UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-04-11T23:28:03Z

AugustKitka:

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

==Introduction & Context (~300 words)==
Our research aims to examine the relationship between urban greenery and real estate prices. Vancouver boasts itself as one of the most livable cities in the world, this title is derived from its world class park system serving as a luxury commodity that in return drives up home prices. The intersection between properties and urban greenery questions the sustainability of future urban development as increasing prices will result in an affordability crisis. Exploring how natural amenities influence property values allows us to understand how Vancouver’s model of planning prioritizes livability over affordability. While the City of Vancouver claims that 90% of residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, we want to uncover how that will translate into the prices people pay; the concentration of green space in high income areas versus middle or low income areas. By comparing these spatial phenomenons, we can demonstrate that green spaces are not just public health assets but contributors to the city’s affordability crisis. Ultimately, allowing us to evaluate whether Vancouver’s world class livability benefits everyone or serves as a luxury commodity that exacerbates existing urban inequities.

==Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [August]==
Key stakeholders who are affected in the scenario are diverse. Some of the most vulnerable people affected by this problem are disproportionately lower income people. Urban Planners have nearly universally identified the financialization of green spaces as problematic. It is noted that this “Capitalization of urban green space is a long-standing concern in urban planning” (Shan et. al, p. 1). Other key stakeholders in this equation are private developers and government, with Shan et. al noting that “This capitalization effect has been highly sought after and taken advantage of by both capital and government.” (p. 2). With these stakeholders being centered and advantaged by this financialization, they have not only enabled its continuance but what have been active stakeholders in its development. Indeed, In Nanjing for example, “ “Local governments leverage green spaces to drive urban growth, while real estate developers strategically select locations near high-quality urban parks for property development.” (Shan et. al, p. 2). This drive has further marginalized lower income residents, as there are rising concerns amongst these residents that “greenery in neighborhoods may increase residents’ living costs and lead to the displacement of marginalized groups” (Shan et. al, p. 2). Therefore, in this process, green space becomes not a public space that is easily accessible for all, but a backdrop for privileged peoples who have the wealth to live near such spaces.
[[File:Stakeholder-Engagement-Map.png|thumb|Stakeholder Map showcases the diverse parties affected by green space financialization]]
In this matter the voices that are typically centered are property developers. With Vancouver being marketed as a livable city, and attention drawn to its green space, It has created a perfect environment to capitalize on such spaces. Especially with the financialization of Vancouver’s housing market, voices that are typically marginalized in this space are typically lower income residents and newcomer residents. Indigenous residents for example, are often treated like another stakeholder instead of shepherds of the land who have deep roots into it. This connection, through gentrification and the financialization of the city has increased rent around areas such as the Squamish territory in Kitsilano, compromising those ancestral connections. This is seen in the map below where this territory, correlating with significant greenspace has seen some of the highest rents in vancouver as whole. As a result of areas with significant green spaces hosting some of the most expensive rents in metro Vancouver, marginalized peoples, such as those in the Downtown Eastside are shut off from green spaces. This is problematic as “Previous research highlights how green spaces boost the resilience of residents in informal settlements against climate change” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2). Without this critical connection to ecology, lower income communities are further marginalized, as climate resilience, tied to green spaces, are increasingly inaccessible for them (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2).
==Vancouver's Problem- Yu ==
The relationship between urban greenery and housing affordability in Vancouver can be more productively framed as a governance and distribution problem shaped by institutional planning choices. Green space is not the only inherent driver of housing unaffordability, this perspective opens up to how policies and investment strategies determine who is able to access the benefits of urban nature. The core issue here is the absence of mechanisms that ensure its public benefits are evenly shared. Urban green space such as parks, street trees, and waterfronts are overridden by private gain, raising questions about how the city treated its different classes. The current dominant planning perspective sees greening the city as an unequivocal public good, emphasizing benefits such as improved health and overall livability. Consequently, the downsides of this perspective is that it views housing unaffordability as a separate issue driven by the market economy. In contrast, critical urban theory highlights “green gentrification,” framing greening initiatives as catalysts for rising property values and displacement(Harvey, 2006). Another perspective advocates for an approach based on human rights, arguing that access to urban nature should be treated as a social right rather than a commodified amenity tied to housing markets. These competing definitions show that the issue is that the market has become over speculative, hence neglecting the material basics of what housing means. Urban greenery established itself as being shaped by differing views of who cities are for and how urban benefits should be distributed.

The wicked characteristics are that developed cities such as Vancouver possess too many deciding factors when choosing when or where to improve. First, local greening projects interact with broader forces such as regional housing shortages and global capital flows, producing chaotic effects that are difficult to manage. Second, it involves conflicting stakeholders with uneven interests. For example, homeowners and renters will disagree on certain changes to the area that trade aesthetics for privacy or vice versa. These problems are inevitable thus making difficult negotiations inevitable. Third, the impacts of greening vary by context and are shaped by historical inequalities, often resulting in unintended consequences such as displacement or uneven access to benefits. These features make the relationship between greenery and affordability unpredictable and resistant to straightforward policy solutions. To navigate these issues, we must approach the problem with an open mind, ready for an ongoing and adaptive solution rather than an instant fix. We will consider how cities might expand green space without exacerbating displacement, ensuring that we are able to control the market to prevent extreme increases/decreases. Another factor to emphasize is setting access to urban nature as a social right rather than a market based privilege thus eliminating the greed aspect of housing markets. Finally, we need to think about how we will manage the uneven impacts of greening across different communities within an inherently complex urban system.[[File:Screenshot 2026-04-08 at 15.52.56.png|thumb|'''Fig 3.''' GIS map created by Yu Miao to compare Population density to Green space coverage within the Metro Vancouver Region. The map on the left displays monthly rent in specific regions, showing the drastic difference in what residents pay for shelter. The graph on the right, highlights how green space coverage is distributed; as population density increases, greens pace coverage decreases(displayed as the downward trend line) hence, proving the unequal distribution of green space across Vancouver. |alt=]]
==Vancouver Case Study (~800 words) [Prototype]==
*Focus on a specific neighbourhood, project, or development
*Incorporate local data and spatial analysis
*Analyze political, economic, and social forces at work
*Include maps, charts, or visualizations of local data

==What makes Vancouver unique? ==
Vancouver sits within a broader theoretical shift in urban studies that consists of increasing environmental planning into urban redevelopment. Scholars frame it as a socio economic process through which environmental amenities are translated into land value thus exacerbating inequality. At its core, in Vancouver's case can be summarized as the “elite enclaves of environmental privilege”(Anguelovski, 2014) where access to nature becomes unevenly distributed across socio economic groups to create an unprecedented green gentrification. Comparatively, North American and European megacities such as New York and London illustrate how greenery is utilized for major capital investments. Projects like the High Line in New York city experienced a local economic boom after its construction. The aestheticization of infrastructure, where environmental design embellishes its surrounding infrastructure to attract global investment(Anguelovski, 2014). In these cases greening is about directly producing value intrinsically linked to that specific greenery project, whereas Vancouver establishes its extensive greenery as a supporting factor to brand itself as a sustainable city.

Within Toronto and Montreal, these dynamics show similar effects in manifesting property values, but their effects are often localized, producing patches of high value neighbourhoods. What distinguishes Vancouver is the emergence of a “baseline green premium”(Sax & Lorien & Quinton, 2022), Unlike cities where greenery is concentrated in specific redevelopment zones, Vancouver’s environmental amenities are deeply intertwined with the city’s overall image and global identity. As a result, the value of nature is projected across the entire metropolitan region, increasing the property prices for everyone on top of the already uneven market. This produces a downward spiral in which environmental quality attracts transnational investment, further inflates housing prices, and so on. Scholar Daniel sax describes this phenomenon as “environmental privilege”, the uneven ability to access and benefit from green urban space (Sax & Lorien & Quinton, 2022).

==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [August]==
Creating Community Land Trusts with integrated green space is a good way to remove land off the speculative housing market. Communities have had success in combating financialization by buying up land, and doing so could help lower income residents access housing. The downside with this approach however, is that they require large equity to start, that would come from the community or, from fundraising from philanthropic sources. In Puerto Rico for example, “The CLT’s innovative approach to land management emerged as a pivotal solution to housing instability.” (Garcia & Ma, p. 16). By doing this land began to benefit “the community rather than external investors.” (Garcia & Ma, p. 16)

What we can also do is while expanding green space, we accompany it with protections and expanding green space for vulnerable peoples. In Nairobi, Kenya for example, “Street vendors disproportionately face increased climate-related risks that harm their productivity, income, access to infrastructure, trading hours, and customer footfall.” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 1). The implications for green spaces in relation to housing affordability is that these street vendors are often forced to operate in lower income areas, and these lower income areas are often lacking in green space which leads to a spiral in living standards and conditions. In an ever densifying city such as Vancouver for example, space urban greenery can become scarce, and its implementation in a city can be challenging. When a city grows more dense, there becomes “little land available for planning new large-scale green spaces in metropolitan areas” (Shan et. al, p. 4). In such the case for Vancouver, a potential trade off for residents would be to increase densification efforts in order to create land for green spaces, in areas such as low density sprawl. As seen in our GIS Graphic above, increasing access to green space would require significantly changing areas for the creation of green space. Although not possible in areas such as the downtown core where significant infrastructure has been built up, this increased green space could face opposition from residents as this process would significantly alter a neighbourhood’s character.

The opposition we would expect from both of these proposals would come from developers who would prefer high market real estate markets to ensure their wealth. When green space is viewed from a perspective of financialization, then incorporating green spaces in lower income areas would be ignored.

This is already seen where “real estate developers tend to choose locations close to well-maintained urban parks to enhance the value of their properties.” (Shan et. al, p. 3). And the risk this poses is that if we were to proceed with creating rent stabilizations and protecting green spaces for vulnerable peoples, property developers may not see an incentive in developing equitable housing in lower income neighborhoods with these protections. Conversely, if we did not offer such protections such as rent stabilization or lower income protections, the creation of green spaces may be encouraged, but still under a financialized model. This shows, that addressing this problem would require balance and consultation from many sources and spaces, If we were to move to a model of non-profit public housing for example, it would require more resources and time to build than just building parks in lower income areas, and demonstrates that intersectional thinking is important in addressing this very problem.

==Conclusion & Reflection (~300 words)==
*Summarize key insights
*Reflect on what you learned through the Design Thinking process
*Identify questions that remain open for future inquiry
==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

Anguelovski, Isabelle. (2014). “Neighborhood as Refuge: Environmental Justice, Community Reconstruction, and Place-Remaking in the City.” ''Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.''

Garcia, I., & Ma. (2025). Participatory land planning, community land trusts, and managed retreat: Transforming informality and building resilience to flood risk in puerto Rico’s caño martín peña. ''Land (Basel), 14''(3), 485. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.3390/land14030485</nowiki>

Sax, Daniel & Lorien, Nesbitt & Quinton, Jessica. (2022). “Improvement, not displacement: A framework for urban green gentrification research and practice”. ''Environmental Science & Policy.'' P373-383.

Shan, L., Fan, Z., & He, S. (2024). Towards a better understanding of capitalization of urban greening: Examining the interactive relationship between public and club green space accessibility. ''Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 96'', 128359. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128359</nowiki>

Thorn, J. P. R., Maruza, T. C. G., & Stoffberg, M. (2025). Climate justice and informal trader's access to urban green spaces. ''Cities, 159'', 105725. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.105725</nowiki>

<references/>

{{Sharebox|names=|share=no}}

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-04-11T00:31:51Z

AugustKitka:

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

==Introduction & Context (~300 words)==
*Introduce your topic and its significance to Vancouver
*Situate it within broader urban geography themes from the course
*Preview the wicked problem characteristics that make this challenge complex
*Housing is improtnat
==Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [August]==
Key stakeholders who are affected in the scenario are diverse. Some of the most vulnerable people affected by this problem are disproportionately lower income people. Urban Planners have nearly universally identified the financialization of green spaces as problematic. It is noted that this “Capitalization of urban green space is a long-standing concern in urban planning” (Shan et. al, p. 1). Other key stakeholders in this equation are private developers and government, with Shan et. al noting that “This capitalization effect has been highly sought after and taken advantage of by both capital and government.” (p. 2). With these stakeholders being centered and advantaged by this financialization, they have not only enabled its continuance but what have been active stakeholders in its development. Indeed, In Nanjing for example, “ “Local governments leverage green spaces to drive urban growth, while real estate developers strategically select locations near high-quality urban parks for property development.” (Shan et. al, p. 2). This drive has further marginalized lower income residents, as there are rising concerns amongst these residents that “greenery in neighborhoods may increase residents’ living costs and lead to the displacement of marginalized groups” (Shan et. al, p. 2). Therefore, in this process, green space becomes not a public space that is easily accessible for all, but a backdrop for privileged peoples who have the wealth to live near such spaces.
[[File:Stakeholder-Engagement-Map.png|thumb|Stakeholder Map showcases the diverse parties affected by green space financialization]]
In this matter the voices that are typically centered are property developers. With Vancouver being marketed as a livable city, and attention drawn to its green space, It has created a perfect environment to capitalize on such spaces. Especially with the financialization of Vancouver’s housing market, voices that are typically marginalized in this space are typically lower income residents and newcomer residents. Indigenous residents for example, are often treated like another stakeholder instead of shepherds of the land who have deep roots into it. This connection, through gentrification and the financialization of the city has increased rent around areas such as the Squamish territory in Kitsilano, compromising those ancestral connections. This is seen in the map below where this territory, correlating with significant greenspace has seen some of the highest rents in vancouver as whole. As a result of areas with significant green spaces hosting some of the most expensive rents in metro Vancouver, marginalized peoples, such as those in the Downtown Eastside are shut off from green spaces. This is problematic as “Previous research highlights how green spaces boost the resilience of residents in informal settlements against climate change” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2). Without this critical connection to ecology, lower income communities are further marginalized, as climate resilience, tied to green spaces, are increasingly inaccessible for them (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2).
==Problem Framing (~500 words) [Define] - Yu ==
*Present your primary problem statement
*Acknowledge alternative framings and competing definitions
*Explain which wicked problem characteristics are most relevant
*Articulate 2-3 "How Might We" questions that guide your analysis
The relationship between urban greenery and housing affordability in Vancouver can be more productively framed as a governance and distribution problem shaped by institutional planning choices. Green space is not the only inherent driver of housing unaffordability, this perspective opens up to how policies and investment strategies determine who is able to access the benefits of urban nature. The core issue here is the absence of mechanisms that ensure its public benefits are evenly shared. Urban green space such as parks, street trees, and waterfronts are overridden by private gain, raising questions about how the city treated its different classes. The current dominant planning perspective sees greening the city as an unequivocal public good, emphasizing benefits such as improved health and overall livability. Consequently, the downsides of this perspective is that it views housing unaffordability as a separate issue driven by the market economy. In contrast, critical urban theory highlights “green gentrification,” framing greening initiatives as catalysts for rising property values and displacement(Harvey, 2006). Another perspective advocates for an approach based on human rights, arguing that access to urban nature should be treated as a social right rather than a commodified amenity tied to housing markets. These competing definitions show that the issue is that the market has become over speculative, hence neglecting the material basics of what housing means. Urban greenery established itself as being shaped by differing views of who cities are for and how urban benefits should be distributed.

The wicked characteristics are that developed cities such as Vancouver possess too many deciding factors when choosing when or where to improve. First, local greening projects interact with broader forces such as regional housing shortages and global capital flows, producing chaotic effects that are difficult to manage. Second, it involves conflicting stakeholders with uneven interests. For example, homeowners and renters will disagree on certain changes to the area that trade aesthetics for privacy or vice versa. These problems are inevitable thus making difficult negotiations inevitable. Third, the impacts of greening vary by context and are shaped by historical inequalities, often resulting in unintended consequences such as displacement or uneven access to benefits. These features make the relationship between greenery and affordability unpredictable and resistant to straightforward policy solutions. To navigate these issues, we must approach the problem with an open mind, ready for an ongoing and adaptive solution rather than an instant fix. We will consider how cities might expand green space without exacerbating displacement, ensuring that we are able to control the market to prevent extreme increases/decreases. Another factor to emphasize is setting access to urban nature as a social right rather than a market based privilege thus eliminating the greed aspect of housing markets. Finally, we need to think about how we will manage the uneven impacts of greening across different communities within an inherently complex urban system.

==Vancouver Case Study (~800 words) [Prototype]==
*Focus on a specific neighbourhood, project, or development
*Incorporate local data and spatial analysis
*Analyze political, economic, and social forces at work
*[[File:Screenshot 2026-04-08 at 15.52.56.png|thumb|GIS map]]Include maps, charts, or visualizations of local data

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words) Yu ==
*Connect Vancouver's experience to other Canadian or global cities
*What can Vancouver learn from elsewhere?
*What makes Vancouver's situation distinctive?
==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [August]==
Creating Community Land Trusts with integrated green space is a good way to remove land off the speculative housing market. Communities have had success in combating financialization by buying up land, and doing so could help lower income residents access housing. The downside with this approach however, is that they require large equity to start, that would come from the community or, from fundraising from philanthropic sources. In Puerto Rico for example, “The CLT’s innovative approach to land management emerged as a pivotal solution to housing instability.” (Garcia & Ma, p. 16). By doing this land began to benefit “the community rather than external investors.” (Garcia & Ma, p. 16)

What we can also do is while expanding green space, we accompany it with protections and expanding green space for vulnerable peoples. In Nairobi, Kenya for example, “Street vendors disproportionately face increased climate-related risks that harm their productivity, income, access to infrastructure, trading hours, and customer footfall.” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 1). The implications for green spaces in relation to housing affordability is that these street vendors are often forced to operate in lower income areas, and these lower income areas are often lacking in green space which leads to a spiral in living standards and conditions. In an ever densifying city such as Vancouver for example, space urban greenery can become scarce, and its implementation in a city can be challenging. When a city grows more dense, there becomes “little land available for planning new large-scale green spaces in metropolitan areas” (Shan et. al, p. 4). In such the case for Vancouver, a potential trade off for residents would be to increase densification efforts in order to create land for green spaces, in areas such as low density sprawl. As seen in our GIS Graphic above, increasing access to green space would require significantly changing areas for the creation of green space. Although not possible in areas such as the downtown core where significant infrastructure has been built up, this increased green space could face opposition from residents as this process would significantly alter a neighbourhood’s character.

The opposition we would expect from both of these proposals would come from developers who would prefer high market real estate markets to ensure their wealth. When green space is viewed from a perspective of financialization, then incorporating green spaces in lower income areas would be ignored.

This is already seen where “real estate developers tend to choose locations close to well-maintained urban parks to enhance the value of their properties.” (Shan et. al, p. 3). And the risk this poses is that if we were to proceed with creating rent stabilizations and protecting green spaces for vulnerable peoples, property developers may not see an incentive in developing equitable housing in lower income neighborhoods with these protections. Conversely, if we did not offer such protections such as rent stabilization or lower income protections, the creation of green spaces may be encouraged, but still under a financialized model. This shows, that addressing this problem would require balance and consultation from many sources and spaces, If we were to move to a model of non-profit public housing for example, it would require more resources and time to build than just building parks in lower income areas, and demonstrates that intersectional thinking is important in addressing this very problem.

==Conclusion & Reflection (~300 words)==
*Summarize key insights
*Reflect on what you learned through the Design Thinking process
*Identify questions that remain open for future inquiry
==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

{{Sharebox|names=|share=no}}

File:Stakeholder-Engagement-Map.png

2026-04-11T00:30:04Z

AugustKitka: Uploaded own work with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=map of stakeholders}}
|date=2026-04-10
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:AugustKitka|AugustKitka]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

File:Stakeholders in green affordabillity.png

2026-04-11T00:13:57Z

AugustKitka: Uploaded own work with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Photo of how different stakeholders interact with green space and affordability}}
|date=2026-04-10
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:AugustKitka|AugustKitka]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-04-10T17:34:04Z

AugustKitka: /* Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [August] */

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

==Introduction & Context (~300 words)==
*Introduce your topic and its significance to Vancouver
*Situate it within broader urban geography themes from the course
*Preview the wicked problem characteristics that make this challenge complex
*Housing is improtnat
==Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [August]==
Key stakeholders who are affected in the scenario are diverse. Some of the most vulnerable people affected by this problem are disproportionately lower income people. Urban Planners have nearly universally identified the financialization of green spaces as problematic. It is noted that this “Capitalization of urban green space is a long-standing concern in urban planning” (Shan et. al, p. 1). Other key stakeholders in this equation are private developers and government, with Shan et. al noting that “This capitalization effect has been highly sought after and taken advantage of by both capital and government.” (p. 2). With these stakeholders being centered and advantaged by this financialization, they have not only enabled its continuance but what have been active stakeholders in its development. Indeed, In Nanjing for example, “ “Local governments leverage green spaces to drive urban growth, while real estate developers strategically select locations near high-quality urban parks for property development.” (Shan et. al, p. 2). This drive has further marginalized lower income residents, as there are rising concerns amongst these residents that “greenery in neighborhoods may increase residents’ living costs and lead to the displacement of marginalized groups” (Shan et. al, p. 2). Therefore, in this process, green space becomes not a public space that is easily accessible for all, but a backdrop for privileged peoples who have the wealth to live near such spaces.

In this matter the voices that are typically centered are property developers. With Vancouver being marketed as a livable city, and attention drawn to its green space, It has created a perfect environment to capitalize on such spaces. Especially with the financialization of Vancouver’s housing market, voices that are typically marginalized in this space are typically lower income residents and newcomer residents. Indigenous residents for example, are often treated like another stakeholder instead of shepherds of the land who have deep roots into it. This connection, through gentrification and the financialization of the city has increased rent around areas such as the Squamish territory in Kitsilano, compromising those ancestral connections. This is seen in the map below where this territory, correlating with significant greenspace has seen some of the highest rents in vancouver as whole. As a result of areas with significant green spaces hosting some of the most expensive rents in metro Vancouver, marginalized peoples, such as those in the Downtown Eastside are shut off from green spaces. This is problematic as “Previous research highlights how green spaces boost the resilience of residents in informal settlements against climate change” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2). Without this critical connection to ecology, lower income communities are further marginalized, as climate resilience, tied to green spaces, are increasingly inaccessible for them (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2).
==Problem Framing (~500 words) [Define] - Yu ==
*Present your primary problem statement
*Acknowledge alternative framings and competing definitions
*Explain which wicked problem characteristics are most relevant
*Articulate 2-3 "How Might We" questions that guide your analysis
The relationship between urban greenery and housing affordability in Vancouver can be more productively framed as a governance and distribution problem shaped by institutional planning choices. Green space is not the only inherent driver of housing unaffordability, this perspective opens up to how policies and investment strategies determine who is able to access the benefits of urban nature. The core issue here is the absence of mechanisms that ensure its public benefits are evenly shared. Urban green space such as parks, street trees, and waterfronts are overridden by private gain, raising questions about how the city treated its different classes. The current dominant planning perspective sees greening the city as an unequivocal public good, emphasizing benefits such as improved health and overall livability. Consequently, the downsides of this perspective is that it views housing unaffordability as a separate issue driven by the market economy. In contrast, critical urban theory highlights “green gentrification,” framing greening initiatives as catalysts for rising property values and displacement(Harvey, 2006). Another perspective advocates for an approach based on human rights, arguing that access to urban nature should be treated as a social right rather than a commodified amenity tied to housing markets. These competing definitions show that the issue is that the market has become over speculative, hence neglecting the material basics of what housing means. Urban greenery established itself as being shaped by differing views of who cities are for and how urban benefits should be distributed.

The wicked characteristics are that developed cities such as Vancouver possess too many deciding factors when choosing when or where to improve. First, local greening projects interact with broader forces such as regional housing shortages and global capital flows, producing chaotic effects that are difficult to manage. Second, it involves conflicting stakeholders with uneven interests. For example, homeowners and renters will disagree on certain changes to the area that trade aesthetics for privacy or vice versa. These problems are inevitable thus making difficult negotiations inevitable. Third, the impacts of greening vary by context and are shaped by historical inequalities, often resulting in unintended consequences such as displacement or uneven access to benefits. These features make the relationship between greenery and affordability unpredictable and resistant to straightforward policy solutions. To navigate these issues, we must approach the problem with an open mind, ready for an ongoing and adaptive solution rather than an instant fix. We will consider how cities might expand green space without exacerbating displacement, ensuring that we are able to control the market to prevent extreme increases/decreases. Another factor to emphasize is setting access to urban nature as a social right rather than a market based privilege thus eliminating the greed aspect of housing markets. Finally, we need to think about how we will manage the uneven impacts of greening across different communities within an inherently complex urban system.

==Vancouver Case Study (~800 words) [Prototype]==
*Focus on a specific neighbourhood, project, or development
*Incorporate local data and spatial analysis
*Analyze political, economic, and social forces at work
*[[File:Screenshot 2026-04-08 at 15.52.56.png|thumb|GIS map]]Include maps, charts, or visualizations of local data

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words) Yu ==
*Connect Vancouver's experience to other Canadian or global cities
*What can Vancouver learn from elsewhere?
*What makes Vancouver's situation distinctive?
==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [August]==
Creating Community Land Trusts with integrated green space is a good way to remove land off the speculative housing market. Communities have had success in combating financialization by buying up land, and doing so could help lower income residents access housing. The downside with this approach however, is that they require large equity to start, that would come from the community or, from fundraising from philanthropic sources. In Puerto Rico for example, “The CLT’s innovative approach to land management emerged as a pivotal solution to housing instability.” (Garcia & Ma, p. 16). By doing this land began to benefit “the community rather than external investors.” (Garcia & Ma, p. 16)

What we can also do is while expanding green space, we accompany it with protections and expanding green space for vulnerable peoples. In Nairobi, Kenya for example, “Street vendors disproportionately face increased climate-related risks that harm their productivity, income, access to infrastructure, trading hours, and customer footfall.” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 1). The implications for green spaces in relation to housing affordability is that these street vendors are often forced to operate in lower income areas, and these lower income areas are often lacking in green space which leads to a spiral in living standards and conditions. In an ever densifying city such as Vancouver for example, space urban greenery can become scarce, and its implementation in a city can be challenging. When a city grows more dense, there becomes “little land available for planning new large-scale green spaces in metropolitan areas” (Shan et. al, p. 4). In such the case for Vancouver, a potential trade off for residents would be to increase densification efforts in order to create land for green spaces, in areas such as low density sprawl. As seen in our GIS Graphic above, increasing access to green space would require significantly changing areas for the creation of green space. Although not possible in areas such as the downtown core where significant infrastructure has been built up, this increased green space could face opposition from residents as this process would significantly alter a neighbourhood’s character.

The opposition we would expect from both of these proposals would come from developers who would prefer high market real estate markets to ensure their wealth. When green space is viewed from a perspective of financialization, then incorporating green spaces in lower income areas would be ignored.

This is already seen where “real estate developers tend to choose locations close to well-maintained urban parks to enhance the value of their properties.” (Shan et. al, p. 3). And the risk this poses is that if we were to proceed with creating rent stabilizations and protecting green spaces for vulnerable peoples, property developers may not see an incentive in developing equitable housing in lower income neighborhoods with these protections. Conversely, if we did not offer such protections such as rent stabilization or lower income protections, the creation of green spaces may be encouraged, but still under a financialized model. This shows, that addressing this problem would require balance and consultation from many sources and spaces, If we were to move to a model of non-profit public housing for example, it would require more resources and time to build than just building parks in lower income areas, and demonstrates that intersectional thinking is important in addressing this very problem.

==Conclusion & Reflection (~300 words)==
*Summarize key insights
*Reflect on what you learned through the Design Thinking process
*Identify questions that remain open for future inquiry
==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

{{Sharebox|names=|share=no}}

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-04-10T17:32:27Z

AugustKitka: /* Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [August] */

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

==Introduction & Context (~300 words)==
*Introduce your topic and its significance to Vancouver
*Situate it within broader urban geography themes from the course
*Preview the wicked problem characteristics that make this challenge complex
*Housing is improtnat
==Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [August]==
Key stakeholders who are affected in the scenario are diverse. Some of the most vulnerable people affected by this problem are disproportionately lower income people. Urban Planners have nearly universally identified the financialization of green spaces as problematic. It is noted that this “Capitalization of urban green space is a long-standing concern in urban planning” (Shan et. al, p. 1). Other key stakeholders in this equation are private developers and government, with Shan et. al noting that “This capitalization effect has been highly sought after and taken advantage of by both capital and government.” (p. 2). With these stakeholders being centered and advantaged by this financialization, they have not only enabled its continuance but what have been active stakeholders in its development. Indeed, In Nanjing for example, “ “Local governments leverage green spaces to drive urban growth, while real estate developers strategically select locations near high-quality urban parks for property development.” (Shan et. al, p. 2). This drive has further marginalized lower income residents, as there are rising concerns amongst these residents that “greenery in neighborhoods may increase residents’ living costs and lead to the displacement of marginalized groups” (Shan et. al, p. 2). Therefore, in this process, green space becomes not a public space that is easily accessible for all, but a backdrop for privileged peoples who have the wealth to live near such spaces.

In this matter the voices that are typically centered are property developers. With Vancouver being marketed as a livable city, and attention drawn to its green space, It has created a perfect environment to capitalize on such spaces. Especially with the financialization of Vancouver’s housing market, voices that are typically marginalized in this space are typically lower income residents and newcomer residents. Indigenous residents for example, are often treated like another stakeholder instead of shepherds of the land who have deep roots into it. This connection, through gentrification and the financialization of the city has increased rent around areas such as the Squamish territory in Kitsilano, compromising those ancestral connections. This is seen in the map below where this territory, correlating with significant greenspace has seen some of the highest rents in vancouver as whole. As a result of areas with significant green spaces hosting some of the most expensive rents in metro Vancouver, marginalized peoples, such as those in the Downtown Eastside are shut off from green spaces. This is problematic as “Previous research highlights how green spaces boost the resilience of residents in informal settlements against climate change” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2). Without this critical connection to ecology, lower income communities are further marginalized, as climate resilience, tied to green spaces, are increasingly inaccessible for them (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2).
==Problem Framing (~500 words) [Define] - Yu ==
*Present your primary problem statement
*Acknowledge alternative framings and competing definitions
*Explain which wicked problem characteristics are most relevant
*Articulate 2-3 "How Might We" questions that guide your analysis
The relationship between urban greenery and housing affordability in Vancouver can be more productively framed as a governance and distribution problem shaped by institutional planning choices. Green space is not the only inherent driver of housing unaffordability, this perspective opens up to how policies and investment strategies determine who is able to access the benefits of urban nature. The core issue here is the absence of mechanisms that ensure its public benefits are evenly shared. Urban green space such as parks, street trees, and waterfronts are overridden by private gain, raising questions about how the city treated its different classes. The current dominant planning perspective sees greening the city as an unequivocal public good, emphasizing benefits such as improved health and overall livability. Consequently, the downsides of this perspective is that it views housing unaffordability as a separate issue driven by the market economy. In contrast, critical urban theory highlights “green gentrification,” framing greening initiatives as catalysts for rising property values and displacement(Harvey, 2006). Another perspective advocates for an approach based on human rights, arguing that access to urban nature should be treated as a social right rather than a commodified amenity tied to housing markets. These competing definitions show that the issue is that the market has become over speculative, hence neglecting the material basics of what housing means. Urban greenery established itself as being shaped by differing views of who cities are for and how urban benefits should be distributed.

The wicked characteristics are that developed cities such as Vancouver possess too many deciding factors when choosing when or where to improve. First, local greening projects interact with broader forces such as regional housing shortages and global capital flows, producing chaotic effects that are difficult to manage. Second, it involves conflicting stakeholders with uneven interests. For example, homeowners and renters will disagree on certain changes to the area that trade aesthetics for privacy or vice versa. These problems are inevitable thus making difficult negotiations inevitable. Third, the impacts of greening vary by context and are shaped by historical inequalities, often resulting in unintended consequences such as displacement or uneven access to benefits. These features make the relationship between greenery and affordability unpredictable and resistant to straightforward policy solutions. To navigate these issues, we must approach the problem with an open mind, ready for an ongoing and adaptive solution rather than an instant fix. We will consider how cities might expand green space without exacerbating displacement, ensuring that we are able to control the market to prevent extreme increases/decreases. Another factor to emphasize is setting access to urban nature as a social right rather than a market based privilege thus eliminating the greed aspect of housing markets. Finally, we need to think about how we will manage the uneven impacts of greening across different communities within an inherently complex urban system.

==Vancouver Case Study (~800 words) [Prototype]==
*Focus on a specific neighbourhood, project, or development
*Incorporate local data and spatial analysis
*Analyze political, economic, and social forces at work
*[[File:Screenshot 2026-04-08 at 15.52.56.png|thumb|GIS map]]Include maps, charts, or visualizations of local data

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words) Yu ==
*Connect Vancouver's experience to other Canadian or global cities
*What can Vancouver learn from elsewhere?
*What makes Vancouver's situation distinctive?
==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [August]==
*Present 2-3 evidence-based approaches or interventions
*Acknowledge trade-offs and potential unintended consequences
*Discuss which stakeholders might support or oppose each approach
*Avoid presenting a single "solution"—emphasize that wicked problems require ongoing engagement
==Conclusion & Reflection (~300 words)==
*Summarize key insights
*Reflect on what you learned through the Design Thinking process
*Identify questions that remain open for future inquiry
==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

{{Sharebox|names=|share=no}}

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-04-10T17:31:54Z

AugustKitka: /* Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [August] */

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

==Introduction & Context (~300 words)==
*Introduce your topic and its significance to Vancouver
*Situate it within broader urban geography themes from the course
*Preview the wicked problem characteristics that make this challenge complex
*Housing is improtnat
==Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [August]==
Key stakeholders who are affected in the scenario are diverse. Some of the most vulnerable people affected by this problem are disproportionately lower income people. Urban Planners have nearly universally identified the financialization of green spaces as problematic. It is noted that this “Capitalization of urban green space is a long-standing concern in urban planning” (Shan et. al, p. 1). Other key stakeholders in this equation are private developers and government, with Shan et. al noting that “This capitalization effect has been highly sought after and taken advantage of by both capital and government.” (p. 2). With these stakeholders being centered and advantaged by this financialization, they have not only enabled its continuance but what have been active stakeholders in its development. Indeed, In Nanjing for example, “ “Local governments leverage green spaces to drive urban growth, while real estate developers strategically select locations near high-quality urban parks for property development.” (Shan et. al, p. 2). This drive has further marginalized lower income residents, as there are rising concerns amongst these residents that “greenery in neighborhoods may increase residents’ living costs and lead to the displacement of marginalized groups” (Shan et. al, p. 2). Therefore, in this process, green space becomes not a public space that is easily accessible for all, but a backdrop for privileged peoples who have the wealth to live near such spaces.
In this matter the voices that are typically centered are property developers. With Vancouver being marketed as a livable city, and attention drawn to its green space, It has created a perfect environment to capitalize on such spaces. Especially with the financialization of Vancouver’s housing market, voices that are typically marginalized in this space are typically lower income residents and newcomer residents. Indigenous residents for example, are often treated like another stakeholder instead of shepherds of the land who have deep roots into it. This connection, through gentrification and the financialization of the city has increased rent around areas such as the Squamish territory in Kitsilano, compromising those ancestral connections. This is seen in the map below where this territory, correlating with significant greenspace has seen some of the highest rents in vancouver as whole. As a result of areas with significant green spaces hosting some of the most expensive rents in metro Vancouver, marginalized peoples, such as those in the Downtown Eastside are shut off from green spaces. This is problematic as “Previous research highlights how green spaces boost the resilience of residents in informal settlements against climate change” (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2). Without this critical connection to ecology, lower income communities are further marginalized, as climate resilience, tied to green spaces, are increasingly inaccessible for them (Thorn & Maruza, p. 2).
==Problem Framing (~500 words) [Define] - Yu ==
*Present your primary problem statement
*Acknowledge alternative framings and competing definitions
*Explain which wicked problem characteristics are most relevant
*Articulate 2-3 "How Might We" questions that guide your analysis
The relationship between urban greenery and housing affordability in Vancouver can be more productively framed as a governance and distribution problem shaped by institutional planning choices. Green space is not the only inherent driver of housing unaffordability, this perspective opens up to how policies and investment strategies determine who is able to access the benefits of urban nature. The core issue here is the absence of mechanisms that ensure its public benefits are evenly shared. Urban green space such as parks, street trees, and waterfronts are overridden by private gain, raising questions about how the city treated its different classes. The current dominant planning perspective sees greening the city as an unequivocal public good, emphasizing benefits such as improved health and overall livability. Consequently, the downsides of this perspective is that it views housing unaffordability as a separate issue driven by the market economy. In contrast, critical urban theory highlights “green gentrification,” framing greening initiatives as catalysts for rising property values and displacement(Harvey, 2006). Another perspective advocates for an approach based on human rights, arguing that access to urban nature should be treated as a social right rather than a commodified amenity tied to housing markets. These competing definitions show that the issue is that the market has become over speculative, hence neglecting the material basics of what housing means. Urban greenery established itself as being shaped by differing views of who cities are for and how urban benefits should be distributed.

The wicked characteristics are that developed cities such as Vancouver possess too many deciding factors when choosing when or where to improve. First, local greening projects interact with broader forces such as regional housing shortages and global capital flows, producing chaotic effects that are difficult to manage. Second, it involves conflicting stakeholders with uneven interests. For example, homeowners and renters will disagree on certain changes to the area that trade aesthetics for privacy or vice versa. These problems are inevitable thus making difficult negotiations inevitable. Third, the impacts of greening vary by context and are shaped by historical inequalities, often resulting in unintended consequences such as displacement or uneven access to benefits. These features make the relationship between greenery and affordability unpredictable and resistant to straightforward policy solutions. To navigate these issues, we must approach the problem with an open mind, ready for an ongoing and adaptive solution rather than an instant fix. We will consider how cities might expand green space without exacerbating displacement, ensuring that we are able to control the market to prevent extreme increases/decreases. Another factor to emphasize is setting access to urban nature as a social right rather than a market based privilege thus eliminating the greed aspect of housing markets. Finally, we need to think about how we will manage the uneven impacts of greening across different communities within an inherently complex urban system.

==Vancouver Case Study (~800 words) [Prototype]==
*Focus on a specific neighbourhood, project, or development
*Incorporate local data and spatial analysis
*Analyze political, economic, and social forces at work
*[[File:Screenshot 2026-04-08 at 15.52.56.png|thumb|GIS map]]Include maps, charts, or visualizations of local data

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words) Yu ==
*Connect Vancouver's experience to other Canadian or global cities
*What can Vancouver learn from elsewhere?
*What makes Vancouver's situation distinctive?
==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [August]==
*Present 2-3 evidence-based approaches or interventions
*Acknowledge trade-offs and potential unintended consequences
*Discuss which stakeholders might support or oppose each approach
*Avoid presenting a single "solution"—emphasize that wicked problems require ongoing engagement
==Conclusion & Reflection (~300 words)==
*Summarize key insights
*Reflect on what you learned through the Design Thinking process
*Identify questions that remain open for future inquiry
==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

{{Sharebox|names=|share=no}}

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-04-01T23:44:08Z

AugustKitka: /* Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [Ideate] */

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-03-25T23:14:01Z

AugustKitka: /* Introduction & Context (~300 words) */

Course:GEOG350/2026/Enviromental Housing??

2026-03-25T23:12:51Z

AugustKitka: Created page with "Total length: Approximately 3,200-3,500 words plus visualizations, references, and process reflection ==Introduction & Context (~300 words)== *Introduce your topic and its significance to Vancouver *Situate it within broader urban geography themes from the course *Preview the wicked problem characteristics that make this challenge complex ==Stakeholder Landscape (~400 words) [Empathize]== *Map the key stakeholders affected by this issue *Describe how different groups ex..."