The Sustainable Design and Renewal of Water’s Edge Public Spaces in the Asia-Pacific Region: Sydney, Hong Kong and Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging water’s edge public spaces display distinct characteristic features and stand apart from historic ones. In analysing these emerging spaces it becomes clear that there has been a shift towards enhancing environmental connections while: 1) encouraging mixed use functionality; 2) focusing on heritage preservation and adaptive re-use; 3) applying green urbanism principles; 4) implementing technological connectivity, maintaining and establishing connections to urban networks; 5) allowing avenues of incomplete urbanism; and 6) harnessing renewable energies in the public domain. Water’s edge developments are not only significant locally but are a key to the identity and perceived image of the selected cities. The rediscovery of the image of a city and economic benefits of tourism are the drivers of the development of any city’s waterfront or riverfront. This paper presents the outcomes of a pilot study that compared three water’s edge public spaces in Asia-Pacific cities at different stages of their lifecycles. It analyses and discusses factors in the sustainable design and renewal of such spaces. The aim of the overall study, that this paper is the first part of, is the consideration of sustainability and models of sustainability evaluation in a comparative urbanism framework for Water's Edge Public Spaces.This research suggests that architectural science input should be increased during the initial stages of design, to ensure continual links with biological and seasonal cycles, including other environmental processes over time. Results are presented within the context of changing relationship dynamics, understanding underlying subservient associations established due to colonisation, with a deep-seated realisation of the valued and reliant social, architectural and cultural relationships between the East and the West.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".