Jump to content

Course:GEOG350/2026/Housing Financialization in Vancouver

From UBC Wiki

Total length: Approximately 3,200-3,500 words plus visualizations, references, and process reflection

Introduction & Context

The State of Affairs

Concord Pacific Master Plan Area (2015)

The financialization of housing in Vancouver has resulted in a regional affordability crisis, placing housing out of reach for many low and middle income residents. Housing is no longer a right but rather a commodified asset cultivated through neoliberal economic processes. This problem is so great that it is regularly mentioned by the City of Vancouver as a key issue, such as the “50 key actions” for affordability outlined in the 3-Year Action Plan (2024-2026).[1] In spite of efforts from all levels of government, including attempted reregulation of the housing market by the BCNDP, Vancouver’s historic development and contemporary positionality situate its housing market as one of the least affordable in the world. A key part of the story of financialization in this place is redevelopment guided by free-market policies for revenue generation, such as in the case of False Creek.

How we got here

This crisis began in the 1970s, and turned towards “market solutions” beginning in the 1990s.[2] These years roughly correspond with the rupturing of Keynesian economics and its replacement with neoliberal economics, beginning first with the Social Credit Party’s provincial changes followed up by sweeping economic reforms introduced by Brian Mulroney's federal government. Initially, Vancouver grappled with increasing urban redevelopment and gentrification that saw the destruction of affordable units in favour of new condominiums that offered “fast return on investment,” leading to the “erosion of rental properties and inadequate new private rental supply."[3] This issue ramped up going into the 1980s and 1990s, when governments turned towards “market solutions” like deregulation as a result of repeated economic shocks throughout the 1980s-1990s.[4] In the post-industrial city, housing was left in the hands of the market who saw redevelopment as a key to immense wealth generation at the expense of the poorest urban residents.[5]

Theoretical Aim

To address the issue of neoliberal redevelopment and financialization in Vancouver, we have adopted the framework of Political Economy. Under this, we examine urban redevelopment in Vancouver through the False Creek project and compare it with the London Docklands since both cities have undergone resoundingly similar neoliberal histories. In this, we identify a dilemma between the need for affordable housing and the need for economic growth which presents a problem without an easy or comfortable solution. Many stakeholders, such as renters and developers, possess competing views on this issue, and furthermore the list of possible strategies to mitigate the issue are seemingly limitless, each solution not entirely addressing the needs of all those involved.

Stakeholder Landscape

Stakeholder Mapping
Housing Stakeholder Map

In addressing the subject of financialization of housing, it is necessary to examine all parties and stakeholders involved, what this line of change in the neoliberal spectrum means for each of them, and its classification as a problem or an opportunity. There are multiple groups and demographics with a point on this matter, and this includes homeowners, renters, investors, landlords, and multiple levels of government. Opinions between any particular party can differ or intersect, and not everyone will always agree on the same statements. The arguments about whether housing should be a unit of capital or a human necessity are conflicting, and views can be influenced by a person or party’s experience or position within the housing industry, and ties to various subjects such as human rights and business. A common argument made against housing commodification, primarily by renters or buyers, is that it creates an environment where homes are unaffordable to live in, and puts people in lower-income brackets at a higher disadvantage. On another side, investors, land developers, and politicians, may think that it is essential for cities to run the housing industry in this sense as they see it as an opportunity to grow the region's economy.

The increase in neoliberal policies marked a major change in operations and cities like Vancouver were hit especially hard. This is considered a positive, neutral, or negative impact depending on who is asked, and what specific demographic any given voice is a part of. In our real world not every voice is equally concerned, with many on the lower-income side being marginalized or ignored by those who make the rules and as a result may have to fight to be heard by the majority. Importantly, the question arises why many among the renter demographic consider this a problem, and why they are negatively affected. A prolific point as to why this is is that housing and rent prices in Vancouver are consistently going up, and despite occasional dips in the market, we continue into an affordability crisis.[6] In addition to this, increasing prices of other commodities compound affordability concerns for working class people trying to make a stable living. Whose voices matter most, and whose are those primarily listened to by the mainstream? And if there is a problem, then what is the solution? Is it failing as a system, or working exactly in the way that it’s supposed to? The objective was to flow more profit into the growing industry in Vancouver to build more housing, and it’s one of the main commodities the city runs on. If this brings in less revenue, what does that mean for future development of city infrastructure, and is there a possibility of ultimate financial collapse?

Problem Framing

Beginning in the 20th century, governments across the globe have gradually rolled back on socialist-based policies, instead prioritizing neoliberal free-market principles such as deregulation and privatization[7]. As a result, cities have shifted their focus to prioritizing private firms that generate revenue, benefiting both investors and developers, over the needs of their residents, especially those in vulnerable economic positions, often intersecting with gender, race, and age[8]. These transformations become especially evident when examining housing affordability in regions that have increasingly relied on public-private partnerships to rejuvenate underdeveloped areas. Although successful urban renewal initiatives have increased financial gains for cities, they have also raised the property value in the region. This has resulted in residents, particularly those in vulnerable positions, viewing these changes as gentrification rather than rejuvenation.

The Burgess Urban Land Use Model
The Burgess Urban Land Use Model

Although municipalities often justify public-private redevelopment projects as a necessary tool to address housing demand, mitigate urban decay[9] , and a means to grow the local economy[10], critics argue that such initiatives have contributed to the financialization of housing, commodifying a fundamental need[11]. In addition to the commodification of housing, these projects often lead to the displacement of lower-income residents.[12] Moreover, as housing becomes more of a speculative asset instead of a fundamental need, it has forced an increasing number of residents to move out of city centers that have undergone redevelopment. [13]This displacement has not only lowered the quality of life for residents but has prompted an increasing number of residents to leave the province entirely[14], which in turn places pressure on Metro Vancouver’s workforce and economic output. Furthermore, as cities increasingly rely on public-private partnerships with investors and land developers, they have eased regulations on housing developments, such as zoning reforms, which have contributed to rising property values for homeowners and increased rent for tenants[15].

This creates a persistent dilemma for stakeholders, including cities, investors, developers, homeowners, and renters, who must navigate competing priorities. Advancing with public-private redevelopment partnerships can grow the local economy, generate revenue for investors and developers, prevent urban decay, and increase housing supply, but also risks displacing residents through rising housing costs and rent for tenants in redeveloped regions. In contrast, scaling back redevelopment projects in favour of pursuing alternative solutions to alleviate the high cost of housing may protect residents from rising housing costs, but can limit economic opportunities and leave underdeveloped regions to remain in decline.

These tensions make the ongoing housing crisis in Metro Vancouver an exemplar of in current wicked problems, as there are competing stakeholder perspectives and no clear path forward. Additionally, efforts to alleviate the housing crisis would take time and may produce uneven outcomes, benefiting some stakeholders while negatively impacting others. Furthermore, these issues are symptomatic of broader political-economic forces, notably the encroaching neoliberal policies which have driven the financialization and commodification of housing, turning it from a fundamental human need, into a speculative asset. Overall, there is no objectively silver-bullet solution that can equally appease all involved stakeholders, but there are paths forward that could begin to alleviate the housing crisis. To guide a possible solution, it is important to consider the following:

  • How might we increase the amount of housing supply in Metro Vancouver without further gentrifying vulnerable neighbourhoods?
  • How might we reduce the financialization of housing while still encouraging private investment to promote economic growth? Moreover, should we continue to rely on private investment?

Northeast False Creek Case Study

Provincial Electoral District Vancouver-False Creek 2015

False Creek and Expo 86

An illustrative example of Vancouver’s housing market is North False Creek, a strip of land south of Downtown Vancouver. From the 1970s onward Canada was a prime example of Keynesian economic policy which was subsequently hit by the stagflation crisis and Early 1980s Recession that led to growing national debt, unemployment, and a burst housing bubble.[16] The provincial government’s neoliberal reforms included cutbacks to welfare programs including social housing, but also an interest in hosting Expo 86.[16] The idea that a positive city image was an essential part of attracting desirable people and capital, which led to the decision to go through with Expo 86 as a place-marketing campaign in the hope it would lead to later growth.[17] The Northern shore of False Creek was decided to be the venue of the Expo, following deindustrialization and redevelopment of the area. With the application for Expo 86 approved in 1979, a Crown Corporation was created to manage the world fair.[17] The dominant perspective held by the province and large corporations was that it would be good for business, and that the cost to construct the venue would be paid back through new revenue streams.[17] Markedly Premier Bennett opened construction of the Expo to non-union contractors with support of businessman Jim Pattison against local labour union wishes.[17] The public at the time expressed concerns that the Expo would be too expensive and that it would worsen traffic and parking given the influx of visitors. The economist Bob Allen agreed, he had studied other cities’ world fair events and found that the majority brought financial disaster.[17] Vancouver’s then-mayor was another skeptic, citing similar concerns along with the dislocation of many long-term Downtown Eastside tenants to permit redevelopment to accommodate the anticipated visitors.

A positive result of the Expo was the Vancouverism model of urban planning (which focuses on building complete diverse and mixed-use communities), would go on to influence the planning decisions of cities around the world. The groups that benefit the most from the event were construction companies, developers, and media/promoters. The negative effects were concentrated in the rising real estate market and the people evicted for redevelopment. Overall, this led to a decline in the amount of affordable housing, at a time when the budget was more concerned with supporting Expo 86 over other public services. This meant that the Expo had heavily stratified effects on the population, where those hurt by the Expo were also less likely to enjoy its benefits either due to reliance on cut programs or those who lived far from the venue.[17] A surprising outcome of the otherwise neoliberal strategy behind the Expo was the Keynesian-esque boost in the job market which was needed due to the recession preceding the Expo, and the outcome was seen as economically positive. In an example of a large public-private partnership, the province sold the 82-hectare site for redevelopment as a single parcel which was won by a joint submission from three of Hong Kong’s largest development companies lead by Li Ka-shing[16]. Li’s purchase also attracted smaller Hong Kong developers to Vancouver after determining that Li considered Vancouver to be a good investment. Coinciding with this was the Business Immigration Programme which was designed to encourage transplanting successful investors and entrepreneurs along with their capital to Canada.[16] This and the Expo proved to be very successful and introduced international capital to the local real estate market, which would ultimately exceed the capacity for local income to participate.[16] It was noted that between 1980 and 2006 Vancouver’s median family income had fallen, while at the same time house prices nearly doubled and have continued to outpace income growth.[16] This happened while the provincial government has been reluctant to make changes that would interfere with the market and during social program cutbacks, which has left Vancouver in a worse spatial context where young professionals cannot afford to live and work in Vancouver.[16]

The Northeast False Creek Plan

False Creek Neighbourhood
Bounds of the Northeast False Creek Plan

The Northeast False Creek Plan[18] (NEFC Plan) documents the planning process of one of Vancouver’s major urban planning projects. The project is located on a ~58-hectare plot, the last Expo land to be redeveloped, is located on the Northeast section of False Creek next to Downtown Vancouver.[19] The Plan outlines the guiding principles of the redevelopment to create a mixed-use neighbourhood with ample public amenities and green space through city initiatives, private development, and public-private partnerships.[18] Highlighted in the plan is demographic data that sets the area apart from the rest of Vancouver. The community already accommodates 9,000 daily visitors, with Science World averaging 650,000 annual visitors while BC Place and Rogers Arena average 1,000,000 visitors annually each.[18] Census data is cited showing the area has 6,300 residents and 4,170 jobs, and that a high proportion of work-related travel is done by walking (34%), where car use at 36%.[18] The data also consistently shows the 20-39 age group making up 67% of population, while in the rest of the city this group make up 34%[18]. The community is primarily composed of stratified market units, with fewer rental units (9%) compared to the city overall (32%), and that 45% of units have more than two bedrooms.[18]

The NEFC Plan also outlines a plan to have 20% of new stratified residential area be dedicated towards social housing,[18] approximately 900 units.[19] It is also planned to acquire an additional ~600 units of social housing following amendments proposed at a Council hearing.[19] To contextualize these plans, the Vancouver Affordable Housing Endowment Fund (VAHEF), represents the city’s portfolio of non-market units, which as of January 2026 includes 13,500 homes with 1,291 currently under construction, with another 1,867 planned.[20] Furthermore, Vancouver’s 2022 Housing Progress Update[21] tacitly describes falling behind in non-market housing while touting expansion of rental units, indicating the continued on more neoliberal and financialized forms of housing. This is supported by the 2024-2033 10-Year Housing Targets[21] report indicating that of 83,000 total new homes planned, only 16,600 are below-market units.

Comparative Perspective

Although Vancouver’s speculative housing market has attracted global attention, with both housing and rental prices ranking among the highest in the world, its situation is not unique.[22] Cities across the globe have similarly experienced the increasing financialization of housing as neoliberal practices continue to expand and intensify[23]. A prominent comparative example that illustrates this point is the housing market in London, United Kingdom, which has long been at the forefront of housing financialization[11]. In the context of urban redevelopment projects supported by public-private partnerships, the London Docklands stands out as an early example.

Canary Wharf

In 1981, the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), which was a part of the government’s Urban Development Corporation, began the redevelopment of the East London Docklands, an area which had been left abandoned following industrial decline, including the Surrey Docks, Isle of Dogs, and the Royal Docks[24]. In line with Thatcher-era neoliberal policies, which emphasized limited state intervention and free-market-led growth[7], the LDDC’s role was limited to land preparation and marketing, relying on private investment to drive growth. A common practice to promote economic growth is creating specialized economic zones that relax regulations to attract investment[25]. The Isle of Dogs used a similar strategy, creating an enterprise zone that offered tax incentives and regulatory relief, which reduced development restrictions and offered a 10-year tax relief that allowed inventors to offset 100% of costs against future taxes[26]. These incentives attracted the Canadian firm, Olympia and York, to begin construction on a major skyscraper in 1987, named One Canada Square. After its completion in 1990, this development became the core of Canary Wharf’s transformation into a major financial district.[27] However, while the London Docklands project has driven economic growth for the region, it has been widely criticized for prioritizing the interests of firms and investors over residents, as recent housing reports illustrate that the cost of housing in the region has significantly risen.[28]

False Creek
False Creek

When comparing the London Docklands project with Vancouver’s False Creek neighbourhood, there is significant overlap, particularly in their reliance on public-private partnerships to drive the redevelopment of the land. However, the key difference that differentiates these two projects is how each city has addressed the social impacts of redevelopment. While the Docklands redevelopment followed a hands-off approach, leaving markets to drive growth, the redevelopment of False Creek, especially in its early phase, had a direct hands-on approach, in which city officials meticulously took into consideration the social aspects of what makes a city livable, as reflected in its official development plan[29]. Vancouver can draw several lessons from the London Docklands, namely balancing affordability and livability with growth, rather than allowing economic growth to supersede the needs of residents, as well as limiting neoliberal policies that disproportionally benefit privates firms.

Ideas for Urban Action

The problems presented by redevelopment guided by neoliberal free-market principles are immense, far-reaching, and difficult to entirely address. The following are two separate potential mitigation strategies that address this issue.

Solution #1: Housing Co-ops

Housing co-ops are a good mitigation strategy to combat financialization because they guarantee the presence of low-cost non-market accommodation for those that need it most. Such non-profit cooperative units “deliver affordable housing to people who have a higher risk of income vulnerability,” through non-profit fixed rates, removing them from the potential harms of redevelopment.[30] Co-ops also provide social benefits for their residents, such as “strong social connections” between neighbours or the possibility of “skills acquisition."[31] While this wiki is not explicitly about social factors, these social benefits are hard to ignore. Such co-operatives can also alleviate spatial inequalities constructed over centuries through the provision of housing that is both “affordable and socially inclusive."[32]

Not In Need In Need Extreme Need
505,510 304,995 150,430
Households experiencing housing stress, Metro Vancouver (Census 2016)[33]

The housing co-op strategy is not without its flaws. First, housing co-ops often occupy aging buildings that may lack up to date safety standards or may be dangerous in other ways. Furthermore, living in a co-operative run housing environment can thrust difficult “participation demands” onto residents which have the potential to “foster exclusionary dynamics” or reduce the cost-to-effectiveness ratio of co-operative living for residents.[34] Finally, co-ops typically require government subsidy to function, something not easily achievable in neoliberal economics. Similarly, the land that housing co-ops occupy is typically highly valued land, making it a prime target for neoliberal redevelopment.

The above described strategy addresses the needs of renters and low income individuals, particularly vulnerable demographics such as single parents or those with “physical limitations,” looking for an affordable place to live.[35] The expansion of the co-op program can get below-market housing into the hands of more of these people. However, such a mitigation strategy does not at all address the needs of other stakeholders in this debate: cities seek economic growth through redevelopment of high value places occupied by co-ops, and developers seek redevelopment of places into market rate units.

Solution #2: Greater Government Involvement

A much more radical idea is getting the government more involved in the construction of housing itself, having this entity built and operate its own below-market housing that target areas of unaffordability. To achieve this, efforts at rupturing the neoliberal economic order, and in particular the stoppage of public-private partnerships, will need to occur. Bloom and Lasner’s solution to the unaffordability crisis within the context of New York, a strategy that can be easily transplanted to Vancouver’s housing market due to similar stressors, is the “mixture of [government subsidized] long-term, below-market-interest-rate loans…; cash for operation and maintenance…; and low (abated) property taxes."[36] It is important to note here that Vancouver already fits one of these criteria: Vancouver has a property tax of around 0.3%. among the lowest in Canada.

Location Property Tax Rate
Vancouver (BC) 0.3%
Victoria (BC) 0.44%
Calgary (AB) 0.66%
Toronto (ON) 0.76%
Montreal (QB) 0.9%
Edmonton (AB) 1.01%
Ottawa (ON) 1.23%
Winnipeg (MB) 1.38%
Major Cities Property Tax Rate (2026)[37]

The difficulties with achieving this are immense. First, the current public-private partnership model covers the expensive housing construction has. Furthermore, this change would require a return to higher taxation, a highly unpopular idea among the general (home owning) public and with corporations. Second, it can be argued that governmental construction and operation of housing could be bureaucratic and not adequately address the housing needs of a neighbourhood. Amoah highlights the necessity for “beneficiaries” to be involved in all phases of social housing construction, based on data from the South African social housing scene.[38] Finally, this mitigation strategy has the potential to not actually fix the problem: it is tough to tell if government constructed housing would solve anything, or if people will end up just paying market rate to the government instead.

The stakeholder positions for this mitigation strategy are largely the same as the housing co-ops. Low-income renters and those seeking housing would be most likely to be in favour of these changes, as well as contract companies, who will benefit from guaranteed government-backed work. In opposition stands real estate developers, who lose opportunities for market rate housing, as well as losing benefits from public-private partnerships, as well as the general (home owning) public who will see there taxes rise. Finally, the government is a neutral party in this issue, as while the costs up front are immense, the government is set to benefit in the long term through housing revenue.

Conclusion & Reflection

Vancouver is presented with a uniquely difficult problem to address, one that is in many ways reflective of foreign issues and one that possesses its own unique challenges. Urban redevelopment contributes heavily to the financialization of its housing market through the process of neoliberal free-market principles, something that is evident in the False Creek. Often, such redevelopments advantage private developers interested in market rate housing, such as Li Ka-shing, over the needs of residents. This pushes vulnerable people out of the city to seek more affordable spaces, putting a strain on their quality of life. However, while False Creek seems to have followed a very similar trajectory as foreign examples like the London Docklands, it is not without its unique circumstances: it is a result of more state intervention in its redevelopment compared to the laissez-faire approach of the Docklands, and was hit uniquely by the Business Immigration Program.

The persistent problem is the tension inherent in redevelopment between multiple competing stakeholder positions. As such, it was necessary to empathize with all these view points rather than rely on personal bias through the mitigation strategy process. Furthermore, the problem of housing is an incredibly complex one with a multitude of factors that means issues within it will be extremely difficult to amend for all invested parties; this creates an issue not easily solved, if it is to even be solved at all. However, challenge is a good thing, as it invites those interested in mitigating the problem to think more critically about it. In this, it is important to pose some questions related to this issue: Should we rely on private investment for economic growth or will this lead to austerity that benefits no one? What role should the government have in redevelopment projects, if any? Any, in what ways do spatial inequalities, such as socially constructed urban blight in marginalized communities in the issue of redevelopment?

References & Data Sources

  1. ↑ "3-Year Action Plan (2024-2026)". City of Vancouver. Retrieved March 21, 2026.
  2. ↑ Ley, David; et al. (2020). "Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response". The Canadian Geographer. 64: 438 – via Wiley Online Library. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  3. ↑ Ley, David; et al. (2020). "Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response". The Canadian Geogeapher. 64: 444, 447 – via Wiley Online Library. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  4. ↑ Ley, David; et al. (2020). "Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response". The Canadian Geographer. 64: 447 – via Wiley Online Library. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  5. ↑ Ley, David; et al. (2020). "Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response". The Canadian Geographer. 64: 443 – via Wiley Online Library. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  6. ↑ "Vancouver — Historical Average, Median and Price Percentiles for Absorbed Homeowner and Condominium Units". Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation. 2026.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Harvey, David (2007). "Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 610: 26–36 – via JSTOR.
  8. ↑ Thompson, Samantha (January 2023). ""Homes not shelters": co-productions of home in financialized social housing for women in Vancouver, Canada". Urban Geography. 44: 671 – via Taylor & Francis. line feed character in |title= at position 45 (help)
  9. ↑ Serikbol, Aigerim (Spring 2024). "Renovation as a tool for urban housing renovation" (PDF). World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 22 (1): 2094–2104 – via World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews.
  10. ↑ World Bank Group (March, 2016). "The Economic Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in the Infrastructure Sector: Literature Review" (PDF). World Bank Group. pp. 3–6. Retrieved April 17 2026. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Fields, Desiree (2017). "Urban struggles with financialization". Geography Compass. 11 (11): 4–5.
  12. ↑ Ley, David; et al. (January 2021). "Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response". Canadian Geographer. 64 (4): 443–444 – via Wiley Online Library. Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
  13. ↑ Ley, David (Winter 2021). "Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response". Canadian Geographer. 64 (4): 438 – via Wiley. More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  14. ↑ Makan, Jami (August 6, 2025). "Housing crisis fuelling largest B.C. exodus in decades, says analysis". Business In Vancouver. Retrieved April 17, 2026.
  15. ↑ Liao, Hsi-Ling (February 2026). "The effect of rezoning on local housing supply and demand: Evidence from New York City". Regional Science and Urban Economics. 117: 1–3 – via Elsevier.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Ley, David (2017). "Global China and the making of Vancouver's residential property market". International Journal of Housing Policy. 17: 15–34 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 Koonar, Jayha (September 2025). "How did Expo 86' pave the way for the 2010 Olympics?". The Social Contract. 14: 122–136 – via Western Libraries.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 "Northeast False Creek Plan" (PDF). City of Vancouver. March 2026.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 "The future of Northeast False Creek". City of Vancouver.
  20. ↑ "Non-market housing". City of Vancouver. January 2026.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 "Targets and progress". City of Vancouver.
  22. ↑ Schuermann, Jan; Gangdev, Srushti (August 6, 2025). "Vancouver fourth most expensive city worldwide: report". City News. Retrieved April 18, 2026.
  23. ↑ Fields, Desiree (January 2017). "Urban struggles with financialization". Geography Compass. 11 (11): 1–3 – via Wiley Online Library.
  24. ↑ Oc, Taner; Tisedell, Steven (July 1991). "The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), 1981-1991: A Perspective on the Management of Urban Regeneration" (PDF). The Town Planning Review. 62 (3): 313–315 – via JSTOR.
  25. ↑ Zeng, Douglas (Spring 2021). "The Past, Present, and Future of Special Economic Zones and Their Impact". Journal of International Economic Law. 0: 1–3 – via National Library of Medicine.
  26. ↑ Beswick, Carol-Ann (2001). "Public-private partnerships in urban regeneration: the case of the London Docklands" (PDF). University of Calgary: 21 – via University of Calgary.
  27. ↑ Beswick, Carol-Ann (2001). "Public-private partnerships in urban regeneration: the case of the London Docklands" (PDF). University of Calgary: 22 – via University of Calgary.
  28. ↑ Mendes, Carlos (February 20, 2026). "London property prices: Canary Wharf defies market trends". CityAM. Retrieved April 18, 2026.
  29. ↑ "Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan" (PDF). City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. December, 2024. Retrieved April 20, 2026. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  30. ↑ Marc, White (2021). Social Benefits of Co-operative Housing : Housing Co-ops’ Contribution to the Creation of Integrated Affordable Complete Communities. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Library. pp. 9, 34. ISBN 978-1-7778089-0-7.
  31. ↑ Guity-Zapata, Nestor Agustin; et al. (2026). "Rethinking value: insights from a scoping literature review of the principles and benefits of housing co-operatives". Housing Studies: 11–12 – via Taylor and Francis Online. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  32. ↑ Guity-Zapata, Nestor Agustin; et al. (2026). "Rethinking value: insights from a scoping literature review of the principles and benefits of housing co-operatives". Housing Studies: 2 – via Taylor and Francis Online. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  33. ↑ White, Marc (2021). Social Benefits of Co-operative Housing: Housing Co-ops’ Contribution to the Creation of Integrated Affordable Complete Communities. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Library. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-7778089-0-7.
  34. ↑ Guity-Zapata, Nestor Agustin; et al. (2026). "Rethinking value: insights from a scoping literature review of the principles and benefits of housing co-operatives". Housing Studies: 15 – via Taylor and Francis Online. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  35. ↑ White, Marc (2021). Social Benefits of Co-operative Housing: Housing Co-ops’ Contribution to the Creation of Integrated Affordable Complete Communities. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Library. pp. 45–46. ISBN 78-1-7778089-0-7 Check |isbn= value: length (help).
  36. ↑ Bloom, Nicholas Dagen; Lasner, Matthew Gordon (2016). Affordable Housing in New York: The People, Places, and Politics That Transformed the City. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 298. ISBN 978-0-691-19715-9.
  37. ↑ Solomon, Samson (January 30 2026). "Canada Property Tax Guide 2026". Nesto Mortgage Experts. Retrieved April 19 2026. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  38. ↑ Amoah, Christopher (2025). "Beneficiaries' Role in Averting Quality Challenges in Government Social Housing Construction". Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities. 6: 7 – via ASME Digital Collection.


This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.


Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2026/Housing_Financialization_in_Vancouver&oldid=895104"