Problems and Purpose

With social distancing requirements and prolonged indoor gathering restrictions reshaping daily life in 2020, the City of Vancouver sought out ways to create safe outdoor gathering places while supporting local businesses that were struggling to remain viable.

Background History and Context

The emergence of Vancouver’s pop-up plazas during the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic represents a pivotal moment in the city’s evolving approach to public space and participatory planning. The Pop-Up Plazas Program rapidly gained traction, becoming one of the city’s most visible and effective responses. It involved a series of road closures, adapting small portions of streets and curbside areas into temporary public spaces equipped with seating, planters, and opportunities for informal social interactions. Between 2020 and 2021, the city installed twenty-one plazas across fourteen different neighbourhoods, using a “tactical urbanism” approach that emphasized speed, experimentation, and partnership (City of Vancouver, 2025).

Despite the plazas being framed initially as an emergency response measure, they quickly developed into an experiment of neighbourhood-scale planning and collaborative stewardship. The City worked closely with Business Improvement Areas (BIAs), local shop owners, and community organizations to identify potential expansion sites and to maintain the spaces once they were installed (City of Vancouver, 2020). Each plaza had a local partner who acted as a steward and helped to adapt plazas to be culturally appropriate and reflective of the needs of the surrounding community. This reliance on local knowledge was essential to providing nuanced interventions. Vancouver’s neighbourhoods differ significantly in their levels of commercial activity, population density, and mobility patterns, so therefore, plaza uses also needed to be varied. Some sites took the form of casual meeting places or parklets, while others supported outdoor dining or light programming.

Due to the temporary nature and relatively low cost of these plazas, the City was able to treat them as living experiments. Staff actively monitored usage patterns and gathered community feedback through surveys and digital engagement tools. Their goal was not only to understand how the plazas responded to the immediate pressures of the pandemic, but also whether these dynamic forms of public space could potentially succeed over the long term. Many residents expressed strong support for the formalization of their neighbourhood plazas beyond the pandemic “trial period” (City of Vancouver, 2025).

Vancouver’s Pop-Up Plazas Program offers a valuable case study in participatory planning. It exemplifies how local governments can test ideas in real time, how community partners (such as BIAs) can influence design and stewardship, and how public feedback can inform decisions about permanency and investment. On the other hand, it highlights ongoing questions about power, representation, and the depth of community engagement (or lack thereof). The following sections draw upon Arnstein, Fung, and Cornwall to examine the plazas through established participation frameworks and to consider the strengths and limitations of the City’s engagement strategy. Building on these frameworks, this analysis evaluates the ad-hoc participatory planning behind Vancouver’s pop-up plazas, asking what this is an instance of and what it implies for the future of neighbourhood-level public space planning in the city.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

City of Vancouver, and various Business Improvement Areas in the city of Vancouver.

What is this an instance of?

The pop-up plazas are an instance of several interesting things. First, beyond direct engagement with the public in search of feedback, part of the engagement strategy included behavioural observation at the pop-up plazas by city staff. This reveals an added theoretical dimension to the city’s approach, which is important to discuss. From July to August of 2021, city staff conducted on-site observational monitoring of the plazas in 30-minute increments on weekdays and weekends at all hours of the day. City staff recorded both the total number of people observed (figure 1) and the number of people lingering at each plaza (figure 2). This approach draws in some of the methods and spirit of William Whyte’s 1980 work, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, treating space as having a life of its own, with complex emergent behaviour which cannot be predicted and therefore must be observed, graphed and analyzed to identify patterns. The city’s report reveals a couple of interesting patterns in the use of the plazas. Notably, all of the plazas exhibited similar daily variance in total people observed. However, there was more variance in people observed lingering, though unexpectedly, the percentage of total people observed who were lingering was higher in the morning at most plazas.

Though this adds an interesting dimension to the city’s evaluation, it is left disappointingly shallow, ignoring considerable potential which could come from a more genuine interrogation of these small urban spaces. For instance, what are people doing when they linger? Are they lingering alone or in groups? Who are the people who are lingering? Are they eating something from a nearby business? What has the economic impact of the plazas been on neighbourhood business?

Figure 1: Results from behavioural observations of the plazas: total number of people observed (Pop-up Plazas: 2021 Engagement & Monitoring Report, p. 7)

Figure 2: Results from behavioural observations of the plazas: number of people lingering (Pop-up Plazas: 2021 Engagement & Monitoring Report, p. 8)

As has been mentioned, Vancouver’s BIAs were the driving force behind the creation of the plazas, and therefore, we must interrogate these institutions and their relationship with the public interest. Beginning in Canada in the late 1960s, BIAs have expanded into a global phenomenon, appearing in the United States, Europe, South Africa and New Zealand. BIAs emerged historically as a response to the mall. The very first BIA was created in Toronto in 1969 in a commercial neighbourhood which was losing customers to nearby malls, which had a larger selection of products, a climate-controlled environment and an abundance of free parking (Kudla, 2022, p. 1). The BIA was created with the hope of identifying and funding urban revitalization projects to bring customers back into the neighbourhood.

BIAs unify the voices of small businesses, which might otherwise be disparate, going against one of the contradictions of capitalism which David Harvey shows is so often observed in cities: businesses will not support interventions in the built environment (for instance, the repaving of a road), even if it benefits them, if it benefits a competitor (Harvey, 2015). BIAs are funded by levies on commercial properties in specific neighbourhoods, typically with a high concentration of small businesses, and work directly to “improve” the surrounding built, social and cultural environments to encourage business. Following the voices of critical scholars like Harvey and others, the predominant view among urban scholars is that BIAs are a product of urban neoliberalization, which has given the management of urban spaces over to a coalition of business elite to channel the flow of capital through a locality (Cook 2009; Ward 2006). This is a useful lens through which to understand Vancouver’s pop-up plazas. These interventions were carried out in the interest of revitalizing business during COVID and were not genuinely interested in the potential of these spaces as places for neighbourhood gatherings beyond the sale of goods. This is shown by the fact that the scope of the pop-up plazas only included locations with a nearby BIA, though these plazas doubtless have potential in residential neighbourhoods as a means of traffic quelling and social cohesion. Thus, the pop-up plazas demonstrate an instance of the increasing power of BIAs in determining the character of the built environment at the neighbourhood level. This increasing power raises an interesting question concerning how citizen voices may be in need of a similar organization at the neighbourhood level, in order to compete with BIAs. Though it seems that most often BIAs are in harmony with citizens, as they generally seek to improve the attractiveness and quality of life of their neighbourhood, they will certainly be in conflict at times. And currently, one is considerably louder than the other in Vancouver.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Analyzing pop-up plazas through the ladder of participation

Arnstein’s (1969) “Ladder of Participation” examines the degree of power citizens hold in processes of public participation. The framework categorizes engagement into three main levels of participation: citizen power, tokenism, and non-participation, organized along an eight-rung ladder with more specific typologies under each level.

The Vancouver pop-up plazas integrate input and local knowledge from residents, local businesses, and special interest groups such as the Business Improvement Association (City of Vancouver, n.d.). As noted, citizens and local businesses play an essential role in the design, implementation, and maintenance of the various pop-up plazas through surveys, workshops, and engagement events. Although participants have meaningful influence over aspects of the pop-up spaces, the City of Vancouver retains ultimate decision-making authority in terms of permanency, permitting, and implementation.

On Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, the Vancouver pop-up plazas can be positioned at “Placation” (the higher end of tokenism). Placation, as described by Arnstein (1969), occurs when communities can advise and make recommendations to decision makers. There is no guarantee that their input will be implemented, as the state still holds decision-making control, but input is acknowledged. This creates a partial redistribution of management responsibilities within the shared public realm, reflecting a move toward partnership on the participation ladder.

Although placation ranks on the higher end of tokenism in Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, Arnstein (1969) argues that true citizen control only exists when decision-making power is held by the public and communities themselves. Until communities gain autonomy and control over decision-making processes, the inherent power dynamics between citizens and the state must be acknowledged. In the case of Vancouver’s pop-up plazas, the City retains the final authority over both the implementation and evaluation of the plazas. This power imbalance ultimately renders community input a mechanism of consultation rather than a system of co-governance. To move higher on Arnstein’s ladder, the governance model for the pop-up plazas would require the City to delegate greater decision-making authority—particularly regarding permanency and funding—to community partners such as the BIA or grassroots committees.

Analyzing pop-up plazas through the democracy cube

Fung’s (2006) Democracy Cube integrates three main components to evaluate public participation: who participates, how participants communicate, and how much influence participants have in decision-making. Regarding who participates, the Vancouver pop-up plazas utilize open self-selection participation, placing them on the more inclusive end of the participation spectrum. The engagement survey saw participation from a range of age groups, with individuals aged 40–65 being the most vocal. Overall, approximately 72% of respondents supported making the pop-ups permanent (City of Vancouver, 2020).

The second dimension of Fung’s Democracy Cube examines how participants communicate, analyzing the intensity and nature of interaction between the public and local decision-makers. The Vancouver pop-up plazas adopt a consultative and collaborative approach by collecting input through surveys, workshops, and on-site engagement (City of Vancouver, n.d.). This process integrates local knowledge and the perspectives of residents and nearby businesses. It aligns with Fung’s “deliberation and negotiation” category, which involves collecting participant input and knowledge to inform municipal decision-making (Fung, 2006).

Finally, the Democracy Cube examines authority and power, measuring the degree of public influence on decisions. Through surveys, workshops, and engagement sessions, participants and businesses have contributed input on pop-up design, maintenance, and considerations for permanency (City of Vancouver, n.d.). However, the City of Vancouver retains final decision-making authority related to funding, permitting, and the final decision on permanency status, placing the pop-up plazas within the “advice and consult” level of the authority spectrum.

Ultimately, the various pop-up locations enable neighbourhoods to engage directly with planning practices, creating a tangible and place-based civic engagement model that reshapes how decision-making influence and governance are distributed at the local level.

Analyzing pop-up plazas through Andrea Cornwall’s engagement spaces framework

Cornwall’s (2008) framework of “invited” versus “invented” spaces provides a useful framework for demonstrating the limits of public participation in Vancouver’s pop-up plazas. As these interventions were initiated by BIAs and not by the public themselves, public participation in the pop-up plazas definitely falls under an “invited” space for feedback. The public was consulted in a highly contrived evaluation process, with structured rather than open-ended questions and no opportunities for citizen-led initiatives. However, the use of digital space to gather feedback, rather than an in-person meeting, makes public participation further removed than typical invited spaces. Cornwall notes how in-person formats of citizen participation, like town halls or meetings, might be intended to cover one specific topic but often turn into conversations about larger and more important issues:

“Participatory interventions may result in effects that were never envisaged at the outset. The most instrumental variants of participation can provide the spark, in some contexts, that can lead to population engagement around particular issues or to changes in attitude among workers or officials. In rural Kenya, a team using a simple Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercise to explore issues of child nutrition was stunned when the villagers were so incensed by what their discussions suggested that they decided to mobilize and block the road when their Member of Parliament next came to visit to demand accountability from him. The PRA exercise did not cause this sudden exercise of citizenship, but it certainly helped trigger it.” (Cornwall, 2008, p. 274).

The use of a digital platform to receive feedback eliminates this possibility and, in doing so, decreases the collective power of citizens, which otherwise can emerge from participation, even in invited spaces. Because of this difference, digital space for citizen participation should not be considered an invited space and should instead be given its own category within Cornwall’s framework (perhaps we could call it “contrived” space).

Cornwall’s critiques of the use of “bounded units” provide a helpful lens through which to view the role of BIAs in the engagement process. Bounded units are often used to distinguish between different segments of ‘the community’ that may have a special interest. However, Cornwall argues that when individuals are grouped together, the particularities of the group's interests become submerged (Cornwall, 2008, p. 278). BIAs unify, but also conceal, discordant views that may exist within a business community, thereby limiting the depth and authenticity that feedback from local constituents can offer. Engagement on the pop-up plazas assumed that views around them were continuous and unified among surrounding businesses, which may have held considerable variance in their views.

Strengths of the engagement:

The City of Vancouver responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by creating ten temporary pop-up plazas across Vancouver. This was done in partnership with the BIAs, local businesses, and communities. The motivation behind this pilot project was to help businesses reopen and to provide residents with outdoor public spaces they could use while maintaining safe distances from one another. More added benefits include promoting pedestrian foot traffic, reducing social isolation, and strengthening communities (City of Vancouver, 2020). Throughout 2019 and 2020, city staff collected feedback, monitored the plazas, and worked with partnered businesses and organizations to ensure spaces were maintained, inclusive, and comfortable. The city not only engaged with the public after installing the plazas but also plans to continue receiving feedback to help upgrade the materials used in the plazas and improve the comfort of plaza users. They are also making an effort to engage with groups the city initially missed, to ensure the space is more inclusive (City of Vancouver, 2020).

Table 1: Engagement and monitoring methods in 2020

Adapted from: City of Vancouver. (2020, July 2). Pop-up plazas engagement and monitoring summary 2020. https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/pop-up-plazas/pop-up-plazas-engagement-and-monitoring-

summary-2020.pdf

Weaknesses of the engagement:

While the city acknowledges this, its engagement during the initial engagement and monitoring period was limited. Most of the people they engaged with were between 40-65 years old, and they had little engagement with individuals under 19 years old and over 65 years old. Additionally, the city mainly heard from people of East Asian and European descent. To engage more with communities they missed, such as other racialized groups, queer communities, low-income earners, and people with disabilities, the city should actively seek out community organizations in the area that support and host these communities, like queer friendly businesses, community centers, and soup kitchens.

The city can also follow the lead of the work the Happy Cities and VIVA Vancouver did back in 2018. Happy Cities acknowledged that “public space isn’t always truly public” because residents face barriers to access, comfort, and safety in public spaces because of their identity, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, income, and ability (Happy Cities, 2024). Happy Cities and VIVA Vancouver evaluated proposed and existing public spaces with the focus on equity and inclusion. They specifically engaged with and listened to community leaders and residents with lived experience to learn how to make the space more accessible to marginalized communities so they can fully participate (Happy Cities, 2024).

While there is mention of updating materials and turning some of the pop-ups into permanent plazas, there is little information about how engagement will continue to ensure the plazas continue to meet community needs. One option returns to an idea addressed earlier with Arnstein's (1969) Ladder of Participation, and working up the ladder towards citizen control. This is the idea that all community members and residents gain the ability to govern programming and the future of the plaza, are in charge of policy and managerial aspects, and will be able to negotiate conditions of the plaza (CBM, 2025). In the long run, moving towards this form of participation would benefit the city, as pop-up plazas are becoming increasingly popular in Vancouver, with over 20 plazas (City of Vancouver, 2025). Having the public take responsibility for the plazas ensures that they will be maintained and used, and helps build a stronger relationship between the city and the public for future projects. Additionally, having the public with a stake in the project could help with some of the improvements and regular maintenance that is required to maintain these plazas. Some of these improvements, such as adding more greenery and colour, improving stewardship (cleanliness, garbage, recycling, compost), and more programming (performances, activities, vending) could be led and organized by the public, helping to take the burden off of the city as more plazas appear across Vancouver (City of Vancouver, 2020).

What can we learn from this?

By using a global event that required a fast response, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it was easier to pilot and make permanent policies and places that would not have otherwise happened under normal public participatory environments. There is also an interesting role and perhaps some skepticism that should be warranted towards a mobilized business community through the use of BIAs. Every engagement needs a champion to get it over the edge, but there could be concerns about the business's involvement, seen as an encroachment of public space. It would also be worth comparing Vancouver’s experiences to other initially temporary spaces and structures that arose in other jurisdictions during the pandemic. Had it not been for BIAs or if there were different groups surveyed, would pop-up plazas themselves be positioned in different areas of the city? At what point does a pop-up plaza become a park and necessitate transfers of responsibility away from, in this case, businesses to the city? For now, residents of the city can enjoy having a place to meet outside the home that straddles the domain of the street, park and business.

See Also

N/A

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

CBM. (2025). The ladder of citizen participation. Participation.cbm.org.https://participation.cbm.org/the- ladder-of-citizen-participation

City of Vancouver. (2020, July 2). Pop-up plazas engagement and monitoring summary 2020.

https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/pop-up-plazas/pop-up-plazas-engagement-and-monitoring-sum mary-2020.pdf

City of Vancouver. (2025, August 1). Neighbourhood plazas: Pop-up plazas survey 2021. Shape Your City Vancouver. https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/pop-up-plazas?tool=survey_tool

City of Vancouver. (2025). Making Streets for People Program. https://vancouver.ca/streets- transportation/making-streets-for-people-program.aspx

City of Vancouver. (2025). Neighbourhood plazas. https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation /neighbourhood-plazas.aspx

City of Vancouver. (2025). Plazas and public space programs. https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/ plazas-and-public-space-programs.aspx

Cook, I. (2009). Private sector involvement in urban governance: The case of business improvement districts and town centre management partnerships in England. Geoforum 40(5): 930-940.

Cornwall, A. (2002). Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development (Version 1). The Institute of Development Studies and Partner Organisations. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/3932

Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking “Participation”: models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44258086

Daily Hive. (2020). Vancouver temporary pop-up plaza parklet 2020. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver /vancouver-temporary-pop-up-plaza-parklet-2020

Fumano, D. (n.d.). Dan Fumano: A COVID silver lining — “pop-up” plazas become permanent. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-a-covid-silver-lining- pop-up-plazas-become-permanent

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x

Happy Cities. (2019, November 20). Designing for difference: Vancouver public plazas analysis. https://happycities.com/projects/designing-for-difference

Harvey, D. (2015). Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kudla, D. (2022). Fifty years of Business Improvement Districts: A reappraisal of the dominant perspectives and debates. Urban Studies, 59(14), 2837-2856. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211066420 (Original work published 2022)

Newton, S. (2020, September 29). It’s a nice day to visit a City of Vancouver Pop-Up Plaza. Georgia Straight. https://www.straight.com/living/its-a-nice-day-to-visit-a-city-of-vancouver-pop-up -plaza#

Styffe, C. (n.d.). Extending the pop-up plaza beyond COVID-19 [Briefing note]. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/missionmessagemedium/wp-content/uploads/sites/855/2021/06/

styffeclaire_291635_10860365_Briefing-Note-SPPH-552_Claire-Styffe.pdf

Vancouver Sun. (n.d.). Vancouver neighbourhoods: Pop-up plaza program. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/feature/vancouver-neighbourhoods-pop-up-plaza-program

Ward, K. (2006). ‘Policies in motion’, urban management and state restructuring. The trans-local expansion of business improvement districts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(1): 54-75.

External Links

See references.

Notes

Contributor Positionality Statements

We are a group of students at University of British Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning and are residents of Vancouver.