The impact of multi-stakeholder planning and design processes on large-scale residential developments : an evaluation of the Rodgers Creek Area development, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis evaluates the planning and design process for the Rodgers Creek development in West Vancouver, British Columbia. The site spans 215-acres and is part of a series of residential projects by British Pacific Properties (BPP). The planning and design process for the Rodgers Creek Area Development Plan (ADP) began in 2005 was approved in 2008. The approval of the development within the lifecycle of Council (3 years) was a critical underlying factor in the process. The ADP accommodates 736 dwelling units in six neighbourhoods connected by a unique mountain pathway allowing for the preservation of 55% of green space on the site. The analysis and evaluation of the planning and design process is based on a variety of qualitative and quantitative data including academic and practitioner sources as well as in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. The Rodgers Creek planning and design process is path-breaking and inventive in its use of a high level of public participation. The process was multi-layered and included detailed background work, integrated technical sessions, a unique project-specific working group comprising unpaid industry advisors and innovative review, evaluation and implementation tools. The process was based on transparency, openness, trust, flexibility, inclusiveness and collaboration. By involving all stakeholders, it bridged the gap between the community, local government and the private sector. The participatory approach led to the development of a plan that produced a more sustainable model of development that was accepted by the community and easy to endorse for elected officials. Urban development problems arising from conventional processes call for new planning and design processes. The results of the evaluation suggest that better processes may lead to better outcomes. The Rodgers Creek development points to the importance of engaging stakeholders and forming an integrated team. The concept of a tailored working group to respond to the characteristics of the development could be transported to other large-scale residential developments to produce better forms of development. The success of the Rodgers Creek planning and design process should provide greater confidence for future stakeholders to engage in a similar process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".