Barriers To Mid-Rise Development in Suburban Communities in the Greater Toronto Area
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well designed mid-rise developments are generally recognized for their ability to contribute to intensification goals while at the same time being pedestrian friendly, human scale and compatible with low density neighbourhoods and historic districts. Despite these benefits, mid-rise residential developments between four and twelve storeys are comparatively rare in Greater Toronto Area suburban communities. To assess this disparity, interviews were conducted with municipal planning staff and development industry stakeholders to investigate the financial, regulatory and housing market variables that impact development of mid-rise projects. Building code, parking requirements, land costs and municipal policies and processes were all identified as contributing to high development costs for mid-rise. The market for mid-rise consists largely of affluent households without children that prefer neighbourhoods with good transit connections, vibrant street life and a wide range of amenities. These factors limit the number of locations where mid-rise can be profitably developed in suburban communities. Keywords: Mid-rise housing, smart growth, suburban communities, municipal policy
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it