Chapter Five
The Postmodern Transformation of Vancouver
5.0 Introduction
There is more to the postmodern transformation of Vancouver than the switch over from a land-extensive to land-intensive regime of accumulation, or the creation of a new regulatory regime. Besides densification and the arrival of a postmodern system of regulation, the creation of a new division of labour and changing demographics and shifting immigration and migration flows make would abet this process of transformation.
5.1 An Overview
Before moving on to a detailed study of the new settlement spaces that have emerged in the postmodern era a general overview will first be undertaken to show how the variables just mentioned produced a web of effects that became responsible for the landscape that can now be observed. Furthermore, because the most dramatic manifestation of this transformation occurred in the City of Vancouver it will used as the main focal point for this overview.
However, to understand how these different variables weave together to form a constellation of new spatial effects we must first go back to the densification process, and examine how changing flows of capital, and shifts in the division of labour established alternative channels for both the movement of capital and the movement of people in the city and the region.
Beginning first with the movement of capital, if we compare the property market that existed in the modern period with the postmodern period we see that two entirely different real estate dynamics were at work. In the modern period, which runs from the 1940’s to the early 1970.s, it is possible to identify two opposing trends. First, in relation to the region we see that house values in the City of Vancouver generally fell in relation to the regiion throughout most of the modern period. However, when we compare the movement of prices to the nation, another trend clearly emerges. Unlike the region, over the modern period we see that house prices in the City of Vancouver gradually rise rather than fall. with regard to the nation Moreover, Thus, by 1961 house prices in the City even begin move above the national average for the first time (Table 4). So while house prices in the city continued to lose value in relation to the rest of the region, (falling from 99 to 97 of the regional average between1961 and 1971), just the opposite happened in relation to the natio.. For example between 1961 and 1971 housing prices moved in the city moved from 25 to 37 per above the national average.
As well, in the modern era price shifts were gradual and incremental, but in the postmodern era the movement of prices became much more volatile and abrupt. Again, much of this has to do with the maturation of the densification process, which set off a wave of price increases that rippled out from the Core to the outer reaches of the region.
As we shall see, price increases have played a critical role in the dissolution of settlement patterns that had solidified during the modern period. Looking at the City of Vancouver, during the postmodern era we see that instead of trailing the region, house prices in the City of Vancouver soar above the metropolitan average. As a result, by 1996 house prices in the City move nearly 30 per cent above those of the region. Furthermore, as the City of Vancouver, becomes part of the most expensive housing market in the country during the 1990’s, the price gap between the City and the Country undergoes a quantum leap upward, moving from 37 per cent, of the national average in 1971, to 274 per cent in 1996 (Table 4).
Similarly, within the region the organization of the local real estate market was undergoing an equally dramatic transformation. Because Maple Ridge has traditionally had the lowest prices in the region, it can be used as a benchmark to measure the polarization in house prices which has occurred since 1971. The modern period was marked by regional convergence, as the price gap between the City of Vancouver and Maple Ridge was more than halved, with the price differential between Maple Ridge and the City of Vancouver falling from 34 in 1961, to 15 per cent in 1971.
However, in the postmodern era this convergence is replace by strong price divergence. Comparing Maple Ridge to the City of Vancouver we see that between 1971 and 1996 there is a sharp reversal in the relative price of accommodation in each municipality. as prices in the City of Vancouver and Maple Ridge start to wholly diverge from one another. While the price differential between the City of Vancouver and Maple Ridge had been reduced by 50 per cent between 1961 and 1971; between 1971 and 1996 the price gap increased five fold, moving from 15 to 77 per cent.
The same thing happens with regard to the province. In 1961 housing prices in the City of Vancouver were 17 per cent higher than the province. However, by 1971 this difference had almost been halved, as housing prices in the City of Vancouver moved from 15 to 9 per cent of the provincial average.
Just as with Maple Ridge, when we compare the movement of prices in City of Vancouver with those of the province we see that there is a dramatic reversal in relative price levels during the postmodern era. Rather than prices converging, as they had done in the modern period, they begin to diverge between 1971 and 1996.
Accordingly, the difference between the City of Vancouver and the province widens six fold, moving upward from 9 per cent to 69 per cent (Table 4).
As we shall now see, with rising prices making housing more expensive in the City of Vancouver, a new template for the reorganization of space in the postmodern era was created. Directly, or indirectly, the sharp about turn in relative price levels would have a considerable impact on the external and internal migration of people within the various sub-areas within the region.
During the modern period the relative decline of housing prices in the City of Vancouver complemented and supported the city’s role as the main destination point for new immigrants and low-income households. Furthermore, if the relative decline of housing values in the City is related to the under-representation of the middle class in the inner city, we see that the shape of the property market in the modern period also reflected the aversion that the middle class had to the City at this time.
All this changes in the postmodern era. A shift in middle class values, and the emergence of a white collar economy work to transform the city into a magnet for the middle class, reversing the out flow which appears to have typified the modern era
As the middle class began to flock into the inner city, housing prices in the City of Vancouver sharply increase in relation to the rest of the region, the province, and the country as a whole. While this reorganization of the real estate market affected the distribution of all social groups, as already pointed out, the most notable changes emerge when we look at the migration patterns of the middle class (Table 8).
This becomes clear if we look at the inner city. With the proportion of middle class people located in inner city resting below the average for the city, with the notable exception of the West End, and parts of Kitsilano, this area clearly functioned as a working class settlement zone during the modern period(Table 8).
But when we look at he path followed by the middle class during the postmodern era quite a different picture emerges. For example, between 1971 and 1981 the population of the city fell by 12,000. During the same time, the number of middle class residents expanded by over 34,000. So while the population of the City of Vancouver experienced a 3 per cent decline, the number of middle class people in the City grew by over 60 per cent. The change over becomes even more obvious in the inner city. Although the inner city only accounted for a third of the City’s population, between 1971 and 1981 the inner city absorbed approximately half of the inflow of middle class residents into the City So even though the overall population of the inner city declined between 1971 and 1981 we see that there was nearly a 75 per cent increase in the number of middle class people residents (Table 8). Not surprisingly, we see that this change in direction corresponds to a sharp upward movement in house prices. Hence between 1971 and 1981, we see that prices in the City of Vancouver rise from 97 per cent to 108 per of the metropolitan average.
In contrast to the price rise that took place between 1986 and 1996, which was fueled to a great extent by the migration of wealthy Asian immigrants into the city, in the 1970’s it was the movement of the indigenous middle class which acted as the main demographic fuel for the rapid escalation of prices. Because of this, the internal migration of the middle class stands out as the defining demographic episode of the first phase of the postmodern transformation, establishing the demographic base for a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement to emerge out of the Transitional Zone in the 1970’s, and by doing so create the first distinctive settlement zone to appear in the postmodern era (Figure 7 )
If the working class mix that prevailed in the modern era had been maintained into postmodern era it is unlikely that the local economy could have supported the steep escalation in property values that became a hallmark of the postmodern era.
Table: 4 The Evolution of the Real Estate Market in Vancouver
V/CMA V/MR V/BC V/Can
1996 1.27 1.77 1.69 2.74
1986 1.18 1.60 1.51 1.77
1981 1.08 1.32 1.45 2.52
1971 .97 1.15 1.09 1.37
1961 .99 1.34 1.17 1.25
1941 1.03 NA NA .78
Definitions: V/CMA refers to the price ration between Vancouver the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area; V/MR refers to the price ration between the City of Vancouver and the District of Maple Ridge; V/BC refers to the price ration for housing that exists in the City of Vancouver in relation to the Province of British Columbia; V/Can refers to the price ratio in housing between the City of Vancouver and Canada as a whole.
Notes: The ratio for 1941 is an estimate based on price for a part of the housing market rather than the entire market
Sources: Census of Canada, 1941, Housing, 1947; 1961 Census of Canada, 1961 Census, Bulletin CT-22, June 20,1963, Cat No. 95-537; 1971 Census of Canada, Cat No. 93-732, 1973; 1981 Census of Canada, 92-932, December 1983,; Census of Canada 1986, Census of Canada, Cat No. 95: 106-170. 1988; 1996, Cat. No. 95-191 – XPB, 1999
Besides the inversion of middle class migration patterns, shifts in the real estate market also affected the movement of immigrants. Also the movement of migrants from the rest of the country and British Columbia was affected as well.
Beginning with immigration, at a time when property values in the City of Vancouver were falling in relation to the rest of the region, we find that the City of Vancouver, and the inner city of Vancouver, in particular, functioned as the main point of entry for recent immigrants. Between 1956 and 1960, for example, the City of Vancouver absorbed about two-thirds (Table 5) of all recent immigrants moving into the region. Similarly, the inner city attracted around 30 per cent of recent immigrant in the region. By 1996 the proportion of new immigrants moving into the city had been cut in half., descending from 60 to about 30 per cent of the regional total. Meanwhile, in the inner city the proportion of new immigrants fell from 30 to 11 per cent (Table 5).
Although the City of Vancouver remained an important point of entry for immigrants in the postmodern era, these figures show that in relation to the region this role diminished considerably. An even more significant role reversal can be pointed to if we compare the inner city of Vancouver with its suburbs. While the number of recent immigrants moving into the inner city falls from 30 to 11 per cent of the regional total between 1961 and 1996, the proportion of recent immigrants moving into the suburbs of the City of Vancouver surges past the inner city.
In 1961 the proportion of recent immigrants moving into the suburbs was half that of the inner city (Table 5). In 1996 this situation is reversed. Instead of resting 50 per cent below the inner city (4.4 in the suburbs versus 8.1 in the inner city), the proportion of recent immigrants moving into the suburbs rises 50 per cent above the level found in the inner city (i.e, 11.2 in the inner city versus 15.2 in the suburbs – See Table 5). Just as shifts in the migration pattern of the middle class led to the formation of a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, in the later part of the 1980’s that the movement of immigrants out of the inner city and into the suburban areas of the City of Vancouver, and the inner suburbs of Burnaby and Richmond, created the demographic raw material for the creation of a second major settlement zone in the postmodern era. With these shifts in the flow of immigrants between 1986 and 1996 a Zone of Asian Resettlement emerges out of these suburbs, and becomes one of the defining settlement features of the second phase of the postmodern transformation which began in the mid 1980’s, when prices started to spike upwards again and the level of immigration more than doubled (Table 5; Figure )
.
Table: 5 Population Flows – The Movement of Immigrants Over Time
1961 1976 1986 1996
No Imm % Imm No Imm % of Imm No Imm % Imm No Imm % of Imm
CMA 33031 4.5 74830 6.8 70350 3.9 181100 10.6
CV 20130 6.0 38230 9.8 25320 6.3 66285 13.7
Core 2424 9.6 5525 12.6 2415 5.4 8660 14.5
E Core 304 7.9 740 9.9 305 3.9 2415 12.2
W Core 2119 9.9 4785 13.3 2110 5.7 6245 15.6
Z 8274 8.7 11185 11.7 6410 6.9 11125 9.7
EZ 3738 8.2 6195 14.4 4670 9.9 5895 10.7
WZ 4496 9.2 4990 8.7 1740 3.8 5230 8.6
Inner 10698 8.9 16206 11.8 8825 6.4 19745 11.2
Subs 9432 4.4 22120 8.6 9590 6.3 46500 15.2
E Subs 5505 4.1 17165 9.8 6390 6.9 13030 15.1
W Subs 3977 5.1 4955 6.1 3200 4.6 33470 15.4
Definitions: CV refers to the City of Vancouver; CMA refers to Census Metropolitan Area; Core refers to Vancouver Local Areas made up of the West End and The Downtown; WC refers to the West End. EC refers to the Downtown. Z refers to the Zone of Transition in the Modern period and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in the Postmodern period; This zone contains five loacal areas: Mount Pleasant, Strathcona, Grandview Woodlands., Fairview and Kitsilanol.WZ refers to the Kitsilano and Fairview Local Areas; EZ refers to Mount Pleasant, Stathcona, and Grandview Woodlands.. Inner City refers to the seven local areas situated in the the Core and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Subs refers to the suburban areas of the City of Vancouver located outside the Inner city. W Subs refers to 7 local areas located primarily West of Ontario Street. West Point Grey, Arbutus Ridge, Dunbar Southlands, Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Shaughnessy, South Cambie. Easst Suburbs refers to the remaining local areas located mostly East of Ontario in the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver. The percentage given to the proportion of the population over five years of age who have moved into each area over the previous five years.
Sources1961, Census of Canada, Migration Fertility and income by Census Tracts,95-541, 1965;1971 Census Vancouver, Series b, 95-758, Vancouver Local Areas 1976, Planning Department City of Vancouver 1978; Vancouver Local Areas 1986 and 1996
As with the flow of immigrants, there is a switch in demographic polarities with regard to the attraction of Canadian migrants during the postmodern era. Instead of attracting proportionately fewer migrants than the region from the rest of the country, as had been the case during the modern period, in the postmodern era the City of Vancouver attracts 30 per cent more migrants than the region. What is important to remember about this shift, is that this happened at a time when property values in the City of Vancouver were rising significantly above the nation and the region. And that this change was occurring at a time when the level of homeownership was going up rather than falling in the inner city. Furthermore, with all this taking place at a time when the number of middle class was increasingly by leaps and bounds it become obvious that the migration of Canadians into the City was a highly segmented one, which involved a massive influx of middle class migrants from the rest of the country into the city.
Once again this change becomes even more striking if we look at what happened to the inner city of Vancouver. In 1961 (Table 6) 6.6 per cent of the population in the inner city over five years of age was made up; of recent migrants from the rest of the country. Proportionately this was 27 per cent above the level of migration into the City and 11 per cent higher than for the region. However, by 1996 this gap begins to widen further. With 14.6 of the population over five years of age in the inner city made up of migrants from the rest of the country, the relative percentage of recent migrants from the rest of the country rises more than 200 per cent above the level found in the region. Although not as extreme, the same pattern can be observed in relation to the City, with the gap between the City average and the inner city increasing from 27 to 66 per cent (Table 6).
At the same time, the number of Canadian migrants moving into the suburban areas of the City of Vancouver remain relatively stable. For instance. in 1961 Canadian migrants accounted for 4.5 per cent of the population over five years of age in the suburbs of Vancouver. By 1996 this percentage had risen to 5.1 per cent. In absolute terms this represented a 158 per cent increase between 1961 and 1996, significantly less than the 340 per cent gain experienced by the inner city over the same time period.
Table: 6 Population Flows – Movement of People from the Rest of Canada
1961 1976 1986 1996
Pop % of Pop Pop % of Pop Pop % of Pop Pop % of Pop
CMA 40579 5.9 77845 7.1 70350 5.5 113515 6.7
CV 17608 5.2 24205 6.2 25320 6.0 42385 8.8
Core 2526 10.2 NA 12.5 6100 13.8 10195 17.0
E Core 138 3.6 NA 7.3 1200 13.4 3530 17.9
W Core 2426 11.3 4915 13.7 4900 15.6 6665 16.7
Z 5389 5.7 NA 8.5 9630 10.4 16940 13.5
E Z 1566 3.4 NA 6.3 4140 8.8 7255 11.2
W Z 3832 7.8 NA 10.9 5410 12 9685 16
Inner 7962 6.6 13465 9.8 15730 11.5 27135 14.7
Subs 9646 4.5 10740 4.3 9590 3.6 15250 5.1
E Subs 5390 4 6625 3.7 6390 3.3 10595 4.9
WSubs 4256 5.5 4115 5.1 3200 4.3 4655 5.5
Definitions: CV refers to the City of Vancouver; CMA refers to Census Metropolitan Area; Core refers to Vancouver Local Areas made up of the West End and The Downtown; WC refers to the West End. EC refers to the Downtown. Z refers to the Zone of Transition in the Modern period and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in the Postmodern period; This zone contains five loacal areas: Mount Pleasant, Strathcona, Grandview Woodlands., Fairview and Kitsilanol.WZ refers to the Kitsilan0 and Fairview Local Areas; EZ refers to Mount Pleasant, Stathcona, and Grandview Woodlands.. Inner City refers to the seven local areas situated in the Core and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Subs refers to the suburban areas of the City of Vancouver located outside the Inner city. W Subs refers to 7 local areas located primarily West of Ontario Street, consisting of West Point Grey, Arbutus Ridge, Dunbar Southlands, Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Shaughnessy, South Cambie. East Suburbs refers to the remaining local areas located mostly East of Ontario in the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver.
Notes:
Sources1961, Census of Canada, Migration Fertility and income by Census Tracts,95-541, 1965;1971 Census Vancouver, Series b, 95-758, Vancouver Local Areas 1976, Planning Department City of Vancouver 1978;
When we look at the flow of migrants from the rest of British Columbia a number of interesting shifts can be observed as well (Table 7). Here the most notable changes took place between 1986 and 1996, when property values in the City started to climb rapidly in relation to the rest of the province. This also coincided with the generalized spread of secondary suites, as low-rise densification spread into the suburbs. This, along with the cash out of existing residents, and soaring numbers of Asian immigrants who were willing to buy into this market, fostered a significant out flow of Caucasians (Figure ).
In turn, these developments served to deflect the movement of BC migrants away from the inner suburbs (consisting of the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver and the suburbs of Richmond and Burnaby). With the outflow of the existing Caucasian population from the inner suburbs and the deflection of BC migrants to the outer suburbs the demographic raw materials were put in place for yet another settlement zone. So not only does the appearance of a Zone of Asian Resettlement mark the second phase of the postmodern transformation, in addition to this, at the exact same time we see that a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement emerges within the outer suburbs as direct after effect of the creation of a Zone of Asian Resettlement.
Here as well, property values act as a template for the creation of this third zone. Not surprising, we find that the boundaries of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement correspond closely to those parts of the region which have the lowest housing prices. That is why Maple Ridge becomes part of core area for the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement.
Although these changes mostly affect the outer suburbs, what happened can be illustrated by looking at how the flow of BC migrants shifted within the City of Vancouver. Even though the proportion of BC migrants moving into to the region has always been higher than the City, after 1986 this gap becomes a chasm. From 1961 to 1986 the split between the City and the Region had remained relatively stable, with the proportion of migrants moving to the region ranging 15 to 20 per cent above that of the City (Table 7). After remainng relatively stable throughout the modern period and the first part of the postmodern era, from 1986 and 1996 the gap between the city and the region increases from 15 to over 200 per cent, as the number of migrants moving into Greater Vancouver increases to 13.6 per cent of the population over five years of age, compared to 6.2 for the City of Vancouver (Table 7). Not surprisingly, we find that this shift is accompanied by the creation of the creation of a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement in the outer suburbs.
Only the inner city of Vancouver bucked this trend. Here the number of migrants over five years of age from British Columbia increased from 5.1 in 1961 to to 8.6 per cent in 1996. However, unlike the modern period, when most of the migrants who came from BC settled in the Transitional Zone, during the postmodern the number of migrants moving into this zone decreases, while the number of migrants moving into Core area of the inner city experiences a significant increase. For example, in 1961 8.7 per cent of the Transitional zone’s population ( five years and older) was made up BC migrants. Meanwhile, in the Core BC migrants only accounted for 5.7 per cent of the population. By 1996 these ratios are reversed. The number of migrants in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement (formely the Transitional Zone) falls to 7.9 per cent of the population in 1996, compared to 8.7 per cent in 1961. Meanwhile the proportion of BC
Table : 7 Population Flows – The movement of people from BC into Vancouver
1961 1976 1986 1996
Pop % of Pop Pop % Pop Pop % of pop Pop % of Pop
CMA 4.8 4.0 5.5 13.6
CV 3.9 3.2 4.7 6.2
Core 5.1 4.2 7.1 10.0
EC 5.4 4.5 6.3 12.3
WC 4.9 3.6 7.3 8.8
Z 8.7 4.7 7.2 7.9
EZ 8.2 3.7 6.9 6.1
WZ 9.2 5.7 7.6 9.9
Inner 4.5 4.5 7.2 8.6
Subs 3.6 2.4 3.4 4.6
E Subs 3.7 2.4 3.5 4.7
W Sub s 3.4 2.3 3.2 4.6
Sources1961, Census of Canada, Migration Fertility and income by Census Tracts,95-541, 1965;1971 Census Vancouver, Series b, 95-758, Vancouver Local Areas 1976, Planning Department City of Vancouver 1978;
Definitions: CV refers to the City of Vancouver; CMA refers to Census Metropolitan Area; Core refers to Vancouver Local Areas made up of the West End and The Downtown; WC refers to the West End. EC refers to the Downtown Local Area plus Census Tract 58. Z refers to the Zone of Transition in the Modern period and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in the Postmodern period; This zone contains five loacal areas: Mount Pleasant, Strathcona, Grandview Woodlands., Fairview and Kitsilano.WZ refers to the Kitsilano and Fairview Local Areas; EZ refers to Mount Pleasant, Stathcona, and Grandview Woodlands.. Inner City refers to the seven local areas situated in the the Core and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Subs refers to the suburban areas of the City of Vancouver located outside the Inner city. W Subs refers to 7 local areas located primarily West of Onttario Street. West Point Grey, Arbutus Ridge, Dunbar Southlands, Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Shaughnessy, South Cambie. East Suburbs refers to the remaining local areas located mostly East of Ontario in the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver. The percentage given to the proportion of the population over five years of age who have moved into each area over the previous five years.
above that of the city. However, between 1986 and 1996 this the gap widens from 17 to 220 per cent.
Like their Canadian counterparts, there is considerable variation between the inner city and the suburbs. Just as with Canadian migrants, migrants from BC tend to become more concentrated in the inner city, but largely avoid the suburbs. While 4.5 per cent of the population (over five years of age) in the inner city was made up migrants from the rest of BC in 1961, by 1996 this increases to 8.6 per cent. By contrast, if we look at the suburbs of Vancouver the shift from 3.6 to 4.6 per cent reveals that there was only a modest increase in migrants from the rest of BC moving into this part of the city (Table 7).
Whether we look at migrants from the Canada or British Columbia the same trend emerges. On the one hand, when we make a comparison between the modern and postmodern era, we see that the affinity for the inner by both groups clearly increased during the postmodern period. Because this corresponded with a substantial increase in the number of middle class residents living in the inner city both migrant groups were probably largely made up of middle class residents. On the other hand, much lower rates of migration into the City’s suburbs show that for economic and social reasons this group was being deflected away from the inner suburbs. being deflected to the outer suburbs. Moreover, compared to their counterparts who had moved into the inner city, it is quite likely that a greater proportion of the migrants who moved to the outer suburbs were working rather than middle class.
Finally, although the locational trajectories of Canadian and BC migrants closely follow one another an interesting segmentation of each population can be observed within the inner city, which indicates that middle class migrants from the rest of Canada played a greater role in the demographic transformation of the Transitional Zone into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement than BC migrants. For instance, in 1961 there were nearly twice as many provincial migrants living in the Transitional zone than there were Canadians. However, with the metamorphosis of the Transitonal Zone into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement we see that the number of BC migrants falls from 8.7 to 4.7 per cent of the population between 1961 and 1976.. Conversely the number of Canadian migrants increases from 5.7 to 8.5 per cent over the same time period. Since 1976 the number of BC migrants moving into the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement has increased but it still rest far below the number of Canadian migrants who have moved into this zone.
Table: 8 Distribution of the Middle Class in Vancouver Over Time
1961 1971 1976 1981 1986 1996
MCP % P MCP %P MC P %P MCP %P MCP %P MCP %P
Can 670836 6.0 1562M 9.1 1.717M 11.3 2.969M 16.0 3.617M 18.4 5.197M 22.6
CMA’s 447033 7.5 1.150M 13.4 NA NA NA NA 2.595M 21.6 3.893M 27.5
MV 49514 8.7 122145 15.1 163180 17.8 22675 22.4 273145 24.6 450085 30.5
CV 26840 9.1 58465 17.0 83575 24.3 92590 26.5 110060 30.1 163560 37.5
Core 3331 9.5 7835 17.9 11795 27.5 12560 28.6 13360 30.7 23305 39.6
EC 298 2.6 435 6.9 785 10.8 1120 13.6 1090 14.4 5890 32.0
WC 3033 12.7 7405 20.9 10315 29.4 11370 32 12270 34.1 17330 44.2
Z 6077 7.6 14580 16.6 21335 25.2 25729 29.5 27344 35.6 49035 43.7
EZ 1163 2.8 3810 8.8 5735 13.7 8274 18.5 9440 23.8 15355 29.1
WZ 4914 12.4 10770 24.1 15600 36.2 17455 40.9 17904 43.4 33260 57.8
Inner 9408 8.1 22531 17.0 33130 25.9 38289 29.2 40704 33.2 72760 43.3
Subs 17432 9.7 35799 16.9 50445 23.3 54301 24.9 69355 28.3 90800 33.5
E S 7373 4.2 13745 9.6 22020 15.0 24900 16.4 36875 20.5 50960 26.1
WS 10059 18.2 22045 32.1 28425 40.9 29400 44.5 32450 49.8 39840 53.9
Definitions: NA = Not Availbe; CV refers to the City of Vancouver; CMA refers to Census Metropolitan Area; Core refers to Vancouver Local Areas made up of the West End and The Downtown; WC refers to the West End. EC refers to the Downtown. plus Census Tract 58 Z refers to the Zone of Transition in the Modern period and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in the Postmodern period; This zone contains five loacal areas: Mount Pleasant, Strathcona, Grandview Woodlands., Fairview and Kitsilano;WZ refers to the Kitsiland and Fairview Local Areas; EZ refers to Mount Pleastant, Stathcona, minus Census Tract 58 and Grandview Woodlands.. Inner City refers to the seven local areas situated in the the Core and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Subs refers to the suburban areas of the City of Vancouver located outside the Inner city. W Subs refers to 7 local areas located primarily West of Ontario Street. West Point Grey, Arbutus Ridge, Dunbar-Southlands, Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Shaughnessy, South Cambie. East Suburbs refers to the remaining local areas located mostly East of Ontario in the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver. The Middle Class population is defined as that proportion of the population over age 15 which has a degree or some university education. MCP refers to middle class population. %P refers to percentage of the adult population which is deemed to be middle class.. Data for the suburbs and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement for 1961 and1986 do not correspond to the boundaries used in the other years. So figures for these two zones should be regarded as approximations.
Notes: Complete statistics for the population over 15 in the 1976 Census with a University education for Canada and CMA’s was determined by adding those attending university full time and those with some university training who were no longer full time students.
Sources: Vancouver Local Areas 1971-1981, Planning Department, City of Vancouver, August 1985;Vancouver Local Areas, City Planning Department, City of Vancouver, April 1979; Vancouver Local Areas 1986, Planning Department, City of Vancouver, June 1989; Vancouver Loxal Areas 1996, Community Services Department, City of Vancouver, March 1999.Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, Vancouver, CT 28B, Cat 95-758; Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, Vancouver, Cat. No. 95-827, December 1978; Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, Vancouver, Cat.No. 95-978 Vol 3 Profile B, September 1983; ; 1986 Census, Census Metropolitan Areas, Cat No. 93-156, March 1989;Profile Series; 1986 Census Metropolitan Areas, Part B, December 1988 Cat. No. 95: 108,112,114,130,136.142,146,150,154,158,164,166,; 1986 Census Metropolitan Areas, January 1989, Cat. No. 95: 106,134,148,162; 1971 Census of Canada, Educational Attainment in Canada, Cat. No. 99-708, March 1977; 1961 Census, Bulletin CT-22, June 20,1963, Cat No. 95-537
If shifting property values make up the first template that organizes social space, then shifts in the occupation profile of the region establish a second one which overlays and complements the one created the reconfiguration of the property market. Just as the movement in prices creates spaces of attraction and avoidance, so too, as well, do shifts in the makeup of the labour market. This happens in three ways. First of all, the occupation mix of the various sub regions establishes basic economic constraints for different social groups wishing to settle in a particular area. For those groups earning the highest incomes the widest range of choices is made available. But for those groups earning below average incomes, the range of spatial choices is much more circumscribed.
Secondly, there is a social aspect that has to do with occupations that has to do with preference and socialization which cannot be ignored. The spaces people chose to inhabit are not only determined by their economic capacity to appropriate space; where people decide to live is also decided by social preferences which are linked to their standing in the occupational hierarchy. As Bourdieu has handily shown, the habitus (or outlook and the presdispositions) of a particular group, and not just simple economic calculation, play a vital role in determining the actions people take.
Thirdly, there is a cross over between settlement space and work space. Although workers do not have to live near the places they work, over time there is a tendency for them to gravitate to places which are accessible to their work. Because technological change and institutional regulation, such as zoning, affect where these work spaces will be situated this adds considerable more complexity to the spatial dynamic created by shifts in the make up of the workforce
To acknowledge this complexity while keeping this part of the study manageable, the workforce in Greater Vancouver will be sub-divided into three main occupational groups made up of Blue-Collar, White-Collar and Pink-Collar workers.
Starting with Blue-Collar workers, we see that they account for approximately 34% of the work force in Greater Vancouver (Table 9). Made up employees who work in the primary industries, manufacturing, construction, transportation and utilities, as well as the wholesale trades, work in this sector largely has to do with the production and movement of physical goods. Employment therefore tends to be located near transportation corridors. Not surprisingly, we find that blue-collar workers tend to gravitate to these areas as well, the most obvious case being South Asians.
Here the over-representation of South Asian in the blue-collar work force has no doubt played an important role is shaping the locational preferences of this group. Notwithstanding the need for more and less expensive housing figures that figure in the locational preference of this group, the location of this population near the region’s major industrial waterways suggests that the occupation composition of the South Asian population has played a role in determining where many South Asians have decided to live.
Another feature which sets the blue-collarworkforce apart is the predominance of male workers. Although women accounted for 47 per cent of the labour force in Greater Vancouver in 1996, they only made up 16 per cent of blue-collar workers (Table 9).
Income is another important demarcation point which separates the blue, white and pink collar work force. Even though blue-collar incomes are not as high as white-collar incomes, they are, on average, five per cent above those of the region. On a simple economic plane, having higher than average incomes should mean that most of the region is open to settlement by this group, However, as the distribution of South Asians illustrates, other factors come into play to attract blue collar workers to very specific areas.
TABLE : 9 Occupation Profile of Greater Vancouver 1996
LF BC BC% WC WC % PC PC%
LF 993355 326990 33.9 323824 33.5 313080 32.4
FM 463270 51025 15.6 185705 57.3 173540 55.4
E Income $40880 $42458 1.04 $46844 1.15 $29169 .71
Immigrant 362190 119930 36.6 109630 33.8 118940 37.9
VM 271015 84005 25.6 74810 23.1 99925 31.9
RI 85215 27520 8.4 18301 5.6 32940 10.5
MPT 239310 48015 14.6 83020 25.6 108255 34.5
Univer 357305 81370 24.8 175590 54.2 91815 29.3
Definitions: LF= labour Force; FM = Females; E Income = average employment inccome; VM = Visible Minorities; RI = Recent Immigrants (i.e. those arriving between 1991 and 1996); MPT = Mostly Part Time Work; Univer = University Degree or Some University. BC = Blue Collar Labour force – taking in the four major primary industries, manufacturing, construction, transportation, communications and ultilities, and wholesaling; WC = White Collar Labour Force – taking in financial services, insurance and real estate, business services, government, Education and health sectors minus groups 862, 864 and 869 located in the health sector; PC = Pink Collar Labour Force – including sectors 862, 864 and 869 in the health sector, as well as retailing, employment in services and accommodation.
Notes: Percentages for BC/PC/WC were based on total Experienced Labour Force rather than total Labour Force. While the total Labour Force numbers 993355, the Experienced Labour Force numbers 963905. For this reasons figures for BC/WC/PC do not exactly equal the figures listed under Labour force. 862, 864 and 869 were placed in the PC category because this part of the health sector had lower than average university education attainment. As well wages were significantly below the average for the health sector. Calculation for average income in each sector was determined by multiplying the employed Labour F orce by the average employment income for sub-component of each sector.
Sources: Vancouver Local Areas 1996, Community Services, City of Vancouver, March 1999; CD-ROM, 1996 Census, Dimension Series: Labour Force and Unpaid Labour of Canadians,94F006XCB
Looking at the white collar workforce, we see that it is largely made up of professionals who work in the financial or business service sectors, as well as in health, education and government services. Like the Blue-Collar workforce, White-Collar workers make up about a third of the labour force.
While females are glaringly under-represented in the Blue-Collar workforce they are significantly over-represented in the White-Collar sector. Although females only account for about 16 of the blue-collar workforce more than 57 per cent of all workers in the white-collar workforce are made up of women – well above the overall average of 48 per cent. As well there is stark contrast in education levels between both sectors.
While only 25 per cent of Blue-collar workers have some university education, more than 55 per cent of white-collar workers have some university education, well above the overall average of 38 perc ent for the entire labour force.
Within this group we can locate the new middle class who were to play a pivotal role in the transformation of the inner city. Here as well we can situate the upper echelon workers who became involved in the economy of the urban spectacle which would transform the Core during the second phase of the postmodern transformation in the 1980’s, creating yet a another settlement zone, one organized as much as a consumer zone than a settlement space
With the highest incomes, white-collar workers have the greatest amount of economic freedom with regard to determining where they want to live. As the difference location patterns of the Asian middle class and the Caucasian middle class illustrate, social and cultural factors act as powerful modifiers in determining exactly where different fractions of the middle class will settle.
Comparing where the Caucasian middle class and the Asian middle class chose to live provides one of the best examples of the relation between ideology and space. Despite belonging to the same social class, and being largely employed in the White-Collar sector, two contrasting settlement patterns evolved. With a postmodern matrix ordering the spatial preferences of the Caucasian middle class this fraction of the middle class revealed a decided preference for medium-rise development. Embracing the conservation of the existing built environment and the celebration of life in the inner city the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement became a cultural hearth and major destination point for the Caucasian middle class.
By contrast, when we look at the Asian middle class, particularly those from Hong Kong,, a different cultural dynamic shows itself to be at work. Oriented by a modern rather than postmodern value, this Asian middle placed more emphasis upon redevelopment rather than conservation, esteeming the values associated with futurism rather than historicism embraced by the Caucasian middle class. Retaining the values that the Caucasian middle class once had in the modern era, in the postmodern era this parvenu Asian middle class showed itself to be unambiguously aligned to the physical artifacts of modern age. -- the single-detached dwelling unit located in the suburbs, and the high-rise apartment, became a hybrid symbol of vanguard modernism during the 1960’s.
So while the Caucasian new middle class moved into the medium-rise landscape created in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, the Hong Kong fraction of the Asian middle class by passed this medium-rise landscape and choose instead to live in the suburbs located in the western part of the city, or the new luxury high-rise precincts that were being constructed in the Core.
Moving on to the pink-collar work force, here, once again, a distinctive occupational profile emerges. If the activities of Blue-Collar workers are defined by the production and movement of goods, and white-collar workers by the production and manipulation of symbols, the activity of pink-collar workers is bound up by the provision of personal services, with retailing and the accommodation, food and beverage industries making up the largest single component of this sector.
If Blue-Collar labourers can be viewed as the traditional working class then pink-collar workers can primarily be viewed as part of a new working class. Also, to a lesser extent, the Pink-Collar workforce contains marginalized members of the middle class. Of the three groups the pink-collar sector has the most part-times workers. Employment incomes are only about 70 per cent of the regional average. Recent immigrants are also over-represented in this sector, as are female workers. Compared to the blue-collar and white-collar labour force, the pink-collar has the greatest proportion of visible minorities. It also the greatest number of part-time workers.
With regard to settlement choices, the Pink-Collar workforce face the greatest economic constraints. Since the largest employers of pink-collar workers are in the hotel and beverage industry, easy access to hotels is important, yet the largest hotels are the Core or in exclusive exurban resorts like Whistler where housing prices tend to be very high. In American resort communities this has produced perverse settlement patterns, with low-income commuters forced to engage in long commutes which were once primarily associated with white-collar commuters in the modern age. Likewise, employers are having difficulty retaining or attracting workers because of high living costs and the resistance to more affordable accommodation posted by the introduction of working class residents into exclusive middle class neighbourhoods.
Because of Skytrain, which can tap a much larger pink-collar labour force further out in the suburbs, where cheaper accommodation can be found, and the large reservoir of rental housing which still remains in the City, this has not reached the crisis proportions now found in some American resort towns, or the pending difficulties which communities, and some communities on the Gulf Islands may soon face.
For this reason it is hardly surprising to find that the greatest concentration of Pink-Collar workers are located in the West Core, the eastern part of Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, where the most inexpensive and greatest number of rental apartments can be found, (Table 12 and 13). Since this group of service workers make up the lower echelons of the economy of the urban spectacle this may present problems for the economy of the urban spectacle as it expands. While the escalation of housing prices that are bound to accompany the expansion of the economy of the urban spectacle will not prevent upper echelon workers from settling in the inner city, this will not be the case for lower echelon workers in the Pink-Collar sectors who may be significantly threatened by displacement.
Having outlined the makeup of the blue, white and pink-collar workforces, it is now possible to how, rising land values,, the emergence of a new middle class, and the shifting occupational profile of city have worked in combination to shrink the working class while transforming the City of Vancouver into a predominantly middle class settlement space.
Table: 10 Evolution of the Blue Collar Work Force
Modern Period Post Modern Period
1961 % 1971 % 1986 % 1996 %
Canada 3.601 M 55.6 3.985 M 46.1 5.541 M 43.5 5.458M 38.1
CMA’s 1.736M 50.4 2.082M 40.9 3.030 M 37.5 3.138M 34.5
Metro V 144813 49.1 203520 42.8 271485 36.9 326965 33.8
CV 72974 45.9 79502 39.0 71695 30.3 75105 27.2
Core NA 35.4 8242 30.3 6560 24.1 7925 20.9
EC NA 51.6 948 30.3 590 26.9 2235 22.6
WC NA 30.1 7294 29.4 5970 23.9 5690 20.9
Z NA 50.9 NA 35.2 18220 27.8 19460 24.9
EZ NA 68.4 NA 45.2 9750 33.9 9805 29.7
WZ NA 37.1 NA 30.9 8470 23.2 9655 21.4
Inner NA 47.5 NA 33.9 24780 26.8 27385 23.8
Subs NA 45.2 NA 39.7 46915 32.6 47720 29.6
E Subs NA 57.3 NA 43.7 37729 36.9 38510 32.9
W Subs NA 29.0 11786 30.6 9186 22.0 9210 21.0
Definitions: NA = not available. At the level of local areas for the City of Vancouver, the Blue Collar Labour force was determined by placing all workers who were listed as craftsmen, labourers , as well as workers who were employed in the Transportation sector. CMA’s = metropolitan areas; Metro V = Vancouver CMA, CV = City of Vancouver, Core = West End and Downtown, plus CT 58, EC = Downtown plus CT 58, WC = West End, Z = Transition Zone in the Modern Period and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in the Postmodern Period, EZ = Strathcona – CT 58, plus Grandview Woodlands and Mount Pleasant, WZ = Kitsilano and Fairview, Inner = all local areas situated in Z and the Core. Suburbs = all local areas outside the Core and Z. W subs = West Point Grey, Aurbutus Ridge, Shaunesshey, Kerrisdale, Oarkridge, South Cambie, Dunbar-Southlands; ES = Local areas situated in the suburban part of the city outs ide the Western Suburbs.
Notes: Percentage were calculated by dividing each sector by All Industries rather than total Labour Force. Figures for regions within the City of Vancouver are not directly comparable with the City and the Region. Data for local areas within the city uses a functional rather than sectoral classification. For example, using the sectoral classification system the number of blue collar workers numbers 144813 or 49.1% of employees in all industrial sectors. Using the functional classification system only 109943 workers are listed as being blue collar workers, making up 37% of the labour force rather than 49.1% which is the percentage derived from using the sectoral classification scheme.. Similarly, for the City of Vancouver, using the functional classification system,34.4% of workers are situated in the Blue Collar Sector compared to 45.9 which is the percentage derived from using the sectoral classification system. For the region the percentage difference amounts to a difference of 12%. However for the city the difference is 10.5%. To estimate the percentage of Blue Collar workers in each local area 10.5% has been added to the percentage derived from using the functional classification system. Because this is an estimate figures will be presented only as percentages. Note as well, if we exclude the West End from the calculation for the Blue Collar Labour Force in the Inner City of Vancouver for 1961 the percentage of the workforce made up Blue Collar workers increases to 48.3%. Similarly if the Western Suburbs and the West End are excluded from the calculation for the City in 1961 the percentage of Blue Collars Workers increases to 50% of the workforce outside these two areas. Because CT 58 contains so few workers it was not included in the Calculation for the EC. For example. Except the WS, where the sample closely approximates the actual boundary, only percentages rather than absolute figures are presented.In local Areas where a sample was taken
Sources: CD-ROM, 1996 Census, Dimension Series: Labour Force and Unpaid Labour of Canadians,94F006XCB; 1986 Census, Census Metropolitan Areas, Cat No. 93-156, March 1989; 1961 Census, Bulletin CT-22, June 20,1963, Cat No. 95-537
Starting with the blue-collar workforce, several important shifts can be identified. Even though the blue-collar labour force in the City of Vancouver was not as large as the region or other Census Metropolitan Areas, it made up the largest component of the labour force, accounting for 46 per cent of all worker in 1961. Employment levels also show that the inner city had a slightly higher proportion of blue-collar workers than the suburbs – something that would be reversed in the postmodern era.
However, the uneven distribution of blue-collar workers between the East and West sides of the city emerges as the most distinctive feature during the modern period On the West side (consisting of the West End, Kitsilano and Fairview, as well as the Western Suburbs), the proportion of blue-collar workers vacillated from 29 to 37 per cent of the labourforce. On the East side ( made up the East Core, the Eastern part of the Transitional Zone and the Eastern suburbs) blue-collar workers made up between 52 to 68 per cent of the workforce: twice that of the West side.(Table 10),
This difference complemented the even greater division which could be observed in the number of middle class residents living in the East and West Sides of the City (Table 8). For while the blue-collar workforce on the West Side was roughly half that of the East, the number of middle class residents living on the West Side was about four times that of the East. Both these figures highlight the sharp difference that once existed between East and West, which was one of the most salient feature of the social ecology of the modern city -- a division that not only affected the economic geography, but the political and social culture of the city as well, with West side politics dominated by business interests and East side politics by those of labour.
In the postmodern era this sharp division begins to fade as the blue-collar workforce ceases to be the largest employment sector. With the percentage of blue-collar workers descending from 46 to 27 per cent of the labour force between 1961 and 1996 this se ctor becomes the smallest rather than largest of the three employment groups.
What is also interesting to note is that the decline is much more rapid in the City than the Region. Whereas the number of blue-collar workers in the region dropped from 49.1 to 33.8 per cent between 1961 and 1971 –- a drop of 15.3 per cent; in the City the number of blue-collar workers fell from 45.9 to 27.2 per cent -- a drop of 18.7 per cent. One reason for the more rapid rate of decline in the city would no doubt have to do with the outward dispersion of industry, but just as significant is the massive conversion of industrial land into residential and recreational uses along False Creek, the North Arm of the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet.
Once again it is possible to see how this affected population flows by looking at the migration of South Asians, who have historically been heavily concentrated in the blue-collar sector. In the 1950’s the most visible part of this community was located along False Creek. However, with urban renewal this population moves south, near the industrial lands of the Fraser River. However, with the further conversion of industrial land and rising land prices, the epi-centre of the South Asian community moves outside of the City altogether, as North Delta and and North West Surrey become the main settlement space for the South Asian population.
The gradual convergence between the eastern and western parts of the city in the postmodern era can partially be attributable to the decline in blue-collar employment Although the proportion of blue-collar workers on the East side still remains higher than the West there is a considerable reduction in this gap, For example, on the West side blue-collar workers made up 21 per cent of the labourforce in 1996. At the same time, on the East side the number of blue-collar workers accounted for between 23 and 33 per cent of the labour force.
Compared to 1961 when the East Side had twice the proportion of blue-collar workers as the West side, by 1996 this difference is reduced to a third. So not only does the more rapid decline of the blue-collar labourforce tell us that the City of Vancouver had become more of a white-collar city since the end of the modern era, the switch from blue to white-collar employment has also played an important role in softening the long standing division between the East and West parts of the city, which was one of the most entrenched features of the modern era.
As the number of blue-collar workers decreased in Vancouver, there was a dramatic expansion in the white-collar workforce. And just as Blue-Collar employment declined more rapidly in the City of Vancouver, the opposite occurs when we look at the evolution of White-Collar employment, as the white-collar sector moves from being the smallest to largest employment group and the Blue-Collar workforce moves from being the largest to the smallest employment sector between 1961 and 1996 (Table 11).
In 1961 both the Region and the City had approximately the same proportion of White-Collar workers. Consequently neither stood out as specialized centre for white-collar employment in the modern era. However this changes in the postmodern era, as the proportion of White-Collar workers climbs 10 per cent above the region
5.2 Overall Summary of Findings
Reviewing the findings, the following summary can be made. From each of the different shifts that have been discussed so far it has been possible to identify specific spatial changes which set the modern city apart from the postmodern city in Vancouver
Distilled into a few meta-observations three main transformations can be identified. The first and most obvious one involves the transformation of working class space into middle class space. With the decline of the Blue-Collar labourforce and the expansion of the White-Collar workforce an immense middle class migration into the city was set in motion. As this happened, the discourse on social marginality with regard to the inner city and the suburb would be completely reversed. Similarly, the deeply ingrained social divisions that had once existed between the east and west sides of the city would begin to dissolve.
The second transformation would involve the transformation of Caucasian space into Asian space. Just as the settlement polarity of middle class settlement was reversed, we see long standing settlement patterns which governed the location of new immigrants altered in several significant ways. Instead of the suburbs functioning as a zone of stability and assimilation, as was the case in the modern period, in the postmodern period social flux and social differentiation increased markedly. For example during the modern period most immigrants were European. They also tended to be concentrated in the inner city. But in the postmodern era we see the exact opposite. Now the suburbs have the highest concentration of immigrants. Moreover, most of these immigrants are noww Asian rather than Caucasian.
The third change would involve the transformation of producer spaces into spaces of consumption. With more income freed up from the demands of child rearing, and investment in new consumer landscapes by the Asian and Caucasian middle class, the industrial landscapes, which once were so visible in the inner city, would almost as new landscapes of consumption emerged in their place with the rise of the economy of the urban spectacle.
Together these three threads of transformation created the distinctive settlement weave which sets the geography of postmodern city so clearly apart from its modern predecessor.
Before moving on it is helpful to look how these three transformation erased old social, political, and economic fault lines that had defined the modern city, inverting the position of inner city and suburb, while bringing about a much slower but significant convergence between the Eastern and Western parts of the City.
Although rapid population growth was a defining feature of the modern and postmodern eras, the reconfiguration of the elements responsible for this growth between the modern era and the postmodern era created an entirely new settlement dynamic in the postmodern period. As immigration shifted from Europe to Asia, Vancouver became more of an Asian city. The class composition of the city also changed. With the new middle class electing to stay in Vancouver rather than move out to the suburbs this, along with the migration of middle and upper middle class Asian immigrants into Vancouver, would alter the class makeup of Vancouver. As the space taken up by the middle class expanded, the space occupied by the working class population began to shrink. With this development the gap between the east and west sides of the city have gradually been erased. These developments would also change the position of the suburbs in relation to the inner city. Not only did the middle class transformation of Vancouver lessen the long standing division between east and west sides of the city; the middle class colonization of the inner city also inverted the social status and demographic profile of the inner city in relation to the suburbs. For instance, in the modern period the population of the inner city was much older than the suburbs. However, in the postmodern period this relation would be reversed, as the population of the inner City became much younger than in the suburbs (Table 15). Similarly in the modern era the inner city was primarily configured as a working class settlement zone. However, in the postmodern era we see that middle class became more prominent in the inner city than in the suburbs (Table 8)
To show how this has taken place data referred to so far can be brought forward to organized to illustrate how the relationship between the inner city and the suburb, and the east and west sides of the city were transformed because of these changes.
Since most of the defining demographic features of the modern city reached their fullest development in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, data from the 1961 Census will be used as a benchmark for the modern period. Similarly figures just released from the 1996 Census will be used as a benchmark for postmodern era.
5. 2.1 - Inner city Versus the Suburbs
Beginning with the dichotomy between the inner city and the suburb, starting with overall demographics (Table 17). While Vancouver’s population did much better than most other central cities in North American cities after the war; nevertheless, overall growth was quite modest when compared with the rest of the City and the Region.
For example, between 1951 and 1961 the population of the inner city grew from about 142,000 to 147,000, or 4.2 per cent. This was far behind the city’s overall growth rate of 11 per cent, and the 50 per cent growth rate experienced by the region (Table 17). In terms of economic development, and population growth, what this variation highlights is that the suburbs, rather than the inner city, were clearly the most dynamic area of the region at this time.
Table : 17 Overall Demographics
Modern Era Postmodern Era
Population
1961 % Pop growth
1951 to 1961 Population
1996 % Pop growth
1986 to 1996
CMA 790165 50% 1831665 32%
CV 384522 11% 514008 19%
Inner City 147498 4.% 186665 22%
Suburbs 237024 17% 327903 18%
Sources
Notes: Sources: 1956 Census, Vancouver, Bulletin 4-14, 1957 1961 Census, Vancouver Census Tracts, 95-537, June 1963; Vancouver Local Areas 1996, released by the Community Services Department, City of Vancouver, March 1999.
Notes: Abbreviiations: - CMA refers to Census Metropolitan areas/CV refers to the City of Vancouver. Suburbs refers to suburbs located in the City of Vancouver
However, if we now look at demographics of the postmodern city we find the situation reversed. For example, between 1986 and 1996 the population of the inner city increased from 153,000 to about 187,000, a 22 per cent increase, providing a striking contrast to the 4 per cent gain experienced by the inner city between 1951 and 1961.
Even more remarkable, is the precipitous decline in the gap between the region and the inner city. With the population of the region expanding by 32 per cent between 1986 and 1996, the gap between the inner city and the region was reduced from over 1000 in 1961 per cent to 30 per cent in 1996, marking a changeover which probably has no parallel in North America.
As pointed out earlier, education can be used as a surrogate measure for social class. When we therefore look at the middle class, a similar demographic reversal appears. In 1961, 8.1 per cent of the adult population has some university education, compared to 9.1 per cent for the City and 8.7 per cent for the region. By contrast, in 1996 30.5 per cent of the adult population had some university education. In the city the percentage was 37.5. In the inner City the percentage was 43.3, while the proportion of university educated adults in the suburbs stood at 33.5 per cent. Instead of trailing the region, city, or suburbs, the inner city has since became the most concentrated middle class settlement area in the region.
Other demographics reveal a similar split between the inner city and the suburbs with regard to immigration. Data from the 1961 Census shows that the inner city was clearly the main immigrant portal for the region. With 52 per cent of the inner city made up of immigrants, the number of immigrants in the inner city stood well above the suburbs and the region, where only 29 per cent of the population in each locality was made up of immigrants.
This situation is completely inverted when we look at the immigrant profile of the inner city in relation to the suburbs of the City of Vancouver and the region in the postmodern era. Unlike the modern period, the proportion of immigrants falls below that of the suburbs and the Region as the proportion of immigrants living in the inner city decreased to 34 per cent of the overall population by 1996 (Table 16).
Just the opposite happens in the suburbs of Vancouver. With only 29 per cent of the population of the suburbs made up of immigrants in 1961 the proportion of immigrants living in the suburban communities of the City of Vancouver rested well below the level recorded for the city (34 per cent) and the inner city (52 per cent). However, by 1996 we see that this once barren ground for immigrants becomes transformed into the region’s most fertile ground for immigrants.
There is also a noticeable change in the attraction of the inner city for European and Asian Immigrants. In 1961 only 9 per cent of the immigrant population in the Region was Asian, In the City 14 per cent of immigrant population was Asian. In the suburbs there were even fewer Asians, with only 9 per cent of the immigrant population made up of Asians. By contrast Asians made up 21 per cent of the immigrant population in inner City, twice the level of the Region and 50 per cent above the level found in the City (Table 16).
But in 1996 we see that the relative weight of each group is reversed. In the modern period, there were fewer European immigrants in the inner city (79 per cent) compared to the City (86 per cent) or the Region (89 per cent). Moreover, with European accounting for 90 per cent of the Immigrant population, Vancouver’s were clearly the most population destination point for Europeans in the modern era (Table 16).
Looking at the figures for 1996, we find that this changes during the postmodern era. Rather than having the lowest percentage of Europeans immigrants the inner city now has the largest proportion of European Immigrants – with Europeans making up 34 per cent of the immigrant population, compared to 29 per cent for the region, 23 per cent for the City and 17 per cent for the suburbs. So while the inner city became less important as an immigrant destination, its attraction for European immigrants increased significantly.
Just the opposite happens with the Asian population. In the modern period the inner city had the highest concentration of Asians in the Region. This changed in the postmodern era. Although the percentage of Asian Immigrants increased from 34 to 47 per cent between 1961 and 1996,, this increased trailed well behind the region, where the percentage of Asian Immigrants moved froom 11 to 56 per cent of the Immigrant population, or the City, where the percentage of Asian Immigrants increased from 14 to 65 per cent. The change in the suburbs is even more astonishing, with Asians climbing from 9 to 72 per cent of the Immigrant population.
Once again another examples of the role reversal that took place between the inner city and the suburbs can be pointed to. In the modern era, the suburbs were the bastion of European immigrants. Conversely, the inner city was the main destination point of Asian Immigrants. However in the postmodern era it is the suburbs which become the main destination point for Asian Immigrants. At the same time the inner city’s attractiveness to European immigrants had grown.
Finally, as the data from the 1961 Census shows (Table 15), at a time when the population was becoming much younger because of the baby boom, the inner city stood out as a demographic aberration due to the high number of people over 65.. In a child and work centred culture where middle class success was confirmed by moving out to the suburbs and securing employment with a large government or private corporation, this pocket of seniors, not connected to the workforce, provided yet another example of social deviation which made the inner city problematic for planners, as the inner city appeared as a threatening anomoly within the larger urban social order that defined the modern period.
On the West side of the Core planners worried about the concentration of elderly women. Similarly, on the East side, planners fretted about a large and aging transient male population, which was viewed as even more troublesome than the concentration of retired females on the West side.
5.2 .2 - The Gradual dissolution of the East/West Divide
Having briefly reviewed the most salient features of the divisions that set the inner city apart from the suburbs it is now time to look at what happened to the sharp division between East and West. If changes between the inner city and the suburbs involved several dramatic role reversals, the changes that can be observed between the East and Western parts of the City were not as sensational. Instead of a reversal in roles the broad trend which emerges between the modern and postmodern eras is one of convergence.
The movement of three variables, one having to do with the number of of middle class residents in each zone, the second,, the number of immigrants, and the third, the number of Chinese speaking residents, can be enlisted to show the various degrees of convergence between the East and West sides of the City,
Table: 18 The Reconfiguration of the East and West Side of Vancouver
West Side East Side
1961 1976 1986 1996 1961 1976 1986 1996
MC Percentage of adult population with some University
CMA 9% 31%
City 9% 37%
Inner 11% 52% 3% 31%
Core 13% 44% 3% 35%
ZMCR 11% 58% 4% 30%
Subs 19% 49% 4% 28%
Immig Percentage of Population who are immigrants
CMA 29% 35%
City 36% 44%
Inner 41% 30% 45% 39%
Core 47% 34% 55% 32%
ZMCR 38% 25% 43% 41%
Subs 30% 49% 29% 50%
CMT Percentage of Population with Chinese as a Mother Tongue
CMA 2% 13%
CV 4% 25%
Inner 4% 2% 5% 17% 20% 19%
Core 4% 1% 4% 27% 7% 15%
ZMCR 2% 2% 6% 15% 22% 21%
Subs 1% 7% 27% 2% 20% 34%
Sources: Vancouver Local Areas 1996, March 1999, City of Vancouver Communities Services.1961 Census, Vancouver, 95-537, 1963
Starting with the middle class (Table 18), During the modern era we find the gap between East and West quite striking.. In 1961 the middle class population located in the Western part of the inner city accounted for 11 per cent of the adult population, compared to 3 per cent on the East side.. Translated into a ratio of convergence, where 1 equals parity between East and West, we find that the ratio of divergence in 1961 stands at 3.6.
In the suburbs the gap is even larger, with 19 per cent of the adult population in the Western suburbs belonging to the middle class, compared to 4 per cent for the East side, the ratio of convergence stands at 4.8.
By 1996 the ratio of convergence is halved in both the inner city and the suburbs. While the ratio descends from 3.6 to 1.7 in the inner city, in the suburbs the ration fallls from 4.8 to 1.75 between 1961 and 1996 (Table 18).
The same convergence can be found if we look at immigration. In 1961 the convergence rate for the inner city was .91 with 41 per cent of the population on the West side of the inner city made up of immigrants. On the East side this was 45 per cent. However, between 1961 and 1996 the convergence ratio expands to .77., as the East side better retains its vestigal role as an immigrant portal. So while the proportion of immigrants on the West side of the inner city falls from 41 to 30 per cent, compared to 45 and 39 per cent on the East side, or about half the rate of decline on the West side, the decline on the East side was much more muted.
In this regard, the suburbs present a different picture. In 1961 the convergence ratio was 1.04. At this time 30 per cent of the population of the Western suburbs consisted of immigrants. On the East side immigrants made up 29 per cent of the population. By 1996 the convergence ratio falls slightly to about 1.00 with immigrants making up 49 per cent of the population on the West side and 50 per cent on the East Side. Here the spectacular, yet uniform growth of immigrants attests to the fact that a new settlement zone has been created out of two areas that were quite disparate in the modern age.
This is further confirmed if we look at the number of people whose mother tongue is Chinese.. For the inner city the convergence ratio was .24, with 4 per cent of the population on the West side of the inner city having Chinese as their mother tongue. By contrast, 17 per cent of population on the East side of the inner city had Chinese as their mother tongue (Table 18).
In the suburbs the convergence ratio ,50, On the West Side 1 per cent of the population had Chinese as their mother tongue,, compared to 2 per cent on the East side.
Between 1961 and 1996 the convergence ratio for the inner city went from ,24 to ,26. Likewise, in the suburbs the convergence ratio went from .50 to .80. Just as with the figures for immigration, shifts in the location of people with Chinese as their mother tongue points to dramatic changes generated by immigration in comparison to the inner city. In the modern era the Eastern and Western parts of the inner city and the suburbs had more in common with each other than they do now. For instance, if we look at immigration and then compare the Western parts of the inner city and the suburbs with each other we find the convergence ratio moving from .73 to 1.28. However, instead of this dramatic movement bringing about convergence both areas became more dissimilar.
While this disconnection is less obvious on the East side rather than the West side when only immigration is taken into consideration, the trend line for a whole host of variables shows that the move to convergence rather than divergence is building. This becomes particularly evident if more recent comparisons are made. For example, until the 1980’s the increase in the number of middle class residents living in the Eastern suburbs lagged behind most other areas in the City.
Thus, during the 1970’s there was only a one per cent increase in the proportion of middle class residents. However, between 1986 and 1996 there was a six per cent increase in middle class residents. Although the number of middle class people living in the Eastern suburbs is still well below the average for the City (26 versus 37) recent trends show that convergence is building, especially when comparisons are made with the Western Suburbs, where there was only a one per cent increase in the relative size of the middle class population between 1986 and 1996 (Table 8).
This convergence, the middle class infiltration of the East side is further highlighted if comparisons are made to the Region and other large metropolitan areas. In 1961 the proportion of middle class residents in the Eastern suburbs stood at 4. per cent compared to 8.7 per cent for the region, 9. per cent for the City, and 8 per cent for other large metropolitan areas in general. With 26. per cent of the population located in the Eastern suburbs made up of middle class residents in 1996, compared to 31 per cent for the region, 37 per cent for the City, and 28 per cent. Despite the large gap that still exists with regard to the City, near convergence with the region and other large urban areas reveal that in a national and regional context working-class space is being quickly eroded.
Shifts in the workforce show the same thing (Tables 10, 11, 12). Although the proportion of the blue-collar labourforce in the Eastern suburbs is still larger than the City as a whole, with only 33 percent of the labourforce involved in blue-collar activities, compared to 34 per cent for Greater Vancouver and 35 per cent for other large urban areas. So while the Eastern suburbs stand out as a working-class space in relation to the City, this distinction ceases to hold if the Eastern suburbs of Vancouver are looked at in a regional and national context.
5.3 - The Burgess Model and the Concentric Settlement Zones of Vancouver
So far the macro-economic and demographic forces that reshaped the inner city and the suburb and the East and West sides of the City, has revealed some general aspects about the transformation of working class space into middle class space, the displacement of Caucasian space by Asian space, and the transformation of producer spaces into consumer spaces. Using this broad brush analysis as the point of departure for a more detailed look at the postmodern transformation of Vancouver we can now proceed to the region rather than just look at the city, and at what has happened to the five main concentric settlement zones which make up the region .
Before doing this it is first necessary to briefly mention the concentric model of the city devised by Burgess (1925), which will be used as the template for this part of the analysis. Except for the sharp divide between East ;and West, the settlement patterns derived by Burgess’ analysis of the industrial city in Chicago,, closely approximated what could be found in Vancouver. Even though Vancouver was never an industrial city, nontheless there was a significant industrial land base in the inner city which mirrowed what could be found in Chicago Furthermore, when the amendments made to this model by other in the Chicago School, such as Hoyt and Ullman and Harris are taken into account (Theodorson 1961), the similarities become even more appreciable.
The empirical and conceptual match between Vancouver and Chicago is more than just coincidental. For not only did the concentric city model provide a useful description of the city, in addition to this, it also acted as powerful ideological buttress for the institution of modern regulatory norms. which became the basis for organizing space by the emerging planning profession which was coming into existence during the 1920.’s. So as well as being a reflection of the real economic and demographic forces that were shaping the city; the portrayal of the North American city by the Chicago School also must be seen as a condensation and projection of progressivist ideology which the traditional middle class took up as a program to bring order back to the city at the turn of the century.
Consequently, when looking at Burgess’s it is important not to forget the assumptions about life in the city which inform his division of space and the way hierarchical ordering of each settlement zone. The polarity that is shown to exist between the city and the suburbs, where the social deviance of the inner city is contrasted with the normality of the suburbs, displays the ambivalence that Chicago School theorist’s had towards the city.
This is most clearly revealed in the link that Burgess model draws between social advancement and movement in space. Progress, and order was achieved by moving from the core to the periphery of the city. Except for small elite enclaves, such as the Gold Coast, in the case of Chicago, or parts of the West End and South Granville in the case of Vancouver, residence in the inner city symbolized social marginality (fig 3).
In this fashion the geography of class in the modern city was clearly laid out. While the suburbs were to be the redoubt for the middle class, the city was conceived as a working class space, In otherwords, it was a place of low status where unassimilated elements of the city, such as new immigrants, were to be found.. The Burgess model was therefore an assimilationist, a model where the search for social conformity takes precedence over the celebration of difference Consequently, movement outwards becomes a journey of assimilation. Likewise, in such a model movement to the centre of the city is viewed as a sign of regression.
Migration through the various zones not only involves a change in location, it also involves a social transformation, one defined by a movement away from the working class to incorporation into the middle class. Similarly, immigrants were expected to be lose their ethnic identify and become defined by the larger culture. Tension creating by ethnic and class differences are expected to be covered over through incorporation of upwardly mobile populations into one common material culture that is expected to become the acme or the end point for all social groups wishing to advance in the modern city.
In the postmodern era these assumptions about space become far less tenable. With the counter culture, and the rapid expansion of white-collar employment in government oriented fields, a new middle class fractions emerges. As it emerged this new middle class underwent a cultural inversion, which turned things completely around. The archetype of the organization man, which symbolized middle class conformity in the modern age, begins to lose its hold. With the artist and the entrepreneur rather than the bureaucrat cast as the new cultural heroes space begins to be looked at in a different way. Old association between marginality and the inner city were abandoned, as the migration patterns of the middle class were reversed. With this, marginal sub-cultures that once caused the middle class to shun the city now act as magnets.
This would completely transform the social ecology of the city. For the middle class social advancement now became associated with the movement back to the inner city rather than migration to the suburbs. Urban decay, once confined to the inner city, now moves out to the older mature suburbs as they lose much of their allure to the middle class. Not surprising, in the postmodern age, urban renewal becomes as closely aligned to suburban renewal rather than renewal of the inner city, with city planners and politicians called in to devise ambitious plans for the urbanization of the suburbs to arrest the decline of the suburbs and to attract the middle class back to the suburbs from the inner city or exurbia.
In Vancouver, the most notable example of this would be the redevelopment Whalley in the City of Surrey and the redevelopment of the waterfront in New Westminister. Lesser examples can be cited as well, such as the redevelopment of the Marllardivlle, in the suburb of Coquitlam. Here, to a certain extent, it is possible to see how the bourgeois colonization of the city in the postmodern period finds its opposing corollary in the proletarianization of abandoned suburban spaces. Skid Row no longer just has an urban address. As well it now has several addresses in the Suburbs, ranging from the Como Lake Road area in Coquitlam, to the Eastern part of Kingsway highway in the Edmonds area of Burnaby (Figure 10). As the Zone of Discard (or the Transitional Zone), in particular was broken up by gentrification the marginal spaces of the city travel to the suburbs,.However, instead being reconstituted as another contiguous settlement ring further out in the suburbs, the Zone of Discard disappears entiirely, as it fragments and disperses into suburban pockets undergoing disinvestment (F igure 10; figure 9A).
Even though the silence on space and class, which is extremely important to understanding the significant of the division between East and West within Vancouver during modern period, and the presence of other biases and limitations of the Burgess model should be recognized, this should not take away from underlying usefulness of the model.
5.4 – Reviewing the five major Concentric Zones of the Modern Era
Despite the deficiencies of the Burgess model it still provides us with a template from which comparisons of the settlement geography of the modern and postmodern city can be made. Looking at the Burgess model we see that the city was divided up into five concentric settlement zones (Figure three). At the same time there are also a number of non-concentric settlement patterns which will be looked at (Figure. 11A).
The first zone is called the Loop (Figure 3). This is where industry, commercial and retail services for the entire region are located. Commonly known as the Central Business District, this is where redevelopment pressures are the most powerful. During the modern period this was also the focal point for mass consumption because of the concentration of department stores in the Core and the presence of mass transit..
As already mentioned, the second settlement ring was called the zone of discard. Surrounding the core, this settlement zone was viewed as transitional area. Since disinvestment made this zone the shock absorber for the entire region, this was where new immigrants, the poor and most marginalized social groups in the city were first housed. Viewed as a place of contagion and social pathology, the zone of discard was avoided by the middle class and the respectable working class. Looked upon as a buffer between the core and the healthier urban tissue located farther out, this area tended to have the loosest reisidental zoning regulations in the city.
In a period when planners sought to create homogeneous settlement zones the mixed land uses that predominated in the Zone of Discard became especially anathema to the spatial sensibilities of the modern.
For this reason the Zone of Discard often became the prime target for urban redevelopment initiatives. In Vancouver planners called this area a collar of blight. Not surprisingly this areas became the main focal point for Sutton Brown’s, the City’s first planning director, ambitious redevelopment schemes.
Between the Core and the Zone of Discard Burgess identifies a Factory Zone which straddles both the Loop and the Transition Zone (Figure 3) . This zone corresponds quite closely to what could be found in Vancouver during the modern period. Situated along Burrard Inlet and False Creek, with more than 500 hectares given over to light and heavy industrial uses, the factory zone stood out as the most visible industrial landscape in the region during the modern era. Similarly, the presence of this zone also helps to explain why blue-collar employment in the Eastern part of the inner city remained so concentrated, with over 60 per cent the inner city compared to 46 per cent for the City (Table 10).
Burgess calls the third zone a Zone of Workingmens Homes This zone existed in Vancouver, but it was reconfigured differently. Instead of being a concentric settlement zone which surrounded the Core, this zone was organized in a sectoral fashion on the East Side of the City.. Not only did this reflect the class geography of modern Vancouver, which the Chicago school had tended to give little emphasis, to the sharp East/West divide also came about because of the machinations of the CPR, which was the most important land developer in the city at this time (Gibson72) For this reason the Zone of Workingmens took form as a wedge, which wqas more reminiscent of the sector model of Homer Hoyt the than initial one proposed by Burgess.
Finally, in terms of the region, this Zone extended out from East Vancouver, taking in Burnaby, Port Moody and New Westminister.
Burgess’s characterizes the fourth settlement ring as the Zone of Residents, This was the place where the assimilate people from the inner city would be expected to live with the respectable middle class. As with the Zone of Workingmens Homes, in Vancouver this Residential zone was organized sectorally rather than in a concentrically. However, unlike the Zone of Workingmens Homes, the Residential Zone was situated to the West.
Just as the Zone of Workingmens Homes extended Eastwards, far beyond the City of Vancouver, so too, in the case of the middle class residential zone, we find that it extends North and South, rather than East and West, running from West Vancouver, to Richmond.
Although the same RS-1 zoning was applied to both the Zone of Workingmens Homes and the middle class Residential Zone, class differences significantly modified how this zoning was applied. On the West side RS-1 regulations were rigorously enforced to preserve the middle class character of the West side. However on the East side the same zoning regulations were less stringently enforced. This, combined with the unequal allocation of resources from the city, further accentuated the differences betweenn theworking class and middle class suburbs of Vancouver (Gibson 1972).
The fifth settlement is called the commuting zone. Made up working class and middle class residents, in Vancouver, the working class populations in this zone were concentrated around fishing plants and lumber mills that were generally located along the Fraser River. In contrast to the exurban working class, the middle class were more dispersed, since many occuppied acreage further out in the country. Less densely developed than the other zones, most growth took place alongside transportation corridors which provided access to the Core.
During the modern period this zone took in the North Shore, the eastern suburbs of Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Port Moody. To the South exurbia embraced most other communities located on the South Shore of the Fraser River. As with the Burgess model, exurban development remained largely dependent upon the interurban rail networks, which for Vancouver, extended Eastwards all the way to Chilliwack, in the Fraser Valley, with another link to the South, terminating in the fishing village of Steveston (Figure 11)..
Later on in the modern period, the construction of bridges provided the impetus for even more dispersed exurban development, With the construction of the Lions Gate and Patallo Bridges in the 1930’s development on the North Shore and Surrey gained momentum, further increasing when the Second Narrows bridge, the Deas Island Tunnel and the Port Mann bridge were constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s.. So while exurban development in the early modern era was closely tied into the inter-urban rail network, in the late modern period a much more amorphous pattern of exurban development took hold because of the decline of rail transportation and the advent of freeways (Hardwick ; Gyw).
shape (Figure 3).
With the inauguration of a commuter rail service along the North Shore in the mid 90’s, this may be changing. With active consideration being given to a rail link between Richmond and Whistler, development in the late postmodern era may revert to a more rail centred pattern of development (figure 11)
5.5 - An introduction and overview of the postmodern social ecology of Greater Vancouver
Using the framework provided Burgess as template the postmodern geography of Vancouver can now be mapped out. Beginning with the Core, we see that it corresponds to the Loop (Diagram ). However the land use dynamic is quite different. Like Chicago, during the modern period industrial and commercial space were once the dominant land uses in Vancouver’s Core. However, this situation was reversed in the postmodern era.
Instead of retreating residential land uses began to expand. Because of this switch over Ccmmerical spaces ceased to be the dominant land use. Although the Core remains the most important business centre in the region, it has also been converted into one of the most active residential markets in the metropolitan area. Covering nearly 7 sq kilometres, with about 62,0000 people living here in 1996, during the 1990’s the Core became, by far, the fastest growing residential precinct in the region. The regional significance of this amazing growth surfaces in housing statistics for the Core. Although the Core only takes up 600 hectares, more than 16,000 housing starts were begun here between 1990 and 1999. So while only making up three per cent of the region’s population the Core accounted for 10 per cent of all housing starts in the region between 1990 and 1999 -- an incredible rate of growth for an area entirely dependent upon redevelopment for new growth rather than expansion on greenfield sites.
Table: 19 Demographic Overview of Vancouver’s Postmodern Geography
1996 Area Population Immigrants Asian
CMA 2820,70 1831665 633740 355270
% NA NA 34.9 19.6
CV 113.00 514008 228230 149740
% 4.0 28.0 44.9 29.4
Core 6.75 61757 20605 7440
% 0.002 3.3 33.3 12.0
ZMCRS 19.85 124348 43455 23065
% 0.7 6.7 34.6 18.5
ZARS 256.26 714721 331600 227361
% 9.0 39.0 46.3 31.7
Inner ZARS 86.90 327905 164170 119235
% 3.0 17.9 50.0 36.3
Outer ZARS 170.17 386816 167430 108125
% 6.0 21.0 43.2 27.9
ZCRS 411.56 716811 188000 81835
% 14.5 39.1 26.2 11.4
Inner Exurbia 2125.94 214032 49880 15570
% 75.3 11.6 23.3 7.2
Outer Exurbia 4530 61239 10860 1405
% NA 3.3 17.7 2.2
Definitions:
Notes: Unlike the inner Exurban Zone, the Outer Exurban Zone lies outside the boundaries of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. While the Inner Exurban zone is generally contiguous, the Outer Exurban Zone is much more scattered, incorporating parts of the Greater Victoria Regional District (i.e. the Gulf Islands; resort areas in Whatcom Couty, in Washington State; To the North the Outer Exurban Zone takes in the Sunshine Coast, Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton.
Sources: Vancouver Local Areas 1996, Community Services, City of Vancouver, March 1999; Profile of Census Divisions and Subdivisions in British Columbia, Cat 95-191-XPB, March 1999; Profile of Census Tracts in Abbotsford and Vancouver, Cat No. 95-213-XPB, March 1999.
When the results from the 2001 census are tallied figures for the Core will likely show the population approaching or surpassing the 70,000 mark. This would translate into a population increase of about 20,000 between 1991 and 20001, an astonishing increase of forty per cent in just one decade. Furthermore, if projections showing the population of the Core rising to 100,00 at built out are realized, overall population density in the Core will continue to even approach 15,000 per sq. kilometres. If this happens Vancouver’s Core will become the densest in the country as densities would come within range of the highest densities ever recorded for Montreal, which once had the highest Core densities in the country before the Second World War. However unlike Montreal, where such high densities were interpreted as the most prominent signs of urban pathology because much of the population in its Core then consisted of a growing working class population facing severe overcrowding and social deprivations, in the case of Vancouver we see that this discourse on density, class and urban pathology is completely turned inside out. Instead of signifying pathology, in Vancouver’s Core we see how density has been transformed into a positive measure of urbanity for the urban middle class, who have begun to rapidly displace the working class populations that once resided in the Core.
However, even before built out Vancouver’s Core will have passed an historic benchmark in its development, when it becomes the densest Core zone in Canada. Indeed this may have already happened since a 20,000 increase in population between 1991 and 2001 would raise the population of density of the Core past 10,000 per sq Kilometre, which is well above the estimated density of 9,000 per sq. kilometre recorded for Toronto’s Core in 1996, which has traditionally had the densest Core area population since the extreme thinning out of Montreal’s Core area population after the mid 1950’s.
This represents a remarkable change from the pre-war period, when Vancouver had one of the most sparsely populated Cores zones in the country. For example, in 1951, before the densification began its transformative postwar progression, the population density of Vancouver’s Core was only 5859 per sq kilometre. Of the four largest Core areas in Canada at the time Vancouver was by far the least dense of the lot. By contrast, population densities in Montreal’s Core were nearly three times higher than those of Vancouver in 1951. Similarly, with over 8,000 people per sq Kilometre, Core densities in Toronto were thirty per cent higher than they were in Vancouver. With over 6,000 per sq. Kilometres, even Winnipeg’s Core was denser than Vancouver’s, despite the fact that Winnipeg was now much smaller than Vancouver.
Furthermore, when we look at other North American cities experiencing significant population increases during the 1990’s the unprecedented nature of the residential transformation of Vancouver’s Core becomes even more pronounced. For example, the population of Manhattan, with a population of 1.5 million in 2000, it can be viewed as the Core for the New York Region. While considerable growth took place, despite its much larger size the population of Manhattan only grew by about 64,524 between 1990 and 1999, an increase of just over 4.3 per cent compared to the 40% gain for Vancouver’s Core. Likewise, for the purpose of making a rough comparison, we can look upon City of San Francisco as the Core for the Greater San Francisco area. With nearly 750,000 people living in San Francisco in 2000, between 1990 and 1998 the city gained 24,000 people an increase of 3.3 per cent. Even though San Francisco was booming, its population only increased by 24,000, or only about 6,000 more than the Core of Vancouver over the same period. With just over 15,000 apartment units constructed between 1990 and 1999 in the City of San Francisco, we see that just as many, if not more multiple units were begun in the Core of Vancouver, as in the entire City of San Francisco
What all these comparisons reveal is the unprecedented expansion of residential space, and the unparalleled transformation of residential space into the dominant land use in the Core. In this regard, it is entirely appropriate that the tallest structure in the Core is no longer a high rise office tower, but a residential/hotel centre, located in the Wall Centre. Similarly, the conversion of the BC Electric Building, into residential units can be viewed as another important symbolic marker of this transformation. Once the most important symbol of modernity in the downtown, both in terms of design and function, the BC Electric Building became harbinger of future office expansion into residential spaces. With the conversion of this office building into residential units we now this icon of the modern age turned into a symbol of the postmodern transformation of the core. No longer a symbol of office expansion it now stands as a symbol of the retreat of office space and the rise to dominance of residential functions in the Core.
Besides the expansion of residential space, the other notable feature about the organization of land uses in the Core during the Postmodern era is the expansion of infrastructure devoted to the support of the economy of the urban spectacle. Compared to postmodern age, the space taken up by these functions in the Core were miniscule. The public realm was weakly developed. As well, the shoreline walkways which now necklace most of the Core did not exist. Other than the art gallery, Queen Elizabeth Theatre, and Theatre Row which once existed along Granville street, there were relatively few regional entertainment attractions which drew people into the Core from the rest of the region.
However with the emergence of the economy of the urban spectacle this changed. Since the economy of the urban spectacles revolves around the consumption and production of experiences, images and ideas, two distinct but related activities drive this emerging sector.
Beginning with the consumption side the most obvious manifestation of economy of the urban spectacle can be seen in the dramatic concentration of regional sport facilities in the Core, such as GM Place and BC Place. Since the mid 1980’s there has also been an explosion of major festival and special events, ranging from the Dragon Boat race, the Molson Indy car race, the annual Vancouver Sun run, the Jazz festival, to a massive fireworks show held each summer in late July and early August. This, along with the celebration of ethnic festivals such as the Chinese New Years, and the celebration of once suppressed sub-cultures, such as annual Gay Pride Parade, has brought millions of people into the Core each year to attend events which did not even exist in the modern period. Similar developments can be seen in Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary, but nowhere else has the economy of the urban spectacle become so noticeable as it has in the case of Vancouver’s Core.
More so than in the past, these development have turned the Core into an entertainment vortex. Even long standing traffic patterns have been altered because of this. Not only is there a morning and afternoon rush hour made up of commuters, with the emergence of the economy of the urban spectacle a third, evening rush hour, has become visible. Unlike the morning and afternoon peaks this evening rush hour is almost entirely made up of consumers seeking experiences rather than work. With the pursuit of experiences becoming more important it is also not surprising to find that the public realm has become more important to the proper functioning of the Core economy and that congestion and management of non-motorized traffic on pedestrian walkways has become a critical traffic management issue.
In the same way that we can observe an explosion in consumer venues, so too on the production side, it is possible to detect a similar regional concentration of functions on the production side. Here the creation of satellite campuses for Simon Fraser University and The BC Institute of Technology illustrate how this is unfolding, as does the concentration of film shoots in Downtown Vancouver and the rapid growth of the new media and other artistically oriented enterprises. Just as residential spaces have invaded downtown office towers, so too we now see high technology and new media enterprises moving into buildings which were once the sole preserve of the corporate office sector.
Last of all, with the Core containing about 37 (about 30.000) per cent of all high-rise residential units in region 75.115). and between between 1995 and 1999 2416 high-rise units were added, comprising an even greater percentage of the high-rise created over this time in the region So not only do we see how the Core has remained the epicentre of the densification process in both the modern and postmodern eras, what the innovations in the design of residential high-rise development and the growing acceptance of high-rise living by a an expanding non-domestic fraction of the new middle class who became the dominant social group in the Core during the 1990’s reveal, is the important role played by the Core as the main incubation for experimentation in high-rise living development. That is why high-rise development in the Core not only stands out as one of the most potent symbols of the modern age in Vancouver; with the reconsideration of high-rise development that began here in the 1980’s, a second generation postmodern landscape composed of high-rises rather than medium rise structures emerged, creating a new layer of high-rise development which made the Core a physical symbol of the postmodern era as well.
What is interesting to note about this aesthetic change over, is how it coincided with the relative decline of the office economy and the rise of the economy of the urban spectacle. For even into the 1980’s most planners and consultants assumed that future residential high-rise development would be tied to further Office expansion but. rapid growth of a second generation of urban middle class professionals who were more closely tied into to the consumerism associated with the economy of the urban spectacle and less to the ideology of urban domesticity, reversed the first postmodern reaction against high-rise building which stood out as a symbolic of modernism. Because they viewed as alienating and unlivable concrete jungles, large parts of Vancouver’s downtown Core was downzoned in the 1970’s, and why the most significant developments in apartment construction such as False Creek, took shape as medium-rise rather than high-rise structures.
But since the middle of the 1980’s, some of the most elaborate zoning and design guidelines for high-rise development have been developed here to accommodate this type of development. Indeed the approach has become so successful it is now seen as a model to follow in Toronto.
Accordingly, the internal spatial organization of the Core is being reshaped by the competition between three types of land uses. with an expanding residential sector, a much slower growing Central Business District, and the rapid expansion of the economy of the urban spectacle driving the struggle over the limited space available for development in the Core.
Moving on to the second concentric ring, Many of the same forces transforming the Core are also at work in the second zone. With the creation of postmodern landscape in this settlement Burgess; zone of discard was transformed into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Three times larger than the Core, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement covers 20 sq kilometrre. With a population of 125,000 in 1996 this zone makes up fifteen per cent of the city of Vancouver’s land area and about one per cent of the region’s land base (figure three; table four).
Moving to the third zone, instead of a Zone of Working Man’s housing we find a Zone of Asian Resettlement. Consisting of an inner and outer ring the Zone of Asian Resettlement embraces the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver, the suburbs of Burnaby and Richmond, as well parts of the District of North Vancouver and North Delta. The inner ring is located entirely with in the City of Vancouver. Covering 86.90 square Kilometers the inner ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement Aacounting for 74 per cent of the land area of the city. In 1996 it had a population of 327,000-and therefore made up 63 per cent of the city’s population.
The outer ring is nearly twice the size of inner ring. Incorporating most of the region’s mature suburbs it covers about 170.17 square kilometres, so it takes up, approximately 6 per cent of the region’s land mass and 21 per cent of the region’s population (Table 19). Together, the inner and outer zone of the Zone of Asian Resettlement contained about 850,0000 or over half of the population of the region, and comprised about 16 per cent of the land area of the region.
In the postmodern era the fourth zone is transformed from an outer suburb into a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement. Primarily made up of the cities of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, parts of Surrey, Delta and Maple Ridge, this zone takes in most of the region’s outer suburbs. 716811 people living here, or about 39 per cent of the region’s population, the Zone of Causcasian Resettlement covers around 65,000 hectares or about 411.56 square Kilometres, making up, up about 14 per cent of the region's land base.
Lastly there is the exurban ring. This is the fifth settlement ring which makes up the postmodern geography of Greater Vancouver. Covering 200,000 hectares, the inner exurban ring takes up more space than any other zone. While most of the areas consists of wilderness, agricultural land and green space, there are large tracts of land available for future development in under-developed parts of Maple Ridge, the Township of Langley, Surrey and the District of North Vanouver. While making up sixty-three per cent of the region's land mass, only about 214,000 people lived here in 1996, or about 12 per cent of the region's population.
Parts of the exurban zone extend outward from the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Although they are not factored into land area and population calculations that have just been presented, they make a second ring of exurbia, that overlaps with the City of Abbotsford (with a population now over 100,000 but which is not included in the population calculation for the second ring because of lower education levels and a lack of major regional recreation infrastructure. So it is quite likely the 2001 Census will show the built up area of Abbottsford become part of the outer suburbs of Vancouver. This will not be the case for However Squamish, Whistler, The Sunshine Coast and the Gulf Islands (where about 25,000 people live) are an integral part of the second ring because they form part of the recreational hinterland of the region. In 1996 this second ring that has a population of about 70,000. This unofficial exurban zone even extends into the United States, where resort communities such as Birch Bay and Point Roberts, in Whatcom County, function as appendages to Vancouver (fig 5).
5.6 - First Settlement Zone: The Core ( Downtown Peninsula )
Having briefly introduced each of the five concentric zones, each separate zone can now be looked at in more detail. Beginning with the first zone, we see that the Core contains two of the twenty-two local areas which the city is divided into. To the East there is the Downtown. And further to the West there is the West End. (figure4). In addition to these two local areas, Census Tract 58 is also included in the Core
If the Core is compared to other settlement rings, nowhere else in the region do the three facets of the postmodern transformation have had so great an impact –- that is to say the densification of city, the adoption of a new regulatory regimes, and the effect of new migration and immigration patterns.
Starting with densification, if we track population and housing starts the immense impact that the flow of capital and people into the Core becomes strikingly visible..
Like so many other North American Core areas after the Second World War, both investment and people were abandoning the inner city. While property values in the suburban parts of the city were rising, in the Core they were falling. Only with the start of significant amount of investment in apartment buildings in the West End during mid 50’s is it possible to locate the beginning of a densification process which would have no parallel in North America. What is also remarkable about this was the absence of public investment. Unlike many other inner city areas the revival came about because of the market rather than public investment.
Changes in population show just how intense this reversal was. In 1961 (Table 20A) 37540, or about 9.7 per cent of the City of Vancouver’s population lived here. When the 2001 Census is released it will likely show that the Core’s population will have climbed upwards to 73,000. In 1961 the Core only accounted for 9.7 per cent of the City’s population. However, by 2001 this will have increased to 13 per cent. Whereas the city’s population had increased by 41 per cent over this 40 year period, in the Core the gain in population was nearly 100 per cent, or nearly 2 and half times the rate for the city.
Another important feature which makes the Core stand out is gender balance.(Table 20A). While the Core has always had more males than females (55.1 per cent for the Core versus 49.7 for the region in 1961), over time this difference broadens. While percentage of Males in the region remains very stable, moving from 49.7 to 49.1 between 1961 and 1996, just the reverse happens in the Core, as the male population increases from 55.1 per cent of the population to56.4. Just as remarkable is the change which can be observed in the East and West sides of the Core. In 1961 Males only accounted for 45 per cent of the population in the West End. By contrast, Males made up 76 per cent of the population in the East Core. So not only did the Core stand out as a demographic anomaly, this difference becomes even more pronounced if the two sub areas of the Core are examined.
Another intriguing aspect of this demographic change are the shifts which can be observed between the East and Western parts of the Core. In this case the most dramatic change took place in the West End, as the percentage of males moved from 45 to 55.1 per cent of the total population. Since the largest switch over took place between 1971 and 1981, when the West End population declined by 2 per cent the switch over in gender becomes even more striking, as the number of males moves from 45.9 in 1971 to 49.4 per cent, In 1986 the trend continues. As the population almost reaches its 1971 level the proportion of males continues to rise, moving beyond 50 per cent for the first time. If we look at the region it becomes apparent that this is highly unusual since gender is one of the most stable demographic indicators that can be found. As the stable gender balance in the region reveals, unless there has been an economic or natural catastrophe there is very little change in the gender balance of a region or a large and stable neighbourhood such of the West End. As with the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, there was a dramatic substitution in population. For the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement this involved the substitution of a working class population by one that was middle class. But in the West End there was a double transformation. Not only did the West End become more middle class, it also became defined by the migration of a male middle class into the Core. One reasons for this change seem quite clear, since this is the time when the Gay community became a visible entity in the West End.
Within the East Core there are interesting shifts which show the demographic cross current at play in the Core. Between 1961 and 1986 populations losses show that this area was experiencing significant decline. For example, in 1961 the population of the East Core was 12,181. At that time it accounted for 32.4 per cent of the Core’s population. The Low mark was reached in 1986 when there were 8425 people in the East Core, or about 18 per cent of the population of the Core, However by 1996 there is a sharp reversal (Table 20A) as the population rises to its highest level yet, with nearly 20,000 people living here. As a result the proportion of the Core population located in the East Core increased to 32.7, a level higher than that recorded in 1961 when the East Core made up 32.4 of the population. If existing trends continue it is quite possible that the East Core may account for 50 per cent of the Core’s population by 2006..
Besides population convergence, if we look at region and the Core, and then compare the eastern part of the Core to the western part signs of an important convergence emerge, particularly in the case of the male population. In 1961 about 11 per cent of the population was 65 or older. In the Core nearly 20 per cent of the population was over 65. In the West End female seniors predominated (13.5 versus 10 for males). In the East the converse was the case, with male seniors making up more than 25 per cent of the population (versus 3.8 for females).
In 1996 seniors accounted for nearly 12 per cent of the population in region. This represents a slight increase from 1961.. However in the Core the proportion of seniors changes much more rapidly. Instead of increasing, the percentage of seniors nearly falls in half. This near convergence (13 for the Core and 12 for the region) tells us that the Core has become much younger over the past 35 years.. In the West End there was a significant decline in the number of female seniors who dropped from 13.5 per cent of the population in 1961 to 8 per cent in 1996.. In the East Core the number of males experiences an even more precipitous decline, falling from 25 to 8. per cent of the population. Meanwhile there was a slight increase in the number of female seniors, who increased from 3.8 to 4.4 per cent of the population. But overall the Core as a whole, specially the East Core became a much younger place.
This does not mean that there was a significant increase in children living in the Core. In 1961 there were 2518 persons under the age of 15, representing about 6.7 of the population (versus 25.6 for the region and 25.5 for the city). Twenty-five years later the population under 15 underwent an absolute decline, falling from 2518 to 2410, reducing the percentage of the population under 15 from 6.7 to 3.1 per cent of the population (compare to 18.4 for the region and 13.1 for the City of Vancouver. Although there has been a rise in the number of children between 1986 and 1996, the number of children still rests below the 1961 level. Even though the population under 15 is less than it was in 1961, a crisis has developed because the education infrastructure has not kept pace with the increase in students.
If the number of children remains below 1961 levels, this does not apply to teenagers and young adults that occupy the 15 to 24 year old age cohort. In 1961 25.6 per cent of the regional population made up this cohort (25.4 for the city). At this time this cohort only represented 24.5 per cent of the Core, with the East Core going as low as 16 per cent. The only exception to this was the West End where a burgeoning labour force made up of young females helped lift the 15 to 24 age cohort well above the region (28.5 versus 25.6 per cent for the region.)
By 1996 this age cohort accounts for 30 per cent of the region’ s population. But in the Core, however, this youthful population grows much faster. With over 40 per cent of the population in this age cohort, the number of young people now stands well above the regional average. Within the Core the most noticeable shift occurs in the East Core. where the number of young adults rising from 16.2 to 39.1 between 1961 and 1996. This cohort also expands rapidly in the West End, moving from 28.5 to 42.1 per cent of the population. Unlike 1961 when much of this population was made up of young females, in 1996 it is young males who predominate. In fact it is only in the 65 plus age cohort that females still constitute a majority of the population.
Immigration is the last demographic variable which will be looked at. In 1961 immigration accounted for nearly 49 per cent of the Core population (Table 20A). Until 1986 there was an absolute drop in the immigrant population which fell from 18,603 in 1961 to 17,280 in 1986. While there was some absolute growth in the immigrant population between 1986 and 1996, as their numbers rose from 17,280 to 20,605, this growth was outpaced by the overall increase in the Core Population. As a result, the proportion of immigrants drops further, from 37 to 34 per cent between 1986 and 1996.. In context of the City of Vancouver and the region this represents yet another important counter shift. In 1961 the immigrant population accounted for 28.6 per cent of the population in the region. For Vancouver the figure was 34.5. Except for the Core, where immigrants declined from 48 to 37 percent of the population, between 1961 and 1986 the immigration ratios for the city and the region changed very little (28.8 for the region and 39.2 for the city). However between 1986 and 1996 there was a qualitative upward leap. For Vancouver the number of immigrants rose from 39 to 44 per cent of the population. Similarly for the region, the proportion of immigrants rose from 28 to over 34 per cent.
Meanwhile the Core moved in the opposite direction, with only 34 of the population made up immigrants, which stood well below the City and regional average.
Between 1986 and 1996 there was also a major deflection of Asian immigrants from the Core to suburban areas of the region.
All these converging and diverging trends portray a settlement zone undergoing a great deal of flux. In the Core we see the various cross currents operating between the East and West sides of the Core. While the region begins to age the Core becomes younger. While there is little shift in the gender balance of the region, the Core has been increasingly masculinized. And as the number of immigrants have risen dramatically in the City and the region, just the opposite has happened in the Core.
.
Table 20 A - The Changing Demographics of the Core
Pop Male M65+ FM FM65+ < dera =" Downtown" china =" Chinatown;" gastwn =" the" south =" Census" e =" estimates;" approx =" Approximation," cma =" Census" cv =" City" core =" West" s =" Downtown" dera =" remainder" space=" residential" rms =" hotel" cruise =" cruise" prof =" people" lib=" those" style="font-weight: bold;">5.7 - Second Settlement Zone: Zone of Middle Class Resettlement
In Burgess's model the second concentric zone is most commonly known as the zone of transition or discard. In Sutton Brown's redevelopment scheme it was referred to as the collar of blight. Burgess applied other names to identify sub areas of this zone. Names such as hobohemia, a zone of deterioration, a slum, or the badlands, were used. Because of the link between density, urban life and deviance, growth in this zone was described as being katabolic rather than anabolic. The implication was that unhealthy rather than healthy urban tissue was being produced, and that this was a place that supported vice, crime and disease (Burgess 1925, pp. 50 to 59). Except of course, for the settlement houses, and other civic institutions which acted as islands of modern rule, this zone was clearly a relic of the laissez-faire city. Unfit for respectable middle class settlement, this zone was expected to give way to industrial and commercial land uses or be cleansed through the process of urban renewal. Most certainly it was not expected to be a place where respectable middle-class people would attempt to raise children.
In Vancouver this second settlement ring was known as the conversion zone. Before it was transformed into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, just as with the Burgess model, Vancouver planners and politicians regarded this place as a zone of discard. Five communities - Kitsilano, Fairview, Mount Pleasant, Grandview-Woodlands and Strathcona make up this second settlement zone. Together they make up about twenty percent of the city's land area and point seven percent of the urban region's land base. In 1996 the population of this zone was 124,348, or about twenty-four percent of the city's population and around seven percent of the region's population. Although it only had twenty-five percent of the city's population, it nevertheless contained nearly 28.4 per cent thirty-two percent (62,850) of the city's housing stock (Table 14); (down from 32 per cent in 1991).
Even more than the Core, until the early 1970s the development of the second zone converged with the description given by Burgess. But since the beginning of the postmodern era the evolution of the second zone had reversed direction and increasingly diverged from the model that he constructed. As a result, the relation between industrial, commercial and residential land uses has been completely reversed. The factory zone that Burgess sketched around the Loop (first zone) and Zone of Transition (the second settlement ring) no longer even exist in Vancouver. All that remains are a few isolated pockets of industry and even many of these remaining pockets such as South East False Creek are expected to soon disappear (figures seven-A; ten C; CVCO-33a).
Instead of advancing, industrial land uses are clearly in retreat as residential land continually advance into and invade the rings remaining industrial land base.
Consequently, over the past twenty-five years a contiguous belt of middle class habitation has coalesced around the entire Greater False Creek Basin (that is the mud flats that were filled in earlier on in the century). As a result, a landscape of leisure rather than one of toil has been created. With these changes the social ecology of the entire second zone has been turned completely inside out. As with most of the Core, this zone no longer acts as a main entry point for immigrants but as a magnet for the new middle class for the region as well as the country.
Using university education as a surrogate measure for the new middle class, we see that the percentage of middle class adults in this zone was nearly 17 per cent in 1971, rising to 35.4 in 1986 and 43.7 in 1996 (Table 8). While education levels have risen dramatically in every settlement zone in the city the increase in the percentage of the population with a university education has been much more rapid here. Moreover, if the expansion of the middle class population between 1961 and 1971 is looked at, this indicator shows that the process of transformation began in the 1960’s, when the number adults with some university training more than doubled, moving from 7.6 to 16.6 per cent between 1961 and 1971.
Within the Zone there is considerable variation in the middle class population, but this has begun to converge over time. In the case of Kitsilano, for example, the proportion of the adult population with a university education climbed from twenty-six percent in 1971 to fifty-five percent in 1991 58.7 in 1996 . Because of this migration the education gap between Kitsilano and the rest of the city widened even more than for the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement as a whole. In 1971 this gap was nine percent. Nonetheless, by 1991 this gap had widened to twenty-one percent. The change is even more striking for Fairview. In 1971 there was only a gap of three percent. However by 1991 this had increased to sixteen per cent. With 52.4 per cent of the adult population accounted for by the new middle class in 1996 the gap between the City and Fairview moves down to 15 per cent, even though there was significant increase in the middle class population between 1991 and 1996. This small decline in the gap between the City and Fairview cannot be interpreted as a sign that this local area was less attraction to the middle class but, rather, that the rest of the city was now becoming more middle class, at a more rapid rate, than the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement.
Conversely, as this zone became a magnet for middle class migration its traditional role as a reception area for working-class immigrants withered. Although a few immigrant portals remain the general absence of new immigrants says as much about the postmodern transformation of the social ecology of this zone as the colonization of this area by the new middle class. While the middle class colonization of the Core and the second settlement zone will never be total or complete -- as some small enclaves like the Downtown Eastside will survive -- the question that arises about the social ecology of these two zones is how much more will these remnants of modern social space will shrink before the limits of gentrification are reached.
To see why this zone no longer functions as a catchment area for poorer immigrants, it is only necessary to take a more detailed look at what has happened to some of the most inexpensive housing on the eastern side of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. If house prices in Strathcona and Grandview Woodlands are compared to the city and the region, the numbers tell the story quite well. With rising prices and the dispersion of the pre-existing immigrant populations, the social fabric of this area has been dramatically reworked over the past thirty years. Rising housing prices, combined with increasing levels of university education and a declining immigrant base provides a picture of settlement zone where even the most inexpensive parts of the this zone can no longer function as a transition zone or as a primary reception area for new immigrant populations, but only as a space for resettlement by the new middle class.
For example, in Grandview Woodlands, between 1981 and 1991 the Italian population declined from seven-point-seven percent to four-point-two (CVPD-123,p.16). At the same time, the proportion of the population over the age of fifteen with a university education increased from seven point nine percent of the entire population in 1971 to twenty-five percent of it in 1991 and 29.3 in 1996.
If we look at the evolution of the property market in Strathcona tells us a great deal about why this zone functions less as regional catchment area for new immigrants. Similarly, changing property values also illustrate how most parts of this second zone now serve as a high-status residential enclave for the new middle class. As a result two population movements are shaping the social space of this settlement ring. For example, if we look at how housing prices compared in the rest of the city and the urban region during the 1960s, it becomes clear that Strathcona closely followed the scenario Burgess had described for the transition zone which acted as the primary catchment area for new immigrants in his model of the industrial city. In keeping with its situation in the zone of transition and discard, during the 1960s property values steadily declined in relation to the city and the region. This, of course, indicated that the area was not viewed as an appropriate place of habitation for the middle class. However low and declining property values would no doubt have made this area attractive for new immigrants who were seeking out inexpensive shelter. Thus between 1961 and 1971 property values declined, falling from seventy-seven percent of the median value of all homes in the city to seventy-four percent of the median price for homes in the region (SC-2a), to seventy-four percent of the median value for a home in the city and to seventy-three percent of the median value for home in the region (SC-4a). This fell to 71 per cent of the regional average in 1996, but this was not because the area was less attractive to the middle class but rather, prices rose even faster elsewhere. Because of the large number of public housing units in Strathcona it will retain its status as an important entry point for new immigrants, but overall importance in relation to the region will decline (SC-2a; SC-4a; SC-6a).
Finally West Point Grey should be mentioned because its eastern boundary around Alma Street and along West Tenth can be seen as an extension of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement into the third settlement ring. Also the percentage of Asian Immigrants is far below the rest of the inner ring of Asian Resettlement and the same as the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. For example in 1996 36.3 per cent of the population living in the inner ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement was made up Asian immigrants, in sharp contrast with 18.5 per cent for the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement and 18.5 per cent for West Point Grey (Table 19; fig 4) )
As well, like the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement there is a history of activism which goes back to the early 60’s when one of first examples of significant opposition to apartment development appeared. As the dispute over the Jericho lands in the 1990s and into 2001 continues it is clear that the history of citizen’s activism has not abated. Finally, the other thing which ties parts of West Point Grey into the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement is erstwhile function as a bohemian enclave which had a great deal to do with its proximity to the University of British Columbia.
Non the less, the area is still set off from the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. because of its zoning. Because of its RS-1 zoning West Point Grey still remains a suburban artifact of the early modern period that dates from1920s. The legacy of the regulation continues into the present with medium-rise development which is commonly accepted in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement often deeply opposed.
While. only the certain parts of Downtown Eastside (Most particularly the area around the Oppeheimer neighbourhoos) will be able to defend preserve low-income space for the poor (figure 7c), in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement there are only three significant enclaves remain in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Nne is in Strathcona, where purpose built housing for Chinese seniors, and the large number of social housing units will keep this precinct of low-income housing intact. The second area is located in Mount Pleasant,. Where a large number of shoddily-constructed medium-rise apartment built during the 1960s and early 1970s between Nanaimo and Clarke Drive, north of Hastings, remain. But this will quickly change if ambitious plans for a high tech campus are realized, and the second transit line now under construction triggers gentrification and redevelopment.(figure 7c).
Other than this, in the third zone the only area that is likely to remain an enclave for non-middle class residents is the Marpole area, and some local areas located on the East Side of the Inner Ring of Asian Resettlement where there is still a clump of relatively inexpensive homes and rental units, as well most of the rest of the city is increasingly likely to become more middle class(CVPD-169.p.13).
While the Chinese population located in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement increased from 11,200 in 1971 to 14,625 in 1991, in the zone of Asian Resettlement the Chinese population increased from 13,100 to 67,565 before moving past 100,000 in 1996 . As a result, the proportion of the Chinese population within the City of Vancouver that is located in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement fell from forty-four percent to seventeen point four percent while the percentage in the Zone of Asian Resettlement rose from fifty-two percent to eight-one percent between 1971 and 1991. While the overall Chinese population increased by nearly three-hundred percent -- as it climbed from 25,00 to 84,000 between 1971 and 1991 -- a different trend line developed in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Although the Chinese population in this zone rose by 3,200, this increase was a mere twenty-seven percent, far less than the three-hundred and fifty percent increase for the city and much less than the five-hundred percent increase experienced by the Zone of Asian Resettlement. Furthermore, since the Chinese population has increased by another forty-five percent between 1991 and 1996-- (GVRD 1997g). What is even more unusual about the diversion of Asian immigrants from this zone, was that this took place at a time when Asian and Chinese immigration into Vancouver was skyrocketing. For example, until 1971 there were not even 90,000 Asian immigrants in the entire country, and proportionately within the region, the largest concentration of Asian people were located in the second zone, where between twelve and fifteen thousand people of Asian ancestry lived. Regionally, at least sixty-five percent of this population was located in Vancouver, with the largest component made up of Chinese immigrants who accounted for sixty-two percent, or 36,000 of the 58,000 Asians that lived in the Vancouver region in 1971 (SC-4ab). Though less than twenty-five percent of the city's population was located in the second settlement ring it contained forty-four percent of the Chinese population. So even though there has been an absolute increase in the number of Chinese living here, the proportion of the city's population with Chinese as a mother tongue fell from 44 per cent to 13 per cent between 1971 and 1996.
Looking at this settlement more specifically in terms of the regulation of space, several unique aspects about this postmodern landscape become visible.
On the philosophical plane, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement is significant because it was the birthplace of dialogical planning in Vancouver. As well, it was the place where organic representations of urban space were first codified into planning practice. Also, this was the place where the revival of communitarianism was strongest. Not surprising, this zone became the focal point for the anti-market ethos of postmodern regulation which defined the era of the livable city. In turn, this would affect the configuration of space and the political culture of this area more than any other part of the region. With the initiation of a community planning in Strathcona by the Social Planning Department, this became one of two places in Canada where local area planning was born, heralding the death of urban renewal.
On the sociological level, the greatest change took place when this area gradually was transformed into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. But the other significant change had to with the formulation of unique domestic ideology for the new middle in the city. Here more than anywhere else in the region, the notion that children could not live in the city was challenged -- hence the experiment in False Creek South, which was a deliberate attempt to demonstrate that children could be raised safely in the city by ensuring that the number of children living in this development would equal the metropolitan average. Although this settlement was not as family-centred (Mills 1989), as the traditional suburb was, nevertheless it was successfully transformed into an attractive and popular domestic environment for the nurturing of children.
In Canada's three largest cities this would become a hallmark of the first phase, as model projects exemplifying this new perspective would become the acme for the livable city in each zone of Middle Class Resettlement in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Here the finest examples of the translation of the vision of the livable city into built form can be found. In Toronto this becomes obvious if we look at St. Lawrence Towne. Milton Park would be its equivalent in Montreal. And In Vancouver we need only look at award-winning projects such as Britannia Centre, and South False Creek.
What also set the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement apart was that it contained the region's two largest bohemian communities. To the west, in Kitsilano, West Broadway Avenue and West Fourth Avenue served as the commercial spine for one bohemian enclave that catered to students attending the University of British Columbia. Later, to the east, in Grandview-Woodlands, Commercial Drive began to function as a commercial spine for another bohemian enclave that developed to house students and faculty members who attended Simon Fraser University, which had just opened in the suburb of Burnaby in 1965 (figure seven A).
In a different way and at a different time in the evolution of the postmodern city, each bohemian enclave has served as an incubation ground for opposition movements, community building and experimentation in new modes of consumption. For example what happened in Kitsilano would be more significant to the incubation of postmodernism than Grandview-Woodlands, which only became an centre of an oppositional strain of postmodernism in the 1970s rather than in the 1960s -- as was the case for Kitsilano. No doubt much of this had to do with the high migration of American into in to Kitsilano (Haig 1996), draft-dodgers or war resistors became central to the take off of the counterculture.
In this way the presence of these Americans and the strong links between the bohemian community and UBC provided a fertile ground and the intellectual resources for an oppositional urban movement based upon the revolt against modern bureaucratic rule, which was further reinforced by the anti-militarism imported into the country by the migration of Americans (Fig 7).
Until gentrification dissolved most of this space of middle-class resistance and Grandview-Woodlands took over as the epicentre for the preservation of an oppositional form of postmodern regulation, this bohemian enclave was by far the most culturally dynamic place for the new middle class in Vancouver. And this was the place where artistic modes of consumption and production first began to flourish, creating a critical mass for alternative markets to arise which would further popularize bohemian ways of life and make it more acceptable for a larger cohort of the new middle class to participate in this alternative form of consumption.
Out of this a very powerful political and cultural brew was created that would trigger radical political action and social mobilization that would rock the Planning Department and city hall. For the mobilization of the new middle class would call into question all levels of modern regulation in the city. (Ley; 1996; Stobie 1979; Lemon 1996; Mills 1989; 1991; Lorimer 1972; Gutstein 1975).
From out of this experimentation and rebellion against bureaucratic rule some of the most noteworthy social and consumer spaces in the postmodern city were created.
And this is something which bohemia played a critical, helping to create a new artistic sensibility which would shape the postmodern spatial matrix that was now to governs the City of Vancouver.
Unlike the 1990s when Strathcona and Grandview-Woodlands would serve as the oppositional core to the market and bureaucratic rule, in the 1960s and 1970s it was Kitsilano which of mobilization point for opposition. The only possible exception to this might be the work carried out by geography students under the auspices the Geographic Expedition, which modeled after advocacy work undertaken by radical geographers such as Bill Bunge in the United States.
Not surprisingly, this not only crystallized a distinctive physical landscape but also firmly implanted a social and political culture that is still retained today, even as the era of the livable city has been left behind for that of the urban spectacle. The legacy of the communitarianism that arose out of this oppositional moment in the evolution of postmodernism can be still be seen in mutation of the ideology of livability into the current discourse on ecological sustainability that has become obvious in the planning for South East False Creek Nor should it be forgotten, that Greenpeace was born here as well. As a result, but moreso in the in the bohemia enclave of Grandview-Woodlands rather than in Kitsilano (figure ten), a strain of postmodernism that is still somewhat resistant to both market and bureaucratic rule can still be found. This can also be seen in the 1999 elections results, where were more successful on the East side rather than the West side of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Besides politics remnants of the ecological twist to livable city agenda can be seen in the expansion of greenways and community gardens (pictorial diagram two). Here, unlike the Core (with the notable exception of Mole Hill) the middle class have still able to carve away space from both the market and the bureaucracy. So not only is this settlement ring a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, it is also a green zone that contains the most vocal and active members of the environmental movement who live in the region.
For the more mainstream members of the new middle class this probably has less to do with the clearly articulated political agenda of the more radical members of the environmental movement, and has much to do with the emergence of alternative consumer patterns, as experiences in nature have become prized activities which act as badges to also enhance the social status of middle class consumers who have become involved in the consumption of nature itself.
This can be seen in the parallel mobilization of the new middle class in the exurban parts of the region as well as in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, as this class has become a heavy user of the natural landscape, with the congestion on some distant mountain trails as bad as that on the Seawalk of Stanley Park. In this regard, as well, it is certainly no accident that new age retailers that were begun in this zone, such as Mountain Equipment Co-op (G/M 1998bd) -- a retail co-operative that provides equipment for the middle class so that they can recreate in the wilderness -- has become such a success. In this regard the location of satellite stores area quite revealing, since they can normally only be found in the inner city where there is a large and growing middle class population, such as Toronto, Ottawa and Calgary.
From out of the cultural mobilization of the new middle class, two related but different directions were taken with regard to social experimentation in these bohemian enclaves. As the example of Mountain Equipment Co-op would show, one direction taken led to the creation of a new kind of consumer market, which was a radical development, but not as much as the other direction taken: that is the attempt to construct a lifespace that existed outside the framework provided by the market and bureaucratic rule which the communitarian reaction to modern rule embodied.
As with the development of alternative consumer markets, the most varied and concentrated expression of communitarian culture in the region would surface in this zone as well. This can be seen in the profusion of retail co-operatives such as Mountain Equipment Co-op and Uprising bakery, the presence of several art co-ops in Mount Pleasant, or service co-operatives such as the Women's Health Centre, in Grandview-Woodlands and the region largest community gardens, which are located in Strathcona (pictorial diagram two). Appropriately, even English Canada's largest credit union, VanCity, with assets of over $5.5- billion in 1997 (VS-376; VS-460), is headquartered in this zone (McLaren 1997a; Hardin 1996).
With regard to the configuration of physical space, what is more significant is that this area was transformed into the largest physical expanse of communal space that can be found in the region. If the non market housing located in Champlain Heights is included in this zone then approximately half of all the non profit units that exist in the City of Vancouver are located here even though this settlement ring only accounts for just over a quarter of the city's population and a little more than twenty percent of its land base. The contrast with the region is even more striking. While non-profits in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement make up almost a third of the region's inventory of non-profit housing (fig 7), the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement only accounts for around seven percent of the region's population and one percent of its land area: creating the largest concentration of non-profit and co-operative housing in the region as well as in Western Canada. However this has changed since the 1980’s, with the Core taking the lead in this regard.
On the aesthetic level, except for Gastown and Chinatown, this zone was the birth place of the historicist sensibility with the introduction of infill in Strathcona and the birth of contextual planning that came with the local area planning that was first begun here (of which Granville Island, Britannia Community Centre and Strathcona are the most notable examples). This would also be tied in to experimentation in strata title unit construction that allowed the conversion of churches and other older building to be recycled into residential and commercial land uses. So not only did strata title legislation provide the institutional framework for gentrification to take place, it also granted the institutional means for the historicist sensibility of the new middle class to express itself in the restoration of old buildings.
The Zone of Middle Class Resettlement was also the where street life was revived and the expansion of machine space brought to a halt, as it was the centre of resistance to Sutton Brown's freeway plan. As the example of Granville Island, (Gourley 1988) and the redevelopment of South False Creek, and the emergence of an artist's precinct in the Brewery Creek District indicates, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement was also the place where the most extensive conversion of producer landscapes into consumer landscapes took place in the region. With development like Creekside Landing being proposed along southeast False Creek this process of conversion, which began in the early 1970s, is still advancing into the 1990s, erasing the last pocket of industrial land along False Creek. With the street as its anchor, the second settlement ring also became the centre for alternative consumption and the production of communitarian landscapes (VS-157). As David Ley (1996) has shown for West Fourth Avenue, there was a significant re-alignment of retail establishments from the late 1960s to the present, as lower scale retail outlets, that were often auto oriented, were replaced by cafes and specialized retail venues that were pedestrian oriented and focussed on the street rather than the shopping mall. In this fashion, along with Granville Island and other streets, the second settlement ring would become the precursor to the aesthetic regime of the urban spectacle that would only come into its own in the 1990s with the transformation of Robson Street and the proliferation of festivals.
Being the last redoubt for the livable city (unlike the Core) this zone has resisted the revival in high-rise living. For political and aesthetic reasons the new middle class in this zone still vigorously resist any high-rise development. While much of this resistance had to with straight forward matters such as the protection of views, the opposition to high-rise development by this class also generated because it believed that this housing form was not an appropriate domestic space. There was a political dimension to this opposition as well. This first happened during the counterculture, when the high-rise was became a symbol of corporate capital and bureaucratic rule, which this class was beginning to rebel against. Furthermore, the presence of high-rise structures were viewed as a threat to the territorial ambitions of the domestic fraction of the new middle class, since the spread of high-rises would impinge on the domestic ideal they hoped to realize in the city.
The high-rises therefore became a potent symbol of urban alienation to the middle class. As a result, high-rise building in this zone became a lightning rod in the 1970s. For a middle class that wanted to reconstruct a new domestic order in the city, this building form was also view as an impediment to community building and the communitarian ethos that governed the outlook and program of livable city, which set the agenda for the re-organization of space by the new middle class, during the 1970s. As recent criticism fielded against the high-rise development proposed for the south east section of False Creek indicate, this vision of the city has not weakened in this zone.
As earlier stated, since the 1970s, criticism of the high-rise has also been supplemented by ecological rather social or asethetic opposition. Ecological sustainability as much as alienation are now brought forward by the middle class to oppose the introduction and further spread of high-rise buildings (VS-175; VS-176; VS-177).
Lastly, changes in taste which involved the embrace of historicism and the movement away from a futurist aesthetic gave a new impetus to infill projects and the preservation of the existing housing stock in this zone. That is why the West End became anathema to this class. Moreover, with regard to this matter, it is important to realize that movement away from the futurist aesthetic of twentieth-modernism and the embrace of historicism was not an isolated occurrence. During the 1970s, opposition to the high-rises and the rediscovery of Victorian landscapes was part of a larger retrograde movement in postmodern culture. At first this aesthetic stood in opposition to corporate capital, but would later be absorbed and exploited by development corporations in the 1980s Nonetheless, the revivalism and eclecticism that can still defines the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement remains an important spatial expression of the middle class populism of the 70s and not the corporatism of the 1990s, which the Core is now the symbol for.
Furthermore, in terms of aesthetics, what is interesting to note about the middle class and the creation of this zone is the link between aesthetics and the economy that can be seen in the decline of bureaucratic rule and the rise of the market and the attempt by the new middle class to re-invent the Victorian city. Here more than coincidence was at work in the adoption of design cues from the laissez-faire city. If the Core has become the Laboratory for experiments in high-rise living and lifestyle marketing in the age of the urban spectacle, then the non-domestic fraction of the new middle class that have concentrated in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, an opposing symbolic landscape remains, revealing the variation that can be produced from out of the postmodern spatial matrix.
A domestic but non-family centric fraction of middle class has firmly anchored itself in the material and political culture that has taken root in this settlement ring. Its experimentation with the production of medium-rise rather than high-rise environments would set the trajectory for the evolution of this zone. Not surprisingly, the demands and aspirations of this fraction of the middle class would be replicated in the organization of the Planning Department during the Spaxman era, when the Local Area Planning Division was put in charge of managing the transformation of this zone of discard into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement (CVPD-86; CVPD-88). If the mandate of the Central Area Division, (which was in charge of the Core) revolved around channelling and reshaping the densification process around high-rise formats, the specialty of the Local Area Division would become the provision of institutional supports for policies that would channel and mold the densification process in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement towards medium rise formats. Just as the Central Area Division was the primary institutional organ within the planning responsible for transforming this zone into a middle class enclave; it was the Local Area Division of the department that was mostly responsible for regulating the outward movement of the densification process into the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in the 1970s and 1980s. It also played a role in the conversion of industrial land that was located in this zone, into residential land. So while middle class activists and the Local Area Division of the Planning Department were generally able to deflect high-rise development away from this area, densification proceeded nonetheless, but it progressed within a series of protocols for redevelopment that had been devised in a partnership between this class and the planners who worked for the Local Area Planning Division.
As alluded to several times earlier, the persistence of two strikingly different middle-class environments has a great deal to do with the demographic of the new middle class in each zone. Despite the attempt to create more diversity, this also explains why the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement is less diverse than the Core. Despite the aggressive colonization of the Core by the new middle class it still remains a collage city, while the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement is much more uniform in look as well as in social composition. Much of this has to do with a powerful set of common interests created by the domestic orientation of the new middle class. This combined with the presence of a weaker (but still active) communitarian culture now acts as a counterweight to the rampant commercialism that defines the material culture of the Core. The persistence of communitarianism in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement ring and the higher proportion of families and children in this zone function as a buffer to the market. As a result, this zone remains the regional heartland for the third sector --or the informal economy -- where communal ventures are still being incubated. This stands in contrast to the Core, where, befitting the commercialism of the urban spectacle, interaction between people is more defined by the rules of contract, that is the relation that exists between buyer and seller, rather than reciprocity and mutual obligation, which is more common in domestic spaces that have been produced in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. This can even be seen in the greater profusion of informal spaces that function outside the strict confines of the market or bureaucratic rule (greenways, community gardens, co-operatives).
As the numbers and percentage of children in each zone demonstrate, if this middle class is not as family centric in orientation as its more traditional counterparts in the third zone, compared to its counterparts in the Core, children make up a much larger proportion of the population within this middle class stratum. Thus, as table four shows, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement straddles the non-domestic environment of the core with the much more child-centred environment of the suburban zone. In comparison to the Core there are three times more children in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. However compared to the suburban areas of the city that make up the third settlement ring, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement only has a third the number of children. And if the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement is compared to the city average, it only has half the proportion of children present in the city as a whole. So what this indicates is that in spite of the domestic ideology of the new middle class and the greater propensity for this more domestically oriented fraction to be engaged in child rearing even though not in such an extreme way as their counterparts in the Core -- they are, nonetheless, a non-child-centred social formation, consisting of a large middle class population that is essentially childless.
Hence 1991 data for each zone clearly illustrates nuances that exist between this important distinguishing element of the material culture of the different fractions that make up the middle class, of which the new middle class is but a subset. For example, in the Core only two point seven percent of the population was under the age of fifteen, in 1991, but in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement this was nine-point-seven percent, half the city average of eighteen percent, and three times more than that of the core, but considerably less than the twenty-percent-plus reading found in the third settlement zone, where the Asian and traditional Caucasian middle class reside .
Finally, despite the overall homogenization of the social classes that live in the second settlement ring due to the experimentation in new housing and tenure forms that have taken place in this zone, this is still the place where the most varied fractions of the middle class can be found. Also, because this area was the first place where there was an institutional articulation between densification and postmodern regulation, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement became the first distinctive postmodern landscape to be created in the region. The concentration of postmodern house types and tenure forms-- such as strata title units, lofts, and non-profit housing, -- into a distinctive medium -rise landscape are isthe most obvious signs of this.
Here a pastiche of historical styles was created, producing a new kind of space, which did not exist in the modern period and stood in direct contrast to the high-rise landscape of the West End. Unlike the high-rise landscape of the West End or the low-rise landscape of the suburbs (where single-detached units predominated) the new middle class resolved the problems posed by densification by experimenting with different medium-rise environments. This would be significant for the region because it became the dominant format followed by the densification process in Greater Vancouver (See figures seven A; twelve, twelve A; twelve B; twelve C).
Pictorial Diagram One
As with the Core, the distribution of these three postmodern house types and tenure forms have affected the rate of displacement and the extent of the gentrification in each neighbourhood that makes up the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Similarly, the presence of rental units not easily convertible into strata title units has acted as a buffer against further middle class expansion, slowing down the gentrification process. For example the high concentration of public housing and non-market housing in Strathcona has limited gentrification to those areas where single-detached units or recyclable industrial and institutional building predominates. In Mount Pleasant, the other local area, that has been least affected by gentrification, the presence of cheaply-constructed medium-rise apartment in the late 1960s and 1970s has sterilized a large part of north Mount Pleasant from a middle class invasion for the time being Pleasant (Census Tract .051). Because these structures act as a physical barrier because of the way they violate the historicist sensibility that attracted the middle class to other parts of( Mount will largely be avoided by the Caucasion and Asian middle class until they are demolished. As with St. James Towne in Toronto (Philip 1997e), these utilitarian and ersatz modern structures have served as a bulwark against gentrification. By doing so they also preserved a remnant of the modern social ecology that once made this area a reception place for recent immigrants and the working class.
But in those areas where postmodern tenure and house forms have taken root the middle class have generally been able to displace other social classes. In either case, this area has the highest concentration of these postmodern house types and tenure forms in the region so where ever these houses or tenure forms are present, densification and middle-class recolonization of the area has taken place. Nevertheless, with the development of three distinctive types of house forms in this zone, the new middle class itself has become stratified into indefinable subgroups according to the type of medium-rise accommodation it occupies.
As with the broad brush comparisons that had earlier been made between house type and the existence of different material cultures in each zone, it is possible to infer from this the existence of similar variations in the middle class appropriation of urban space by looking at which fractions of the middle class have moved into these three types of postmodern residential spaces.
For example, the predominance of mid-rise strata title units provides considerable insight into the institutional innovation that allowed developers to harness the powerful proprietary instincts of the middle class that made denser living in the inner city popular for a domestically inclined fraction of the new middle class, providing them with a bridge into a house form that they could comfortably move into as they entered into the career cycle of their lives. In the modern period this option did not exist. Other than equity co-ops, of which several were constructed in the West End in the 1950s and 1960s, denser urban living usually entailed moving into a high-rise rental apartment. As a result, there were very limited choices for middle class people wishing to remain in the inner city and, often as not, this involved a loss in proprietary status since rental accommodation was usually the only contemporary accommodation that was available.
Of course, with the advent of strata title units, this changed, as this tenure form allowed middle class people to live in denser, multiple units dwelling without losing the social status, ownership subsidies and other prerogatives that came with home ownership. At the same time many of the burdens of suburban home ownership were lightened, as domestic upkeep became commodified, with management companies put in charge of general maintenance and upkeep, freeing time up for other activities. Simultaneously, as a consequence, the domestic sphere was being socialized and privatized at the same time by the arrival of strata title units.
With approximately thirty percent of all dwelling units made up of strata title units this zone has one of the highest concentration of this kind of housing in the region. Although the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement may eventually be overtaken by the Core -- since already nearly fifty percent of all dwelling units in the Downtown part of the Core are strata title units -- for the medium term, at least The Zone of Middle Class Resettlement will retain a commanding lead in number of strata title units. For example, in 1991 it still had more than five times the national metropolitan average and fifty percent more than the region, which presently has the highest number of strata title units in the country (Lo 1996).
This alone would make the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement stand out; however the unique nature of this settlement space is further highlighted by having the largest proportion of non-profit and co-operative housing units in Greater Vancouver. With 7553 non-profit housing units located here (a number which has hardly moved between 1996 and 200I), this house form makes up the second-largest component of the postmodern housing stock in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement (figure seven-B;). Moreover, soon this number is likely to be superceded by the Core which already had approximately 7000 units in 2001.
This housing constitutes the most important physical legacy of the progressive period of the postmodern transformation of Vancouver, when the livable city agenda reached its climax. More than the other house types, these units were deliberately constructed to accommodate families. For this reason they stand out as the most aggressive attempt to re-introduce middle-class families back into the inner city, giving physical form to the domestic orientation to the fraction of the new middle class that recolonized this settlement ring. Indeed, until the early 1980s, co-ops made up the largest number of new housing units constructed in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. This would change during the 1980s, with the move away from the livable city agenda and the beginning of the era of the urban spectacle, the production of strata title units overtook and left far behind the production of non-profit units (CVPD-66; CVPD-88).
Moving on to the last postmodern dwelling type, in the 1980s Artist live/Work studies appeared creating a third distinctive house form in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Artist live/work studios appeared, a house form that only became legal in the late 1980’s. Along with the rapid expansion of condominiums, they are the clearest expression of the growing significance of the non-domestic orientation of the urban residential spaces that became more common during the second phase of the postmodern transformation of the Inner City (pictorial diagram one; figure, figure 12, figure 12C). For here, more than with other dwelling types, the mixing of culture and economics, the fusion of entrepreneurial and artistic sensibilities become unmistakable .
While live/work studios are the 1990s version of affordable housing in a period when communitarianism has clearly taken second place to the ethos of privatization, these studios are also emblematic of the greater stylization and social polarization that sets the era of the urban spectacle apart from that of the livable city era, as artistic modes of living rather than the experimentation in domestic living, associated with the production of non-profit housing, became more central in the marketing of urban space (Leidl 1995): something that is readily apparent in the way that loft units have been promoted (Promotion 1997; Real Estate Weekly (West End, etc., 1997B), with images of bohemia becoming a key ingredient in the promotion of these developments (figure twelve E) Not surprisingly the gay market has become an important focus group for the marketing of these units, with regular advertisement for lofts appearing regularly in the city's two gay newspapers(now only one).
Since they were only recognized as a legal house form by the City of Vancouver, in 1987, live/work studios are the most recent, and consequently the smallest, component of the postmodern housing stock that can be found in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. While there were over 40,000 strata title residential units in the city in 1991 and around 20,000 non profit units in 1991 there were only 52 studio units. However by 1995 this had increased to 740 (figure seven A), with most of these located in an industrial district in Mount Pleasant known as Brewery Creek where a special zoning designation (IC-3) was created to specially allow the construction of these units (CVC0-22).
While planners have forecasted that only a modest increase in the number of live/work studios would occur, with the total number of units projected not to exceed 2,000 units within the next 15 years (CVC0-33a,p.7), this number is likely to be surpassed sometime in 1998, as city council allocates more land for this type of housing. Another sign that this sub-market will become a permanent and growing fixture of the postmodern landscape is visible in the specialization of some private development companies, such as Pacific City Land Company, in the construction of Artist/live-Work studios (Risdon 1996) .
As with non-profit units in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement since live/work studios represent the 90s version of affordable housing they deserve special mention because of the messages they convey about the second stage of the postmodern transformation of the city. Moreover they are most concentrated in the eastern section of this zone where most of the 1000 live/work studios in the city are located because this is where the most inexpensive industrial land that can be converted to residential land use exists (figure seven A). Unfortunately this housing form will probably play a role in further gentrifying areas of the zone where the middle class have not yet colonized. And it is here where most of the additional 900 live work studios that are projected to be built by the Planning Department are likely to be located - in industrial areas like Mount Pleasant where a special industrial zone IC-3 was been created to accommodate this housing form (CVPD-135a).
The concentration of postmodern house types and tenure forms on the east side of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, especially lofts, has enlarged and more firmly anchored the bohemian subculture on the east side of this zone.
West point Grey (fig 4) is actually a transitional space that separates the Zone of Asian Resettlement from the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. This is reflected in the social and political culture of the neighbourhood, where the level of middle-class activism is similar to that found in neighbourhoods located in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Even though single-detached rather than medium-rise dwellings predominate, along the boundaries of the neighbourhood and West Tenth Avenue, medium-rise structures intrude into the suburban fabric of this community. However, as with Kitsilano: the fate of the bohemian formation that have always been apart of these neighbourhoods remains tenuous. Particularly if the redevelopment of UBC proceeds, and the targets for housing staff and students on the endowment lands are met, gentrification and intervening opportunities created by the redevelopment of the endowment lands -- as well as new transit initiatives -- may change student settlement patterns, and by doing so, alter the look of West Point Grey (Applebe 1997c; 19978j; GVRD, 1996a).
The problem of displacement even exists in the bohemian node that serves Simon Fraser University, on the east side of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Here gentrification and displacement has also become visible as residential and commercial densification around Commercial Drive has begun to move this area up-market as well. This, in turn, has fostered the development of Main Street as a bohemian retail zone, as many artists and homosexuals have moved into the area because of lower rents and housing costs.
The revival of street retail and the sudden popularity of residential units over retail establishment along street fronts is also another medium-rise format in which this settlement zone leads the way in the region. Because of the bohemian propensity to mix work and living spaces it is probably no accident that the most successful densification along main streets in the urban region, if not the country, has occurred in the bohemian precincts located in the east and west sides of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement (VS-157; Smedman 1997).
To bring to an end to the discussion about the formation of a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement: densification, the emergence of a new middle class, and the accession of a postmodern regulatory order, these things, plus the successful institutionalization of the livable city agenda through local area planning, as well as the mass acceptance of postmodern house and tenure forms, account for the most significant changes that were to transform this settlement zone and create a distinctive new social profile, one that was postmodern rather than modern. Among other things, the emergence of this zone appears to have deflected a great many middle-class Chinese immigrants from the second to third settlement zone. Meanwhile, for the Caucasian middle class this reconfiguration of space has accomplished precisely the opposite effect. (figure 9A).
Last of all, as already suggested by the geographic variation in postmodern housing forms, the transformation of this landscape into a middle class enclave is far from uniform or even. With regard to the middle-class colonization of this zone, there is an obvious settlement core for the new middle class that is anchored in Kitsilano and Fairview, with a larger transitional area taking in Strathcona, Grandview-Woodlands, Mount Pleasant and small strips of West Point Grey: where the population and built environment show that part of this local area is a continuation of the bohemian area that that extends out from Kitsilano. This becomes obvious just by looking at the uneven distribution of non-profit housing units: which range from nearly fifty percent of all dwelling units in Strathcona down to sixteen percent in Grandview Woodlands to only three-point-five percent in Kitsilano (figure seven A; CVC0-19).
Notably, this is where most of the communitarian and oppositional elements of the livable city program have been filtered out and replaced by programs more closely associated with the urban spectacle. Consequently, there is a social and political divide that is connected to the distribution of different house types and tenure forms between the east and west sides of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Except for a small pocket in Kitsilano, where there still remains a strong commitment to the livable city agenda, the middle-class block that continues to support this agenda is now mostly located on the east side. Meanwhile, the middle class power block aligned to values more closely associated with the urban spectacle are situated on the west side of this settlement ring -- in Kitsilano and Fairview, where the highest concentration of strata title units exists. Not surprising, it is in the peripheral neighbourhoods of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement -- in transitional areas where the gentrification process has not yet completely overwhelmed these areas -- that it is still possible to find some signs of the collaboration between the new middle class and working class constituencies that made up the political block that originally made the livable city agenda a powerful instrument for change: one that materialized into the production of oppositional spaces with the surge in a communitarian ethos and the ideology of inclusiveness that accompanied this agenda. In this regard Strathcona, Mount Pleasant and Grandview-Woodlands are probably the only places in the city where this ideology still plays an active role in fashioning the politics of space.
5.8 - Third Settlement Zone : The Zone of Asian Resettlement
Moving to the next settlement ring -- in Burgess' model the third concentric settlement zone was referred to as a zone of working class settlement. In the modern city this settlement ring functioned as a transition zone that separated the chaotically organized land uses of the second zone from the more uniform residential land uses that were present in the fourth zone. In the modern city, the third zone also acted as a buffer and filter, which separated lower social status neighbourhoods from more respectable middle-class neighbourhoods that were located further out in the suburbs, in the fourth ring.
Hence except for the elite, we see that space in the modern city was worked like a sieve. The further out one went, the more assimilated the population was expected to become. So, except for the non-middle class elite, the further out from the core one went the higher the social status of the group residing in each zone was expected to be. No doubt this representation of the city reflected the rural bias, and a latent anti-urbanism, which was built into the models of the city that were constructed by the Chicago School. However, these correlations also reflected middle class attitudes and expectations, and so, ultimately, how space was to be regulated during the modern period. Since single-detached homes were viewed as an important icon of middle class respectability and as a vector for assimilation, this zone was where the respectable working class was expected live in the Burgess model. It was also the zone where partially assimilated, as well as second generation immigrants were to be found.
What becomes so significant about the transformation of the Zone of Working Mans houses is the inversion of this pattern during the postmodern era. With the emergence of a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in the 1970s, the appearance of a Zone of Asian Resettlement in the late 1980s, and the rapid gentrification of the Core by non-domestic fractions of the new middle class in the 1990s, the relation between the centre and the periphery that once existed in the modern city was completely reversed.
Different demographic polarities -- that are the reverse of the modern city -- now exist in Vancouver. Instead of the middle class being repulsed from the centre of the region -- as was the case during the modern period -- the Inner City which contains the first three settlement zones, now acts as a magnet for a variety of indigeneous and foreign middle class fractions. While small upper-class enclaves -- such as Shaunessey, Rosedale, Rockcliffe Park and Crescentwood -- had always persisted in the core of the Canadian city, as with the United States, the general tendency was for the middle class to abandon the city for the suburbs during the modern era.. But with the reconfiguration of the Inner City in Vancouver, and the emergence of a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, and later, the creation a Zone of Asian Resettlement, three different middle-class groups began to reoccupy the centre of the region which had once been dominated by the working class.
This inversion did not occur until the 1970s. Up to this time, except for the sectoral configuration of the third zone, the Burgess model provided a fairly accurate portrayal of the social stratification of Vancouver.
Particularly on the east side of Vancouver this was case. The only characteristic that was not captured in the picture drawn by Burgess was the division of the third zone into two separate sections. In Vancouver, during the modern period, the western side of this settlement zone was middle class rather than working class. Only the eastern part of the third ring was mainly working class. Since the third zone was divided in a linear as much as concentric fashion, the actual configuration of this ring during the modern period appeared more as an amalgam of Burgess' concentric settlement model and Homer Hoyt's sectoral model. Moreover, this division extended outwards from the City of Vancouver and into the adjacent suburbs. To the south, Richmond would become a continuation of the middle sector portion of this zone while, to the east, in the suburb of Burnaby, it is possible to see the extension of Vancouver’s working class east end.
During the postmodern era, but most particularly between 1986 and 1996 the movement of an Asian middle class into these spaces would transform this polygot area of working and middles spaces into one that was more uniformly middle class and Asian in character. No longer would this area act as a place of assimilation, but as a place of difference in relation to the mainstream.
As previously mentioned, this Zone is made up of two rings, an inner ring that existed entirely within the suburban areas of the City of Vancouver, and a second ring, which takes in most of Burnaby and Richmond, as well as the North West part of Surrey and part of North Delta. As well, a strip of the North Shore has been included in this calculation in order to take into account the prominence of the Iranian community.
The inner ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement in located entirely in the the suburban parts of Vancouver. Covering more than 86 square Kilometre (Table 21) more than 327,000 lived in the inner ring. Between 1986 and 1996 the proportion of immigrants moved from 41 to 50 per cent of the population. More significantly, however, the proportion of Asian immigrants move from 21 to 36, which was 82 per cent above the regional average (19.9). The inner ring was also where the greatest proportion of Chinese residents were located, with the more affluent and White-Collar Hong Kong and Taiwanese located on the West side of this zone While lower status immigrants from Mainland China were concentrated on the East side (See Social Indictors, Social Planning Department, City of Vancouver 1999).
The middle class aspect of this Asian transformation can be shown be looking at the rise in the middle class population (Table 21). In 1986 the proportion of middle class residents in both the Inner and outer rings rested below the regional average. However by 1996 the number of middle class residents in the Zone of Asian Resettlement rose above the regional average, with the most dramatic increase taking place within the inner ring, where the number of middle class residents increased from 23 to 33 per cent of the population.
Another indictor which reveals the middle class nature of this zone is the incidence of poverty increased from 24 to 28 per cent, slightly less than the rate of increase for the region (18.3 to 23.3).
Demographic Profile of the Zone of Asian Resettlement between 1986-1996
Table 21
1986
Km Pop Imm Asian MC Incid C SA F
CMA 2820.7 1380729 28.3 9.3 24.6 18.8 7.2 3.2 NA
ZAR 256.26 578249 34.6 14.8 22.0e 23.9 12.8 4.8 NA
Inner 86.90 275615 41.4 21.0 23.3 20.2 18.1 4.7 NA
Outer 170.17 302634 28.1 9.4 22.3 18.3 6.5 4.9 NA
S shore 17.65 33257 23.9 10.7 14.7 18.5 2.1 9.7 NA
1996
Km Pop Imm Asian MC Incid C SA F
CMA 2820.7 1831665 34.9 19.9 30.5 23.3 15.2 6.5 2.10
ZAR 256.26 714721 46.3 31.7 31.1 27.2 28.7 8.1 3.00
Inner 86.90 327905 50.0 36.3 33.5 27.9 35.4 7.0 3.90
Outer 170.17 386816 43.2 27.9 29.1 26.5 23.1 9.2 2.40
S Shore 17.65 39641 38.4 25.4 16.7 25.6 2.0 36.7 2.75
Definitions: Km’ square kilometres; Pop = population; Imm=Immigrant population; MC= middle class population; Incid = incidence of low-income; Asian = Asian Immigrants; C = Chinese, SA= South Asian (mostly punjabi) and F =Filipinsos, CMA = Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area; ZAR = Zone of Asian Resettlement; Inner = Inner Ring of Asian Resettlement (entirely located in the City of Vancouver); Outer = the Outer Ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement. which includes all of ricmond and Burnaby as well as the North Western part of Surrey, the North Easter part of Delta, and a narrow strip on the North Shore. S shore = the North Western part of Surrey and the North Eastern part of Delta.
Notes: statistics for Chinese and South Asians were counted by using ethnic origins. For 1996 Visible Minorities were used to make the count. In the inner ring of Asian Resettlement it is useful to look at how the various Chinese groups are distributed. For example most recent Hong Kong immigrants (16,625) are located in the Western part of the Inner Zone of Asian Resettlement.. However only about 860 live in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, and only 800 live in the Core.A similar pattern applies to recent Twainese immigrants (6645). 195 live in the Core and about 1000 live in the Zone of Middle Class Ressettlement.. Even more so than Hong Kong immigrants, Taiwanese Immigrant are more concentrated on the West side of the Zone of Asian Resettlement., with about 2600 located here.2800 living on the Eastside, which covers a much larger area than the West side. It is also interesting to note that the high concentrationof recent immigrants from Twainese, Hong Kong and Mainland China who live in the part of the South Downtown controlled by Asian capital. If location can be used as an indicator of social status, the Mainland Chinese Immigrants hold the lowest rung among the Chinese population.. Of the 14,010 recent Mainland Chinese Immigrants about 1650 live in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement ( with nearly half this number 765 located inStrathcona). In the Core there are about690 from Mainland China, with 500 located in the East Core and 190 in the West End. On the West side there are approximately 1400 residents from Mainland China. But on the East side there are over 10,000, accounting for more than 70 per cent of the population..Of the5,980 recent Filipino immigrants the vast majority located in either the residual immigrant portal located on the East Side of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, or these concentrated on the East side, where Pink-Collar employment predominates.
Sources: Social Indicators, City of Vancouver 1996 Census, Social Planning, Community Services Group, May 1999;
The uneven distribution of the three largest visible minorities reveals a great deal about class and ethnic stratification in the Zone. Beginning with the Chinese population we see that they are the most affluent and White-Collar oriented population in the Zone of Asian Resettlement. It is therefore no surprise to find them in the inner ring where housing is more costly than the outer parts of the Zone, particularly the South Shore. Their higher economic status is also reflected in the proportion of investment income , which is three times the proportion for South Asians and Filipinos and nearly 50 per cent above the regional average(Table 22).
Figures for this group also suggest a fair amount of polarization. This may be related to the gap between old and new Chinese immigrants and where they came from as well as the large number of Chinese seniors, who are located in the Downtown Eastside. Although a large percentage of income is derived from investment, the participation rate is very low and the incidence of low-income above the regional average. In part, this difference may be explained by the higher number of recent Chinese immigrant, since recent immigrants tend to be far less integrated into the labour force, something which also may be reflected in above average unemployment rate as well (Table 22). Similarly, language barriers may be a cause for higher unemployment and lower participation in the labour force.
Moving on the South Asian Population, a number of interesting patterns become observable. Unlike Chinese immigrants who have become more concentrated in the inner ring, just the opposite has happened to the South Asian Population. This can be read into the shifting settlement geography of this group. In 1986 the percentage of Punjabi residents was about the same in the Inner and outer rings. However by 1996 the percentage of South Asians in the Outer Ring had risen above the inner ring (Table 21). Notwithstanding this change the most significant shit takes place on the South Shore where the proportion of South Asians rises from 10 to 37 per cent between 1986 and 1996.
In this regard it might be interesting to speculate about the Blue-Collar and White Collar distribution of this population. Although the inner ring is no longer the epicentre of this group, it may be the main base for the South Asian middle class, while the outer ring, and the South Shore in particular may be the preferred destination of Blue-Collar workers.
Both in terms of geography and social status Chinese and South Asian immigrants occupy different ends of the spectrum, While the majority of each group lives in the Zone of Asian resettlement they occupy completely different spaces within the zone. And no better is this illustrated than by looking at the South Shore.( Table 21). Whereas the proportion of South Asian rose from 10 to 37 of the South Shore, the proportion of Chinese fell from 2.1 to 2 per cent between 1986 and 1996.
What is also interesting to observe about the South Asian population is its concentration near the river where primary industries (including agriculture) and manufacturing predominate. Since the number of Blue-Collar workers stands way above the regional average it is no surprise to find that this group displays working class rather than middle class preferences. While having the lowest incidence of poverty of three main groups, and the highest wages (Table 22) the largest group live in Surrey and North Delta where house prices are about half those found in the Inner-ring. So there is a cultural dimension and not just a simple economic one at work here. Indeed much of this may have to do with less resistance to the construction of large homes, which usually provokes stiff opposition in middle class areas such as the Inner Ring, but far less in working class areas such as Surrey.
The Filipino group is the third largest visible minority located in the Zone of Asian Resettlement. Here, once again, a strong connection between the occupational specialization of this group and the creation of unique settlement geography can be drawn out. If Chinese immigrants are concentrated in the White-Collar sector, and South Asians in the Blue-Collar sector, the Filipino
.
Economic Status of Vancouver’s Three Largest Visible Minorities in 1996
Table 22
AEI PR UI Incid Blue White Pink O In
CMA 37556 67.3 8.6 23.3 12.3 16.5 38.9 11.5
S A 34385 68.2 14.9 24.8 26.7 15.0 49.7 5.0
C 33695 54.8 9.7 35.6 17.9 21.2 46.6 15.6
F 27980 75.0 7.0 26.3 10.1 9.3 54.2 3.6
Definitions: ABI = Average Employment Income; PR = Participation rate; UI = Unemployment; Incid = Incidence of low income; Blue =Blue-Collar ; White = White-Collar workforce; Pink = Pink-Collar workforce; O In = Investment income; SA = South Asian; C= Chinese; F = Filipinos.
Notes. Blue, White and Pink Collar percentages represent a sample rather than total count of each type of workforce. For example in the Blue-Collar Sample only manufacturing and the primary industries are counted.
Sources: Canadian Dimension 1996 Series, Immigration
Population is mostly situated in the Pink-Collar Area. So it is hardly surprising to find that this group has settled in area where there are a large amount of Pink-Collar employees . These also tend to be areas where rents and housing costs are lower than elsewhere in the Zone of Asian Resettlement. That is why the highest number of Filipinos are to be found in the Easter part of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement and the Eastern suburbs of the Inner Ring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the three groups they have the lowest employment income but the highest participation. Also their level of education is higher than the South Asian populations, which illustrates that higher education does not necessarily translate into higher incomes.
Finally, because of the Filipino concentration in the Pink-Collar sector they are the most spread out of the three visible minorities because employment in this sector is generally more dispersed As already mentioned, part of this has to do with the lower incomes and the configuration of the real estate market. Another factor may be that Pink-Collar employment is much more dispersed throughout the region than the other two sectors. Yet another explanation for this relative dispersal may have to do with culture. Being the most americanized of the three groups there may be less reason to concentrate in enclaves because they are more integrated into the mainstream culture. Also better English skills probably make it easier to live in any part of the region.
Besides the concentration of Asians, this settlement ring is set apart from other concentrix settlement rings by the Zoning that is in place. Compared to the other two core rings, this is an areas largely government by zoning for single family housing. Because of this, land uses are more homogeneous than the first two zones, since the largest tracts of land are regulated by RS-1 zoning. As a result, single-detached dwelling units predominate in the third zone.
A large amount of low-rise densification in the region has taken place (figures nine B and ten C). As a result, during the 1990s about a quarter of the 5,000 single detached units that have been started each year, have taken place in this zone. While much larger homes have been constructed, there has been little net addition to the pre-existing housing stock since most of this new stock has been replacement stock that has come about as a result of the demolition and replacement of existing single family homes in the core area. In turn, this is one reason why postmodern zoning codes have been brought in to replace modern RS-1 codes. Because of the resistance of the Caucasion middle-class discretionary and context bound and place centred zoning has increasingly become the preferred way to manage the densification of areas zoned for single family land uses in the suburbs (CVPD-175; CVPD-176; CVPD-178). As a result of this low-rise densification (that is larger single detached homes covering more of the ground area) the area covered by original RS-1 zoning is now much smaller than those areas governed by new context based zoning.
Largely due to low-rise densification in the Zone of Asian Resettlement about twenty-five percent of new single detached starts each year are replacement stock rather than net additions to the existing housing stock. This contrasts with the national average of six percent. For this reason, the production of denser housing is actually higher than what is suggested in the number of housing starts each year. Thus, instead of high and medium-rise developmentaccounting for seventy percent of new housing stock, when this replacement stock is taken into consideration, medium and high-rise dwelling starts actually account for between seventy-five and eighty percent of the net addition of new housing stock each year (SC-6a; SC-18; SC -24; SC-54; CMHC 1996c).
This is not the complete picture however, because the outer ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement also. contains two of the most dynamic regional town centres in the region (which has more to do with the quantity rather than quality of development) -- Metrotown and Richmond Town Centre -- a significant amount of high-rise development has also taken place. As well because the Zone of Asian Resettlement is also bisected by the regions major transit corridor, substantial amounts of high-rise and medium-rise development have sprung up in places such as Collingwood Village or Edmonds Station (figures nine B and figures thirteen A, B, C).
While all this activity reveals that a great deal of in-migration has taken place, unless the population of the Zone of Asian Resettlement is further disaggregated, the presence of two population waves is not entirely revealed. As aggregate figures show the transformation of this zone primarily took place between 1986 and 1996. During this ten year time span the percentage of the region's population made up of citizens of Asian origin increased from eight-point- six ( or about 118,000) to about twenty-five percent (over 500,000). And this is the demographic current that has affected the third zone the most. As a result the character of this zone has radically been reshaped. Not only has a huge wave of immigration from Asia washed over this zone, an entirely new kind of social space has been created. Furthermore, the effect of this immigration wave has been amplified by the presence of a powerful demographic undertow, which has drawn the existing Caucasian population out of the third settlement zone and relocated much of this population into the fourth and fifth zones -- or outside the region altogether (figure nine A). In this way two population waves have reshaped this settlement zone over the past ten years. So there has been even more movement and population flux than what the overall increase in the Asian population would at first suggest (fig 8).
Simultaneously, a wave of middle-class Asian immigration rolled over into this zone, while a rapidly receding Caucasian population made up a second demographic wave that deposited a large segment of the pre-exising population outside this zone, creating another migration pattern, which created another distinctive postmodern settlement configuration in the fourth zone, which can be described as a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement.
What has been described for Vancouver, has its counterparts in the rest of the country, but in a much more diluted form. In Canada, the suburbanization of the immigrant population was noted as far back as the late 1970s, when a study about the urbanization of Toronto's suburbs pointed to the number of immigrants living in public housing projects located in the inner suburbs (Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 1979).
Recognition of this new trend revealed that the social order of the modern city was beginning to dissolve. This has since become one of the defining features of the postmodern city. With the movement of lower income immigrants to the suburbs, European rather North American patterns of urbanization have taken hold in several Canadian cities. With the exception of Winnipeg, perhaps, during the postmodern era this has become a point of divergence between American and Canadian cities.
In empirical and conceptual terms, these changing immigration flows represent a radical departure from the picture drawn of immigrant settlement sketched out by the Chicago School in the 1920s or the empirical reality that defined the location pattern for recent immigrants up to the mid 70s (figures eight A and nine A).
Although not as obvious, in Ottawa a similar pattern has emerged. Statistics from the 1996 Census show that recent middle-class immigrants are under-represented in working class areas such as Hull or Vanier, where lower status Black and Arab immigrants are most likely to be found. Conversely, it is now in the outer settlement rings rather than in the core, where the highest concentrations of middle class Asian immigrants are to be found in Ottawa. Avoiding the working class areas of the city this group can be found in the more affluent western suburbs, such as Neapan or Kanata, in particular. Compared to the regional average the Chinese population in these communities soars over the regional average by over thirty-percent. Unlike the modern era - where Ottawa had the highest concentration of new immigrants; in the postmodern era this has been reversed. For example, Kanata now has the largest concentration of Chinese residents in the region, with approximately four-point-two percent of its population now Chinese compared to three-point-two for the City of Ottawa. Similarly, other fast-growing and more affluent communities, such as Neapon also have a higher proportion of Chinese residents than the City of Ottawa (Ottawa Citizen 1998g).
With a smaller flow of middle-class Asian immigrants into Montreal, the space taken up by this group is even smaller than in Toronto or even Ottawa. Like Toronto, the settlement of this Asian middle class in Montral has taken place in the fourth rather than third settlement ring. With the Asian population accounting for an even smaller percentage of the total immigrant population in Montreal, the suburban enclave that has emerged here is not as big as the one in Toronto. For example, the 1991 Census shows that the largest suburban concentration is mostly confined to Brossard, which is located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence (SC-10).
With Calgary emerging as the next largest centre for middle class Asians, it is likely that a suburban enclave, but one which is even smaller than Montreal's, will soon emerge here as well, particularly since the Hong Kong proportion of immigrants arriving between 1991 and 1996 increased significantly (Calgary Herald 1997q).
While not as large as the three main Asian immigrant groups, another population that is quite visible, is the Iranian population. Presently around 10,000 people of Iranian origin now live mostly on the north shore. With around 5,000 Iranians migrating to Vancouver between 1991 and 1996, this group accounted for about three percent of all recent immigrants, and stood in sixth place among the various groups that made up the latest round of recent immigrants in the region (Business in Vancouver 1998j). Like most recent Chinese immigrants, Iranians appear to be middle rather than working class. As with many recent Chinese immigrants, they also appear to have access to significant amounts of capital (VS-106b; VS-125).
From a conceptual and functional perspective, compared to the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, the changes that have taken place here are even less in conformity with either the Burgess or Hoyt model for the modern city. The only exception to this is the gradually erasing of the working class and middle class distinctions, which set the west and eastern parts of the inner ring apart from each other in modern era. With the large influx of middle class Chinese into the east and west sides of the inner belt a contiguous concentric settlement ring of middle class settlement has been established. Consequently, earlier sectoral divisions are being erased.
As already implied, the other difference that can be pointed to is the shift from a European based to Asian based flows of immigration. Instead of a little Italy or Greektown, new ethnic villages from Asia, such as little India, have appeared in the third settlement ring. Significantly, this has not happened in the second zone (figure eleven A).
Street.
Finally, just as satellite spaces for the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement have emerged, so too, for the Zone of Asian Resettlement satellites have surfaced as well.
One has grown up in Abbotsford, which is outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District, but where sixty-one percent of all immigrants that settled here between 1991 and 1996 were from India (figure eight). The second satellite is located within the Vancouver region, but is largely composed of Chinese immigrants who settled in the north eastern section of Coquitlam. In 1986, there were only about 400 Chinese speaking residents living in Coquitlam. However, by 1991 this number had grown to 3,970 ;and to 14,700 by 1996 -- a thirty -three-fold increase in just ten years. This increase, no doubt, explains why Coquitlam was the fastest growing immigrant settlement space in the region between 1991 and 1996. With the number of recent immigrants in Coquitlam growing by sixty-five percent (11,235), the number of Asian immigrants living in Coquitlam accounted for about twenty percent of the population (VP-57; figures five and ten B). Although on a much smaller scale that Coquitlam a large concentration of Chinese immigrants have also located in an affluent suburb to the North of the Freeway, along the Fraser River.
Because of the social and economic friction that was produced with the emergence of Zone of Asian Resettlement considerable displacement has resulted. The most obvious result of this population movement would be the creation of a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement, as the fourth zone would become a refuge for working-class and the traditional middle-class Caucasians, who were vacating the third zone because of rising land prices and the rapid entry of a foreign population.
Why was this so? Here the interaction between the local and global real estate market comes into play. While migrants from within and outside the region could not afford to enter the market because the average price of a single-detached unit was twice the regional average and about three times the national average. In turn, this price inflation led existing homeowners to cash in on the windfall capital gains that accrued to them (figure nine A). At the same time, for many middle-class Asian immigrants who were coming from one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world, what seemed too expensive for Canadians, was viewed as a bargain by these new-comers. So for a middle-class Asian immigrant coming from the most expensive residential real estate market in the world, a median selling price of $800,000 for a single detached unit would be perceive more as an incentive rather than a barrier to homeownership. Unlike their Caucasian counterparts, who would have to sacrifice space to remain in this zone if a new home were to be purchased, the Asian buyer would be able to consumer more space, not less. While high prices are a major deterrent for migrants and local people (CMHC 1997c), it has been just the opposite for many of these new immigrants, as can be seen by their swift appropriation of the bastions of privilege on the west side of the city.
For the traditional Caucasian middle-class the sudden transformation of the a large part of the west side into a Zone of Asian Resettlement has caused considerable consternation. Unlike its working-class counterparts to the east, as earlier pointed out, the more traditional member of the middle class are not used to rapid social change, or the novel experience of finding itself becoming the subject of displacement, as suddenly the Traditional middle class on west side were to find out.
Using a few simple mathematical calculations a statistical handle can be created that provides a basis for establishing a floor level of displacement experienced by the Caucasian population in the inner ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement between 1986 and 1996. This floor estimate of displace is easily derived by comparing the overall population growth of this zone with the net inflow of immigrants and then looking at the difference. From this calculation it is possible to deduce that at least five percent of the Caucasian population that once lived within the inner ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement was displaced between 1986 and 1996. Even with this low estimate, this is a considerable number of people, as it would suggest that at least 10,000 Caucasians were either voluntarily (by the sell off of property) or involuntarily displaced because of rising taxes, high rents or inflated housing prices in the ten years between 1986 and 1996. This would mean that on average there has been at least a net absolute loss of 1000 Caucasians from the inner ring each year. Similarly, in the core area of the outer ring at there has been some displacement. In Richmond for instance, at least three percent of the Caucasian population has been displaced as a result of the incorporation of this municipality into the Zone of Asian Resettlement between 1986 and 1996. Again, these are low estimates. In reality the level of displacement has probably been considerably higher than what these floor estimates and percentages suggest.
5.9 - Fourth Settlement Ring: Zone of Caucasian Resettlement
Made up entirely of Langley City (VP-57), Coquitlam Port Coquitlam, parts of Delta parts of the District of Langley, the City of New Westminister, half of the District of North Vancouver, and the most of the populated areas of Maple Ridge, and a large segment of Surrey (GVRD,1996; GVRD,1996aa), In 1996 this Settlement Zone accounted for. About 14.5 per cent of the region’s land mass. With more than 700,000 people, the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement accounted for about 39 per cent of the region’s populatio.
Whereas Burgess had identified the fourth zone mainly as a concentric ring of middle-class settlement, in Vancouver the sectoral geography of social classes found in the third zone is replicated in the fourth zone. as well. Indeed, just as the divergent parts of the third zone appear to be fusing into a broad band of middle class settlement dominated by Asian immigrants, it is the displacement and deflection of the Caucasian population from the Zone of Asian Resettlement that is transforming the fourth zone and creating a new settlement space... Although there are still well defined working class and middle class areas in this zone, increasing it is the over-representation of the Caucasian population that sets the fourth zone apart from the rest of the region.
The economic basis for this change becomes apparent if we look at the urban land market. Between 1986 and 1996 the average value of an owned dwelling unit in the region increased by 250 per cent. For the Zone of Asian Resettlemnt there was a 260 per cent rise.. But in the area sampled in the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement prices only rose by 220 per cent. With property values rising faster in the region, and most particularly in the Zone of Asian Resettlement, a large economic incentive for the existing population Caucasian population to cash in on their homes and move to more inexpensive housing became a powerful force. The same can be said for family-oriented, non-Asian migrants, moving from the rest of the country.
Even though the densification ratio was devised to look at the potential for densification, it can also be used to measure the potential for displacement. Looking at. the region, between 1986 and 1996, the densification ratio moved from 3.52 to 5.88 – an increase of 2.28. Meanwhile the Zone of Asian Resettlement moved from 3.37. to 6.37 and the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement moved from 3.23 to 3.38 – an increase of .15, compared to the 3.0 rise recorded for the Zone of Asian Resettlement (Table 23) The same trend shows up if nominal prices are studied. While house prices in the Zone of Asian Resettlement went from below to above the regional average, prices in the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement remained far below the regional average as the price gap widened from 13 to 24 per cent. But it is when the Zone of Asian Resettlement is compared to the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement that the most striking difference becomes apparent. For here the price gap increases from 13 to 74 per cent.
There is also a social dimension to the displacement and deflection of the Caucasian population. Just like the United States, but to a lesser degree in Canada, rapid changeover in the ethnic composition of the population can produce a tripping effect when an the existing population quickly abandons an area they no longer feel at home in. Besides prejudice, in the United States one of the key motivations for leaving had to do with fear of declining property values. However, this was certainly not the case for the Zone of Asian Resettlement, where prices rose faster than they did in the region or the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement. Still, because of the economic incentives previously mentioned, and social friction, a massive movement of Caucasians out of the Zone of Asian Resettlement occurred (fig 9A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emergence of a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement 1986 to 1996
Table: 23
Pop Imm Asian E I MC Incid Hsld $ $DU Ex Own NF
1996
CMA 1831665 34.9 19.6 10.5 30.5 23.3 54055 318127 10.6 59.4 34.4
ZAR 714721 46.3 31.7 NA 31.1 27.2 51127 325154 NA NA NA
B/R 392601 37.0 24.1 8.4 37.6 24.4 55,000e 325000 50000e 61.3 30.2
ZCR 716811 26.2 11.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
CZCR 158875 15.8 2.9 10.1 15.8 12.8 54984 242247 2.4 76.3 21.8
1986
CMA 1362445 28.7 9.1 13.5 24.6 18.8 36086 127311 3.9 56.0 33.8
ZAR 578249 34.6 14.8 NA 26.1 23.9 37530 125000 NA NA NA
B/R 253653 28.8 9.4 14.2 22.9 15.2 37411 125000 3.7 57.2 29.1
CZCR 106034 16.0 1.6 12.2 14.1 14.4 34829 110500 1.6 74.2 20.3
Definitions: CZCR refers to the City of Langely, Langely District and Maple Ridge; B/R = Burnaby/Richmond
Notes: Because there was not time to do a complete survey, only a sample (using just Richmond and Burnaby) has been used to determine Household incomes and the average price of a dwelling unit. The figures for household Income should not vary much because of this, but there may be an underestimation in the value of dwelling units since the lower values found in the South Shore of the Zone of Asian Resettlement do not entirely counter the much higher values found in the Inner Ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement. Similarly, because of lack of time, CZCR (including Maple Ridge, the City of Langley and the District of Langley) were used as a sample to measure what has been happening in this zone. This sample is also of interest because it conveys the most striking aspects of the demographic profile of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement. Also note that non-family households accounted for 33.8 of 532,225 household in Vancouver. In 1996 this increased to 236,640 of 692960. In
the City of Vancouver non-family households numbered 106,545 or 48.7 Percent of 218,540 households. In The Core about 77 per cent of households were Non-family. In the Zone of Middle Class about 61 per cent of all households were non-family. For the Inner City, which includes the first two zones the percentage was in 1996. For the inner ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement 31 per cent all households were non family
Sources: Vancouver Local Areas 1996, Community Services, City of Vancouver, March 1999; Vancouver Local Areas 1986, Planning Department, City of Vancouver,June 1989; 1986 Census Tracts Vancouver, Part 1, January 1988, 95-167; British Columbia Profiles Part 2, Cat 94-120, September 1988,Part 1, 94-119; 1996 Census, Profile of Census Divisions and Subdivisions in British Columbia, March 1999, 95-191-XPB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This can be shown by looking at the heartland of the Zone of Caucasian, which is made up of the District of Maple Ridge, the City of Langley and the District of Langley (Table 23). In 1986 immigrants made up 16 per cent of the population. and Asians only accounted for less than two per cent of the population. At the same time European immigrants accounted for more than 12 per cent of the population. However between 1986 and 1996 there is a significant change. Even with rapid growth, by 1996 the proportion of immigrants in the heartland of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement declines (however for the overall zone there is an increase, but even so there are still 25 per cent fewer immigrants here than in the region.) In relation to the Zone of Asian Resettlement there is even a sharper difference. Compared to the Zone of Asian Resettlement there are proportionately 56 per cent fewer immigrants in the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement.
Looking at the differences in the proportion of Asians the divergence between the region, the Zone of Asian Resettlement and the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement becomes even more noticeable. For example, between 1986 and 1996 the proportion of Asian Immigrants in the region rises from 9.1 to 19.6, per cent. And in the Zone of Asian Resettlement the proportion rises from 14.8 to31.7. By contrast, if we look at the overall proportion of Asian Immigrants in the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement only 11.4 per cent of the population was made up of Asian immigrants in 1996. However, if we look at the heartland of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement the small presence of Asian immigrants becomes even more obvious. In 1986 only 1.6 per cent of the population was made up of Asian Immigrants. Even though this rose to 2.9 per cent in 1996, this was far below the rate of increase experienced by the region or the Zone of Asian Resettlement (Table 23).
Finally, two other features set this place apart from the rest of the region. One as to do with organization of the material culture of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement around the automobile. The other feature is the focus on the family. (a feature is also apparent in parts of the Zone of Asian Resettlement but with a different nuance because of the large immigrant presence and non-traditional family makeupa) (VS-315).
Commuter patterns and the number of registered motor vehicles provide an easy way to measuring the contrast between the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement and the inner city. Using Maple Ridge, the District of Langley and the City of Vancouver as benchmarks profound differences become visible. This becomes apparent if commuter patterns recorded in the 1996 Census are looked at. Here we see that 50 per cent of all commuters in the City of Vancouver used a private vehicle to get to work. Furthermore, nearly 23 per cent of the labour force used transit and 10 per cent walked. By contrast more than 85 per cent of commuters drive to work in Maples Ridge and the District of Langley. Only 3.2 use transit and just 3.1 per cent walk to work. These differences tell a great deal about how space and time are used in the inner city and the outer suburbs. If we look at the number of registered vehicles the same stark contrast becomes visible. For were only 0.6 motor vehicles per capita for the adult population. For the region this figure stood at .72. But for Maple Ridge and the District Langley the ratio was 1.04, which was 60 per cent higher than the City of Vancouver.
Moreover, between 1990 and 1997 the number of vehicles in the region grew by 15 per cent. In Vancouver there was an actual .43 per cent decline. By contrast, in Langley there was a 32 per cent increase between 1990 and 1997.
From these contrasting figures it is not hard to see how these differences have affected the regulation of space. Thus Vancouver decisively put a halt to freeway construction. Also in the most recent transportation plan one goal was to arrest any increase in the carrying capacity of the road system.
This contrasts directly with Langley and Maple where there are shrill calls for new freeway to connect Langley and Maple Ridge.. Another important point to take note of is the impact that this orientation towards the automobile has on overall consumption. With fewer resources devoted to the use and maintenance of the automobile there is a great deal more room for discretionary spending in the first two zones that could act as counterweight for high housing costs, which also eat into discretionary income. Similarly the construction of more highway infrastructure for commuters produces a concern about equity. For in effect it is the construction of new highways which allow commuters from more expensive areas of the region to purchase housing which would otherwise be a great deal more expensive
Moving to difference in family formation, unlike the first three zones, where postmodern (that is non-family centric social formations predominate) or late-modern formations (pre-modern and hybrid nuclear families affected by immigrant cultures rather than North American norms) predominate, in the fourth zone the nuclear family is still viewed as the norm to strive for. At least in terms of social regulation, this is what makes the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement, a modern rather than postmodern landscape (VS-315)..
The focus on the traditional family also becomes manifest in the built environment, with the highest number of single-detached dwelling to be found here. This can be shown by comparing the outer suburbs, which take in most of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement. For instance, in 1996 45.5 per cent of dwelling units in the region were made up of single-detached units, but in the outer suburbs this house form accounted for 72.6 per cent of all dwelling units (Table 26 ). This family focus also surfaces in the number children attending school. Thus, for the first time, in the near future, the number of students in the Surrey School division is expected to pass that of the City of (VS-353; VS-382
When combined, these factors provide a plausible explanation for the reaction against postmodern norms that has developed, something most evident in the fight against the Transit plan proposed by Trans-Link, the regional body responsible for building transportation inftrasture in the region. Furthermore, with the focus on the family and the preservation of traditional values (such as respect for authority) it is not surprising to find that almost all of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement went over to Alliance Canada in the Autumn election called by the Federal Government in 2000. More than anything else, the success of this right of centre party, with its focus on traditional values family values, the concern about immigration and crime strongly suggest that the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement will act as an urban seed bed for the counter-reaction to nearly all forms of postmodernism. Not surprisingly, this is also the place where organizations like the Christian Heritage, the Family Coalition Party and the Citizens Research Institute are located (G/M 1998bx; VS-522).
In conclusion, to find a close parallel to the transformation of the Zone of Caucasian of Resettlement and the Zone of Asian Resettlement it is necessary to look at the transformation of Miami. Indeed, except for Vancouver, no other major metropolitan region in North America has been so affected by the movement of a foreign middle class into its core and the exodus of the an indigenous Caucasian population into the periphery of the region, in this case Broward County and Palm Beach country (Portes and Stepick 1993). Like Vancouver, immigration in Miami has reshaped the internal geography of Dade County and other adjoining areas. For example, as recently as 1960, only five percent of Dade County was Hispanic. However, by 1990 this had increased to fifty percent. And more recent estimates for 1995 suggest that the Hispanic population may now make up 1.1 million of the 2 million people that live in Dade county, or fifty-six percent of the population, of which Miami and Miami Beach are part of (Navarro 1997). While the population of Dade County only increased by 75,000 between 1980 and 1990, there was a 331,000 increase in the Hispanic population. Conversely there was over a 200,000 (Winsberg 1994,p.488) decline in the non-Hispanic Caucasian population. Although Vancouver is only twenty-five percent Asian at present, if current immigration patterns persist, this percentage should increase by about one percent a year. So over the next ten years the Asian population is likely to pass the thirty-five percent mark and approach the fifty percent mark by 2020.
The other interesting parallel that can be drawn between Miami and Vancouver is the migration pattern of the migrant population. Not only has a foreign zone of middle class resettlement developed in Miami and Vancouver, in each region a non-domestic migrant population has flocked to the central core In the Case of Dade County this would be Miami Beach. For Vancouver, the equivalent area would be the Downtown peninsula, composed of the Downtown and the West End. At the same time, but for different reasons, the family oriented segments of the Caucasian population and migrants from elsewhere in each country, who are not single or who are elderly, have moved to the fringe of the region. For Miami this would be the periphery of Dade County and the exurban counties that are adjacent to it. In the case of Vancouver this would mostly be the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement and, to a lesser extent, the exurban zone, that lies further out and makes up the fifth concentric settlement ring. As with Miami, this is where white families are settling. As the demographic profile of White Rock, illustrates this is where the elderly white are also concentrating as over thirty percent of White Rocks population is over sixty five years of age -- approximately three times the regional average (GVRD 1997g). Not surprisingly, this is also the area that has one of the highest concentration of gated communities in Vancouver (figure ten B).
.
The colonization of the west side appears to have been aided by realtors. Here the steering of Caucasian and Asian buyers by realtors may have further reinforced market trends created by the price differential, which have been described. For example, one Caucasian realtor complained about the unwillingness of a Chinese realtors to show him homes in Kerrisdale -- a place where he had grown up as a child -- because he was not Chinese (PI-44). In addition to the economic pressures the sorting out of the population into Asian and Caucasian settlement rings may have been partially institutionalized on an informal level by realtors, although the extent and significance of this behaviour remain unclear -- the fact that two large real estate firms which specialized in marketing property to Asian migrants have recently folded in Richmond in the current downturn, is highly suggestive (VS-467), and is a topic which no doubt deserves more attention. Although long recognized as force shaping property markets in the North American city, where there is a long train of documentation about this in the United States (Harvey 1973; 1982; 1985), in Canada very little research appears to have been carried out the role realtors play in the ethnic stratification of the regional housing market. This no doubt is taking place, what remains unclear is the extent that real estate agents in Vancouver function as important gatekeepers in the ethnic sorting out of the population.
So more subtle non-economic forces may be at work in solidifying the status of the third zone as one of Asian Resettlement. Once a critical mass for one ethnic group is established in an area, it is possible to speculate about the creation of a tipping response, one which real estate agents no doubt plays a part in fostering, since they have often acted as informal steering and filtering agents for different social classes and ethnic groups in the North American city. For this reason, it would be interesting to further study how some realtors in Vancouver have probably sped up, rather than slowed down, the invasion and succession of the Asian middle class in the third zone (VS-132).
Although Asian realtors may currently be the most active institutional agents in the steering process (as the initial marketing of the Concord development along North False Creek reveals - Olds 1995), to a lesser extent this practice probably exists elsewhere, with non-Asian realors (VS-112aa), as Asian and Caucasian realtors probably respond in a similar way to the need for each group to seek out familiar terrain where some control can be aserted over space by filtering buyers -- especially when the rate of physical and social rate of change becomes too uncomfortable and there is a need to re-establish a social equilibrium that may have been disrupted. Thus, simple fear of the unknown, and the mere concentration of people with different customs and languages, is probably establishes the sufficient motivation for non-cosmopolite segments of the population to leave behind areas that are suffering from a great deal of flux, making areas that are perceived as being more homogeneous more desirable places to live for this population. In large measure, this propensity to search for what is familiar, plus economics, probably accounts for the simultaneous emergence of a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement and a Zone of Asian Resettlement. This would appear to be the case for many former Richmondites who have left the Zone of Asian Resettlement for places like Tsawwassen and White Rock, provoking some observers to dub these places "Little Rhodesia" (Lett 1997b).
Although the 1996 Census is likely to show that the more traditional and less cosmopolitan segments of the Caucasian middle-class population that once inhabited the third zone has diminished significantly in size, but as disputes over zoning and the preservation of the landscape reveal, this middle class fraction is unlikely to completely disappear. While its numbers may be rapidly declining, its political influence has not necessarily declined in tandem with its falling numbers. Moreover, part of this population will likely attempt to adapt to the economic pressure created by the influx of Asian capital by integrating its demand for housing into the regulation of the densification process, and by the creation of market for less expensive and space consuming strata title units in the third zone (Applebe 1997c). Indeed, this is what much ofCityPlan is all about (CVPD-175; CVPD-176; CVC0-78). For in the longer term, if the children of the traditional middle-class and their aging parent are to remain in this area some densification will have to result.
For the Asian middle-class, different cultural values, along with the price differential that exists in the property market of the third zone, and a stronger propensity to buy single detached homes created a unique dynamic to the densification process in this zone, with smaller houses torn down to be replaced by much larger ones (Applebe 1997). With the value of existing homes usually only a fraction of the land value there is a great incentive to buy up single detached dwellings in this zone and rebuilt them on a much larger scale. As one community activist noted, the B.C. Assessment Authority put a valuation of $230,000 on the land but only $15,000 on the house that he and his parents lived in (PI-51). This explains why the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver have been the most active market for the construction of new single detached dwellings for the entire region since the late 1980s -- a process that is now spilling over into the inner suburbs of Richmond and Burnaby, causing the existing population to demand stricter controls on sub-division, something which has also facilitated the adoption of more postmodern forms of contextual zoning, as the remaining Caucasion middle class seek to preserve the modern suburban character of the inner suburbs. That is why postmodern formats have been adopted in north shore, almost over the entire suburban west side of Vancouver, and in parts of Burnaby (figures eight and ten).
Thus, together, the transformation of the third settlement ring into a Zone of Asian Resettlement and the related diffusion of the densification process into this area frame the regulatory transformation that took place in this space.
Beginning at the philosophical level, densification and cultural conflicts over the design and use of space that came about with the emergence of a Zone of Asian Resettlement would lead to the amendment of single family zoning (RS-1), one form of regulation from the modern period that had remained untouchable until now. This deconstruction first began on the eastside of Vancouver, where RS-1 regulations were gradually modified to allow secondary suites while controlling the nuisance effects of density produced by greater site coverage and the shadowing resulting from higher dwelling units (McAfee 1987; Petite 1991). In the middle of the 1980s this eventually lead to a massive secondary suite review of single family areas in the City of Vancouver and the creation of a new zoning district named RS-1S that would allow secondary suites (CVPD-83). With this zoning the formal deconstruction of the modern suburbs began in Vancouver (table ten). On the west side the agitation against densification grew, but different motivations were at work. Rather than traditional utilitarian concerns that had to do with nuisance such as the blocking of sunlight, on the west side the struggle centred around aesthetics. Instead of RS-1S zoning, much more elaborate regimes was developed because of this aesthetic reaction. As a result, RS-5 and RS-6 codes were put in place between 1993 and in 1997 in order to preserve the pastoral image of the suburbs on the west side (e.g., CVCO-53). Since that time it has almost completely replaced the RS-1 zoning which governed the regulation of single family homes on the city's west side (Table 25A).
Whereas the subdivision of larger lots, the construction of so called monster homes and the alterations to the existing landscape had long gone on in the east side, this represented a challenge to a way of life on the west side, or at least the representation of a way of life that was connected to the ideal of the pastoral suburb, which was considered to be the most desirable and prestigious landscape during the modern period (Gibson 1972). Being a symbol of the most conservative and powerful segments of the modern order, any challenge to its dominance was met with an immediate and vigorous reaction.
Because of this, what was once the most inert area of political activism in the city become a hotbed for middle-class activism. A wide variety of new community association came into existence between the late 1980s and early 1990s because of this mobilization, but with a slightly different twist from what took place in the 1970s (PO-1; P0-3). Then the conversion zone was the locus for citizen's mobilization in the 1970s and the object was the large corporate developer. In the 1990s the battle lines had moved out to the third zone, only this time the object of attack was other middle class homeowners. The only difference was that these homeowners were Asian rather than Caucasian -- a foreign middle class, which, like themselves, may have adhered to a modern conception of the city, but not exactly the same ones that were held by the traditional Caucasian middle class, since the actions of this foreign middle class were marked by a form of hyper modernism with regard to the production of space that threatened the stability that had long been guaranteed by RS-1 zoning. Of course, except for areas such as Kerrisdale, these struggles took place within a different regulatory context. Here the clash over the regulation of space had centred around the revision of RT zoning (a zoning category established for boarding houses where there was a great deal of mixed land uses) rather than RS-1. For up to the beginning of the postmodern era single family zoning had inoculated most areas from redevelopment.
As with RT zoning in the 1970s, in the 1990s local area planning processes were set up to deal with densification and middle-class concerns about aesthetics in the RS-1 zones. However since these new developments happened in the era of the urban spectacle a much more truncated and corporatist approach to local area planning was followed. Instead of years, each review was reduced to a period of months. Furthermore, rather than being open ended processes were they were guided by an overall strategic plan, in this case CityPlan -- that had as its ultimate aim the further densification of the third ring (i.e., CVCO-48).
To a less elaborate degree, similar struggles and planning process were later undertaken on the north shore and in Burnaby. But it is in the City of Vancouver and to a lesser extent Surrey -- that the most elaborate regulations for the densification of existing suburbs have been developed (Young 1997; VS-400). As with the other physical and regulatory contexts for densification, experimentation with new house types, small lot developments (VS-379), Flex housing and grow homes has begun to develop in a low-rise format governed by RS-1 zoning schedules across the country as well (Bartlett 1907; Lamey 1996a; CVPD-175; CVPD-176).
While the City of Vancouver may have developed the most complex regulations to deal with the deconstruction of the modern suburb, so far. Montreal is the place where the most innovative and extensive experimentation in the production of new types of higher density, single detached housing units, has taken place. Here thousands of affordable infill single detached units have been constructed during the 1990s. Similarly, in Edmonton new regulations to control the densification of its mature suburbs have been put in place and will soon be made a generalized feature for all the older suburbs in the city that had been built before 1970. Thus densification is producing a late modern rather than high modern landscape in older suburban areas outside in places other than Vancouver although the changes have been most rapid here.
Again, as already mentioned, the other significant change to occur at the philosophic level had to do with the addition of yet another middle class layer of settlement space to the core. This created friction, because unlike the new middle class, this middle class had pre-modern and modernist (rather than postmodern) perspectives on the use and regulation of space. Being a self-made, this foreign middle-class had less interest in the livable city agenda, which had governed the City of Vancouver during the 1970s. With the growth of this large Asian middle class the political block which had supported the 1970s version of the livable city agenda was undermined by the hybrid modernist sensibility that came with the immigration of this middle class. Along with the turn to the right by the other fractions of the middle class, in part, it is possible to view the demise of COPE as one consequence of this middle class immigration. For with its complete elimination from the formal civic scene in the 1996 election, the last civic party with roots in the counterculture and the great middle-class mobilization of the late 1960s came to an end (VS-145a).
At the same time, this foreign middle class has more easily adapted itself to the agenda of the urban spectacle, where market rule is more prominent. Since the largest component of the Chinese middle class is made up of an elite or parvenu middle-class fraction from Hong Kong, the play of the market associated with the urban spectacle fits in much more closely to their outlook than the livable city program. Not surprisingly, this lack of identification with the livable city program became the basis for many of the aesthetic struggles that were to follow between the various Caucasian fractions of the middle class and this newly-arrived Chinese middle class.
With its hyper-modernist attitudes towards space, it is hardly surprising that this immigrant middle class was not interested in the conservation of built environment. Preserving the artifacts of a foreign culture was obviously not a priority. This social stratum, like many other Asian groups, has tended to place less emphasis upon the preservation of the built environment, and so understandably, many of the postmodern values that had to do with the goal of perserveation run against the grain of the predominant Asian sensibility that exits towards the regulation and use of space. Thus in a culture which has paid little attention the conservation of its own physical spaces, regulations which attempted to preserve and contextualize development of a different culture would naturally be of less interest to it.
Conversely, in a regulatory system that supported non-traditional family formations at the social level of regulation, this system would also be less attractive, but for different reasons, since these middle-class immigrants were more tightly bound up in family bonds than their Caucasian counterparts -- bonds that were often as not, premodern rather than modern in their construction (Chan 1996; Goldberg 1985). Because of these cultural inversions it will be interesting to see how future compromises will unfold as these two different value systems begin to mesh together (Smart 1996). So far the social friction that has resulted has mostly been confined to the middle class. For the Caucasian working class that might also be working within a modern framework, the attitude towards space would certainly not be as divergent as with the local middle class and being more used to immigration, the shock created by this sudden immigration would not be as great. So if problems about the influx of this Asian middle class have surfaced with the working class and older European immigrant class, it does not express itself along this aesthetic or philosophic dimension of regulation. If these groups have become alienated, their main response seems to have taken the form of selling off their homes and moving elsewhere, into more familiar surroundings (VS-397).
In part the changes that would take place in the social regulation of space have already been brought up in the previous discussion about zoning and house form. With the increase in secondary suites and Flex houses; the separation of work and residence and the primacy of the nuclear family no longer the linchpin for the physical and social organization of space -- and particularly as the traditional Caucasian population has aged -- a late-modern landscape has emerged, where a built environment organized around the needs of the family remains in place, but there are either hardly any children (Holdsworth 1994) or the form of the family has changed (as is the case with the advancing Asian population) where late modern and pre-modern family formations have entered this zone. While the pre- modern family takes form as the extended family, the late modern variant is a highly secularized and ultra modern one created by astronaut parents and satellite children (Beers 1997a).
At the social level a hybrid late modern landscape has therefore been produced. The social regulation of the third zone remains modern because the focus on the family and the maintenance of a built environment dominated by single detached dwellings remain in place, because of the appearance of a middle class immigrant population, the evolution of a variety of new family formations, of which the nuclear family is now but just one of many forms, the third zone no longer symbolized the classic social landscape that modern regulation idealized in the 1950s, when the nuclear family provided the ideal from which to organize social life in this zone. Not surprisingly, because of densification and the generation of new family forms this zone has become the place where the greatest concentration of secondary suites can now be found.
In this regard it might be possible to a cetain extent to establish a correlation between the decay of the classic nuclear family and the transformation of the single detached dwelling unit into the various forms that have triggered so much controversy throughout this entire zone and indeed every place where single detached units predominate in the region as well as the country. While the family and the single-detached unit will remain the social and physical foundation of this settlement space, the look of both will be quite different from the high modern period, as a diversity of forms rather than one ideal about what is appropriate will govern the use and perception of space here. At length, even in suburban areas that are focussed around child-rearing things have changed, which -- because of the drop in the birth rate -- in a sense, had made all suburbs late modern landscapes. Although the raising of children is central to the social raison d'etre of these landscapes, fewer numbers of children along with an aging population have made these family-centred environments less child-oriented and hence late-modern rather than modern, social landscapes.
Then there are the regulatory changes that have taken place at the aesthetic level. The irony here is the use of postmodern zoning codes by a traditional middle class to preserve a modern landscape. Like the preservation of modern buildings this is one of the most poignant reminders that the modern age has indeed passed. Thus even the modern suburb has become part of the past. And it is this clash between the future and the past which now rages between the traditional middle-class and the Asian middle-class that more than anything else, expresses the passage of the modern era (Ray 1997).
While part of the conflict rests in the hyper-modernism of the Asian middle class, this has been exacerbated by the use of a pre-modern aesthetic, or Feng Shui practices, where some street numbers and the manipulation of the landscape have been made to fit in with the principles of Feng Shui rather than the design traditions associated with the vision of English pastoralism that dominates the look of the west side suburbs (VS-112; VS-112a; VS-115; VS-143A).
Besides this, much of the antagonism may also have its roots in the constitution of part of the Asian middle class that has migrated to Vancouver. Because many immigrants from Hong Kong are part of aparvenu class, some resentment appears to have congealed around the rift that always exist between old and new wealth (VS-97ab; VS-97abc). As with all parvenu social groups in history, such aspiring classes usually offend and ruffle the feathers of more established groups. In the case of Vancouver this may have contributed to some of antagonism that seems to have built up between the more settled and traditional Asian and Caucasian groups that may have been put off by indiscreet and ostentatious displays of wealth by this parvenu group (PI-51; VS-97abb).
Thus because of the ostentatiousness of much of this new wealth numerous landscaping and design issues have been raised by the densification of the inner suburbs, which Asian capital has played a pivotal role in sponsoring. As a result a great deal of conflict over the preservation of low-rise single family dwelling units, issues of site coverage and the sub-division of larger lots into smaller lots (Applebe 1997; figure 10 C) as well as the preservation of trees have become issues of acute concern in middle class suburban areas (Applebe 1997e).
In the City of Vancouver, these are the issues (CVPD-143; CVCO-48; CVCO-50) which the Community Planning Division is now dealing with. While experience gained from the reshaping of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement into a enclave of medium-rise residential spaces in the 1970s, and the experience gained by the Central Area Division in the 1990s, with the creation of a high-rise residential environment in the Core, have produced models of development (Berelowitz 1992), in the 1990s , CityPlan and the Community Planning will be the Divisions that will be responsible for establishing a model for the densification of the third ring, something that can already be seen in the selective introduction of medium-rise dwelling units into vacant or underused spaces in the third zone (e.g., CVCO-48; CVCO-53) and the encouragement given to the production of experimental low-rise rather than medium-rise housing projects (infill/subdivision/Granny Flats/regulation and the creation of secondary suites and the like).
Lastly, the complexity of the aesthetic regulation of this zone has not only increased because of the adoption of postmodern zoning codes; the use of Feng Shui, has added another informal layer of aesthetic regulation to this zone which appears to be responsible for the development of some interesting pockets of settlement by the new middle class, who have moved into small areas in the third zone where poor Feng Shui appears to have deflected Asian buyers while attracting the new middle class, particularly if heritage homes were situated in sites with poor Feng Shui (PI-51; PI-52).
This twist to the aesthetic regulation of space and the profusion of secondary suites in this settlement ring mean that this zone is unlikely to be completely transformed into a Zone of Asian Resettlement or become uniformly middle class. Although the Asian middle class have become the dominant social class in the third settlement zone, some patches of lower-income housing are likely to remain. As well parts of the this zone are liable to be sprinkled with small nodes of Caucasian settlement wherever unique spatial conjunctures created by zoning, poor Feng Shui and the presence of heritage housing create small settlement that will be filled by non-Asian fractions of the middle class. In effect these clusters will therefore become satellites of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement
Whereas downzoning in the West End and to a less successful extent, in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, was deliberately carried out as an attempt to slow down the displacement of existing social groups, the mild downzoning that has come with the new RS zoning for the third settlement ring appears to be motivated more by the desire of the traditional middle class to preserve the physical landscape rather than the existing social space in the third zone (Table 25A). In this regard, it is interesting to observe how very little open tension has so far surfaced between the older European immigrant population or the indigenous working-class population who are cashing in on the rush of Asian immigrants into this zone.
However there have been other clashes over the symbolic appropriation of space elsewhere in the zone. One example would be the disputes that have erupted over the use of language when only non-English signs have appeared in retail areas. This has happened in Richmond where complaints were raised because there were no English signs in some of the retail establishments set up by Chinese businessmen. Similarly, in North Vancouver, the same problem recently surfaced regarding a Farsi sign that was erected on a new commercial establishment (VS-146).
Thus far most of the social friction that has surfaced in the third zone appears to be culturally rather than racially motivated, with different perceptions about the use of space responsible for many of the disputes that have arisen.
5.10 - Fifth Settlement Ring: Exurbia - Zone of Middle Class infiltration
Burgess named the last concentric space as the commuter Zone. In Vancouver this zone would comprise parts of Surrey, Maple Ridge, Coquitlam, the East end of the District of North Vancouver, West Vancouver, parts of Langley Township (VS-421c; VS-422) and White Rock and sections of Delta (VS-433) It includes all of Anmore, Belcarra and Pitt Meadows are also located in this space (VS-352a; VS-398). In total this zone covers over 75 per cent of the region’s land mass. With 214,032 people here it makes up nearly 12 per cent of the region’s population.
What is also interesting to observe is some of close parallels that exist between exurbia and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. In fact the resemblance is so close it would not be an understatement to identify this zone as a displaced, but ruralized version of the of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. As well exurbia takes in most of the agricultural land (VS-419) and the green space in the region. Just as with the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement and the Core we see a great deal of working class and industrial space being converved into middle class space or land uses which support the economy of the Urban Spectacle. Like the inner city, but unlike the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement, political struggle often revolves around environment issues. To a far lesser degree, political conflict stems from class struggles that have to do the protection of blue collar jobs. For instance this became apparent recently in Squamish (really located in the outer exurban ring), where a proposal for a private university was nearly scuttled because a forest company wanted to built a mill in the town. Struggles on the Gulf Islands, Fort Langley, the exurban parts of Maple Ridge and Langley (where there is a powerful horse lobby) also show the same tension has surfaced in the inner exurban ring as well.. Thus producer spaces are being forced to give way to ruralized versions of the urban spectacle (for instance the recent dispute over a Swan See Golf course in Pitt Meadows is a good example).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Middle Class Transformation of Exurbia
Table 24
1996
$DU $ hsld In Pop DU SD Apart MC
CMA 318127 54055 1831665 692960 315200 250900 450035
% -------- --------- ------- -------- 45.5 36.1 30.5
ZMCRS 277315 42617 124348 62050 5500 49939 49035
% 87.1 77.7 -------- ------- 8.8 79.0 43.7
Gulf Is 393610 59957 13405 2875 675 600 3855
% 124.00 109.2 -------- -------- 23.4 20.8 34.5
Bowen I 348888 67930 3066 1150 1040 35 1095
% 109.4 124.0 -------- ------- 90.4 3.0 57.1
W Rock 264665 51637 17210 8745 3330 4475 4480
% 83.0 94.4 ------- ------- 38.0 51.1 29.7
Ft Lang 348979 63645 6348 2070 1840 45 1200
% 109.7 116.6 ------ ------- 88.8 2.1 24.8
Pitt Mea 228068 54804 13436 4730 2780 740 1840
% 71.6 101.3 ----- ----- 58.7 16.9 18.1
1986
$DU $hsld In Pop DU SD Apart 5+ MC
CMA 127311 36086 1362445 532220 283535 52620 273145
% ------- ------- -------- --------- 53.1 9.7 24.6
ZMCRS 127499 27499 104565 55950 7100 4680 27344
% 100.0 75.0 -------- ------ 12.6 8.3 35.6
Gulf Is 108934 25816 9046 3985 3670 0 1090
% 85.0 71.5 ------ ------ 92.0 0.0 14.6
Bowen I 108267 37552 2499 1240 825 5 610
% 85.0 102.7 ------ ---- 66.5 0.4 30.5
W Rock 99972 28111 14387 7025 3710 0.0 2550
% 77.9 77.7 -------- ------- 52.8 0.0 20.6
Fort Lan 118501 41135 5451 1770 1630 0 680
% 92.9 113.8 ------ ------- 92.0 0.0 16.5
Pitt Mea 101521 39000 8004 2665 2005 0 945
% 79.5 108.3 ------ ----- 75.2 0.0 16.0
1971
$ DU $ Hsld Pop DU SD Apart MC
CMA 26702 9931 1082350 345870 216455 113940 122145
% ------- ------ ------ ------ 62.6 32.7 19.1
ZMCRS 25466 7172 105,000 42540 10195 27415 14930
% 96.1 72.2 ------ ------ 23.7 64.2 16.6
Bowen 25250 8084 1345 455 430 15 75
% 96.1 81.4 -------- ----- 94.5 3.2 7.5
W Rock 22710 8126 10350 4125 2835 1190 1030
% 84.6 81.8 ------ ------- 57.8 28.8 11.9
Pitt M 25246 9816 2720 750 695 20 150
% 94.5 98.8 ------ ------ 92.6 2.6 8.6
Definitions
Notes:% for average household income and the value of a dwelling unit are related the region. SD and Apart are related to the number of dwelling units in each area
Sources: 1996 Census Profile of Census Subdivisions In British Columbia, Cat 95-191-XPB, March 1999; 1986 Census, British Columbia Part One 94-119; Part Two 94-120, Sept 1988; 1996 Census Vancouver Part One 95-167, .January 1988; 1986 Census, Census Tracts, Vancouver, Part 2,95-168, December 1988. 1971 Census, Population Vol Part 1,, August 1974, 92-701; 1981 Census, Vancouver Census Tracts, 95-937 Part A/95-978 Part B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like most other zones the greatest changes took place between 1986 and 1996 when the middle class transformation of a number of working class or low income communities took off
For instance, in 1971 the middle class population of the communities of Pitt Meadows,, Fort Langley (CT 505), Bowen Island and White Rock was about half the regional average of 19 per cent. In 1986 this gap lessens but still rests well below the region. Bowen Island is the only exception to this. In 1971 only 7.5. but in 1986 this rises to 30.4, well above the regional average of 24.6.
After 1986 the greatest changes appear. While the middle class population climbs. For example, Bowen Island’s middle class residents almost make up 60 per cent of the population (Table 24), nearly twice the regional average of 30.5 During this period several other exurban communities undergo the same change. F or instance, between 1986 and 1996 the middle class population in the Gulf Islands rises from 14.6 to 34.5.
Consequently, the middle class population in many communitees not only surpasses the region but even approaches or surpasses the middle class population of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. The absence of high-rise structures is also another attribute which ties these communities into the type of built environment that can be found in the Zone of Middle Class, with the most notable example of this seen in White Rock, where many of regulatory norms first developed in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement were transplanted here.
That is why White Rock has developed an ambience quite similar to Kitsilano.
A sudden upward swing in the middle class population in these exurban communities is reflected in the real eatate market. Consequnlty the average value of a dwelling units in the Gulf Islands rises from 85 to 124 per cent between 1986 and 1996. The same thing occurs on Bowen Island, as value of housing rises from 85 to 109 per cent of the regional average.. Here Fort Langley appears as a bit of an anomaly. as the value of housing moved from 93 to 110 per cent of the regional average. Even thought there is significant growth in the middle class population as it moves from 16.5 to 25 of the population, which is impressive but much less than what can be seen elsewhere. Part of the reason may have to with the persistance of a Blue-Collar labour which is way higher than the regional average (Table 25.). Still the rapid increase in the middle class population, combined with a declining Blue-Collar Labour Force suggest that the further middle class transformation will continue into the future. Here as well Pitt Meadows shows a similar pattern. Although the Blue-Collar labour force fell from 60 per cent in 1971 to 42.8 in 1996, this percentage was still far above the regional average. This, combined with a lower percentage of middle class residents, and a rapid increase in medium-rise apartment (from to 16 per cent verus units rather than single–detached units (which is more the case for Fort langley where only 2.1 per cent of apartment units. Even though there is a modest increase in the middle class population the value of dwelling units in relation to the region fall from 95 per cent in 1971, 80 per cent in 1986 and 72 per cent in 1996 (Table 24) For White Rock this may be a factor in lower dwelling unit value even though, unlike Pitt Meadows, the middle class population nearly reached parity with the region; a dramatic increase from 1971 when only 12 per cent of the population was middle class (compared to 19 per cent for the region). This climbed to 20.6 in 1986 before climbing again to 29.7 (which just slightly below the regional average of 30.5). Yet the value of dwelling units falls from 85 to 83 per cent of the regional average between 1971 and 1996. While a rising middle class population should lead to higher relative prices, like the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement the real price rise is hidden by the changes in house type, a changeover that was much more pronounced in White Rock than the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. For instance while the number of apartment units (mostly medium-rise units) rose from 64 to79 per cent of the total number of dwelling units in White Rock the proportion of medium-rise units almost doubles, rising from 29 to 51 per cent of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Retreat of the Blue Collar labour Force in Exurbia
Table 25
CMA Gulf WRock CT505 PittM Bowen
1996
Est BC 332,020 2275 2530 1680 3000 535
% 34.4 36.4 30.1 46.2 42.8 31.3
1986
Est BC 255225 1560 2075 1405 1700 515
% 34.7 43.5 35.1 49.7 42.3 40.8
1971
Est BC 202515 NA 1045 NA 610 260
% 42.6 NA 31.2 NA 60.0 54.5
Definitions:
Notes
Sources:1971 Census, Census Tracts Vancouver, Series B, August 1974.95-758;;1986 Census, Census Tracts, Vancouver Part 2, December 1988, 95-168; 1986 Census, British Columbia, Part 2, 94-120, September 1988;; 1996 Census, Profile of Census tracts in Abbotsofrd and Vancouver, 95-213-XPB, march 1999;; 1996 Census, Profile of Census Divisions and Subdivisions in British Columbia, 95-191-XPB, March 1999.
the housing stock. However in both case the relative value of housing in relation to the region remains remarkably stable. Hence the value of owned housing in relation to the region for the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement move down from 96 to 87 per cent of the regional average between 1971 and 1996. For White Rock the pattern is similar, with the value of housing falling from 85 to 83 per cent of the regional average. However if we just look at Single-Detached units values soar above the regional average. The same thing happens if we look at apartments and factor the price according to the number of rooms in each dwelling unit .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at changes in household income the same patterns observed in the housing market reappear when income is examined (Table 24). Thus, in White Rock, between 1971 and 1996 household income in relation to the regions climbs form 82 to 94 per cent. In Pitt Meadows shifts from 99 to 101 per cent of the regional average. Meanwhile Bowen Island moves from 81 to 124 per cent. In the Gulf Islands the shift is more rapid and dramatic. Hence between 1986 and 1996 average household income increases from 72 t0 109 per cent.
Even with increasing household incomes rising densification ratios suggest that the potential for displacement has accelerated in a number of communities which were once more working class. Between 1986 and 1996 the densification ratio for the Gulf Islands increased from 4.32 to 6.6. And for Bowen Island this ratio moved from 2.9 to 5.1.
The changing class profile of these communities can also be highlighted by looking the changes in the Blue-Collar workforce. In this regard Bowen Island best represents the dissolution of the working class. With about 55 per cent of the labour force Blue-Collar, this stood well above the regional average of42.6. But in 1996 this is turned around as the proportion of Blue-Collar workers falls to 31, less than than the regional average of 34 per cent. In the Gulf Islands this change also becomes quite visible, as the percentage of Blue-Collar workers falls from 45 to 36 per cent of the labour force, which is just slightly above the region (Table 25).
and consumer spaces. Here no doubt the centre of this transformation along the Squamish highway leading up to the resort of Whislter and beyond to Pemberton (VS-468a). However, there are other middle class enclaves that take in part of Pitt Meadows and the western part of Maple Ridge. Finally, Fort Langley, the area around Indian Arm, as well as White Rock make up islands of middle class settlement that exist in exurbia. Because many the migration of many residents from the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement into exurbia a political culture which resembles the one in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement has begun to flourish here as well. That is why a postmodern political culture has taken root here, has leap frogged over the reactionary modernism that persists in fourth zone and to become firmly anchored in exurbia (VS-466).
For municipalities that straddle these two zones this can present problems as two quite different social and political are at work..That is why in the 1999 civic elections the most volatile electorates were not to be found in Vancouver, but in the Exurban Areas. Thus pro-developer regimes went down to defeat in Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and the District of Langley. Also, in Toronto reform politics have moved out of the inner city and into exurbia. In the 2000 civic elections several pro-development councils were defeated or weakened. Perhaps the best example of this change would be the public protests over the Oakridges Moraine where the biggest protests since the early 70,s in the inner city were held in the year 2000.
As the study of the Gulf Islands indicates, this exurban commuter zone goes far beyond the boundaries of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Therefore the population figures and the land area are only part of this settlement ring. Hence parts of the Central Fraser Valley would be included in the commuter zone to which Burgess refers. To a certain extent, this zone even reaches as far as the Okanagan Valley (VS-292) which was aided by the construction of a new super highway (VS-293). As a result it has been more closely integrated into the urban field of Vancouver's. Whatcom County (across the border, in the United States) the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast and even Whistler can also be considered part of this settlement ring (figure five).
Like Burgess' model this is a place where many commuters live. Unlike his model but more like the Core and the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement it is also a place for recreation and consumption rather than production or work. That is why many parts of the exurban ring can be viewed as a countrified version of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement.
Because this outer ring is in a state of flux, the colonization of this zone by the new middle class is only patchy. There are many forms of regulation in place here. In some places the livable city program is in operation while in other places (like Whistler) that of the urban spectacle or modern regulation is still present. For example, in places like the District of North Vancouver (VS-423) and parts of Port Moody (VS-488;VS-510) -- where the new middle class have been able to assert themselves -- echoes of the livable city are visible Thus in places like Fort Langley a ruralized version of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement has appeared. Similarly Whistler (VS-468), and to a lesser extent, Harrison Hot Springs (VS-332) can be viewed as satellites and extensions of the economy of the urban spectacle that is centred in the Core.
Unlike the fourth zone where modern regulation is still clearly dominant, the regulatory picture in exurbia is much more mottled. However, as earlier stated, the infiltration of the new middle class into this zone, and the appropriation of larger pieces of territory of exurbia by this class, even if they don't live in this zone, has greatly expanded the influence of postmodern regulation. In turn, this has set up another front which postmodern regulation is able to advance into the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement.
One reason for the presence of postmodern regulation this far out has to do with the impact of the counterculture on exurbia. During the 1960s a significant contingent of middle class individuals moved out of the suburbs to the outer reaches of the region rather than into the inner city, bringing with them this new spatial sensibility. Depending where one goes in the fifth settlement ring, the spatial matrix that governs the production of urban space can vary a great deal. It can either be modern or one of the two postmodern programs that have been mentioned: with the livable city ideology clearly present on the Gulf Islands and in places like Fort Langley (VS-489) with the urban spectacle, more apparent in towns like Whistler, Steveston, or Harrsion Hot Springs, and in proposed (VS-461; VS-462).
As with the fourth but unlike the third zone, the major struggles therefore revolve around the aesthetic dimension of postmodern regulation, except here more emphasis has been given to ecological issues, which is understandable since this is where natural and rural rather than urban landscapes predominate. Consequently struggles have arisen over resorts, golf courses and unwanted development or development that it feels to be inferior. The other difference is that unlike the Core the middle class have allied themselves with farmers rather than the working class to control development.
Since it is a zone that is increasingly being devoted to consumption and recreation, conflicts between the productivist ethos associated with modern spatial practices and postmodern ones associated with leisure and the stylization of the landscape have broken out between distinctly working class and middle class constituencies .
However, where the middle class has begun to organize itself the way space is represented and perceived has changed. What is more important, perhaps, is the struggle over how space is to be used. Throughout the exurban zone this has generated some very intense political conflict. This can be seen along Port Moody's North Shore, in the District of North Vancouver, in Maple Ridge, in Pitt Meadows and in the District of Langley (VS-149) where, to the chagrin of politicians, the regulation of urban space has become quite volatile and politicized. Consequently, as earlier stated, the pro-development slants of many local councils have been challenged if not overturned, as citizen's groups have begun to flourish here as they have long done in the Core and in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. A generation after dialogical planning had become the norm in the City of Vancouver it is now surfacing along the outer periphery of the region.
Communications technologies have also redefined the nature and function of the commuter zone making it a place of work as well as place of residence (Gurstein 1995). And, as earlier stated, this zone includes important recreation spaces which extend well beyond the boundaries of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and act as an informal part of the region's park system. In addition, there are places which also act as satellites of the urban spectacle, where congestion on some popular mountain trails can be as bad as that experienced along the Seawalk in Stanley Park, in the Core.
5.11 Non concentric settlement patterns
In addition to the five concentric settlement rings that Burgess mentioned, there were other spatial configurations to which his colleagues pointed to (figure eleven A and B). Chief among these were the nodal and sectoral models for the city that were advanced by Ullman and Harris (Eyles 1986 p.309) and Hoyt (Theodorson 1961). Thus, more than forty years before Garreau (1991) popularized the notion of edge cities, more reputable intellectual representations of this phenonenon had already been introduced into the literature by Ullman and Harris (Eyles 1986,p. 309). In the case of Vancouver, Ullman and Harris's multi-nuclei arrangement can be seen in the appearance of town centres and regional town centres. And Hoyt's focus on sectoral configurations can be connected to rail lines that now form the basis for transit oriented development corridors that have emerged in Vancouver (figure one). But even in the context of Burgess' original concentric pattern model some mention is made of non-concentric settlement formations (figure eleven A).
As stated before, the most powerful non concentric settlement pattern to emerge in the postmodern era is the transit oriented development corridors and regional town centres. This is a very recent development in the postmodern settlement geography of the region, as transit oriented development only became a defining feature of the landscape with the opening of Skytrain in 1986 (figure one). At present a second line is under construction, which is expected to be opened in 2002, and will eventually connect the City of Vancouver to the City of Coquitlam. Also, if Vancouver wins the bid for the Winter Olympics, a third transit line is expected to be built.
However, as already mentioned in the Chapter on densification, the development of regional town centres and transit corriders have emerged as the most important non-concentric settlement formation in the postmodern city. Instead of the amorphous low-density sprawl that defined urban development in the modern era, in the late-twentieth century a much more structured pattern has become manifest in the hub and spoke pattern that was almost erased during the modern era when the inter-urban railroad was abandoned in the 1950s. Unlike the modern period, in the postmodern era linear as well as concentric settlement patterns are both reshaping the settlement morphology of the region (figure eleven B). This does not necessarily contradict the Burgess scheme, for if we look closely at his idealized model, deviations and mutation from the main concentric patterns can be found in the model that he constructed as well (See figure eleven A). So it is not the presence or absence of non-concentric patterns which defines the evolution of specific type of postmodern landscape in Vancouver, but its growing influence on the organization of space that becomes critical to understanding the morphology changes taking place with regard to the postmodern transformation of the region. While clearly a subsidary phenomenon in the Burgess model, the linear spoke and hub pattern that has taken shape in Vancouver in the postmodern era has become just as important as the transformation of each of the concentric zones.
Again, the most powerful non concentric pattern is the transit-oriented development corridor that has surface along the Skytrain line (VS-406c). Which ever concentric settlement ring it has passes through considerable land use flux has followed. As a result, social and physical spaces have been mixed up in these transit corridors, complicating and muddying the clearly defined settlement rings that have been described. Hence linear rather than concentric settlement vectors have been established whenever a transit-corridor or regional and local town centre has been established, scrambling the predominate spatial order of the concentric settlement zones that it crosses.
These transit lines have also created new interstitial spaces within and between each concentric settlement zone. To a certain extent these pathways now function as conduits for the underclass and marginalized components of the population that have been displaced from the Core. Conversely, it is also drawing these elements to the Core, aggravating some problems while relieving other. Moreover, the appearance of Skytrain also appears to have changed the geography of crime in the city as well, diffusing it outwards to places once relatively isolated from crime because they were inaccessible. (Buckley 1996; VS-133a).
Thus, as the transit infrastructure of Vancouver further develops, a linear as well as concentric and multi-nuclei metropolis is emerging. From this, a hybrid urban form that mirrors a recombination of the three most recognizable models developed by Chicago School theorist has therefore emerged: that is the sectoral model of Homer Hoyt; the concentric settlement model of Burgess, and the multi-nuclei model of the city formulated by Ullman and Harris. So with the construction of up to two more rapid transit lines, concentric and linear patterns of development are likely to become the most noteworthy urban patterns (figure One).
Another important settlement pattern to emerge with the overspill of the middle class and Asian immigrants from the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement and the Zone of Asian Resettlement is the creation of satellite communities (figure one).
The first satellite community was formed on the edge of the City of Vancouver in the Killarney local area and the north shore of the Fraser River (figure 7B). More suburban than the second settlement zone it nevertheless embodied many of the aesthetic features and social aspirations of the livable city program that shaped the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. As with the Zone Of Middle Class Resettlement this community is made up of a blend of medium-rise co-operatives, non-profit and strata title units. And like South False Creek, despite attempts to rein in the automobile, the city has not been successful in putting a good transit network in place(PI-12; CVC0-51). However, for False Creek this may soon change with the completion of a trolley that will connect with Skytrain and Downtown.
The City of White Rock can be viewed as a second middle class satellite. In social terms it acts as the West End did in the 1950s and early 60s, operating as a large reservoir for well to do seniors in the region, with over thirty percent of the population over sixty-five (GVRD 1997g), the seniors population is about three times the average for the region. In physical terms, White Rock resembles the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement rather than the West End. Not surprisingly, the long term consultant and planner who was responsible for planning in White Rock, came from the City of Vancouver, and was heavily involved in the transformation of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement during the mid 70s. This planner also played an instrumental part in setting the framework which would define the direction of the official plan for the city that was adopted in 1995 (City of White Rock 1995).
Although located in the exurban part of Vancouver, White Rock has so successfully copied the ambience of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, when trying to sell houses here, developers and realtors often make comparisons with Kitsilano to entice buyers. As with the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, the City of White Rock is a place where the densification process has been successfully guided by postmodern norms. In a similar fashion, it has also become a place of leisure and consumption rather than work or child rearing. While there are children the demographic profile of this cohort is more similar to the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement than it is to the other suburban part of the region. Thus the biggest difference between the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, the biggest difference is that White Rock caters to older members of the middle class.
Three satellite communities from the Zone of Asian resettlement have also been spun out from the main settlement rings. One exists in the fourth settlement ring and is located in the Northeastern part of Port Moody and the northwestern part of Coquitlam. With a survey showing that nearly forty percent of all new homes have been purchased by people with Chinese surnames this area can only be expected to expand into the future (VS-112aa; VS-132).
Another one has appeared in an affluent new subdivision in Surry, North of the Freeway. Like Coquitlam the areas are dominated by expensive single-detached dwelling units.
The third satellite is located further out and houses East Indian rather than Chinese immigrants. Compared to Coquitlam it is also more blue-collar than white-collar. This other satellite is not even located in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, but is situated in the adjacent Cities of Abbotsford and Mission. Here the East Indian population has grown from about one point five percent of the Central Fraser Valley's population to around seven percent in 1991 and will probably reach 15,000 (or around eleven percent of the population) when the 1996 data on ethnic origins of the population located in the Central Fraser Valley iare released by Statistics Canada. If the 1996 population for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Central Valley Regional District were combined, this would create a population somewhere around two million, and an East Indian population of just over 100,000, which would make the make the population of this East Indian enclave twice as concentrated as the overall average for the region, which rests around five per cent (SC-18; City of Abbotsford August 22, 1995).
Another non-concentric configuration that has lately appeared is the gated community. The construction of these kinds of spaces can be linked to the aging of the population, and the stratification of more affluent seniors, who have moved to more exclusive environments where defensive design features have created landscapes of fear. In Greater Vancouver, these gated-communities are mostly clumpted together in Delta, the District of Langley and in Richmond.
These communities stand out as one of the best examples of the class polarization that has come about in the era of the urban spectacle. Along with the fear of aliens, which has become more pronounced with the emergence of a Zone of Asian Resettlement, it is not surprising to find that gated-communities are mostly found in the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement. However, it is also necessary to see these communities as a manifestation of a new landscape of leisure. For besides fear, the greater interest that seniors now show in leisure and travel in the 1990s, and the desire to protect housing units that are not lived in for a large part of the year, is likely one reason why this type of housing has caught on with a certain segment of the population. Like their American counterparts, that is why these fortress communities tend to be located in the outer suburbs, and in exurbia (figure eleven B). Not surprisingly, Kelowna, the most distant city within the exurban field that extends out from Vancouver, is the place that probably has the highest concentration of gated-communities in the country.
These complexes represent the dark side of the postmodern development of the region. They have only become noticeable in the Lower Mainland in the 1990s, where they still exist on a minuscule scale compared to what exists in the United States. Nonetheless, they embody many of the worst values of the second-generation postmodern landscapes that have been built in Canada. In this regard, it is not too far fetched to say that they represent the diffusion of the carcercal landscapes that was incubated first in the core but has now travelled out to the suburbs -- with exclusivity and fear rather the inclusiveness and social solidarity acting as the motivation for the organization of space (Buckley 1997).
Another interesting reconfiguration of the physical landscape is the breakup and dispersion of working-class landscapes. In the Burgess and Hoyt model this concentric or sectoral pattern of working class settlement was shown to made up of a large contiguous zone. Until the 1970s this roughly approximated the pattern that could be observed in Vancouver. Except for working class suburbs, such as Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge and Surrey, most of the working class was concentrated in the core area of the region. With the reconfiguration of the property market that came with the colonization by the middle class and the creation of two rings of Asian middle class middle class, this working class landscape has been fragmented and broken apart.
Rather than appearing as a contiguous settlement zone, it has broken up into a settlement field composed of fragments -- a demographic Van Allen belt so to speak -- where much of the working class is caught between a transitional area created near the boundary of the Zone of Asian Resettlement and the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement (diagram 10B).
The change reflects the dwindling influence of the working class, as Vancouver becomes more of a middle-class city and as the city as become more specialized as a destination point for tourism, which creates jobs but reduces the clout of the organized working class, as pink-collar rather than blue-collar jobs are created. This is also a reflection of the transformation of Vancouver from a place of production to one of consumption. While Vancouver has been more of a trans-shipment centre rather than a manufacturing centre, the disappearance of the wood mills and log booms that once predominated along False Creek and the transformation of False Creek into a recreation inlet stand out as the most poignant metaphor for the erasure of the working class from the core of the region.
What has happened is also a reflection of the historical and philosophical bias that postmodern regulation has shown toward working-class representation of space. Most noticeably, this can be seen in the transformation of producer landscapes into consumer landscapes, the creation of consumer niche markets, which charge a premium to keep low-income people away, and the vilification of mass markets. This would also emerge in the glorification of the artist as the icon of the new age and the downgrading of the engineer. Together, these changes would have spatial repercussions.
Because the working class generally have greater access to automobiles, this displacement and dispersion from the centre has not been as severe for them as it has been for the urban proletariat, who are located lower down on the social scale. Often lacking access to automobiles, this class is more dependent on centrality and the existence of a coherent spatial enclave because of their dependence upon a thick layer of social services and personal networks that have traditionally been concentrated in the first and second zones, creating facilities where close enough so that movement could be made by foot or transit without too much difficulty. Indeed, this has become one of the main issues between the middle class and the urban proletariat in the Core, but most particularly in the Downtown Eastside.
With densification and the middle class colonization of the core, the rapid escalation in land and housing prices and the decline of larger modern institutions that once housed marginalized people (Such as Riverview and Woodlands (VS-391; VS-394; G/M. 1998cp) the filtering mechanism of the modern city has been compromised. Not only has burden of housing the disenfranchised increased, the shrinking of working class space has made it more difficult for the Core to absorb the region's marginalized population. Therefore it hardly surprising to see a large expansion of homeless population.
As figures ten B and nine A show, both the working class and the urban underclass are now being squeezed into leftover urban spaces located on the periphery, creating a pattern that is not dissimilar to that which can be found in many European cities, but one that is uncommon in North America, where the bourgeoisie has moved to the suburbs and exurbia, and left the core behind for the urban poor who could be kept out of sight and out of mind. However, because of the unique social ecology that has developed in Vancouver a European pattern has emerged which is beginning to do just the opposite.
While working class landscapes exist as buoys in a bourgeois sea, the urban underclass and the new population of homeless individuals do not even have these islands with which to attach themselves. Instead they are being squeezed into the interstitial spaces of the city. Over time they have increasingly cropped up in leftover spaces created by abandoned buildings, along sidewalks, parks, any space. According to one neighbourhood activist (PI-51), within the past year this population has even dispersed outside the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement and moved into the third suburban zone, becoming visible in places like Pandora Park.
5.12 - Summation
What this survey of the postmodern social ecology of Vancouver has shown is that the lose spatial logic that once sorted out and stratified the region's population no longer exists. The modern city is dead! In its place a postmodern one has arisen. As a result, a different spatial logic for the regulation of urban space has begun to crystallize. This has become most apparent in the transformation of the concentric zones of the city and the emergence of regional and local town centres, as well as transit corridors. Settlement spaces in the region have therefore become much more complex.
What also become clear from this overview of the changing settlement geograpy of Greater Vancouver is how the articulation of the densification process with postmodern regulation has established a new spatial logic for the organization of space. This has created a unique postmodern urban geography for Greater Vancouver that stands in opposition to the geography of the modern city that once existed.(Table 25A).
New settlement zones or spaces, which were not present during the modern period - such as the Collage city of the Core, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, the Zone of Asian Resettlement and the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement have surfaced. As well, new social formations such as the new middle class and an Asian middle class have emerged, which have completely transformed the social ecology of the region. This combined with densification and the growing influence of postmodern regulation have created a unique settlement geography that has nothing to do with some of the glib pronouncements which have been made about the existence of a super-regional urban entity named Cascadia.
A more careful assessment of what is shaping the Vancouver region would show that the existence of such a super-region is an artificial construct. For the most important forces that are shaping Vancouver lie further afield -- with changes made by the federal government with regard to immigration policy and the specialization of Vancouver as a destination centre for international tourism -- an evolutionary taken which has nothing to do with Cascadia. These are macro economic and political forces that have established the conditons for Vancouver to evolved differently from other Canadian cities, and even moreso, its regional counterparts in the Pacific Northwest. That is why cities like Seattle and Portland supply little insight into the most important forces that will affect the further evolution of the Vancouver region. Indeed, it is not to the Pacific Northwest, but to San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami where more significant parallels can be found, which should be studied. By no means does this mean that what is happening in Seattle and Portland is not of interest, or that something cannot be learned from the regulatory techniques that have been pioneered in these two centres; but when it comes down to fundamentals, it soon becomses clear that Vancouver occupies a different economic and cultural universe than either Seattle or Portland. While there is some overlap in the formal regulatory logic used to guide development in each city, each is still moving along quite different trajectories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Evolution of Zoning in the City of Vancouver
Table 25A
1956 to 1973 Modern Era
City of V Core ZMCRS ZARS-inner
CMA-1 56 M-1 -56 RS-1 - 56
M2 - 56 M2 - 56 RS-2 - 56
RM-4 66 RT-1 -56 RS-3 - 56
C2- 56 RT-2 - 56 C-2 -56
M1- 56 RM-3 -56 M-1 - 56
CM2 57 C-2 - 56 ---------
1973 to 84 Post Modern Era – Phase One – Livable City
Core ZMCRS ZARS
FCCDD -74 FCCDD -74 RS-1A73
HA-1 -74 RT-2A -76 ---------
HA-2 -74 FM-1 -76 --------
DD -75 RM-3A! -76 --------
WED -75 C2-B- 76 --------
CWD - 79 C2-C -76 -------
DOED C-2C1 -76 --------
M1-A -76 RM-3A -76 -------
--------- RM-3B -76 --------
--------- M1 –A -76 --------
1984- 1986 Postmodern Phase 2 – Age of the Urban Spectacle
BCPED -84 RT-4 RS-5 93
SEGS -84 RT –4N RS-6 -96
RM-5 -89 RT-5 --------
RM-5A -89 RT-5N ---------
RM-5B -89 RT-6 ----------
RM-5C -89 IC-1 ---------
RM-6 -89 IC-3 --------
CH - 90 1-1 -------
FCN ------ ---------
Downtown S ------- ----------
Definitions: RS= Single family residential C= Commercial IC-Industrial district (Postmodern) RM= Apartment district; RT=Two Family Dwelling District
CM= Downtown Commercial M= Industrial
Notes: Although this is not a complete zoning list it does convey how zoning has evolved in each period. In the Modern era zoning was much simpler and utilitarian in orientation. In the Postmodern era many more zoning categories appeal and the abstract orientation towards space moves to one base on context FCCDD and the HA zones for Chinatown and Gastown. In terms of regulation the age of the urban spectacle is market by the hiving of of BCPED from FCCDD. Here for the first time a zoning cateogory appears that oriented to the promotion of the economy of the urban spectacle.
Sources City of Vancouver Zoning Maps 1956 to 19996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment