MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556713446

New Uses for Old Churches: An Examination of the Effects of Planning Regulations on the Adaptive Reuse of Church Buildings

2014· article· en· W2556713446 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive reuseReuseBusinessArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental planningEngineeringEnvironmental scienceWaste management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older church buildings are central features of Canadian urban landscapes. These buildings are very important to both religious and secular communities as they have many socio-cultural values with which people associate and because they serve as physical markers of place and focal points for community gatherings. Church buildings are originally built to function specifically as places of worship. However, changes in the demographic make-up and social values of Canadian urban communities have made some of these buildings redundant and inappropriate for their original purposes. As a result, an increasing number of these buildings are now being adaptively reused for other purposes. 
\n
\nThe adaptive reuse of old church buildings is by no way a new concept. Over the years, many unused church buildings that were structurally secure have been adapted to fit changed needs or new functions. The adaptive reuse of old church buildings generally involves repurposing these historic buildings for economically viable new uses while at the same time preserving the heritage elements of the buildings. Adaptive reuse therefore offers a creative and sustainable solution for economically revitalizing neighbourhoods and preserving the heritage of old church buildings once they stop functioning as places of worship. However, undertaking a successful adaptive reuse of an old church building is a complex process as it is influenced by several planning policies and regulatory requirements.
\n
\nThe purpose of this report is to explain how the existing planning policy framework, both at the provincial and municipal level, influences the adaptive reuse of old church buildings. This is achieved by examining how clauses within primary policy and regulatory documents create both opportunities and barriers for developers undertaking adaptive reuse projects. A multiple-case study approach, which consisted of two church adaptive reuse projects in the City of Kingston, was adopted to undertake the study. The two adaptive reuse projects studied were the former Queen Street United Church and the former Congregational Church. The examination of the effects of the planning policy framework was also based on four provincial and municipal documents: the Provincial Policy Statement, the Ontario Heritage Act, the City of Kingston Official Plan and the City of Kingston Downtown and Harbour Zoning Bylaw. Additionally, interviews and discussions were conducted with key informants.
\n
\nThe results of the study are generally consistent with the literature. They indicate that the existing planning policy framework creates both opportunities and barriers in various ways for developers undertaking church adaptive reuse projects. The major opportunity created for developers was the presence of a general policy support for adaptive reuse initiatives both at the provincial and municipal levels. There are several clauses and provisions within the planning documents that support intensification and heritage conservation. Other opportunities that existed for developers were primarily realized through the facilitation of procedural issues that hindered adaptive reuse projects. On the other hand, the major barriers that were identified related to issues such as limited financial incentives for developers and a lack of similar zonings for church buildings in the Zoning Bylaws. The presence of bureaucratic hurdles during project approval by the Heritage Approval Committee and a lack of policies and regulations that explicitly speak to the issues faced by adaptive reuse projects were also identified as barriers. 
\n 
\nBased on the findings of the study, four recommendations were made. These recommendations are areas that should be further explored by the municipality to enhance the repurposing process of old unused church buildings.
\n•\tThe City should take a more proactive role in facilitating church adaptive reuse projects. 
\n•\tThe City should develop new funding initiatives aimed at encouraging adaptive reuse projects.
\n•\tThe City should streamline the existing Zoning Bylaws and provide more flexibility in meeting zoning requirements.
\n•\tThe City should develop specific designation criteria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it