If one argues that the Vancouver Special is a diasporic space, it would be unsurprising to discover that the Vancouver Specials and the diasporic individual resemble each other. Mashups — of brick and stucco, of homeland and host cultures. They have mixed identities, a diasporic identity, which negotiate belonging and unbelonging.
This research, and the Vancouver Special exist on the unceded and ancestral land of Coast Salish peoples–Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), Stó:lō and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) Nations. I give thanks to the stewards of the land.
Diasporic Identity and Space
Diasporic identity refers to the identity of a group of people who have moved away from their cultural and ethnic homelands. Diasporic identity can be discussed in narratives of migration, globalization — transnationalism, pluralism, temporality, displacement, and disorientation, and belonging or un-belonging (Venn, 2009; Cairns, 2004). The diasporic identity and condition are often a process and struggle of making sense of oneself, as a cultural or racial other. In relation to Lacan’s mirror-stage theory, where seeing oneself in the other, and in our environment, constructs a sense of self, (Lacan, 1949) the diasporic individual struggles with identity and self hood, as they are not reflected in their foreign surroundings culturally, racially, architecturally or spatially (Cairns, 2004, p. 41). If Althusser argues that ideology has a material existence, then what is the material space of diasporic people? (Althusser, 1969)
Diasporic spaces are often found in the vernacular realm of architecture. They are articulated through architecture that accommodates economic need, cultural practices and at times even
aesthetic. Across the globe, diasporic spaces can be found in the architectural and urban spaces of ethnic enclaves, in spaces of food distribution — ethnic grocery stores, food markets, restaurants, and shopping centres. They are also found as civic buildings and religious buildings like temples and cultural centres (Bonnerjee, Blunt, McIlwaine, & Pereira, 2012).
Fundamentally, a diasporic space is created within the home. Mirjana Lovanovska argues that “Housing is foundational for the migrant’s sense of inhabiting and occupying a home in the city of immigration” (Lozanovska, 2019, p. 74) in Architecture, Dwelling and Migration. The house symbolizes a ‘reterritorialization and fulfilling of one’s destiny to settle, to make home and to become a citizen’ (Cairns, 2004, p. 2). A house is a space for identity formation.
In Vancouver, it can be argued that the Vancouver Special, a mass-produced housing typology, which many immigrants have called home, is a diasporic space. Large waves of immigration from Germany, Italy, Greece, and notably Hong Kong, China, and India (Mosley, 2015; Chutter, 2016) from the 60s to the 80s, enabled by the 1967 Immigration Act, spurred a demand for affordable immigrant housing in Vancouver. To fill this demand, 10,000 Vancouver Specials were constructed between 1965–1985 (Chutter, 2016, p. 44).
The Vancouver Special
The Vancouver Special is ‘a two-storey residence constructed at or slightly below, the ground level on a concrete slab with a mid-peaked, low sloping roof’ (Vancouver Planning Department, 1981). Each level is marked by a different material veneer. For example, brick, siding, or stone on the lower level and stucco on the main level.
The classic Vancouver Special has a front entrance on the lower level, as well as one in the back, which can be accessed by a staircase and raised deck. Circulation routes run between largely public and private areas of the home. The public and private spaces are distinctly divided in the Vancouver Special. On the main floor, bedrooms are to one side, and entertaining, living, and public spaces are the other. Light and views are primarily to the front and back, facilitated by large windows in the living room and kitchen.
Though a simple affair, the Vancouver Special has experienced a strong resistance. Deemed big, ugly, and destructive to neighborhood character — it was often the subject of neighborhood complaints, and zoning disputes over its aesthetic, size, and secondary suites (Mitchell, 2004; Chutter, 2016). Despite a lack of public admiration, they were popular among immigrant communities, and provided homes for multiple generations of diasporic individuals.
The Vancouver Special as an informant of diasporic identity
The Vancouver Special provided for the fundamental needs of immigrant communities, in providing economic efficiency, flexibility for ways of living, customizability, and the opportunity for homeownership and assimilation. As an object of the dominant culture, and of its diasporic occupants, the Vancouver Special embodied, reflected, and reinforced their ideologies, informing the identities of the diasporic individual.
The Vancouver Special as an expression of economic values
The Vancouver Special fit the bill for the working and middle-class immigrants that arrived in Vancouver in the 60s and 80s (Chutter, 2016). The plans were $65 each (McLachlan, 2018) and houses ranged from $18,000 to $30,000 depending on the time bought, according to a former Vancouver Special Resident (Kai, Personal Communication, 2021). In the 60s, they could even be bought with a cook’s salary (Kai, Personal Communication, 2021), which was slightly above minimum wage (Battle, 2015). In the construction and design of the Vancouver Special, all efforts were made to cut costs. For example, with a low-pitched roof enabled the use of shorter joists,
windows were framed in aluminum and affordable materials such as stucco and brick were used to clad the building. The result was an aesthetic of frugal eccentricity. The low-pitched roof and rectangular plan also provided a maximized volume and square footage for the lot, which averaged at 2400 sq ft.
In the early years of the Special’s construction, the lower level or basement was also left unfinished, which prevented it from being counted in the bylaw regulated floor square ratio of 0.45 (Chutter, 2016, p. 41; Mosley, 2015) and added to the square footage of the house. The basement later provided an opportunity to create a secondary suite, as a ‘mortgage helper.’ The demand for these secondary suites spurred negotiations for zoning changes and new bylaws in areas where these arrangements were still uncommon (Chutter, 2016, p. 36). In this way, the Vancouver Special introduced economic productivity to the domestic sphere of many formerly single-family home neighborhoods. The basement suite became its own diasporic space, for immigrants coming later to Vancouver, when housing prices had skyrocketed, and basement rentals were within the budget.
“I wanted to rent out the basement — I always had to do something to make money” (Kai, Personal Communication, 2021).
“The best feature about this house, was that there were many rooms. If needed, we could rent out the bottom portion, since it was split and had doors to separate. We currently rent out two rooms downstairs to students.” (Shirley, Personal Communication, 2021).
The Vancouver Special’s prioritization of economic efficiency over aesthetic, and the question of economic productivity within domestic space, challenged norms of domesticity in single-family home neighborhoods. Amongst quiet looking Tudor and Craftsmen style homes, the Vancouver Special brought uncomfortable notions of economic necessity and class to forefront of their neighborhoods. The Vancouver Special was an architecture built for function, and economic efficiency. Embodied in the home is an economic sensibility, that is too, embodied within many of the identities of diasporic people.
The Vancouver Special as an expression of diasporic ways of living
In addition to its economic efficiency, the Vancouver Special provided diasporic families a place to make a home and practice their ways of living. Jane M. Jacobs writes that “one’s sense of home […] emerges out of various building activities […] the ways we orient ourselves in unfamiliar places; the things we assemble to make the houses we live in feel homely” and the practices of living (Jacobs, 2004). Practices of living include multigenerational living, and the making of familiar environments through ornamentation and gardens.
The Vancouver Special, with its size and basement suite, while a candidate for rental, also housed extended families, and supported the multigenerational living practices common among immigrants. Through practices of multigenerational living, family values of filial duty, or collective care, become a part of the diasporic identity. In Kai’s first Vancouver Special, he finished the basement suite to house his brother’s family when they first immigrated to Vancouver, and his mother in-law. Decades later, his son housed Kai and his wife, carrying on
the tradition of collective living (Kai, Gordon, Mary, Personal Communication, 2021). The Vancouver Special also accommodates Shirley and her multigenerational family in the present day.
“My family decided to buy this house due to many things… With a family of 7 people, grandparents, parents, and siblings included, the house had just enough space. We have 5 bedrooms, 6 if you include the family room. [During the day], my grandfather likes to stay in the living room — he loves to sleep out there all the time. My grandmother generally stays in her room… but she hangs out on the couches as well in the living room. My parents are usually in the kitchen, whether they be eating, working on some kind of puzzle book or watching shows. My sisters and I don’t usually leave our rooms, but during the summer our favorite place to hang out is downstairs — since its still really cool in the summer compared to the upstairs” (Shirley, Personal Communication, 2021).
As the home is a manifestation of one’s ideology and identity, ornamentation, small acts of homemaking and gardens are also expressions and reinforcements of the diasporic identity.
Though not well discussed, fencing ornamentation of lions, cherubs, urns, orbs, and other objects are a unique feature of the Vancouver Specials’ fences. Lions are particularly common in front of the Vancouver Specials of the Chinese, and were believed to protect the home, as well as symbolize wealth and power. Small adornments such as these contributed to the demarcation of diasporic space, but also the feeling of home, belonging and identity.
Gardens planted by diasporic individuals too provide ‘familiar and embodied sensory environments’ that make the ‘unfamiliar, familiar’ (Lozanovska, 2019). The gardens of the Vancouver Special, belonging to diasporic families and individuals often cultivate the foods of their homelands and can be distinguished by space saving trellises, and other self-made contraptions. Shirley’s grandparents and parents built a garden in the front and back of their house to grow “Asian melons, Thousand Day Flowers, and copious amounts of beans in the summer” (Personal communication, 2021). Gardens are also usually accompanied by a line of hung laundry. The yards of the Vancouver Special, with their planted gardens and even their lines of laundry, reflect a resourcefulness and connection to way of life in the homeland.
In the Vancouver Special, the diasporic individual has the space to create a point of connection to their homelands through practice, as well as ornamentation and gardening. In the Vancouver Special, the diasporic individual builds a hybrid model of domesticity that informs cultural values, but also reflects their diasporic condition.
The Vancouver Special and the complicated business of assimilation
For better — freedom, independence
Most profoundly, the Vancouver Special granted diasporic individuals the achievement of homeownership in the 60s and 80s. The homeownership of the Vancouver Special in turn afforded independence and freedom, the sought-after western values of the American Dream, and a step into assimilation.
Kai and his wife Mary had left Hong Kong, which was dense, crowded, difficult and politically unstable, for a new life in Canada where they hoped there would be ‘more opportunity’. In Hong Kong they lived in a small apartment, but in Canada, they were able to own their own Vancouver Special (Kai, Mary, Personal Communication 2021). Shirley’s parents too had lived in crowded apartment units in China and were relieved to move into a Vancouver Special, where they had more space, which afforded them a sense of freedom (Shirley, Personal Communication, 2021). Both families experienced a greater sense of freedom and independence in Canada.
“Canada had more space. I liked having a bigger place, I liked driving, I liked living in a new country…I felt more independent in Canada — it’s the culture” (Mary, Personal Communication, 2021).
“My parents grew up in really small apartments too, and honestly they were very thankful to afford a house here, since there’s less to worry about — noise complaints and such” (Shirley, Personal Communication, 2021).
Home ownership provides freedom, independence, and personhood. ‘Ownership is bound up with self constitution or person-hood. It connects ownership with central ideological commitments of liberal thought, particularly with notions of freedom and individualism’ (Radin, 1993, pp. 1, 40). Through home ownership, one acquires the space for their own lives, their ‘personal freedom, activity and independence.’ (Marx & Engels, 1888, p. 96)
Home ownership is the grounds for a diasporic individual to live as they would like, start a new life, and form an identity. The home “is the scene of one’s history and future, one’s life and growth […] One embodies or constitutes oneself there. The home is affirmatively part of oneself — property for personhood.” (Radin, 1993, pp. 56–57) Gardens, ornaments, multigenerational living — these are all symbols of oneself, made within the sanctity of the home.
Home ownership also symbolizes commitment and investment in the host country, to which a diasporic individual sets down root. Home ownership shows that one is settling in, willing to become a part of the community, and to be neighbors. In this process, assimilation is occurring. Assimilation occurs with the adoption of normative behaviours and values, and a willingness to blend in (Sheffer, 2009). Assimilation occurs through acts of mimicry — in which the individual mimics ideals of whiteness and the attainment of the American Dream (Eng & Han, A Dialogue on Racial Melancholia, 2000; Babha, Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse, 1997). Therefore, assimilation occurs through home ownership. With home ownership, one inherently adopts the capitalist and western values of individualism, freedom, and independence embodied within the practice. In the 60s and 80s, purchasing a Vancouver Special was an act of assimilation.
“Most people own a house- so I did the same thing as other people, I bought a house.” (Kai, Personal Communication, 2021).
For worse — dislocation, uncanniness
Years after the achievement home ownership, who has the diasporic individual become inside the Vancouver Special?
Within their homes and themselves, diasporic individuals may identify feelings of dislocation and a deep-seated uncanniness. The uncanny, being the feeling that occurs, when ‘the terrifying leads back to something long known to us, and once very familiar — when the familiar can become uncanny and frightening’ (Freud, 1919). In a diasporic person’s life, there comes a time, when one’s identity, and surroundings, once familiar, become terrifyingly etched with the losses of assimilation, repressions, forgotten memories and a resulting unknowingness. The phenomenon of dislocated identities has been well documented in diasporic theory (Sheffer, 2009) as well as literature and cultural studies (Babha, The Location of Culture, 1994; Babha, The Third Space, 1990; Eng & Han, Racial Melancholia, Racial Dissociation, 2019; Eng & Han, A Dialogue on Racial Melancholia, 2000).
For diasporic individuals, particularly second-generation immigrants, “Moments of departure and struggle still reverberate throughout their lives, and they continue to feel displaced- not quite at home- in their country of birth […][ There is a] struggle against a type of forgetfulness” (Pratt & UKPC/FCYA, 2004) that can be described as “a corrosive forgetting, codified as assimilation” (Munoz 1995, 78, as cited in Pratt & UKPC/FCYA, 2004).
As a result, one can feel out of place within one’s own body, identity, and home. One second-generation Filipino-Canadian Youth illustrates this sensation well. “I’ve come to the realization that I’m missing one thing in my life… the feeling of “home.” […] I’ve lived here all my life and yet I still say that I’m missing the feeling of my “home” […] I miss the sound of the jeepnies beeping for way, roosters crowing in the morning, and even the smell of the thick air” (UKPC/FCYA, 2000 as cited in Pratt & UKPC/FCYA, 2004, p. 56).
This sensation can be described as a feeling of the unheimlich. Freud uses the German words heimlich, meaning familiar, native, belonging to home and unheimlich, meaning unhomely, to explain his theory of the uncanny (Freud, 1919). These same words, also very much illustrate the phenomenon that so many diasporic individuals feel, even within their own host countries and homes. In the process of immigrating, starting a new life, and assimilating, people, and things have been left behind (Jacobs, 2004). Memories, ways of life, and language have been repressed. A diasporic individual builds a home within the Vancouver Special both with aspirations of freedom and independence, but also the reckonings of loss and repression.
As the diasporic individual comes to identify the sense of unheimlich and uncanny within themselves, the mundane, and once familiar Vancouver Special begins to feel all too uncanny and unheimlich. As the individual comes to terms with the toll of assimilation, the “corrosive forgetting” (Munoz 1995, 78, as cited in Pratt & UKPC/FCYA, 2004), their feelings of dislocation, disconnection and unknowingness, the thin wallboards of the Vancouver Special reverberate an anonymous origin.
Moreover, the Vancouver Special, as an individual dwelling, cultivates an understanding of the home as a private, solitary, and independent unit — and as such, the family, as an independent and solitary unit. It builds on western and capitalist understandings of home and family. The solitary position and independence of the house isolates a cultural way of living too. In the 60s, when immigrants were still few and far between, the Vancouver Special was an island of diasporic space, in a sea of others (Kai, Gordon, Mary, Personal Communication, 2021). There were no neighbors or radios chattering in mother tongues that could be heard through the walls, and no immediate smells of the neighbor’s home cooking or laundry soap, to reinforce an identity and connection to homelands. Instead, the isolation of the Vancouver Special aided in a cultural disconnect and dislocation in the diasporic individual.
Materially and aesthetically, the Vancouver Special speaks to the uncanny and the unbelonging, in the diasporic identity. Its aesthetically confused. It does not quite fit amongst the aesthetics of the neighboring architecture, nor its climatic context (Chutter, 2016). Though the Vancouver Special is composed of ordinary, normative materials like brick, siding and stucco, the arrangement is unfamiliar to locals and diasporic individuals alike. Its uncanny.
The Vancouver Special, in its uncanniness, and aesthetic confusion reflects the diasporic condition and identity. It can be argued that the embodied values of assimilation, the isolation of the private house, and the unfamiliar aesthetic and materiality of the Vancouver Special, perpetuate a cultural disconnect, forgetting, and dislocation in the diasporic individual and identity.
The Vancouver Special, because immigrants were able to afford it, and because it was convenient, became a diasporic space that provided for hybrid ways of living, the opportunity of home ownership and the formation of a diasporic identity. As the diasporic individual builds a home in the Vancouver Special, the home and occupant begin to reflect and share identities. This identity is one that has negotiated assimilation, feelings of disconnection, dislocation, belonging and unbelonging, and is decidedly a hybrid, and complicated identity.
If one argues that the Vancouver Special is a diasporic space, it is no wonder that the Vancouver Specials and the diasporic individual resemble each other. Is it because one is a representation of the other, a symbol and a subject, a mirror, and a subject? Both are Mashups — one of brick and stucco, one of homeland and host cultures. They have mixed aesthetics, identities — diasporic identities, which negotiate belonging and unbelonging.
References
Babha, H. K. (1990). The Third Space. Identity: Community, Culture and Difference, 207–221. (J. Rutherford, Ed.) London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Babha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Babha, H. K. (1997). Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse. In F. Cooper, & A. L. Stoler, Tensions of Empire (pp. 152–160). Berkley: University of California Berkley Press.
Battle, K. (2015). Minimum Wage Rates in Canada: 1965–2015. Ottawa: The Caledon Insitute of Social Policy. Retrieved from https://maytree.com/wp-content/uploads/1083ENG.pdf
Bonnerjee, J., Blunt, A., McIlwaine, C., & Pereira, C. (2012). Connected Communities: Diaspora and Transnationality. London: Queen Mary University of London.
Brouwers, S. F. (2008). Chinese architectural practice and the spatial discourse of Vancouver’s Chinatown. School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0066665
Cairns, S. (Ed.). (2004). Drifting-Architecture and Migrancy. London: Routledge. doi:https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4324/9780203402023
Chutter, J. A. (2016). What’s so special about the Vancouver Special? Department of History. Simon Fraser University.
Donaldson, J. (2019, December 17). His ‘Revenge’ on Architects Was the Vancouver Special. Retrieved from The Tyee: https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2019/12/17/Vancouver-Special-Revenge-On-Architects/
Eng, D. L., & Han, S. (2000). A Dialogue on Racial Melancholia. Pshyoanalytic Dialogues, 10(4), 667–700.
Eng, D. L., & Han, S. (2019). Racial Melancholia, Racial Dissociation. Durham and London: Duke Univesity Press.
Freud, S. (1919). The “Uncanny”. In B. V, Imago (A. Strachey, Trans., pp. 297–324). Retrieved from https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/freud1.pdf
Glusac, T. (2015). Architecture and Belonging: Migration, Re-territorialisation and Self-Identity. School of Built Environment. Curtin University. Retrieved from https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/1912/227182_Glusac%202015.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Higgins, K. (2016). Vancouver Special. Retrieved from Vancouver Special: /www.vancouverspecial.com
History of Vancouver Special. (n.d.). Retrieved from Vancouver Specials: https://blogs.ubc.ca/vancouverspecialsimmigration/a-history-of-the-vancouver-special/
Jacobs, J. M. (2004). Too Many Houses for A Home: Narrating the House in the Chinese Diaspora. In S. Cairns, Drifting: Architecture and Migrancy (pp. 164–184). London: Routledge.
Lozanovska, M. (2019). Migrant Housing: Architecture, Dwelling, Migration. Routledge.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1888). The Communist Manifesto (Penguin Books ed 1979 ed.).
McLachlan, S. (2018, February 23). What Makes the Vancouver Special So Special? Retrieved from Vancouver Magazine: https://www.vanmag.com/city-informer-vancouver-special
Mitchell, K. (2004). Conflicting landscapes of dwelling and democracy in Canada. In S. Cairns, Drifting: Architecture and Migrancy (pp. 142–162). London: Routledge.
Mosley, J. (Director). (2015). Restoring Community Part Two: The Vancouver Special [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta_HKGzWGLk
Munoz, J. E. (1995). No es facil: Notes on the Negotiation of Cubanidad and Exilic Memory in Carmelita Tropicana’s “Milk of Amnesia”. The Drama Review, 39(3), 76–82. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1146465
Murphy, E. (2017, August 23). Vancouver Specials offering many lessons on housing. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/elizabeth-murphy-vancouver-specials-offering-many-lessons-on-housing
Pettit, B. A. (1993). Zoning and the single-family landscape: large new houses and neighbourhood change in Vancouver. School of Community and Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0086386
Pratt, G., & UKPC/FCYA. (2004). Between Homes: Displacement and Belonging for Second-Generation Filipino-Canadian Youths. BC Studies, 41–68.
Radin, M. J. (1993). Reinterpreting Property. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sheffer, G. (2009). Diaspora Politics: At Home Abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.
Sigona, N., Gamlen, A., & Liberatore, G. (2015). Diasporas Reimagined Spaces, Practices and Belonging. Oxford: Oxford Diaspora Programme. Retrieved from https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Diasporas_reimagined_Spaces_practices_an.pdf
Tayob, H., & Hall, S. (2019). Race, space and architecture: towards and open-access curriculum. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100993/3/Race_space_and_architecture.pdf
The Ruth and David Group. (2021). Commercial Drive Vancouver Special For Sale, at 1951 EAST 3RD AVE! Retrieved April 2021, from The Ruth and David Group: https://ruthanddavid.com/blog/vancouver-special-1951-east-3rd-ave/
The Ruth and David Group. (n.d.). Classic Vancouver Special in Renfrew For Sale: 2612 Kitchener Street. Retrieved April 2021, from The Ruth and David Group: https://ruthanddavid.com/blog/classic-vancouver-special-2612-kitchener-street/
UKPA/FCYA. (2000). Our Heroes, Our Heritage, Our Struggle: An Anthology of Written and Visual Works by Young Filipino-Canadians. Vancouver: UKPA/FCYA.
Vancouver Planning Department. (1981). The Vancouver Special . Vancouver: Vancouver Planning Department.
(n.d.).Vancouver Special Architectural Drawings. City of Vancouver Archives, Vancouver.
Venn, C. (2009). Identity, diasporas and subjective change: The role of affect, the relation to the other, and the aesthetic. Subjectivity, 3–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.37
Vidler, A. (1992). The architectural uncanny: essays in the modern unhomely. Cambridge: MIT Press.
