Jump to content

Course:GEOG350/2026/Ecological Urbanism: Aesthetics vs. Function

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

Vancouver has gained global recognition over the past decade for its sustainable design, waterfront developments and ‘livable city’ branding. Yet, beneath the curated skyline is a growing social and economic concern regarding housing affordability, displacement, deepening inequality and more. These conditions challenge the city’s projected image of urban vitality and raises questions about who the city is truly designed for. Cities around the world are increasingly competing to project an image as attractive and desirable places to live, which is often done by using urban design and architecture to attract investment, tourism and high-income residents. In this process, visual appeal can overshadow functional needs like affordability, accessibility and social equity. This dynamic refers to aesthetic governance: the use of design, beautification and visual order tools of urban management while concealing the underlying forms of urban decay rooted in social inequality and exclusion. Aesthetic governance shapes public perception and the urban experience in ways that make functionality flaws less apparent, reinforcing the illusion of successful planning. While aesthetics can enhance liveability and civic identity, prioritizing appearance over function can contribute to rising housing costs, gentrification, exclusionary public spaces and environmentally inefficient development. Understanding this relationship between aesthetics and function is vital because it reveals how planning decisions can shape how cities serve and are experienced in an urban context.

The concept of ‘planned-ness' further extends this idea, suggesting that developments are often judged not only by how well they function, but by how planned and visually coherent they appear[1]. In this sense, appearance itself becomes a form of legitimacy, where projects align with a ‘world-class’ visual identity and are more likely to be approved and celebrated. This framework is particularly relevant in Vancouver, where global competition and city branding often influences urban development decisions. Projects like Olympic Village appear highly planned, sustainable and visually appealing; however, these projects also raise questions about who these spaces are designed for and whether they serve the broader population of the city. By analyzing Vancouver’s approach to urban planning and design strategies, we can begin to consider how cities might integrate functionality, like infrastructure accessibility, housing inclusivity and sustainable development while maintaining vibrant urban environments. While ecological urbanism in Vancouver produces meaningful environmental benefits, its implementation is shaped by market forces that transform sustainability into a form of aesthetic governance, where developments are valued for how they appear rather than how equitably they function. Using Olympic Village as a case study, this Wiki page examines how the pursuit of a “world-class” urban image can reinforce social inequality and explores how cities might better integrate aesthetics with affordability, accessibility and inclusive urban design.

Establishing The Problem

Concord Pacific's GreenHouse, highlighting a specific relationship between nature and luxury.

At its core, this project examines a fundamental tension between Vancouver and its urban developments. There is a growing disconnect between ecological urbanism as a sustainability goal and its implementation as a market-driven, aestheticized urban product. Vancouver’s residents—particularly lower-income and marginalized communities—deserve ecological urban developments that deliver both real environmental sustainability and social equity. Current planning processes and practices—like Concord Pacific's Greenhouse's slogan—often prioritize aesthetic appeal and green branding in ways that increase housing costs, reinforce exclusionary bias, and limit access to the very benefits these developments claim to provide.

The problem isn’t about whether ecological urbanism works, but instead about who it works for. While ecological urbanism aims to integrate environmental and social systems into existing urban design, critics like Harvey[2] argue that in practice it often becomes a loosely defined framework applied through highly visible, capital-intensive projects that emphasize desirability and luxury. Cities are increasingly prioritizing “place marketing” and symbolic capital to attract investment rather than addressing the real underlying social needs[2]. For example, Vancouver’s Olympic Village design—driven by sustainability and the production of real environmental gains—simultaneously improves the environment while contributing to unaffordability and exclusion. This reflects a broader pattern we see in urban geography in which environmental improvements and social displacement are often produced alongside one another through the same development processes.

Ways of Viewing Ecological Urbanism

However, this issue is complex, and can be framed in multiple ways. One perspective suggests that ecological urbanism is inherently beneficial. Policy frameworks such as Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Plan emphasize environmental performance and livability, while largely treating affordability challenges as part of broader housing market dynamics rather than as central components of sustainability planning[1]. A second framing positions the tensions between aesthetic and function as inevitable, suggesting that creating both desirable and sustainable urban environments will always produce economic pressures and uneven access of some kind. This idea asserts that the very qualities that make cities attractive also increase land values and intensify inequalities[3].

These frameworks—which demonstrate direct conflict between themselves—provide evidence supporting our issue’s relevance to wicked problems for a multitude of reasons. First, there is no definitive formulation; whether the issue is framed as a housing crisis, sustainability challenge, or a governance problem, directly shapes how the city chooses to intervene. In turn, solutions will always provide unintended consequences of some kind that could impact one community and not another. Second, solutions to ecological urbanism’s commodification cannot be objectively right or wrong, rather better or worse depending on stakeholder perspectives and goals. Each community that contributes to a city’s development holds different opinions, whether they be planners, developers, residents, or environmental advocates. Finally, ecological urbanism is deeply interconnected with broader political and urban systems—including global capital flows, real estate developments, and existing affordability crises—meaning that addressing it can never be in isolation from its surrounding contexts and conditions.

Through our eyes, the challenge is not a simple question regarding our ability to design greener cities, but instead is how we can ensure that sustainability initiatives do not reproduce existing patterns of exclusionary bias.

To guide us in our analysis, the following “how might we” questions structure our research:

  • How might Vancouver implement real ecological urban developments that remain genuinely accessible and affordable, rather than becoming exclusive and high-cost?
  • How might planners attempt to balance aesthetic appeal and environmental performance with functional and essential needs like housing equity and inclusive access to urban spaces?
  • How might sustainability initiatives be designed to benefit a broader range of residents, rather than reinforcing existing social and economic divides that consequentially put classes against each other?

These questions are intentionally designed to deny coming to a singular conclusion. Instead, they each position ecological urbanism slightly differently. The conversation surrounding ecological aesthetic vs. function will continue to be an ongoing negotiation between environmental ambition and social justice, requiring us to critically engage rather than providing set-in-stone resolutions that present shorter-term results.

The Power and Impact Balance

Vulnerable Urban Residents

Map of various stakeholders contributing to the urban infrastructures of ecological urbanism in Vancouver, BC.

The tension between both aesthetics and function in Vancouver's urban development produces a highly uneven landscape of stakeholders, where the benefits of visually oriented planning are not equally dispersed amongst the community. Urban residents are at the centre, primarily those who are vulnerable to displacement and exclusion. Renters, low income households, unhoused individuals and many Indigenous, racialized and immigrant communities are impacted the most by the consequences of aesthetic governance[4][5]. Despite design forward developments contributing positively to Vancouver’s global image as a “liveable,” and “visually desirable city,” it frequently coincides with rising property values, redevelopment pressures and the gradual displacement of long standing communities[6][7]. In neighbourhoods like Vancouver's Downtown Eastside or those along the Cambie Corridor, aesthetic improvements and redevelopment have been completed, but consequently have brought affordability challenges and reduced accessibility for existing residents[6].

Government and Planning Institutions

A second group of stakeholders includes municipal and regional governing institutions, such as the city of Vancouver, Metro Vancouver and all urban planning departments. These groups have significant influence in zoning, design regulations and development approvals, which are all mandatory in defining what constitutes for a 'good' urban space[8]. Planning project structures tend to emphasize aesthetics like streetscape beauty, architectural coherence and public realm improvements, to promote livability, sustainability and economic competitiveness[7]. However, this focus obscures deeper structural issues, such as housing precarity, infrastructure inequities and uneven access to public space[9]. This way, aesthetic governance functions not only as a strategy of design, but as a method of urban management which structures both perception and policy priorities.

Private Sector Actors

Private sector stakeholders, like developers, real estate investors, architects and business enhancement groups are also key drivers in aesthetic urbanism. These actors benefit directly from visually appealing infrastructure, as the quality of design improves marketability, and attracts higher income residents, overall increasing the value of land. Their influence is often amplified through financial capital and institutional access, allowing them to restructure development in ways which almost guarantee profitability[10]. Despite such projects contributing to economic growth and urban revitalization, they also prioritize high end consumption and residential spaces over inclusive, functional urban requirements[9].

Advocacy Groups and Communities

Community groups and advocacy organizations are pushing back against purely aesthetic values and biased city planning as they want to shift the focus onto real people and equality. Tenant unions, housing advocates, accessibility groups and environmental justice foundations are emphasizing the relevance of affordability, inclusive design, and sustainability at a long term scale[4]. Despite their significant role, their voices tend to be marginalized in formal planning processes, as technical and economic expertise carry greater weight.

Overall, the stakeholder landscape highlights a clear imbalance in power and representation. Institutional and private sector actors are typically centred in decision-making, while those most impacted by the consequences of aesthetic governance remain underrepresented. An empathetic comprehension of this issue needs to account for both who is directly impacted, and whose interests are prioritized. It must also consider who is overlooked, and how urban design choices reinforce broader inequality patterns in Vancouver.

Vancouver's Olympic Village

Green Design and Affordability Goals

Overhead Photograph of Vancouver's Olympic Village

Southeast False Creek’s (SEFC) Olympic Village is the best example of ecological urbanism in Vancouver precisely because it is one of the city’s most celebrated green achievements but also one of its biggest failures of social equity. Built on a formerly industrial waterfront to house athletes for the 2010 Winter Games and subsequently turned into a residential neighbourhood, Olympic Village was designed to be a leading development for sustainable urban development in Vancouver[11]. The Village was constructed with the implementation of green roofs, manual ventilation, day-lighting, thermal storage, solar hot water and a plethora of other design features that would reduce ecological impact, energy waste, and carbon footprint[12]. The City of Vancouver claims that they built Canada's first residential multi-unit Net Zero Building which generates as much energy as it uses[13]. In addition, the previous degraded shoreline was transformed from an industrial brownfield to the renowned Vancouver Seawall that serves the community as a multi-use bike and pedestrian path.

In addition to the ecological goals, Olympic Village was designed with the prioritization of mixed-use buildings, family-oriented units and the City planned to eventually provide 5,000 residential units with a focus on affordable housing by the year 2020[14]. The Village initially planned to consist of about 1,100 residential units where 252 units are labeled as affordable housing and another 100 units as modest market and market housing[15].

Sustainable Promises, Market Realities

Despite the ambitious affordability targets, the outcomes of Olympic Village's completion reveal a significant gap between planning intentions and market realities. Many of the originally designated "affordable" units were either reduced, redefined, or delayed to financial pressures[16][17]. The most significant hurdle that the neighbourhood's planners had to navigate was the 2008 global economic crash which derailed affordable housing goals[18]. The developers of Olympic Village, Millennium Development Corporation, pivoted away from previous efforts, resulting in a reduction of 30% low-cost housing to 20%[19]. This meant that within the 1,100 total units that were built, only 252 units were considered to be low-cost[20]. This proves that within SEFC's financial planning, affordability was not a core principle within its development. Claiming that Olympic Village was created with emphasis on affordability is undermined by the actions that were taken when costs needed to be reduced.

The view of Science World from Olympic Village

Green spaces, particularly in urban environments, have become prominently marketable and profit-driven in cities across the globe. Vancouver is no different, as the city's best points of marketability heavily revolve around its connection with the natural world and close proximity to the ocean. Green gentrification has rampantly spread throughout Vancouver as properties near, or entwined with, green spaces skyrocket in value [21]. The increased effort to include sustainable aspects of city-making in many neighbourhoods has created a multifaceted situation where the environment may be thriving while many people suffer the consequences. This beautification of neighbourhoods simultaneously provides important green infrastructure and creates stunning urban landscapes while increasing displacement and inequality. This contradiction is what makes this wicked problem surrounding ecological urbanism in Olympic Village so complex.

Whose Restoration? Stakeholder Experiences of the Same Space

The most prominent issue with ecological urbanism in Vancouver is the deep spatial inequalities that are created or perpetuated by developers. In the case of Olympic Village, it is important to understand who is benefitting and suffering from the so-called “restoration” of the area and the Village’s ecological prowess.

It is important to note that Olympic Village and its transformation was an incredible success from an ecological perspective. The shortcomings of the neighbourhood primarily stem from the financial and inequality factors. Specifically due to the fact that Olympic Village is an exclusive neighbourhood where only those with high-income jobs can afford the steep housing prices of the area. In 2020, the median household income for the Olympic Village area was $104,000 CAD[22]. The Village serves as the second most expensive waterfront neighbourhood in the entire False Creek area, only following the prolific high-income area of Yaletown[23]. The wealthier residents of Olympic Village are able to benefit from the beautiful greenspaces and environmental infrastructure without suffering the high costs. Displacement fueled by green gentrification and rising house costs affects those who are not able to match the rising property values. Features such as the Seawall, Habitat Island, Hinge Park, and many of the beautiful greenspaces scattered throughout the village serve purely for aesthetics, movement, and beauty.

Like most areas of Greater Vancouver, Olympic Village is situated on the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations[24]. For these Nations, Southeast False Creek’s so-called "restoration" may not resonate with their values and cultural beliefs. The once natural landscape that existed in the region was brutally transformed into industrial lands, then again transformed into a modern playground for the wealthy that claims eco-friendly status.

Comparing Vancouver to Global Cities

Despite the spatial inequalities surrounding Olympic Village, it has gained global recognition for its gold-standard integration of urban and natural elements. Vancouver is not the only city that is prioritizing ecological developments, a global shift in city planning has yielded more visually appealing architecture, clean public spaces and sustainability branded regions to bring in tourism, funding and high income residents[25][26]. Olympic Village’s success in ecological city-making but failure in affordability raises an important question: is inequality an inherent outcome of ecological urbanism, or is Vancouver’s implementation subpar compared to other international projects?

The Dagvatten Canal in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden

Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm, Sweden is a similar case study to the Olympic Village. In the early 1990s, the area was a “run-down, polluted and unsafe industrial and residential area” but currently it resides as one of Stockholm’s most beautiful residential areas and a successful urban renewal project[27]. This project heavily prioritized environmental sustainability through the use of experimental solutions for energy supply and state of the art ecological infrastructure[28]. The neighbourhood features a diverse set of small businesses, restaurants, and market centres that provide cultural identity and social connection[29]. Despite the many sustainable aspects, in similar fashion to Olympic Village, affordability is a major shortcoming of the development[30]. Apartment prices are high and there is a shortage of affordable rental units, thus proving that in many ecological urban developments, the focus remains on the environmental impacts rather than combating spatial inequalities.

A sustainable dwelling in Vauban, Germany

While both Olympic Village and Hammarby Sjöstad exhibit notable affordability shortcomings, not all sustainability designed developments necessarily become widely unaffordable. In Germany's neighbourhood of Vauban, this town serves as an exemplary example for how cities can include both ecological city-making and affordability. This German town only consists of positive energy buildings, which are buildings that generate more renewable energy than the occupants consume[31]. This is a stark contrast from Olympic Village as it features only one singular Net Zero building compared to Vauban’s staggering 373 positive energy buildings[32][33]. Additionally, most of the dwellings are highly affordable due to the fact that the majority of housing sites offered by the city are small[34]. The city also implemented a policy that prevented large investor developers from entering bidding wars over land and making land costs deeply unaffordable[35]. The use of this approach resulted in cost savings of 25% or more for home owners when compared to conventional profit-driven commercial developments[36].

Propositions for Improvement

A central issue in Vancouver’s approach to ecological urbanism is the prioritization of visual order and design coherence over actual functional performance. This reflects the idea of “planned-ness,” which is often judged by how spaces appear instead of how they operate, reinforcing a ‘world-class’ aesthetic; this prioritizes spatial order, appearance control and curated visual experiences[37]. In this sense, sustainability is frequently assessed and understood through design features and symbolic indicators, rather than measurable social and environmental outcomes. This ultimately reflects a broader reliance on what might be described as “windshield surveys,” where urban success is evaluated through surface-level observation, and not primarily through lived experiences[37].

Shift in ‘Sustainable’ Assessments  

One potential intervention is to shift the focus from how developments visually appeal, and how they actually function through the practice of sustainability.  Instead of judging projects based on design features or sustainability labels (like LEED certifications), cities could evaluate planning decisions based on real outcomes. This could include income diversity, accessibility for marginalized (including mobility impaired) groups, or meeting actual energy use targets.  Focusing on function over controlled aesthetics is also supported by studies on vertical greenery in cities like Bogor, Indonesia, where green walls were shown to reduce surface temperatures by up to 10.5ºC[38]. This demonstrates that green design can have real environmental benefits when it functions properly.

However, the study also found that these benefits depended on factors like plant density and maintenance; meaning that spaces designed to “look green” did not always perform effectively[38]. This shows that sustainability should be measured based on real environmental impact, rather than visual appearance alone. For example, rather than prioritizing neat, fully docked systems for things like scooters or bikes, cities could allow more flexible options that may look less organized, but are easier for people to use in everyday life[39]. Despite these benefits, there also remains a risk that these new systems become too focused on functionality, and miss how people actually experience and move throughout a space. However, considering functional systems over performative ones shifts the focus from appearance to addressing social and economic concerns; this ultimately challenges the idea that good urban design is mainly about visually cleanliness and aesthetic planning.

This intervention would receive mixed responses. Low-income residents and  accessibility advocates will likely support it because this idea focuses on more accessible and usable spaces, while prioritizing affordability and everyday needs over design. Similarly, environmentalists and planners may also support this shift because it emphasizes measurable outcomes like actual energy use and heat reduction, rather than surface level design. However, real estate developers, property owners and investors may resist this approach because visually appealing projects are more desirable to market, and increased performance can lead to higher costs and regulation. While prioritizing function can make a city more equitable, it may also conflict with economic goals and public expectations of what a well designed city should look like.

Limiting Green Branding

Sustainability is often used as a branding tool in cities like Vancouver. Green designs and features are used to promote a ‘world-class’ image that attracts investment, tourism and wealthier residents. While these features may have real environmental benefits, they also increase property values and gentrify neighbourhoods. The same qualities that make a city attractive, like clean, green spaces, can also make it more unequal[3]. In this way, sustainability becomes not just an environmental goal, but a way of shaping how the city is seen while hiding issues like displacement and affordability. One way to address this is to make the impacts of development more visible instead of presenting overly polished and idealized images. Cities could require that public materials (development models, renderings or displays) show not only the flashy benefits of a project, but also the social and environmental impacts, like displacement or unequal access. Instead of only showing the before and after improvements, these materials could present a more complete picture of what is gained and what is lost. This would challenge the idea that development is always positive and encourage a more honest understanding of urban change.

However, this approach also has limitations. Cities rely on branding to compete globally, so making development look less appealing could reduce investment and economic growth. It may also be difficult to regulate how developers present their projects in an unbiased way as it could restrict how they market and communicate their ideas. Reactions to this approach will likely vary. Community groups, activists and artists may support this because it makes inequality more visible and encourages accountability. In contrast, developers, policy makers and marketing groups will likely oppose it because it will challenge business branding and economic growth. Overall, this intervention shows how difficult it is to separate sustainability from marking and profit, and how deeply these ideas are connected in urban worlds.

The Big Picture

Vancouver's approach to ecological urbanism showcases a significant contradiction in contemporary urban development, where initiatives designed to influence sustainability and livability tend to be delivered through frameworks reinforcing socio-economic inequality. This is especially seen in the Olympic Village case study, as the pursuit of the “world class” urban image brought forth by visual appearance, green environmental designs and global competition overall, deepens issues of affordability, accessibility and displacement.

This analysis showcases how the key issue isn't whether cities can properly implement sustainable designs, but who ultimately benefits from these developments. With emphasis on aesthetic governance and “planned-ness” prioritizing how spaces visually appear over their function, urban environments are created in ways which advantage higher income groups, ultimately marginalizing those who are already vulnerable.

Cities must stop relying on visual indicators or basic branding strategies, and begin prioritizing tangible solutions like housing affordability, accessibility and inclusive development. However, as a wicked problem, there isn’t just a single solution. Instead, ecological urbanism should be understood as an ongoing participatory planning project, discussed under environmental goals, economic forces and social equity. Accomplishing a truly sustainable city doesn't just rely on greener infrastructure, but on foundational new beginnings toward justice, accountability, and the everyday experiences of all residents.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ghertner, David Asher. “Rule by Aesthetics: World-Class City Making in Delhi,” 2010. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0pt7w0c5#main.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Harvey, David. “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geography 71, no. 1 (April 1, 1989): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.1989.11879583.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Zukin, Sharon. Naked City. Oxford University Press eBooks, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195382853.001.0001.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Elvin Wyly. “Gentrification.” Routledge & CRC Press, 2008. https://www.routledge.com/Gentrification/Lees-Slater-Wyly/p/book/9780415950374.
  5. ↑ Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. 2023a. “Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population.” https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 City of Vancouver. “Provincial Housing Needs Report,” 2026. https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/provincial-housing-needs-report.aspx.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Punter, John. UBC Press. “The Vancouver Achievement,”. January 1, 2004. https://www.ubcpress.ca/the-vancouver-achievement.
  8. ↑ Vancouver, Metro. “About Metro 2050 | Metro Vancouver,” 2023. https://metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/metro-2050-the-regional-growth-strategy.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Harvey, David. “Rebel Cities,” March 12, 2012. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2236-rebel-cities.
  10. ↑ R. Logan, John and Molotch, Harvey. University of California Press. “Urban Fortunes by John Logan, Harvey Molotch - Paper,” August, 2007. https://www.ucpress.edu/books/urban-fortunes/paper.
  11. ↑ Vancouver, City of. “Olympic Village.” vancouver.ca, n.d. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/olympic-village.aspx.
  12. ↑ “Southeast False Creek City of Vancouver SEFC Official Development Plan By-Laws 1 SCHEDULE a CITY of VANCOUVER SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN,” 2007. https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/odp-southeast-false-creek.pdf.
  13. ↑ Vancouver, City of. “Olympic Village.” vancouver.ca, n.d. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/olympic-village.aspx.
  14. ↑ Vancouver, City of. “Olympic Village.” vancouver.ca, n.d. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/olympic-village.aspx.
  15. ↑ Vancouver, City of. “Olympic Village.” vancouver.ca, n.d. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/olympic-village.aspx.
  16. ↑ Westerhoff, Lisa M. “Emerging Narratives of a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood: The Case of Vancouver’s Olympic Village.” Articulo, no. 14 (March 31, 2015): 18. https://doi.org/10.4000/articulo.2974.
  17. ↑ CBC. “2010 Olympic Village Construction Cost Overruns Worry Critics.” CBC, October 7, 2008. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/2010-olympic-village-construction-cost-overruns-worry-critics-1.735233.
  18. ↑ Westerhoff, Lisa M. “Emerging Narratives of a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood: The Case of Vancouver’s Olympic Village.” Articulo, no. 14 (March 31, 2015): 18. https://doi.org/10.4000/articulo.2974.
  19. ↑ Westerhoff, Lisa M. “Emerging Narratives of a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood: The Case of Vancouver’s Olympic Village.” Articulo, no. 14 (March 31, 2015): 18. https://doi.org/10.4000/articulo.2974.
  20. ↑ Westerhoff, Lisa M. “Emerging Narratives of a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood: The Case of Vancouver’s Olympic Village.” Articulo, no. 14 (March 31, 2015): 18. https://doi.org/10.4000/articulo.2974.
  21. ↑ Nesbitt, Lorien. “How Cities Can Avoid ‘Green Gentrification’ and Make Urban Forests Accessible - Beyond.” beyond.ubc.ca, n.d. https://beyond.ubc.ca/urban-forests/.
  22. ↑ Censusmapper.ca. “Median Income Explorer,” 2021. https://censusmapper.ca/maps/3348?index=3#14/49.2749/-123.1277.
  23. ↑ Censusmapper.ca. “Median Income Explorer,” 2021. https://censusmapper.ca/maps/3348?index=3#14/49.2749/-123.1277.
  24. ↑ Nykilchyk, Hannah. “Creating a Sustainable Community Legacy for False Creek – Sustainable Heritage Case Studies.” Sustainableheritagecasestudies.ca, February 2, 2023. https://sustainableheritagecasestudies.ca/2023/02/02/creating-a-sustainable-community-legacy-for-false-creek/.
  25. ↑ Florida, Richard L. The New Urban Crisis : How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class-- and What We Can Do about It. New York: Basic Books, 2017.
  26. ↑ Harvey, David. “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 71, no. 1 (April 1989): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.1989.11879583.
  27. ↑ Urban Green-Blue Grids. “Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden | Urban Green-Blue Grids.” urbangreenbluegrids.com, n.d. https://urbangreenbluegrids.com/projects/hammarby-sjostad-stockholm-sweden/.
  28. ↑ Urban Green-Blue Grids. “Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden | Urban Green-Blue Grids.” urbangreenbluegrids.com, n.d. https://urbangreenbluegrids.com/projects/hammarby-sjostad-stockholm-sweden/.
  29. ↑ Urban Green-Blue Grids. “Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden | Urban Green-Blue Grids.” urbangreenbluegrids.com, n.d. https://urbangreenbluegrids.com/projects/hammarby-sjostad-stockholm-sweden/.
  30. ↑ Ignatieva, Maria . “Hammarby Sjöstad: A New Generation of Sustainable Urban Eco-Districts | Smart Cities Dive.” www.smartcitiesdive.com, n.d. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/hammarby-sj-stad-new-generation-sustainable-urban-eco-districts/225266/.
  31. ↑ Green City Times. “Europe’s Greenest City District | Vauban, Germany.” www.greencitytimes.com, March 31, 2014. https://www.greencitytimes.com/europe-s-most-sustainable-city/.
  32. ↑ Vancouver, City of. “Olympic Village.” vancouver.ca, n.d. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/olympic-village.aspx.
  33. ↑ Statistisches Jahrbuch 2017. “Vauban in Numbers – Stadtteil-Vauban.de,” 2015. https://stadtteil-vauban.de/en/vauban-in-numbers/.
  34. ↑ Coates, G. J. “The Sustainable Urban District of Vauban in Freiburg, Germany.” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 8, no. 4 (December 31, 2013): 276. https://doi.org/10.2495/dne-v8-n4-265-286.
  35. ↑ Coates, G. J. “The Sustainable Urban District of Vauban in Freiburg, Germany.” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 8, no. 4 (December 31, 2013): 276. https://doi.org/10.2495/dne-v8-n4-265-286.
  36. ↑ Coates, G. J. “The Sustainable Urban District of Vauban in Freiburg, Germany.” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 8, no. 4 (December 31, 2013): 276. https://doi.org/10.2495/dne-v8-n4-265-286.
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 Ghertner, David Asher. “Rule by Aesthetics: World-Class City Making in Delhi,” 2010. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0pt7w0c5#main.
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Sulistyantara, B. and R. Sesara. "Evaluation of Aesthetic Function and Thermal Modification of Vertical Greenery at Bogor City, Indonesia." IOP Conference Series.Earth and Environmental Science 91, no. 1 (10, 2017). doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/91/1/012005. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/evaluation-aesthetic-function-thermal/docview/2560154117/se-2.
  39. ↑ Leszczynski, Agnieszka, Jonathan Cinnamon, Suzi Asa, and Lindi Jahiu. "Docklessness, Aesthetic Governance, and the Urban ‘micromobility Mess’." Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 62, no. 12 (2025): 2508-2525.


This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.


Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2026/Ecological_Urbanism:_Aesthetics_vs._Function&oldid=893609"