Using Urban Planners to Increase City Sustainability through the Development Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental scenario aimed at bridging the gap between the cities we have and the cities we need, not only in the 21st century but also beyond, using the integrated tools of development control and holistic land development model to achieve a planner-led vision of city sustainability. Due to scathing criticisms against the development control system, the paper contends that planners as development approving officers and public interest specialists are better positioned than allied professionals to increase city sustainability through a holistic development process that benefits from the concept of strong sustainability posited by ecological economists. The paper adopts a seven-stage, 56-cell land development matrix (model) to simulate the development of the typical high-rise residential condominium in Ontario, supported with secondary data and the author’s ground experience as a planner and realtor with condominium customer service experience across Toronto and Mississauga cities between 2008 and 2017. Findings reveal that planners can seize the opportunity of being leaders of the development team to synergize the risks and value creation in land development that are key drivers of strong sustainability. The paper suggests some policy implications for averting disasters like fire hazards and terror attacks in high-rise residential buildings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".