1. Future-oriented problem statement
How can SEFC prioritize social equity and affordable housing to address gentrification and the resulting housing crisis in Vancouver, while still maintaining livability?
2. Utopian Goal
Citymakers should transform SEFC into a highly-affordable neighborhood that prioritizes subsidized and mixed non-market/market housing, ensures equal representation of diverse social groups and families, and does so while not displacing current residents and while maintaining a high level of livability.
“How Might We…?”
a. How might we balance increasing density in this area to accommodate more people while still maintaining a high level of livability for existing residents? b. How might we integrate more affordable housing into SEFC in the wake of higher costs of land/construction/living?
c. How might we ensure that living in SEFC is accessible to people of all social groups and family types and that demographics adequately represent Vancouver’s broader diversity?
4. An Intervention to Increase Mixed-Density and Mixed-Use Development in the SEFC
Citymakers should transform SEFC into a highly-affordable neighborhood that prioritizes subsidized and mixed non-market/market housing, ensures equal representation of diverse social groups and families, and does so while not displacing current residents and while maintaining a high level of livability.
How might we balance increasing density in this area to accommodate more people while still maintaining a high level of livability for existing residents?
SEFC would benefit from an emphasis on mixed-density, mixed-use housing in order to increase density in the neighborhood without sacrificing the livability of the area. This is important because it maintains the current community of residents and is focused on different levels of density rather than just large highrise apartment buildings, which can make a space feel intimidating and uncomfortable. Rather, this model would involve low- and medium-density housing options like duplexes and low-rise apartment buildings, as well. Alongside this, continuing SEFC’s focus on mixed-use development would also be beneficial for providing accessible resources to residents and limiting the use of automobiles. Creating more housing is integral to solving the housing crisis and many social issues in the city. However, it is important that current residents are not displaced and that the SEFC maintain a level of comfort. By building this housing in alignment with the 33% each low/medium/high mixed-income models, SEFC can also be open to those of all social groups, further contributing to social equity in the region. The success of this intervention would be measured based on a decrease in the use of cars in the area and an increase in the amount of people using community amenities such as green spaces. This can display successful densification and abundant mixed-use housing as residents would be spending more time within the neighborhood and not relying on cars to transit away from the area/city itself.
5. Reflection
Post-industrial city-making was primarily transformative in the realm of technology and economic innovation as well as arts/culture. The SEFC area displays some aspects of this transformation but there is still progress to be made.
After WW2, city-making in the US was focused on the advancing automobile industry as well as a shifting economic sector. Detroit, also called “Motor City”, was a center for the Fordist assembly line model of labor. This was very innovative as it did not require skilled workers, thus widening the labor market and reducing the cost of labor. Fordism was focused on large-scale, standardized mass production of automobiles that would be diffused across the US. Thus, Detroit had a booming innovation economy with a very centralized industry and market. This led to large, top-down expansion in terms of city-making, where cities became centered around cars. Over time, large-scale highway projects came to dominate city-making projects.
However, this model showed to be unsustainable; cars and highways allowed people to live past the city, into the suburbs, reducing opportunity for labor in the city and eventually leading to the decline of the Fordist labor model in Detroit, since the process of manufacturing was so centralized within the city proper. Other cities began to find success in the global realm through shifting parts of the production process to other countries in order to capitalize upon cheap labor and natural resources. Thus, cities began to have a larger presence as hubs in the world economy.
As a result, corporations sought unskilled labor in less industrialized countries and cities sought to attract high-skilled, specialized workers from around the world. Rather than trying to attract companies, cities attempt to attract a particular niche of workers in the hopes that business will follow. As theorized by Richard Florida, these cities aim to attract “the creative class” by integrating technology into the city and emphasizing art and culture in their design. For example, cities began to focus on digital infrastructure like high-speed internet access. They also emphasized green infrastructure like green roofs, as well as recreation like parks and community spaces. Finally, these areas looked to emphasize local culture and art through art galleries and hosting large world events, such as the Olympics. This shows how city-making transformed alongside the economy, strengthening the cultural and social scene in many cities as they began to move away from industrialization.
SEFC has gone from an industrial area to a thriving community with a lot of potential to continue to follow through on the plans’ principles of social equity, sustainability, economic vitality, and livability. While the redevelopment of SEFC displaced many working class people, the quality of life in the neighborhood ultimately increased and efforts continue to amass people of all income levels into the community. The implementation of vast green space, alongside community amenities such as gardens and dog parks, has transformed recreation, culture, and community in the area while also contributing to environment sustainability. Additionally, large networks of public transport, bike paths, and walking paths increase connectivity within and outside of the region, reducing the necessity of an automobile and further contributing to sustainable growth and lowered emissions. This also reduces congestion and allows people to travel throughout the city faster. The co-op system in SEFC has allowed for more affordable and tenant-led housing, making housing more accessible to those across classes and social groups.
Of course the downfall of the creative class theory is that large urban redevelopment can lead to gentrification, and thus, displacement. These changes mentioned above in the SEFC increase the quality of life in the area and would work to attract more of the “creative class”, but still seem unwelcoming to those in different socioeconomic backgrounds; while plans for mixed-income housing seem to invite social equity, the execution thus far does not seem to be very successful. The redevelopment itself, as mentioned above, has resulted in the displacement of many working-class people who worked in the industrial area. Currently, per Statistics Canada, average income levels of residents seem to be increasing, thus showing the continuation of gentrification; the median income of households in SEFC has risen from $90k per year (Statistics Canada, 2019) to $104k per year (Statistics Canada, 2022).
While city-making can transform urban areas to have better qualities of life and foster community and social equity, progress is not always linear. A successful execution may take time. Careful attention must be given to ensure that cities are welcome to those of all cultures and backgrounds, without straying away from important core values.