. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  11. ↑ Hillier, Bill. "Can Streets be made Safe?" Urban Design International, vol. 9, no. 1, April 2004, pp. 44-45. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/can-streets-be-made-safe/docview/194522636/se-2. Accessed June 23, 2024.
  12. ↑ “Vancouver Police Department GeoDASH Crime Statistics Hub.” Vpd.ca, vancouverpolice.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/2507e3fdc79b4bfcb4994a3629866fac. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  13. ↑ “Shaughnessy Social Indicators Profile 2020.” City of Vancouver, 5 Oct. 2020, p. 61. vancouver.ca/files/cov/social-indicators-profile-shaughnessy.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  14. ↑ “Digital Zoning Map.” City of Vancouver, https://maps.vancouver.ca/zoning/. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Douglas, Eric. “Examining the relationship between urban density and sense of community in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.” Cities, vol. 130, Nov. 2022, p. 10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103870. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 “Treat Count 2023: Which B.C. Neighbourhoods Have the Most Trick-or-Treaters at Halloween?” CBC News, CBC/Radio Canada, 1 Nov. 2023, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-treat-count-2023-1.7008555. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  17. ↑ Gocova, Anezka. “Urban Agriculture Garden Guide.” City of Vancouver, 2015, p. 1, vancouver.ca/files/cov/urban-agriculture-garden-guide.pdf.
  18. ↑ “Community Garden and Orchard Map.” City of Vancouver, https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/community-gardens.aspx. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  19. ↑ “Little Free Library World Map.” Little Free Library, littlefreelibrary.org/map/. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Boyle, Christine. "Unlocking Shaughnessy: Building Affordable Housing Options for All of Us", pp. 1-4, https://council.vancouver.ca/20231115/documents/cfscmotion2.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  21. ↑ “Shaughnessy Social Indicators Profile 2020.” City of Vancouver, 5 Oct. 2020, pp. 15, 16, 21. vancouver.ca/files/cov/social-indicators-profile-shaughnessy.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  22. ↑ “Empty Homes Tax Annual Report 2023.” City of Vancouver, 2023, vancouver.ca/files/cov/empty-homes-tax-annual-report-2023.pdf.
  23. ↑ “Shaughnessy Social Indicators Profile 2020.” City of Vancouver, 5 Oct. 2020, pp. 55-56. vancouver.ca/files/cov/social-indicators-profile-shaughnessy.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  24. ↑ Gouda, Kareem. “Vancouver Council Approves ‘missing Middle’ Motion Allowing up to 8 Homes per Lot .” Global News, Global News, 15 Sept. 2023, globalnews.ca/news/9962925/vancouver-council-8-homes-per-lot/. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  25. ↑ “Zoning and Development By-Law: R1-1 District Schedule.” City of Vancouver, Apr. 2024, p. 3, bylaws.vancouver.ca/zoning/zoning-by-law-district-schedule-r1-1.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2024.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 “Amendments to the First Shaughnessy District Schedule and Heritage Conservation Area Official Development Plan (HCA ODP) to Comply with Bill 44 – Provincial Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) Legislation .” Vancouver City Council, 17 May 2024, pp. 2-9, council.vancouver.ca/20240528/documents/rr2.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2024.
This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.



Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2024/Urban_Isolation_in_Shaughnessy&oldid=841350"