Old Mega‐Projects Newly Packaged? Waterfront Redevelopment in Toronto
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mega‐project is experiencing revived interest as a tool for urban renewal. The current mode of large‐scale urban development is, however, different from its predecessor in so far as its focus is flexible and diverse rather than singular and monolithic. However, the diversity that the new approach offers, we argue, forecloses upon a wide variety of social practices, reproducing rather than resolving urban inequality and disenfranchisement. Further, we suggest that the diversity of forms and land uses employed in these mega‐projects inhibits the growth of oppositional and contestational practices. The new mega‐project also demonstrates a shift from collective benefits to a more individualized form of public benefit. The article is based on Toronto's recent waterfront development proposals, which we identify as an example of a new paradigm of mega‐project development within the framework of the competitive city. Its stated but paradoxical goal is to specialize in everything, allowing for the pretence that all interests are being served while simultaneously re‐inscribing and reinforcing socioeconomic divisions. Our findings are centred on four areas: institutional change; the importance of mega‐projects to global interurban competition; the exclusive nature of public participation processes; and the increasing commodification and circumscription of urban public space. Résumé Le mégaprojet connaît un regain d'intérêt en tant qu'outil de rénovation urbaine. Le mode actuel d'aménagement urbain à grande échelle diffère toutefois de son prédécesseur dans la mesure où son orientation est souple et diverse, au lieu d'être unique et monolithique. Cependant, à notre avis, la diversité qu'offre la nouvelle approche exclut une grande variété de pratiques sociales, puisqu'elle reproduit, plutôt qu'elle ne résout, l'inégalité urbaine et la privation de droits. De plus, la diversité dans les formes et les utilisations de l'espace de ces mégaprojets empêche le développement de pratiques d'opposition ou de contestation. En outre, le mégaprojet révèle un décalage des bénéfices collectifs vers une forme plus individualisée de bénéfice public. Les propositions récentes d'aménagement du front de mer de Toronto sont identifiées comme typiques d'un nouveau paradigme du mégaprojet d'aménagement dans le cadre de la ville compétitive. Son objectif affiché, quoique paradoxal, est d'être spécialisé en tout, ce qui permet de prétendre que tous les intérêts sont pris en compte, tout en réimplantant et en renforçant les divisions socio‐économiques. Nos résultats portent sur quatre aspects: la transformation des institutions, l'importance des mégaprojets dans la concurrence interurbaine mondiale, la nature exclusive des processus de participation publics, ainsi que l'accentuation de la marchandisation et des délimitations de l'espace public urbain.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it