“Vancouver’s Favourite Country Music Pub,” Single Room Occupancy Hotels, and the Context of International Frameworks: Mapping Vancouver’s Urban Law and Cultural Policy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The public and private spaces of cities, their design, and the urban law and policy that shapes the lived spaces within cities provides a potent example of overlapping and often contested heritage(s) and heritage spaces that may have built heritage merit, may carry a high intangible value as gathering spaces for art, culture, and performance, or may be both characterized by their tangible and intangible heritage merit. The layers of diverging, contested, or interwoven heritage within the same urban spaces can diverge in what they mean to a group, community, or individual. They may represent significant moments of architectural grandeur, cultural capital, celebration, significant moments of horror that teeter within desires to forget their existence, or they may also represent a space for future cultural flourishing and community growth. Heritage space within a city may be less conventional than existing legal frameworks for assessing cultural heritage, value, or merit permit, and heritage assets can take numerous shapes involving sight, sound, smell, movement, and so on. This expanded and more inclusive manner of understanding the many iterations of what heritage can be in a city and what heritage spaces can signify for the many urban denizens and stakeholders who find meaning and community within the “third places” of a city, creates a complex web within which urban law and policy must navigate.\nIn addition to the mechanics of heritage preservation assessments and processes (and the laws and legislation surrounding cultural heritage protection) cities are increasingly developing neighbourhood plans and strategic cultural plans that engage with and shape how cultural heritage is understood, protected (or not protected), encouraged, or even strategically commodified in a city and neighbourhood. Whether or not these plans ultimately accomplish their purported goals is still unclear. Focusing on the case of Vancouver, Canada, this Article will explore the role of local cultural policy documents and cultural plans in localizing international frameworks and calls to action for the inclusive management, sustainable (re)development, and navigation of dissonant and overlapping cultural heritage spaces at the local city and neighbourhood level.3 After a general description of Vancouver, this Article will first give a brief overview of applicable international frameworks for inclusive heritage management and preservation. It will then describe a number of neighbourhoods within Vancouver’s Eastside and examine Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside Plan. Finally, it will turn to Vancouver’s newly adopted cultural plan for 2020–2029, Culture|Shift: Blanketing the City in Arts & Culture, its associated documents, and how these documents navigate urban cultural heritage matters and some of the “third places” of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. This analysis aims to identify the particular policies that take strides towards localizing the international frameworks for inclusive heritage management and preservation introduced earlier in the Article.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».