Equality and urbanism : an inquiry on egalitarian ethics in planning with a particular reference to the public consultation policy and the overdale approach to equal land-use opportunities of the Montreal Citizen's movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this normative inquiry, we will assess two planning policies that the Montreal Citizen's Movement (MCM), a municipal party of the left, experimented with while in power at the City of Montreal, from 1986 to 1994. The MCM implemented an unprecedented public consultation policy and it also wished to put in place a compensation policy for equal housing and land-use opportunities, which, effectively, it tried in a redevelopment project known as 'Overdale' in 1987. These two experiments were an attempt to tame the land-use market and to make it ethical. In assessing these experiments, we will first propose planning principles built on egalitarian ethics and, then, apply those egalitarian planning principles as evaluation criteria in the assessment. We will also examine similar experiments carried out elsewhere; we will compare the MCM public consultation policy with the Participative Budget of Porto Alegre, Brazil, and the Overdale experience of compensation with a case from Santa Monica, California. The MCM public consultation experiment was, without doubt, an exciting start that brought the politics of public deliberation to planning; however, we will argue that we need to put egalitarian constraints on planning deliberation if we want that deliberation to be not only a source of good planning but also of community building. We will also argue that the Overdale experiment of compensation is indeed a good source of heuristic learning on how to plan for equal land-use opportunities in a city of market liberalism such as Montreal. In this thesis we will persistently argue that we should appeal to egalitarian reason, in order to build a good and beautiful city.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.138 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".