Course:GEOG350/2024/Vancouver as a "Place": A Case Study of Vancouver's Increasing "Placelessness"

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

In urban geography, there are existing relationships between people and the spaces they inhabit, impacting the significance of place, placelessness, and spatial inequality. Place attachment influence emotions and feelings of belonging, fostering cultural identity and community cohesion towards specific urban environments. Placelessness, on the other hand, signifies a detachment, or alienation, from a person’s urban environment. The main cause is the creation of homogenized, impersonal spaces, lacking any distinct, recognizable form of urban identity. Place and placelessness are pivotal in understanding the lived experiences within cities, directing how individuals perceive and interact with their surroundings.[1]

The implications of attachment or detachment to urban places are profound. A strong attachment to place can enhance feelings of security, pride, and social connection; placelessness can lead to feelings of disorientation, isolation, and marginalization. Spatial inequality then exacerbates the dynamics of place and placelessness by creating uneven distributions of resources, services, and opportunities.[1] Disparities in access to quality housing, education, healthcare, and employment deepen socioeconomic divides, with detrimental effects to mental health and well-being for both the poor and the rich.[2] As such, creating more inclusive and equitable environments that invoke feelings of place should be the goal for urban planners and policymakers.

Vancouver fulfills key criteria that embody a place. Vancouver’s geographic setting is remarkable, placed between the Pacific Ocean and the Coast Mountains. Committed to sustainability and urban living, Stanley Park is often referenced as an exemplar of how to integrate nature into downtown life. The city honours its rich Indigenous history, and numerous ethnically diverse communities contribute to its unique experience of multicultural heritage. In fact, Vancouver hosts Canada’s largest Chinatown.[3] Vancouver's emphasis on green spaces, recreation, and celebration of cultural diversity provides residents with sense of belonging and a high quality of life.

Scope of the Broadway Plan (outlined in purple)

Despite Vancouver's efforts to strengthen its place and preserve its cultural identity, the city remains susceptible to gentrification processes that subject it to feelings of placelessness. Vancouver has seen significant redevelopment that prioritizes real estate and corporate business ventures at the expense of neighbourhood communities and unique cultural spots. The Broadway Plan alone is set to transform a substantial area of Vancouver, to redevelop Vine Street to Clark Drive and 1st Avenue to 16th Avenue.[4] This plan has significant implications for displacement of existing communities, particularly renters and small business owners who face eviction and rising rents, which extend to Kitsilano, Fairview, and Mount Pleasant neighbourhoods, affecting 20,000 homes and 8,000 jobs.[4][5] In terms of cultural spaces, the redevelopment of the Italian Cultural Centre, in operation since 1977, illustrates the tension between maintaining cultural heritage and accommodating urban growth. While aiming to ensure the Centre's financial sustainability, the redevelopment also represents a shift from purely cultural use towards mixed-use development​that focuses on retail business and rental housing units before community facilities[6][7]. Vancouverites have also expressed dissatisfaction that the proposed redevelopment designs lack the Centre’s original, unique Italian aesthetic and instead present as similar glass buildings found in any downtown city center.[7] While these initiatives are designed to address urban change, they also highlight the challenges of balancing infrastructure development with the needs of existing communities and the preservation of cultural spaces. The displacement of residents and the repurposing of cultural landmarks are significant issues that need to be carefully managed to maintain the place identity of Vancouver.

Overview of Vancouver a as a Place: "Vancouversim" and "Living First"

Vancouver Downtown Skyline in 2007

The city of Vancouver has placed great pride and emphasis on its “living first” narrative, quoting “density, livability and sustainability” where residential infrastructure is prioritized over all other uses at the core of the city.[8] Housing residences are even situated near work offices to allow a variety of transportation options, while ensuring these high-density neighbourhoods are open, walkable, and bike-friendly. The “living first” narrative has set Vancouver as an extraordinary precedent for downtown living, giving the city “model status” and its own namesake term to describe its unique place-ness in urban planning: “Vancouverism".[9] The prototypical architecture of Vancouverism consists of high-rise residential towers, medium to low height commercial base infrastructure, with deliberate intention to preserve skyline view corridors. Vancouverism has extended its influence to other municipalities and is heavily characterized in other commercial hubs of Metro Vancouver districts as well.[9][10]

Issue

The “living first” narrative and Vancouverism as a whole, has many implications. Actual experiences of livability are influenced by one's socioeconomic position, while planning and policymaking contributes to increasing inequalities for the the poor and marginalized populations. "Vancouverism" has become a glorified term that justifies exploiting these communities, where municipalities are focusing on urban design built in a way that emphasizes capital accumulation and consumption over affordability and preservation of heritage and cultural spots.[9][10]

Woodsquat Protest in 2002

For wealthy and middle-class residents, Vancouver as a place is synonymous with “desirable” and "aesthetically pleasing".[10] However, this view of Vancouver dominates municipality planning conferences towards privileged and idealistic visions of what Vancouver should be. It allows these conferences to address goals of urban rejuvenation, reinvestment and upgrading while simultaneously avoiding current inequalities and injustices that discriminate against low-income residents as if they have no right to the city.[11] With a focus on maximizing capital, the Vancouver municipality has allowed foreign monopoly developers and globalizing real estate to mass construct identical units that put little effort into blending in with Vancouver’s existing infrastructure and conserving local amenities. For example, Hong Kong owned Concord Pacific spearheaded the “upgrading” of family-run Woodwards department store in Vancouver’s Down Eastside (DTES).[9] Despite petitions and local efforts to turn it into a community space, it was redeveloped in the 2000s into 536 identical-looking condominium units and 125 luxury single housing units.[12] This construction project faced criticism for altering the community dynamics of the area and forcing the eviction of the poor, working-class residents that were occupying the transient housing, which lead to the 2002 Woodsquat protest[13]. The Woosquat protest spread awareness for increasing concerns on how the Vancouver municipality was receding support for social housing and demolishing such sites without creation of new ones.[12][13] With majority of large construction processes headed by foreign investors, the city's planning process is known to have a lack of transparency in negotiating infrastructure projects, insufficient public engagement, and high potential for corruption. Therefore, policies promoting Vancouverism has become a method where urban planners inadvertently “legitimize” the displacement of marginalized and vulnerable communities.[9]

Gentrification

Geographer David Harvey defines gentrification as a global phenomenon in economy, a means where capital is introduced or reintroduced into an urban landscape with the intent to displace people and activities that elites in power consider underproductive and not of value.[14] In practice, gentrification is when an area undergoes a transformation where aging spaces are renovated or replaced in such a way that attracts wealthier people to move in. This process is accompanied by increase in property values and rent, which often result in long-time, lower-income residents being indirectly forcefully evicted from the area, significantly changing the character and cultural dynamics of an area. Vancouverism has become so closely linked, to the extent that it is even criticized as a “cover up”, with gentrification processes such that gentrification itself has become normalized as “the outcome of good urban planning”.[9] In more recent times, the City of Vancouver has attempted, albeit rather unsuccessfully, to address the problems associated with gentrification under the guise of advancing Vancouver’s commitment to “living first”.[9][10] Regardless, the municipality itself recognizes that gentrification is detrimental to Vancouver as a place, contributing to increasing characteristics of placelessness which “compromises residents’ sense of inclusion, belonging, safety and connectedness”.[15]

Ensuing Implications of Gentrification on Placelessness

As gentrification establishes placelessness, there exists a fundamental challenge to the core principle of Vancouverism itself. Perhaps Vancouverism has been too successful as an ideal, and what once gave Vancouver its distinctive qualities are now rendering it placeless. Inflexible focus on density has led to traffic congestion and overpopulation in downtown Vancouver, which have then led to the removal of diverse, heritage landmarks, prompting the concentrated construction of homogeneous luxury condominium buildings along with nondescript parkades.[13] The closure of Waldorf Hotel in 2012 is one such incidence, where the community-oriented cultural institution was sold to a real estate development company with plans to construct “another tower and podium condo format”.[9][16] Locals have expressed disappointment with the sale as it signifies the removal of a legacy-worthy musical and artistry hub since 1947.[17] Ethic enclaves like Chinatown too, are subject to the placelessness of gentrification.[16] Deteriorating infrastructure, rising property values and redevelopment have led to the closure of traditional Chinese-Canadian businesses and the introduction of Western-oriented upscale restaurants, retailers and boutiques, which do not reflect the cultural history of the neighbourhood.[18]

Mock illustration proposal to develop Oakridge into a more urban town center

This development of placelessness is also observable in other neighbourhoods, such as the Oakridge Center Redevelopment Project lead by Westbank. It aims to “completely transform” the 28-acre land to create a “vibrant, pedestrian-friendly area with various retail and public spaces.”[19] However, plans show an intent to create a more “luxury” neighbourhood dominated by international retail goods, removing the presence of previously operating small-scale local businesses like Kim’s Farm Market and the Fish Shop.[20]

Such placelessness processes can also be observed in peripheral regions of Greater Vancouver as they similarly experience “needs for decay and renewal”, especially because Vancouverism has facilitated most suburban municipalities to have their own major commercial centres that parallels Downtown Vancouver.[9] For example, Metrotown in Burnaby and King George in Surrey are both constantly subject to further development proposals.[12] However, the manifestation of gentrification placelessness varies depending on the neighbourhood context, and will be expressed differently.

Case Study of Vancouver's Increasing Placelessness: Northeast False Creek

Urban planning discussions in Vancouver’s Northeast False Creek (NEFC) are fostering gentrification processes that will cause tensions with Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES).[10]

Background

Since the 1950s, Vancouver is rooted in official campaigning against placelessness aspects, specifically freeway development.[21]

Political changes in municipality from 1960s to 1970s saw the birth of Vancouverism’s “living first” concept. This new urban perspective facilitated the production of reports to increase transportation, schools, recreation, parks, and other civic amenities in Vancouver’s downtown commercial district to support the development of residences in the area. Vancouverism was manifested through construction of garden spaces, strict industrial zoning, and neighbourhood street planning which all connected to express roads that lead to the heart of Downtown’s commercial district.[9]

In 1962, Bill Rathie won the mayoral election by proposing extensive downtown office development and mass freeway construction. However, the freeway proposal was met with successful opposition, from the Strathcona community that would have been demolished by the construction, and from a group of West-side professionals. The defeat of the proposal and the distaste for “urban decaying” freeways led to the formation of The Electors’ Action Movement (TEAM), which campaigned that Vancouver was inherently different and could not follow the same freeway-to-suburb model of American cities, as it’s Downtown core was for “living first”. Downtown development of Vancouver proceeded to align closely with the values of TEAM, directed by the interests of its electoral base consisting of liberal, white, and elite middle-class individuals.[9][21]

Developing Factors in NEFC

In 1986, Vancouver showcased it’s potential as an exclusive, luxury neighbourhood for the middle-class at the Expo World Fair, highlighting entertainment, retail, and many privileged venues of capitalist consumption. As a result of the Expo, the public property of False Creek North was bought by the real-estate investment firm, Concord Pacific, which is headquartered in Hong Kong by billionaire Li Ka-Shing. Concord Pacific proceeded to undertake one of the largest urban redevelopment projects in Canada. Other private developers followed suit not long after, in other areas of False Creek.[9][10][21]

The residential condo towers of NEFC was not built with Vancouver’s sensibilities in mind. Rather than designing condo towers unique and distinguishing to Vancouver, Concord Pacific imported mass produced cultural aesthetics from the company’s origin country in Asia.[9] Regardless, with municipality regulations, the urban redevelopment project proceeded to transform Vancouver’s skyline, leading to the iconic high-rise residential towers and lower height commercial base with an unobstructed view of the mountains and waterfront that is exemplar of Vancouverism.[8][9]

Area of the master plan for Yaletown that was developed by Concord Pacific after the Expo '86 by Arthur Erickson and Barry Downs

Vancouver’s unique location as the the West-most major municipality allows it to serve as the main point of encounter between Canada and Asia.[9] The involvement of Concord Pacific in the city’s urban redevelopments and it’s painstakingly crafted, middle-class livability image attracted affluent newcomers and their investment capital. Vancouver also experienced a stream of immigrants through the Federal Government’s Business Immigration Program, which allowed the wealthy to enter Canada to establish businesses.[21] This has contributed to the high commodification of Vancouver's property market through international investment.[22] Consequently, the housing market has become increasingly detached from the local labor market, making Vancouver the most unaffordable city in North America.[21] Vancouver’s Downtown population, which had stagnated around 6000 from 1970 to 1980s, skyrocketed to 22,000 during the 1990s, and reported 43,000 by 2006.[12] This "new middle class" made up of migrants dominated the occupancy of NEFC condo towers, setting up the stage for new spaces and new means of gentrification.[12][22] Mimicking the visual success of the Vancouver’s Downtown, further urban planning initiatives opted to use the same established framework, which promoted the development of a network of concentrated regional city centers across municipalities. This framework directed high-density residential and commercial growth toward the stations of the SkyTrain transit network.[9][23] Consequently, this resulted in homogenous and nearly identical city centres lacking their own local flair. Ongoing trends in globalization and social homogenization further contributed to increasing dullness and lack of exclusivity in infrastructure, resulting in the creation of "vertical gated communities" that are replicated in a similar fashion across the Metro Vancouver.[9]

Renowned Vancouver architect Bing Thom criticized that Vancouver’s gentrification is catered to it’s middle-class, migrant demographic.[9] Local businesses were being out competed by chain stores and overseas corporate entities looking for a landing into the Canadian market.[13] Vancouver had standardized its condominiums, evolving real estate into easily interchangeable investment products that were marketed with polished efficiency. Rather than “living first”, community dynamics were decaying as condos become “commodities to be traded”, bought by speculative investors rather than prospective homeowners, and often left unoccupied after sale.[9][10] Similarly, architect Trevor Boddy critiqued that excessive focus on residential housing is detrimental to the urban life of Vancouver’s Downtown, and that the “living first” narrative had encouraged the uninspired proliferation of uniform, middle-class tower construction as "desired" developments. A foundation survey found that many people believe Vancouver is turning into a “disconnected resort town” lacking in Canadian identity because it is catered for the wealthy, with excessive foreign ownership of real estate.[9] Furthermore, while Vancouver attracts many wealthy business-class immigrants due to places like NEFC, the Metro Vancouver region as a whole tends to house more working-class immigrants and refugees, but they are often absent from consideration in urban planning discussions.[10][21] These working-class immigrants  and refugees tend to come in large families that do not fit the “ideal model” of the high-rise glass condos perpetuated by Vancouverism.[9]

Blueprint of mass produced standardized condo and podium structures in Vancouver

While downtown condo towers may appear contrary to homogenized, standardized, suburban units like the low-cost, family-friendly “Vancouver Special” model, there is great similarity in their shared characteristics of utilization. Parallel to the “Vancouver Special” in the suburbs, the tower and podium condo format has been increasingly mass produced across urban centres, where the design has been “pushed to the point of parody”.[9] Urban planner Michael Kluckner has strongly denounced this “single building typology” that is only notable by its excessive uniformity due to the city's blind adherence to Vancouverism and it’s “living first” planning approach, which inadvertently prevents any other distinguished characteristics to develop elsewhere in Metro Vancouver.[9] However, this problem exceeds the simple visual placelessness of repetitive, mass condo production. With Downtown Vancouver negatively associated with vacancy, temporary foreign migrants, and a lack of its own stable identity, there is a concerning reported rise in residents that feel "minimal attachment” and “limited bonds to the city”.[24]  This sparked an ongoing public discourse about feelings of alienation, anonymity, and social isolation, along with concerning new perceptions of Vancouver's growing reputation as a “cold city”.[10][24]

NEFC Tensions With DTES

Northeast False Creek (NEFC) and Downtown East Side (DTES) are key areas affected by gentrification, particularly when considering the proposal to remove the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts. The Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts are elevated roadways built in the early 1970s as part of Rathie’s urban freeway plan that was never fully realized due to public opposition in commitment to principles of Vancouverism.[10] Private sector investments in new upscale residential-commercial spaces and municipal initiatives aimed at upgrading these areas are driving this change.[13] Additionally, their proximity to the viaducts means these neighborhoods are the most directly affected by their removal.

Northeast False Creek Redevelopment Area
Proposal for scope of the area selected to redevelop following the removal of the viaducts in NEFC-DTES (highlighted in green)

In Vancouver reports, the definition of place and livability differs drastically for NEFC and DTES. False Creek showcases the most visible results of TEAM's vision for middle-class livability. TEAM's sustainability initiatives promoted deindustrialization and rezoning in False Creek, leading to a rapid decline in industrial jobs for the low-income working class.[25] This deindustrialization in False Creek spurred the gentrification of the neighbouring Fairview Slopes, further displacing those low-income.[9][25] In NEFC, characteristics of place is determined by the aesthetics, public spaces, design, and the inclusion of neighborhoods rich in amenities that attract middle-class residents and consumers. Deindustrialization in this sense, once again, entailed the construction of indistinct, glass condominium residences.[10] TEAM’s policies and overzealous activities to adhere to Vancouverism directly triggered gentrification in Gastown. Subsequently, DTES, once vibrant with a bustling working-class community, then became encircled by pressuring gentrification processes, the implicit oppression coined as “condo tsunami” by activists.[9][10] For DTES, both place and livability is centred around affordability rather than privilege.

In actuality, the urban renewal project of the removal of the viaducts is targeted for the wealthy middle class in NEFC, and ignores the ensuing complications and the existing struggles of DTES residents only a block over will experience. During planning discussions with Vancouver City Council, ample park space was reaffirmed as the key factor in preserving place, with False Creek being praised as “renowned” for livability and “density” due to its "high quality and plentiful public open spaces".[26] However, this praise overlooks the fact that existing "free-use" spaces, once already popular with the DTES local community, were removed to construct, “cleaner”, modernized, "public-in-name" areas where they are less welcome to use.[10][27]

In essence, gentrification of NEFC is inadvertently replacing the cultural identity of DTES with placelessness spaces. The outlined construction of “more living spaces” consists of high-rise luxury glass condominiums and high-end commercial developments that are similar in look and aesthetics; this architectural homogenization makes it indistinguishable from other middle-class neighbourhoods, not only in Canada but elsewhere in North America.[10] This “renewal” also brings along significant increases in property values and rents, even in the surrounding areas of the neighbourhood, putting economic pressure on long-time residents to move out, which will erode the community ties and social networks characterizing NEFC-DTES.[10] The NEFC policy claims to increase “inclusive districts with fine retail and entertainment options,”[28] however, these are typically driven by commercial interests that prioritize economic gains over community needs.[10] The introduction of high-end retail and entertainment options caters to wealthier residents and tourists, alienating poorer residents and diminishing the neighbourhood’s distinctiveness. Local businesses denoting place are also replaced by global chain stores, franchises and high-end retailers.[9][13] This shift has been long time evident on central hub Robson Street, where independent stores, such as Simon’s Bike Shop, have been almost completely replaced by international brands and luxury shops, causing Robson Street to look just about like any other downtown in North America.[29]

Negative Effects of Gentrification on DTES

DTES Communities

The 2005 Housing Plan for DTES acknowledges the increasing complexity of needs within the DTES community, addressing issues such as high rates of mental illness, substance abuse, communicable diseases, and a lack of accessible retail services, all of which have significantly undermined the area's social and economic stability, and it's ability to foster a sense of place.[27] The plan proposes the integration of various neighbourhood amenities and essential services: health clinics, community centres, substance abuse treatments, vocational training, job opportunities, and affordable food and clothing options.[27][30] However, it fails to recognize gentrification as a primary driver behind rising housing costs and displacement, thus neglecting the ongoing struggle to increase implementation of affordable housing options.[10]

Unfortunately, marginalized groups themselves are almost explicitly excluded from the newly developed spaces, increasing reported levels of prejudice and discrimination experience in NEFC-DTES. These marginalized individuals are displaced further into poverty stricken DTES.[10] This exclusion reinforces the sense of placelessness as NEFC-DTES will become less representative and less inclusive of the diverse population that once inhabited the neighbourhood.[10][13] This exacerbates already existing spatial and socioeconomic problems in Vancouver, where wealth is concentrated already rich neighbourhoods while poorer neighbourhoods suffer from underfunding and neglect. Spatial inequality itself makes it difficult for low-income residents to access opportunities for upward mobility, and for the city to improve standard of life for all its residents.[2]

Recent Vancouver Reports from 2014 and onwards acknowledge the detrimental impacts of gentrification, highlighting the loss of affordable essential and retail services, and an increase in social isolation.[15] Many residents are experiencing the negative effects of gentrification through forced relocation, higher rents, limited availability of affordable programs and services  and inadequate access to nutritious food. There is widespread concern about the erosion of community cohesion in the DTES, with residents expressing feelings of disconnection, displacement, and depression.[15] Gentrification is a significant and troubling issue in the DTES. Displacement is now recognized as a serious threat, with gentrification processes seriously impacting residents' mental health by threatening the protective psychological factors of their sense of place, hindering the formation of feelings of inclusion, belonging, safety, and social connectedness.[2][15][30]

Lessons learned

Vancouverism has become synonymous with gentrification in many contexts. There is a need for inclusive planning that prioritizes the marginalized and vulnerable communities alongside privileged principles of “density, livability and sustainability”.[8] Embracing Vancouverism as an ideal has promoted aesthetic and environmental benefits, but it has also led to skyrocketing real-estate property values and the displacement of longstanding, underprivileged residents.[9] This trend highlights the importance of policies that protect affordable housing and preserve cultural diversity. Rather than using Vancouverism as a fixed ideal, Vancouver needs to adopt adaptive and responsive governance. Urban policies should be flexible to allow consideration for changing socioeconomic conditions and mitigate unintended consequences. This requires ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment of policies to ensure they meet the evolving needs of diverse urban populations.

As cities evolve and grow, the process of gentrification often leads to significant changes in the social-cultural dynamic and physical landscape of these areas. Understanding these dynamics and their implications can provide valuable insights for policymakers, planners, and communities struggling with similar changes in other urban settings. While gentrification can bring investment, revitalization, and improved amenities to aging and neglected neighbourhoods, it frequently comes at the cost of evicting marginalized residents and disrupting existing social networks. This displacement from gentrification contributes to housing insecurity and erodes the sense of community and belonging that defines a neighbourhood’s place identity.[10][30] As new developments cater to wealthier demographics, there is often a homogenization of the built constructs, characterized by standardized architectual units and commercial spaces that prioritize market demands over local culture, heritage and authenticity.[9] This leads to a sense of placelessness where local identity is overshadowed by generic, globalized, and often capitalist landscapes. Cities facing gentrification must learn to balance profitable ventures with policies that protect poor, minority, and marginalized populations, preserve affordable housing, and promote inclusive development strategies that benefit their vulnerable residents. As cities worldwide confront the challenges of globalization, rapid urbanization and increasing polarity of economic inequality, understanding the complexities of gentrification can inform more equitable and resilient urban policies. By prioritizing inclusive growth, preserving cultural heritage, and fostering community resilience, cities can mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification while harnessing its potential benefits for all residents.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Foote, K.E., and M. Azaryahu. “Sense of place.” International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, vol. 10, 2009, pp. 96–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008044910-4.00998-6.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Latif, Ehsan. “Happiness and comparison income: Evidence from Canada.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 128, no. 1, 4 July 2016, pp. 161–177, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1024-4.
  3. ↑ Editor, WCCF. “Vancouver.” World Cities Culture Forum, 19 Feb. 2024, worldcitiescultureforum.com/city/vancouver/#:~:text=Vancouver%2C%20established%20in%201886%2C%20is,moniker%20of%20a%20second%20Hollywood.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Vancouver, City of. “Broadway Plan.” City of Vancouver, vancouver.ca/home-property-development/broadway-plan.aspx. Accessed 23 June 2024.
  5. ↑ Chan, Kenneth. “Over 22,000 Homes and 150 Projects Proposed for Broadway Plan Area.” Urbanized, Daily Hive, 2 May 2024, dailyhive.com/vancouver/broadway-plan-proposal-vancouver-statistics-full#google_vignette.
  6. ↑ Meiszner, Peter. “Vancouver’s Italian Cultural Centre Partners with Bosa Properties for Redevelopment.” urbanYVR, 11 Aug. 2021, www.urbanyvr.com/italian-cultural-centre-vancouver-bosa/.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Shaw, Melissa. “Vancouver Italian Cultural Centre Engages next Gen.” New Canadian Media, 31 July 2023, www.newcanadianmedia.ca/vancouver-italian-cultural-centre-engages-next-gen/.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Wong, Karen. “Home Is Where the Heart (of the City) Is: Impacts and Implications of the ‘living First’ Strategy in Downtown Vancouver.” T. University of British Columbia, 2007. Web. 2 June 2024. <https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0101066>. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations, 1919-2007.
  9. ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 Peck, Jamie, Elliot Siemiatycki, and Elvin Wyly. "Vancouver's Suburban Involution." City (London, England), vol. 18, no. 4-5, 2014, pp. 386-415.
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19 Tolfo, Giuseppe, and Brian Doucet. "Livability for Whom?: Planning for Livability and the Gentrification of Memory in Vancouver." Cities, vol. 123, 2022, pp. 103564.
  11. ↑ Ruth, Matthias, and Rachel S. Franklin. "Livability for all? Conceptual Limits and Practical Implications." Applied Geography (Sevenoaks), vol. 49, 2014, pp. 18-23.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Blomley, Nicholas K., et al. Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property. Routledge, New York, 2004;2003;, doi:10.4324/9780203499801.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 “City of Vancouver Ignored Gentrification While Pushing Neoliberal Policies of Market Development for ‘Livability’, Study Finds.” ThinkPol, 26 Apr. 2022, thinkpol.ca/2022/04/26/city-of-vancouver-ignored-gentrification-while-pushing-neoliberal-policies-of-market-development-for-livability-study-finds/.
  14. ↑ Harvey, David. "From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism." Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, vol. 71, no. 1, 1989, pp. 3.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Downtown Eastside Policy Plan. City of Vancouver, 2014, guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-plan-downtown-eastside.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 “Waldorf Hotel in Vancouver Closing.” News, Daily Hive, 31 Dec. 2017, dailyhive.com/vancouver/waldorf-hotel-in-vancouver-closing.
  17. ↑ “East Vancouver’s Waldorf Hotel Sold to Developer.” CBCnews, CBC Radio Canada, 10 Jan. 2013, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/east-vancouver-s-waldorf-hotel-sold-to-developer-1.1404896#:~:text=The%20hotel%20was%20sold%20to,is%20planning%20for%20the%20site.
  18. ↑ “Spill the Tea: Gentrification of Vancouver Chinatown.” School of Communication - Simon Fraser University, www.sfu.ca/communication/news-and-community/blog/spill-the-tea--gentrification-of-vancouver-chinatown.html#:~:text=Newly%20opened%20fashion%20stores%2C%20trendy,increased%20employment%20and%20business%20opportunities. Accessed 26 June 2024.
  19. ↑ Meiszner, Peter. “New Renderings of Massive Oakridge Centre Redevelopment.” urbanYVR, 11 Aug. 2021, www.urbanyvr.com/oakridge-centre-redevelopment-architecture-guidelines/.
  20. ↑ Chan, Kenneth. “Over 90% of the New Oakridge Park Shopping Mall Is Now Leased.” Urbanized, Daily Hive, 26 June 2024, dailyhive.com/vancouver/oakridge-park-retailers-commercial-leasing-vancouver#google_vignette.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 Ley, David, and Nicholas Lynch. "The Globalization of Urban Housing Markets: Immigration and Changing Housing Demand in Vancouver." Urban Geography, vol. 31, no. 6, 2010, pp. 724-749.. Divisions and Disparities in Lotus-Land: Socio-Spatial Income Polarization in Greater Vancouver, 1970-2005. vol. 223, Cities Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 2012.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Moos, Markus, and Andrejs Skaburskis. "The Globalization of Urban Housing Markets: Immigration and Changing Housing Demand in Vancouver." Urban Geography, vol. 31, no. 6, 2010, pp. 724-749.
  23. ↑ Infrastructure Canada, Frank, Lawrence, et al. How to Accommodate Growth and Create a More Sustainable Transportation System at the Same Time, 2012. https://urbandesign4health.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/INFC_Vancouver_Study_Final_Report_EN.pdf.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Hern, Matt, and Robert A. J. McDonald. Common Ground in a Liquid City: Essays in Defense of an Urban Future. AK Press, Oakland, CA;Edinburgh, 2010.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Hutton, Thomas A. "Thinking Metropolis: From the 'Livable Region' to the 'Sustainable Metropolis' in Vancouver." International Planning Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, 2011, pp. 237-255.
  26. ↑ Toderian, Brent, Michael Gordon, et al. Policy Report: Northeast False Creek Issues Report. City of Vancouver, 28 Sept. 2011, council.vancouver.ca/20111006/documents/penv1.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2024.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Housing Plan for Downtown Eastside. City of Vancouver, Oct. 2005, guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-plan-downtown-eastside-housing.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2024.
  28. ↑ City of Vancouver. “Places for Public Life in the Northeast False Creek Plan.” City of Vancouver, vancouver.ca/home-property-development/places-for-public-life.aspx. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  29. ↑ Lawrence, Grant. “Robson Street’s Last Independent Shops Say Goodbye.” Vancouver Is Awesome, 5 Mar. 2019, https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/robson-street-last-independent-shops-demolition-vancouver-1942658. Accessed 1 June 2024.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 “Displacement, Erasure, and the Gentrification of Vulnerable Communities in ‘liveable’ Vancouver.” Waterloo News, 25 Apr. 2022, uwaterloo.ca/news/media/displacement-erasure-and-gentrification-vulnerable.
This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.



Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2024/Vancouver_as_a_%22Place%22:_A_Case_Study_of_Vancouver%27s_Increasing_%22Placelessness%22&oldid=841528"