UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T07:30:38Z

AvaHall: /* Introduction */

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

==Introduction==
As of 2024, there are 141 SRO buildings operating in Vancouver, with a significant number in Chinatown<ref>{{Cite web|last=DTES SRO Collaborative Society|title=Chinatown|url=https://srocollaborative.org/programs/chinatown/|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=DTES SRO Collaborative Society}}</ref> (Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society 9). SRO are residential hotels or rooming houses that contain single rooms. These rooms typically share facilities such as bathrooms and cooking areas. They are a last resort housing before homelessness, with heavily deteriorated conditions and high rents relative to the rooms.

In late 2024, while on a tour of Vancouver in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre our group member, Aidan, was approached by a man: <blockquote>“Initially, I was wary of the stranger, although I had only recently arrived in Vancouver, I had heard stories of Chinatown being a rundown and crime-ridden area. On the contrary, I found the place to be eerily quiet. There was scarcely anyone walking around, and most of the storefronts appeared to have been shuttered permanently. While not quite abandoned, it was far from the bustling Chinatowns found across the world, but at no point did it ever feel unsafe. Although our exchange was short, this man explained that he lived in one of the nearby apartments, specifically a Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) unit. While the rent was considerably lower than the rest of the city, it was still unaffordable for a person in his situation. Frustratingly, government action has been ineffective. He has seen no improvements, even when the buildings are given funding and any income assistance he receives eventually goes to the landlord. With no alternatives other than homelessness, he is forced to spend the majority of his income on deplorable living conditions.” </blockquote>

=== The Wicked Problem ===
[[File:Negative feedback loop of vancouver chinatown.png|center|thumb|740x740px|The Wicked Problem of a Negative Feedback Loop ]]Many of Chinatown’s SRO residents are being forced out their neighbourhoods due to lack of safe and dignified housing. Predatory landlordism and regressive policies have led to SROs becoming physically uninhabitable, while gentrification has made alternative forms of housing unaffordable.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Masuda|first=Jeffery|date=2021|title=Abandoning the SRO: Public Health Withdrawal from Sanitary Enforcement in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/00961442211018795|journal=Urban History Association|volume=49|via=SageJournals}}</ref> Additionally, the overall decline of Chinatown has created the perception of a “lawless zone” to people living outsize the region. This results in financialization in the way of slumlords and gentrification, pressuring original residents to move out.<ref name=":2" />

This environment creates a cycle which facilitates displacement of marginalized populations. As the stigmatization prevents investment and visitors from entering the area, thereby the opportunity for conditions to improve, thus reinforcing the stigma.

According to Lefebvre's (1968) Right to the City the people living in SROs should have had the strongest claim to the area, yet the aren’t allow to contribute to decision regarding SRO policy or building management.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Right to the City|last=Lefebvre|first=Henri|year=1968|isbn=978-0415534154|location=Paris, France}}</ref>

Therefore we decided to ask the guiding question of How might we tackle the living standards of SROs, without displacing the residents? How do we overcome the regulatory neglect of the area? How do we prevent the negative feedback loop of stigma?

==Stakeholders ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Case Study of Chinatown==
=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ley|first=David|last2=Mendez|first2=Pablo|last3=Lees|first3=Loretta|last4=Walton-Roberts|first4=Margaret|last5=Helbrecht|first5=Ilse|date=2021|title=Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12663|journal=Canadian Geographies|volume=64|via=Wiley}}</ref> (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economic Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mullenite|first=Joshua|date=2020|title=Every house a sanctuary: Fighting displacement on all fronts in Sunset Park, Brooklyn|url=https://doaj.org/article/225cd24310a64ef391a4270984b1abdd|journal=Radical Housing Journal|volume=2|via=DOAJ}}</ref>

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective ==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action==
One potential avenue for revitalization of the area is the implementation of cultural events bringing in tourism and inviting connection. An example of this is the Vancouver Chinatown Night Market, a recurring event that encourages a social atmosphere and vibrant nightlife. While in some cases these marketplaces may contribute to displacement, in others they serve successfully in “support the maintenance of cultural practices, and serve as spaces of information sharing, as well as nostalgia for ‘home’” <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pottie-Sherman|first=Yolande|date=2013|title=Vancouver's Chinatown Night Market: Gentrification and the Perception of Chinatown as a Form of Revitalization|url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alex/benv/2013/00000039/00000002/art00002#|journal=Built Environment|volume=39|via=Ingenta}}</ref>. In this way, they can serve as an important cultural tool in the revitalization of the area, as long as special attention is given as to not exclude other groups or impede accessibility of support services.

Our second idea is to renovate aging buildings in a manner where their heritage features are preserved, which allows Chinatown to maintain its historical character. This could help ensure that Chinatown’s heritage is maintained without displacing existing residents and attract talented storeowners to the area, which would promote economic activity through pulling visitors and potential residents in. Limitations include developers that may view such renovations as financially restrictive compared to full redevelopment. Additionally, government actors may face challenges from investing in heritage conservation with the need to increase housing supply efficiently. Nonetheless, this could bring economical business to the area that shifts the social perspective of Chinatown, breaking the negative feedback loop.

==Conclusion & Reflection ==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T07:25:55Z

AvaHall: /* The Wicked Problem */

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

==Introduction==
As of 2024, there are 141 SRO buildings operating in Vancouver, with a significant number in Chinatown<ref>{{Cite web|last=DTES SRO Collaborative Society|title=Chinatown|url=https://srocollaborative.org/programs/chinatown/|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=DTES SRO Collaborative Society}}</ref> (Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society 9). SRO are residential hotels or rooming houses that contain single rooms. These rooms typically share facilities such as bathrooms and cooking areas. They are a last resort housing before homelessness, with heavily deteriorated conditions and high rents relative to the rooms.

In late 2024, while on a tour of Vancouver in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre our group member, Aidan, was approached by a man: <blockquote>“Initially, I was wary of the stranger, although I had only recently arrived in Vancouver, I had heard stories of Chinatown being a rundown and crime-ridden area. On the contrary, I found the place to be eerily quiet. There was scarcely anyone walking around, and most of the storefronts appeared to have been shuttered permanently. While not quite abandoned, it was far from the bustling Chinatowns found across the world, but at no point did it ever feel unsafe. Although our exchange was short, this man explained that he lived in one of the nearby apartments, specifically a Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) unit. While the rent was considerably lower than the rest of the city, it was still unaffordable for a person in his situation. Frustratingly, government action has been ineffective. He has seen no improvements, even when the buildings are given funding and any income assistance he receives eventually goes to the landlord. With no alternatives other than homelessness, he is forced to spend the majority of his income on deplorable living conditions.” </blockquote>

=== The Wicked Problem ===
[[File:Negative feedback loop of vancouver chinatown.png|center|thumb|740x740px|The Wicked Problem of a Negative Feedback Loop ]]Many of Chinatown’s SRO residents are being forced out their neighbourhoods due to lack of safe and dignified housing. Predatory landlordism and regressive policies have led to SROs becoming physically uninhabitable, while gentrification has made alternative forms of housing unaffordable. Additionally, the overall decline of Chinatown has created the perception of a “lawless zone” to people living outsize the region. This results in financialization in the way of slumlords and gentrification, pressuring original residents to move out.

This environment creates a cycle which facilitates displacement of marginalized populations. As the stigmatization prevents investment and visitors from entering the area, thereby the opportunity for conditions to improve, thus reinforcing the stigma.

According to Lefebvre's (1968) Right to the City the people living in SROs should have had the strongest claim to the area, yet the aren’t allow to contribute to decision regarding SRO policy or building management.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Right to the City|last=Lefebvre|first=Henri|year=1968|isbn=978-0415534154|location=Paris, France}}</ref>

Therefore we decided to ask the guiding question of How might we tackle the living standards of SROs, without displacing the residents? How do we overcome the regulatory neglect of the area? How do we prevent the negative feedback loop of stigma?

==Stakeholders ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Case Study of Chinatown==
=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ley|first=David|last2=Mendez|first2=Pablo|last3=Lees|first3=Loretta|last4=Walton-Roberts|first4=Margaret|last5=Helbrecht|first5=Ilse|date=2021|title=Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12663|journal=Canadian Geographies|volume=64|via=Wiley}}</ref> (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economic Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mullenite|first=Joshua|date=2020|title=Every house a sanctuary: Fighting displacement on all fronts in Sunset Park, Brooklyn|url=https://doaj.org/article/225cd24310a64ef391a4270984b1abdd|journal=Radical Housing Journal|volume=2|via=DOAJ}}</ref>

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective ==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action==
One potential avenue for revitalization of the area is the implementation of cultural events bringing in tourism and inviting connection. An example of this is the Vancouver Chinatown Night Market, a recurring event that encourages a social atmosphere and vibrant nightlife. While in some cases these marketplaces may contribute to displacement, in others they serve successfully in “support the maintenance of cultural practices, and serve as spaces of information sharing, as well as nostalgia for ‘home’” <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pottie-Sherman|first=Yolande|date=2013|title=Vancouver's Chinatown Night Market: Gentrification and the Perception of Chinatown as a Form of Revitalization|url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alex/benv/2013/00000039/00000002/art00002#|journal=Built Environment|volume=39|via=Ingenta}}</ref>. In this way, they can serve as an important cultural tool in the revitalization of the area, as long as special attention is given as to not exclude other groups or impede accessibility of support services.

Our second idea is to renovate aging buildings in a manner where their heritage features are preserved, which allows Chinatown to maintain its historical character. This could help ensure that Chinatown’s heritage is maintained without displacing existing residents and attract talented storeowners to the area, which would promote economic activity through pulling visitors and potential residents in. Limitations include developers that may view such renovations as financially restrictive compared to full redevelopment. Additionally, government actors may face challenges from investing in heritage conservation with the need to increase housing supply efficiently. Nonetheless, this could bring economical business to the area that shifts the social perspective of Chinatown, breaking the negative feedback loop.

==Conclusion & Reflection ==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T07:16:09Z

AvaHall: /* Comparative Perspective (~400 words) */

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

==Introduction==
As of 2024, there are 141 SRO buildings operating in Vancouver, with a significant number in Chinatown<ref>{{Cite web|last=DTES SRO Collaborative Society|title=Chinatown|url=https://srocollaborative.org/programs/chinatown/|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=DTES SRO Collaborative Society}}</ref> (Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society 9). SRO are residential hotels or rooming houses that contain single rooms. These rooms typically share facilities such as bathrooms and cooking areas. They are a last resort housing before homelessness, with heavily deteriorated conditions and high rents relative to the rooms.

In late 2024, while on a tour of Vancouver in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre our group member, Aidan, was approached by a man: <blockquote>“Initially, I was wary of the stranger, although I had only recently arrived in Vancouver, I had heard stories of Chinatown being a rundown and crime-ridden area. On the contrary, I found the place to be eerily quiet. There was scarcely anyone walking around, and most of the storefronts appeared to have been shuttered permanently. While not quite abandoned, it was far from the bustling Chinatowns found across the world, but at no point did it ever feel unsafe. Although our exchange was short, this man explained that he lived in one of the nearby apartments, specifically a Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) unit. While the rent was considerably lower than the rest of the city, it was still unaffordable for a person in his situation. Frustratingly, government action has been ineffective. He has seen no improvements, even when the buildings are given funding and any income assistance he receives eventually goes to the landlord. With no alternatives other than homelessness, he is forced to spend the majority of his income on deplorable living conditions.” </blockquote>

=== The Wicked Problem ===
[[File:Negative feedback loop of vancouver chinatown.png|center|thumb|740x740px|The Wicked Problem of a Negative Feedback Loop ]]Many of Chinatown’s SRO residents are being forced out their neighbourhoods due to lack of safe and dignified housing. Predatory landlordism and regressive policies have led to SROs becoming physically uninhabitable, while gentrification has made alternative forms of housing unaffordable. Additionally, the overall decline of Chinatown has created the perception of a “lawless zone” to people living outsize the region. This results in financialization in the way of slumlords and gentrification, pressuring original residents to move out.

This environment creates a cycle which facilitates displacement of marginalized populations. As the stigmatization prevents investment and visitors from entering the area, thereby the opportunity for conditions to improve, thus reinforcing the stigma.

According to Lefebvre's (1968) Right to the City the people living in SROs should have had the strongest claim to the area, yet the aren’t allow to contribute to decision regarding SRO policy or building management.

Therefore we decided to ask the guiding question of How might we tackle the living standards of SROs, without displacing the residents? How do we overcome the regulatory neglect of the area? How do we prevent the negative feedback loop of stigma?

==Stakeholders ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Case Study of Chinatown==
=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ley|first=David|last2=Mendez|first2=Pablo|last3=Lees|first3=Loretta|last4=Walton-Roberts|first4=Margaret|last5=Helbrecht|first5=Ilse|date=2021|title=Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12663|journal=Canadian Geographies|volume=64|via=Wiley}}</ref> (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economic Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mullenite|first=Joshua|date=2020|title=Every house a sanctuary: Fighting displacement on all fronts in Sunset Park, Brooklyn|url=https://doaj.org/article/225cd24310a64ef391a4270984b1abdd|journal=Radical Housing Journal|volume=2|via=DOAJ}}</ref>

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective ==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action==
One potential avenue for revitalization of the area is the implementation of cultural events bringing in tourism and inviting connection. An example of this is the Vancouver Chinatown Night Market, a recurring event that encourages a social atmosphere and vibrant nightlife. While in some cases these marketplaces may contribute to displacement, in others they serve successfully in “support the maintenance of cultural practices, and serve as spaces of information sharing, as well as nostalgia for ‘home’” <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pottie-Sherman|first=Yolande|date=2013|title=Vancouver's Chinatown Night Market: Gentrification and the Perception of Chinatown as a Form of Revitalization|url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alex/benv/2013/00000039/00000002/art00002#|journal=Built Environment|volume=39|via=Ingenta}}</ref>. In this way, they can serve as an important cultural tool in the revitalization of the area, as long as special attention is given as to not exclude other groups or impede accessibility of support services.

==Conclusion & Reflection ==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T07:15:22Z

AvaHall: /* The Social Aspect */

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

==Introduction==
As of 2024, there are 141 SRO buildings operating in Vancouver, with a significant number in Chinatown<ref>{{Cite web|last=DTES SRO Collaborative Society|title=Chinatown|url=https://srocollaborative.org/programs/chinatown/|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=DTES SRO Collaborative Society}}</ref> (Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society 9). SRO are residential hotels or rooming houses that contain single rooms. These rooms typically share facilities such as bathrooms and cooking areas. They are a last resort housing before homelessness, with heavily deteriorated conditions and high rents relative to the rooms.

In late 2024, while on a tour of Vancouver in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre our group member, Aidan, was approached by a man: <blockquote>“Initially, I was wary of the stranger, although I had only recently arrived in Vancouver, I had heard stories of Chinatown being a rundown and crime-ridden area. On the contrary, I found the place to be eerily quiet. There was scarcely anyone walking around, and most of the storefronts appeared to have been shuttered permanently. While not quite abandoned, it was far from the bustling Chinatowns found across the world, but at no point did it ever feel unsafe. Although our exchange was short, this man explained that he lived in one of the nearby apartments, specifically a Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) unit. While the rent was considerably lower than the rest of the city, it was still unaffordable for a person in his situation. Frustratingly, government action has been ineffective. He has seen no improvements, even when the buildings are given funding and any income assistance he receives eventually goes to the landlord. With no alternatives other than homelessness, he is forced to spend the majority of his income on deplorable living conditions.” </blockquote>

=== The Wicked Problem ===
[[File:Negative feedback loop of vancouver chinatown.png|center|thumb|740x740px|The Wicked Problem of a Negative Feedback Loop ]]Many of Chinatown’s SRO residents are being forced out their neighbourhoods due to lack of safe and dignified housing. Predatory landlordism and regressive policies have led to SROs becoming physically uninhabitable, while gentrification has made alternative forms of housing unaffordable. Additionally, the overall decline of Chinatown has created the perception of a “lawless zone” to people living outsize the region. This results in financialization in the way of slumlords and gentrification, pressuring original residents to move out.

This environment creates a cycle which facilitates displacement of marginalized populations. As the stigmatization prevents investment and visitors from entering the area, thereby the opportunity for conditions to improve, thus reinforcing the stigma.

According to Lefebvre's (1968) Right to the City the people living in SROs should have had the strongest claim to the area, yet the aren’t allow to contribute to decision regarding SRO policy or building management.

Therefore we decided to ask the guiding question of How might we tackle the living standards of SROs, without displacing the residents? How do we overcome the regulatory neglect of the area? How do we prevent the negative feedback loop of stigma?

==Stakeholders ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Case Study of Chinatown==
=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ley|first=David|last2=Mendez|first2=Pablo|last3=Lees|first3=Loretta|last4=Walton-Roberts|first4=Margaret|last5=Helbrecht|first5=Ilse|date=2021|title=Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A personal urban geography and a professional response|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12663|journal=Canadian Geographies|volume=64|via=Wiley}}</ref> (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economic Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mullenite|first=Joshua|date=2020|title=Every house a sanctuary: Fighting displacement on all fronts in Sunset Park, Brooklyn|url=https://doaj.org/article/225cd24310a64ef391a4270984b1abdd|journal=Radical Housing Journal|volume=2|via=DOAJ}}</ref>

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words)==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action==
One potential avenue for revitalization of the area is the implementation of cultural events bringing in tourism and inviting connection. An example of this is the Vancouver Chinatown Night Market, a recurring event that encourages a social atmosphere and vibrant nightlife. While in some cases these marketplaces may contribute to displacement, in others they serve successfully in “support the maintenance of cultural practices, and serve as spaces of information sharing, as well as nostalgia for ‘home’” <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pottie-Sherman|first=Yolande|date=2013|title=Vancouver's Chinatown Night Market: Gentrification and the Perception of Chinatown as a Form of Revitalization|url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alex/benv/2013/00000039/00000002/art00002#|journal=Built Environment|volume=39|via=Ingenta}}</ref>. In this way, they can serve as an important cultural tool in the revitalization of the area, as long as special attention is given as to not exclude other groups or impede accessibility of support services.

==Conclusion & Reflection ==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T07:00:32Z

AvaHall: /* Case Study of Chinatown */

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

==Introduction==
As of 2024, there are 141 SRO buildings operating in Vancouver, with a significant number in Chinatown<ref>{{Cite web|last=DTES SRO Collaborative Society|title=Chinatown|url=https://srocollaborative.org/programs/chinatown/|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=DTES SRO Collaborative Society}}</ref> (Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society 9). SRO are residential hotels or rooming houses that contain single rooms. These rooms typically share facilities such as bathrooms and cooking areas. They are a last resort housing before homelessness, with heavily deteriorated conditions and high rents relative to the rooms.

In late 2024, while on a tour of Vancouver in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre our group member, Aidan, was approached by a man: <blockquote>“Initially, I was wary of the stranger, although I had only recently arrived in Vancouver, I had heard stories of Chinatown being a rundown and crime-ridden area. On the contrary, I found the place to be eerily quiet. There was scarcely anyone walking around, and most of the storefronts appeared to have been shuttered permanently. While not quite abandoned, it was far from the bustling Chinatowns found across the world, but at no point did it ever feel unsafe. Although our exchange was short, this man explained that he lived in one of the nearby apartments, specifically a Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) unit. While the rent was considerably lower than the rest of the city, it was still unaffordable for a person in his situation. Frustratingly, government action has been ineffective. He has seen no improvements, even when the buildings are given funding and any income assistance he receives eventually goes to the landlord. With no alternatives other than homelessness, he is forced to spend the majority of his income on deplorable living conditions.” </blockquote>

=== The Wicked Problem ===
[[File:Negative feedback loop of vancouver chinatown.png|center|thumb|740x740px|The Wicked Problem of a Negative Feedback Loop ]]Many of Chinatown’s SRO residents are being forced out their neighbourhoods due to lack of safe and dignified housing. Predatory landlordism and regressive policies have led to SROs becoming physically uninhabitable, while gentrification has made alternative forms of housing unaffordable. Additionally, the overall decline of Chinatown has created the perception of a “lawless zone” to people living outsize the region. This results in financialization in the way of slumlords and gentrification, pressuring original residents to move out.

This environment creates a cycle which facilitates displacement of marginalized populations. As the stigmatization prevents investment and visitors from entering the area, thereby the opportunity for conditions to improve, thus reinforcing the stigma.

According to Lefebvre's (1968) Right to the City the people living in SROs should have had the strongest claim to the area, yet the aren’t allow to contribute to decision regarding SRO policy or building management.

Therefore we decided to ask the guiding question of How might we tackle the living standards of SROs, without displacing the residents? How do we overcome the regulatory neglect of the area? How do we prevent the negative feedback loop of stigma?

==Stakeholders ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Case Study of Chinatown==
=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economic Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words)==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action==
One potential avenue for revitalization of the area is the implementation of cultural events bringing in tourism and inviting connection. An example of this is the Vancouver Chinatown Night Market, a recurring event that encourages a social atmosphere and vibrant nightlife. While in some cases these marketplaces may contribute to displacement, in others they serve successfully in “support the maintenance of cultural practices, and serve as spaces of information sharing, as well as nostalgia for ‘home’” <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pottie-Sherman|first=Yolande|date=2013|title=Vancouver's Chinatown Night Market: Gentrification and the Perception of Chinatown as a Form of Revitalization|url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alex/benv/2013/00000039/00000002/art00002#|journal=Built Environment|volume=39|via=Ingenta}}</ref>. In this way, they can serve as an important cultural tool in the revitalization of the area, as long as special attention is given as to not exclude other groups or impede accessibility of support services.

==Conclusion & Reflection ==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T06:56:34Z

AvaHall: /* Introduction */

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

==Introduction==
As of 2024, there are 141 SRO buildings operating in Vancouver, with a significant number in Chinatown<ref>{{Cite web|last=DTES SRO Collaborative Society|title=Chinatown|url=https://srocollaborative.org/programs/chinatown/|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=DTES SRO Collaborative Society}}</ref> (Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society 9). SRO are residential hotels or rooming houses that contain single rooms. These rooms typically share facilities such as bathrooms and cooking areas. They are a last resort housing before homelessness, with heavily deteriorated conditions and high rents relative to the rooms.

In late 2024, while on a tour of Vancouver in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre our group member, Aidan, was approached by a man: <blockquote>“Initially, I was wary of the stranger, although I had only recently arrived in Vancouver, I had heard stories of Chinatown being a rundown and crime-ridden area. On the contrary, I found the place to be eerily quiet. There was scarcely anyone walking around, and most of the storefronts appeared to have been shuttered permanently. While not quite abandoned, it was far from the bustling Chinatowns found across the world, but at no point did it ever feel unsafe. Although our exchange was short, this man explained that he lived in one of the nearby apartments, specifically a Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) unit. While the rent was considerably lower than the rest of the city, it was still unaffordable for a person in his situation. Frustratingly, government action has been ineffective. He has seen no improvements, even when the buildings are given funding and any income assistance he receives eventually goes to the landlord. With no alternatives other than homelessness, he is forced to spend the majority of his income on deplorable living conditions.” </blockquote>

=== The Wicked Problem ===
[[File:Negative feedback loop of vancouver chinatown.png|center|thumb|740x740px|The Wicked Problem of a Negative Feedback Loop ]]

==Stakeholders ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Problem Framing (~500 words) [Define]==
*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

Many of Chinatown’s SRO residents are being forced out their neighbourhoods due to lack of safe and dignified housing. Predatory landlordism and regressive policies have led to SROs becoming physically uninhabitable, while gentrification has made alternative forms of housing unaffordable. Additionally, the overall decline of Chinatown has created the perception of a “lawless zone” to people living outsize the region. This results in financialization in the way of slumlords and gentrification, pressuring original residents to move out.

This environment creates a cycle which facilitates displacement of marginalized populations. As the stigmatization prevents investment and visitors from entering the area, thereby the opportunity for conditions to improve, thus reinforcing the stigma.

According to Lefebvre's right to the city the people living in SROs should have had the strongest claim to the area, yet the aren’t allow to contribute to decision regarding SRO policy or building management.

==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

=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economic Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words)==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [Ideate]==
*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)==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T06:46:54Z

AvaHall: /* The Political & Economical Aspect */

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

==Introduction==
*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
As of 2024, there are 141 SRO buildings operating in Vancouver, with a significant number in Chinatown (Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society 9). SRO are residential hotels or rooming houses that contain single rooms. These rooms typically share facilities such as bathrooms and cooking areas. They are a last resort housing before homelessness, with heavily deteriorated conditions and high rents relative to the rooms.

In late 2024, while on a tour of Vancouver in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre our group member, Aidan, was approached by a man: <blockquote>“Initially, I was wary of the stranger, although I had only recently arrived in Vancouver, I had heard stories of Chinatown being a rundown and crime-ridden area. On the contrary, I found the place to be eerily quiet. There was scarcely anyone walking around, and most of the storefronts appeared to have been shuttered permanently. While not quite abandoned, it was far from the bustling Chinatowns found across the world, but at no point did it ever feel unsafe. Although our exchange was short, this man explained that he lived in one of the nearby apartments, specifically a Single Residency Occupancy (SRO) unit. While the rent was considerably lower than the rest of the city, it was still unaffordable for a person in his situation. Frustratingly, government action has been ineffective. He has seen no improvements, even when the buildings are given funding and any income assistance he receives eventually goes to the landlord. With no alternatives other than homelessness, he is forced to spend the majority of his income on deplorable living conditions.” </blockquote>

=== The Wicked Problem. ===

==Stakeholders ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Problem Framing (~500 words) [Define]==
*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

Many of Chinatown’s SRO residents are being forced out their neighbourhoods due to lack of safe and dignified housing. Predatory landlordism and regressive policies have led to SROs becoming physically uninhabitable, while gentrification has made alternative forms of housing unaffordable. Additionally, the overall decline of Chinatown has created the perception of a “lawless zone” to people living outsize the region. This results in financialization in the way of slumlords and gentrification, pressuring original residents to move out.

This environment creates a cycle which facilitates displacement of marginalized populations. As the stigmatization prevents investment and visitors from entering the area, thereby the opportunity for conditions to improve, thus reinforcing the stigma.

According to Lefebvre's right to the city the people living in SROs should have had the strongest claim to the area, yet the aren’t allow to contribute to decision regarding SRO policy or building management.

==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

=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economic Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words)==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [Ideate]==
*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)==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T06:32:51Z

AvaHall: /* Conclusion & Reflection (~300 words) */

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==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Top 4 Prevalent Ethnic Groups in Vancouver's Chinatown<ref>Statistics Canada. 2017. ''59153585 [Dissemination area], British Columbia and Vancouver, <abbr>CY</abbr> [Census subdivision], British Columbia'' (table). ''Census Profile''. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DA&Code1=59153585&Geo2=CSD&Code2=5915022&SearchText=59153585&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=3&type=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>*
|European origins
|420
|-
|Asian
|205
|-
|Other North American origins
|155
|-
|Aboriginal
|90
|-
|Total
|725
|}
''*This table has a limitation where SRO residents are often excluded in census data.''

In Historic Chinatown there is a challenge of revitalizing this ‘ghost town’ while maintaining history and balancing redevelopment. Therefore a stakeholders analysis will help examine the key groups that are affected by Vancouver’s Historic Chinatown, Particularly in relation to redevelopment pressures and housing insecurities.

The most effected individuals would be SRO residents. Within non-market SROs, residents are documented to comprise of 25% Aboriginal and 9% East Asian, as well as 76% being people with disabilities, individuals that experience mental health (39%) and addition challenges (87%)<ref name=":1">Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society. (2024). ''SRO tenant survey.'' Prepared for the City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</ref>. These are statistical examples of individuals that can be found at an SRO, displaying how there are many different journeys. They have limited power and are often victims of displacement to new policies, and the last to be considered during extreme events.

BC Housing and government agencies whose funding decisions, renovation delays, and waitlist management shape SRO residents' options. Especially since most of the Chinatown SRO's are non-market<ref name=":1" />, BC Housing and government agencies have power through policies and agency. This allows SRO operators use the financial incentives to drive exploitative conditions through lack of protective policies. The government has created a board to assist with decision which includes Chinatown stakeholders, but their interest in the area can be seen as limited due to the lack of investment.

The Community Land Trust would be a stakeholder that has more power while maintaining interest, as they are often able to negotiate with the government agencies.

Tourists and visitors perceive Chinatown as unsafe, which contribute to a negative feedback loop that reinforces stigma and shapes broader public attitudes toward the neighbourhood. These stakeholders hold power as they contribute to the local economy and can be seen as potential residents, which allows their voices power.

Many Chinatown business owners and community organizations economic survival is linked to the neighbourhood's viability. Therefore the negative feedback loop affects them directly from deterring economical prosperity.

Developers and real estate actors play a central role in shaping the redevelopment of the aging housing market, often prioritizing land value and return on investment. This focus can accelerate redevelopment pressures in Chinatown as well as focusing on the voices of visitors, while in contrast, more affluent areas such as Kitsilano, similar aging buildings are more frequently preserved due to their higher market appeal. [[File:Stakeholders landscape for historic chinatown Vancouver.png|center|thumb|720x720px|Stakeholder's Map for Vancouver's Historic Chinatown's Stakeholders]]

==Problem Framing (~500 words) [Define]==
*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
==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

=== COMPARING TO OTHER HISTORIC AREAS - KITSLANO ===
Many SROs are housed in older heritage buildings in the Chinatown neighbourhood, yet ageing architecture in wealthier neighbourhoods is often perceived as charming and livable. This contrast highlights how perceptions of housing quality are shaped not only by the buildings themselves but also by the socioeconomic context of the neighbourhood, or the implicit bias towards the racial group.
{| class="wikitable"
|+A breakdown of 2006 & 2021 census of population in a neighbourhood in Kitslano and Historic Chinatown
!
!Dissemination Area Kits 2006 [59150610]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2006 [59153585] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2006. (table). ''Federal Electoral District (FED) Profile, 2006 Census''. Government of Canada.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/P2C.cfm?TPL=RETR&LANG=E&GC=01 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Kits 2021 [59150610] <ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S051259150610&SearchText=59150610 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E]</ref>
!Dissemination Area Chinatown 2021 [59153585]<ref>Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). ''Census Profile''. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue <abbr>no.</abbr> 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.

[https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=59153585&DGUIDlist=2021S051259153585&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E] .</ref>
|-
|Land Area
|0.055
|0.124
|0.053
|0.128
|-
|Population
|612
|900
|678
|1,257
|-
|Total private dwellings
|364
|710
|366
|957
|-
|Private dwellings occupied by usual residents
|339
|634
|349
|880
|}

The trends in private dwellings display an increase in private dwellings in both Kitslano (Kits) and Historic Chinatown (H.C.), yet there is a larger population increase in H.C. It can be noted that the unoccupied private dwellings are higher in Chinatown. The smaller number of unoccupied private dwellings can display the idea of commodification and rarity, whereas the larger number of unoccupied buildings can socially display decline. [[File:Gain Wah.jpg|thumb|Empty Gain Wah in 2026]]

=== GAIN WAH PROJECT ===
Gain Wah, an SRO building in Chinatown, has remained empty since a kitchen fire burned the building in 2022. A reporter documents the circumstances of a 61-year-old woman who has been living in a shelter for a year due to being on the BC housing waitlist, displaying neglect by the government <ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://globalnews.ca/news/11529503/bc-housing-restoration-fire-damaged-chinatown-sro-delayed-2026/|title=BC Housing’s restoration of fire-damaged Chinatown SRO delayed until 2026|last=Robinson|first=Kristen|date=November 17, 2025|work=Global News}}</ref>. This situation highlights the opportunities of off-market housing as the government purchased this burned SRO building in Chinatown in 2023 with plans to renovate the building and transfer it to the Downtown Eastside Community Land Trust (DECLT) <ref>The Gain Wah Project. Gain Wah Project, https://gainwahproject.org/ </ref>, but there are delays beyond the original spring 2025 completion date <ref name=":0" />. Social housing sits in Chinatown empty longer due to systemic delays, displaying the unequal urgency in housing restoration where Gain Wah continues to symbolise the racial and spatial double standard. [[File:Mah wah 2016.png|thumb|Entrance of Mah Wah Hotel in 2026.]]

=== MAH WAH HOTEL ===
The Mah Wah Hotel is a single-room occupancy (SRO) building located in Vancouver’s Chinatown neighbourhood. The property was acquired by the Shon Yee Benevolent Association rather than a private developer and the building is reported to be well maintained and primarily houses residents who are older adults, many of whom are immigrants<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-affordable-chinatown-haven-that-narrowly-avoided-renoviction/|title=Inside the Affordable Chinatown Haven That Narrowly Avoided ‘Renoviction’|last=Chiu|first=Joanna|date=November 26, 2018|work=VICE}}</ref>.

Social life within the building has been described as including regular communal activities among residents, like mahjong. The demographic composition of the building has been noted to include a significant proportion of seniors, contributing to its characterization as a stable housing environment within the Downtown Eastside housing context.

The Mah Wah Hotel explores academic interpretations of urban housing and belonging by Mullenite (2020), who argues that belonging in capitalist urban environments is often tied to economic value and market profitability. In contrast, community-owned housing models such as the Mah Wah Hotel have been examined as examples of non-market housing arrangements that may support social stability independent of real estate value, and contradicting the socially constructed idea that SRO’s bring negative effects on a community.

=== The Social Aspect ===

Kitsilano and Chinatown demonstrate how areas with comparable historical depth can experience divergent social and consequentially economic trajectories. While both areas contain aging housing and historical significance, their present-day perceptions and development patterns differ significantly.

The concept of “experience industries” was introduced by Walter Hardwick, a Vancouver-based urban geographer and city councillor, to describe a shift in urban economies toward tourism, leisure, and amenity-based migration (Hardwick 1974, as cited in Ley et al., 2020). This transition reflects broader changes in Vancouver, where former industrial areas have increasingly been reoriented toward service-based and consumption-driven activities. Historically, neighbourhoods such as Chinatown were closely tied to industrial labour, serving as residential areas for working-class populations, including immigrant communities. As Vancouver’s economy shifted away from industrial production, these areas have been incorporated into the experience economy, with a growing emphasis on tourism, cultural consumption, and leisure-oriented development. This transformation has been associated with processes of gentrification, in which rising property values and redevelopment pressures may contribute to the displacement of existing residents. Public perceptions of safety and desirability have also played a role in shaping redevelopment patterns in Chinatown. These perceptions, whether supported by data or not, can influence investment decisions and tourism flows.

At the same time, examples such as the Mah Wah Hotel, have been maintaining stable, community-oriented living environments. Such cases can be referenced as counterpoints to broader narratives that associate SRO housing with negative social outcomes, highlighting the diversity of experiences within this housing type.

=== The Political & Economical Aspect ===
The Gain Wah Project displays how role of government and institutional actors are involved in shaping housing in Chinatown. The project reflects investment in the preservation and renovation of SRO housing, particularly through partnerships with non-profit housing organizations. At the same time, the timeline and implementation have been delayed, creating broader challenges in delivering social housing. Mullenite (2020) argued that displacement in urban areas is not solely the result of market forces, but is also influenced by political decision-making, highlighting the role of government support needed when working with vulnerable communities.

Since the housing policy operates within a market-based system where economic growth and investment are key considerations, government initiatives may prioritize attracting higher-income residents, skilled immigrants, and economic development, which can influence patterns of urban investment. These priorities can intersect with redevelopment efforts in neighbourhoods like Chinatown, where rising land values and policy decisions contribute to ongoing changes in the built environment.

==Comparative Perspective (~400 words)==

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Downtown Eastside suffer the effects of racism targeting primarily their Indigenous and Chinese populations. Such struggles caused by racialization can be seen in many other “first world” cities across the globe. In this section, we shall examine the ways in which Los Angeles has worked towards ameliorating these situations, and what that might mean for the future of Vancouver’s Chinatown.

Los Angeles, like many major North American cities, is dealing with a homelessness crisis. In attempts to stop homeless encampments from being built in public parks and lands, the LA municipal government started a program known as “Inside Safe”. Its goal is to “bring people inside from tents and encampments”, as one part of a “comprehensive” strategy. According to the government’s website, over 5000 people have been at least temporarily brought inside with around 1,000 of them being permanently housed <ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Los Angeles|date=2026-02-28|title=Inside Safe|url=https://mayor.lacity.gov/InsideSafe|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-11|website=City of Los Angeles}}</ref>.

This initiative has brought issues in its scope, efficiency, and effects. In its first operation, unhoused people in the area described being turned away and having some of their belongings removed. Further, according to a local news outlet, there were many concerns with the sanitary conditions of the hotels used, including bedbugs and reports of skin conditions. Access to food as well as overly controlling room management also contributed to resident concerns and unsafe situations<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://knock-la.com/inside-safe-controversy-limited-success-reducing-homelessness/|title=Inside Safe: More Than A Year of Limited Success and Ongoing Controversy|last=Beckner-Carmitchel|first=Sean|date=2024|work=KnockLA|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/10/inside-safe/|title=LA has a different solution to homeless camps. But it’s not working for everyone|last=Kendall|first=Marisa|date=2024|work=CalMatters|access-date=2026-04-11}}</ref>.

While these operations do not criminalize the unhoused people, advocates warn that any policies affecting the enforcement of policies against unhoused people unequally affect poor people and minorities. Sweeps or “clean ups” of encampments are frequently traumatic for those living there<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giamarino & Loukaitou-Sideris|first=C, A|date=2023|title=“The Echoes of Echo Park”: Anti-Homeless Ordinances in Neo-Revanchist Cities|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231162936?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Urban Affairs Review|volume=60|via=SageJournals}}</ref> . Another non-profit, Urban Alchemy, provides “safe” areas for encampments, starting out of San Francisco and spreading to cities such as LA. This organization aims to hire formerly incarcerated people, claiming that with proper training they will be rehabilitated. Yet, this remains another way in which the marginalized people are exploited, as they are required to police one-another, and some of the Urban Alchemy employees are homeless themselves <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roy|first=Ananya|date=2023|title=A political autopsy of Liberal Los Angeles|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19427786231188346?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider|journal=Institute of Human Geography|volume=17|via=SageJournals}}</ref>. Through this, racial capitalism continues the cycles of abuse, pitting unhoused and racialized people against one another while taking advantage of the control it produces for those at the top.

For Vancouver moving forward, it is crucial to avoid the issues produced through these sweeps by meeting unhoused people where they’re at instead of forceful displacement. Continuing to create a cycle of trauma within Chinatown will strongly affect the Indigenous and Chinese folks living there, regardless of whether they are unsheltered, living in precarious or temporary housing, or otherwise.

==Ideas for Urban Action (~500 words) [Ideate]==
*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)==
The legacy and ongoing effects of racial capitalism remain evident along current-day Chinatown. Our theoretical framework, characterized by a cycle of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and overall environmental degradation as a result of racial capitalism seeks to highlight the ways in which capitalism hurts this racialized immigrant community.

Comparing Vancouver to other cities, we can see that the problems of homelessness and housing pracarity are incredibly difficult situations to solve. Los Angeles, as used in our example above, continues to struggle to find ways to support unhoused racialized people without perpetuating more violence and displacement than already experienced. At home in Vancouver, we see these same struggles within Chinatown, with a strong police presence in the area. Further, we can see the effects of territorial stigmatization demonstrated when Chinatown is compared to Kitsilano. In one situation, old buildings are deemed replaceable, low-value, and a nuisance, whereas in Kits, these same types of older buildings are valued for their character and proximity to amenities and greenspace. The relationship between race and a neigborhood’s reputation cannot be denied when viewed through this comparison, with Kitsilano being a primarily white neighborhood.

However, while there may not be a single solution, there are some interventions that may help to improve Chinatown’s reputation and limit its territorial stigmatization. One intervention is the implementation of public events, such as the Chinatown Night Market. This type of event has been utilized to bring more people, and money, into the area, while amplifying its cultural impact. Another solution, based on our case study of Kitsilano, may be to encourage development that retains the original cultural character of the aging buildings there.

Chinatown’s future is being considered by the City of Vancouver under the Uplifting Chinatown Action Plan, dedicating $387,000 to various revitalization projects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=City of Vancouver|date=2026-03-11|title=City Council approves continued investment in Chinatown revitalization|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-chinatown-revitalization-mar-2026.aspx|url-status=live|access-date=2026-04-12|website=City of Vancouver}}</ref> While these do not challenge the underlying legacies of racial capitalism, we can hope that they will contribute to breaking the cycling of territorial stigmatization, disinvestment, and decay.

==References & Data Sources==
*Properly cited academic sources and local data sources

<references/>

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

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T05:00:02Z

AvaHall: /* The Social Aspect */

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T04:48:24Z

AvaHall: /* The Economical Aspect */

Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO's in Vancouver Chinatown

2026-04-13T02:51:47Z

AvaHall: /* Comparative Perspective (~400 words) */