Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development in Mature Communities: An assessment of South Point Douglas, Winnipeg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This practicum investigates the opportunities and challenges for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in mature communities, urban built out areas around the City core, and along the Eastern Bus Rapid Transit Corridor in Winnipeg. The focus will be on the South Point Douglas Neighbourhood (SPD), an economically disadvantaged, mature community and an important area for the City’s development. TOD is a type of development adjacent to rapid transit stations with the goal of promoting a certain level of density and mixed-uses such as residential, retail, and recreation. TOD, which is heavily influenced by the principles of new urbanism, has been gaining traction in North America for several years. It is a form of development that can reduce urban sprawl and reliance on the automobile. Winnipeg has also chosen a newer form of rapid transit, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Research on its effects is increasing, but it lacks relevant North American examples. To investigate this issue, I conducted interviews with private developers, real estate professionals and public officials to determine the perceived and actual barriers the development community faces, and to propose strategies to overcome those barriers. I also conducted a site analysis of SPD to determine the feasibility of TOD and how much capacity it can sustain. An analysis of my findings showed that four factors were identified as potential areas of focus that could affect development in SPD: (1) Multiple zoning bylaws in the area, (2) Inconsistency in execution on the City’s vision of TOD, (3) Councillors ability to oppose projects; and (4) Past success of developer incentives. The strategies and recommendations have been tailored for SPD, however, this information will be useful to other municipalities attempting to encourage TOD in their innermost areas.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".