Contribution of planned built environments to city transformation: urban design practice in Montreal from 1956 to 2016.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contributions to the literature on Canadian urbanism and, in particular, Canadian urban design, despite some notable exceptions, are relatively limited. The presentation explains from an urban form perspective the practice of urban design in Montreal from the mid-twentieth century onwards. The research seeks to interpret the development of urban design practice in Montreal by reviewing a representative sample of urban projects built over the past six decades. The urban projects are used to illustrate the different renewal strategies adopted, to understand how urban design ideology/ideas have changed over time in Montreal and how they have influenced the spatial organization, form, and aesthetic of the city. The principal theoretical and methodological contribution of the research is to develop a morphological framework to study and understand the physical-spatial mode of organization of planned built environments and to study their relationship to urban form (Racine 2016). The author uses this chronological investigation of the cases to reveal how each school of thoughts that has emerged in the discipline of urban design since its foundation in 1956 (Krieger, Saunders, 2009), has addressed the problems of modernist urban planning and to move the field of urban design thinking forward. The first results of our analysis show the importance of morphological and spatial relations between vernacular and planned built environments. The morphological issue of continuity of urban space is crucial to assure a certain level of urban equity between citizens and to assure the sustainability of the development of the city as a whole.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".