The case for equitable transit-oriented development exploring the link between housing affordability and transit accessibility in Burnaby, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a planning model that concentrates compact, mixed-use development near high order transit. The problem arises when the intensification of transit-oriented locations does not occur in an equitable way and results in the displacement of low-income households, who are arguably the most reliant on access to transit. Metro Vancouver’s regional growth strategy (RGS) supports the TOD model by designating Urban Centres as key areas to absorb the majority of the region’s growth and development, as well as transit service. The growth targets in the RGS have led to the rezoning of many Urban Centres to allow for more density, thereby prompting redevelopment activity. The City of Burnaby is of particular interest because it has been experiencing a significant loss of affordable rental housing in low-income neighborhoods along the SkyTrain line as a result of the redevelopment occurring within its designated Urban Centres. This research provides a list of recommendations that are geared toward helping Burnaby preserve affordable rental housing options along the transit corridor. Keywords: Affordable Rental Housing, Density, Displacement, Low-Income Household, Redevelopment, Regional Growth Strategy, Town Centre, Transit Accessibility, Transit Corridor, Transit-Oriented Development, Urban Centre
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".