What people said concerned them the most was a growing sense of isolation and disconnection. They said we live increasingly in silos, separated by ethnicity, culture, language, income, age and even geography. They lamented what they saw as a deepening civic malaise that has resulted in more people retreating from community activities. They said this corrosion of caring and social isolation hurts them personally and hurts their community. — Vancouver Foundation
Regardless of its textbook urban success with its new buildings, neighborhoods, geography and living standards, Vancouver also faces some disturbing truths about creeping isolation, loneliness, racial and ethnic intolerance and other psychosocial urban perils. Perhaps these are due to over gentrification and other actions, but recent survey by the Vancouver Foundation focuses on some tough issues in the community and raises critical questions most other economically developed cities are also facing.
Did hi-end urbanization become a socially divisive trend? Sort of walled living for the individuals with their own kind? And what would the long term effects of these new problems be?
Somethings to ponder as we call this "an urban century" and most urbanisms these days are associated with "upgrading" the neighborhoods.
17 Comments
this survey is almost completely useless because there is no correlation between where these people actually live in the city and their views of civility. I wouldn't be surprised if the high rates of seclusion were in the residential towers and double-loaded corridor buildings, and lower-rates were in more horizontally dense neighborhoods.
It mentions almost a dozen of times that the survey cross sectioned "metro Vancouver." Did you read the intro and the methodology sections of the report, or, just read my news line and the photo I have chosen?
You get the essence though, don't you?
Vancouver's downtown and a few surrounding neighbourhoods are quite lovely, memorable places. Vast majority of the city is generic suburban wasteland though. Quality of housing is pure shite compared to Seattle and Portland for instance. It's a fairily young city though, so things are bound to improve.
The report focuses on people having hard time making friends there. In my experience, there are a number of reasons for this: it rains 8 months of the year, cost of going out is through the roof, and there are some quirky laws on books. You have to be seated at a table in a bar if you want to be served booze. No standing at the bar. Yes, there are other ways to make friends than through boozing, but I would be hard pressed to name any of them.
@orhan - sorry - briefly skimmed as I was at work...
from the survey:
High-rise and apartment life clearly affects people’s abilities to get to know their neighbours. Twice as many apartment dwellers (15%) as those living in townhomes or single detached homes (7%) never chat with a neighbour. Similarly, 26% of renters say they never chat with a neighbour or do so once a year or less, compared to 12% of homeowners.
....
We asked if people know the first names of at least two of their immediate neighbours.
Knowing neighbours’ names depends on who you are and how you live. Among renters, 39% do not know the first names of at least two of their neighbours, compared to 18% of homeowners. It’s worse for people in high-rises; 43% of them do not know at least two of their neighbours’ names.
also - the survey does actually talk about "west vancouver" as a place where neighbor ties are growing stronger... which appears to be very dense single family and low-rise area of the city. - oh, and probably the most expensive neighborhood in the city.
and finally - the survey does not mention whether or not these individuals had young kids in their current location. this is actually pretty important if you're discussing "getting to know neighbors."
having lived in YVR for over four years now, i do find that there are neighborhoods that seems to struggle in terms of community. on the other hand, there are neighborhoods that area great examples of community. stepping back, it seems that the areas that struggle with a sense of community are areas of recent development. older areas, i.e. more affordable areas, tend to have more character, mom and pop shops, lower rent and other distunguishing characteristics that promote a sense of community, in turn (i believe) making it more interesting to get out and explore, meet and engage.
great topics and really interesting survey Orhan.
This picture is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Vancouver:
(image via cbc.ca)
"social isolation" at it's finest, yo!
Connely, thanks for the on site observations and assessment. I was also speculating from similar angle and assuming the negative social impact of new upscale developments, neighborhood gentrification and similar causes.
Orhan - neighborhood gentrification is a tough one - yes it changes the character of a neighborhood and displaces groups of people, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this always adversely affects a sense of community. It often just shifts from the old group to the new group. I think this is hard for old-timers because unless they embrace the newcomers they'll end up feeling a greater loss of community and become isolated mostly due to their own rigidity. This is especially difficult in neighborhoods that experience changes in ethnicity - even if the newcomers are more economically advantaged.
also - not necessarily "upscale," but even just large scale (mid and hi-rise) development can be detrimental. I think this is tougher for people in our industry to accept - or maybe we turn a blind eye to it? This is why I pointed out that scale and housing type in the neighborhood matters (and connely points out that age of neighborhood also matters). It turns out the new urbanists are actually correct about some things.
a
"yes it changes the character of a neighborhood and displaces groups of people, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this always adversely affects a sense of community"
i have come to believe that the term "gentrification" is used as a selling mechnanism by some, basically a term that pretties up something that is just a big moneymaking scheme... some might claim that an area will be gentrified, but what really happens is big money comes in, tears down old buildings (buildings with character that are an established part of a community) to replace with new building (w higher density of course), which in turn forces prices up and more established residents/businesses out. the result is neighborhoods with new buildings that have really high overhead that small local businesses cant afford, then you get the starbucks... kind of like the walmart effect on a smaller scale.
so toasteroven, i mention the above with respect. I agree, i don't think it always adversely affects community. but i think that it has in quite a few cases around here, and totally agree that some turn a blind eye to it.
Can cities desegregate?
A relevant article from Salon.com in which author Carl H. Nightingale among other things, states this,
"the United States—despite its status as the historic cradle of suburban white-flight and automobile-enabled sprawl—has also recently become home to some of the most extensive discussions of the connections between desegregation, city planning, and the fight against global warming. Inner-city-based movement for environmental and transportation justice helped propel these debates, which have also involved growing numbers of antisprawl activists in the suburbs as well as professional planners attracted to the international New Urbanist and Eco Cities movements. Urban planning built around public transport and walkable spaces has enormous potential to make urban color and class lines more porous and thus create cities that are at once more just and sustainable. It is true that in housing markets where race and class exclusivity determines property values, privileged residents often strongly resist boundary-crossing mass-transit lines. Conversely, successful transit schemes can accelerate gentrification by forcing those who rely the most on the system to live furthest away from stations. In an unusually promising development, the Obama administration opened an exploratory Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities whose mission is to encourage urban transport that is connected to the development of nearby affordable housing."
via
some might claim that an area will be gentrified, but what really happens is big money comes in, tears down old buildings (buildings with character that are an established part of a community) to replace with new building (w higher density of course), which in turn forces prices up and more established residents/businesses out.
Anyone who owns property and lives in a neighborhood isn't "priced out" - they "sell out." I was working on a bunch of projects in a "gentrifying" neighborhood a few years ago before the recession - and when developers approached long-time residents to buy their property, these people were happy to sell... at a premium. There were very few people who outright refused to be bought out. Also - established mom/pop stores usually go away because people simply end their business (too old, kids aren't interested, etc...)... unless the building owner is looking to sell or get a larger tenant, they aren't typically just going to kick a long-time tenant (especially of a small/weird space) out on the street after their lease is up (oh - and national chains are a huge pain in the ass when negotiating leases -unless they really want to move into your space, they're kind of the tenant of last resort because they drive down rates). and a lot of these businesses actually own their building if they've been around for a while - especially if it's single or two story.
so... It's a little more complicated... I think the people who lose out the most are those who are on the margins economically - people who don't have it together or are struggling financially (which includes immigrants, 20-somethings, artists, etc).... who could survive in that neighborhood ecosystem because there were hairy spaces for them to inhabit.
@ toasteroven, agreed, more complicated and i think i was being a bit subjective there... but i don't think that just because someone was bought out, it is a good thing, or that people with the money doing the buying have the best of intentions...
@Orhan - really great article. so much good stuff in there and i definitely think that it ties into the discussion here, especially the politics involved and behind things like segregation (which is still very much in effect today; for instance i grew up in a small southern town that was segregated, and have lived in other towns that actually had two high schools, one predominately African American and one predominately White American). what i found very interesting(among many) in the article was histirocal narrative around this subject (segregation) and how it is something that has been inherent for a long time... nothing new under the sun...
thanks for passing along this article.
great statement...
"While it is amply true that supporters of white and elite privilege remain in charge of the commanding heights of the world’s urban politics, it is just as fully true that more people than ever before have come together to imagine and begin to create explicitly antisegregationist urban futures."
but i don't think that just because someone was bought out, it is a good thing, or that people with the money doing the buying have the best of intentions...
right - what's more important - money or community? I love where I live now; I really like my neighbors and the neighborhood. But if someone came to me with several million to buy my house, would I care what they ended up doing with it? Do I feel that attached to this place? what if most of my friends and neighbors were selling out? If there's a lot of money being thrown around at property owners, who is looking out for the rest of the people who live here?
I think the question is: how do you get enough people to feel so strongly about a place to want to fight (and make the time to fight) to preserve it?
Toasteroven, in a wider sense, it is not always about money. It shouldn't be. And it is not true the people are always offered the best prices.
I have some questions too.
What about people who are renting their house or apartments? How are they to deal with the ever increasing rents and pressure to move them out and replace the neighborhood with people who are willing to pay twice or three times the previous occupants because they have a disproportionate income? People work. Just because they make less money on their skills and jobs, should they always made feel threatened with the possibility of losing their basic right to housing and losing their right to the city?
How about the psychological discomforts of being made to feel you don't belong to a place of your birth or residence any longer?
I am also interested in human rights side of things. Here is a case study overseas we have also paid attention here in Archinect.
If you can point me to people who became wealthy because they have sold their gentrifying inner city houses to rich developers, I can point to thousands more who are displaced under worst circumstances without mercy of any kind.
I accept the fact that built environment changes in time but does it have to be always in worst capitalist show off? What about worsening living conditions attributed to majority of the people and their housing, health, education situations? What is the gentrifying solution? Out of my sight, out of my mind? Is that sustainable? What would you think about today's high income generating people/workers, who can guarantee they will have it the same way tomorrow?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.