Public Policy at the Intersection of Market Forces and Social Equity: A Case Study of Gentrification and Redevelopment in Calgary’s East Village
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study examines to what extent Calgary’s East Village revitalization meaningfully addressed the needs of incumbent low-income residents. Using data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Statistics Canada, and the Maytree Foundation, the analysis situates neighbourhood change within broader trends in Calgary’s rental housing market between 2000 and 2024. Rents rose steadily during this period, with marked surges in the mid-2000s energy boom and again after 2021 amid possible migration-driven demand. Vacancy rates fluctuated between 0.5% and 6% (CMHC, 2024), moving inversely with rents and reflecting the cyclical nature of Calgary’s economy. Affordability pressures are particularly visible when comparing average rents to social assistance incomes. Between 2015 and 2023, annual rent consistently exceeded the income of a single individual on assistance by 45–75% (CMHC, 2024a; 2024b) and remained high for those with children or disability. For instance, in 2015, the average annual rent in Calgary was approximately $13,560 (CMHC, 2024a; 2024b), while the total welfare income for a single parent with one child in Alberta was $17,403 (Tweddle, 2016). This means that rent accounted for about 78% of total income. With more than three quarters of income required just to cover rent, very little remained for other basic needs, underscoring the persistent housing affordability challenges faced by households reliant on social assistance. These figures suggest that incumbent resident’s dependent on social supports would have had little capacity to remain in East Village or secure alternative housing within the city as redevelopment advanced. The redevelopment, led by the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation, delivered significant physical renewal and private investment, but was not accompanied by affordability requirements or anti-displacement policies. While the project succeeded in transforming the built environment and attracting new residents, the absence of targeted protections raises questions about who benefitted and who was excluded. The case of East Village highlights the tension between economic revitalization and social equity, leaving open the question of whether incumbent low- residents were considered in planning or ultimately marginalized by market forces.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».