Comparing the Politics of Urban Development in American and Canadian Cities: The Myth of the North-South Divide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The politics of urban development has been a major area of study in the United States for some time, and while the field is smaller in Canada, the study of urban development has always been an important aspect of the study of urban politics in this country. However, a fruitful discussion comparing Canadian and American cities has only emerged recently and is still largely in its infancy. Supposed institutional, legal, and cultural differences between the two countries continue to be cited as barriers to such research. This paper questions such assumptions. Drawing on existing empirical literature, and the author’s current and past research on the politics of urban development in Canadian cities, this paper argues that what cultural distinctions exist are minor and often peculiarities of specific cities, states, and/or provinces and that differences in planning law and institutions, though substantial, are not defined by a north–south divide. Rather, planning law and planning institutions vary significantly in both countries. Many Canadian jurisdictions have more in common with American jurisdictions than with fellow Canadian ones. These institutional differences do not act as a barrier to comparison, however, but are a useful means for gaining insight into the politics of urban development in both countries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".