A perspective on urban waterfront redevelopment in the Pacific Rim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Once thriving Pacific Rim urban waterfronts are now abandoned, their functions left obsolete by technological changes and industrial shifts. Formerly the economic heartbeat of the city, these properties again have the potential to revitalize the economies of cities and to solve 20th century social problems. Urban waterfronts are being redeveloped to address not only local and regional problems but to serve national interests as well. The process of achieving an appropriate balance of land uses to attain these goals is costly, complex and controversial. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the process of waterfront development in the Pacific Rim. The objectives are: (1) to examine the economic, technological, social and political forces that shaped the Pacific Rim urban waterfront; (2) to evaluate the public policies, goals and objectives, and the effectiveness of the planning process, management structure, and development strategies used to achieve these objectives and goals; (3) to examine the effectiveness of involving the community in the planning process; and, (4) to evaluate the management structure and planning process. This study was conducted through an extensive literature review; site visits to Sydney, Brisbane, Newcastle, San Francisco and Vancouver; personal interviews; a comprehensive analysis of planning and development documentation, government publications, and articles in newspapers, professional magazines, journals and marketing brochures. The primary conclusions of this study are: (1) community involvement in the planning process at the earliest possible stages is vital; (2) the public planning and approval process is protracted, cumbersome, expensive, inflexible and inefficient; (3) the planning department must take control and assume the leadership role in the process; (4) there are four fundamental land use components to all urban waterfront development: commercial and retail, residential, parks and open space, cultural and community benefits; (5) the three most critical requirements of urban waterfront development are public access, open space and housing; (6) affordable and social housing is a key ingredient; (7) the trend for financing community amenities and public infrastructure is to have the developer pay; (8) the unique character and heritage of the waterfront needs to be examined before making decisions to remove waterfront structures; and (9) development goals and objectives must be established through a collaborative planning process to reflect the community needs. Otherwise the project will fail.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".