Transferable development rights : a policy analysis of a planning instrument and its application in Vancouver
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
In this thesis I examine the planning tool most commonly known as the transfer of development rights (TDR) and discuss its application in Vancouver. Before addressing Vancouver's use of TDR, I establish the context of TDR use in North America, suggest appropriate policy objectives and constraints for TDR programs, and outline a series of operational decisions made in designing any TDR program. I proceed to evaluate Vancouver's TDR program in light of these discussions. I found that TDR programs can be effective tools for redistributing the costs and benefits of certain types of land use restrictions. However, TDR programs vary widely in their effects. Depending on the specific design of a given program, it can have very different implications. In Vancouver, the TDR program is a relatively minor adjunct to the process of heritage preservation. Like any planning tool, Vancouver's TDR program strikes a balance between various objectives. However, it can be generally stated that fairness or distributional concerns are prevalent in Vancouver's program. Specifically, the protection of property rights is one of the defining elements of the program. Vancouver's program has been marked by a strong discretionary component, which has tended to create high transactions costs. In recent years, though, transaction costs in Vancouver have gone down significantly. As transaction costs have decreased and the program has grown more fluid, the take-up rate of transferable density in Vancouver has increased. These trends are widely expected to continue, as Vancouver's transfer of density program further matures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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