Expelled from the garden? Understanding the dynamics of green gentrification in Vancouver,British Columbia

Abstract

There is substantial evidence detailing the ecological and social benefits provided through urban greening. However, research in the field of urban green equity has revealed that these benefits are not enjoyed equitably by all residents; existing disparities in the distribution, accessibility, and experience of urban greening disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities and residents. Furthermore, green gentrification scholarship has indicated that instances of urban greening intended to rectify inequities, can contribute to or elicit shifts in property values, encouraging speculative commercial and retail investment, disrupting existing socio-spatial relationships, and threatening the housing security of residents. Although there is consensus on this general characterization of green gentrification, many questions remain concerning the relationships between urban residents engaged in small-scale urban greening and the perpetuation of green gentrification outcomes. Contributing to this line of inquiry, we present a case study of an urban farm operating in Vancouver, Canada, facing displacement due to the redevelopment of its current site. Our results from the study illuminate the contradictory position in which urban residents practicing urban greening are sometimes placed—both implicated in and impacted by green gentrification processes. We present a review of our case study to highlight the power dynamics that farm members must navigate in the effort to preserve their access to land and continue their farming practice. Then, we discuss the farm's role as a consultant for the redevelopment process, exploring how its vision, mission, and identity have been co-opted by development agents and used as a branding tool to promote and support the public perception of the redevelopment. Our findings offer insight into novel relationships between urban agriculture, large-scale redevelopment, and green gentrification. What's more, they contribute to existing discourse concerning the limitations of development processes to account for the risks of green gentrification.

Keywords

Green gentrification Environmental Justice urban greening urban agriculture

Introduction

In cities across the globe, urban greening—the integration of green spaces, trees, and associated vegetation into urban, public spaces (Escobedo et al., 2019; Konijnendijk et al., 2006)—is emerging as a strategy to create more livable environments. There is substantial evidence detailing the ecological and social benefits provisioned through urban greening (Escobedo et al., 2019; Hotte et al., 2015; Mendes et al., 2020; Nesbitt et al., 2017); however, these benefits are not enjoyed equitably by all residents (Nesbitt et al., 2019; Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016). Rather, there exist vast disparities in the distribution, accessibility, and experience of urban greening that disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities and residents (Du and Zhang, 2020; Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016). Complicating this discussion further, urban greening intended to rectify inequities, such as the renewal or installation of public parks or community gardens, can contribute to or elicit shifts in property value, encouraging novel speculative commercial and retail investment (Immergluck and Balan, 2018; Lang and Rothenberg, 2017; Park and Kim, 2019), disrupting existing relationships to the urban environment among residents (Håkansson, 2018; Kern and Kovesi, 2018; McClintock, 2018a), and threatening the housing security of residents (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Garcia-Lamarca et al., 2019; Rigolon and Nemeth, 2020). This process and its outcomes are commonly referred to as green gentrification. Despite a general understanding of how green gentrification can manifest, there is much to be understood concerning the precise geographic and social conditions under which green gentrification impacts emerge (Anguelovski et al., 2019, 2018; Rigolon and Nemeth, 2020). In pursuit of a more nuanced understanding of the factors that influence green gentrification, scholars have expanded the socio-spatial contexts within which the phenomenon is researched (Anguelovski, 2016; Bouzarovski et al., 2018; DeLind, 2015; Millington, 2015; Rigolon and Németh, 2018). Urban agriculture has emerged as a common domain for scholars to explore the particularities of green gentrification, as it is well established that urban agriculture initiatives in North America operate across a wide range of scopes, scales, visions, and missions and are guided by a diverse array of urban actors (Braswell, 2018; Eizenberg, 2012; Mares and Peña, 2010). Such research has proven fruitful, and urban farms, community gardens, and related urban agriculture projects across North America have been featured as case studies, highlighting a unique role for urban agriculture, and those who practice it, within green gentrification discourse.

We conducted a case study of an urban farm operating in Vancouver, Canada, currently enmeshed in a large-scale redevelopment project. To better understand the evolving relationship between urban greening and development paradigms and strategies, we explored the experiences of farm staff and volunteers in navigating the redevelopment and considered the current and future impacts of the redevelopment on the farm. Based on interview and participant observation data that engaged farm staff and volunteers, as well as municipal and private development stakeholders involved in the redevelopment, we argue that the image of the farm has been vulnerable to cooptation throughout the project as development stakeholders seek to apply a green brand to the redevelopment. What's more, we note that the farm has adopted a contradictory role, threatened by encroaching development while implicated in its potential green gentrification outcomes. These findings contribute to a growing interest in the tensions present between green gentrification and urban agriculture.

Conflicting perspectives on urban agriculture

Urban agriculture in North America, despite its common presentation as a tool for community and capacity building (Horst et al., 2017), remains a contentious subject among scholars skeptical of its impacts on resident housing security and relationship to place (Alkon and Mares, 2012; Cadieux and Slocum, 2015; Holt-Giménez, 2010). Although there are those who praise urban agriculture for its potential to advance community cohesion and food security goals (Eizenberg, 2012; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny, 2004), there is a growing movement of scholars questioning the true impact of the practice, citing an alignment with hegemonic conceptions of sustainability and the perpetuation of a narrow perspective on urban land use and the production and consumption of food (Alkon and Mares, 2012; Anguelovski, 2015). These claims find grounding in a tendency for urban agriculture to cater to the needs and interests of privileged participants, with limited support for participation or benefits offered to economically marginalized and racialized residents (Guthman, 2011; Lebowitz and Trudeau, 2017; McClintock, 2018b). Some smaller-scale projects operated by and primarily serving historically marginalized residents have been recognized for their capacity to reclaim urban space (Eizenberg, 2012; Glennie, 2020; Lindemann, 2019; White, 2011), express communal identity in the face of systemic oppression (Brown et al., 2003; Purcell and Tyman, 2015), and enact a process of placemaking (Brown et al., 2003; Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014; Riechers et al., 2016; White, 2011). However, these operations face myriad challenges to their right to possess the land and cultivate and vend food within urban boundaries (Mares and Peña, 2010; McClintock, 2018a, 2018b; Rupprecht and Byrne, 2018). Such a narrow framing of what urban agriculture looks like and who it should serve renders the practice vulnerable to cooptation by development stakeholders able to capitalize on the image of urban agriculture to attract speculative investment into disinvested urban spaces (McClintock, 2018a; Millington, 2015). Recognizing these impacts begins to illuminate urban agriculture's complex contributions to green gentrification outcomes. Although it can appear innocuous as an individual practice, urban agriculture is enmeshed in neoliberal economic and social processes that alter how it is processed at the systems level.

Urban agriculture and green gentrification

It is often the case that those seeking to establish an urban farm or garden must look toward areas of the city with affordable, vacant land (Alkon and Cadji, 2020). However, many of these sites have been shaped by a legacy of environmental toxicity or unwanted land uses and, due to discriminatory housing and development policies (e.g., redlining), predominantly house historically marginalized residents (Alkon et al., 2019; DeLind, 2015; McClintock, 2018a). As such, the implementation of urban agriculture, although intended to introduce ecologically restorative land use and encourage community engagement, can interrupt existing socio-spatial relationships to place and introduce unwanted economic attention (McClintock, 2018b). This impact is especially salient given the propensity for urban agriculture to attract economically privileged participants (Guthman, 2011). Research in the United States has shown that white residents, who benefit from alignment with dominant cultural practices associated with urban agriculture and rooted within white supremacist norms in North America (Guthman, 2011), can more easily access and navigate programs that support urban agriculture. As a result, these participants face fewer barriers to establishing projects and find greater financial support from non-profit and municipal organizations alike (Lindemann, 2019). Additionally, white-led urban farms and gardens tend to adopt a public-facing orientation to their practice, attempting to create an inclusive atmosphere by broadcasting their vision and mission widely, both within the immediate community and beyond (Alkon et al., 2019; Glennie, 2020). Additional studies have shown that overtime the impact of this narrow vision can produce urban agriculture spaces dominated by privileged participants wherein the intent to improve urban space through the performance of sustainability overshadows existing efforts among racialized residents to express ownership and cultivate a sense of belonging (Alkon and McCullen, 2011; Mares and Peña, 2010). In the Vancouver, Canada context, Gibb and Wittman (2013) found that Chinese–Canadian farmers were both hesitant to engage in and excluded from farmers’ markets and related local food practices. They noted that legacies and ongoing patterns of anti-Chinese racism have required Chinese–Canadian farmers to adapt alternative production strategies and vending networks that operate outside Vancouver's contemporary local food model. What's more, they showed that farmers’ market managers and vendors, although claiming to be supportive of diversity among vendors, have done little to address the systemic racism that contributes to limited participation among racialized farmers. These findings, again, suggest the presence of a limited understanding of urban agriculture, rooted in euro-centric economic and social values (Gibb and Wittman, 2013; Guthman, 2011) that delegitimize practices of food production operating outside this model (Alkon and Mares, 2012). With this foundation in mind, it is possible to explore how the vision for sustainability and urban agriculture outlined above informs development strategies and practices in Vancouver.

Introducing green gentrification and urban agriculture in Vancouver, Canada

Critics of Vancouver's sustainable development policies and strategies often refer to the city's approach as a sustainability fix: an effort to preserve economic growth and incentivize development through the adoption of select social-ecological goals (Walker, 2016). Offering further nuance to this discussion, numerous scholars have investigated the impact of Vancouver's Greenest City 2020 Action Plan (GCAP) (City of Vancouver, 2015, 2012), a suite of programs and metrics initiated in 2009 to encourage the city's transition toward sustainable labor, lifestyles, and development (Walker, 2016). They argue that efforts to maintain Vancouver's competitive edge in the global push toward urban sustainability have led to an imbalanced approach to social-ecological challenges (Affolderbach and Schulz, 2017). Defending this assertion, they point to a heightened focus on and incentivization of physical development— e.g., through changes to rezoning policy promoting greater building density and height as well as LEED certifications—as evidence that the city is prioritizing an outward-facing sustainability brand over more radical approaches to climate resilience and concern for social justice (Affolderbach and Schulz, 2017; McCann, 2013; VanWynsberghe et al., 2012). Novel approaches to local food systems policy encouraged through the GCAP (City of Vancouver, 2013, 2007; Vancouver Parks Board, 2013) have also been the target of critique, as what once was a grassroots, citizen-led form of urban greening has increasingly fallen under municipal oversight (Walker, 2016). Although this has increased the availability and feasibility of urban agriculture in Vancouver, there are concerns that the practice has been subsumed within Vancouver's sustainability fix, useful as a tool for economic development as opposed to grassroots activism (Quastel, 2009; Walker, 2016). Quastel (2009) explored this pattern in his seminal paper establishing early understandings of green gentrification. He traced the emergence of languages of sustainability as an entrepreneurial tool within the planning and advertising of Vancouver development projects. Focusing on the rise of condominium living during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Quastel notes that development agents adopted narratives of “liveability,” walkability,” and “sustainability” to communicate an aesthetic of order and cleanliness and attract a growing middle-class to Vancouver's city-center. Urban agriculture played an important role in these branding efforts, as developers worked with the City of Vancouver (CoV) to establish tax incentives for those who converted vacant lots—i.e., those owned by a developer but in the midst of planning processes—into community gardens (Quastel, 2009; Walker, 2016). This process introduced an interactive, highly visible way for developers to display an affinity for environmental ethics while offering residents an avenue through which they could contribute to a green imaginary aligned with development goals (Quastel, 2009). As such, high-density living was rebranded through the promotion of various green amenities in an effort to influence an in-move of privileged residents (Quastel, 2018; Rosol, 2013).

Our case study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between urban agriculture and narratives of sustainable development in Vancouver. We offer an updated perspective on the role of urban agriculture as related to and embedded within the framework of large-scale redevelopment. We ask the following questions:

What is the impact of city-scale processes of urban greening and related development and investment on the lived experiences of residents participating in localized urban agriculture?

How does large-scale urban development in Vancouver draw on narratives of urban agriculture within design, planning, and implementation and what influence does this have on processes of green gentrification?

Although we draw on green gentrification as a theoretical lens through which to focus our study, the relationships between urban greening and gentrification are complex and influenced by myriad additional political, economic, and social factors. For the purposes of this research, we are concerned specifically with understanding the role of urban agriculture within these broader arenas of urban change but do not intend to claim that green gentrification is a sufficient or fully explanatory framework. We address this point further in our discussion and conclusion.

Study context

This study focuses on Farmers on 57th (Fo57), a non-profit organization operating an urban farm in the Marpole neighborhood of Vancouver, British Columbia, on the site of an ongoing large-scale redevelopment project known as Pearson Dogwood. The farm is integrated into the grounds of the George Pearson Center (GPC), a long-term health care facility operated by Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH). Fo57 was founded in 2009 on a trifold mandate: to be productive, educational, and therapeutic. Over years of trial and error, Fo57 has refined its operations, guided by this mission, originating a variety of initiatives including a one-acre organic market garden and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program, a robust volunteer and local outreach program, and a “Garden Club” designed for GPC residents.

During its 2020 season, Fo57 hosted approximately 20 volunteers with 5 dedicated staff members leading field crews throughout the week¹ and served close to 70 CSA members. Many volunteers live locally on the farm and the growth of volunteer membership is primarily fueled by word of mouth. Volunteers represented a variety of ages and life stages—those with the longest-term relationships with the farm tended to be past retirement while younger volunteers were more likely to spend only a season or two with the farm. Staff members, not including farm leadership, were primarily hired through municipal and federal grants that support agricultural education. The Marpole neighborhood, in which the GPC sits has a population near 25,000 residents (City of Vancouver, 2020a) with 67% of residents in a visible minority group. The relative racial and economic homogeneity of Fo57′s staff, volunteers, and CSA members compared to the surrounding neighborhood was a frequent topic of discussion among farm staff and identifying pathways to engage local community members was a clear priority. Partnerships with the GPC as well as support for the Growing Eden program—a gardening initiative created to welcome refugees, low-income, or new immigrants in South Vancouver²—suggests an awareness of urban agriculture's potential to perpetuate inequity as well as a commitment to questioning the purpose, accessibility, and impact of urban farming in Vancouver.

Fo57 is located on the Pearson Dogwood lands: a 25-acre plot historically owned by VCH and currently under development by the Onni Group (Onni) (CoV, 2014). The site has been home to various long-term care facilities, including the GPC and Dogwood Lodge, since 1952 (CoV, 2014), but with the expansion of Vancouver's SkyTrain transit system (CoV, 2011) has emerged as a prime location for redevelopment. The final manifestation of the Pearson Dogwood project will be Cambie Gardens, an integrated urban community combining luxury condo living with on-site retail amenities (Onni Group, 2020, 2018). The project qualifies as a large-scale redevelopment—defined as developments impacting land parcels greater than or equal to 8000 m² or containing 45,000 m² or more floor area City of Vancouver, 2020b. Sustainable Large Developments Bulletins. Vancouver. City of Vancouver. Typically, large-scale redevelopments occur in three phases: a policy statement, a rezoning application, and phased development permit approvals (Interview, D-4) These steps ensure that redevelopment projects occur in a measured and methodical fashion, transitioning from broad land-use decisions toward the minutia of on-the-ground construction. Public engagement on the Pearson Dogwood project began in 2013 with the site receiving the Vancouver City Council's approval for rezoning in July of 2017 (Onni Group, 2017a). Closely following rezoning, the first phase of development was approved and Fo57 had to shift locations due to encroaching construction. They moved from outside the GPC's eastern side to the lawns within its interconnected wards (Image 1). Although farm leadership successfully made this transition—converting lawn space to farmable land—the slated demolition of the GPC threatens to, once again, dislocate the farm. However, it has been decided, through a process of outreach and consultation with VCH, Onni, and The CoV during the early design and planning phases, that the final development will include a 1-acre urban farm within the project's final design.

Methods

Overview

We conducted a case study (Creswell, 2018) of Fo57 and the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment project. A series of exploratory interviews (Creswell, 2018) conducted with those knowledgeable about urban agriculture in Vancouver introduced our research team to Fo57 and provided an initial point of contact. One member of the research team joined the farm as a volunteer, participating in at least one farm shift per week for a period of 17 weeks (∼120 h total), engaging in a practice of participant observation. In addition, we conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with farm staff and volunteers and eight semi-structured interviews with those involved with the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment. The latter series of interviews included representatives of various development stakeholders engaged in the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment including landscape architects contracted through VCH and Onni (n = 2), Onni staff members (n = 1), CoV and Vancouver Parks Board (VPB) staff (n = 5). Finally, we conducted a document analysis of policy and planning documents relevant to the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment as well as promotional materials for the project (n = 25). These documents provided broader context to help understand the impacts and implications of the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment as well as the relationship of the projects to Vancouver development policies.

Data collection

The study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (certificate number H20-01929). Data collection occurred in two phases: (1) participant observation complemented by semi-structured interviews held at Fo57 (n = 12) and (2) semi-structured interviews (n = 8) and document analysis investigating the planning, design, and implementation processes informing both broad urban greening goals within the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment project and the integration of the 1-acre urban farm. The intention of this multi-phased process was to offer space for the research team to develop a robust understanding of Fo57—e.g., its operations and practices; its relationship to the institutions surrounding it; the relationship between those engaged with the farm to the farm space—before situating it within the larger ecosystem of development and change in which it is embedded.

Data analysis

Participant observation allowed the research team to develop a sense of the quotidian practices of Fo57 as well as to unpack its complex relationship to the redevelopment process (Robben and Sluka, 2007). We recorded our reflections and observations as field notes after each volunteer shift on the farm. These notes were then reviewed in consultation with interviews to deepen our contextual understanding of Fo57 and to add further nuance to interview findings. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, prior to analysis using NVivo software (Charmaz, 2002; Creswell, 2018; Saldaña, 2016). Respondents had the opportunity to review interview transcripts and make desired amendments prior to the analysis process. We first employed a line-by-line coding (Charmaz, 2002) strategy for coding. This initial process provided an in-depth review of each interview and allowed the research team to note nuanced themes (Charmaz, 2002). To follow up, we employed simultaneous coding (Saldaña, 2016), seeing how emergent themes translated into broader patterns across interviews. In addition to semi-structured interviews, we conducted document analysis of policy briefs (CoV, 2018, 2015, 2013, 2007; Vancouver Parks Board, 2013); policy statements, rezoning proposals, and relevant city council meeting minutes related to the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment (CoV, 2017, 2014; Onni Group, 2017a); and materials promoting Cambie Gardens (Onni Group, 202 0, 2018). Documents were uploaded to NVivo and coded with attention to the general process of redevelopment and the discussion of urban agriculture and Fo57 within that process.

Applying a dimensional framework for green gentrification

Once major themes had been identified both within and across interviews and relevant documents, we applied a dimensional framework of green gentrification developed from a scoping review of the relevant literature (Sax et al., 2022). The framework identified three principal dimensions of green gentrification: (1) conceptual foundations driven by green hegemonies and sustainability capital; (2) design and implementation, involving processes of exclusion and suppression via procedural injustice; and (3) socio-spatial change characterized by physical and psychological displacement. The framework helped to contextualize our results within the broader realm of green gentrification literature and offered a pathway through which we could organize and present our results in alignment with previous insights on the complexities of green gentrification. The three dimensions of green gentrification are explored, in brief, prior to each segment of our analysis and discussion below³.

Results and discussion

We applied the dimensional framework of green gentrification (Sax et al., 2022) to a case study of the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment, specifically focusing on the intention to integrate a one-acre urban farm into its site design. We noted a limited orientation to sustainability mediated through hegemonic conceptions of urban agriculture and advancing a vision of food activism supportive of a neoliberal development vision (Alkon and McCullen, 2011; Guthman, 2011). We assert that this image of sustainability is leveraged to distinguish Cambie Gardens, the final manifestation of the redevelopment, as an elite urban community attractive to privileged audiences. Regardless of the stated intention of the Cambie Gardens farm to support community development, education, and food production, its impact is mediated through neoliberal urban growth paradigms and development practices that convert its image into a source of economic advancement (Angelo, 2019; Garcia-Lamarca et al., 2019; Yazar et al., 2020) and limit the reach and benefit of the farm for those outside the boundaries of Cambie Gardens (Parish, 2020; Yazar et al., 2020). In addition, the framework led us to question the degree to which design elements emergent from early community consultation will be integrated within the Cambie Gardens. Taking a critical lens to the development process guiding the Pearson Dogwood project, we show that later development phases, led by hired consultants who were uninvolved in initial conversations with consulted communities, offer little certainty that established, big-picture intentions will be prioritized in development permitting and construction. We return to the experiences of Fo57 to understand this phenomenon. The arguments put forward should not be viewed as an indictment of VCH, Onni, CoV, or Fo57′s involvement in the planning and design of Pearson Dogwood, but rather they posit a novel analysis of the ways in which urban agriculture is processed within contemporary systems of urban growth and development.

Cambie Gardens and the farming imaginary

The first dimension of green gentrification identified through our prior analysis concerns the social and economic ideologies that justify and motivate urban greening (Sax et al., 2022). We found that green gentrification draws on a hegemonic orientation to sustainability that universalizes neoliberal, euro-centric notions of environmentalism grounded in individual accountability and market-based solutions to ecological crises. In other words, to imbue value through urban greening, green gentrification leverages an individualistic and performative conceptualization of sustainability that positions urban greening as a marketable brand attractive to speculative investors and potential in-movers (Angelo, 2019; Checker, 2011; Davidson and Gleeson, 2014; de Sousa Silva et al., 2018; Garcia-Lamarca et al., 2019; McClintock, 2018b; Yazar et al., 2020). Applying this lens to our findings from the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment helps clarify the relationships between the proposed 1-acre urban farm and the future vision for the Cambie Gardens development. We find that the farm cultivates an aesthetic of sustainability useful in the marketing of Cambie Gardens but potentially limits its capacity to reach the stated goals of broad accessibility and community support. Moreover, our results suggest that Fo57′s involvement in the redevelopment process was central to cultivating this image, providing the 1-acre farm with legitimacy in terms of its potential to enact positive environmental change and advance local food systems goals.

A review of the Pearson Dogwood rezoning application suggests the proposed 1-acre urban farm will serve as a nexus of community building, with emphasis placed on education and public-facing programing for residents of Cambie Gardens and beyond.

The intent [of the farm] is to continue the legacy of the current community farm on site, and expand a new programme to accommodate a gathering space, tools, seed starting, educational opportunities, accessible garden plots, healing gardens and wellness walkways at the perimeter. (Onni Group, 2017b)

Programmatically, opportunities could exist for integration of the Urban Farm and Pearson Plaza, such as a Farmer's Markets (Urban Farm), Community Events (Pearson Plaza), Concerts, Communal Feasts (in the Park) and Pop-up Exhibits (Art from YMCA). (Onni Group, 2017b)

While the finer details of these plans have yet to be established, it is important to interrogate the assumptions guiding the vision of urban agriculture advanced through the rezoning application. Doing so makes it clear that the 1-acre urban farm represents a limited conceptualization of urban agriculture attractive to the sensibilities of an elite audience and grounded in an entrepreneurial understanding of food activism (Cadieux and Slocum, 2015; McClintock, 2018b; Quastel, 2009). Although community-oriented activities, including a farmers’ market, have been proposed to extend the outreach potential of the farm, studies have shown that such initiatives can reinforce barriers to access due to a lack of affordability and alignment with whitened practices of local food production and consumption (Alkon and Cadji, 2020; Alkon and Mares, 2012; Cadieux and Slocum, 2015; Gibb and Wittman, 2013; Guthman, 2011). Moreover, a review of Cambie Gardens promotional materials makes explicit the elite audience to whom the development is branded—the farm is listed as one of many high-end site amenities available to residents (Onni Group, 2020, 2018). This analysis suggests that the 1-acre farm, although promoted as a tool to serve a diverse community in and around Cambie Gardens, has been designed in alignment with the sensibilities of a privileged clientele. As such, it is likely that the farm will face pressure to cultivate an ethos and practice of farming palatable to both Cambie Gardens residents and municipal and development actors with influence over the site—e.g., CoV, VCH, and Onni—but limited in its reach beyond that. These findings also contribute to previous claims that urban green space does not hold an inherent value, but rather its value is determined through the social, economic, and political context within which it is embedded (Angelo, 2019). In the case of Cambie Gardens, Onni and its consultants are seeking to present the 1-acre farm as an apolitical, universally beneficial design decision; however, our analysis makes clear that the farm is considered valuable only insofar as it can protect Onni's claims to sustainable development and support for local food production and attract future tenants.

Fo57 has been a key facet of this design process and the production of the farming imaginary manifest within Cambie Gardens. Our results show a deep involvement of Fo57 leadership in helping to guide the intentions and direction of the proposed farm.

[…] we were really proactive in sitting in the early visioning meetings. We came up with a little booklet saying these are the benefits, these are the positive impacts that Farmers on 57th has had for the community, for the residents. And these are our recommendations for how the farm should be woven into a redevelopment. (Interview, S-3)

Interviews made clear that the GPC, Onni, and VCH recognized these major contributions of Fo57, in some cases attributing the success of the proposed farm wholly to the advocacy of farm staff.

[…] they [Fo57] had really great relationships with Pearson Hospital, and so Pearson hospital was also advocating and supporting their work. […] the architect with whom the developer [Onni] hired was very supportive of the idea of an urban farm […] there was advancing from city staff and there was advancing from the architect team. […] we were able to convince everyone that an urban farm was really an amazing thing to have. (Interview, D-6)

Fo57 leadership offered their experiential knowledge, helping those drafting the rezoning application to understand what is required to properly support urban agriculture and to outline necessary infrastructure and costs to VCH and Onni. Drawing on the tri-fold mandate that guides their current operation—emphasizing the value of food production, education, and therapeutic impact—Fo57 shared a model of farming to outline how the proposed farm might function within the context of Cambie Gardens. In turn, Onni drew heavily from Fo57′s current mandate when visioning the 1-acre urban farm, molding Fo57′s current practice to the image of Cambie Gardens. These findings suggest a cooptation of Fo57′s vision and mission. Onni benefitted from Fo57′s networks and reputation as a respected, community-driven urban agriculture initiative in their effort to create an image of sustainability for the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment attractive to VCH and the CoV. Fo57, in an effort to preserve their land tenure within Pearson Dogwood, granted legitimacy to the Cambie Gardens farm and its presentation of the 1-acre urban farm as a path toward food activism. As such, Fo57 became enmeshed in entrepreneurial processes that converted their vision for community support and agricultural education into a marketable feature of Cambie Gardens. Despite their efforts, though, Fo57 has struggled throughout the development process, facing myriad challenges posed by encroaching development and the pervasive uncertainty that Onni will follow through on the proposed site plan and design.

[…] we know that there's a farm proposed in the development, but will it be Farmers on 57th or will it be someone else? […] it's like a lot of wait and see. But also, is anyone advocating for this? Who knows? (Interview, S-7)

Uncertainty and the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment

Our second dimension of green gentrification encourages consideration of how the social and economic ideologies, motivations, and justifications underlying planning for urban greening translate into tangible design decisions and implementation strategies (Sax et al., 2022). Previous research indicated that urban greening often centers the behaviors, experiences, and needs of imagined, future residents as opposed to those of current residents or the surrounding community (Alkon et al., 2019; Horst et al., 2017; McClintock, 2018b, 2018a). We identified myriad procedural limitations that restrict the extent to which concerns expressed among community members are integrated into final design decisions (Sax et al., 2022). In instances where consultation processes do occur, they are typically conducted by private firms or non-profit organizations that have limited advocacy capacity or impact on final development outcomes (Rigolon and Németh, 2018). This was especially true of large-scale, highly visible development projects that were shown to attract increased interest among commercial entities and in-moving residents, sidelining equity concerns (Anguelovski, 2016; Langhorst, 2015; Mabon and Shih, 2018; Millington, 2015). Our results from the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment reinforce and add nuance to these findings: the project's early commitment to community engagement has been limited by a lack of consistency and accountability among Onni, VCH, and the various hired consultants who advised on the project. As a result, it remains uncertain the extent to which future design and development activities will honor the decisions proposed within the policy statement and rezoning application. Reviewing the experiences of Fo57 makes clear that this uncertainty poses an immense challenge as the farm struggles to adapt its operation to foster strong relationships with the development stakeholders involved in the redevelopment while remaining wary of the power dynamics at play and their perceived position as expendable.

When work on the policy statement for Pearson Dogwood began in 2013, VCH administrators sought to ensure that development priorities were aligned with the needs of communities both within and surrounding the site (CoV, 2017). Working closely with an external consultant, VCH convened a community advisory group to bring together those who would be most impacted by the redevelopment. Residents (both on-site and in the greater Marpole area), disability advocates, members of the local neighborhood and housing associations, Indigenous advisory groups, as well as leadership from local urban agriculture initiatives worked together to help shape the priorities and design of the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment (CoV, 2014). Interview respondents involved in early community engagement events expressed pride in how the Pearson Dogwood policy statement and rezoning application represented and accommodated the needs and desires of consulted groups.

Their [VCH's] agenda started with the care, and health, and future of those 300 people that were onsite […] Most developments don't start that way […] They assume a cleared land and then they go through a process of engagement with the stakeholders […] But this one started at a very different place. […] They [current residents] were the prime stakeholders in the conversation. (Interview, D-8)

This excerpt suggests that the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment set a new precedent in allowing the needs and desires of those most impacted by the development to dictate initial planning and design decisions featured in the policy statement and rezoning application. Later interviews revealed, however, that planning elements featured in the policy statement and rezoning application are expressions of high-level intentions and there is significant room for change as the redevelopment process shifts toward the ground-level decisions required for development permitting. This is not to suggest that the rezoning application is not binding—it is expected that major site elements identified in the document will be carried through to construction—but rather to highlight the potential for change and lack of certainty between development phases.

Uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the consulting firms who worked with VCH and Onni to conduct community engagement for the policy statement and draft the rezoning application have not been involved in ongoing development permitting. Although this is common practice for redevelopment projects occurring on a multi-year timeline, it introduces the possibility that decisions made in consultation with community actors may be altered during late development phases, as those who developed personal relationships with consulted groups cease their involvement and novel contractors who are oriented to the redevelopment solely through the rezoning application adopt increased decision-making authority. In addition, it is possible that promises made to community groups during initial development phases cannot be met due to later procedural barriers of which early consultants are unaware. In the case of Cambie Gardens farm, the appointment of the VPB to the role of farm planning and design introduced a number of complications indicative of both assertions.

While drafting the rezoning application, it had yet to be determined who would manage the 1-acre urban farm.

We knew that the two-acre park was going to be handed over to parks [Vancouver Park Board] and many of the buildings and the space around the buildings were going to be retained by the land owner. […] but there was question of whether they [Park Board] really wanted a one-acre farm or space that would act like a farm. (Interview, D-6)

In a last-minute decision, following approval of the rezoning application, it was decided that VPB would adopt the planning, design, and development of both the 2.5-acre park and the 1-acre farm. Furthermore, VPB was made responsible for identifying a non-profit organization to manage and operate the farm under their supervision. Interview respondents noted that this decision would ensure cohesion between the farm and park spaces and allow VPB to align the farm with its broader goals and strategies; however, concerns remained that VPB is ill-equipped to handle this responsibility.

I think in the end it was all good, but at the moment there was a little bit of, whoa, what does parks [Park Board] know about urban farms? (Interview, D-6)

Even among VPB staff, it is clear that ownership of the urban farm presents novel challenges, especially when determining a day-to-day operator for the farm:

[…] it is our only farm. […] Community gardens are pretty distinctly different because usually it's a group of individuals […] We have relationships with nonprofits […] as stewards in parks, so there are some things that we’ll draw from. In terms of selecting an operator for a farm […] we don't have a precedent specifically of how to do that. (Interview, D-3)

For Fo57, VPB's introduction fostered uncertainty and eroded trust in early consultation processes. As a land manager, VPB will be responsible for conducting additional planning and consultation processes to inform a final design of the Cambie Gardens farm. For Fo57, this implies a potential for divergence from existing plans rendered in the policy statement and rezoning application as well as a need to prepare for and navigate another consultation process. This poses particular challenges for Fo57—our findings indicate that Fo57 staff had had little engagement with VPB prior to its appointment. Now, however, Fo57 must adjust its farming practice and approach to advocacy to accommodate VPB's as-of-yet undefined vision for the Cambie Gardens farm. Interviews suggested that central to VPB's concerns for the management of the farm is economic feasibility:

[…] is there an organization that is well poised to do the work of an urban farm on that scale of one acre? And does it financially make sense? I think kind of the business model is still a little bit uncertain […]. (Interview, D-6)

This entrepreneurial focus, born from concerns that VPB will end up adopting the majority of both immediate and long-term farm operations costs from Onni, does not make an explicit appearance in either the policy statement or rezoning application and represents a challenge to any urban farm, as the profitability of urban agriculture can be unpredictable due to reliance on grant funding and community participation. For Fo57, this, understandably has induced frustration as farm staff, who were credited with inspiring a vision for the Cambie Gardens farm, must again prove themselves as a legitimate and economically feasible operation capable of managing the new farm site. Beyond this, farm staff have no guarantee that the time and energy they commit to these efforts will result in their appointment as farm operators since VPB has limited precedent to guide the development of this project and its process for selecting a new farm operator remains opaque.

And so maybe Farmers on 57th will have a role in the ultimate design, but more importantly, they had a big role in laying out the groundwork and the overall objectives and initiatives that are going to guide it. (Interview, D-2)

These myriad challenges and uncertainties reinforce familiar power dynamics wherein Fo57 is beholden to the expectations and protocols of institutional partners with no guarantee of long-term support or land tenure. Even the VPB, who may prove to be supportive of Fo57 and their continued operation at the Pearson Dogwood site, are unable to offer land tenure guarantees as their process for consultation, design, and development is as of yet undefined and uncertain. Whereas, for Onni and affiliated contractors, the Cambie Gardens farm represents a unique challenge in site planning and sustainable development, Fo57 staff and volunteers the farm is a source of employment, community, and place connection.

Building Cambie Gardens and the future of Farmers on 57th

The final dimension of green gentrification identified through our previous research considers the socio-spatial changes that can occur following the implementation of urban greening (Sax et al., 2022). Our research revealed a consensus among green gentrification scholars that urban greening exists in relationship with retail and commercial attention and investment, producing a rent gap and raising property values (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Goodling et al., 2015; Langhorst, 2015; Pearsall and Eller, 2020). However, not all urban greening was shown to elicit the same degree of change, rather projects that occurred near transportation infrastructure and/or existing commercial and retail development tended to attract increased speculative investment, in turn inducing more severe increases in property value (Anguelovski et al., 2018a; Hawes et al., 2022; Immergluck and Balan, 2018; Kwon et al., 2017; Park and Kim, 2019; Rigolon and Nemeth, 2020; Wolch et al., 2014). In terms of social impacts, we found that green gentrification can cause the physical displacement of long-term residents—most often historically marginalized residents (Cole et al., 2017; Doshi, 2019; Mullenbach et al., 2019; Rutt and Gulsrud, 2016; Weber et al., 2017; Wolch et al., 2014). In addition, we noted that green gentrification can induce a sense of psychological displacement as social expectations and norms change in alignment with in-moving residents, alienating the behaviors of long-term residents (Alkon et al., 2019; Alkon and Cadji, 2020; Birky and Strom, 2013; Patrick, 2014; Zeng, 2019). Seeing as the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment is ongoing, it is not possible to comment definitively on green gentrification impacts resulting from the project. That said, we can extrapolate, based on the proposed built form of Cambie Gardens and the recorded experiences of Fo57, about the potential for socio-spatial change in the wake of redevelopment and the role played by urban greening within this complex narrative.

Above, we reviewed the vision and motivations guiding the implementation of the Cambie Gardens farm, finding that VCH, Onni, and CoV are promoting a limited conceptualization of urban agriculture aligned with narrow notions of food activism (Alkon and McCullen, 2011). As such, we argued that the farm serves to establish a sustainability aesthetic for Cambie Gardens with the goal of appealing to a privileged clientele despite its stated vision of community engagement and education. A similar disconnect between intention and outcome is observed when reviewing the built environment planned for Cambie Gardens. Upon completion, Cambie Gardens is slated to contain approximately 2700 residential units, with 114 units dedicated to the housing and support of GPC residents and 20% of the remaining units developed as affordable housing (Onni Group, 2017a). Twelve of those units will be dedicated for use by members of the Musqueam First Nation and the rest offered at rates aligned with British Columbia (BC) Housing income limits (BC Housing, 2021)⁴. Beyond residential accommodations, the rezoning application calls for up to 13,935 m² of high-end retail and commercial space integrated within the development (Onni Group, 2020, 2017a). There are also indications of plans to collaborate with the CoV to expand the existing Canada Line SkyTrain transit system and establish a new station on the Pearson Dogwood site's northeast corner (Onni Group, 2017a). These latter findings suggest a paradoxical relationship between Onni's stated dedication to foster a “diverse and inclusive community” (Onni Group, 2017a) and the audience that Cambie Gardens is designed to attract and accommodate. Although the development will make space for economically marginalized residents, its high-end retail environment may not be affordable for those taking advantage of affordable housing opportunities. Additionally, investment in retail and transportation infrastructure suggests the potential for additional development proximal to Cambie Gardens, further limiting access to affordable goods and services. Although these elements of the built environment do not directly implicate the 1-acre urban farm, they draw on and contribute to the same ethos of exclusivity cultivated by the farm and highlight the relationships between the physical and green infrastructure within the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment. This finding echoes emergent calls within green gentrification scholarship to pay additional attention to the context within which urban greening is occurring (Rigolon et al., 2020). Urban agriculture is not the catalyst for change and potential gentrification outcomes but is a central part of the narrative of Cambie Gardens and the vision for development it presents. Green gentrification, therefore, offers a useful lens through which to explore the nuanced relationships between the Pearson Dogwood development and urban greening even if it does not offer a complete explanation for potential gentrification impacts.

Our previous findings also revealed several procedural inequities that stand to limit the influence of community consultation processes on urban greening outcomes. This suggests that Cambie Gardens has the potential to reimagine the social fabric of the Pearson Dogwood site, inciting changes indicative of the displacements reviewed previously. As speculative investment surrounding the project increases and privileged in-movers make their entrance, the behavioral norms and expectations of the site may change dramatically. This assertion is best qualified and explored through analysis of the experiences of Fo57 in the time since the approval of the Pearson Dogwood rezoning application.

The sights and sounds of development have become a quotidian element of Fo57, and a sense of tenuousness radiates among volunteers and staff (observation, 07-24-20; 08-14-20). This is understandable given the farm's experience with the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment project thus far, pivoting often to accommodate the needs of a variety of stakeholders and adapting to encroaching construction (observation, 09-14-20;09-20-20). In 2018, following the finalization of the Pearson Dogwood rezoning application, Onni initiated the first phase of construction that was set to include the land on which Fo57 had operated for nearly a decade (Onni Group, 2017a). Although the farm received an advanced warning of this occurrence, the exact time frame for when construction would reach the farm was not known. Part way through the 2018 growing season, however, it became clear to farm leadership that a shift in locations was necessary:

We came to the farm one day and the construction company […] had taken the end of our irrigation hose and connected water so that they could hose down their demolition. And [at] like the height of our summer irrigation […] [and] all of a sudden there was a fence and it was blocking access to our greenhouse […]. (Interview, S-2)

Fo57 staff continued to cultivate their original site while simultaneously establishing additional fields within the inner lawns of the GPC. For many farm staff and volunteers, discussing the transition elicited reflection on the importance of land tenure. There was consistent frustration expressed at how VCH, Onni, and allied design consultants seemed to over-simplify the challenges of establishing farmable land at a new site.

[…] you don't just throw things in the ground and harvest them. It's not so simple. Like you have to have land tenure. You can't plant something in the Spring and not know if it's going to be able to finish its growing cycle. (Interview, S-2)

It is really hard when you put all of that work into the soil and you cultivate healthy organisms […] then you just have to walk away […] you’re working so hard and it could just be snatched away from you. (Interview, S-6)

Fo57′s move interrupted a years-long process of site building and operation refinement and required that a similar investment be made again in a new and unknown site. Beyond highlighting the essential role of land tenure in urban agriculture generally, these excerpts suggest a pervasive attitude among Onni that Fo57 is a moveable entity. A similar sentiment has emerged recently, as Fo57 awaits further information concerning VPB's process for identifying a farm operator and begins planning for additional consultation and a potential shift to a new farm site.

A primary concern is how Fo57 will adapt its operation to continue its service to GPC residents while also accommodating the dramatic increase in residents surrounding the farm. Fo57 has developed deep ties to the GPC and grounds much of its work in its proximity to residents and staff of the health center. Although GPC residents are set to be relocated within the Cambie Gardens development, they will be housed in a variety of locations across the site as opposed to one central building (Onni Group, 2017a).

In the future redevelopment they’re going to be in towers. […] we’re hoping that there will be plots for people with disabilities and more specifically programming support to get people out of their homes and into the green space. It's a much more complicated issue, right? There's so much more involved there than just creating a green space. (Interview, S-4)

Preserving the garden club and related programing is a clear priority for Fo57, but the feasibility of continuing to work closely with GPC residents remains uncertain. Cambie Gardens, when complete, is slated to contain 2200 homes (CoV, 2014; Onni Group, 2017a). Accommodating this change in site occupancy and the increased heterogeneity of residents will require major adjustment from Fo57 staff.

[…] there's going to be thousands more people around surrounding Farmers on 57th. So, it's bound to change, right? […] it functions like a community center and then we have to see who's moving in, who's in the demographic and how do we serve them? (Interview, S-3)

As of yet, it is unclear how these changes might affect farm operations, what is apparent is that for many long-term volunteers a shift away from serving the GPC threatens a core element of Fo57′s identity (observation, 09-20-20). What's more, these findings suggest that Fo57′s success in its bid for the new farm space will depend on its capacity to appeal to the future residents of Cambie Gardens. To do so, they must remain a relevant, community-centered operation that conforms to the image of urban farming presented by Onni within the rezoning application, all the while securing the support of the VPB.

Conclusion

Characterizing a new landscape for green gentrification research in Vancouver

Our study contributes to an expanding narrative of green gentrification in Vancouver, Canada, building on the insights of previous research while introducing novel considerations essential for future inquiry on the topic. Our findings note a continued reliance on curated discourses of sustainability and livability used to promote development initiatives (Affolderbach and Schulz, 2017; Quastel, 2009; Rosol, 2013; Walker, 2016); however, in the case of the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment, these narratives are communicated through the inclusion of an integrated urban farm. Whereas previous research found that developers relied on temporary urban agriculture installments to draw negative attention away from ongoing projects (Quastel, 2009; Walker, 2016), our study suggests that Onni adapted their use of urban agriculture in alignment with evolving sustainability discourses. Cambie Gardens will make urban farming accessible to those who can afford to live and participate in the community, under the condition they subscribe to the vision of farming reinforced through both the physical site and the sensibilities of residents (Goodling et al., 2015; Guthman, 2011; McClintock, 2018a). An additional point of evolution manifests in the relationship between non-profit actors and development stakeholders. Although urban agriculture has been shown to contribute to the development and related green gentrification outcomes (Alkon and Cadji, 2020; Alkon and Mares, 2012; Mares and Peña, 2010), our findings expose a suite of power dynamics that fueled collaboration between Fo57 and Onni, VCH, and CoV—Fo57 played a key role in advocating for and advising on the Cambie Gardens farm in an effort to secure land tenure. This direct contact and communication between development stakeholders and those practicing urban agriculture set a new precedent for green gentrification research. Urban agriculture, rather than acting as an indicator for developers that the Pearson Dogwood site was primed for development, became a foundation of redevelopment and marketing strategies, with Fo57 implicated in this process. Our results also contribute to the discussion surrounding the inadequacies of community consultation within development processes. We noted that inconsistencies among Onni, VCH, and various consultants engaged in the planning and design process might limit the extent to which early consultation with community groups is translated into implementation. This finding aligns with that of previous green gentrification research that observed consultation was often a performative process that allowed developers to assuage public concerns while maintaining a focus on growth and profit (Anguelovski, 2016; Langhorst, 2015; Mabon and Shih, 2018; Millington, 2015).

Practical and theoretical limitations

Our research reinforces previous findings about the limitations of green gentrification as an analytic framework. Recent scholarship has called into question the capacity of green gentrification to sufficiently explain the relation between urban greening and gentrification (Amorim Maia et al., 2020; Anguelovski, 2016; Hawes et al., 2022; Quinton et al., 2022; Rigolon et al., 2020). While it is clear that urban greening can trigger fluctuations in property values (Immergluck and Balan, 2018; Lang and Rothenberg, 2017; Park and Kim, 2019), this outcome may also occur as a result of retail or commercial speculation or proximity to other urban areas that have already experienced gentrification (Rigolon et al., 2020). As such, this paper has striven to avoid pointing to greening as a driver of land prices, but rather to identify greening as a tool used to legitimize redevelopment according to a specific sustainability ethos. In the case of the Pearson Dogwood redevelopment, the 1-acre urban farm is central to establishing the marketing strategy of the site and helps to guide planning and design decisions; however, overt appeals to retail actors and planned investment in transportation infrastructure are also sure to impact the potential for gentrification. Green gentrification is a useful framework through which to understand and analyze the influence of urban greening on development outcomes, but it cannot be applied in a vacuum. Rather, it must be considered in relationship with concurrent processes of urban change, and future research must make a point to acknowledge the broader systems through which gentrification may occur.

An additional limitation of green gentrification is its narrow epistemological and temporal scope—it is a framework rooted in colonial logic and, as such, unable to account for the relationships between urban greening and the ongoing displacement and oppression of Indigenous peoples and communities. Vancouver sits on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), and Sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil-Waututh) First Nations. It is always important to reflect on the implications of conducting research within this context, especially when the subject of research is intimately tied to questions of displacement. Green gentrification, as a concept, was created to understand, explain, and problematize a phenomenon grounded wholly within colonial development paradigms. As such, it is intimately tied to a settler worldview and trapped within modernity. Any form of urban greening or development conducted by the settler majority is a perpetuation of colonial violence and Indigenous displacement. Although this study seeks to understand and pose solutions in response to malicious trends in urban development, green gentrification, in its present manifestation, is not sufficient to account for this historic trauma. What's more, on the time scale of colonial land theft and Indigenous dispossession, urban greening can often be viewed as an act of continued displacement. Green gentrification research has yet to consider or account for this broader temporal frame or for instances of greening motivated and led by Indigenous actors. Moving forward, it is important to broaden the epistemologies that contribute to green gentrificaiton frameworks to account for experiences of the urban beyond that of settlers. Exploration of Indigenous-led redevelopment and greening projects is a promising place to begin such an inquiry.

Highlights

Urban agriculture is both vulnerable to and implicated in green gentrification.

Urban agriculture legitimizes redevelopment and attracts privileged in-movers.

Consultation processes cannot guarantee development outcomes to local stakeholders.

Green gentrification cannot fully explain the observed socio-spatial processes.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ene-10.1177_25148486221123134 - Supplemental material for Expelled from the garden? Understanding the dynamics of green gentrification in Vancouver, British Columbia

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ene-10.1177_25148486221123134 for Expelled from the garden? Understanding the dynamics of green gentrification in Vancouver, British Columbia by Daniel L Sax, Lorien Nesbitt and Shannon Hagerman in Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Daniel L Sax

Nesbitt

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Affolderbach

Schulz

(2017) Positioning Vancouver through urban sustainability strategies? The greenest city 2020 action plan. J. Clean. Prod. 164: 676–685.

Alkon

Cadji

(2020) Sowing seeds of displacement: Gentrification and food justice in Oakland, CA. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res 44: 108–123.

Alkon

Cadji

Moore

(2019) Subverting the new narrative: Food, gentrification and resistance in Oakland, California. Agric. Human Values 36: 793–804.

Alkon

Mares

(2012) Food sovereignty in US food movements: Radical visions and neoliberal constraints. Agric. Human Values 29: 347–359.

Alkon

McCullen

(2011) Whiteness and farmers markets: Performances, perpetuations…contestations? Antipode 43: 937–959.

Amorim Maia

Calcagni

Connolly

JJT

, et al. (2020) Hidden drivers of social injustice: Uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services behind green gentrification. Environmental Science & Policy 112: 254–263.

Angelo

(2019) Added value? Denaturalizing the “good” of urban greening. Geogr Compass 13(8): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12459.

Anguelovski

(2015) Alternative food provision conflicts in cities: Contesting food privilege, injustice, and whiteness in Jamaica Plain, Boston. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 58: 184–194.

Anguelovski

(2016) From toxic sites to parks as (green) LULUs? New challenges of inequity, privilege, gentrification, and exclusion for urban environmental justice. J. Plan. Lit 31: 23–36.

10.

Anguelovski

Connolly

JJT

Garcia-Lamarca

, et al. (2019) New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: What does the urban ‘green turn’ mean and where is it going? Progress in Human Geography 43: 1064–1086.

11.

Anguelovski

Connolly

JJT

Masip

, et al. (2018) Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: A longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography 39, 458–491.

12.

BC Housing (2021) 2021 Housing Income Limits (HILs) effective September 1, 2021.

13.

Birky

Strom

(2013) Urban perennials: How diversification has created a sustainable community garden movement in the United States. Urban Geography 34: 1193–1216.

14.

Bouzarovski

Frankowski

Herrero

(2018) Low-carbon gentrification: When climate change encounters residential displacement. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res 42: 845–863.

15.

Braswell

(2018) Fresh food, new faces: Community gardening as ecological gentrification in St Louis, Missouri. Agric. Human Values 35: 809–822.

16.

Brown

Perkins

Brown

(2003) Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 259–271.

17.

Cadieux

Slocum

(2015) What does it mean to do food justice? J Polit Ecol 22: 1–26.

18.

Charmaz

(2002) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

19.

Checker

(2011) Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City Soc 23: 210–229.

20.

City of Vancouver (2007) Vancouver Food charter. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

21.

City of Vancouver (2011) Cambie Corridor Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

22.

City of Vancouver (2012) Greenest City - 2020 Action Plan. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 82.

23.

City of Vancouver (2013) Vancouver Food Strategy. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

24.

City of Vancouver (2014) Pearson Dogwood Policy Statement. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

25.

City of Vancouver (2015) Greenest City Action Plan, Part Two: 2015–2020. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

26.

City of Vancouver (2017) Regular Council Meeting Minutes. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

27.

City of Vancouver (2018) Rezoning Policy for Sustainable Large Developments. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

28.

City of Vancouver (2020a) Social Indicators and Trends: Neighbourhood Profiles 2020. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

29.

City of Vancouver (2020b) Sustainable Large Developments Bulletins. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

30.

Cole

HVS

Lamarca

Connolly

JJT

, et al. (2017) Are green cities healthy and equitable? Unpacking the relationship between health, green space and gentrification. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71(11): 1118–1121. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-209201.

31.

Creswell

(2018) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

32.

Davidson

Gleeson

(2014) The sustainability of an entrepreneurial city? International Planning Studies 19: 173–191.

33.

de Sousa Silva

Viegas

Panagopoulos

, et al. (2018) Environmental justice in accessibility to green infrastructure in two European cities. Land 7: 134.

34.

DeLind

(2015) Where have all the houses (among other things) gone? Some critical reflections on urban agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst 30: 3–7.

35.

Doshi

(2019) Greening displacements, displacing green: environmental subjectivity, slum clearance, and the embodied political ecologies of dispossession in Mumbai. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 43(1): 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12699.

36.

Zhang

(2020) Urban greening: A new paradox of economic or social sustainability? Land use policy 92: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104487.

37.

Eizenberg

(2012) Actually existing commons: Three moments of space of community gardens in New York City. Antipode 44: 764–782.

38.

Escobedo

Giannico

Jim

, et al. (2019) Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions: Nexus or evolving metaphors? Urban For. Urban Green 37: 3–12.

39.

Garcia-Lamarca

Anguelovski

Cole

, et al. (2019) Urban green boosterism and city affordability: For whom is the ‘branded’ green city? Urban Studies: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019885330.

40.

Ghose

Pettygrove

(2014) Urban community gardens as spaces of citizenship. Antipode 46: 1092–1112.

41.

Gibb

Wittman

(2013) Parallel alternatives: Chinese-Canadian farmers and the metro Vancouver local food movement. Local Environment 18: 1–19.

42.

Glennie

(2020) Cultivating place: Urban development and the institutionalization of Seattle’s P-patch community gardens. City & Community: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12464.

43.

Goodling

Green

McClintock

(2015) Uneven development of the sustainable city: Shifting capital in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geography 36(4): 504–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1010791.

44.

Guthman

(2011) “If They Only Knew”: The unbearable whiteness of alternative food. In: Alkon

Agyeman

(Eds.) Cultivating Food Justice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 263–281. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8922.001.0001.

45.

Håkansson

(2018) The socio-spatial politics of urban sustainability transitions: Grassroots initiatives in gentrifying Peckham. Environ Innov Soc Transitions 29: 34–46.

46.

Hawes

Gounaridis

Newell

(2022) Landscape and urban planning does urban agriculture lead to gentrification ? Landscape and Urban Planning 225: 104447.

47.

Holt-Giménez

(2010) Food security, food justice, or food. Backgrounder (Washington, D C ) 16: 1–4.

48.

Horst

Mcclintock

Hoey

(2017) The intersection of planning, urban agriculture, and food justice: A review of the literature. J. Am. Plan. Assoc 83: 277–295.

49.

Hotte

Barron

Cheng

, et al. (2015) The Social and Economic Values of Canada’s Urban Forests: A National Synthesis. In: Canadian Forest Service. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Forest Service, 1–98.

50.

Immergluck

Balan

(2018) Sustainable for whom? Green urban development, environmental gentrification, and the Atlanta beltline. Urban Geography 39: 546–562.

51.

Kern

Kovesi

(2018) Environmental justice meets the right to stay put: Mobilising against environmental racism, gentrification, and xenophobia in Chicago’s little village. Local Environment 23: 952–966.

52.

Konijnendijk

Ricard

Kenney

, et al. (2006) Defining urban forestry – A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For. Urban Green 4: 93–103.

53.

Kwon

Joo

Han

, et al. (2017) Mapping the distribution pattern of gentrification near urban parks in the case of Gyeongui Line Forest Park, Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020231.

54.

Lang

Rothenberg

(2017) Neoliberal urbanism, public space, and the greening of the growth machine: New York city’s high line park. Environ. Plan. a-Economy Sp 49: 1743–1761.

55.

Langhorst

(2015) Rebranding the neoliberal city: Urban nature as spectacle, medium, and agency. Architecture_MPS 6(4): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2015v6i4.001.

56.

Lebowitz

Trudeau

(2017) Digging in: Lawn dissidents, performing sustainability, and landscapes of privilege. Social & Cultural Geography 18: 706–731.

57.

Lindemann

(2019) Gardens and green spaces: Placemaking and black entrepreneurialism in Cleveland, Ohio. Agriculture and Human Values 36: 867–878.

58.

Mabon

Shih

(2018) What might ‘just green enough’ urban development mean in the context of climate change adaptation? The case of urban greenspace planning in Taipei metropolis, Taiwan. World Development 107: 224–238.

59.

Mares

Peña

(2010) Urban Agriculture in the Making of Insurgent Spaces in, In: Insurgent Public Space. New York, NY: Routledge, 253–266. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203093009-31.

60.

McCann

(2013) Policy boosterism, policy mobilities, and the extrospective city. Urban Geography 34: 5–29.

61.

McClintock

(2018a) Urban agriculture, racial capitalism, and resistance in the settler-colonial city. Geogr. Compass 12: 1–16.

62.

McClintock

(2018b) Cultivating (a) sustainability capital: Urban agriculture, ecogentrification, and the uneven valorization of social reproduction. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 108: 579–590.

63.

Mendes

Fidélis

Roebeling

, et al. (2020) The institutionalization of nature-based solutions-a discourse analysis of emergent literature. Resources 9: 1–19.

64.

Millington

(2015) From urban scar to ‘park in the sky’: Terrain vague, urban design, and the remaking of New York city’s high line park. Environ. Plan. A 47: 2324–2338.

65.

Mullenbach

Baker

Benfield

, et al. (2019) Assessing the relationship between community engagement and perceived ownership of an urban park in Philadelphia. Journal of Leisure Research 50(3): 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1581719.

66.

Nesbitt

Hotte

Barron

, et al. (2017) The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: A review and suggestions for future research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 25: 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005.

67.

Nesbitt

Meitner

(2016) Exploring relationships between socioeconomic background and urban greenery in Portland, OR. Forests 7: 1–14.

68.

Nesbitt

Meitner

Girling

, et al. (2019) Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 181: 51–79.

69.

Onni Group (2017a) Pearson Dogwood Rezoning: Application Description. Vancouver: Onni Group. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0409-4_9.

70.

Onni Group (2017b) Pearson Dogwood Rezoning: Sustainability Measures. Vancouver: Onni Group. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95873-6_300195.

71.

Onni Group (2018) Cambie Gardens [WWW Document]. URL https://www.onni.com/property/new-homes/cambie-gardens/ (accessed 7.16.20).

72.

Onni Group (2020) Cambie Gardens: A Guided Tour.

73.

Parish

(2020) Re-wilding parkdale? Environmental gentrification, settler colonialism, and the reconfiguration of nature in 21st century Toronto. Environ Plan E Nat Sp 3: 263–286.

74.

Park

Kim

(2019) Economic impacts of a linear urban park on local businesses: The case of Gyeongui line forest park in Seoul. Landsc. Urban Plan 181: 139–147.

75.

Patrick

(2014) The matter of displacement: A queer urban ecology of New York city’s high line. Social & Cultural Geography 15: 920–941.

76.

Pearsall

Eller

(2020) Locating the green space paradox: A study of gentrification and public green space accessibility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Landscape and Urban Planning 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103708

77.

Purcell

Tyman

(2015) Cultivating food as a right to the city. Local Environment 9839: 1132–1147.

78.

Quastel

(2009) Political ecologies of gentrification. Urban Geography 30: 694–725.

79.

Quastel

(2018) Fixing sustainability: Social contestation and re-regulation in Vancouver’s housing system. In Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification. Routledge, 151–164.

80.

Quinton

Nesbitt

Sax

(2022) How well do we know green gentrification? A systematic review of the methods. Progress in Human Geography: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221104478.

81.

Riechers

Barkmann

Tscharntke

(2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosyst Serv 17: 33–39.

82.

Rigolon

Németh

(2018) “We’re not in the business of housing:” environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities (London, England) 81: 71–80.

83.

Rigolon

Nemeth

(2020) Green gentrification or “just green enough”: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not? Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 57: 402–420.

84.

Rigolon

Stewart

Gobster

(2020) What predicts the demand and sale of vacant public properties? Urban greening and gentrification in Chicago. Cities (London, England) 107: 102948.

85.

Robben

Sluka

(2007) Fieldwork in cultural anthropology: An Introduction. In: Robben

Sluka

(Eds.), Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Inc., 1–28.

86.

Rosol

(2013) Vancouver’s “EcoDensity” planning initiative: A struggle over hegemony?” Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 50: 2238–2255.

87.

Rupprecht

CDD

Byrne

(2018) Informal urban green space as anti-gentrification strategy?. In: Just Green Enough. New York, NY: Routledge, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.9781315229515_16.

88.

Rutt

Gulsrud

(2016) Green justice in the city: A new agenda for urban green space research in Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 19: 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.004.

89.

Saldaña

(2016) An Introduction to Coding, In: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1–31.

90.

Saldivar-Tanaka

Krasny

(2004) Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agric. Human Values 21: 399–412.

91.

Sax

Nesbitt

Quinton

(2022) Improvement, not Displacement: A framework for urban green gentrification research and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 137: 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.013.

92.

Vancouver Parks Board (2013) The Local Food Action Plan.

93.

VanWynsberghe

Derom

Maurer

(2012) Social leveraging of the 2010 Olympic games: “sustainability” in a city of Vancouver initiative. J Policy Res Tour Leis. Events 4: 185–205.

94.

Walker

(2016) Urban agriculture and the sustainability fix in Vancouver and Detroit. Urban Geography 37: 163–182.

95.

Weber

Boley

Palardy

, et al. (2017) The impact of urban greenways on residential concerns: Findings from the Atlanta BeltLine Trail. Landscape and Urban Planning 167: 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.009.

96.

White

(2011) Sisters of the soil: Urban gardening as resistance in Detroit. Race/Ethnicity Multidiscip. Glob. Context 5: 13–28.

97.

Wolch

Byrne

Newell

(2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017.

98.

Yazar

Hestad

Mangalagiu

, et al. (2020) From urban sustainability transformations to green gentrification: Urban renewal in Gaziosmanpaşa, Istanbul. Climatic Change 160: 637–653.

99.

Zeng

(2019) Dai identity in the Chinese ecological civilization: Negotiating culture, environment, and development in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Religions 10(12): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10120646.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB