UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:GEOG350/2026/Housing-Based Spatial Inequality in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside

2026-04-14T07:34:26Z

ManavPatel:

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

==Section 1: Introduction & Context ==
Vancouver is often described as one of the world’s most livable cities, but that image becomes harder to sustain when looking at the housing conditions that shape everyday life across the city. The contradiction is especially visible around the Downtown Eastside (DTES), where precarious housing, poverty, and social marginalization exist only blocks away from some of the most expensive and rapidly redeveloping land in the region. This contrast matters because it shows that inequality in Vancouver is not only social. It is spatial. Access to stability, safety, and decent housing is distributed unevenly across the city, and those differences become physically visible in the urban landscape itself

This chapter examines housing-based spatial inequality in Vancouver, using the DTES as a case study. Rather than treating the neighbourhood as an isolated zone of crisis, it argues that the DTES reveals broader urban processes shaping the city as a whole. Housing insecurity in the area is tied not only to high costs, but also to the treatment of housing as an asset, to uneven development, and to longer histories of colonial dispossession that continue to shape access to land and urban belonging (McCreary and Milligan 2021). In that sense, the DTES is not outside Vancouver’s success story. It exposes some of the inequalities that make that story possible.

The issue is best understood as a wicked problem. Rittel and Webber argue that wicked problems are difficult to define clearly because different groups understand them in different ways, and those differences shape what kinds of responses appear reasonable or desirable (Rittel and Webber 1973). Housing inequality in Vancouver fits this pattern closely. It can be framed as a supply problem, a poverty problem, a planning problem, a public health issue, or a consequence of colonial and market-driven urban development. This chapter approaches the DTES through that complexity. The goal is not to present one final solution, but to show why the problem remains contested, unevenly governed, and resistant to simple resolution.

==Section 2: Stakeholder Landscape ==
Housing-based spatial inequality in Vancouver involves many stakeholders, but they do not enter the issue from the same position. In the Downtown Eastside, the most directly affected group is residents living with housing insecurity, especially those in Single Room Occupancy (SRO) buildings, supportive housing, or unstable rental arrangements. For these residents, the issue is immediate. It appears in overcrowded rooms, poor maintenance, weak tenant security, and limited access to dignified living space. Housing is not just expensive. It is often inadequate.

Indigenous residents are also central to the stakeholder landscape. They are disproportionately affected by homelessness and precarious housing in Vancouver, and that overrepresentation cannot be separated from the longer history of colonial dispossession in the city. The housing crisis does not begin in the present. It is shaped by older patterns of displacement and unequal access to land, services, and political power (McCreary and Milligan 2021).

[[File:Stakeholder Map 2026.png|thumb|Figure 1. Stakeholder Positioning]]
Other stakeholders are involved in responding to the crisis. Social service organizations, outreach workers, health providers, and community groups deal with the daily consequences of unstable housing. Their role is essential because the neighbourhood has long been a site where poverty, health struggles, and insecure housing overlap. Advocacy organizations also matter here, especially those pressing for tenant protection, non-market housing, and more structural change.

Governments hold a different kind of power. The City of Vancouver, provincial agencies, and housing authorities shape policy, regulation, funding, and service delivery. They influence which responses become politically possible and which remain marginal. Their decisions affect everything from tenant protection to supportive housing to redevelopment rules.

Market actors are another major part of the picture. Landlords and SRO owners control access to low-cost private housing, while developers and property investors are tied to the neighbourhood through redevelopment pressure and rising land values. Because the DTES sits beside Gastown, Chinatown, and the downtown core, it is never far from larger real estate interests.

Nearby businesses, property owners, and residents also shape debate around the area. They may focus on safety, public order, commercial activity, or neighbourhood reputation. Those concerns often carry significant political influence, especially when they align with redevelopment priorities.

Taken together, the stakeholder landscape shows a basic imbalance. Some groups live the effects of housing inequality directly, while others have far more power to influence how the issue is discussed and governed. That imbalance is one reason the DTES cannot be understood through need alone. It must also be understood through power.

==Section 3: Problem Framing==
The problem of housing inequality in the Downtown Eastside is not only difficult because conditions are severe. It is difficult because the issue is framed in competing ways, and those competing definitions lead to different responses. This is where the idea of a wicked problem becomes useful. Rittel and Webber argue that some urban problems cannot be solved neatly because people do not agree on what the problem actually is (Rittel and Webber 1973). The DTES fits that pattern. The conflict is not just over solutions. It begins much earlier, at the level of definition.

One common framing treats the issue as a matter of housing supply and affordability. From this view, the central problem is that Vancouver does not have enough housing, especially at lower price points. The response then focuses on increasing supply, speeding approvals, and expanding affordability programs. That framing captures part of the crisis, but it tends to flatten the uneven conditions within the city. It explains rising cost, but it does less to explain why the worst forms of housing insecurity remain concentrated in particular places like the DTES.

A second framing sees the issue through poverty, vulnerability, and service need. Here, the neighbourhood appears mainly as a site of crisis management. The focus shifts to shelters, outreach, mental health support, addiction services, and emergency responses. These interventions are often necessary, but this framing can narrow the issue to visible suffering in the present. It risks treating the neighbourhood mainly as a place of need rather than asking how the conditions of that need were historically produced.

A third framing is more structural. It understands DTES housing inequality as part of a wider urban system shaped by colonial dispossession, racial capitalism, and the commodification of housing. This approach is more useful for the chapter because it explains why insecurity is not distributed evenly across the city. McCreary and Milligan help make that point by showing that Vancouver’s inequalities are tied to deeper political and historical structures, not just to short-term market pressures or policy failure (McCreary and Milligan 2021). In the DTES, this means the housing crisis is not simply about too little support or too few units. It is also about how urban space has been organized, valued, and governed over time.

The role of power becomes clearer once these framings are placed next to the stakeholder landscape. Residents living with insecurity need safe and stable housing. Service providers often emphasize immediate care. Governments may focus on affordability and delivery. Property interests are more likely to center redevelopment, land value, and neighbourhood management. None of these positions is neutral. Each selects part of the problem and pushes other parts into the background. That is exactly what makes the issue wicked: the definition changes depending on who is speaking, what power they hold, and what outcomes they want.

The main problem statement for this chapter is therefore the following: residents of the DTES need stable, dignified, and secure housing because Vancouver’s housing system has concentrated disadvantage in the neighbourhood through colonial dispossession, market-driven development, and policy responses that often address crisis without changing the structures behind it. From this, three guiding questions follow: How might Vancouver improve housing conditions in the DTES without deepening displacement? How might public policy reduce insecurity without leaving low-income residents trapped in poor-quality housing? How might the city address inequality in ways that confront, rather than soften, the colonial and racial structures shaping it?

==Section 4: Vancouver DTES Case Study==
The Downtown Eastside is one of the clearest places in Vancouver to examine housing-based spatial inequality. That is not only because poverty is visible there, but because the neighbourhood sits beside Gastown, Chinatown, the downtown core, and some of the most valuable land in the region. A person can move only a short distance and pass from tourist activity, redevelopment, and expensive property into streets shaped by aging buildings, deep poverty, and unstable housing. The contrast is sharp. It shows that inequality in Vancouver is not spread evenly across the city. It is concentrated in specific places.

A large part of that concentration is tied to housing conditions, especially in Single Room Occupancy buildings. SROs remain some of the last private-market options available to very low-income tenants in Vancouver, but they often function as precarious shelter rather than secure housing. Rooms are small, privacy is limited, and many buildings have long histories of poor maintenance. Shared washrooms, pest problems, weak repairs, and building deterioration shape daily life for many tenants. The point is not simply that SRO housing is low-cost. It is that low-income residents are often expected to accept conditions that would be unacceptable elsewhere in the city (City of Vancouver 2024).
[[File:SRO-Hub-01.png|thumb|Figure 2. DTES SRO Collaborative image featuring the Balmoral Hotel.]]

The case study becomes sharper when those conditions are read through the neighbourhood’s longer history. The DTES cannot be understood only as a present-day concentration of poverty. Its current form is tied to a city built through colonial control of land and through forms of development that never offered equal access to urban stability or belonging. Indigenous overrepresentation in homelessness and precarious housing is part of that history, not a separate issue added onto it later. In the DTES, the housing crisis carries the marks of displacement, dispossession, and exclusion that have shaped Vancouver more broadly. Even when current policy language focuses on affordability or service need, the neighbourhood still reflects those deeper structures.

At the same time, the DTES is not simply a place of abandonment. It is also a place shaped by stigma. Wacquant’s concept of territorial stigmatization is especially useful here. He argues that some urban areas come to be marked as damaged or discredited, and that this reputation affects how residents are seen and how the area is governed (Wacquant 2007). In the DTES, that stigma does not just shape public perception. It also helps normalize neglect. When a neighbourhood is repeatedly treated as a space of disorder or failure, poor housing conditions become easier to tolerate politically. Crisis starts to look ordinary.

That matters because stigma has practical effects. It can narrow public debate, justify exceptional regulation, and lower expectations for what residents should receive. A neighbourhood marked as broken is less likely to be approached as a place where residents are entitled to the same standards of safety, dignity, and stability expected elsewhere in Vancouver. The result is not just reputational harm. It is a form of uneven urban governance, where reduced expectations become part of how inequality is maintained.

Burnett adds another important layer to this case study. Her work shows how the DTES has been drawn into wider processes of consumption and redevelopment, where poverty itself can be folded into narratives of urban authenticity, grit, or renewal (Burnett 2014). That point matters because the neighbourhood is not simply neglected. It is also watched, marketed, regulated, and reshaped in relation to nearby redevelopment pressures. The DTES sits beside areas where tourism, heritage branding, and rising land values remain highly important. As a result, the neighbourhood is caught in a tension: visible poverty is treated as a problem, but the area’s location and image also make it valuable within the wider urban economy.

This helps explain why housing inequality in the DTES cannot be reduced to supply alone. The issue is also about what kinds of urban space are protected, improved, or invested in, and which residents are expected to remain in deteriorating conditions. Uneven development does not only produce wealthier and poorer neighbourhoods. It also produces different thresholds of acceptable housing quality. In the DTES, insecurity becomes concentrated while surrounding areas continue to benefit from redevelopment and rising value.

The neighbourhood also shows that spatial inequality is institutional as well as economic. The DTES contains a dense concentration of shelters, supportive housing, outreach services, and emergency responses. These services are necessary, but their concentration also fixes the neighbourhood in the public imagination as the city’s crisis zone. That image can obscure the fact that the crisis is tied to broader housing and land relations across Vancouver. It can also make the neighbourhood appear exceptional, when it is actually revealing something wider about how the city distributes security and neglect.

This is why the DTES matters so much to the chapter’s argument. It shows how housing inequality is reproduced through the overlap of poor-quality housing, place-based stigma, redevelopment pressure, colonial history, and uneven political attention. The neighbourhood is not important because it stands outside Vancouver. It is important because it reveals, in concentrated form, how the city organizes value, neglect, and belonging. Seen this way, the DTES is not just where Vancouver’s housing crisis becomes visible. It is where the deeper logic of that crisis is laid bare.

==Section 5: Comparative Perspective ==
A useful comparison for Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside is Skid Row in Los Angeles. Like the DTES, Skid Row is a central-city area where severe housing insecurity has been concentrated close to major commercial and redevelopment zones. The two places are not directly comparable in scale, and even the most obvious homelessness figures need care. Vancouver’s 2025 Homeless Count identified 2,715 people experiencing homelessness across the entire city, while official 2024 reporting identified 3,791 people experiencing homelessness in Skid Row alone, including 2,112 unsheltered people. That means the numbers should not be read as a simple side-by-side measure of which place is “worse.” What they do show is that both cities have allowed extreme housing precarity to become highly visible in central urban space.

That similarity matters because it helps clarify what Vancouver can learn from elsewhere. In Los Angeles, officials have pursued a place-based response through the Skid Row Action Plan, which aims to expand interim and permanent housing, health care, harm reduction, supportive services, and economic opportunity in the area. The useful lesson is not that Vancouver should copy Los Angeles directly. It is that housing insecurity in districts like Skid Row or the DTES cannot be approached only through enforcement or emergency management. It requires coordinated housing and care. At the same time, the Los Angeles case also shows a limit. Concentrating services in one district can still leave the wider housing system untouched. A neighbourhood may receive more support while the broader urban conditions producing insecurity remain largely in place.
[[File:Homelessness comparison chart.png|thumb|Figure 3. Homelessness Comparison Chart.]]

That lesson is relevant to Vancouver. The DTES already contains a dense concentration of shelters, supportive housing, outreach services, and low-income housing options. Vancouver can learn from Los Angeles that multi-agency, place-based responses are necessary where housing insecurity overlaps with health needs and deep poverty. But the comparison also suggests that place-based response is not enough on its own. If support remains concentrated in one neighbourhood while secure and affordable housing remains scarce across the city, the underlying geography of inequality is left largely intact. This is part of what makes Vancouver’s situation distinctive.

The difference is not only scale, but history. The DTES must be read in relation to Canada’s housing system and to settler colonial land relations. The City of Vancouver’s DTES plan itself notes that parts of the area, known as Ḵ’emḵ’emel̓áy̓, were an Indigenous summer settlement site for many generations. That longer history matters because the neighbourhood is not simply a zone of concentrated poverty. It is part of a city built on taken Indigenous land, where present-day housing inequality still reflects deeper histories of displacement and exclusion.

==Section 6: Ideas and Actions. ==
Because housing inequality in the Downtown Eastside is a wicked problem, this section does not offer a single solution. A more realistic approach is to identify interventions that could reduce harm, improve housing conditions, and shift some of the structures that keep insecurity concentrated in the neighbourhood. Each option has limits. Each would also produce different forms of support and opposition.

A first intervention would be to strengthen and expand non-market housing, especially housing that is secure, low-barrier, and designed to replace reliance on poor-quality SRO stock. This matters because the problem in the DTES is not simply the absence of units. It is also the continued dependence on housing forms that leave low-income tenants with very little safety, privacy, or control over daily life. The City of Vancouver’s housing strategies already emphasize new supportive and social housing, which means there is at least some policy basis for moving in this direction (City of Vancouver 2024; City of Vancouver 2026). The advantage of this approach is clear: it would reduce dependence on deteriorating private-market rooms and treat housing more directly as a social good. The trade-off is that this kind of housing requires major public investment, long timelines, and political willingness. It may also face resistance from nearby property owners or residents who support affordability in principle but oppose new supportive housing close to them.

A second intervention would be to impose much stronger protections and standards on the existing SRO sector. Even if non-market housing expands, many residents will continue living in SROs for the foreseeable future. That makes building conditions an urgent issue, not a secondary one. Stronger inspections, stricter repair enforcement, tenant protections, and public accountability for landlords and SRO owners could help reduce some of the worst housing conditions in the neighbourhood. This is not as transformative as replacing the SRO system altogether, but it addresses the reality that many tenants cannot wait for long-term redevelopment or new construction. The benefit here is speed. Conditions could improve more quickly for current residents. The limit is that better regulation still leaves the city dependent on a deeply unequal form of low-income housing. It may reduce harm without fully changing the structure that produces it. A partial comparison can be drawn to Los Angeles, where the Skid Row Action Plan shows the value of coordinated place-based response, but also its limits when deeper housing conditions across the wider city remain unchanged (Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative n.d.).

A third intervention would be to reduce the concentration of insecurity by treating affordable housing as a citywide responsibility rather than something to be contained in the DTES. This is one of the clearest lessons from the case study and the comparison with Skid Row. When low-income housing, emergency services, and visible poverty are heavily concentrated in one district, the neighbourhood becomes easier to stigmatize and easier to govern as an exceptional space. A broader distribution of non-market and deeply affordable housing across Vancouver would not eliminate inequality, but it could weaken the pattern in which the DTES carries a disproportionate share of the city’s housing crisis. This approach also connects to Harvey’s argument that the right to the city includes the right to access urban life more fully, rather than being spatially confined to areas of managed deprivation (Harvey 2003). The challenge, again, is political. A citywide model would likely face resistance from wealthier neighbourhoods and from local actors who prefer crisis to remain geographically contained.

None of these interventions offers closure. That is part of the point. Expanding non-market housing, regulating SROs more aggressively, and distributing affordable housing more widely would all help, but each would still operate within a larger housing system shaped by land value, unequal power, and long historical patterns of exclusion. The value of these actions lies not in solving the DTES, but in shifting the terms on which insecurity is currently tolerated and managed.

== Section 7: Conclusion and Reflection. ==
The Downtown Eastside makes Vancouver’s housing inequality hard to ignore. It shows, in a highly concentrated way, that the crisis is not only about rising prices or limited supply. It is also about where insecurity is allowed to accumulate, what housing conditions are tolerated, and which residents are expected to live with the weakest protections. Read through the DTES, housing inequality appears not as a temporary failure in an otherwise successful city, but as part of the way urban space has been organized and valued over time.

This chapter has argued that the issue is best understood as a wicked problem. That matters because the conflict begins with definition. For some actors, the central issue is affordability. For others, it is visible poverty, public order, service need, or redevelopment pressure. A more structural reading shows that these are not separate problems. They are connected to the treatment of housing as an asset, to uneven urban development, and to longer histories of colonial dispossession that continue to shape access to land and stability in Vancouver (McCreary and Milligan 2021). The DTES does not stand outside those wider processes. It brings them into view.

The Design Thinking framework helps make that complexity clearer. Mapping stakeholders shows that the housing crisis is experienced unevenly and governed unevenly, with some groups carrying the greatest burdens while others hold greater power over how the problem is described and managed. Working through competing framings of the issue also makes it harder to accept narrow definitions of the crisis. What begins as a question of affordability quickly opens into questions of land, governance, stigma, redevelopment, and colonial history. In that sense, the process does not simplify the problem. It reveals why simple solutions are insufficient.

The case study also shows why closure remains difficult. More non-market housing, stronger standards for SROs, and a broader citywide distribution of affordable housing would all improve conditions, but none would resolve the issue permanently. The comparison with Los Angeles makes that clear as well. Coordinated local response is necessary, but place-based action alone cannot undo a wider housing system that keeps reproducing insecurity (Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative n.d.).

What remains open are the questions that matter most. How can Vancouver reduce housing insecurity without continuing to concentrate it in the DTES? What would it mean to treat secure housing as a genuine urban right rather than a limited benefit? And how might future policy confront the colonial and market structures that continue to shape who gets to live securely in the city? Those questions remain unresolved, and that is exactly why the problem is still wicked.

== Section 8: Reference List ==
Burnett, Katherine. 2014. “Commodifying Poverty: Gentrification and Consumption in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” ''Urban Geography'' 35 (2): 157–176. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.867669</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. 2024. ''Housing Vancouver Three-Year Action Plan, 2024–2026''. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/housing-vancouver-3-year-action-plan-2024-26.pdf</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. 2025. “Homeless Count.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/homeless-count.aspx</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. 2026. “Housing Vancouver Strategy.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/housing-vancouver-strategy.aspx</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. n.d. “Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/dtes-local-area-plan.aspx</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. n.d. “Single Room Accommodation (SRA) By-law.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/single-room-accommodation-bylaw.aspx</nowiki>

Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society for the City of Vancouver. 2024. ''SRO Tenant Survey Report 2024''. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</nowiki>

Harvey, David. 2003. “The Right to the City.” ''International Journal of Urban and Regional Research'' 27 (4): 939–941. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x</nowiki>

Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. 2024. “Resolving Encampments in Skid Row.” Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. <nowiki>https://homeless.lacounty.gov/news/resolving-encampments-in-skid-row/</nowiki>

Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. n.d. “Skid Row Action Plan.” Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. <nowiki>https://homeless.lacounty.gov/skid-row-action-plan/</nowiki>

McCreary, Tyler, and Richard Milligan. 2021. “The Limits of Liberal Recognition: Racial Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, and Environmental Governance in Vancouver and Atlanta.” ''Antipode'' 53 (3): 724–742. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12465</nowiki>

Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” ''Policy Sciences'' 4 (2): 155–169.

Wacquant, Loïc. 2007. “Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality.” ''Thesis Eleven'' 91 (1): 66–77. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513607082003</nowiki>

<references/>

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

File:SRO-Hub-01.png

2026-04-14T07:29:20Z

ManavPatel: Uploaded a work by {{Unknown|author}} from https://centre.support/project/downtown-eastside-vancouver-sro-hub/ with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=SRO building hotel}}
|date=2012-04-12
|source=https://centre.support/project/downtown-eastside-vancouver-sro-hub/
|author={{Unknown|author}}
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-2.0}}

Course:GEOG350/Chapters

2026-04-14T07:18:45Z

ManavPatel: /* 2026 Project List */

{{Start tab|
| tab-1 = Guidelines
| link-1 = Course:GEOG350
| tab-3 = Create Your Book Chapter
| link-3 = Course:GEOG350/Chapters
| tab-5 = Previous Book Chapters
| link-5 = Course:GEOG350/TOC
| tab-6 = Help and Resources
| link-6 = Course:GEOG350/Help and Resources
}}
{{Course:GEOG350/Infobox}}
==Creating Your Chapter==
Here are some steps and resources to help you create your page and have it appear on the index for this portal on the bottom, so that it can be easily accessed by your peers and your instructor.
===1. Login to the UBC Wiki===
Click the CWL button on the top left of the page and login from there.
===2. Create your User Page/Profile===
Your [[Help:User_page|user page]] is basically a profile page. Its purpose is to provide a space for you to let other UBC Wiki users know who you are and what your affiliation is with UBC. It can also be a space for testing and experimentation.
===3. Create Your Chapter Page===
We have made it easy for you to create your Chapter page right from here. Just '''add the title of your chapter to the box below and click on the create page''' button (note that you will need to be logged in to the UBC Wiki in order for this to work). On the edit screen that loads, add your name to the edit screen and hit '''SAVE''' at the bottom of the page. You can delete this later when you are ready to start writing your chapter.<inputbox>
placeholder=Chapter title here
type=create
prefix=Course:GEOG350/2026/
useve=yes
preload=Course:GEOG350/Template

</inputbox>

===4. Add Title and Headings===
Some suggested headings to get you started are on the [[Course:GEOG350/Template|'''template page''']] that we have created. To make it easy, you can simply '''copy and paste''' all headings and code from the [[Course:GEOG350/Template|'''template page''']] to your page.

=== 5. Add your chapter to the Index page ===
After you have completed your chapter, add your chapter to the project list below. For list of sections, take a look at the [[Course:GEOG350/Sections|Book Outlines and Theme tab]].

== 2026 Project List ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Chapter (with link to the project)
!Section
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Rie's demo page|Rie's demo page]]
|section1
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Inequality Within the Chinese Diasporas of Vancouver|Inequality Within the Chinese Diasporas of Vancouver]]
|Section 2
|-
|[https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2026/SRO%27s_in_Vancouver_Chinatown&veaction=edit Chinatown demo page]
|section 3
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/The Green Gentrification Trap: Ecological Urbanism and Displacement along the Arbutus Greenway|The Green Gentrification Trap: Ecological Urbanism and Displacement along the Arbutus Greenway]]
|section 8
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/The Illusion of Proximity: UBC and the 15-Minute City Paradox|The Illusion of Proximity: UBC and the 15-Minute City Paradox]]
|section 2
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Spatial Inequality: Access to Recreational|Spatial Inequality: Access to Recreational Spaces]]
|
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Hyphenated Identities in Vancouver|Hypenated Identities in Vancouver]]
|Section 2
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Examining the Future of Public Transit in Metro Vancouver|Examining the Future of Rapid Transit in Vancouver]]
|
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Availability and accessibility of sidewalks in residential Vancouver|Availability and Accessibility of Sidewalks in Residential Vancouver]]
|section 2
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Spatial Inequality: The Georgia St. Viaduct|Spatial Inequality: The Georgia St. Viaduct]]
|Section 2: Place, Placelessness and Spatial Inequality
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Food Security: Community Gardening in One of Vancouver's Most Vulnerable Neighbourhoods|Food Security: Community Gardening in One of Vancouver's Most Vulnerable Neighbourhoods]]
|Section 8 or 6
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Living Cities: Gentrification in Vancouver and Vulnerable Communities|Living Cities: Gentrification in Vancouver and Vulnerable Communities]]
|Section 1
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Architecture and Art: Combatting Grey Uniformity in Vancouver’s Built Environment#Introduction and Context|Architecture and Art: Combatting Grey Uniformity in Vancouver's Built Environment]]
|Section 1
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Gentrification, Cultural Erasure, and Place Identity in Vancouver’s Chinatown]]
|Section 2
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Who Are Vancouver Malls For? Evaluating Mall's Access and Ability to Sustain Community Identity in Urban Commercial Spaces: A Case Study of International Village Mall and Pacific Centre|Who Are Malls For? Evaluating Mall's Access and Ability to Sustain Community Identity in Urban Commercial Spaces: A Case Study of International Village Mall and Pacific Centre]]
|Section 2
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Spatial Inequality: The SkyTrain Expansion Along the Broadway Corridor|Spatial Inequality: The SkyTrain Expansion Along the Broadway Corridor]]
|Section 2
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Airbnb in Vancouver: Short Term Rentals and Vancouver's Housing Market|Airbnb in Vancouver: Short Term Rentals and Vancouver's Housing Market]]
|Section 8
|-
|[https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2026/Racialized_Gentrification_and_the_Production_of_Displacement_in_Vancouver&veaction=edit Racialized Gentrification and the Geographies of Displacement in Vancouver]
|Section 6, 9
|-
|[[Course:GEOG350/2026/Housing-Based Spatial Inequality in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside|Housing-Based Spatial Inequality in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside]]
|Section 1
|-
|
|
|-
|
|
|-
|
|
|}

==Sharing Your Work==
All wiki project pages are openly accessible on the Internet. If you would like to give permission for other people to use them (for example, by including them on the [http://cases.open.ubc.ca/ UBC Open Case Studies Site]), the project template includes a green box that allows you to add your name(s) as author(s) of the resource and indicate if you'd like to share your work via a [http://open.ubc.ca/find/open-licensing-for-students/ Creative Commons license] . If you would like add a name for who or what project created the resource, add that info after the names parameters. If left blank, it will default to Course:GEOG350.

The following is all optional but if you’d like your name added to the page as author as well allowing other people to re-use it as a conservation resource, you can:
#Click on the edit tab to edit your page
#Then scroll to the bottom and click on the green box at the bottom of the page
#This will generate a little pop-up with an edit button. Push the edit button.
#In the names field, add your name if you would like to be credited as the author
#In the share field, add “yes” (must be lowercase) if you would like to allow other folks to be able to reuse your page, such as by including it on the UBC open case studies site at http://cases.open.ubc.ca/. Clicking yes adds a creative commons license to the page.

== Project Listings(Auto Generated) ==
<dpl>
titlematch=GEOG350/2026/%
namespace=Course
shownamespace=false
replaceintitle=$GEOG350/2026/$,
allowcachedresults=false
format=,\n* [[%PAGE%|%TITLE%]],,
</dpl>

Course:GEOG350/2026/Housing-Based Spatial Inequality in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside

2026-04-14T07:07:34Z

ManavPatel: Created page with "Total length: Approximately 3,200-3,500 words plus visualizations, references, and process reflection ==Section 1: Introduction & Context == Vancouver is often described as one of the world’s most livable cities, but that image becomes harder to sustain when looking at the housing conditions that shape everyday life across the city. The contradiction is especially visible around the Downtown Eastside (DTES), where precarious housing, poverty, and social marginalizatio..."

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

==Section 1: Introduction & Context ==
Vancouver is often described as one of the world’s most livable cities, but that image becomes harder to sustain when looking at the housing conditions that shape everyday life across the city. The contradiction is especially visible around the Downtown Eastside (DTES), where precarious housing, poverty, and social marginalization exist only blocks away from some of the most expensive and rapidly redeveloping land in the region. This contrast matters because it shows that inequality in Vancouver is not only social. It is spatial. Access to stability, safety, and decent housing is distributed unevenly across the city, and those differences become physically visible in the urban landscape itself

This chapter examines housing-based spatial inequality in Vancouver, using the DTES as a case study. Rather than treating the neighbourhood as an isolated zone of crisis, it argues that the DTES reveals broader urban processes shaping the city as a whole. Housing insecurity in the area is tied not only to high costs, but also to the treatment of housing as an asset, to uneven development, and to longer histories of colonial dispossession that continue to shape access to land and urban belonging (McCreary and Milligan 2021). In that sense, the DTES is not outside Vancouver’s success story. It exposes some of the inequalities that make that story possible.

The issue is best understood as a wicked problem. Rittel and Webber argue that wicked problems are difficult to define clearly because different groups understand them in different ways, and those differences shape what kinds of responses appear reasonable or desirable (Rittel and Webber 1973). Housing inequality in Vancouver fits this pattern closely. It can be framed as a supply problem, a poverty problem, a planning problem, a public health issue, or a consequence of colonial and market-driven urban development. This chapter approaches the DTES through that complexity. The goal is not to present one final solution, but to show why the problem remains contested, unevenly governed, and resistant to simple resolution.

==Section 2: Stakeholder Landscape ==
Housing-based spatial inequality in Vancouver involves many stakeholders, but they do not enter the issue from the same position. In the Downtown Eastside, the most directly affected group is residents living with housing insecurity, especially those in Single Room Occupancy (SRO) buildings, supportive housing, or unstable rental arrangements. For these residents, the issue is immediate. It appears in overcrowded rooms, poor maintenance, weak tenant security, and limited access to dignified living space. Housing is not just expensive. It is often inadequate.

Indigenous residents are also central to the stakeholder landscape. They are disproportionately affected by homelessness and precarious housing in Vancouver, and that overrepresentation cannot be separated from the longer history of colonial dispossession in the city. The housing crisis does not begin in the present. It is shaped by older patterns of displacement and unequal access to land, services, and political power (McCreary and Milligan 2021).

[[File:Stakeholder Map 2026.png|thumb|Figure 1. Stakeholder Positioning]]
Other stakeholders are involved in responding to the crisis. Social service organizations, outreach workers, health providers, and community groups deal with the daily consequences of unstable housing. Their role is essential because the neighbourhood has long been a site where poverty, health struggles, and insecure housing overlap. Advocacy organizations also matter here, especially those pressing for tenant protection, non-market housing, and more structural change.

Governments hold a different kind of power. The City of Vancouver, provincial agencies, and housing authorities shape policy, regulation, funding, and service delivery. They influence which responses become politically possible and which remain marginal. Their decisions affect everything from tenant protection to supportive housing to redevelopment rules.

Market actors are another major part of the picture. Landlords and SRO owners control access to low-cost private housing, while developers and property investors are tied to the neighbourhood through redevelopment pressure and rising land values. Because the DTES sits beside Gastown, Chinatown, and the downtown core, it is never far from larger real estate interests.

Nearby businesses, property owners, and residents also shape debate around the area. They may focus on safety, public order, commercial activity, or neighbourhood reputation. Those concerns often carry significant political influence, especially when they align with redevelopment priorities.

Taken together, the stakeholder landscape shows a basic imbalance. Some groups live the effects of housing inequality directly, while others have far more power to influence how the issue is discussed and governed. That imbalance is one reason the DTES cannot be understood through need alone. It must also be understood through power.

==Section 3: Problem Framing==
The problem of housing inequality in the Downtown Eastside is not only difficult because conditions are severe. It is difficult because the issue is framed in competing ways, and those competing definitions lead to different responses. This is where the idea of a wicked problem becomes useful. Rittel and Webber argue that some urban problems cannot be solved neatly because people do not agree on what the problem actually is (Rittel and Webber 1973). The DTES fits that pattern. The conflict is not just over solutions. It begins much earlier, at the level of definition.

One common framing treats the issue as a matter of housing supply and affordability. From this view, the central problem is that Vancouver does not have enough housing, especially at lower price points. The response then focuses on increasing supply, speeding approvals, and expanding affordability programs. That framing captures part of the crisis, but it tends to flatten the uneven conditions within the city. It explains rising cost, but it does less to explain why the worst forms of housing insecurity remain concentrated in particular places like the DTES.

A second framing sees the issue through poverty, vulnerability, and service need. Here, the neighbourhood appears mainly as a site of crisis management. The focus shifts to shelters, outreach, mental health support, addiction services, and emergency responses. These interventions are often necessary, but this framing can narrow the issue to visible suffering in the present. It risks treating the neighbourhood mainly as a place of need rather than asking how the conditions of that need were historically produced.

A third framing is more structural. It understands DTES housing inequality as part of a wider urban system shaped by colonial dispossession, racial capitalism, and the commodification of housing. This approach is more useful for the chapter because it explains why insecurity is not distributed evenly across the city. McCreary and Milligan help make that point by showing that Vancouver’s inequalities are tied to deeper political and historical structures, not just to short-term market pressures or policy failure (McCreary and Milligan 2021). In the DTES, this means the housing crisis is not simply about too little support or too few units. It is also about how urban space has been organized, valued, and governed over time.

The role of power becomes clearer once these framings are placed next to the stakeholder landscape. Residents living with insecurity need safe and stable housing. Service providers often emphasize immediate care. Governments may focus on affordability and delivery. Property interests are more likely to center redevelopment, land value, and neighbourhood management. None of these positions is neutral. Each selects part of the problem and pushes other parts into the background. That is exactly what makes the issue wicked: the definition changes depending on who is speaking, what power they hold, and what outcomes they want.

The main problem statement for this chapter is therefore the following: residents of the DTES need stable, dignified, and secure housing because Vancouver’s housing system has concentrated disadvantage in the neighbourhood through colonial dispossession, market-driven development, and policy responses that often address crisis without changing the structures behind it. From this, three guiding questions follow: How might Vancouver improve housing conditions in the DTES without deepening displacement? How might public policy reduce insecurity without leaving low-income residents trapped in poor-quality housing? How might the city address inequality in ways that confront, rather than soften, the colonial and racial structures shaping it?

==Section 4: Vancouver DTES Case Study==
The Downtown Eastside is one of the clearest places in Vancouver to examine housing-based spatial inequality. That is not only because poverty is visible there, but because the neighbourhood sits beside Gastown, Chinatown, the downtown core, and some of the most valuable land in the region. A person can move only a short distance and pass from tourist activity, redevelopment, and expensive property into streets shaped by aging buildings, deep poverty, and unstable housing. The contrast is sharp. It shows that inequality in Vancouver is not spread evenly across the city. It is concentrated in specific places.

A large part of that concentration is tied to housing conditions, especially in Single Room Occupancy buildings. SROs remain some of the last private-market options available to very low-income tenants in Vancouver, but they often function as precarious shelter rather than secure housing. Rooms are small, privacy is limited, and many buildings have long histories of poor maintenance. Shared washrooms, pest problems, weak repairs, and building deterioration shape daily life for many tenants. The point is not simply that SRO housing is low-cost. It is that low-income residents are often expected to accept conditions that would be unacceptable elsewhere in the city (City of Vancouver 2024).

The case study becomes sharper when those conditions are read through the neighbourhood’s longer history. The DTES cannot be understood only as a present-day concentration of poverty. Its current form is tied to a city built through colonial control of land and through forms of development that never offered equal access to urban stability or belonging. Indigenous overrepresentation in homelessness and precarious housing is part of that history, not a separate issue added onto it later. In the DTES, the housing crisis carries the marks of displacement, dispossession, and exclusion that have shaped Vancouver more broadly. Even when current policy language focuses on affordability or service need, the neighbourhood still reflects those deeper structures.

At the same time, the DTES is not simply a place of abandonment. It is also a place shaped by stigma. Wacquant’s concept of territorial stigmatization is especially useful here. He argues that some urban areas come to be marked as damaged or discredited, and that this reputation affects how residents are seen and how the area is governed (Wacquant 2007). In the DTES, that stigma does not just shape public perception. It also helps normalize neglect. When a neighbourhood is repeatedly treated as a space of disorder or failure, poor housing conditions become easier to tolerate politically. Crisis starts to look ordinary.

That matters because stigma has practical effects. It can narrow public debate, justify exceptional regulation, and lower expectations for what residents should receive. A neighbourhood marked as broken is less likely to be approached as a place where residents are entitled to the same standards of safety, dignity, and stability expected elsewhere in Vancouver. The result is not just reputational harm. It is a form of uneven urban governance, where reduced expectations become part of how inequality is maintained.

Burnett adds another important layer to this case study. Her work shows how the DTES has been drawn into wider processes of consumption and redevelopment, where poverty itself can be folded into narratives of urban authenticity, grit, or renewal (Burnett 2014). That point matters because the neighbourhood is not simply neglected. It is also watched, marketed, regulated, and reshaped in relation to nearby redevelopment pressures. The DTES sits beside areas where tourism, heritage branding, and rising land values remain highly important. As a result, the neighbourhood is caught in a tension: visible poverty is treated as a problem, but the area’s location and image also make it valuable within the wider urban economy.

This helps explain why housing inequality in the DTES cannot be reduced to supply alone. The issue is also about what kinds of urban space are protected, improved, or invested in, and which residents are expected to remain in deteriorating conditions. Uneven development does not only produce wealthier and poorer neighbourhoods. It also produces different thresholds of acceptable housing quality. In the DTES, insecurity becomes concentrated while surrounding areas continue to benefit from redevelopment and rising value.

The neighbourhood also shows that spatial inequality is institutional as well as economic. The DTES contains a dense concentration of shelters, supportive housing, outreach services, and emergency responses. These services are necessary, but their concentration also fixes the neighbourhood in the public imagination as the city’s crisis zone. That image can obscure the fact that the crisis is tied to broader housing and land relations across Vancouver. It can also make the neighbourhood appear exceptional, when it is actually revealing something wider about how the city distributes security and neglect.

This is why the DTES matters so much to the chapter’s argument. It shows how housing inequality is reproduced through the overlap of poor-quality housing, place-based stigma, redevelopment pressure, colonial history, and uneven political attention. The neighbourhood is not important because it stands outside Vancouver. It is important because it reveals, in concentrated form, how the city organizes value, neglect, and belonging. Seen this way, the DTES is not just where Vancouver’s housing crisis becomes visible. It is where the deeper logic of that crisis is laid bare.

==Section 5: Comparative Perspective ==
A useful comparison for Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside is Skid Row in Los Angeles. Like the DTES, Skid Row is a central-city area where severe housing insecurity has been concentrated close to major commercial and redevelopment zones. The two places are not directly comparable in scale, and even the most obvious homelessness figures need care. Vancouver’s 2025 Homeless Count identified 2,715 people experiencing homelessness across the entire city, while official 2024 reporting identified 3,791 people experiencing homelessness in Skid Row alone, including 2,112 unsheltered people. That means the numbers should not be read as a simple side-by-side measure of which place is “worse.” What they do show is that both cities have allowed extreme housing precarity to become highly visible in central urban space.

That similarity matters because it helps clarify what Vancouver can learn from elsewhere. In Los Angeles, officials have pursued a place-based response through the Skid Row Action Plan, which aims to expand interim and permanent housing, health care, harm reduction, supportive services, and economic opportunity in the area. The useful lesson is not that Vancouver should copy Los Angeles directly. It is that housing insecurity in districts like Skid Row or the DTES cannot be approached only through enforcement or emergency management. It requires coordinated housing and care. At the same time, the Los Angeles case also shows a limit. Concentrating services in one district can still leave the wider housing system untouched. A neighbourhood may receive more support while the broader urban conditions producing insecurity remain largely in place.
[[File:Homelessness comparison chart.png|thumb|Figure 2. Homelessness Comparison Chart.]]

That lesson is relevant to Vancouver. The DTES already contains a dense concentration of shelters, supportive housing, outreach services, and low-income housing options. Vancouver can learn from Los Angeles that multi-agency, place-based responses are necessary where housing insecurity overlaps with health needs and deep poverty. But the comparison also suggests that place-based response is not enough on its own. If support remains concentrated in one neighbourhood while secure and affordable housing remains scarce across the city, the underlying geography of inequality is left largely intact. This is part of what makes Vancouver’s situation distinctive.

The difference is not only scale, but history. The DTES must be read in relation to Canada’s housing system and to settler colonial land relations. The City of Vancouver’s DTES plan itself notes that parts of the area, known as Ḵ’emḵ’emel̓áy̓, were an Indigenous summer settlement site for many generations. That longer history matters because the neighbourhood is not simply a zone of concentrated poverty. It is part of a city built on taken Indigenous land, where present-day housing inequality still reflects deeper histories of displacement and exclusion.

==Section 6: Ideas and Actions. ==
Because housing inequality in the Downtown Eastside is a wicked problem, this section does not offer a single solution. A more realistic approach is to identify interventions that could reduce harm, improve housing conditions, and shift some of the structures that keep insecurity concentrated in the neighbourhood. Each option has limits. Each would also produce different forms of support and opposition.

A first intervention would be to strengthen and expand non-market housing, especially housing that is secure, low-barrier, and designed to replace reliance on poor-quality SRO stock. This matters because the problem in the DTES is not simply the absence of units. It is also the continued dependence on housing forms that leave low-income tenants with very little safety, privacy, or control over daily life. The City of Vancouver’s housing strategies already emphasize new supportive and social housing, which means there is at least some policy basis for moving in this direction (City of Vancouver 2024; City of Vancouver 2026). The advantage of this approach is clear: it would reduce dependence on deteriorating private-market rooms and treat housing more directly as a social good. The trade-off is that this kind of housing requires major public investment, long timelines, and political willingness. It may also face resistance from nearby property owners or residents who support affordability in principle but oppose new supportive housing close to them.

A second intervention would be to impose much stronger protections and standards on the existing SRO sector. Even if non-market housing expands, many residents will continue living in SROs for the foreseeable future. That makes building conditions an urgent issue, not a secondary one. Stronger inspections, stricter repair enforcement, tenant protections, and public accountability for landlords and SRO owners could help reduce some of the worst housing conditions in the neighbourhood. This is not as transformative as replacing the SRO system altogether, but it addresses the reality that many tenants cannot wait for long-term redevelopment or new construction. The benefit here is speed. Conditions could improve more quickly for current residents. The limit is that better regulation still leaves the city dependent on a deeply unequal form of low-income housing. It may reduce harm without fully changing the structure that produces it. A partial comparison can be drawn to Los Angeles, where the Skid Row Action Plan shows the value of coordinated place-based response, but also its limits when deeper housing conditions across the wider city remain unchanged (Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative n.d.).

A third intervention would be to reduce the concentration of insecurity by treating affordable housing as a citywide responsibility rather than something to be contained in the DTES. This is one of the clearest lessons from the case study and the comparison with Skid Row. When low-income housing, emergency services, and visible poverty are heavily concentrated in one district, the neighbourhood becomes easier to stigmatize and easier to govern as an exceptional space. A broader distribution of non-market and deeply affordable housing across Vancouver would not eliminate inequality, but it could weaken the pattern in which the DTES carries a disproportionate share of the city’s housing crisis. This approach also connects to Harvey’s argument that the right to the city includes the right to access urban life more fully, rather than being spatially confined to areas of managed deprivation (Harvey 2003). The challenge, again, is political. A citywide model would likely face resistance from wealthier neighbourhoods and from local actors who prefer crisis to remain geographically contained.

None of these interventions offers closure. That is part of the point. Expanding non-market housing, regulating SROs more aggressively, and distributing affordable housing more widely would all help, but each would still operate within a larger housing system shaped by land value, unequal power, and long historical patterns of exclusion. The value of these actions lies not in solving the DTES, but in shifting the terms on which insecurity is currently tolerated and managed.

== Section 7: Conclusion and Reflection. ==
The Downtown Eastside makes Vancouver’s housing inequality hard to ignore. It shows, in a highly concentrated way, that the crisis is not only about rising prices or limited supply. It is also about where insecurity is allowed to accumulate, what housing conditions are tolerated, and which residents are expected to live with the weakest protections. Read through the DTES, housing inequality appears not as a temporary failure in an otherwise successful city, but as part of the way urban space has been organized and valued over time.

This chapter has argued that the issue is best understood as a wicked problem. That matters because the conflict begins with definition. For some actors, the central issue is affordability. For others, it is visible poverty, public order, service need, or redevelopment pressure. A more structural reading shows that these are not separate problems. They are connected to the treatment of housing as an asset, to uneven urban development, and to longer histories of colonial dispossession that continue to shape access to land and stability in Vancouver (McCreary and Milligan 2021). The DTES does not stand outside those wider processes. It brings them into view.

The Design Thinking framework helps make that complexity clearer. Mapping stakeholders shows that the housing crisis is experienced unevenly and governed unevenly, with some groups carrying the greatest burdens while others hold greater power over how the problem is described and managed. Working through competing framings of the issue also makes it harder to accept narrow definitions of the crisis. What begins as a question of affordability quickly opens into questions of land, governance, stigma, redevelopment, and colonial history. In that sense, the process does not simplify the problem. It reveals why simple solutions are insufficient.

The case study also shows why closure remains difficult. More non-market housing, stronger standards for SROs, and a broader citywide distribution of affordable housing would all improve conditions, but none would resolve the issue permanently. The comparison with Los Angeles makes that clear as well. Coordinated local response is necessary, but place-based action alone cannot undo a wider housing system that keeps reproducing insecurity (Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative n.d.).

What remains open are the questions that matter most. How can Vancouver reduce housing insecurity without continuing to concentrate it in the DTES? What would it mean to treat secure housing as a genuine urban right rather than a limited benefit? And how might future policy confront the colonial and market structures that continue to shape who gets to live securely in the city? Those questions remain unresolved, and that is exactly why the problem is still wicked.

== Section 8: Reference List ==
Burnett, Katherine. 2014. “Commodifying Poverty: Gentrification and Consumption in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” ''Urban Geography'' 35 (2): 157–176. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.867669</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. 2024. ''Housing Vancouver Three-Year Action Plan, 2024–2026''. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/housing-vancouver-3-year-action-plan-2024-26.pdf</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. 2025. “Homeless Count.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/homeless-count.aspx</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. 2026. “Housing Vancouver Strategy.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/housing-vancouver-strategy.aspx</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. n.d. “Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/dtes-local-area-plan.aspx</nowiki>

City of Vancouver. n.d. “Single Room Accommodation (SRA) By-law.” City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/single-room-accommodation-bylaw.aspx</nowiki>

Downtown Eastside SRO Collaborative Society for the City of Vancouver. 2024. ''SRO Tenant Survey Report 2024''. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. <nowiki>https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/sro-tenant-survey-2024.pdf</nowiki>

Harvey, David. 2003. “The Right to the City.” ''International Journal of Urban and Regional Research'' 27 (4): 939–941. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x</nowiki>

Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. 2024. “Resolving Encampments in Skid Row.” Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. <nowiki>https://homeless.lacounty.gov/news/resolving-encampments-in-skid-row/</nowiki>

Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. n.d. “Skid Row Action Plan.” Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. <nowiki>https://homeless.lacounty.gov/skid-row-action-plan/</nowiki>

McCreary, Tyler, and Richard Milligan. 2021. “The Limits of Liberal Recognition: Racial Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, and Environmental Governance in Vancouver and Atlanta.” ''Antipode'' 53 (3): 724–742. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12465</nowiki>

Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” ''Policy Sciences'' 4 (2): 155–169.

Wacquant, Loïc. 2007. “Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality.” ''Thesis Eleven'' 91 (1): 66–77. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513607082003</nowiki>

<references/>

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

File:Homelessness comparison chart.png

2026-04-14T06:53:39Z

ManavPatel: Uploaded own work with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=This chart compares the homelessness figures used in the Vancouver–Skid Row discussion. It shows Vancouver’s 2025 citywide homeless count alongside the 2024 Skid Row district-level figure, with the comparison intended to illustrate visible concentration rather than provide a direct one-to-one ranking.}}
|date=2026-04-07
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:ManavPatel|ManavPatel]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

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

File:Stakeholder Map 2026.png

2026-04-14T06:53:39Z

ManavPatel: Uploaded own work with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=This figure shows the main stakeholders involved in housing-based spatial inequality in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, positioned by institutional power and closeness to housing harm. It highlights that residents facing housing insecurity are most directly affected, while governments and market actors hold greater influence over policy and redevelopment.}}
|date=2026-04-07
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:ManavPatel|ManavPatel]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

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