Intensifying the Urban Growth Centre in Brantford, Ontario: Opportunities and Possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005 the Places to Grow Act was enacted by the Government of Ontario. From this Act, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GPGGH) was created and implemented in 2006 to guide development within the Greater Golden Horseshoe under existing planning frameworks. One of the major tools of the GPGGH was the establishment of Urban Growth Centre’s (UGC’s) which are delineated urban areas deemed appropriate for significant intensification. Three density target classifications were established for the identified UGC’s under the GPGGH. These classifications prescribed specific gross combined density targets for each identified UGC. This report examined the UGC in the City of Brantford, Ontario which is targeted to achieve a gross combined density of 150 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031. The UGC in Brantford is approximately 110 hectares and contains the entire downtown core and immediate surrounding area. The purpose of this report was to determine if the current municipal policies in the City of Brantford, and the physical UGC site itself, are conducive to meeting the gross density target of 150 residents and jobs per hectare as stipulated in the GPGGH. Through an examination of Municipal documents such as A Master Plan for Downtown Brantford, the official Zoning Bylaw, An Analysis of Intensification Potential in the City of Brantford and the City of Brantford Growth Management Strategy as well as onsite field visits, the required growth needed to meet the density target was determined and areas of potential new development were identified as well as buildings that could be adaptively reused. A build out analysis was then conducted to determine the potential future gross density in the UGC using SketchUp. The build-out analysis determined that the UGC has a potential to achieve a gross density of 116 residents and jobs per gross hectare by 2031. This would not achieve the GPGGH density target. The major recommendation to help overcome this shortfall in potential future density is to amend the Zoning Bylaw to increase maximum allowable building heights and reduce parking requirements in the UGC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".