Planning for greyfield redevelopment in Edmonton, AB: impeding and facilitating factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spurred by changing retail and development patterns, as well as continuous suburban growth, greyfield sites can be found at the heart of most postwar suburbs in North American municipalities. Ranging in definition, greyfields are best described as an “underused, economically obsolete, retail tract located in an inner ring suburb that requires significant public and private involvement to curtail decline” (Feronti, 2003, p.11). \n \nHowever, tied to demographic trends and increased municipal urbanization, these vacated retail sites are positioned well for redevelopment. Yet, the redevelopment process of these sites is fraught with impeding and facilitating factors that can have significant implications for redevelopment options and viability. As such, research questions considered were: Do municipalities address greyfield challenges and opportunities? What factors impede and facilitate greyfield redevelopment? This thesis also asks these questions within the context of the City of Edmonton’s current policy and existing built form, and asked: How should greyfields be planned in the City of Edmonton? \n \nThis thesis attempts to answer these questions through a review and analysis of existing literature, case studies (Belmar in Lakewood, Colorado and Century Park in Edmonton, Alberta) and through primary research conducted with key stakeholders. The research found that municipalities were largely unacquainted with the challenges and opportunities of greyfield redevelopment. Where support guidelines did exist, they were largely aspirational and lacked consideration for the unique impeding and facilitating factors of greyfield redevelopment. It was found that impeding factors to greyfield redevelopment ranged from administrative hurdles fraught with inexperience in greyfield redevelopment, to financial and land economic constraints. Facilitating factors were found in collaborative stakeholder consultation, municipal and administrative leadership, and a range of supportive fiscal mechanisms. Lastly, ten recommendations to facilitate greyfield redevelop within the City of Edmonton were discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".