Jump to content

Course:GEOG350/2026/Transit Infrastructure as a Subsitute for Spatial Equality in Metro Vancouver

From UBC Wiki

Peter Holcomb, Gavin Owen & Sawyer Sjoberg

Introduction & Context

Vancouver’s public transit system plays a central role in shaping patterns of spatial inequality across the metropolitan region. While the city is often ranked as one of the most livable in the world, access to housing, employment, and mobility remains uneven across different neighbourhoods.[1] These differences are closely tied to the structure and expansion of transit infrastructure, particularly the SkyTrain network, which has become the backbone of regional transportation.

Transit infrastructure in Metro Vancouver is concentrated in central and high density corridors, including Downtown Vancouver, Broadway, and major commercial routes extending into Burnaby and Richmond. These areas are characterized by higher levels of service, shorter commute times, and stronger connections to employment centres. In contrast, suburban municipalities such as Surrey, Burnaby, and New Westminster have historically experienced lower levels of transit access relative to population growth, particularly in areas located further from rapid transit stations. This uneven distribution of infrastructure reflects broader patterns of urban development, where investment tends to follow existing economic activity and density rather than areas with the greatest need.

The expansion of the SkyTrain network since the early 2000s, including the Millennium Line and Canada Line, has increased regional connectivity and improved access to key destinations. However, these investments have also been linked to changes in housing markets and neighbourhood composition. Research shows that housing prices increased by approximately 14 percent to 23 percent in areas that gained access to rapid transit, as accessibility benefits became reflected in land values.[2] This has contributed to rising costs in transit accessible neighbourhoods, making it more difficult for lower income residents to remain in these areas.

Along the SkyTrain corridor, transit oriented development has played a major role in reshaping neighbourhoods. A low income corridor has historically followed the SkyTrain line from East Vancouver through Burnaby and into Surrey, consisting largely of aging rental housing built between the 1960s and 1980s.[3] These units have provided important sources of affordable housing, particularly for immigrants and refugees. At the same time, proximity to transit has made these areas attractive for redevelopment. Policies supporting higher density development around transit stations have led to the replacement of older rental buildings with condominium developments, contributing to processes of gentrification and displacement.

Access to transit is also closely tied to affordability. Housing located within rapid transit catchment areas is consistently less affordable than housing outside of these areas, indicating a clear rental premium associated with transit access.[4] As a result, many lower income households are unable to live near rapid transit despite relying on it for daily travel. This contributes to a spatial mismatch between where people can afford to live and where jobs and services are located.

Across the region, employment opportunities remain concentrated in central and well connected areas, while more affordable housing is increasingly located in suburban municipalities. This creates longer and more complex commutes for transit dependent populations. Data from TransLink’s 10 Year Vision indicates that residents in suburban areas can experience commute times that are up to 20 to 30 minutes longer than those living in central locations. [5] These differences highlight how access to mobility is unevenly distributed and shaped by both infrastructure and housing dynamics.

Spatial inequality in Vancouver’s transit system demonstrates that infrastructure investment alone does not guarantee equitable outcomes. While transit expansion has improved mobility for many residents, it has also contributed to rising housing costs, displacement, and uneven access to opportunities. These patterns reflect the broader relationship between infrastructure, urban development, and inequality, where the benefits of investment are distributed unevenly across different populations and places.

Stakeholder Landscape

Elderly & Aging Population

Researchers from the University of British Columbia, contributing to a report on healthy aging, have critiqued the Lower Mainland’s abundance of out-of-reach neighbourhoods, finding that these car-dependent environments are linked to social isolation.[6] Related research found this style of Canadian suburb as “no place to grow old”.[7] As a result, a sense of forced dependence can emerge for the family and caretakers of older adults, particularly for those who reside in areas that lack adequate and accessible transit coverage between Vancouver and surrounding municipalities.[8] Additionally, a study of elderly population in Saskatchewan concluded that individuals who struggle with independent mobility were more likely to miss and/or cancel medical appointments due to lack of adequate transportation,[9] further signalling the threat posed by the disconnected neighbourhoods around Vancouver.

Recent immigration in Vancouver and neighbouring municipalities

A 2023 paper written using Canadian census data reports that recent immigrants have a higher likelihood to commute via public transportation than established immigrants and Canadian-born residents.[10] Census data by Statistics Canada also recently reports that employees living in non-official-language households (within the Greater Vancouver Area) report significantly lower rates of remote work (71,450) compared to English-speaking households (262,745).[11] Households in the Greater Vancouver Area who speak a non-official language tend to also disproportionately be of recent immigrant status, which combined with the disparity of English-speaking WFH jobs, suggests that occupational opportunities for immigrants are more likely to require physical attendance. Recent immigration housing patterns have also shown that immigrants coming to BC are beginning to choose municipalities in the surrounding Metro Vancouver region, as opposed to settling in the heart of Vancouver: A growth projection chart done by the Metro Vancouver Regional District reports Vancouver’s share of recent immigrants declined for the first time in twenty years (36% to 30%), while surrounding municipalities like Surrey rose from 13% to 22%,[12] and Burnaby from 27% to 37% in the same time period.[13]

Suburban, transit-dependent workers

Data published by Statistics Canada displays a stark disparity in commute times for those who depend on public transportation to get to work and those who drive themselves using private passenger vehicles. Using provided filter options, Statistics Canada data indicates a large disparity in commute times between transit-dependent riders and private vehicle users. For every commute taken to work in Vancouver that takes an hour or longer, 69% of those trips are done via public transportation (as opposed to single-passenger private vehicle commutes).[14] Further, if we expand the scope of commutes to the Greater Vancouver Area to account for the aforementioned dispersal rates of immigrants rising, the average commute to work using public transportation sits at 45.7 minutes, whereas single passengers of a car, truck, or van experience an average commute time of 23.5 minutes.[14]

Problem Framing

Vancouver’s lines of public transit, like many other cities, branches into several municipalities by utilizing a small number of routes designed to provide system-wide access to employment, healthcare, education, and social services. However, this goal is strained by operational logistics that must be balanced to simultaneously upkeep their network design objectives[15] that follow performance-based business logic; planners must continue to optimize routes already seeing high ridership while attempting to include basic access to lower-density areas where possible. Transit investment has tended to follow patterns of high-density development rather than to areas of greatest need.[16] Furthermore, the tension is amplified for TransLink who also needs to abide to land-use regulations in place by, (a) the Government of British Columbia, and (b) the twenty-one municipalities who allow TransLink to operate, further complicating any development plans when now that planners must also attempt to accommodate to each jurisdiction’s priorities and growth patterns.

Transit Oriented Development areas

Arial shot of Bridgeport Station and the Oak Street bridge crossing the Fraser River into Vancouver

The Government of British Columbia has put forth a collaborative, growth-sustaining development framework called TOD (Transit oriented development areas) as a baseline for TransLink to work within.[17] The land-use legislation requires some municipalities to designate a TOD area, defined ideally as a “high-density” or “mixed-use development within walking distance from frequent transit services”.[17] The government of British Columbia notes that the goal of a TOD is to promote liveable and sustainable communities by building housing near key transit hubs. Eligible TOD areas must be within 800 metres of a rapid transit station (e.g., Canada Line SkyTrain), and 400 metres of a bus exchange.[17]

This doesn’t only complicate the problem for transit planners, it offers a completely alternate perspective of the initial problem; there will never exist a single metric that measures equity for riders and planners alike, rather a persisting pattern of unequal geographical outcomes that depend on the structural conditions given by the government. TransLink offered the public a platform to voice their opinions in the form of their Transport 2050 engagement surveys,[18] which recorded anonymous ridership opinions on what they considered problems to be prioritized at a consumer level. Common sentiments shared among riders included improvement of factors like affordability, reliability, convenience, and safety/comfort.[18] If TransLink follows their aforementioned network design objective to listen to the public’s voice, planners will now be faced with a new problem framed by shifting resource allocation to meet riders’ needs while maintaining performance quotas.

The Limits of Equity in a Wicked Problem

Public transportation in British Columbia hosts many characteristics typical of what planning theory[19] identifies as a wicked problem: as recognized earlier, transit equity will never settle on a single agreed-upon solution to the many problems it faces, and proposed solutions can seemingly only be judged as better or worse than one another, not true or false. Ultimately, so long as TransLink is to operate primarily depending on ridership performance and provincial policies, equity will be dependent on other regional systems like the housing market and land-use regulations; changes in housing markets and land use will shape transit equity outcomes.[19]

Vancouver Case Study

Expansion of the SkyTrain Network

A clear example of spatial inequality in Vancouver’s transit system can be seen through the development and expansion of the SkyTrain rapid transit network. Since the early 2000s, major investments such as the Millennium Line and Canada Line have expanded regional connectivity and increased the number of neighbourhoods with access to rapid transit.[2] These expansions are part of a broader regional strategy focused on improving mobility, reducing congestion, and supporting more sustainable urban growth. However, while transit infrastructure is often presented as a solution to inequality, the Vancouver case shows that it can also reproduce and intensify existing socio-economic divides rather than eliminate them.

Housing Market Impacts of Transit Access

One of the main ways this happens is through the relationship between transit access and housing markets. Research on Vancouver’s SkyTrain expansion shows that improved access to rapid transit leads to significant increases in housing prices in nearby areas. Empirical findings indicate that housing prices increased by approximately 14 percent to 23 percent in neighbourhoods that gained access to SkyTrain stations.[2] This reflects how the benefits of transit infrastructure are built into land values. While this can increase property values and attract investment, it also creates affordability challenges that disproportionately affect lower income residents. As a result, the people who rely most on transit are often the ones who are priced out of areas with the best access to it.

Transit-Oriented Development and Gentrification

This process is especially visible along the SkyTrain corridor. Jones and Ley (2016) identify a low income corridor that follows the SkyTrain line from East Vancouver through Burnaby and into Surrey. This corridor developed over roughly a 30 year period and contains a large stock of aging rental housing originally built through government supported programs in the 1960s to 1980s.[3] These units have historically provided affordable housing for lower income residents, including immigrants and refugees. However, the same proximity to transit that makes these areas valuable for residents also makes them attractive for redevelopment. Transit oriented development policies have encouraged higher density construction around stations, often replacing older rental housing with condominium developments. While these changes align with environmental and density goals, they have also contributed to gentrification and displacement, as lower income residents are pushed out of transit accessible neighbourhoods.

Unequal Access and the Rental Premium

At the same time, the distribution of affordable housing within transit catchment areas further reinforces inequality. Research by Revington and Townsend (2016) shows that housing located within rapid transit catchments is consistently less affordable than housing outside of these areas, indicating a clear rental premium associated with transit access. However, affordable housing supply has not kept pace with rising demand in these locations.[4] This creates a situation where transit infrastructure increases accessibility in theory, but in practice, many lower income households cannot afford to live near it. As a result, the benefits of transit investment are unevenly distributed.

Spatial Mismatch and Commute Inequality

These patterns contribute to a broader spatial mismatch across the region. As housing prices increase in central and transit rich areas, lower income households are displaced toward suburban municipalities such as Surrey and Langley, where transit service is less frequent and less reliable. At the same time, employment opportunities remain concentrated in central and well connected parts of Vancouver. Data from TransLink’s 10 Year Vision indicates that residents in suburban areas can experience commute times that are up to 20 to 30 minutes longer than those living in more central locations.[5] This creates additional barriers for transit dependent populations trying to access jobs, education, and services, reinforcing existing inequalities rather than reducing them.

Governance and Planning Challenges

Governance and planning approaches also play a role in shaping these outcomes. Transit expansion in Vancouver involves multiple levels of government and funding structures, including public private partnerships. While these approaches are often framed as efficient, they can prioritize cost recovery and economic returns over equity outcomes. At the same time, planning frameworks such as transit oriented development often emphasize density and sustainability, but do not always include strong protections for affordable housing. This means that infrastructure investment alone is not enough to address inequality without accompanying social and housing policies.

Ongoing Expansion and Future Implications

Recent and planned projects such as the Broadway Subway and the Surrey Langley SkyTrain extension show that these dynamics are still ongoing. While these projects aim to improve connectivity across the region, they also raise questions about who benefits most from new transit investments. Without policies that directly address housing affordability and displacement, these projects risk continuing the same patterns seen in earlier expansions. Overall, the Vancouver case study demonstrates that transit infrastructure is not neutral. While the expansion of the SkyTrain network has improved mobility for many residents, it has also contributed to rising housing costs, gentrification, and uneven access to opportunities.

Comparative Perspective

Vancouver’s issues with transit and spatial equity are not unique. Comparisons with other cities can inform us whether improving infrastructure alone can address spatial inequality in urban centres.

Copenhagen: Planned Distributed Density

City of Copenhagen skyline. All of the building heights are the same. No downtown core.
Copenhagen medium density skyline

In 1947, Copenhagen implemented the Finger Plan (Fingerplanen). Today, the Finger Plan is studied in urban planning as a foundational example of transit-supportive land use policy.[20] Instead of concentrating density at high-value nodes, the plan distributes medium density along 5 radial corridors that extend from the city-centre.[20] This creates a metropolitan area of mid-rise, mixed-income neighborhoods, as opposed to suburban sprawl and high-density downtown areas (Hall, 2014). Research on Copenhagen suggests that spatial integration of housing, employment, and services reduces the displacement of low-income residents to the exterior edges of the city.[20] This is a high contrast from Vancouver's pattern of displacement of low-income residents driven by exclusionary zoning in high-income inner neighborhoods. Land use decisions preceding transit investment are therefore identified as a critical determinant as to whether a city’s transit system is built as a substitute for spatial equity.[21]

Induced Demand and Rapid Transit

Induced demand is a well-established transportation concept that says that expanding road capacity generates proportional new vehicle travel on that road, leading to congestion levels returning to previous highs from years before.[22] Increased road capacity has been proven to encourage people to live further from employment centres, showing that increased road capacity expands the geographical sprawl of a city, pushes people further outside the city core, and lengthens commute times.[23] Infrastructure investment like this is theorized to expand the spatial reach of existing inequalities as opposed to correcting them.[24] This same induced demand framework has been applied to rapid transit extensions; new lines act like expanding road capacity, which is argued to make distant, low-cost housing tolerable for displaced residents as opposed to relieving pressure on central housing markets.[25]

Vancouver's Distinctive Urban Context

Vancouver is distinctive among major North American cities due to the lack of freeways constructed through the city's core. In 1972, a freeway proposal through Chinatown and Strathcona was cancelled, followed by continued opposition from residents for any further freeways through the city.[26] This opposition to freeways has comparatively preserved Vancouver's intact inner city and walkable grid of streets.[26] This structural advantage distinguishes Vancouver from the many cities where freeway construction has fragmented, bulldozed, and destroyed the value of often lower-income residential neighborhoods.[26] In this context, the continued persistence of exclusionary zoning of single detached houses in Vancouver’s wealthiest neighborhoods has been characterized in the planning literature as a political choice as opposed to a physical constraint.[27]

Ideas for Urban Action

Different approaches for addressing the transit investment and spatial inequality in Metro Vancouver have been proposed. Each proposal comes with its own significant trade-offs or political obstacles.

Zoning Reform and Upzoning

Ariel photo of Shaughnessy Vancouver
Shaghnessy neighbourhood: Low-density, high-income neighbourhood with exclusionary zoning

Land use regulation has been identified as the main constraining factor over spatial inequality in cities with a limited housing supply. In these cities, it is argued that single family zoning is being used to reserve urban land for higher-income households.[27] Vancouver’s zoning code restricts large swaths of the city, including high-income neighborhoods like Shaughnessy and Kerrisdale to exclusively low-density single-family use.[27] This pattern of exclusionary zoning is consistent with a broader tendency where planning decisions reinforce as opposed to redistribute, geographic advantages.[24] The city of Austin, Texas’s 2023 HOME initiative, eliminated single-family-only zoning across most of the city. This decision has been cited in planning debates as an example of zoning reform being achieved politically, potentially leading as an example for other cities.[28] However, market-rate upzoning without inclusionary requirements, like was done in Austin, is not sufficient. Supply increases in more expensive neighborhoods will still benefit higher-income households. The problem of displacement of lower-income residents being pushed out of the city won’t be addressed by this change unless paired with affordability protections.[27] Additional trade-offs that the literature identified are political opposition generated by rezoning established residential neighbourhoods and possibly accelerating displacement during the transition period.[27]

Community Land Trusts and Tenant Organizing

Near new rapid transit stations in transit adjacent housing markets, there have been consistent patterns of land value increase documented.[2] This increase contributes to the displacement of low-income renters that new rapid transit stations have been intended to help.[2] Community Land Trusts (CLTs) have been proposed as a mechanism to interrupt this cycle.[29] CLTs work by holding land permanently out of speculative markets by a non-profit, which then provides housing at a below-market rate.[29] Examples of this have been shown to work in Burlington, Vermont, and Atlanta, which demonstrate that CLTs can maintain affordable housing along transit corridors even under significant pressure from development firms.[29] Research has shown that pre-opening land acquisition has been substantially more cost-effective than buying land after transit has driven the prices up. This points to a potential role for TransLink and the provincial government to expand into ahead of planned station announcements.[29]

Tenant Advocacy organizations have also played a role in resisting development pressures in Metro Vancouver. Communities coming together to resist renovictions and transit-adjacent redevelopment proposals have been documented to shape the urban spaces they occupy. This represents a right to the city, the principle that residents have a claim to shape the space.[30]

Conclusion & Reflection

Research on Vancouver’s transit system points to a tension between the equity framing of Skytrain expansions and the land use conditions that determine who actually benefits. Skytrain extensions into Metro Vancouver may improve regional connectivity by transit, but also normalize and absorb displaced lower income, immigrant, and transit dependent communities.[3] [2] Exclusionary low density zoning is the underlying driver of that displacement, which protects high income inner neighbourhoods from densification; this driver remains largely unadressed by transit policy.[27]

Infrastructure investment like this is less of a fix to spatial inequity and more so an accommodation of it. This dynamic is similar to dynamics talked about in literature as the limits of liberal recognition, that institutional recognition of the problem can function to legitimize the system producing it rather than disrupting it.[31] Presenting SkyTrain extensions as equity infrastructure acknowledges that lower-income communities have inadequate access to the city, while leaving intact the political and zoning arrangements that displaced them in the first place.

Whether rapid transit and Skytrain development can genuinely support low income, immigrant, and transit dependent populations, or whether its framing inherently legitimizes ongoing displacement, at this point remains unsolved.[4]

References & Data Sources

  • Properly cited academic sources and local data sources
  1. ↑ Carpenter, J., & Hutton, T. (2019). Vancouver - Critical reflections on the development experience of a peripheral global city. Cities, 86, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.006
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Chernoff, A., & Craig, A. N. (2021). Distributional and Housing Price Effects from Public Transit Investment: Evidence from Vancouver. International Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/iere.12556
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Jones, C. E., & Ley, D. (2016). Transit-oriented development and gentrification along Metro Vancouver’s low-income SkyTrain corridor. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 60(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12256
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Revington, N., & Townsend, C. (2016). Market Rental Housing Affordability and Rapid Transit Catchments: Application of a New Measure in Canada. Housing Policy Debate, 26(4-5), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1096805
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 TransLink ‌Completing the 10-Year Vision for Metro Vancouver Transit & Transportation. (2022). https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/plans-and-projects/ten-year-investment-plan/vision/10-year-vision-dashboard.pdf
  6. ↑ Procyk, A. (2011, November). United Way senior vulnerability report – Nov 2011 Discussion paper #3: Transportation, community design and healthy aging (L. Frank, Ed.) [Review of United Way senior vulnerability report – Nov 2011 Discussion paper #3: Transportation, community design and healthy aging]. United Way of the Lower Mainland. https://atl.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/08/UnitedWay_DiscussionPaper_Transportation.pdf ‌
  7. ↑ Miller, G. (2022, March 4). No Place to Grow Old - IRPP. IRPP; Institute for Research on Public Policy. https://irpp.org/research-studies/no-place-to-grow-old/?utm
  8. ↑ Canadian Academies, C. of. (2017). Older Canadians on the Move / Expert Panel on the Transportation Needs of an Aging Population [Review of Older Canadians on the Move / Expert Panel on the Transportation Needs of an Aging Population]. Council of Canadian Academies. https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/transportaging_fullreport_en.pdf?utm ‌
  9. ↑ Krasniuk, S., & Crizzle, A. M. (2023). Impact of health and transportation on accessing healthcare in older adults living in rural regions. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 21(1), 100882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100882 ‌
  10. ↑ Preston, V., McLafferty, S., & Maciejewska, M. (2023). Regionalization and Recent Immigrants’ Access to Jobs: An Analysis of Commuting in Canadian Metropolitan Areas. 144, 103787–103787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103787 ‌
  11. ↑ Canada,. (2023, November 15). Place of work status by language spoken most often at home: Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions and census subdivisions. Statcan.gc.ca; Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=9810047701 ‌
  12. ↑ Metro Vancouver Growth Projections -A Backgrounder. (2018). https://metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Documents/methods-in-projecting-regional-growth-overview.pdf ‌
  13. ↑ Immigrant Demographics Burnaby, BC 2023 About the NewToBC Immigrant Demographic Profiles. (n.d.). Retrieved April 13, 2026, from https://newtobc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-NewToBC-Burnaby-DemoProfile-WEB-Final.pdf?utm ‌
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Statistics Canada. Table 98-10-0479-01  Place of work status by main mode of commuting, time leaving for work, and commuting duration: Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions and census subdivisions DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/9810047901-eng
  15. ↑ TransLink. (2018). Managing the Transit Network. Www.translink.ca. https://www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/strategies-plans-and-guidelines/managing-the-transit-network
  16. ↑ Siemiatycki, M. (2006). Implications of private-public partnerships on the development of urban public transit infrastructure. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x06291390
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 General, M. of A. (n.d.). Transit oriented development areas - Province of British Columbia. Www2.Gov.bc.ca. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/local-governments-and-housing/housing-initiatives/transit-oriented-development-areas ‌
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 TransLink. (2021). Phase 2 engagement “WHAT WE HEARD” SUMMARY REPORT. https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/plans-and-projects/regional-transportation-strategy/t2050-phase-2-engagement-report.pdf
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4, 155–169 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Knowles, R. D. (2012). Transit oriented development in Copenhagen, Denmark: From the Finger Plan to Ørestad. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 251–261.
  21. ↑ Hall, P. (2014). Cities of tomorrow (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  22. ↑ Duranton, G., & Turner, M. A. (2011). The fundamental law of road congestion: Evidence from US cities. American Economic Review, 101(6), 2616–2652.
  23. ↑ Hymel, K. (2019). If you build it, they will drive: Measuring induced demand for vehicle travel in urban areas. Transport Policy, 76, 57–66.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  25. ↑ Kapatsila, B., Rea, J. D., & Grisé, E. (2024). If you build it, who will come? Exploring the effects of rapid transit on residential movements in Metro Vancouver. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 17(1), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2024.2364
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Punter, J. (2003). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. UBC Press.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 Manville, M., Monkkonen, P., & Lens, M. (2020). It's time to end single-family zoning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 86(1), 106–112.
  28. ↑ City of Austin. (2024). HOME amendments. AustinTexas.gov. https://www.austintexas.gov/page/home-amendments
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Davis, J. E. (Ed.). (2010). The community land trust reader. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
  30. ↑ Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal. pp. 58(2/3), 99–108.
  31. ↑ McCreary, T., & Milligan, R. (2021). The limits of liberal recognition: Racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and environmental governance in Vancouver and Atlanta. Antipode, 53(3), 724–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12465



This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.


Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2026/Transit_Infrastructure_as_a_Subsitute_for_Spatial_Equality_in_Metro_Vancouver&oldid=894200"